<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] 0:242 SHOP...PAB Shop charter 1st draft
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|