Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India

[Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us>]

On 03/10/2012 04:38 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
> On Mar 10, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
>
> > On 3/10/12 3:23 PM, Jonathan Lassoff wrote:
> > > I would presume that Verisign decided that it just wasn't worth
> > > the effort to deploy into India.
> >
> > operational control of .in passed to a for-profit operator
> > domiciled in one_of{us,ca,ie} other than VGRS. as india is a
> > competitor's property, investment there by VGRS mby be difficult to
> > justify.
> >
> > -e
>
> The more telling fallacy here that really speaks to the heart of why
> I am dismayed and disappointed by ICANN's management of the whole TLD
> mess is the idea that a CCTLD is the property of a TLD operator to
> begin with.

I'm pretty sure that's not what Eric meant by "property," at least I
hope it isn't. I think he meant given that Verisign is no longer
responsible for the registry services operator backend that it doesn't
make sense for them to be investing money in making that backend better.

I can also tell you based on my experience with them that Afilias
doesn't consider the TLDs that they provide RSO support for as their
property either.

> The .IN TLD is property of the Indian people or worst case, the
> government of India acting in their stead. (or at least it should be
> if ICANN and/or Verisign and their competitors haven't managed to
> completely usurp the public trust.

I can tell you with 100% certainty that when I was responsible for
handling ccTLD delegation changes that we took the issue of ccTLDs being
operated for the benefit of the Internet community in that country, and
the global Internet community as a whole, very seriously. I have no
reason to believe that things changed after I left.


Doug

-- 
    If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough