From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #62 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Saturday, March 25 2000 Volume 01 : Number 062 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:14:36 -0800 (PST) From: Patrick Greenwell Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, 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. Milton, Your views on this issue are well known as you have repeated them incessantly over the past few day. Reasonable people have disagreed with your position. Repeating yourself doesn't help work towards a solution. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell Earth is a single point of failure. \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:36:21 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23-Mar-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > There isn't much business to be made by being the registrar for a domain > under a TLD (ml.org was a good proof) Bogus argument, John. ml.org wasn't a business, however it was a financial success. Donations, ad revenue, sponsorships, paid all the bills. It had over 200,000 registrations. It failed because of a management dispute, nothing more. 3rd level domain registries are thriving today. The one founded by ex-ml senior staff at dhs.org has nearly 100,000 registrations in less than a year and a half of operations, and they are expanding as a result of increased revenue. My own third level registry is increasing in size, and I'm rewriting the software to open 3 more 3rd level registries under more domains. I registered a new domain just 2 days ago to provide a home for the open source software for running the registry (to be released as soon as the website is finished). - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE42mQl8zLmV94Pz+IRAv0rAKDqgjYAlkx2DaD7D2bBughQkLV4fwCfVQ2q k5ZFN07Jc+r90GY33uaKb6k= =xwfr - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:45:36 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23-Mar-2000 Bret A. Fausett wrote: > I think it's an impossible task to expect to build "consensus" on what the > first 6-10 new gTLDs should be, but I would expect that we could find > consensus on what factors should be considered and what minimum standards > should be imposed for gTLD names and registry operations. The NC would use > those consensus factors to select among the proposals, and then forward a > recommendation to the Board. You really think it is appropriate for the applications to be vetted through the NC? I don't interpret the bylaws as requiring that, myself. The NC should pass on the policy recommendation, then ICANN is responsible implementation of the policy. With the current captured state of the NC, I'd be more than a little concerned about giving them more of a roll than necessary and required under the bylaws. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE42mZP8zLmV94Pz+IRAoVrAJ9xUKKzHDnE0Zwrt0otwMB7T+3T3gCg3/Mx MCRBJKKhknMdPo2YS/4GIiw= =9cMf - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 100 12:13:24 -0400 (AST) From: John Charles Broomfield Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed Hi William, maybe a bogus argument. In any case, there are a few million SLDs, and only a handful of those sell/market/grant/give/whatever third level domains in a mass market manner. Nothing stops them from continuing to do so, and nothing stops anyone from setting up their own SLD and doing so aswell. No problem. A non-issue. My issue (should you care to address it, which I doubt) is that opening up the root just moves everything one level up. The "interesting" (as in people fighting to get the control of it) registry level now becomes the root as opposed to the TLD-level which we have today. And what is today the SLD level (where nobody fights for the right to become a registry) would be the TLD level. The same viability (or lack of it) that ml.org type organisations have today they would continue to have (or continue to lack) but with a TLD instead. People would continue to flock to (or avoid) them because at the same time they would have the possibility to get their own TLD. Yours, John Broomfield. > On 23-Mar-2000 John Charles Broomfield wrote: > > There isn't much business to be made by being the registrar for a domain > > under a TLD (ml.org was a good proof) > > Bogus argument, John. > > ml.org wasn't a business, however it was a financial success. Donations, ad > revenue, sponsorships, paid all the bills. It had over 200,000 registrations. > > It failed because of a management dispute, nothing more. > > 3rd level domain registries are thriving today. The one founded by ex-ml > senior staff at dhs.org has nearly 100,000 registrations in less than a year > and a half of operations, and they are expanding as a result of increased > revenue. My own third level registry is increasing in size, and I'm rewriting > the software to open 3 more 3rd level registries under more domains. I > registered a new domain just 2 days ago to provide a home for the open source > software for running the registry (to be released as soon as the website is > finished). > > - -- > William X. Walsh > http://userfriendly.com/ > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ > > iD8DBQE42mQl8zLmV94Pz+IRAv0rAKDqgjYAlkx2DaD7D2bBughQkLV4fwCfVQ2q > k5ZFN07Jc+r90GY33uaKb6k= > =xwfr > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 10:49:43 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed If the applications were to be vetted through the NC, fully half of the members would have to remove themselves due to conflict of interest, and the other half would be suspect. Hence, my suggestion that the criteria be OBJECTIVE and not subjective. