Re: Comments on Higgs

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 12:26 PM -0800 11/26/96, Hank Nussbacher wrote:

> 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?

Cough... IAHC... cough... ;)

> 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.
>

They will, and some already have. .INT is an obvious example of a
domain which must have close supervision. Is the IAHC prepared to put
.INT into a shared situation? I don't think so. So you have to have
this classification.

> >      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.
>

This is OK by me. But I think the pendulum is swinging towards private
TLDs in the long term. No-one said you have to grant any more tho'.

> >   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?

Cough... IAHC... cough...

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

Example - NSI is the trustee, Mark Kosters/Dave Graves are the managers
(apologies if I've screwed up their job functions).

> >   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.  :-)
>

Mmmmm... it could be said IANA is hoarding every TLD not delegated. Do
you see where this notion is going? The reason I put it in there is
because EVERY registry license IANA grants is for resale. Whether money
is involved or not. By putting it in, it immediately eliminates the
reselling arguement.

> >   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?
>

Dunno. Ask Jon Postel. That's unchanged from RFC1591.

> >   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.
>

No. 3.2.6. is about voluntary transfer. Sale of business, or transfer
of registry interest to another party. 3.2.5. is about IANA saying to
the registry "enough already, your contract/license is terminated."

> >
> >   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.
>

Aaaargh... it was called Corporate - it's now called Private (to reduce
the association with business). That's a booboo. Paul, could you fix
that on the web site?

> >   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?
>

This is all part of the registry's license with IANA. It should be
covered by the registry application draft.

> >     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"??? :-)
>

Typo. ;-p Identifier, handle, mark, logo, mass spamming campaign,
celebrity endorsement, or other undisclosed mnemonic device recognized
by the unwashed masses.

> >     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".
>

Carl?

> >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?
>

Why wait until the last one applies?

> >   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..."
>

The registry IS the contractor for these purposes. Is the ITU planning
on contacting out .INT?

> >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.
>

I will if they send me some rules to apply. I have previously requested
feedback, and they've sent me 0k so far.

> >   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.
>

It's funded by FNC which makes it slightly different to the others.

> >      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.

Go for it! Latin, greek, anything, but it should be consistent across
all 42 categories. Remember cat.42 (Misc.) is labelled .COM.

> 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.
>

I await the ITA's revision of the international trademark namespace. ;-)


Simon

--
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.