Onward + RFC-1591

["William Allen Simpson" <wsimpson@greendragon.com>]

I don't know how so many cross-postings got added to this topic, but I
prefer to keep it on the original list, thank you very much.

> From: "Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>
> 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.

I agree with this sentiment.  The question that I have is whether
RFC-1591 should be incorporated as an article in the DNSO bylaws?

Instead, I think that RFC-1591 is an established policy of the Internet,
and would be changed only after widespread review.  That is, the
proposal for changes might come from DNSO, but it would have to be
approved by ICANN.  And that means it is not a part of the DNSO bylaws.

Perhaps one of the first DNSO NC policy proposals to ICANN could be an
affirmation of RFC-1591?

WSimpson@UMich.edu
    Key fingerprint =  17 40 5E 67 15 6F 31 26  DD 0D B9 9B 6A 15 2C 32