RE: [ga-roots] TLD's

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> On Behalf Of L Gallegos
|> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 12:36 PM
|> To: ga-roots@dnso.org
|> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] TLD's

Leah

|> I think it is more to the point that this small number of
|> people declined to determine the fate of a TLD precisely because it was
|> inappropriate at the time.  Once there is a membership, committees can
be formed to
|> delve into this type of issue in terms of possible standards.
|> However, a TLD holder controls a TLD and can assign his rights to it.
It would
|> certainly not be up to a trade association to dictate that
|> function to a TLD holder.  The decision was to decline stewardship of
.TLD at that
|> time for what I feel are quite valid reasons.

Which brings us back to the problem of an individual having total authority
over a TLD without any auditing or controls over what they do with it.
That is one of the fundamental problems I have with the other roots and TLD
operators.

|> As an initial board, we had not yet formed specific bylaws and rules
|> governing that type of action.  That is the reason for a lengthly and
|> thoughtful discussion of the issue and the position of the association
at
|> that point in time.  I am sure there will be other situations where the
|> association will have to deal with decisions not covered in the
|> bylaws.
|> There will be discussion among members at those times as well.  It
|> would be wonderful if every contingency could be planned for in
|> advance.  Again, Dass, you are taking the minutes of a very new
|> organization and dissecting them as if there were establshed rules
|> governing them at the time.  We were and are in the process of forming
|> those rules, which is the job of an initial board.  Until there is a
|> membership, the board is limited to initial formation of criteria.

We are often hearing how the other roots and TLD operators have been around
for a long time.  Surely, this is a very late stage to be having to
introduce standards and rules for the operation of such TLD's and roots.
There have been calls for the recognition of other roots and the
introduction of other root TLD's into the legacy root.  From what you are
saying I would suggest that such calls are premature as the necessary
policies and procedures to protect the end users is not evident at the
present time.

|> We have nothing to do with any root, so associating the actions of a
|> trade association with decisions made by roots is inappropriate.
|> Personally, I have no input or knowledge of the methods used in making
|> decisions in the roots and do not wish to make those decisions.
|> Perhaps the TLDA will be respected enough that the roots will consider
|> its opinions and actions when deciding what to include.

The TLDA would appear to be mostly associated with roots other than the
legacy root.  To declare that it doesn't have anything to do with any root
is a little misleading.  It is noticed that ORSC is one of the supporting
associations to the TLDA as evidenced on the TLDA website.
Also from: http://www.tlda.org/about/press/PR2001032501.html
The TLDA has issued the following preliminary mission statement:

The Top Level Domain Association (TLDA) is a not-for-profit trade
association of Top Level Domain Holders, serving the public interest. Among
our purposes are to represent member TLD Holders as a whole to business,
industry, government, and the media; to promote Internet commerce through
the growth of the world-wide TLD industry and its related businesses; to
document and promote standards and best practices for the operation and
management of TLDs; to serve as a clearing house providing for the fair
resolution of TLD collisions; to promote cooperation and provide liaison
between TLD Holders and Root Managers in the interests of collision-free
choice to the world Internet community; to periodically publish a single,
up-to-date, comprehensive compilation of all known TLDs; and to educate and
inform the public of the public service that TLDA provides.

It is noted the mission statement includes references to Root Managers.

I gather the intention of the TLDA is to be inclusive of TLD operators in
both the legacy and other roots, is this correct?  It will be extremely
interesting to see the membership details in another 6-12 months and to see
how many root TLD operators join.  Does the TLDA intend to also allow
memberships from ccTLD's?

|> Once again, this has nothing whatever to do with how decisions are
|> made wrt to TLDs by the roots.  Nothing.  They are two totally
|> different concepts and functions.

That would seem at odds with the Mission Statement.

|> The only possible observation is that this association declined
|> stewardship of a TLD.  It was certainly not determinative of
|> the fate of the TLD or its transfer.  It was not transferred - at least
not
|> by or to the association.  That was precisely the point, I beleive.

No, the point I was making was the fact that a TLD "could" be transferred
in such a way.  And that the only parties involved in the potential
transfer were the individual TLD operator and the Board of TLDA, a total of
6 people.

I appreciate the time you are taking in answering my questions.  I hope
that all benefit from the exchange and more knowledge is gained that will
benefit us all.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.


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