From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #63 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Sunday, March 26 2000 Volume 01 : Number 063 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:10:42 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: Re: [wg-c] Application Requirements? Kendall, how about we seporate out the common items and make that a general section to the application and then develop appropiate questions for each instance where policy could be diferent. If the shaired or chartered items are necessassary then we can use those sections once they are developed. at least this way we don't have to answer the questions of which registry model is acceptable before we can move forward on developing the applications. also, in developing the applications for shaired and chartered TLDs we will probably come up with some good questions for the group. - -rick On Sat, 25 Mar 2000, Kendall Dawson wrote: > 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. > > ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 22:37:24 -0500 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] Application Requirements Hi Rick, Were you thinking something along these lines? I have also posted a HTML version of this list here: http://paradigm.nu/dnso/ and would be happy to maintain and update it as the document evolves with feedback from other WG-C members. If we could agree on some of the common elements that would part of such an application now - it will save time in the future while we discuss more important issues such as Registry Models. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for this list and I will add them. Does anyone else have any suggestions? Kendall - -----------Original message ----------- From: Rick H Wesson Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:10:42 (PST) how about we separate out the common items and make that a general section to the application and then develop appropriate questions for each instance where policy could be different. ============================== Application Requirements (Working Draft) - ------------------------ General Information : (Common Elements) - ------------------------ Full name Mailing Address Phone and Fax Numbers Public key List of directors Overview of the business Business plan Technical capabilities Estimated volume of registrations. Description of network capabilities Description of telephone systems Description of computer systems Description of technical support Backup and disaster recovery plan - ------------------------ Undecided Issues: (Registry Models) - ------------------------ Shared vs. Non-shared: Certificate authority (SSL) Directory, "whois" and Directory services Name conflicts and Addressing Compliance to certain minimum software standards What reports are generated for registrars? How are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? Service Level, and QOS issues - ------------------------ Security Issues: Probationary phase Audit/review process Requirements that a TLD registry MUST meet, a minimum TLD SLA Protocol used for registrations Physical security mechanisms Insurance and bonds - ------------------------ Chartered vs. Non-chartered: Restrictions of current registrar status Would the applicant run the root for the gTLD(s) in question? What gTLD(s) do they propose to run? Trademark and ownership issues (WIPO recommendations) - ------------------------ Commercial vs. Non-commercial: Fees - price and billing requirements, how will the registry bill their clients? What should happen in the case of business failure or bankruptcy ? Business and revenue model - ------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 20:13:14 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements Please add: 1. Proposed initial TLD 2. Published TLD meaning or purpose 3. Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD Let's face it, if SLDs are causing such a ruckus with regards to trademarks, TLDs fall into the same boat. There's no functional difference in the trademark issues between ibm.com and .ibm - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kendall Dawson Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 7:37 PM To: wessorh@ar.com Cc: wg-c@dnso.org Subject: [wg-c] Application Requirements Hi Rick, Were you thinking something along these lines? I have also posted a HTML version of this list here: http://paradigm.nu/dnso/ and would be happy to maintain and update it as the document evolves with feedback from other WG-C members. If we could agree on some of the common elements that would part of such an application now - it will save time in the future while we discuss more important issues such as Registry Models. Please let me know if you have any suggestions for this list and I will add them. Does anyone else have any suggestions? Kendall - -----------Original message ----------- From: Rick H Wesson Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 08:10:42 (PST) how about we separate out the common items and make that a general section to the application and then develop appropriate questions for each instance where policy could be different. ============================== Application Requirements (Working Draft) - ------------------------ General Information : (Common Elements) - ------------------------ Full name Mailing Address Phone and Fax Numbers Public key List of directors Overview of the business Business plan Technical capabilities Estimated volume of registrations. Description of network capabilities Description of telephone systems Description of computer systems Description of technical support Backup and disaster recovery plan - ------------------------ Undecided Issues: (Registry Models) - ------------------------ Shared vs. Non-shared: Certificate authority (SSL) Directory, "whois" and Directory services Name conflicts and Addressing Compliance to certain minimum software standards What reports are generated for registrars? How are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? Service Level, and QOS issues - ------------------------ Security Issues: Probationary phase Audit/review process Requirements that a TLD registry MUST meet, a minimum TLD SLA Protocol used for registrations Physical security mechanisms Insurance and bonds - ------------------------ Chartered vs. Non-chartered: Restrictions of current registrar status Would the applicant run the root for the gTLD(s) in question? What gTLD(s) do they propose to run? Trademark and ownership issues (WIPO recommendations) - ------------------------ Commercial vs. Non-commercial: Fees - price and billing requirements, how will the registry bill their clients? What should happen in the case of business failure or bankruptcy ? Business and revenue model - ------------------------ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:03:17 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > Please add: > > 1. Proposed initial TLD > 2. Published TLD meaning or purpose > 3. Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD > > Let's face it, if SLDs are causing such a ruckus with regards to > trademarks, TLDs fall into the same boat. There's no functional > difference in the trademark issues between ibm.com and .ibm I believe the trademark office has already indicated guidelines to deny TLD's trademark status. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE43ZoV8zLmV94Pz+IRAmjUAJ4hqojvSV88b3h9qtuEMfhaQBjodACfUEHT QfKrx475JsdWlqD8IeqZDa0= =MWiU - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 21:12:49 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements I'm not talking about the TLD as a trademark. I'm talking about the TLD as infringing on SOME OTHER trademark. Example would be .ibm - ignore the dot, and "ibm" is a trademark, no? Regardless, the USPTO's guidelines do not have the force of law, as I understand it. They're guidelines, unchallenged. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web - -----Original Message----- From: William X. Walsh [mailto:william@userfriendly.com] Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 9:03 PM To: Christopher Ambler Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; wessorh@ar.com; Kendall Dawson Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 26-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > Please add: > > 1. Proposed initial TLD > 2. Published TLD meaning or purpose > 3. Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD > > Let's face it, if SLDs are causing such a ruckus with regards to > trademarks, TLDs fall into the same boat. There's no functional > difference in the trademark issues between ibm.com and .ibm I believe the trademark office has already indicated guidelines to deny TLD's trademark status. - - -- 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/ iD8DBQE43ZoV8zLmV94Pz+IRAmjUAJ4hqojvSV88b3h9qtuEMfhaQBjodACfUEHT QfKrx475JsdWlqD8IeqZDa0= =MWiU - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:45:51 -0800 (PST) From: Rick H Wesson Subject: [wg-c] pointer to Sheppard/Kleiman princilials does anyone have a pointer to the Sheppard/Kleiman principials that were discussed here last month? thanks, - -rick ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 05:48:17 -0500 From: Kendall Dawson Subject: [wg-c] Application Requirements I've updated the list to include your suggestions: http://paradigm.nu/dnso/ If others have comments/additions/modifications - please send them in. Kendall ======================================== Application Requirements (Working Draft) - 3/26/2000 ======================================== General Information : Common Elements Qualification of the Registry - - ---------------------------------------- · Full name · Mailing Address · Phone and Fax Numbers · Public Key · List of directors · Business plan · Backup and disaster recovery plan · Technical capabilities · Description of network capabilities · Description of telephone systems · Description of computer systems · Description of technical support Nature of the TLD - - ---------------------------------------- · Proposed initial TLD · Published TLD meaning or purpose · Estimated volume of registrations. · Would applicant run the root for the TLD? · Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD · For-Profit or Non-Profit? · Price and billing requirements · Business and revenue model · Chartered or Open? · What are the restrictions? ======================================== Undecided Issues: - ---------------------------------------- Shared vs. Non-shared · Protocol(s) used for registration (SRP) · Certificate authority (SSL) · Directory, "whois" and Directory services · Compliance to minimum software standards · What reports are generated for registrars? · How are the gTLD root servers operated and updated? · Service Level, and QOS issues Trademark Issues: · Name conflicts (UDRP) · Protection for famous and well-known trademarks · Centralized access to "whois" data Security Issues: · Stability · What about business failure or bankruptcy ? · Probationary phase requirements · Audit/review process · Minimum TLD SLA · Physical security mechanisms · Insurance and bonds ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2000 09:29:43 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements But, it is not entirely clear that the ruling would stand up in court becasue they have ALREADY issued TM status to some TLDs and SLDs. What are they going to do, recind those status assignments? They simple fact that the history shows severe waffling, on the part of USPTO, makes the outcome of such a case very questionable. This also reflects poorly on those running the USPTO . It also make whatever decisions that they make, in this context, subject to appeals, making USPTO less authoritative than the courts in this regard. > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of > William X. Walsh > Sent: Saturday, March 25, 2000 9:03 PM > To: Christopher Ambler > Cc: wg-c@dnso.org; wessorh@ar.com; Kendall Dawson > Subject: RE: [wg-c] Application Requirements > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 26-Mar-2000 Christopher Ambler wrote: > > Please add: > > > > 1. Proposed initial TLD > > 2. Published TLD meaning or purpose > > 3. Supporting documentation relating to trademark status of TLD > > > > Let's face it, if SLDs are causing such a ruckus with regards to > > trademarks, TLDs fall into the same boat. There's no functional > > difference in the trademark issues between ibm.com and .ibm > > I believe the trademark office has already indicated > guidelines to deny TLD's > trademark status. > > - -- > 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/ > > iD8DBQE43ZoV8zLmV94Pz+IRAmjUAJ4hqojvSV88b3h9qtuEMfhaQBjodACfUEHT > QfKrx475JsdWlqD8IeqZDa0= > =MWiU > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #63 *************************