[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Draft New Draft
- Date: Sun, 31 Jan 1999 19:33:41 +0100
- From: Javier SOLA <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Subject: RE: Draft New Draft
That is correct. ORSC defends that the "status quo" of NSi and any other
registry be maintained. Making ICANN, DNSO and all our work for the last
two years useless. If their document did not have the ORSC signature, I
would have assumed that the origin was NSi.
The interesting part is that it goes clearly against the "public" interest
of ORSC members, who would like to have registries that compete with the
existing ones. This provision would make it utterly impossible.
At 11:23 31/01/99 -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>from the ORSC/AIP "Draft New Draft":
>> At the inception of the DNSO, its members and supporters reaffirm the
>> historical rules under which all participants in the domain name system
>> have operated to date. Nothing about the creation of the DNSO is meant to
>> overturn the status quo as it exists at the inception. Specifically, the
>> DNSO reaffirms the rules under which the TLD registries and registrars
>> have operated to date. In support of such, the DNSO recongizes that
>> current registries operate under the current RFCs (1591 in particular)
>> and shall continue to do so until such time the RFC's have been ammended
>> or replaced through due process. Due process to be accepteable by each
>> individual registry, individually.
>So *any* registry can veto *any* change to existing policies, including
>expansion of the TLD space? RFC 1591 explicitly *lists* all gTLDs - any
>additions require that it be amended. Under this language, NSI or any other
>registry could block addition of new TLDs simply by refusing to assent to
>it. Clearly unacceptable.