[wg-c] We need a root registry context

["Roeland M.J. Meyer" <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Hello Eric,

Regardless how I feel about you and your sterling atitude (sic), I have
always believed that a place was needed for what are perhaps the most
persecuted peoples on this planet, the North American Indian. Hitler can't
hold a candle to either Cortez or the US Cavalry in terms of the degree of
extinguished lives and near successful genocide. Perhaps my writing was no
more clear than yours usually is, but I thought that I had stated my
tendencies along those lines. Nevertheless, I am stating so now.

That said, I still don't believe that NAA should have any more precedence
than the rest of the TLDs in waiting (and currently staged on the
SuperRoot.NET, DSO.NET, and MHSC.NET servers). If you are willing to set up
TLD root-servers then MHSC will stage NAA along with everyone else in
waiting.

We continually seem to be getting ahead of ourselves here and start arguing
the merits, if any, of particular TLD types/names over others. That is a
waste of time until we get a root-registry process sorted out. We can never
have a meaningfull discussion on the topic until we have the relevant
context for it. That context does not yet exist and never has. IMHO, we need
to create it now.

The first step to creating such a context is to define the components. Will
you join me in begining such a discussion?

Can we begin by agreeing that this is not a zero-sum game? Can anyone else
agree with this?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Eric
> Brunner
> Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 7:46 PM
> To: wg-c@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-c] bounced message, reposted for ... and The
> limits of
> ...
>
>
>
> Several weeks ago I attempted to elicit Mr. Ambler's issues,
> and was unable
> to progress beyond the expression of fear to which Kent has
> attempted to
> allay. I was briefly curious how his initial suggestion that
> we "get behind
> B and wait" transformed into "never", but some things are
> better left to
> others, along with the predictable expressions by Mssrs Walsh
> and Meyer.
>
> The first point, an informational one, with significant
> consequences, is
> that in Canada, the US and so on, "Indian" in all of its
> variations, viz:
> 	Canada	Treaty, Metis, Inuit, etc.
> 	US	American Indian, Aleut, Eskimo, Hawai'ian, etc.
> is a political classification, not an apolitical "ethnic" or
> "race" catagory.
> This has a direct bearing on the nature of the claim available.
>
> The second point is simply to confirm the statement of the
> NCAI text, the
> registry sought is to be operated by and for, not for the
> exclusive use of.
> If one wants to look at exclusive use registries, a point
> Milt managed not
> to take when drafting an avoidable error in his B text, the
> NSN.US is the
> cannonical example. As a corollary, songbird.com.naa is a
> given, as are our
> other trading partners, such as IBM.
>
> Is .NAA just a gTLD with a *more* restrictive set of
> Intellectual Property
> criteria? This is the finest concise statement I've come
> across, but a few
> nuances are present. First, "Indian Country" exists legally,
> throughout but
> not uniformly, in the Americas. There are underlying legal
> jurisdictions,
> about 588 in the US, and 608 in Canada, unlike the current
> NSI operated gTLDs
> .COM/.ORG/.NET. Second, none of these governments are parties
> to the set of
> treaties that form the international IP regime, instead they
> are parties to
> the Mataatua Declaration and the Protection of the Heritage
> of Indigenous
> People (E/CN.4/Sub.2/1995/26), and related Indigenous and UN
> HRC Drafts.
> This difference is reflected in the contrast between Article
> 8 (j) of the
> CBD and Article 27.3.(b) of the TRIPS Agreement.
>
> The short form is, in the trademark domain, there is little
> substantive
> difference between the colonial and indigenous IP systems,
> and the edge
> cases are distillers, sports and sex clubs who manage to
> pirate marks in
> what amounts to a grey market.
>
> However, the answer must be no. There is not just the
> jurisdictional bits
> of difference, and the theory of marks bits of difference,
> but the scope
> of policy. The Mexican State selected Linux for the Mexican
> K12 system.
> That is policy. NSI no longer even requires proof of
> 501(c)(3) status for
> a US registrant into the .ORG gTLD. That is non-policy. We have policy
> goals distinct from NSI's, and distinct from replicating
> NSI's experience.
>
> We originally proposed a set of seven (7) regional registries
> to Jon Postel,
> knowing that the condition of "statelessness" was not unique
> to any group,
> or any continent. In the context of 6-10, asking for 7 seemed
> ingracious,
> and we intend, like RIPE and ARIN do for the African and
> South American
> Address Registries, to be trustees of or hosts for Indigenous
> Peoples until
> the regional model or some other alternative to the colonial
> states model
> is available.
>
> Cheers,
> Eric
>
> P.S. Funny how the response to mail on risk and reason runs to race.
>