[151074] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Concern about gTLD servers in India
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Owen DeLong)
Sat Mar 10 19:42:27 2012
From: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
In-Reply-To: <4F5BD03E.6020004@nic-naa.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 16:38:18 -0800
To: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
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.
>=20
> 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.
>=20
> -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.
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.
Owen
