[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[wg-c] A Position Paper on some new gTLDs (v.01)
Domain Names Supporting Organization E. Brunner
Working Group C Draft Abenaki Community of Portland
B. Geogh
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy
A. Mandell
Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition
J. Cristeau
Treaty 7 Tribal Council
October 18, 1999
A Position Paper on some new gTLDs
<draft-icann-dnso-wgc-naa-01.txt>
Status of this Memo
This document is work product of Working Group C (WG-C) of the Domain
Names Supporting Organization (DNSO) of the Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), and is in conformance with the
charter for WG-C, subsequent expressions of direction from the Names
Council (NC) of the DNSO to WG-C, and the WG-C instructions from the
Co-Chairs to member drafters, shown below for reference.
WG members must submit initial drafts of position papers. We
encourage drafters to include these items: an abstract of the
proposal, summarizing the drafters' position and recommendations;
a clear statement of the proposal and its rationale; an analysis
of who and what systems would be affected; a specific
implementation plan; a discussion of the costs and risks of the
proposal; and a discussion of the proposal's support in the
various stakeholder communities. Drafters, however, are free to
develop statements in the form they think best.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document is a position paper on the issues before WG-C,
specifically on the issues relating to the creation of additional
generic top-level domains (gTLD) in the root of the domain name
system (DNS).
It joins and expands the Co-Chairs' Statement of Consensus ("6-10")
and advocates the creation of a jurisdictionally scoped, policy
specific gTLD, elsewhere described as a "chartered" or "sponsored",
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 1]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
specifically a gTLD jurisdictionally scoped to North America and the
territories, trusts and treaty dependencies of the United States and
Canada, and with a policy model of registry delegation to, and
registry operation by, the Indigenous Nations and Peoples of North
America.
1. Preface
The usages of "chartered" and more recently "sponsored" in the DNSO
and larger ICANN literature suggest alternatives to the
indiscriminate global (aka "open") gTLDs and those for which a
specific jurisdictional scope and policy model (aka ccTLDs) exists or
is presumed to exist. This dualism makes for a convenient shorthand,
but it is frequently at odds with prevailing practices.
Here we propose gTLDs with most of the attributes of jurisdictional
scope and policy model casually associated with ccTLDs, and a
specific test case for the model of a gTLD which is both
jurisdictional scoped and possessed of a policy model, a gTLD for the
Indigenous Nations and Peoples of North America.
Please note that jurisdictional scope and policy model may be
decoupled, e.g., the policy model of .EDU, and the jurisdictional
scope of .TO, to cite but two familiar examples, though a larger set
of examples is present in the DNS's SLDs, particularly the SLDs of
the ccTLDs. This decoupling is not addressed in this position paper.
2. Introduction
The introduction of political geography to the top-level of the DNS
[1, 2] was one mechanism (among many possible) for achieving the
transition of the day-to-day responsibility for most top and second
level Domain Names handling to regional registries. This solution to
one problem set introduced a new set of problems in turn:
reliance upon the work product [3] of a standards body for which
no IAB liason relationship existed then, or subsequent,
termination of the IANA's role in the definition of new top level
domains, and
exhaustion of the IANA's ability to direct discussion of the
resolution of the contractor abuse problem.
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 2]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
From that moment to the present the attractions of political
geography and those of monopoly market deconstruction (or altered
constructions) has managed to confine the terms of discussion of the
fundamental properties of the namespace to the terms of this dualist
reduction of scope and policy space available to the IANA and its
successors in interest.
3. The Working Group C Statements of Consensus
Working Group C Co-Chairs issued two consensus statements:
There should be new gTLDs.
There should be 6-10 new gTLDs in the proximate future, followed
by an evaluation period.
Subsequently Working Group C Co-Chair Weinberg circulated a position
paper addressing seven issues:
1. Should there be new gTLDs? 2. What should be the nature of the
new gTLDs? 3. How many new gTLDs should there be? 4. What should
the transition to an expanded namespace look like? 5. Should
ICANN require each new gTLD registry to be shared, that is, to
support competing registrars on an "equal access" basis? 6.
Should ICANN require that each new gTLD registry be operated on a
non-profit (cost- recovery) basis? 7. What should ICANN's process
be for selecting new domains and registries?
This draft expands on three of the seven questions.
Question 2. What should be the nature of the new gTLDs?
