William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Here is an example of a more complex domain. Changes are the purpose
> (A.1), a new section describing non-terminal zones (A.4), and the
> change
> of term from "Second-Level" to "leaf" (B.1, B.2, B.4).
>
> Nom Domain Charter
>
> A. Purpose
>
> 1. This Top-Level Domain is intended for the registration of
> complete names of natural persons; for example,
> John.Jacob.Hinkelmeijer.Smith.nom.
IMNSHO, This should have been the primary thrust of the charter; and the
content of this paragraph is wrong. This is the place to say that this
TLD is based on individual names, and, therefore, McDonald.nom is about
a famous clan of Scotsmen, not hamburgers.
> Performance or Literary
> pseudonyms (such as Madonna
Why not? It's her NAME. And even if it isn't, who are we to tell a
person that their nom de net is not okay? My paintball handle is
"Presto." Does this mean that I can't register Presto.nom as my
*personal* paintball site?
> , or the Symbol formerly called
> Prince)
Again, policy error. (And syntax error: the glyph was never known as
Prince.) The Artist has adopted that unpronounceable glyph as his
proper name, and he has done so for reasons that I happen to applaud and
agree with. Bad example.
Besides, are we really going to require that a registrant submit proof
of name when registering such a domain? That makes about as much sense
as asking for a copy of the business certificate before allowing a .firm
registration to become effective.
> do not qualify.
>
> 2. The same or similar name shall not be registered by the same
> organization in any other zone of the DNS (such as under a
> country TLD), unless an exception for good cause is
> granted under the registration appeal process (described
> below).
It's not at all clear what basis there is for prohibiting a registrant
from cross-registering. It also seems to be a mistake from a policy
perspective, since it will intensify the opposition of the trademark
community to the gTLD-MoU. Moreover, the question arises how to deal
with the entirely bona fide cross-registration that can arise during
startup, where a company enqueues requests with many registrars for many
SLDs in the CORE TLDs in order to increase its chances of getting at
least one of those domains. Shall we then simply cut off some of those
domains? Which ones?
> 3. The registration of a name or combination of names does not
> convey any TradeMark or ServiceMark status.
This is contrary to the emerging common law trademark rights that have
been recognized in a number of United States decisions -- that the
registration of a SLD is evidence of use in commerce.
>
>
> 4. Each zone within this Top-Level Domain shall be open to
> registration of additional zone delegations.
Does this mean that if I were delegated connolly.nom, I would have to
permit anyone else named connolly to have third- (and higher) level
subzones? How much will I get to charge for creating the zones and
supporting them and administering them and . . . ???
> The designated
> Nom registry
CORE?
> may maintain such zones, or may designate
> subordinate registries that provide the best combination of
> costs and services and conform to the requirements for
> registry operation (described below).
>
> 5. The designated Nom registry management shall require that
> these same terms be carried forward by its registrants.
Making each registrant into a registrar? Why in the name of Gehenna
would I register a zone if I have to take on the responsibility of
acting as a registrar? What if I just want a good-for-life e-mail
address?
>
>
> B. Registration Process
>
> 1. Registration of leaf domains
? Is there an RFC I've never seen that explains this?
> is open to all qualifying
> applicants
What means this term "qualifying applicants?"
> on a non-discriminatory, fair-use, first-come,
> first-served basis, in compliance with the most recent
> revision
> of the Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding
> (gTLD-MoU).
>
> 2. Each qualifying leaf domain must have (or share) 2 or more
> topologically dispersed secondary zone servers, in addition
> to
> the primary master.
Why should a .nom zone be subject to more stringent nameserver
requirements than currently apply to .com/net/org zones?
>
>
> 3. In any dispute as to the registration of a particular name,
> the
> registrar shall have no role or responsibility, other than to
>
> provide the contact information for all parties, and abide by
>
> the results of the appeals process. Appeals are taken by
> following the current process designated by the gTLD-MoU --
> the
> Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels.
There's more to the dispute resolution process than ACPs. For example,
suppose I were delegated connolly.nom, and my tenure of the domain came
under attack from an Irish Revolutionary Brigade, e.g., the "James
Connolly Battalion;" there is no reasonable basis to suppose the matter
would ever end up before an ACP.
>
>
> 4. Whenever it is determined,
by whom?
> on its own initiative or acting in
> response to a petition from any person, that an error in
> leaf domain registration has occurred -- including (but not
> limited to) ineligibility, change in qualification status, or
>
> failure of the SOA contact to respond promptly to queries --
Is the same entity to be responsible for enforcement of domain name
policy AND lame delegation policy? And (unless I'm more ignorant than I
suppose I am) there is more (and less) to lame delegation than SOA
latency..
> the designated registry manager shall revoke or transfer the
> registration:
This anticipates that authority to affect a zone will be vested in some
entity other than (a) the registrant, (b) POC or (c) an ACP. If I read
this correctly, that authority will be vested in the "Registry Manager,"
which in turn seems to be a CORE-designee.
This is bad. Withholding authority over zones from CORE and the
Registrars is an integral part of the anti-lawsuit strategy that was
worked out a rather long time ago.
> {SNIP}
> c) and final appeal of process issues to the gTLD-MoU
> established Policy Oversight Committee (POC).
Oh my numen! I don't think POC ever agreed to hear appeals of domain
name disputes, and there is every reason to believe that POC has had and
will continue to have more important things to do than rule on
particular domain name disputes. POC is a policy making board, not a
rule-applying organization.
>
>
> C. Registry Operation
>
> 1. The repository for the primary master zone server (the
> registry) shall be designated by the Council of Registrars
> (CORE), in compliance with the most recent revision of their
> Memorandum of Understanding (CORE-MoU), and with the
> concurrance of the Policy Oversight Committee (POC).
>
> 2. The registry must have (or share) 5 or more topologically
> dispersed secondary zone servers, in addition to the primary
> master.
This is an operational issue within CORE's exclusive purview.
>
>
> 3. The registry may seek reimbursement for each registration on
> an
> annualized non-profit cost-recovery basis, and in compliance
> with the CORE-MoU.
If this is a back door attempt to regulate the fees which CORE can
charge to registrars or pay for database administration, it is (among
other things) an operational issue and outside of PAB's jurisdiction.
If this is something other than an attempt to regulate fees, I think it
needs to be clarified.
>
>
> 4. Whenever it is determined, on its
Whose?
> own initiative or acting in
> response to a petition from any person, that a registry has
> failed to conform to any registry requirements or that
> another
> registry could provide a significantly better combination of
> costs and services, the Council of Registrars (CORE) may
> designate a change to another registry:
There's a great deal of equivocation going on here around the term
"Registry." Apart from that, this sounds like an attempt to state the
conditions under which CORE can dump a database operator. Again, that's
an operational issue. Or a legal issue. Perhaps a little of each.
Kevin J. Connolly
Just another PAB Member
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:27 PST