Re: [wg-review] domain names and easy access to public info

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jan 16, 2001 at 11:51:01AM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
[...]
> 
> 	Run the root under ICANN contract as a public service.

In progress

> 	Let each country's gov't decide how to run its ccTLD.

Can't be done without extensive rework of the relationships with the 
current ccTLD operators.  In any case, the ccTLD issue is extremely 
complex.

> 	Let the US gov't continue to run .gov and .mil as it wills.

Done.

> 	Add a few dozen new global TLDs to ensure competition.

In progress.

> 	For each TLD in .com, .org, .net and new ones, give some organisation
> 	 rights to control registration and the TLD DNS.

In progress.

> At that point, the root is perhaps 20 computers scattered about the planet.
> They require little admininstrative attention; none of the data ever changes
> except when a new TLD is added or the servers for the TLD roots change.
> 
> Once that is done, of course you put procedures in place to deal with
> changes.

The procedures have to be at least partially developed before contracts 
can be signed.  

> If the operator of .xyz is utterly rogue, warn all the users with second
> level domains there that the operator is in danger of suspension. If their
> collective howls don't straighten the operator out quickly, warn them
> again. Notify them of the date of suspension and who the new registrar
> will be. Optionally, require the new registrar to give them some special
> deal as part of the price for acquiring the TLD.
> 
> Once the notice expires, pull the plug.

Much better would be to do what ICANN actually did, which was to require
that the operators escrow their data in in favor of ICANN, so that the
SLD registration information is not lost.  In that case the data is
simply handed to a new operator, with minimal damage to SLD registrants. 

> > 2. ICANN is not strong enough yet to face lawsuits from operators whose
> > license they will suspend. Suspending licenses for TLDs is a very serious
> > thing.
> 
> It is no more serious legally than killing a domain under the URDP.

Nope.  The legal basis for the UDRP is totally different.

> In
> both cases you stop a service that a business (or individual in the case
> of domain names) may rely on, thereby exposing yourself to libility. The
> legal issues are the same.

That isn't true, and even if it was true, it is irrelevant.  At the most
basic level, an action that is likely to cause thousands of lawsuits is
a vastly different legal matter than a single lawsuit.  The economic 
consequences are very different, as well.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html