Fundamentally the nature of the new gTLDs should not preclude
solutions to the problems introduced by the introduction of
political geography as the one of two prevailing mechanisms for
the organization of the DNS name space. Neither should the nature
of the new gTLDs preclude solutions to the problems induced by the
reliance upon monopoly control over the some portions of the
thematic DNS name space (e.g., .COM, .NET, .ORG) treated as a
private resource, beyond both regulatory oversight and protected
from economic competition.
To this end the new gTLDs should include both commonly understood
forms of TLDs. There should be both "open" gTLDs, and "chartered"
gTLDs (aka "restricted" or "sponsored"). Additionally, there can
also be a new ccTLD, if only to provide an institutional form for
examples to late-adopting or problematic ccTLD registries, and to
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 3]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
facilitate technically uncomplicated allocation and operation of
each new ccTLD, e.g., the ccTLD which the Palestinian Authority
will eventually seek, as well as for other compelling technical
reasons.
This proposal, draft-icann-dnso-wgc-naa-00.txt, calls for the
creation of a jurisdictionally scoped, policy specific gTLD.
While it is reasonable for ICANN to create new gTLDs, first
"open", then "chartered", then "open", in alternating groups, it
is not in ICANN's interests to delay overly long before
identifying the actual requirements of both "open" and "chartered"
gTLDs.
Proposals which are for scoped but not policy specific new gTLDs,
or for non-scoped but policy specific new gTLDs are likely to
arise in the near future. Examples of each are:
jurisdictionally scoped - European Union, etc.,
and,
policy complete - aeroports only, lawyers only, etc.
Question 5. Should ICANN require each new gTLD registry to be
shared, that is, to support competing registrars on an "equal
access" basis?
Co-Chair Weinberg's Position Paper calls for the rebuttable
presumption that registry access be open and competitive. We wish
to draw attention to the role of policy in the definition of a
registry. In the Co-Chair's example, ".family", the underlying
issue is a shared policy model for registrars accessing a
registry, in contrast to the registrar discretionary model. A
similar construction will arise for shared jurisdictional scopes
for registrars accessing a shared registry, in contrast to the
implicitly non-scoped model.
Question 7. What should ICANN's process be for selecting new
domains and registries?
Two mechanisms are proposed in the Co-Chair Weinberg's Position
Paper. The first is identification of new gTLDs by ICANN, followed
by solicitations for registrars for the gTLD. The second is
selection of registrars by ICANN, followed by identification of
the new gTLDs by the registrars.
The Co-Chair offers the observation that under both approaches, a
small group of people will choose the names for and associated
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 4]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
registries of new gTLDs, or visa versa, and that the distinction
between the two mechanisms is not crucial, to ICANN or the user
communities of the DNS.
We differ. The decisions made by elites reflect the composition
of, and common motivations of the elites. The composition of the
ICANN elite is distinct from the composition of the NSI and its
potential competitors elites, and the motivation of public benefit
is distinct from the motivation of private benefit.
We are confident that ICANN will act on the issue of indigenous
requirements of the DNS root, if not now, then in the reasonable
future. We cannot even dimly foresee the epoch when the motivation
for private benefit will result in equivalent action on the same
issues.
4. Statement of the Proposal and Rationale
At least one new TLD name be approved forthwith with the intent that
it shall be run as a jurisdictional scoped gTLD, the policy model for
which is delegated to the jurisdictionally defining body.
Specifically, the TLD name "NAA" shall be approved forthwith with the
intent that it be run as a gTLD jurisdictional scoped to North
America and the territories, trusts and treaty dependencies of the
United States and Canada. The policy model, not limited to the
operation and management of the associated registry, to be delegated
to the designates of the National Congress of American
Indians/Assembly of First Nations, pursuant to Resolution PALM
SPRINGS-99-000[4].
The NCAI/AFN are the appropriate bodies to accept the delegation of a
gTLD with the jurisdictional scope specified. The NCAI/AFN are the
appropriate bodies to delegate the basic policy model articulated in
the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights
of Indigenous Peoples[5], specifically recommendation 1.8, to
establish an appropriate body with appropriate mechanisms to:
a) preserve and monitor the commercialism or otherwise of
indigenous cultural properties in the public domain,
and
b) generally advise and encourage indigenous peoples to take steps
to protect their cultural heritage,
and the operation of a registry as a public trust along the lines of
cost-recovery and tribal infrastructure development.
