Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
Username: |
jmoeller |
Date/Time: |
Fri, November 3, 2000 at 8:21 PM GMT |
Browser: |
Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.0 using Windows 95 |
Score: |
5 |
Subject: |
Policy Questions About dot.geo |
Message: |
|
I am offering these comments from a policy perspective as the Staff Director of
the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The United States is developing and
implementing a National Spatial Data Infrastructure supported by standards, technologies,
and policies to improve access sharing and use of geospatial data. Many other
countries are also developing Spatial Data Infrastructures and are cooperating in
an initiative to establish a coordinated global spatial data infrastructure.
In the United States the National Spatial Data Infrastructure is a collaborative
effort of federal, state, local and tribal governments, private sector organizations
and academia. The Federal Geographic Data Committee has the responsibility
of promoting coordination of Federal geographic data activities and of providing
federal leadership for the NSDI. Much work has already been done by the geospatial
data community to develop standards and protocols that will support and enable improved
access, sharing and use of geospatial data. This includes not only standards
and practices of government agencies, but also the work of ISO TC211 and the Open
GIS Consortium. I am concerned about the policy impacts of this proposal.
The dot.geo proposal to ICANN does not specify strategic links or compatibility with
these ongoing SDI and standards activities. It has not been presented for discussion
with FGDC or the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Steering Committee. The
proposal also does not explain the standards or protocols proposed for use or how
a fee based system would facilitate or inhibit the increased sharing and use of geospatial
data. Many local governments, non-government organizations and emerging countries
are not in a position or willing to participate in a fee based registration system,
as it appears this proposal envisions. The public policy objectives of equitable
access to government data and information and protection of individual personal privacy
also do not appear to be given consideration in the proposal. I recommend
that a more deliberate and inclusive process be followed in order to design an approach
that is compatible with the efforts already underway by many government and private
sector organizations. The interests of citizens and communities will be better
served by a strategy that builds interoperability and compatibility rather that sets
up either real or perceived barriers to effective public/private working relationships.
If the .geo domain is approved, the FGDC requests that there be a reasonable delay
in the assignment of registrars within the domain, pending: 1) an open and technically
sound validation of the proposal using specific protocols involving the OpenGIS
Consortium and other players, 2) establish working arrangements among a broader
group of stakeholder organizations for design and oversight of the .geo deployment. -
|
| |
Message Thread:
- .geo Application by SRI International Moderator, October 7 @ 10:22 PM (23/28)
- Letter of Support cgshepard, November 6 @ 12:31 AM (0/0)
- SRI Comments regarding dot-geo dot-geo, November 6 @ 12:03 AM (0/0)
- Is this TLD really needed? sking, November 5 @ 10:09 PM (0/0)
- the dot-geo and its potential positive effects Spaceman, November 5 @ 9:53 PM (0/0)
- Technical and Institutional Reservations concerning .geo kottman, November 4 @ 9:20 PM (0/0)
- Support for .Geo Proposal LStephens, November 4 @ 7:03 PM (0/0)
- Policy Questions About dot.geo jmoeller, November 3 @ 8:21 PM (0/0)
- Towards Transparency: Figuring Out the Corporate Parentage & Value Proposition of Dot.Geo Bruce Cahan, November 3 @ 5:37 PM (0/0)
- A GIS ezine looks at .geo Adena, November 2 @ 10:32 PM (0/0)
- .geo plus .i = ? adoyle, October 31 @ 8:23 PM (0/0)
- Doubts about .geo TLD ddnebert, October 30 @ 4:33 PM (0/0)
- Web3D Consortium supports .geo neiltrevett, October 29 @ 6:32 AM (0/0)
- .geo and education BlackLineFish, October 26 @ 10:43 PM (0/0)
- Letter of support dimo, October 26 @ 10:49 AM (0/0)
- Sri's .geo app peniel, October 25 @ 11:55 PM (0/0)
- Letter of Support WSchwaderer, October 25 @ 3:07 PM (0/0)
- Criticism of the SRI .geo proposal steve_l, October 24 @ 6:11 AM (0/0)
- Support for .geo by X3D & NPS brutzman, October 19 @ 4:45 PM (0/0)
- Digital Earth comment on .geo Percivall, October 19 @ 2:30 PM (1/1)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:07 PM (0/0)
- .geo Application by SRI International rhyne, October 18 @ 11:14 AM (0/0)
- .geo & e-tourism jachia, October 17 @ 2:21 PM (0/0)
- .geo application web site at www.dotgeo.org Martin, October 14 @ 12:24 AM (1/4)
Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy