Regardless of whether people "want" to discuss the issue, my understanding is that ICANN has little jurisdiction over what a country can do with a properly delegated ccTLD, short of taking it out of the root if Internet stability is impacted. Where ICANN does have non-stability-related jurisdiction, it is limited to those ccTLDs that choose to be members of the ccNSO, and even for these there are escape clauses - see Article IX of the ICANN Bylaws. Would we have set up the rules differently if we were starting the Internet all over again? Perhaps. But that is the case for MANY things, some of them far more onerous than a ccTLD being marketed as a gTLD. And I should point out that although .TV was transformed into an de facto gTLD years ago, .ME is quite recent, and I am not sure it is up to us to tell the government or people of Montenegro what is best for them. I suggest that we stay focused on issues that ICANN has some control over. There is more than enough to keep us busy. Alan At 04/10/2009 04:22 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
It may have the blessing of the Moldovan Gov't but some of it's citizens may not appreciate the transfer especially if it is being misused and they get nothing for it and don't have access to it. If someone sold my birthright I wouldn't be happy.
Yes, each ccTLD gov't can do what they want it, but when goes to the .LA root site and can't even discern the original intent of the ccTLD, hasn't it lost its meaning? I'm of the belief that the ccTLDs are best used when used by their own people and controlled by their own governments, you disagree?
I'm trying to start with a full accounting of the ccTLD ownership and accountability. I realize there are many people out there who don't want to discuss the issue.