Re: [ifwp] Re: Proposal for a new ORSC/DNSO project

["William X. Walsh" <william@tjns.tj>]

On 04-Dec-98 Christopher Ambler wrote:
> Of course, your bias in calling them "renegade registries" doesn't
> help. :-)

I have tried to come up with a better term, but none has really fit the bill
but that one yet.  :)

 
> How about we meet halfway in this thought-experiment? I'll agree that
> you make a valid point in that prospective registries should not be
> automatically given their TLDs, but should meet objective and fair
> criteria set forth by whatever procedures come in to play, but then
> you need to realize that there was a basis for expecting that those
> policies and procedures would be created long ago, and that
> prospective registries are, in fact, working "within the system" in
> as much as they're still here and participating. A true "renegade"
> registry wouldn't be participating on this list, for example, they would
> be (oh, I don't know) perhaps hacking a redirection of the DNS?

WEll, in saying renegade, I do not mean they are not participating.  Just that
they have struck outside the process to pursue their own objective.
 
> So I say to you, enumerate the objective criteria and give the
> prospective registries, who have already invested money in
> infrastructure and over 3 years in participation in the process
> the chance to meet them, fairly. No automatic entry into the
> root, to be sure, but on the other hand, no arbitrary grant of the
> TLD that a prospective registry has been waiting to run to
> another company that shows up at the last minute - especially
> if the existing prospective registry meets the criteria that is
> established.

I would agree with this to a point.  Eliminate the consideration of the phrase
"already invested money in infrastructure and over 3 years in participation
in the process" has granting any additional weight.

I'm not saying make arbitrary decisions, but if someone does come along, and
equals the ability and criteria, their proposal for that TLD should be
considered on an EQUAL basis.
 
> I'm not even going to get into "prior use," as it can be soundly
> avoided if this is done fairly.

"Prior use" would be the weakest claim, IMHO.  Not speaking legally here, just
from a point of fairness.

Let me also say, that of all the participants with an operating (will you give
me this term? :)  "Alternative" registry operating, you have always been the
one of the ones (the few) with a stong sense of fairness.  Jay Fenello is
another one who has.

And I have no doubt that IOD and Iperdome would make great registries.  And
personally, I would like to see them added into the root operating their TLDs.

My position here is one of fairness, however.  And I don't think these two
positions are at odds.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
William X. Walsh (WXW7/WW1506)| TJ Network Services - The .TJ NIC
Network Operations            | http://tjns.tj / http://nic.tj
william@tjns.tj/william@nic.tj| Domain Names, DNS, Email,
+1-(209)-493-6144             | DynamicDNS & Web Hosting Services
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 03-Dec-98 / Time: 16:44:29