Re: PAB John Jacob Jinkleheimer Schmidt.

Jim Dixon (
Thu, 5 Mar 1998 10:40:12 +0000 (GMT)

On Thu, 5 Mar 1998, William Allen Simpson wrote:

> > >> In the second place, CORE will only register SLD's.
> > >>
> No, there's no technical reason that should be true, and no MoU
> restrictive language to that effect.

In fact the gTLD MOU specifically states that registrations are
at the second level and the "gTLD MOU lite" repeats this, although
I pointed out to the POC that this was pointlessly restrictive.

> And as a matter of policy, in order to prevent the extortion scenario,
> we need to register multiple levels of zones in .Nom.
> > >> If some "smith" gets "smith.nom" wouldn't he/she have the right to
> > >> farm out lower level domains to others?
> > >
> > >Absolutely. The *right* to do it. But not the *duty.*
> > >
> I disagree, and others disagreed as well. Indeed, that policy would
> make .Nom useless, and I see no reason to have a useless TLD. Either we
> ensure that recursive policies apply (as specified in RFC-1591, and all
> these draft charters), or just abandon .Nom, and probably the entire
> gTLD effort. Recursive registration policy is very important!

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that people who
register names at the second level under .nom should be required
to accept registrations at the third level, and so forth. This
would be a misreading of RFC 1591 and a legal can of worms.

Experience at existing registries has shown that trying to enforce
policies about names registered has led to endless hassles. The
best policy is to ignore the actual strings registered, insofar as
trademark and IPR concerns make this possible.

Jim Dixon                  VBCnet GB Ltd 
tel +44 117 929 1316                             fax +44 117 927 2015