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 5]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
5. Analysis of Affected Parties
Only one party can be clearly identified as affected by this
proposal, the IANA. Currently the IANA functions as registrar of the
NSN.US SLD. It is possible that this registry would experience a net
loss of registrants consequent to this proposal being approved and
the NAA registry start of operations.
As of August the zone transfer revealed only 45 registered names in
the NSN.US SLD, so this effect is minimal.
The effect upon the registries used by tribal concerns and others
other than the NSN.US SLD is also minimal, involving only a few
thousand registrants scattered in the .CA, .COM, .ORG, and .NET TLDs.
6. Specific Implementation Plan
The NAA shall operate according to the public resource model
described below:
Registry data is a public resource, subject to tribal and other
privacy limitations, held in trust for the public by the NCAI/AFN
or its designates, which by default is ICANN.
The NAA registry shall operate as a shared registry on a cost-
recovery, tribal infrastructure development basis. The registry
operators are:
Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition,
Treaty 7 Tribal Council,
National Indian Telecommunications Institute,
Abenaki Community of Portland,
and (policy role only, non-operational)
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy.
The registry will be organized along the lines of the European and
North American registries, especially the French and Irish models.
Two organizational modes will be employed:
dotted suffix notation (canonical sub-domain form)
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 6]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
hyphen prefix notation (sectorial-regional form)
The NAA shall operate consistent with the norms of the international
law system, in particular the intellectual property system, and the
statement of principles contained in the Mataatua Declaration on
Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Where conflicts arise between the international law system and the
system for the promotion and preservation of indigenous knowledge, or
the systems of the United States or Canada (aka "Federal Indian Law"
and "Aboriginal Law", respectively) the indigenous claim shall be
rebuttably presumed to be the better claim.
The conflicts resolution body is the Indigenous Intellectual Property
Council and the Intellectual Property Constituency of the DNSO,
sitting jointly as collegial peers. The process model for this body
is to be determined.
Where conflicts arise within the system for the promotion and
preservation of indigenous knowledge, e.g., between Indigenous
Nations, the conflicts resolution body is the Indigenous Intellectual
Property Council.
7. Cost and Risk Discussion
There is no anticipated cost or risk to ICANN, or to the DNSO for
this proposal.
The anticipated cost to establish the NAA registry is comprised of
one-time and recurring costs.
The one-time costs are primarily comprised of the fees associated
with authorization by ICANN to operate the NAA registry, and costs to
acquire a Shared Registry System (SRS), and the costs to acquire
supported DNS software from the Internet Software Consortium.
The recurring costs are primarily comprised of staffing,
provisioning, and related costs ordinarily bourne by Internet Service
Providor entities.
There is no risk anticipated to the registry not adequately addressed
by the adoption of a geographically distributed set of initial
registrars operating on the basis of mutual trust and common policy
within a specific jurisdictional scope.
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 7]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
8. Stakeholder discussion
The stakeholders in a top-level domain to be operated by the
Indigenous Nations of North America in the DNS root are the National
Congress of American Indians and Assembly of First Nations, the
network information centers (registry operators), the voice and data
network infrastructure providers, tribal governments and quasi-
governmental bodies, elected officials and candidates for elected
offices, non-profit organizations, for-profit entities, individuals,
bands and clans, language and arts institutions, general educational
institutions, sectorial formations and professional and trade
associations, and trademark agents.
Other stakeholders may be identified as the registry operation
matures.
The stakeholders who are aware of this proposal, and the
corresponding proposal to extend the domain of "intellectual property
rights" to indigenous knowlege systems, support this proposal
unanimously.
The interested reader is encouraged to subscribe to The Benton
Communications Policy Mailing List <BENTON-COMPOLICY@CDINET.COM>,
where a lengthy review of the actual state of affairs in a portion of
North America (US) is available. The title of this extensive
stakeholder discussion is "Native Americans and the Digital Divide".
9. Acknowledgements
This document has benefited from innumerable rounds of review and
comments in various fora of the Indigenous Law, Indigenous Knowledge,
Indigenous Telecomms and Data Networks communities, the generous
reviews by members of the DNS community, and the generous reviews by
present and former members of the IESG and IAB.
Tribal access to the DNS has been the subject of discussions between
tribal early adopters and the IANA and DoD since 1992. This
particular discussion began in 1996, between the principal author and
Jon Postel. Unfortunately the shortness of life precluded this
discussion contributing to the operational character of the Domain
Name System.