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - ----- Original Message ----- From: "William X. Walsh" To: "Bret A. Fausett" Cc: Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2000 10:45 AM Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 23-Mar-2000 Bret A. Fausett wrote: > > I think it's an impossible task to expect to build "consensus" on what the > > first 6-10 new gTLDs should be, but I would expect that we could find > > consensus on what factors should be considered and what minimum standards > > should be imposed for gTLD names and registry operations. The NC would use > > those consensus factors to select among the proposals, and then forward a > > recommendation to the Board. > > You really think it is appropriate for the applications to be vetted through > the NC? I don't interpret the bylaws as requiring that, myself. The NC should > pass on the policy recommendation, then ICANN is responsible implementation of > the policy. > > With the current captured state of the NC, I'd be more than a little concerned > about giving them more of a roll than necessary and required under the bylaws. > > - -- > William X. Walsh > http://userfriendly.com/ > Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 > GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) > Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ > > iD8DBQE42mZP8zLmV94Pz+IRAoVrAJ9xUKKzHDnE0Zwrt0otwMB7T+3T3gCg3/Mx > MCRBJKKhknMdPo2YS/4GIiw= > =9cMf > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:54:26 -0500 From: Harold Feld Subject: [wg-c] Yesterday's S.C. Decision While not overstating the importance of yesterday's Supreme Court decision to our discussions here (that case dealt with trade dress, not domain names or even word or symbol marks), it does contain language pertinent to our discussions here. Notably, that there inheres in trademark law (for all its pro-consumer functions and purposes) an anti-competitive danger. For those who haven't seen it, yesterday's decision in Walm-Mart Stores v. Samara can be found at http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-150.ZO.html. " The fact that product design almost invariably serves purposes other than source identification not only renders inherent distinctiveness problematic; it also renders application of an inherent-distinctiveness principle more harmful to other consumer interests. Consumers should not be deprived of the benefits of competition with regard to the utilitarian and esthetic purposes that product design ordinarily serves by a rule of law that facilitates plausible threats of suit against new entrants based upon alleged inherent distinctiveness. How easy it is to mount a plausible suit depends, of course, upon the clarity of the test for inherent distinctiveness, and where product design is concerned we have little confidence that a reasonably clear test can be devised. ... It is true, of course, that the person seeking to exclude new entrants would have to establish the nonfunctionality of the design feature, see §43(a)(3), 15 U.S.C. A. §1125(a)(3) (Oct. 1999 Supp.)–a showing that may involve consideration of its esthetic appeal, see Qualitex, 514 U.S., at 170. Competition is deterred, however, not merely by successful suit but by the plausible threat of successful suit, and given the unlikelihood of inherently source-identifying design, the game of allowing suit based upon alleged inherent distinctiveness seems to us not worth the candle." A similar problem confronts us in domain names. Domain names have a functional component, but also a component as a source identifier. We should recall that consumers (although this term is difficult on the Internet where the line between consumer and producer blurs) should not be denied the functional benefits of TLDs because some names also serve as protectable source identifiers; nor should we be blind to the anti-competitive effect that results from elevating the source identifier function at the expense of the functional benefit and utility. Harold ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 14:07:43 -0500 From: James Love Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed Does anyone have a very complete understanding of how .edu is managed? "Mark C. Langston" wrote: > > 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. > > Ok, so which union organization gets granted the golden goose? UFW? > AFL-CIO? Teamsters? UAW? > > 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 roung in which registries petition to control TLDs in that pool. > > In round 2, do you honestly think ICANN is going to give .union to > some unknown entity? Or are you afraid that the entity that you believe > 'should' control the TLD won't be aware of the process? If that's the > case, the problem is not the procedure I outlined. The problem is > one of communication. Perhaps the group you think should control the > TLD doesn't want or can't handle control. What then? They farm it out > to some 3rd party and forget about it, and that 3rd party starts doing > all sorts of things with the TLD you hadn't intended. 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? > > -- > Mark C. Langston > mark@bitshift.org > Systems & Network Admin > San Jose, CA - -- ======================================================= James Love, Director | http://www.cptech.org Consumer Project on Technology | mailto:love@cptech.org P.O. Box 19367 | voice: 1.202.387.8030 Washington, DC 20036 | fax: 1.202.234.5176 ======================================================= ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 13:10:40 -0800 From: "Mark C. Langston" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed On Thu, Mar 23, 2000 at 01:10:16PM -0500, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > > 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." This is an excellent solution. However, I imagine the following situation: 1) Registry or registries petition ICANN for right to host .union. 2) ICANN checks, and each claims support of one or more union organizations, 3) Registries are unwilling to work together as they are direct competitors ...and in the meantime, the only thing any of the union organizations (whose supposed benefit this is all being done for in this example) have heard about this was when they were approached by some stranger who explained to some union rep in very vague terms what DNS is and what a TLD is, and why they should bless their company to host it for them. The union rep, not knowing enough to answer intelligently, but knowing about "that Internet thing" and knowing it's "hot", agrees. The union groups end up getting used, and the registr( y | ies) end up making money off the TLD which the unions will never see, and potentially using the TLD in ways the group supposedly served by that TLD may or may not agree with if they knew enough to know what was going on. Your solution, which I like very much, works only in the case where the groups to benefit from the TLD are: * Aware of ICANN, DNS, the DNSO, WG-C, and the issues * in posession of the infrastructure and talent necessary to operate a registry * of the mind that this is something they need to do. Sadly, almost none of these groups about which we've been talking (and the union groups for .union are but one example) have any idea what we're talking about, why they should care, and what could happen if they don't. Even if they were aware, in all likelihood they don't have the wherewithal to run a registry, and would still end up getting screwed by some opportunistic third party. In short, this all-too-likely scenario ends up as a bad situation for the Internet as a whole (due to the great potential for abuse and misuse of the TLD as described above) and for the groups the idea of TLDs like .union is supposed to benefit. If it were possible to create the situation you describe above, Kevin, I'd be all for it. I just don't believe that can happen the way things currently stand. - -- Mark C. Langston mark@bitshift.org Systems & Network Admin San Jose, CA ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 15:01:19 -0500 From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed IAL, IAL, etc. Bear in mind that the extract from PTO policy below refers to the use of the TLD suffix in relation to the provision of registration services. The registrar might in theory, provide XYZ brand services for (1) providing registrations in the .xyz TLD; (2) web development; and (3) bubble gum. The provision below will only refer to number (1) and those goods and services deemed ancillary to (1) (and parties can fight over what is and what is not related). So Network Solutions Inc., for example, could own a perfectly good trademark in .COM for bubble gum and maybe web hosting, should they conform with the other prerequisites of trademark ownership (or could own trademarks relating to .com registrations if they disclaim rights in the .com element). As to an earlier comment that 2-99 is not law, well, it kinda is at this point (more accurately it is dictum and as my remedies professor once said, dictum, schmictum, you cite it). In December the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in a case regarding the mark 1-800-MATRESS (sic) said that 2-99 took the correct view. As the appellate tribunal of an "expert agency", TTAB decisions will be given deference in federal court. No federal court, to the best of my knowledge, has specifically ruled on whether it would enforce 2-99 on this point. by the way, if a company did obtain a trademark registration for the TLD suffix for services surrounding (but not covering) domain name registration services, another company would likely retain a fair use right to describe its own services (example - company one has a registration for .XYZ for web hosting, email and other internet-related services, company two could still likely be able to say "Please buy our Company Two brand .XYZ registration services." If you allow multiple registrars, you tend to moot the "Can the TLD be trademarked" issue. If a company is given a legal right to be an .xyz registrar (as in it becomes accredited), there will be an implied legal right to state that they are a .xyz .tld registrar. The .ibm hypo seems a little unlikely without IBM's consent. So how you gonna pick TLDs? At 