Re: [ga] Re: [ALSC-Forum] Re: [GTLD Registries List] What is the accreditation status of registrars that made fake applications?

[Stephen Waters <swaters@amicus.com>]

http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt

It's a rather short RFC, so worthwhile to look at even if you only have
a moment. Most importantly, pay attention to Postel's assumptions there
in 1994, implicit and explicit:
---
...
Section 2.
In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a
hierarchy of names.  The root of system is unnamed.  There are a set
of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs).  These are the
generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two
letter country codes from ISO-3166.  It is extremely unlikely that
any other TLDs will be created.
...
Under each TLD may be created a hierarchy of names.  Generally, under
the generic TLDs the structure is very flat.  That is, many
organizations are registered directly under the TLD, and any further
structure is up to the individual organizations.
...
Each of the generic TLDs was created for a general category of
organizations.
...
COM - This domain is intended for commercial entities, that is
    companies.  This domain has grown very large and there is
    concern about the administrative load and system performance if
    the current growth pattern is continued.  Consideration is
    being taken to subdivide the COM domain and only allow future
    commercial registrations in the subdomains.
...
Section 3.
The major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is
that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have
the ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job.
...
2) These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated
domain, and have a duty to serve the community.

The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for
both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global
Internet community.

Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are
inappropriate.  It is appropriate to be concerned about
"responsibilities" and "service" to the community.
...
Section 4.
1) Names and Trademarks

In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
rights to a particular name, the registration authority shall have
no role or responsibility other than to provide the contact
information to both parties.

The registration of a domain name does not have any Trademark
status.  It is up to the requestor to be sure he is not violating
anyone else's Trademark.
...
Section 5.
Security issues are not discussed in this memo.
...
---

Here is what I see:

1) A very short-sighted assumption about generic TLDs. In 1994 they were
complaining about .COM getting too big. It's 2001 now (for a few more
hours here in Texas) and we're still complaining. This was a bad idea.
This could've been avoided simply by reading some philosophy. Early on
you learn that usable universal categories are hard to define without
stepping all over yourself. .COM is a good example of stepping all over
ourselves. It has ceased to provide any sort of meaning and personally,
I'd like to see its present form mutate into something better.

1.a.) A corollary assumption that domain registries/managers should be
tied to these specific TLDs. This reinforcement of [1] has made it more
difficult to put a new system into place b/c all the legacy
infrastructure works with the assumptions in [1].

2.) Postel says the Right Thing[tm] with regard to [tm] stuff, IMO.
Leave it to the lawyers, the government, and the public.

3.) He doesn't detail well enough the sorts of trouble a
registry/manager could get into that would justify contract revocation.
It would've been nice to've seen a model contract for registries or
something.

4.) I think security, privacy, etc. should've been at least glossed.



As far as TLDs are concerned, can someone explain to me why I cannot
have "stephenwaters" as my own TLD if I pay my $$$? Is there any sound
technical reason why someone couldn't type in http://stephenwaters and
find me in their browser? Surely with advanced search technologies like
google in place, TLDs no longer provide any useful organization
function.

Ideally, I'd like to see:

1) ICANN contract some root DNS providers to round-robin between on
various international networks. Contractually, it's only fair that if a
root DNS provider is also registry, it must provide the same level of
service to other registries as it provides itself.

2) ICANN contract some registries to fill up the hash tables on the root
servers. Any licit domain string should be registerable, but
subdomaining should be encouraged through price breaks. E.g., they
should encourage me to register stephenwaters.person or something
similar by giving me a discount or perhaps, the organization controlling
.person could offer cooler services than I get by having my own TLD...
maybe an Internet white pages entry with ICQ info and whatnot. Maybe
ALSO registration and integrated encryption scheme for voting. Creative
stuff.


