Gentlefolk, as the most recent signer of the gtld-mou, and having taken
the opportunity to read some of the more recent archives of this list,
I'm not convinced that this "lite" version is a good thing.
I'm assuming that this is proceeding under "advice" to POC, and that the
method of CC above is correct.
1) It would probably be better to work with the ITAG, and reflect the
material there. Soon, this statement is unlikely to be needed, as
there should be a set of principles for the entire DNS root,
including generic TLDs.
2) One of the thrusts of the "incorporation" of IANA is to limit
liability. It has been proposed that this can be accomplished by
having very strict limits to IANA discretion. This "lite" draft is
moving in the opposite direction.
3) By not mentioning CORE and POC and PAB, it appears to be a
retraction of the gtld-mou. This is somewhat akin to negotiating
peace without first agreeing on the right of the parties to exist.
Certainly a signatory to this MoU would not be added to the PAB.
4) The terms do not reflect certain details of the current MoUs. That
raises the bar to this statement under the current MoUs to require
amendment of the base MoUs.
The details:
" I. The administration of the DNS is now and should remain under the
" control of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
"
What if IANA is split into two parts? (engineering and operations)
What if the name of IANA is changed under the "new" corp?
Check against wording of RFCs 1601 and 1591.
" 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.
"
Too many concepts in one point. Split.
Again, same problems as above.
" III. IANA should not at any time be under the control of any national
" government.
"
Of course. But an affirmative statement of whom the IANA reports to
would be better -- the IAB, referencing the most recent charter.
" 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.
"
Not well written.
Technical qualifications are currently set by "decision by the POC",
under gTLD-MoU 6(j)(iii), 7(d) and CORE-MoU 4(b).
Under RFC-1591, IANA does not claim to set technical qualifications for
SLDs. Potential liability problem.
This statement would require modification of both gTLD-MoU and Core-MoU,
and is therefore unacceptable at this time.
" V. IANA should have supervisory control of the databases containing
" the registration data of each gTLD in the DNS, subject to the
" following principles:
"
Absolutely, positively no!
This could lead to terrible liability.
IANA has been delegated "overall coordination and management" and
"delegation" in RFC-1591, but not direct supervisory control.
" (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;
Liability!
Conflicts with gTLD-MoU 6(j), to which IANA is a signatory!
" (b) The data in each database shall be freely available to the
" public, subject only to legal restrictions relating to privacy;
OK. Unfortunately, privacy restrictions are another deep hole, as there
are conflicting restrictions in different jurisdictions.
" (c) Each database shall operate in the public interest on a cost
" recovery basis and not for profit, under the overall supervision of
" IANA;
Split. Drop redundant conflicting second clause.
" (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.
rewrite, citing gTLD-MoU and CORE-MoU.
" 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.
Shorten, citing gTLD-MoU and CORE-MoU.
WSimpson@UMich.edu
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:37 PST