Re: [wg-c] Short Position Paper

["A.M. Rutkowski" <amr@netmagic.com>]

At 09:03 PM 10/8/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>7) All new registries, with the possible exception of "sponsored"
>TLDs that have a good justification for exception, should operate
>according to the public resource model described below:
>
>   The registry data is considered a public resource, subject to
>   privacy limitations, held in trust for the public by ICANN.
>
>   The registry is operated as a shared registry on a not-for-profit
>   cost-recovery basis.  The registry operator, however, may be a
>   for-profit company, operating the registry under contract to ICANN,
>   or to an ICANN-approved registry sponsor.  The registry operator
>   may be removed for cause, and the contract would be rebid on a
>   periodic basis.
>
>   A TLD may be run under the aegis of a registry sponsor, which may
>   enforce restrictions on registration in the TLD.  Such restrictions
>   must be approved by ICANN, and must be fairly enforced.
>
>   Since the data in the registry is considered a public resource, it
>   should be escrowed under different control from the registry
>   operator, and in widely dispersed jurisdictions and locations.

Good start, but let's drop the exclusively socialist
political economic model.  Such action would constitute
applying "...standards, policies, procedures or practices
arbitrarily, unjustifiably, [and] inequitably...."

This data is not a public resource and there is
no legitimate basis for precluding for-profit registries.


--tony