Re: [wg-c] Sunday Reflections

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

Craig,

Thanks for commenting.

I don't think that taking the DNS to the legislatures will be any easier
than taking any other complicated policy issue for which non-legislative
mechanisms have failed, or resulted in the capture of a policy area by a
non-representative group not acting in the common interest.

I'm not so much "optimistic" as convinced that the jurisdiciton issue can
be solved by the territorial jurisdictions -- they may choose to create a
new aterritorial jurisdiction, "Sunrized and then some" is the flavor of
the month, but they may also simply affirm the existing legal terrain, and
more importantly, the principle of public over private law. 

> At whatever level you pitch it, one interest group's strategic success in a
> process is another's setback. (Even a "non-zero sum" type compromise between
> contending groups can have its unspoken-of losers.) 

A misunderstanding I hope to get right the second time...

There is direct interest (parties engaged in the operations of the DNS,
whether registry operators (ccTLD or gNSI), the registrars, agents,
integrators, vendors, and ISPs, and registrants. Their "interest" in "names"
begins and ends internal to the DNS.

WG-C is one expression of "interest". Issue a "call" today with the same or
a similar charter and a different, though possibly similar set of participants
would form a mailing list. Constrain the working language to French, not
English, and "interest" in this sense would still be present.

Then there are indirect interests, and trademarks is one example, copyright
another, and patents a less obvious third, as are any other non-operators
who seek to influence the activities of operators.

The rejection of the WG-C work product (interest, however flawed, and the
wart-density is indeed high) by the DNSO NC means that parties other than
those with or wanting a direct stake in DNS operations are dominant in that
body. An effective story for the removal of stakeholders has been told, now
another effective story for the removal of private law captured by e-ponzi
schemes in names needs to be told.

Having sat on a bench with Postel listening to some Brit rant about .mil,
it isn't clear that the transition is from "high" to "low", but my milage
varies. What is trench-like about a bill concerning the jurisdiction of the
present .COM? It is "in" the US, isn't it? We lost the struggle to make the
DNS sui generis, so it is the subject of trademark law, and in territorial
jurisdictions the law is at least settled, and stability is pretty damn
important.

I'll grant you it is a drag to lobby your congress-critters, but they can't
help but register in .COM, so it isn't as if they can't be educated that the
caretaker situation for the DNS couldn't be improved.

Cheers,
Eric