Unless the purpose behind this is a direct attack at the authority of the
USG to control IANA I'm not sure where it came from?
IANA should not (IMHO) be referenced such as it has (not that I dislike
IANA), if I sign this and the USG does exercise "control" that completely
destroys this document.
The principals behind it are fine, but unless my first paragraph is true I
don't think it is properly worded.
Additioanlly, I see that IANA has control over gTLD creation by this
document, maybe good in general, but, doesn't this document just move us
back 18 months in history by that?
Further (IMHO) we need to just stay out of the Trademark business
completely, it should be someone elses game at this point. That should be
addressed at a later date if needed (or rather when needed). Us trying to
set trademark "law" is one of the things that I think is ticking people
off. in 100+ years no one has been able to come up with a workable
trademark policy to cover the world -- we aren't going to do it, nor do I
think we should try.
Unless this "lite" version is just a statement of support and not a key to
PAB membership I can't personally support it as written. As a "pledge" to
get the "I Support CORE" button on your webpage it is fine, as it is
stated to not be legally binding, etc. I don't think it is worth using as
a means to PAB membership.
I know that the purpose behind it is to gain "support" but since it does
nothing to "attract" like minds I'd rather see PAB just replaced by the
MOU-lite and let the world advise POC (which is probably it's purpose --
get 1 million people to support you while not having to listen to them).
*shrug*
IMHO, nice thought, but beyond that.....
Ron
On Thu, 12 Feb 1998, Kent Crispin wrote:
> Remember back a week or so ago when I said that PAB should be
> prepared to move quickly? Well, the time has come :-)
>
> Here is a document from David Maher, describing a "MoU-Lite", like
> Antony has been advocating for some time. This document would enter
> into effect through a loophole in the gTLD-MoU: The gTLD-MoU says
> that its signatories may participate in PAB, but, interestingly
> enough, does not otherwise restrict membership.
>
> The plan being considered is that signatories of the MoU-lite would be
> able to designate representatives to PAB, and thus, be able to vote
> for POC members when the planned change in the composition and
> selection procedures for POC take place (which will also happen
> soon).
>
> POC wants to move on this very quickly, and has set a deadline for
> comments at 2359Z, Wednesday, Feb 18. (That's 1 minute before
> midnight...) Please direct comments on the draft to
>
> poc-submit@gtld-mou.org
>
> In my personal opinion this is a major positive step, one that has
> been mentioned on this list since the early days, and I hope that you
> will join me in supporting it.
>
> I might also add that the window on getting in comments on the
> changes to the POC is closing rapidly. The comments will be
> summarized this weekend, POC may make changes accordingly, and it
> will be done.
>
> Kent
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >From dwmaher@ibm.net Thu Feb 12 09:37:06 1998
>
> Alan and Kent:
> Here is the DRAFT Statement of Principles that we are working on. We
> welcome comments, criticism and suggestions from both PAB and CORE. We do
> not believe that there is enough time to make this the subject of a formal
> request for comments on the gtld-mou.org web site.
> David
>
> STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES FOR THE GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAINS IN THE
> INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM
>
>
> The undersigned subscribe to the principles set forth below, based on
> the Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding, signed at
> Geneva, Switzerland on May 1, 1997 (gTLD-MoU). This statement
> represents an agreement among the undersigned on a broad statement of
> principles that should govern the administration of the generic top
> level domains (gTLDs) in the domain name system (DNS) of the Internet.
> This statement is not intended to and shall not impose legal
> obligations on any of the undersigned.
>
> I. The administration of the DNS is now and should remain under the
> control of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
>
> II. IANA is now and should remain a private organization, whether in
> the legal form of a corporation or otherwise, and should operate in
> the public interest for the benefit of the Internet and not for
> profit.
>
> III. IANA should not at any time be under the control of any national
> government.
>
> IV. Registration services for second level domain names in the gTLDs
> should be globally distributed, and, except in exceptional
> circumstances, should be shared among all registrars that meet
> appropriate technical qualifications set by IANA.
>
> V. IANA should have supervisory control of the databases containing
> the registration data of each gTLD in the DNS, subject to the
> following principles:
>
> (a) IANA shall determine when and whether to create new gTLDs
> including specification of the alphanumeric strings, the timing of
> introduction of new gTLDs and the number of gTLDS;
>
> (b) The data in each database shall be freely available to the
> public, subject only to legal restrictions relating to privacy;
>
> (c) Each database shall operate in the public interest on a cost
> recovery basis and not for profit, under the overall supervision of
> IANA;
>
> (d) Access for registration of second level domains in all databases
> shall be equally available to all registrars (except in exceptional
> circumstances determined by IANA) on a non-discriminatory basis.
>
> VII. A procedure for resolving trademark disputes should be
> established by contract among registrars of second level domains in
> each of the gTLDs that will (a) strike a balance between domain name
> holders and the owners of trademark rights and (b) offer an efficient
> and inexpensive means of dispute resolution without supplanting or
> interfering with the jurisdiction of national courts or the rights of
> Internet users to have resort to the courts.
>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint: B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44 61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>
---------------- Ronald J. Fitzherbert, President ---------------
Flying Penguin Productions Limited
Arlington, Virginia & Austin, Texas (USA)
-------------------- http://www.penguin.net/ --------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:24 PST