11:20 AM 3/23/00 -0400, you wrote: > >Hi Bob, > Thanks for the reference. VERY useful. > >IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL IANAL!!!!! However, I *can* read, :-) >Some extracts: > >"Just as the average person with no special knowledge recognizes "800" or >"1-800" followed by seven digits or letters as one of the prefixes used for >every toll-free phone number, the average person familiar with the Internet >recognizes the format for a domain name and understands that "http," "www," >and a TLD are a part of every URL. " > >"It is the perception of the ordinary customer that determines whether the >asserted mark functions as a mark, not the applicant's intent, hope or >expectation that it do so. >See In re Standard Oil Co., 275 F.2d 945, 125 USPQ 227 (C.C.P.A. 1960)." >---(that is a great quote, because I read it as indicating that even if NSI >---managed to get a piece of paper from the uspto saying that they had a >---trademark on ".com", as the ordinary person doesn't consider that a brand, >---then tough, no valid trademark). > >VERY IMPORTANT QUOTE FOLLOWS: >"D. Marks Comprised Solely of TLDs for Domain Name Registry Services >If a mark is composed solely of a TLD for "domain name registry services" >(e.g., the services currently provided by Network Solutions, Inc. of >registering .com domain names), registration should be refused under >Trademark Act §§1, 2, 3 and 45, 15 U.S.C. §§1051, 1052, 1053 and 1127, on the >ground that the TLDwould not be perceived as a mark. The examining attorney >should include evidence from the NEXIS® database, the Internet, or other >sources to show that the proposed mark is currently used as a TLD or is >under consideration as a new TLD. >If the TLD merely describes the subject or user of the domain space, >registration should be refused under Trademark Act §2(e)(1), 15 U.S.C. §2(e)(1), >on the ground that the TLD is merely descriptive of the registry services." >---Hey, this seems EXACTLY what we have been looking for for a while now. >---The answer to the question "can you TM a TLD?". Answer (if I read >---correctly): NO > >That should clear up a LOT of mess wrt blocking by one particular company on >the basis of holding a TM for the proposed TLD... (Hint: They state they >have been authorized by IANA to operate). > >Yours, John Broomfield. > >> At 22:42 22-03-2000 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >> > > a simple constraint for gTLD my be that they are *not* trademarkable for >> > > the purpose of being a gTLD. >> >> Dear Milt: I am commenting on your comment on Rick Wesson's comment on >> somebody else's comment;-} >> >> I think you missed Rick's point, Milt. At least it is my point that the >> USPTO has already ruled that a top level domain does not designate the >> source of the goods, it is only a part of an address. An SLD may, under >> the right circumstances be trademarked. >> >> Here is the reference: >> >> EXAMINATION GUIDE NO. 2-99 >> >> September 29, 1999 >> >> MARKS COMPOSED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OF DOMAIN NAMES >> >> http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/tac/notices/guide299.htm >> >> Regards, BobC >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> "I've sawed this board off three times, and it's *still* too short". >> >> "Small choice between rotten apples." Dr. U.B. Bray >> > > > @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 18:22:35 -0500 From: "Martin B. Schwimmer" Subject: [wg-c] Domain Names Want To Be Free Further evidence of the price war in domain names: http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/23/free.domain/index.html question for discussion: If not everyone wants a Yugo, what kind of car is NSI? @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 19:02:25 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] The Hooker Flap Redoux A list is only as good as its participants, whether they participate via off-list or through the list. The past two days has been a mindless dip to the low-point established by Matt Hooker (and most of the same people below). Sorting is alpha on name (primary), cronological on date (secondary). Non-abusers not shown. Cheers (not), Eric 03/21 "Christopher Ambl RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<>> How d 03/21 "Christopher Ambl RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<>Having 03/21 "Christopher Ambl RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed< But to set one thing straight 03/22 "Christopher Ambl RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed< > The 03/22 "Christopher Ambl Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<> The on 03/22 "Christopher Ambl Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed< 03/21 "Roeland M. J. Me RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on n 03/21 "Roeland M. J. Me RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on n 03/21 "Roeland M. J. Me RE: [wg-c] Ambler/Meuller/Walsh/Meyer on .NAA<<> 03/22 "Roeland M. J. Me RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<> > How 03/22 "Roeland M. J. Me [wg-c] Requirements for a TLD registry< The re 03/21 "William X. Walsh RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/21 "William X. Walsh RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/21 "William X. Walsh