William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Based on the public and private comments, here is the current edition
> of
> the proposed Arts Charter. We have not received any official request
> for some other TLD from CORE, so let's go ahead with this one, and
> deal
> with the rest as they are requested. Oh esteemed Chair, do we need a
> formal vote?
I do not believe that there has been sufficient time and discussion for
PAB to reach a consensus on this.
> Arts Domain Charter
>
> A. Purpose
>
> 1. This Top-Level Domain is intended to support entities that
> are
> involved in the practice, promotion, study or support of
> artistic endeavor.
This brings to mind the old saw "Ah, yes, but is it art?" There are some
domains where it makes sense for us to restrict the content of the
zone. There are others where it does not. I recall that about 50 years
ago, there were a bunch of snazzy dressers who decided that certain
expressive media were the effete excreta of a soon-to-be-defunct race.
I will oppose any attempt to establish a test which decides that a site
is or is not art. Of course, we can all agree that Mapplethorpe does
not belong on the WWW, right? <I'd smirk but this is too serious an
issue>
>
>
> 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).
I've posted a few notes on this in response to the .nom charter.
>
>
> 3. The registration of a name or combination of names does not
> convey any TradeMark or ServiceMark status.
Likewise, my comments on this point --and a number of other drafting
problems-- are posted in response to the .nom charter.
>
>
> 4. The designated Arts registry management shall require that
> these same terms be carried forward by its registrants.
What does this mean?
>
>
> B. Registration Process
>
> 1. Registration of Second-Level Domains is open to all
> 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 Second-Level Domain must have (or share) 2 or
>
> more topologically dispersed secondary zone servers, in
> addition to the primary master.
>
> 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.
>
> 4. Whenever it is determined, on its own initiative or acting in
>
> response to a petition from any person, that an error in
> Second-Level Domain registration has occurred -- including
> (but
> not limited to) ineligibility,
Right. Like if it's not art? I think the point is made. I hope that
it is.
> change in qualification status,
> or failure of the SOA contact to respond promptly to queries
> --
> the designated registry manager shall revoke or transfer the
> registration:
>
> a) no sooner than 21 days after sending notification to the
> SOA
> specified contact;
>
> b) with appeal of administrative and factual issues to the
> gTLD-MoU established Council of Registrars (CORE);
>
> c) and final appeal of process issues to the gTLD-MoU
> established Policy Oversight Committee (POC).
>
> 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.
>
> 3. The registry may seek reimbursement for each registration on
> an
> annualized non-profit cost-recovery basis, and in compliance
> with the CORE-MoU.
>
> 4. Whenever it is determined, on its 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:
>
> a) no sooner than 49 days after sending notification to the
> SOA
> specified contact;
>
> b) with appeal of administrative and factual issues to the
> Policy Oversight Committee (POC);
>
> c) and final appeal of process issues to the authority
> designated by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) --
> currently the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA)
> --
> or its successor.
>
> WSimpson@UMich.edu
> Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C
> 32
Kevin J. Connolly
Just another PAB Member
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:27 PST