Re: [wg-c] The legal status of registries

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

Hi Tony,
> At 03:49 AM 11/15/99 , John Charles Broomfield wrote:
> 
> >Although it is very much favoured to ignore the facts, I think that as we've
> >all evolved, the true two diverse positions that are up for discussion are
> 
> There are two other meta diverse positions.  One that applies
> a common carrier regulatory model to the provision of private
> name resolving services for TLDs, and another that allows anyone
> meeting minimal technical criteria to provide those services.

Erm, isn't that just a nice and fancy way using big words to say exactly
what I said? Your "common carrier regulatory" model, basically means
oversight from ICANN. The model that "allows anyone meeting minimal
technical criteria" is a FCFS model.

> The two positions you describe do not account for nearly all
> existing TLDs.

The view that ccTLDs should be lumped with the rest is a minority view at
this moment. I thought you would have accepted it.

> >is enough oversight there by the general public and by world governments
> >(particularly by USgov through DoC and NSF) to make sure that they 
> >won't
>                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^ don't think so.
> How about DOJ?

DOJ is important because it provides a remedial venue, not oversight IMO.

Yours, John Broomfield.