RE: Draft New Draft

["John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>]

Jay Fenello wrote:
>
> >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.
>
>
> While I agree with your concern, I personally
> interpreted this clause slightly differently.
>
> Specifically, I support giving registries the
> right to veto policies that *they* will have to
> implement, because the only enforcement vehicle
> in this process is via a consent of the governed
> approach.  (I don't consider adding TLDs to be
> something that existing registries will have
> to implement - i.e. no veto involved.)
>
> I also support honoring the history in this
> debate.  That not only includes the delegations
> that occurred under RFC 1591, but also the many
> entrepreneurs who have been harmed because of
> unclear and changing delegation policies.  This
> includes CORE, and it includes other prospective
> registries like Iperdome (yes, I do have a dog
> in this fight).  That's one reason we support
> Fair Hearing Panels (Research Committees)!
>
> IMHO & FWIW,
>
> Jay.
>

IMO, the problem with this approach is that the "governed" in the case of
ICANN/DNSO are not only the registries, but also everyone who is dependent
on their services.  I am not willing to entrust DNS consumer protection
entirely to market forces.  For that reason, I believe that ICANN must have
clear authority to determine minimum standards that registries must meet and
to enforce those standards.

DNSO and ICANN decisions should be reached via a process that respects due
process.  However, due process does not require that every affected party
must agree with decisions before they are implemented.  I would find the
paragraph in question to be acceptable if it were modified in accordance
with Antony Van Couvering's suggestion (i.e. removal of the last sentence).