Re: [ICANN-EU] Re: .EU

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

Roberto,

On Tue, 3 Oct 2000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:

> You wrote:
> >
> >I cannot see, that this is useful. Bussinesses are either local/national
> >and will not need a .eu name then, or global, and in that case better use
> >a .com if they are going to compete. What companies only target the
> >European market?? Or, though you don't mention them, what organizations? I
> >think .eu will mainly mean duplication of existing names and some names
> >for a few lucky people, who were too late for their name in .com or their
> >country ccTLD.
> 
> You may be right, time will tell.
> I think it is an opportunity.
> Of course, the value may be, at least in the beginning, more "political" 
> than economical, but it all depends on what the rules for registration will 
> be, what is the importance of characterising enterprises as "european" 
> rather than "global" or "national", and a lot of other factors.

So it is more a gamble than an opportunity :-)

> >In which you say only that there should be no conflict with ISO-3166... I
> >can see that point :-)
> 
> Not really "only no conflict".
> In http://www.icann.org/cgi-bin/mbx/rpgmessage.cgi?newtlds;3968A0B80000048B 
> I wrote:
> 
> ********
> I would suggeest that the delegation of "TLDs defined by some geographic 
> region, but not qualifying as ccTLDs under current policies", as possibility 
> envisaged in the document, be done only subject to acceptance (or at least 
> no objection) by ISO-3166/MA to the use of the string a TLD.
> ********
> 
> The key is approval for use (or no objection against use) as TLD.
> This was the only possible compromise, IMHO, between the need to limit 
> proliferation of ccTLDs (ISO could add codes in the reserved list for 
> whatever reason in the future, and IANA is not keen to feel obliged to 
> delegate a ccTLD for each of them) and the "political" push of the 
> Commission, justified also by other "exceptions" (some existing ccTLDs do 
> not have a "proper" corresponding ISO3166-1 code, just an entry in the 
> reserved list).
> In other words, ICANN had what they wanted (not to have to make a decision 
> of merit on a ccTLD), and the EU as well (since ISO OKed already).

SO in fact you are the one who is behind this unintelligable sentence that
ICANN issued as a statement on .eu!

[...]
> >Since TLDs can be very profitable, this is not only a matter of
> >principles. Or am I too suspicious?
> 
> In these matters, you can *never* be too suspicious.
> It all depends on the structure of the TLD, the rules for SLDs, who will be 
> in charge (maybe the EU should think of a non-profit as Registry), and so 
> on.
> My bet is that the rules will be restrictive, at least in the beginning 
> (companies registered in Europe, for instance, or SLDs like .co.eu, .ed.eu, 
> ...), maybe they see Nominet as a model, who knows?

Funny that we debate a ccTLD and do not know yet how it will be used. I
would think that your last line suggests that we have no idea what will
happen with .eu.

I will watch and see, as with the new generic TLDs. I really love .ONE. It
is so multilingual.

Regards,
-- 
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*
 Marc Schneiders --- http://bodacious-tatas.org: no not what you think
*---------------------------------------------------------------------*