RE: Draft New Draft

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 14:33 29/01/99 -0500, Jay Fenello wrote:
<snip>
>>
>>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.
>
Jay and all,

I also have  difficulty with this clause as it stands. We should not have
clauses that are open to an interpretation such as John gives to it.
The language will have to be tightened considerably or else this DNSO will
be seen as a cartel of producers who agree on having all stakeholders on
board, but make sure that some stakeholders are still more equal than others.
I would prefer to delete the clause altogether,  especially the last
sentence making due process "acceptable to each registry, individually".
The RFC's are not just for the registries' benefit. Due process can be
devised and introduced through super-majority. 

>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.)
>
Jay, I think your bicameral model should be explored more. The registries
can find the protection they need in a second round of "senatorial" debate,
better than in a first -round veto right.


  
--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/