Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:25:55PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> 
> > It would be perfectly
> > reasonable for some group headed by, for example, Jamie Love, to propose
> > a TLD, and contract with an already established registry (say Nominet,
> > or maybe even NSI) to operate the registry for them.  This proposal
> > precludes such a possibility.
> 
> No, it doesn't. If Jamie Love contracted with Nominet, e.g., then that would
> be part of a registry proposal. The fact that Love might be using an
> existing registry

Note above that you in fact use the word "registry" in two distinct ways.

> is certainly something that should be taken into account
> in making decisions. Therefore, the proposal MUST come from a registry
> capable of operating, and not simply be a floating idea for a TLD string.
> > Of course, one could get out of this difficulty by simply saying that
> > anyone who proposes a TLD is a registry, by definition -- that would be
> > easy to live with.
> 
> One must do more than "propose" a TLD string.

Why? It would be perfectly reasonable for ICANN to say "Yes, we think
that your idea for the '.foo' TLD is excellent, but we understand quite
well why you wouldn't want to run it, and accept your suggestion to put
it out for bid.  In the extremely unlikely case that there are no
acceptable bids, then of course we won't use it."

Note that I am not in any way restricting a registry from making a
proposal for a TLD -- I am simply saying that there is no good reason to
restrict proposers to registries only, and many good reasons not to make
such a restriction.

And, in any case:

> One must be willing to operate
> the registry or take responsibility for contracting with an operator, define
> registration criteria, etc.

"be WILLING to operate or take responsibility for" is, I think, in most
people's mind, different than "be a registry". 

> But anyone who does that -- as J. Love's CPT is
> proposing to do -- is in fact proposing to operate a registry.

Nope.  A perfectly reasonable model is that they are the policy 
authority for the registry, but don't have anything to do with the 
day-to-day operation.  In fact, I think many groups would *prefer* that 
model -- the actual nuts and bolts of running a registry is computer 
operations and help desk stuff, which, I can say from long experience, 
is not exactly exciting.

Which is easier:  

1) Given an approved TLD string, find a qualified registry to operate it
2) Given a registry, find an approved TLD string to operate.

#1 is trivial -- if there was an approved string, with or without a
charter or sponsor, current and prospective registries would be pounding
down ICANN's or the sponsor's door to bid on it. 

#2, on the other hand is completely problematic.

Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to tie registry approval to 
TLD approval, and in fact, approval of TLDs should be totally distinct 
from approval of registries -- approval of a REGISTRY should be based 
on objective technical and business criteria, regardless of the TLDs 
being served.

The proposal to tie the registry to the TLD is just a nonsensical
restriction, and SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE.  All it does is limit
creativity.  There is no need to require that the actual registry
operator be specified in advance; in the *extremely* unlikely event that
a registry can't be found for an approved TLD, then it simply won't go
in the root zone -- no big deal. 

> If you think the absence of a definition is a problem, then propose 
> one.

I did, a long time ago.  I would now add "sponsor" to the following 
list: 

>                  Notes on New gTLD Registries
>                         July 7, 1999
>
>
>Terminology
>-----------
>
>database:  (abstract) a formally structured collection of data;
>(concrete) a system of computer software/hardware that implements a
>database.
>
>TLD: One of the entries in the IANA-approved root zone.
>
>gTLD: a TLD that has no enforced criteria for the entities that may
>register in it.  This departs from the rfc1591 definition.
>
>Registry: a database associating DNS information with some person,
>legal entity, operational entity, or other referrent.  Note that we
>can speak of a registry in the abstract or in the concrete, as per
>the definition of "database" above.  To emphasize the abstract
>meaning we may use the terms "registry database", or possibly
>"registry data".
>
>gTLD registry: a registry for a particular gTLD ("the .com registry").
>
>Registry operator: the organization or business that operates a
>registry.  This distinction is very important:  NSI is the operator
>of the .com registry;  Emergent was the operator of the prototype
>CORE registry.
>
>Registry administrator:  registry operator.
>
>Registrar: an entity with a direct contractual relationship with, and
>special access to, a registry, that inserts records on behalf of
>others.
>
>Registration agent: Registrar
>
>Shared Registry: a registry that allows access from multiple
>distinct registrars.

Sponsor: An entity that has policy authority over a TLD registry. 


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