I opposes two key provisons in the .arts charter:
1. The requirement for three name servers is out of step with current
practices in the Interent and, I seem to recall, is beyond the
requirements of RFC1591. It will make this (or these, if applied to all
CORE TLDs) more resitrictive than all of the current TLDs in use today.
2. The requirement that the registrant not have already registered the
same name in some other TLD. This is impossible to enforce, and will
merely force creative users to become several "entitities" in order to
meet their personal or corporate requirements for owning all gTLD
iterations of a particular name. I can envision "service" organizations
which, for a fee, will register a name as your agent, for example, in
order to protect your trade mark or some such thing, in order to get
around this (useless) provision.
The history of economic regulation has shown that the market will create
all kinds of rewouceful mechanisms to get around a resitriction in order
to meet demand. So why impose one here?
I think these two provisions are overly restrictive, not in the
interests of Internet users at large, a step in the wrong direction, and
a bad sign for the future of CORE/POC if they are implemented across the
gTLD space. If this charter comes to a "vote" in PAB, I will vote
against it because of these two provisions. I feel strongly about it
because I believe the restrictions will harm the future of CORE/POC, not
merely because I'm philosophically opposed to the provisions (which I
am). If they were not so damaging, I'd probably be more flexible about
my opinion.
I should also note that the politics right now would point towards CORE
being less restrictive in the face of the battle agains the "monopoly"
NSI. An open system is prefereable to a restrictive one, and these
provisions are the opposite of "open" IMHO.
Best wishes,
Bill Semich
The Internet Users Society
bsemich@users.org
http://www.users.org
In reply to 28 Feb message from "William Allen Simpson"
<wsimpson@greendragon.com>:
>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?
> 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.
> 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).
> 3. The registration of a name or combination of names does
>not
> convey any TradeMark or ServiceMark status.
> 4. The designated Arts registry management shall require
>that
> these same terms be carried forward by its registrants.
> 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, 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