>STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES FOR THE GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAINS IN THE
>INTERNET DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM
As we ask about the purpose of the document, please note the opening 3
words of the title. In other words, the document is intended to represent
common philosophy. It is not required to be fully aligned with the USG
document; neither is it required that it differ from the USG's philosophy.
My own way of phrasing it is that it should represent the collective sense
of beliefs/expectations based on more than one year's discussion by this
project (and 3 preceding years of debate.)
>I. The administration of the DNS is now and should remain under the
>control of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA).
IANA is in charge. It always has been. Whether you argue government
funding or consent of the governed, you end up in the same place: IANA is
in charge.
That some people might claim otherwise or wish to change things is separate
from the collective assessment and agreement that has motivated this work.
All of the statements about IANA, here, strike me as entirely reasonable
and appropriate. In fact given the rather dramatically different views
held by some, it strikes me as essential to re-assert this base of derived
authority.
>IV. Registration services for second level domain names in the gTLDs
>should be globally distributed, and, except in exceptional
I do not know what the statement really means. What does it mean to
distribute registration services? The wording needs to be clearer. (I
don't think there is a conceptual problem here. In other words, I'm
confident I'll be agreeing with that statement when it is reworked, but the
real meaning of the current language is not clear to me.)
>circumstances, should be shared among all registrars that meet
>appropriate technical qualifications set by IANA.
The "exceptional circumstances" clause isn't needed, since the word
"should" allows for exceptions. Including the clause just invites
confusion, challenge, etc.
>V. IANA should have supervisory control of the databases containing
>the registration data of each gTLD in the DNS, subject to the
Absolutely, positively yes! Again, this asserts the basis for authority
and it further is needed to make clear who has authority over the data.
> (a) IANA shall determine when and whether to create new gTLDs
I would rather the language says "Creation of new gTLDs is subject to
approval by IANA". First, IANA isn't likely to do the research or the
proposing and second IANA may well delegate real authority down to another
group.
> (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.
Again, I'm not sure why the exception language is present. Perhaps the
real issue is needing to properly defining "gTLD" so as to permit the
exceptions to be outside of the scope.
>VII. A procedure for resolving trademark disputes should be
>established by contract among registrars of second level domains in
Looks like a pretty reasonable statement of need. For those who don't see
it, the problem is that the topic of trademarks is inescapable. It is not
a question of whether domain names are subject to trademark challenges, but
rather a question of the role the registration services play in such
challenges.
As such, it is imperative to have a position for registration services
which is appropriate. In this case, it mostly means keeping them out of
the decision-making process (contrary to NSI's policy).
Along the way this provides an opportunity to make available additional
resolution mechanisms. Whether a given registration service/registry
chooses to provide such additional mechanisms is left open in this
candidate text, as it should be.
d/
----------------------
Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253
Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205
675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA www.brandenburg.com