[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Draft New Draft
- Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 14:33:05 -0500
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Subject: RE: Draft New Draft
At 1/31/99, 01:33 PM, Javier SOLA wrote:
>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.
ORSC has consistently stood for a diverse, open,
and free-market registry system, one that supports
multiple business models including for-profit, non-
profit, volunteer, etc. We have also stood for
fair, open, and bottom-up processes, etc.
The fact that our policies are sometimes favorable
to NSI and other legacy registries should come as
BTW, how would you define "our work" that has been
rendered "useless" by honoring the history in this
More comments below . . .
>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.
While I agree with your concern, I personally
interpreted this clause slightly differently.
Specifically, I support giving registries the
right to veto policies that *they* will have to
implement, because the only enforcement vehicle
in this process is via a consent of the governed
approach. (I don't consider adding TLDs to be
something that existing registries will have
to implement - i.e. no veto involved.)
I also support honoring the history in this
debate. That not only includes the delegations
that occurred under RFC 1591, but also the many
entrepreneurs who have been harmed because of
unclear and changing delegation policies. This
includes CORE, and it includes other prospective
registries like Iperdome (yes, I do have a dog
in this fight). That's one reason we support
Fair Hearing Panels (Research Committees)!
IMHO & FWIW,