[ga] 0:242 SHOP...PAB Shop charter 1st draft

["Jim Fleming" <JimFleming@ameritech.net>]

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt

0:242     SHOP


http://joy.songbird.com/pab/mail/0792.html

From: William Allen Simpson (wsimpson@greendragon.com)

I'm feeling inspired. It is a lovely morning in the heartland, sunny, 
temperature much higher than normal -- those tulips are going to be 
unhappy when it snows again in a few weeks.... 


Using the Arts as a base, here is a stab at a more popular domain. 
Minor changes are the purpose (A.1), very general; and a slightly higher 
number of DNS servers (B.2, C.2), since we would expect a higher hit 
rate, but not so high as to be burdensome to smaller enterprises. 


                            Shop Domain Charter 


   A. Purpose 


      1. This Top-Level Domain is intended to support entities that are 
         involved in retail electronic commerce. 


      2. The same or similar name shall not be registered by the same 
         organization in any other zone of the DNS (such as under a 
         country TLD), unless an exception for good cause is granted 
         under the registration appeal process (described below). 


      3. The registration of a name or combination of names does not 
         convey any TradeMark or ServiceMark status. 


      4. The designated Arts registry management shall require that 
         these same terms be carried forward by its registrants. 


   B. Registration Process 


      1. Registration of Second-Level Domains is open to all qualifying 
         applicants on a non-discriminatory, fair-use, first-come, 
         first-served basis, in compliance with the most recent revision 
         of the Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding 
         (gTLD-MoU). 


      2. Each qualifying Second-Level Domain must have (or share) 3 or 
         more topologically dispersed secondary zone servers, in 
         addition to the primary master. 


      3. In any dispute as to the registration of a particular name, the 
         registrar shall have no role or responsibility, other than to 
         provide the contact information for all parties, and abide by 
         the results of the appeals process. Appeals are taken by 
         following the current process designated by the gTLD-MoU -- the 
         Administrative Domain Name Challenge Panels. 


      4. Whenever it is determined, on its own initiative or acting in 
         response to a petition from any person, that an error in 
         Second-Level Domain registration has occurred -- including (but 
         not limited to) ineligibility, change in qualification status, 
         or failure of the SOA contact to respond promptly to queries -- 
         the designated registry manager shall revoke or transfer the 
         registration: 


         a) no sooner than 21 days after sending notification to the SOA 
            specified contact; 


         b) with appeal of administrative and factual issues to the 
            gTLD-MoU established Council of Registrars (CORE); 


         c) and final appeal of process issues to the gTLD-MoU 
            established Policy Oversight Committee (POC). 


   C. Registry Operation 


      1. The repository for the primary master zone server (the 
         registry) shall be designated by the Council of Registrars 
         (CORE), in compliance with the most recent revision of their 
         Memorandum of Understanding (CORE-MoU), and with the 
         concurrance of the Policy Oversight Committee (POC). 


      2. The registry must have (or share) 7 or more topologically 
         dispersed secondary zone servers, in addition to the primary 
         master. 


      3. The registry may seek reimbursement for each registration on an 
         annualized non-profit cost-recovery basis, and in compliance 
         with the CORE-MoU. 


      4. Whenever it is determined, on its own initiative or acting in 
         response to a petition from any person, that a registry has 
         failed to conform to any registry requirements or that another 
         registry could provide a significantly better combination of 
         costs and services, the Council of Registrars (CORE) may 
         designate a change to another registry: 


         a) no sooner than 49 days after sending notification to the SOA 
            specified contact; 


         b) with appeal of administrative and factual issues to the 
            Policy Oversight Committee (POC); 


         c) and final appeal of process issues to the authority 
            designated by the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) -- 
            currently the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) -- 
            or its successor. 


WSimpson@UMich.edu 

========================================================

http://joy.songbird.com/pab/mail/0805.html

I would like to back this up a level for just a moment, if I could. I 
recently mentioned that I have both the songbird.com and songbird.net 
domains. Bill pointed out that I was out of compliance with the 
definition of the definition fot the .net TLD, since songbird (as a 
web presence/design/consulting entity) doesn't provide the kind of 
network services described in rfc1591: 


  NET - This domain is intended to hold only the computers of network 
         providers, that is the NIC and NOC computers, the 
         administrative computers, and the network node computers. The 
         customers of the network provider would have domain names of 
         their own (not in the NET TLD). 


However, it is abundantly clear that I am not alone in my 
transgression of rfc1591. As I recall, one of the IAHC drafts 
recommended that the definitions for .net and .org just be dropped, 
because they were widely ignored. The lesson to be learned from this 
is that charters without clear definition and *legal* teeth will be 
ignored. 


Further, the IAHC reports define gTLDs as TLDs with essentially free 
registration -- the *definition* of a gTLD is that it doesn't impose 
any but the most general requirements for registration --people chose 
a particular gTLD because of what it means to them, not because of a 
structured meaning imposed by the charter. 


With this definition of a gTLD (the definition I believe the gTLD MoU 
was based on) there only needs to be one charter for all the gTLDs -- 
a charter that defines this open registration policy. 


TLDs with structured charters have been referred to as "specialized 
TLDs" (sTLDs). It is my belief that a charter for a TLD is pointless 
unless it has some enforcement mechanism defined. The charter for a 
sTLD becomes a feature of the registration agreement that every 
domain holder in that TLD signs, and the defined enforcement 
mechanism is what allows the registrar/registry to enforce the 
policies defined in the charter. 



-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
===================================================================
http://new.chathttp://new.chat.new.net/viewtopic.php?t=118DAY 10 (Monday 05/05/03) .SHOP=================
Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
0:242     SHOP


--
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