Um, what's a "random registrant"?
In the case of .CO, it's one with no connection to Colombia. You know, like they allow in .TO, .WS, .CX, .CC, .LA, .ME, .TK, and other faux gTLDs.
On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:07 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN.
Short of asking IANA to remove the NS for ccTLDs who do naughty things, how do you propse to get from where we are to where you want to be?
I agree that allowing random registrants into .CO is of little benefit to anyone but the operators of the .CO registry. But there is no entity with anything like the credibility to persuade ccTLDs to follow its rules. Cutting ICANN free of the US won't make any difference in practice, since it'll just mean that the staff has even less oversight than it does now.
R's, John
PS: I want two ponies.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
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...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.