Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed

["Kevin J. Connolly" <CONNOLLK@rspab.com>]

 "Mark C. Langston" <mark@bitshift.org> wrote (03/23/00 11:34AM)

>On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 10:18:53AM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>> I agree strongly with Bret Fausett's post about why TLD proposals need to be
>> linked to specific registry proposals. I would think it self-evident, for
>> example, why labor unions should have real control over who runs .union. If
>> that means "ownership," (and it does) so be it.

"Ownership" is a fuzzy concept.  Lawyers conceptualize it as a bundle of rights.  
The question always is, "what rights are in the bundle?"  For example, does the 
bundle include the unfettered right to sell the owned thing?  Or is any such 
transfer constrained by certain conditions, such as (for example, the rights of 
registrants to SLD names).  In other words, it does not matter whether we call 
the relationship between the delegee and the TLD ownership or hoopla-frobozz; 
what matters is, what rights are in the bundle?  What duties come along with the 
bundle?

Besides, simply saying that labor organizations should control .union falls short
of answering the real questions.  Given the jurisdictional fights between the 
IBEW and the CWA, it can't be said that all labor unions are good buddies.  More
than this, there are organizations outside the United States that do not remotely resemble
American-style labor unions; should this mean that such organizations (e.g., eastern
european craft guilds) should be excluded from participation in .union?  It might,
indeed, be simpler to let the ILO take charge of the registry and let its membership
(or those who wish to do so) act as registrars.

>
>Ok, so which union organization gets granted the golden goose?  UFW?
>AFL-CIO?  Teamsters?  UAW?

All based in the good ol USA.  No reason to consider other worldviews, is there?
>
>Name any entity, and I'm fairly sure I could come up with at least two
>entities who would purport to be the 'correct' group to control it.
>
>Besides, this is irrelevant.  All I proposed was:
>
>
>1)  A round in which TLD are proposed and selected, giving us a TLD pool.
>
>2)  A round in which registries petition to control TLDs in that pool.

A logical extension of this idea is:

(A)  Process 1:  identify the TLDs to be created (gawrsh, but I think the WG-C 
charter makes this part of _our_ job); we could take registry-operator proposals
into account, but, ultimately, this hot potato is on our hands.

(B)  Process 2:  solicit interest in operating these TLDs;

(C)  Process 3:  reconcile/award registries.

In the case mentioned (.union), I think it goes without saying that multiple 
organizations will present themselves.  Why not resolve that tension by 
saying (to the set of all technically-qualified candidates) "set up a shared 
registration system (either on a coop or for-profit basis as you see fit) and 
all of you act as registrars.  If you end up playing Ten Little Capitalists, we'll
revisit the whole process in eighteen months and possibly award the registry 
to the surviving registrar, but until then, play nice and foster the growth of the 
Internet."

[snip]

>And since we've
>not come up with a solution for how to handle removing control of a
>TLD from a registry to date, that puts us in a tricky situation, no?

Sez who we don't have a solution for removing control of a TLD from a registry?  
.com/.net/.org has already changed hands AT LEAST once.  I say AT LEAST 
because the great root migration of 1998 demonstrates how easy it would have 
been to cut NSI out of the pie if only IANA, USC, and the DOC had stood up to 
The Company and its affiliates.  That such was not done says nothing about the 
technical management of the DNS; it speaks volumes about the economic and 
political reality and the need for some backbone in this process, backbone which 
has, sadly, been lacking to date.

WG-C's charter does not mandate that we develop a solution that will keep NSI 
and its new owner happy.  Neither of these entities has any legitimate reason to 
expect the continuance of the com/net/sinecure, and none of those concerns 
should color our thinking about how to proceed with the restructuring of the DNS.

Kevin J. Connolly
The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman 
Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP
This note is not legal advice.  If it were, it would come with an invoice.
As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows.
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this electronic message is confidential
and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work
product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections,
and/or other applicable protections from disclosure.  If the reader of
this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com-
munication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this communi-
cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk
at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com
**********************************************************************