Re: [ga] WARNING REGARDING THE WEBSITE DOTUSA.COM
On 01:38 21/10/01, Paul Cotton said: John, Paul, the RFC 920 stipulates how a moTLD is to be created and registered. This is the role of the IANA function. This RFC is very specific about what a TLD Manager is and must bring to the Global Internet Community and to its Registrants community. There is absolutely nothing mandatory about that, but the only two registry registration centers in History have been Tymnet International from 1978 to 1986 (for PTTs, Telcos, public international services...) and IANA for the Internet and from a date I try to trace. The two naming sequences are fully consistent yet in reverse order, and the two systems have been interconnected for a while. Both Tymnet International practices and IANA practices documented in RFC 920 and 1591 are quite consistent in term of prerequisite for a registry to be registered. The IANA seems therefore to be the most suitable place today to register a TLD. However as per the quoted RFCs the IANA only represents the Global Internet Community: if it does not perform, the new Registries have no other way than to inform the Community and to take date. This is clear legitimacy by all international business rules. In the case of ADNS their rights are well established since they actually related with the IANA. Now what are these rights. Consistently Tymnet International and the IANA have considered that the name is *entrusted* into the TLD registry - by ISO, as being the name of a corporation, or by chosen agreement of the registrants. Tymnet International and public services used the 3 letters ISO code, IANA the 2 letters code. Corporation names were used by Tymnet Internaional.: HP, BULL, ESA, DEC, IBM, BOFA, DUPONT, PHILIPS, LEUMI, etc ... either active or in propositions/projects Chosen names are not many (Tymnet used ".INTL"; IANA: ".com", etc...) but there is an overlap as I proposed "ARPA" also adopted by the IANA for ".arpa". Both for TI and for IANA the registration or a registry is free and immediate and it only dependeds on the agreement that the registry is entitled to it by the users. This was the case from 1978 to 2000 when new TLD were discussed and is the clear position by the ccTLD. Only for one year legitimate TLD were refused (.linux, .sys) to or taken (.biz) from their community and application fees are leveraged by the ICANN. This shows that the registry registration is mislead and is no more available. This returns the registration to the Global Internet Community - i.e. to declaration and public knowledge. Based upon my Tymnet International experience, on RFC 920 and 1591, on IANA constant practice , on the ICANN ICP-1 document and practice until Oct. 2000, on the ccTLD Best Practices and on the inclusive roots practices, we have worked out a Root & TLD Best Practices ( http://boroon.com ) to face several problems including Root financing, TLD squatting, TLD collision resolution (after the ICANN had created the first deliberate collisions). There might be other documents draft on the matter. However the TLD criteria and the TLD declaration also described there has been used enough to gain some de facto recognition among inclusive roots and to establish that conforming TLDs - what ever their support or not of the RT/BP - are legitimate as far as these documents are concerned (what is .USA situation). The GAC has been consistent with all this and has declared the TLD not trademarkable. Jurisprudence too. This means that commercial rules apply. And therefore there will be a trade off between legitimate rules and power of the parties. TI, IANA, ICANN, ccTLDs have always been consistent: "we are not concerned by TLD Manager disputes" what means we are only interested in users (except ICANN in the ".biz" case). In the case of .USA there is no doubt that ADNS is the justice winner. BTW the ICP-3 position is misleading in term of IP protection. Telling "I am not interested in you using or not the TLD I want" is absurd as the court will decide in favor of the registrants; so if one existing TLD has a good number of happy registrants, the ICANN will lose. The corporations with a reasonable legitimacy at being a TLD Manager may lose it to anyone establishing an independent TLD and signing a reasonable number of registrants. Disregarding a problem seldom solves it. The proper solution is the one Jun Murai (BoD Member in charge of the root servers) is advocating. Stop being foolish about inclusive roots and stabilize the things under an unique basic root as before. However Internet Security and Stability Protection and some talks about GovNet will probably lead to a global review of the naming system. I hope this responds your question. Jefsey
|