PAB charter registry boilerplate

William Allen Simpson (
Thu, 5 Mar 98 15:37:06 GMT

Perhaps it is better to take the time to go over this section by section.

While it might be more sensible to have a single policy for registries,
each registry will be separately chartered. According to btoh the
CORE-MoU and the GP, there shall be a separate repository for each gTLD.

And, there are probably minor differences, such as number of servers,
that differ depending on the size of the registry.

Anyway, here's the section, separated for discussion:

C. Registry Operation

1. The repository for the primary master data facility (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


There was a comment to the effect that this was an operational issue,
"within CORE's exclusive purview". This conflicted with the same person
saying elsewhere in the same message that "withholding authority over
zones from CORE and the Registrars is an integral part of the
anti-lawsuit strategy that was worked out a rather long time ago."

You cannot have it both ways.

It appears (to me) to be a policy issue. The operational issue would be
merely determining that such servers are in place and working. An
excellent division for the "anti-lawsuit strategy".

Moreover, is appears important (to me) to have such details nailed down,
expressly because the GP fails to nail it down, and NSI has failed to
comply with similar specifications in RFCs.

3. The registry may seek reimbursement for each registration on an
annualized non-profit cost-recovery basis, and in compliance
with the CORE-MoU.


This is a recapitulation of CORE-MoU 6(e), with the restriction that the
registry be operated on a "non-profit cost-recovery basis", and accords
with the CORE Articles of Association. This is one of the principal
differences with the GP, and needs to be stated clearly.

4. Whenever the Council of Registrars (CORE) has determined, on
its own initiative or acting in response to a petition from any
person, that this registry has failed to conform to any
registry requirements or that another registry could provide a
significantly better combination of costs and services, the
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.


Some folks are having problems reading dependent clauses. Sorry, I was
writing in my legal boilerplate mode. Hopefully this is clearer.

No, there is no "equivocation" about the term "registry", which is
clearly defined in the gTLD-MoU.

Yes, this is the process for changing a registry operator. It is a
matter of policy. Actually changing the operator is operations. And
this is vitally important to specify, as the inability and lack of
process to dump NSI was the achilles heel of the current imbrogio.

And there are nowhere specified time limits or an appeals procedure for
CORE actions. Very helpful to avoid claims of vagueness or lack of a
"formal and robust management structure".
Key fingerprint = 17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26 DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32