FINAL VERSION SUBMITTED (IF RATIFIED)
The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote.
FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC
The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.
From an end user perspective, two points need to be considered:
- as a user of the Internet, the removal of a TLD will mean less likelihood for confusion as usually a ccTLD is removed to make way for a new one. This enhances trust in the domain name identifiers.
- as a domain name registrant, the retirement of the ccTLD could pause a problem when correspondents are used to use the "old" address using the obsolete ccTLD. Some companies have built a brand around the "old" ccTLD.
In relation to the definition and applicability of process, the retirement triggering event perfectly describes the situation. However, we note that in the event that a retired ccTLD doesn't have a ccTLD Manger referred to in this policy as a Functional Manager and the IANA Naming Functions Operator (IFO) operator is required to transfer the responsibility of the ccTLD to a Functional Manager, transparency and following due process is necessary to avoid any unexpected disruption to the process. In relation to the retirement process,the policy determines that both the IFO and the Functional Manager will work together in good faith to ensure the interests of the registrants are taken into consideration. Where end users are used to using the old retired domains, the interests of the end users are required to be regarded as a part of the interests of the registrants.
In relation to the review mechanism, it is unclear what review mechanisms would be used and what exactly the mechanism will review.
Finally, the ALAC supports the ccNSO PDP3. The retirement plan looks good. It is comprehensive and takes into account special cases like .UK .AC and .EU.
DRAFT SUBMITTED FOR DISCUSSION
The first draft submitted will be placed here before the call for comments begins. The Draft should be preceded by the name of the person submitting the draft and the date/time. If, during the discussion, the draft is revised, the older version(S) should be left in place and the new version along with a header line identifying the drafter and date/time should be placed above the older version(s), separated by a Horizontal Rule (available + Insert More Content control).
From an end user perspective, two points need to be considered:
- as a user of the Internet, the removal of a TLD will mean less likelihood for confusion as usually a ccTLD is removed to make way for a new one. This enhances trust in the domain name identifiers.
- as a domain name registrant, the retirement of the ccTLD could pause a problem when correspondents are used to use the "old" address using the obsolete ccTLD. Some companies have built a brand around the "old" ccTLD.
In relation to the definition and applicability of process, the retirement triggering event perfectly describes the situation. However, we note that in the event that a retired ccTLD doesn't have a ccTLD Manger referred to in this policy as a Functional Manager and the IANA Naming Functions Operator (IFO) operator is required to transfer the responsibility of the ccTLD to a Functional Manager, transparency and following due process is necessary to avoid any unexpected disruption to the process. In relation to the retirement process,the policy determines that both the IFO and the Functional Manager will work together in good faith to ensure the interests of the registrants are taken into consideration. Where end users are used to using the old retired domains, the interests of the end users are required to be regarded as a part of the interests of the registrants.
In relation to the review mechanism, it is unclear what review mechanisms would be used and what exactly the mechanism will review.
Finally, the ALAC supports the ccNSO PDP3. The retirement plan looks good. It is comprehensive and takes into account special cases like .UK .AC and .EU.
