[wg-c] scope and TLDs (was: proprietary)

[Eric Brunner <brunner@world.std.com>]

A comment on Milton's critique of Position Paper E, appearing under the
subject line of "proprietary TLDs".

1. "naa" is a 3-string, any string will do, but 2-strings are not available
   and 1-strings are reserved to the IANA.
2. A delegation is sought. Postel didn't create Crown Soverignty by the .uk
   creation, ICANN won't either. ICANN operates under private law, those of
   a body incorporated in the State of California.
3. an application to do something is a position paper.
4. originally we suggested seven regionals (1997), but a) we're ready and
   b) 6-10 provides a real constraint, and c) we are directed by the NCAI/AFN
   to attempt to provide for all Indigenous Peoples. See the ASO registries
   for extra-scope trust models, e.g., RIPE for Africa.
5. The term limit and property claims revisits 2, above. Asked and answered.
6. NSI won't have record create or modify access to the registry, based on
   practice. The IANA won't have similar access to the registry, based on
   jurisdictional claims. Some ccTLD registry operators may have record
   create or modify access to the registry if it solves reasonable problems
   reasonably. There are no other non-hyothetical registry operatrs.
7. This proposal assumes ICANN has the capacity to exercise discretion.

This attempts to address the points raised by Milton in the order raised.

Cheers and Happy Leftovers,
Eric