Comments on Higgs

[Hank Nussbacher <hank@ibm.net.il>]

Enclosed you will find comments on the Higgs draft as posted
yesterday.
The comments I provide here are not an endorsement that I agree with
any of the statements in this doc, but rather an attempt to provide
constructive feedback.

>      2.4.2. Specialized TLD Class
>
>      The Specialized TLD Class describes TLDs that are industry-
>      specific, or where a high-level of domain name control is needed.
>      These TLD's are operated by a single registry. Registration is
>      only open to organizations within the specific areas defined in
>      the TLDs charter. These TLDs could represent specific
>      industries, other closely defined market niches, or top level
>      country domains. A registry must be able to constructively
>      address industry specific issues in the context of running a TLD
>      registry.
>
>      An example of an existing TLD in this class is .INT which is
>      closely controlled and is only open to International Treaty
>      Organizations. Registry duties are handled by the ITU in
>      accordance with a policy authorized by IANA.

Who decides what gets into this class?  Organizations will come
forward and say, we are an industry such as Scientology and
therefore we demand our own specialized TLD.  I would not allow this
category due to the fact that everyone will try to stay away from
2.4.1 and move to 2.4.2.

>      2.4.3. Private TLD
>
>      In certain rare instances, it may be possible for a qualifying
>      internationally known organization to be identified on the
>      Internet by its own exclusive TLD. All second and third level
>      domain name registrations are performed within the organization.
>      The organization is the sole trustee of the TLD, and all disputes
>      arising from domain name delegation are the organizations
>      responsibility.
>
>      An example of an existing TLD in this class is .MIL., which is
>      exclusively operated by, and for, the United States military.

I would categorize this as historical and specify that no new
private TLDs will be registered.  GOV/MIL/EDU are the only 3 and a
recommendation be placed here that they migrate over a 5 year period
to be gov.us, edu.us and mil.us and when that is complete the
private TLDs cease to exist.

>   3.2.1. The key requirement is that for each domain there be a
>          trustee for supervising that domain's name space. In the
>          case of TLDs that are country codes this means that there is
>          a manager that supervises the domain names and operates the
>          domain name system in that country. In the case of domains
>          managed by multiple registries this function is handled by a
>          group of trustees made up of a single member from each
>          participating registry.

Who selects a trustee?  What is the difference between a trustee and
a manager?  If the same then try to be consistent in your
terminalogy.

>   3.2.3. The designated trustees must be equitable to all groups that
>          request domain names.
>
>          This means that the same rules are applied to all requests,
>          all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory
>          fashion, and academic and commercial (and other) users are
>          treated on an equal basis. No bias shall be shown regarding
>          requests that may come from customers of some other business
>          related to the manager -- e.g., no preferential service for
>          customers of a particular data network provider. Trustees may
>          not be involved with non-IANA appointed business ventures

"Trustess may not be involved with business ventures..."
Leave off "non-IANA appointed".  I doubt IANA will get involved
in hoarding in any way.  :-)

>   3.2.4. Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree
>          that the designated trustees are the appropriate parties.

Who decides who are significantly interested parties?  Gov't?  ISOC?
Net kooks?

>   3.2.5. The trustee must do a satisfactory job of operating the DNS
>          service for the domain.
>
>          That is, the actual management of the assigning of domain
>          names, delegating subdomains and operating nameservers must
>          be done with technical competence. This includes keeping the
>          IRs (in the case of top-level domains) or other higher-level
>          domain management advised of the status of the domain,
>          responding to requests in a timely manner, and operating the
>          database with accuracy, robustness, and resilience.
>
>          There must be a primary and a secondary nameserver that have
>          IP connectivity to the Internet and can be easily checked
>          for operational status and database accuracy by the IR, the
>          IAHC and the IANA.
>
>          In cases when there are persistent problems with the proper
>          operation of a domain, the delegation may be revoked, and
>          possibly delegated to another designated manager, or group of
>          trustees.

This contradicts 3.2.6.  According to this the delegation can be
revoked but according to 3.2.6 you need consent.  Revokation is
basically transferring ownership to /dev/null.

>
>   3.2.6. For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from
>          one organization to another, the higher-level domain manager
>          (the IANA in the case of top-level domains) must receive
>          communications from both the old organization and the new
>          organization that assure the IANA that the transfer is
>          mutually agreed, and that the new organization understands
>          its responsibilities.
>
>          It is also very helpful for the IANA to receive
>          communications from other parties that may be concerned or
>          affected by the transfer.
>   3.3. TLD Charters
>
>      Each new TLD must be created with an identifiable purpose. A
>      written charter will identify and explain the function and
>      purpose of each TLD.
>
>      In the case of the Specialized and Corporate TLD classes

Should be defined in 2.4 and not left for later definition.

>   3.4. Registry's Failure To Enforce Charter
>
>      In processing registrations, each registry must observe the
>      procedures laid out in the charter for each TLD. Should a
>      delegated registry be unable or unwilling to enforce a TLD
>      charter, then at the IDNB's discretion, the authority to accept
>      or process registrations for that TLD would be removed, and the
>      TLD would be assigned to another registry.

What is the procedure to do this?  Who complains?  Anyone?  Does the
registry have a right of defense?  How much warning before the
registry is removed from that TLD?  Who collects the money from
existing DNs that the registry made in that TLD?

>     The number of not so strong trademarks far exceeds the number of
>     strong trademarks and that the domain name system should provide
>     for the needs of the many rather than protecting the privileges of
>     the few. It is because of this need that the top level domain
>     space must be expanded beyond the currently used TLDs.

Why not try to handle both?  Why not have a .TMARK domain where all
strong trademark holders could go and be happy?

>     It may be prudent, in the case of the Specialized TLD Class, that
>     they implement a very restrictive TLD charter. For example, it may
>     be a requirement that the domain applicant is in possesion of an
>     internationally recognized in a particular area (such as

an internationally recognized "what"??? :-)

>     International Treaty Organizations registered under .INT).

>   4.4. Domain Name Disputes
>
>     It is the responsibility of the applicant to be sure he is not
>     violating anyone else's trademark. Each IR must include a
>     statement to this effect in any registration template.
>
>     In case of a dispute between domain name registrants as to the
>     rights to a particular domain name, the registration authority
>     shall have no role or responsibility other than to provide the
>     contact information to both parties. In any dispute where the IR
>     is named in any lawsuit, the IR should file an "Interpleader"**
>     before the court, agreeing to abide by the ruling of that court.
>     If the dispute is between parties in different countries, the
>     World Intellectual Property Organization international arbitration
>     service should be used to settle such matters. Until such a time,
>     the IR is obligated to provide uninterrupted service of the domain
>     in the root database.
>
>        ** Interpleader - The IR informs the court that if the court
>           will please decide who is entitled to the domain name, and
>           if the court will please let the IR know, then the IR will
>           delegate the domain name to the correct party.

This is very US centric.  I do not think that every country in the
world has Interpleader rules.  Try to use a more generic wording
with a specific USA example of something called "Interpleader".

>5. Registry Selection
>
>   The function of the registry is to support and maintain the TLD(s)
>   that it is responsible for, by meeting the TLD's charter. It is
>   important to understand that the registries serve the TLD's, and not
>   the other way around. Therefore registries must be selected to meet
>   the needs of each TLD.
>
>   New registries (IRs) will be selected by the IAHC, and delegated
>   TLDs to manage. Registrations are accepted on a first come first
>   served basis.

Why do we need to select registries on a FCFS basis if they are
shared?

>   5.2. Specialized TLD Class
>
>      Each Specialized TLD is operated by a single registry who is
>      granted a monopoly status within a specific TLD category,
>      and is responsible for registering all secondary domains.
>
>      The following criteria must be met:
>
>      5.2.1.  the registry must be approved by the IAHC
>
>      5.2.2.  the registry displays direct expertise in the chosen area
>              of business and is able to constructively address issues
>              in the context of running a TLD registry

What if you set up a specialized iTLD and the organization that gets
it delegates the day to day work to a company that can do the actual
work?  I think you need to specify "the registry or its designated
contractor, displays direct..."

>6. Expanding the Top Level Domain Space
>
>   The top level namespace is divided up by category. These categories
>   contain either the geographical location (by country), or a brief
>   description of the type of entity registering a domain name.
>
>   In order to expand the top level, and lighten the load on the
>   existing TLDs (most notably .COM), a category naming scheme is
>   needed to avoid, or at the very least, limit the number of potential
>   disputes in the domain name space. By allowing organizations to
>   obtain and use domain names within their specific area of business,
>   two companies with the same business name can operate domain names
>   on the internet without causing confusion to the consumer in exactly
>   the same way they would outside the internet. By placing each
>   company under a top level domain that describes its business
>   category, it will be easier to determine that <smith>.<meat>, the
>   hamburger company, is not <smith>.<oil>, the gas station chain. The
>   mapping scheme is primarily designed to protect the consumer from
>   fraud by describing the area of business and to establish an
>   identity of the source of goods and services provided over the
>   internet. It does not provide any trademark recognition or status.
>
>   It is completely impractical to infer any kind of trademark
>   ownership to an assigned domain name at the time it is issued.
>   Domain names issued still have to aquire that secondary meaning
>   through use, and through its ability to determine the source of
>   the goods and services provided, in order for a trademark to be
>   recognizable or assigned by a trademark authority.

So create a .tmark TLD that is reserved for strong trademarks and
follows a set of rules created by WIPO/INTA/etc.

>   6.3. Existing Specialized Domains
>
>   These iTLDs are specialized top level domains which are open to
>   limited registration by organizations defined within a specific
>   category. There is a perceived need to keep a tight reign on
>   registrations within the applicable category, and so these domains
>   are only delegated to one registry at a time.
>
>      6.3.1. EDU
>
>      Delegation of the EDU domain is under the authority of the FNC
>      and is currently delegated to the NSF which has contracted to the
>      InterNIC for registration. Registrations are limited to 4 year
>      colleges and universities. Schools and 2-year colleges should be
>      registered in the country domains.
>
>      Over time, the FNC and NSF may decide to use other delegation
>      models, such as those described below for non-governmental zones.
>
>      Some people (Americans and non-) feel that EDU should be
>      restricted to US institutions.  That is outside the scope of this
>      document.

Nothing wrong with specifing in this doc that EDU should be under
6.2 and not 6.3.

>      6.6.2.  New top level domains based upon the International
>              Trademark Schedule of Goods and Services
>
>      The following new TLDs are based upon the International Trademark
>      Schedule of Goods and Services. IT IS USED AS A TEMPLATE ONLY.
>      THERE IS NO DIRECT MAPPING OF EXISTING TRADEMARKS, FUTURE
>      TRADEMARKS, OR OTHER INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY.
...
>   .CHEM       Chemicals used in industry, science and photography, as
>   .PAIN       Paints, varnishes, lacquers; preservatives against rust
>   .SOAP       Bleaching preparations and other substances for laundry
>   .FUEL       Industrial oils and greases; lubricants; dust absorbing,
>   .PHAR       Pharmaceutical, veterinary and sanitary preparations;
>   .IRON       Common metals and their alloys; metal building
etc.

I think there is need to work out a better naming scheme.  The idea
is right but we need to have a stronger emphasis on high tech
industries, computers, networks, biotechnology, physics, etc.  These
categories are more designed for the 1920s where heavy industry and
manufacturing where the primary employer as opposed to today where
service industries like consulting, movies, lawyers, doctors, etc.
are the major employers.

Very nice first draft.

Hank Nussbacher
IAHC member
[The views expressed above are the authors alone and may not reflect
the view of other IAHC members]