RE: Draft New Draft

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

Correct, the last line should be deleted in my opinion.  Thanks.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> John B. Reynolds
> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 1999 12:24 PM
> To: DNS Policy; DNSO
> Subject: RE: Draft New Draft
>
>
>
> from the ORSC/AIP "Draft New Draft":
> > At the inception of the DNSO, its members and supporters reaffirm the
> > historical rules under which all participants in the domain name system
> > have operated to date. Nothing about the creation of the DNSO
> is meant to
> > overturn the status quo as it exists at the inception. Specifically, the
> > DNSO reaffirms the rules under which the TLD registries and registrars
> > have operated to date. In support of such, the DNSO recongizes that
> > current registries operate under the current RFCs (1591 in particular)
> > and shall continue to do so until such time the RFC's have been ammended
> > or replaced through due process. Due process to be accepteable by each
> > individual registry, individually.
>
> So *any* registry can veto *any* change to existing policies, including
> expansion of the TLD space?  RFC 1591 explicitly *lists* all gTLDs - any
> additions require that it be amended.  Under this language, NSI
> or any other
> registry could block addition of new TLDs simply by refusing to assent to
> it.  Clearly unacceptable.
>
>