Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:16:35PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:

[info on ml.org's processes]

Very interesting, thanks.

> reactive, and will be very very expensive.  Unless you can show a real world
> case that says otherwise, I'll stand by my experience.

1) the ICANN UDRP is largely self-supporting, and does not require the
registry or registrar to deal with enforcement.  It is currently 
confined to disputes concerning intellectual property matters, but the 
same contractural enforcement mechanism could be used for any kind of 
dispute.   So a charter that set up conditions by which a complainent 
could bring a registrant to task before a UDRP board would impose very 
little cost on the registry or registrars.

2) .edu.  NSI spends very little on enforcement of the charter to .edu; 
compliance isn't 100%, but it is very high.  There are also the obvious 
cases of .gov and .mil, where enforcement is simply delegated to 
somebody who cares.  I imagine this to be a very common case -- the 
case of "sponsored" TLDs.

> > Also, even if it were true in every case, that the cost of enforcement
> > was very high (note that NSI doesn't spend much money enforcing the .edu
> > charter), that doesn't mean that such registries are either bad or
> > economically unviable -- people pay money for vanity license plates on
> > cars, after all. 
> 
>Yes, they do, but the difference in cost as a result of enforcement processes
>is going to be a LOT larger than the difference between a regular or vanity
>license plate, Kent.   There is simply no comparison here.

Once again, look at .edu.  Enforcement is not a major expense or 
concern.  Look at the disputes that are being resolved through the UDRP -- 
there is very little cost to the registry or registrar, and that amortized 
cost is less than the cost of a vanity plate.  

Of course one can imagine charters that are arbitrarily difficult to
enforce, but one can also imagine charters that are very easy to
enforce, as well.

>>> And it is for
>>> this primary reason that I oppose any measure that would require ICANN to
>>> police the registry for enforcement of someone's view of what a "charter"
>>> should be.
>> 
>> It is unfortunately a general problem that ICANN will have to police
>> registries for adherence to technical standards, operational standards,
>> and policies. 
> 
>Yes, but that doesn't mean ICANN needs to be policing registries to make sure
>they are enforcing charters.  That is excessive.

There are general techniques that make enforcement not a big issue. 
They are already being employed. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain