Re: Conflict resolution?

["David R. Conrad" <davidc@apnic.net>]

George,

>What do you see as the minimum delay period between a name request and
>lodgement that satisfies some kind of dither on fcfs to ensure legitemate
>owner concerns can be met? Should there be a minimum hold time, and is
>the size of a pool of iTLD admins a function of that time?

Presumably these would be contractually specified between the
"registered agent" and the "neutral third party" (same contract for
all registered agents, of course, otherwise not neutral).

>What do you see as the maximum time between peer admins of a given iTLD
>to re-sync data, such that the iTLD space is in some sense "dirty"?

How often are the current .COM, etc. zones pulled down and the servers
HUP'd?

>What legal (or other) process enforces a party to honour the requirement
>that all iTLD are run as a global common? Given some peoples mail so far,
>its reasonable to posit some set of bodies refusing to accept oversight
>since they claim its illegitemate in the first place

Only shared TLDs populate the IANA certified roots.  Of course, people
will always be able to create "alternative" root servers and some
fraction of the Internet might actually point to them.  This cannot
(and arguably should not) be stopped.  However, to state the obvious
the Internet operates via a shared view that cooperation is
beneficial.  If some "set of bodies" does not wish to cooperate, that
is their perogative, however I do not believe the rest of the Interent
should be forced to conform to their wishes.

>Who arbitrates over name removal and contention in any allocation where
>one party would be inclined to permit it for a given iTLD and another iTLD
>admin interprets policy as excluding the same name?

The NTP defines what names are acceptible for that TLD by (for
example) writing the application parser such that invalid names are
rejected.  Removal thereby does not become an issue.  Contention would
be resolved (presumably) via FCFS into the NTP's server.

Regards,
-drc