Dear Eduardo, thank you very much for your time in giving us this explanation. Long ago we were needed to understand certain things in our region. Now, everything is much clearer. Kind regards, Sylvia _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein Leite LACRALO-ALAC Liaison Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization sylvia@internautabrasil.org -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Eduardo Santoyo Enviada em: segunda-feira, 2 de agosto de 2010 23:14 Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' Assunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy. In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist. To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks. Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space. We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged. Eduardo -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies. That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation. But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation. a. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org