Re: PAB John Jacob Jinkleheimer Schmidt.

John C Klensin (
Thu, 05 Mar 1998 16:35:59 -0500 (Eastern Standard Time)

On Thu, 05 Mar 1998 08:48:58 -0800 (PST) Dan Busarow
<> wrote:

> Are you suggesting wording like
> "Registrants of SLD's under .nom are strongly encouraged
> to accept third level registrations from other parties
> in a fair and non-discriminatory manner."
> be incorporated into the .nom (or all gTLD) charters?

Well, I was thinking more about "rules" of the nature of some of
those I think Bill has been suggesting -- somewhat clearer
guidance about the intended use of a TLD than "this is a nice
string of letters that might be read as a name in English and
that name might have some semantics, so use your own imagination
as to what sorts of things are intended to be registered

My personal guess is that ".nom" is pretty close to hopeless
unless some formal rule that reaches a lot past the second level
is imposed. The only candidate formal name structure I know of
that is floating around and might be made to work is X.400-ish
Distinguished Names and, like almost everyone else, I hate them.

> I agree that encouraging people to do the right thing is worthwhile.
> *Requiring* them to do the right thing is ... foolish?

Foolish and pointless and hopeless in the absence of some legal
mechanism that would work worldwide. Curiously, third-level
registration rules (as you have stated the one above or as
stated in RFC 1591) could, in principle, be enforced by
contracts between registrars (or a consortium thereof) and
registrants applying for a particular name. My impression (as
an amateur/observer is that contracts can be made to work better
internationally than laws, especially if both parties agree on
the intent and the reasons for it. But that may be just a
special case of the principle that, when all parties share and
agree with the same clear expectations of how things are
supposed to work and are acting in good faith, things typically
work out.