Just blue-skying here, Eric,
-s

On Mon, 2001-12-31 at 09:07, Eric Dierker wrote:
> 
> Thank you Jeff,
> 
> I believe this may be the perfect time for you to explain to the rest of
> us why
> you believe it is important to stick with old RFC's.
> 
> It would seem that the Net and/or the WWW changes quite quickly but that
> RFC's move quite slowly.
> 
> The only forum that seems to keep up with constant advances seems to be
> the
> GA and that appears to be because it does not create RFC's.
> 
> It also currently does not seem to censor, which allows it to handle
> problems arising
> tomorrow - today.
> 
> i.e. ccTLDs of Arabic design - we will discuss and have great input prior
> to any other forum
> yet we will put forth no RFC.
> 
> Please respond.
> 
> Sincerely,
> Eric
> 
> Jeff Williams wrote:
> 
> > Daryl and all stakeholders or interested parties,
> >
> >   VEry good brief Rundown here Daryl.  And one that has been presented
> > in par or in full by several other stakeholders on more than one
> > occasion including yours truly.
> >
> >   One important point that perhaps you forgot or had not considered
> > is that the ICANN BoD and Staff had and IMHO still has is to
> > abide by RFC1591 which the ICANN BoD as far as RFC's
> > has touted to be very supportive of.  Yet in this instance (RFC 1591)
> > it decided in the MdR Meeting of Nov 2000 drastically deviated
> > from in preference to a lottery selection process for new TLD's.
> > We [INEGroup] along with many other groups warned that such
> > a method would be a huge mistake with long term ramifications
> > BEFORE the ICANN BoD and staff decided without stakeholder
> > consensus or vote to dictate.  Now the proverbial turkey has come
> > home to roost.
> >   It is for some of the reasons in your rundown and my above comments
> > that it is paramount that Stakeholders/users must be in the majority
> > on the ICANN BoD with 9 seats.  However given the ALSC
> > "Final Report" and denial of the polls and comments submitted on
> > this forum is is unlikely that such will occur.  If not, ICANN will
> > never be ligitimate in the mid to long term...
> >
> > Daryl Tempesta wrote:
> >
> > > > ICANN should stipulate
> > > > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
> > > > reserve the rest,
> > > > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
> > >
> > > I have talked to Lawyers which represent Verisign AKA
> > > Network Solutions. I was told that buisness clients
> > > complain all the time about being advised to buy up
> > > EVERY domain in every TLD for every trademark they
> > > own.
> > >
> > > Bruces suggestion in a very good one in my oppinion
> > > because in some form it is inevitable.
> > >
> > > Here is why; I think that ICANN will either do  it
> > > volunterally or the US congress will step in - perhaps
> > > as the result of a high profile Supreme Court case.
> > > Consider these senarios.
> > >
> > > a) Some time in the near future, many more TLDs  are
> > > introduced, pressure from the atLarge and millions of
> > > individual domain owners will be successfull in
> > > lobbying ICANN for TM free TLDS
> > >
> > > Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Market
> > > saturation
> > >
> > > b)   Some time in the near future, many more TLDs  are
> > > introduced, Laws from congress passed due to the
> > > pressure of millions of individual domain owners will
> > > then be successfull.
> > >
> > > Reason for non TM and TM requirements - Legal
> > > intervention including new laws.
> > >
> > > Conclusion: it is inevitable that there will be both
> > > TM and non TM requirements in TLDs.
> > >
> > > ICANN build the framework now,
> > > while you have the choice how.
> > >
> > > Daryl Tempesta
> > > hotdot.com
> > >
> > > --- Bruce Young <byoung651@attbi.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jeff wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >It is poignantly and disgustingly clear that
> > > > >the ICANN staff either cannot or will not do
> > > > adequate oversight
> > > > >of it's rubber stamped "Registrars and Registries"
> > > > given the
> > > > >events of the past year or so that have been
> > > > reported here
> > > > >and on other forums.
> > > >
> > > > Ya think?! :)
> > > >
> > > > These guys are making this SO much harder tha it
> > > > needs to be.  Part of the
> > > > problem are these ugly "sunset" periods.  Why?  If
> > > > the point of new TLDs is
> > > > new addresses for peoplke that don't havethem, why
> > > > are we letting the same
> > > > old people buy up addresses before everyone else?
> > > > ICANN should stipulate
> > > > that trademarks only apply on COM NET and BIZ, and
> > > > reserve the rest,
> > > > particularly the INFO, for first come, first served.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Bruce Young
> > > > Portland, Oregon
> > > > byoung651@attbi.com
> > > > http://home.attbi.com/~byoung651/index.html
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do You Yahoo!?
> > > Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
> > > http://greetings.yahoo.com
> >
> > Regards,
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> > --
> > 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
>

PGP signature