On 11/10/2011 02:31 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
The argument that supports a TLD for Wales would also argue for a TLD for
California.
Sorry, but that comparison is almost absurd.
I am glad you put in the word "almost" because my comparison is most certainly not absurd. On a comparative scale it certainly it is no more absurd than an argument that attempts to justify a TLD based on an entry in wikipedia about a sporting event. Did you know that California, which like Texas had a degree of pre-existing sovereignty, came into the US via the same war and events that brought in Texas? So what principle do you articulate that supports your inclination to accept the legitimacy of Texas for a TLD but not California? What about Hawaii? They have their own linguistic identity and there are those there who would like to undo what was done to them when they were dragged into the US sphere. And Utah - The religious immigrants to that region have an amazing history, much of which involved trying to escape persecution and avoid becoming part of the United States. In your defense you did, perhaps unknowingly, put forth some proto-principles which seem to articulate a desire for a TLD for groups of people who are politically isolated, with a linquistic identity, and under a degree of asserted subjugation. (However, I don't see why taxing authority, or lack of, is relevant.) Branching out from the US - How does Quebec fit? It certainly has linguistic differences with the rest of Canada (and having learned French in Montreal I long ago learned that what is spoken there is a rather unique version of that language), but it has taxing authority and elects members to the Canadian parliament. So on that one your principles would deny a TLD for Quebec. That would sadden a lot of people who live there. Under your proposed principles it would seem that we ought to have either .eu or the collection of .uk, .de, .fr, .es etc, but not both. By-the-way, it is easy to find groups that meet your definition, even here in California. For instance, there is the town of Boonville, California. It has its own unique, and dying, language. It has no political power. People there have expressed a desire to have their own sovereignty. So why not .boon? And on the other hand, there have been several proposals over the year to carve California (Alta and Baja), Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and Hawaii off into a new country. But the chances of that, at least since the 1860's, are somewhat remote. The larger question is, of course, what does any of this have to do with the technical stability of the internet, which is what ICANN was created to do. I know that all of us like to have bigger play pens. But the result is an ICANN that is a quasi-government that is growing and growing without bounds and which has constraints on the exercise of its powers that are have forgotten the entire notions of limits and accountability that were envisioned in the late 18th century and which form the basis for many modern Constitutional structures.
By ICANN's metric, anyone with the cash and the credibility can pony up the cash and ask for .aquetaine ... or .quebec ... or .kashmir ... or any other string. There's a policy in place about getting TLD names based on geographic locations. And, of course, the objection process.
Notice that word "cash" - and notice that you have added "credibility". In other words, you are saying pretty clearly that under the lex-ICANNia that national identities are up for sale ... but only at the price that ICANN sets and only if in ICANN's subjective judgment you are worthy (credible).
Without an articulation of broadly accepted principles to guide the choices
this process will end up in chaos.
What you have ... all that you have ... is in the applicant guidebook. If that's not enough....
I've read it. By weight, it is more than enough. By content it is essentially a set of social and economic engineering rules that are designed to protect Verisign and the trademark industry (of which I am a dues-paying member). --karl--