I entirely agree that the ICANN (In a reasonable structure),
must have
authority determine minimum standards that registries must meet and
to enforce those standards, as John proports. However, that authority
must be based on the MEMBERSHIP DIRECTLY thru the ICANN
BOARD, not the other way around. If the membership does not have
the decision making authority by VOTE, than there is essentially
not
a "Bottom-up" structure and large cap commercial interests will
be
calling the tune. This would therefore necessarily be unhealthy
for
the Stakeholders of lesser stature, and severely curtail growth to
the
point of obscurity...
John B. Reynolds wrote:
Jay Fenello wrote:Regards,
>
> >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).
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208