Re: Draft New Draft

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Mon, Feb 01, 1999 at 04:22:28PM +0100, Javier SOLA wrote:
[...]
> 
> If what ORSC wants is to use the letter of 1591 to support that DNSO
> maintains the deviations that have been created by the NSi monolopy or the
> fact that some ccTLDs are managed for profit in no relation with the
> country the ISO code belongs to, then I am definitely against. 

The funny thing about all this is that the interpretation of 1591
that IATLD is hanging their hat on is just an interpretation.  I have
read it carefully, several times, and as far as I can see 1591 is
perfectly consistent with a strong "pro-sovereign" position.  For 
example, the statement that IANA is not in the business of deciding 
what is and is not a country is, in my reading completely neutral 
concerning whether countries have control over "their" ccTLD.

I have come to think of this as very similar to the trademark issue,
in fact.  A country has some distinct form of intellectual property
right in its ISO code.  It is a complex property right, to be sure,
different from trademark or copyright, but a right, nonetheless.  
And the interesting question here is the relationship of that unique 
property right with the domain name system.

In any case, my opinion, and I suspect the opinion of ICANN, is that
the founding documents of the DNSO should contain no policy
statements at all.  They should just describe the organizational 
structure and mechanisms.

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair				"Do good, and you'll be
kent@songbird.com				lonesome." -- Mark Twain