[ga] RE: .int registry policy

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Vint,

You raise some interesting questions... while there is
already an acronym conflict between two IGOs (the
World Tourism Organization and the World Trade
Organization), which poses potential problems, I can't
help but think of the .int namespace as somewhat akin
to a sponsored space that serves a particular
community but without the benefit of a community-based
policy development process.

Rightfully, the members of this community should have
recourse to a process whereby they can assist in the
formulation of policy pertinent to their own namespace
-- while you and I may have some thoughts on the best
way to manage this space, it really should be up to
them, the community of IGOs, to set their own
policies.

Have you yet been able to determine the current
procedures where .int policy may be changed?  If so,
the judicious course of action would probably be to
refer the WIPO folk to these given procedures so that
they may initiate their own policy development
process.

-- danny --


--- Vint Cerf <vint@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Danny,
> 
> I haven't had the chance to do further study but it
> occurs to me that Jon
> might have been thinking about avoiding unnecessary
> proliferation of second
> level TLDs in .int. I am not sure the analogy below
> quite fits the problem
> you raise, but let me put it forward anyway as a
> kind of stalking horse:
> 
> I think of the movie industry and the
> "www.moviedujour.com" registrations
> vs. "www.moviedujour.sony.com" or
> "www.sony.com/moviedujour" 
> 
> Jon might have been trying to guide registrants into
> deeper hierarchy.
> 
> As to acronym registration, apart from the
> possibility of collisions (we
> have them in the American Bar Association and the
> American Banking
> Association for example), I wonder if the acronyms
> and the formal names of
> the organizations might also proliferate as multiple
> languages/scripts are
> introduced? 
> 
> Would one introduce a first come, first served
> regime for acronyms? Would
> the International Red Cross get into conflict with
> the International Rates
> Convention over IRC? (I am just making that up, I
> don't think there is an
> International Rates Convention). Would there need to
> be a kind of sunrise
> process? 
> 
> Could there be downsides to changing the policy and
> if so, what might they
> be? 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Vinton G Cerf
> Chief Internet Evangelist
> Google/Regus
> Suite 384
> 13800 Coppermine Road
> Herndon, VA 20171
>  
> +1 703 234-1823
> +1 703-234-5822 (f)
>  
> vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> www.google.com
>  
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 9:23 AM
> To: vint@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; chair@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: .int registry policy
> 
> Vint,
> 
> If you don't mind, I would like to raise an old
> issue.
> 
> 
> The World Intellectual Property Organization came to
> us some time ago and
> expressed a number of concerns. 
> One of their laments was that under current IANA
> .int registry policy, "only
> one registration is allowed"
> for each intergovernmental organization; this policy
> denies such groups the
> opportunity to register both their organizational
> name and their
> organizational acronym.
> 
> As I still fail to grasp why this policy must
> necessarily be so restrictive,
> I would ask you to explain the process whereby
> policy for the .int registry
> may be changed.  As for some reason I am unable to
> locate the .int registry
> contract with ICANN I am not in a position to review
> the appropriate
> procedures.  
> 
> I bring this matter to your attention because the
> issue appears to have been
> buried by Staff (as I recall they were charged with
> the responsibility to
> engage the community in further consultations on the
> topic, yet such
> consultations do not appear to have materialized).
> 
> We have an obligation to make sure that each
> petitioner is given a fair
> hearing.  As much as I personally loathe the
> intellectual property
> contingent, their views appear to be supported by
> the GAC and they do have a
> right to have their issues properly addressed by
> ICANN, wouldn't you agree?
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny
> 
> 
> 		
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in
> one click.
> http://farechase.yahoo.com
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com