10. Principle Author's Address
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 8]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
Eric Brunner
1415 Forest Avenue
Portland, ME
04103
Email: brunner@world.std.com
Phone: +1 617 803 3699
11. References:
[1] Cooper, A., and J. Postel, "The US Domain", RFC 1480, June
1993. (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
[2] Postel, J., "Domain Name System Structure and Delegation", RFC
1591, March 1994 (Status: INFORMATIONAL)
[3] ISO 3166:1988 (E/F) - Codes for the representation of names of
countries - The International Organization for Standardization,
3rd edition, 1988-08-15.
[4] Brunner, E., Gough, B., Mandell, A., "Creation of a Top-Level
Domain Operated by the Indigenous Nations of North America in the
Domain Name System (DNS) root", National Congress of American
Indians Resolution PALM SPRINGS-99-000, October 4-8, 1999. [The
text in full, reformatted, constitutes Appendix 1.]
[5] Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property
Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Whakatane 12-18 June 1993 Aotearoa
New Zealand.
12. Appendix 1 -- Text of the NCAI Resolution PALM SPRINGS-99-000
Resolution PALM SPRINGS-99-000
Title: Creation of a Top-Level Domain Operated by the Indigenous Nations
of North America in the Domain Name System (DNS) root.
WHEREAS, We, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of
the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our
efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants
rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States,
and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and
Constitution of the United States to enlighten the public toward a better
understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 9]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
otherwise promote the welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and
submit the following resolution; and
WHEREAS, The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is the oldest
and largest national organization established in 1944 and comprised of
representatives of and advocates for national, regional, and local Tribal
concerns; and
WHEREAS, The health, safety, welfare, education, economic and employment
opportunity, and preservation of cultural and natural resources are primary
goals and objectives of NCAI.
WHEREAS, The NCAI reaffirms the Working Principles stated in the Declaration
of Kinship and Cooperation among the Indigenous Peoples and Nations of North
America through the Assembly of First Nations and the National Congress of
American Indians in Vancouver, 23 July 1999.
WHEREAS, The NCAI endorses the recommendations to Indigenous Peoples
contained in the Mataatua Declaration, and in particular recommendation 1.8,
to establish an appropriate body with appropriate mechanisms to:
a) preserve and monitor the commercialism or otherwise of indigenous
cultural properties in the public domain, and
b) generally advise and encourage indigenous peoples to take steps to
protect their cultural heritage,
Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of
Indigenous Peoples, Whakatane 12-18 June 1993 Aotearoa New Zealand.
WHEREAS, The NCAI notes the undertaking of United Nations Member States to:
"Adopt or strengthen appropriate policies and/or legal instruments that will
protect indigenous intellectual and cultural property and the right to
preserve customary and administrative systems and practices." - United Nations
Conference on Environmental Development: UNCED Agenda 21 (26.4b).
WHEREAS, The NCAI further notes the undertaking of the Internet Corporation
for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) to take over responsibility for domain
name system management, and root server system management functions now
performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities.
WHEREAS, The INTERTRIBAL Council On Utility Policy (COUP) has pointed out the
economic and social value of the Internet to the advancement of the Indigenous
Peoples and Nations of North America, and of the central relationship of the
domain name system (DNS) to the full expression of the potential to realize
these values.
WHEREAS, The NCAI endorses the preparation to meet the requirements for the
operation and management of a top-level domain, and of the capabilities of
the Nevada Indian Environmental Coalition (NIEC) and Treaty 7 Tribal Council
(TREATY7), internet service providers, and
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 10]
WG-C DRAFT October 1999
the National Indian Telecommunications Institute (NITI) and Abenaki
Community of Portland (WAMPUMPEAG), centers of technical excellence.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Congress of American Indians
does hereby request the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) to create a top-level domain to be operated by the Indigenous Nations
of North America in the DNS root.
BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED, that National Congress of American Indians does hereby
request that NEIC.NET, TREATY7.ORG, NITI.ORG, and WAMPUMPEAG.COM, undertake
the operational and management responsibilities for this top-level domain,
and, in conjunction with the INTERTRIBAL COUP, undertake the responsibility
for basic policy and cost recovery.
CERTIFICATION
______________________________
W. Ron Allen, President
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Lela Kaskalla, Recording Secretary
Adopted by the General Assembly during the 1999 Mid-Winter Session held at
the Palm Springs Convention Center, in Palm Springs, California, on October
4-8, 1999.
Draft agenda
Brunner, Geogh, Mandell, Cristeau [Page 11]