RE: PAB [kent@songbird.com: Onward]

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

Kent,

Comments requested, I'm complying.

Antony

> 1. The ccTLDs and NSI have in various ways called for what amounts
> to a veto over any policy that they don't like.  I believe it is a
> bad idea to cast that into the structure of the bylaws.  However, I
> do think some recognition of the reality of the situation with the
> registries is warranted.  I propose that the following text be added
> to the objectives section:
>
>     The DNSO recognizes that current registries have already existing
>     relationships with their registrants and, in many cases, with
>     sovereign governments.  The DNSO recognizes that there is a
>     strong presumption of continued stable operation of these
>     relationships.

Kent, you talk about these relationships, but I just don't know of very
many.  Which of the many ccTLDs that have relations with sovereign
governments are you talking about?  If you mean that governments are aware
of their existence, then I suppose that's a relationship, and you are
correct.  If you mean that there is any formal or contractual relationship,
I believe you are gravely mistaken.  Would you care to give some examples?
Of domains with more than 15,000 names in them (the top 20), I can think of
only two.

Also, rather than devolve the responsibilities and rights of registries into
a mere power relationship, especially with nice-sounding language that means
very little when rubbed, polished, and examined, why not simply ask for
continuation of the current guidelines which TLDs should follow.  How about:

"The DNSO recognizes the authority of RFC 1591 and other relevant Internet
standards regarding the administration of top-level domains, and the rights
and responsibilities of TLD registries."

That would at once protect the registries *and* hold them to the
responsibilities that go along with their rights.  Everyone seems to have
forgotten about that last part.  If you jettison RFC 1591, there are
nowhere, either in the ICANN bylaws nor within any of the DNSO proposals,
such important principles as:

      The designated [TLD] manager must be equitable to all groups in the
      domain that request domain names.

      This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all
      requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and
      academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal
      basis.  No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come
      from customers of some other business related to the manager --
      e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data
      network provider.  There can be no requirement that a particular
      mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used.

or....

      The designated manager must do a satisfactory job of operating the
      DNS service for the domain.

      That is, the actual management of the assigning of domain names,
      delegating subdomains and operating nameservers must be done with
      technical competence.  This includes keeping the central IR (in
      the case of top-level domains) or other higher-level domain
      manager advised of the status of the domain, responding to
      requests in a timely manner, and operating the database with
      accuracy, robustness, and resilience.

      There must be a primary and a secondary nameserver that have IP
      connectivity to the Internet and can be easily checked for
      operational status and database accuracy by the IR and the IANA.

      In cases when there are persistent problems with the proper
      operation of a domain, the delegation may be revoked, and possibly
      delegated to another designated manager.

or...

      The IANA [or ICANN, its successor] is not in the business of deciding
what is and what is
      not a country.

Antony