RE: Draft New Draft

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

Javier,

Conspiracies, conspiracies everywhere.  Look before you leap.  The idea of
putting in RFC 1591 was mine, and I still like it.  I was asked for specific
language, and I neglected to supply it, and the language that was put in
missed something that John Reynolds caught.

NSI never suggested anything along these lines.  I think we should take out
the last line.  That way, we are only talking about *due process*.  Do you
think that must originate from NSI also?

Antony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss@dnso.org [mailto:owner-discuss@dnso.org]On Behalf Of
> Javier SOLA
> Sent: Sunday, January 31, 1999 1:34 PM
> To: DNS Policy; DNSO
> Subject: RE: Draft New Draft
>
>
>
> That is correct. ORSC defends that the "status quo" of NSi and any other
> registry be maintained. Making ICANN, DNSO and all our work for the last
> two years useless. If their document did not have the ORSC signature, I
> would have assumed that the origin was NSi.
>
> The interesting part is that it goes clearly against the "public" interest
> of ORSC members, who would like to have registries that compete with the
> existing ones. This provision would make it utterly impossible.
>
> Javier
>
> At 11:23 31/01/99 -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >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.
> >
>