Re: [ga] Policy vs Contracts?

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear DPF,
you are fully right. What only show that the holy trinity has no more
concern for the DNSO and the rest of us politically than contractually
wise. If you want to spend five minutes with a sheet of paper analyzing
the reality, you will understand why.

1. take a sheet of paper and assume it is the name space, i.e.
     every string the human being may come with.

2. start drafting circles for each kind of use of the name space:
     - languages
     - geographical names
     - national communities and governments
     - human names
     - insults, blasphemes, adult words
     - trade marks
     - business names
     - phone numbers
     - your best friends names (like the ccTLD two letters)
     - domain names (what is named the inclusive name space to
       say all what could be used by the DNS now or in the future).

3. divide the domain name area in two : the legacy TLD area
     and the non legacy area. And now within the legacy area,
     divide it in smaller parts: one per TLD

Now, try to paint in black the areas you can say stable today.
from you observation of the iCANN policy. You will see that you
can paint in black only the .com area which interesects with the
TM Name Space circle.

Now try to figure out everything you should do to enlarge that
black area. You will get a fair idea about at what Louis Touton
is spending his nights thinking. First thing you will decide is
that DNSO/GA people are NOT going to get a pen and screw
up your nice draft.

Jefsey


On 12:22 17/04/01, DPF said:
>The recent furore over the revised Verisign agreements highlighted an
>interesting difference in viewpoints between the Names Council and the
>Board - namely what is a policy matter and what is a contractual
>matter.
>
>I don't intend to revisit that particular argument but would like to
>generate debate on the wider issue - where do we draw the line.
>
>I note that in all the new registry agreements there is a contractual
>item which forbids the registry from allowing iso3166 2 letter codes
>to be registered at the 2nd or 3rd level without the permission of the
>ccTLD administrator and/or Government concerned.
>
>Now I would have thought that such an issue is a policy matter.  I
>would have thought the DNSO should have debated whether ISO3166 codes
>should be banned from registrations in gTLDs.  There are interesting
>arguments on both sides for it.  Certainly no-one ever seems to get
>too confused by there existing a nz.com website.
>
>So if the above is not a policy issue, what issues are policy issues?
> From a narrow viewpoint it seems that the one and only policy that
>ICANN has is to have the UDRP and every other issue is merely
>contractual and may be changed without reference.
>
>I am not proposing exactly where the line should be drawn but that
>maybe it is time we start to debate this issue.
>
>DPF
>--
>david@farrar.com
>ICQ 29964527
>--
>This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
>Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
>("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
>Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html