RE: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/21 "William X. Walsh RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on n 03/21 "William X. Walsh RE: [wg-c] Registrant thresholds (was: more on n 03/21 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/21 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/22 "William X. Walsh RE: [wg-c] re: Choosing the intial testbed<<---- 03/22 "William X. Walsh RE: [wg-c] re: Choosing the intial testbed<<---- 03/22 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/22 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] re: Choosing the intial testbed<<---- 03/22 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] re: Choosing the intial testbed<<---- 03/22 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/22 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/23 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG 03/23 "William X. Walsh Re: [wg-c] Choosing the intial testbed<<-----BEG ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:16:08 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] The Hooker Flap Redoux > Sorting is alpha on name (primary), cronological on date (secondary). > Non-abusers not shown. Your arrogance is only rivaled by your insulting demeanor. You do your cause no benefit by making enemies. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2000 16:48:59 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] The Hooker Flap Redoux - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 24-Mar-2000 Eric Brunner wrote: > > A list is only as good as its participants, whether they participate via > off-list or through the list. The past two days has been a mindless dip > to the low-point established by Matt Hooker (and most of the same people > below). > > Sorting is alpha on name (primary), cronological on date (secondary). > Non-abusers not shown. > > Cheers (not), Always doing your part to stifle discussion that doesn't end with support for your top level domain proposal. At least you are predictable, Eric. We know you consider any day a low point when anything that runs counter your purposes is discussed and supported. Even to the point of calling people racists. Your pompous, arrogant, and no-compromise attitude gets you exactly what you deserve. Our derision. I have more I would say to you, but since I am posting this to the list as w ell, I'll do the other list participants the respect they deserve and refrain. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE42rt68zLmV94Pz+IRAkGPAKDrRpxK8+Rdiqauv/zbX6rP0P10TwCgmg9s hjUelS+3UwoOH8ciTl+xOdY= =hVQu - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 03:46:03 -0500 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] Application Requirements? A week or so ago Rick brought up the topic of application requirements for potential registries. He submitted a list of possible inclusions on such an application. The co-chair commented that it sounded like a good idea and encouraged WG-C members to work on one. There were some suggestions by members of the group which I have tried to include in the original list (see below). Also, Roeland sent a URL for his very comprehensive list located here- http://www.dnso.net/library/dnso-tld.mhsc-position.shtml which, he wrote was "intended it to be a running start". Does anyone else have any existing documents of their own but, with different requirements than Roeland has proposed? Some major sticking points that seem to come up -- the "shared vs. non-shared" and "chartered vs. non chartered" debate. Is it possible to work out some common elements which would be shared by either of these models? Or, do we just have multiple sets of requirements depending on which type they are? Kendall - --- "A man with a hammer sees every problem as a nail." - Abraham Maslow - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Application document requirements (from 3/16/00) - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1) general information, applicant name, address, contact information and list of directors. 2) business capabilities - an overview of the business, business plan technical capabilities, estimated volume. The applicant should also describe the proposed protocol and if it will maintain and manage whois information (like the CORE model) or provide a referal whois (like the NSI model) 3) estimated volumes of registrations. 4) descriptions of communications systems - network and telephone systems technical support etc. 5) security - how this applies to the protocol used for registrations and what physical security mechanisms would be in place. how should the issue of bonds be addressed? 6) backup and disaster recovery, Service Level, and QOS issues 7) what should happen in the case of business failure, bankruptcy, insurance requirements 8) restrictions of current registrar status, is the applicant a gTLD or ccTLD registry or a ICANN accredited Registrar. 9) fees - price and billing requirements, how will the registry bill their clients 10) operational issues - what reports and are generated for registrars *if the registry is shared*, how are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? 11) would the applicant run the root for the gTLD(s) in question. o what gTLD(s) do they propose to run. ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #62 *************************