Re: Comments on Crispin draft

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

Hank Nussbacher allegedly said:
> 
> >        5.1.1. Process applications for the creation of sTLDs.
> >
> >            Individuals and organizations that wish to become a
> >            registry for a new sTLD must submit an application to the
> >            LA, a charter for the sTLD, and an application fee of
> >            $XXXX  [5].  Anyone may submit an application.
> >            The LA accepts the application, and examines it for
> >            obvious problems, such as names with obvious intellectual
> >            property concerns, or charters that have problems [4].  If
> >            the application and charter pass this initial step, the
> >            application is published in an internet forum designated
> >            for this purpose, and a 60 day comment period ensues.  The
> >            application and any comments collected are then passed to
> >            an Ad Hoc committee formed from the membership of the
> >            IETF/ISOC, where there is further examination and
> >            discussion of the suitability of the sTLD.  The committee
> >            will decide whether or not to accept the application.  If
> >            it is accepted, it is passed back to the LA for action.
> 
> Without objective criteria, the new registry would sue the Ad Hoc
> committee for turning down their request.

Yes, there should be objective criteria, embodied in an RFC, something
like draft-higgs, perhaps.  I didn't really try to address that 
issue, since it has been discussed at length elsewhere.

However, I am not sure about the issue of legal exposure here.  
Suppose the combined ISOC/IETF membership were to take a vote on the 
suitability of the new TLD.  The membership as a whole decides, 
effectively, that this new TLD is not one they want the ISOC/IETF 
name associated with, for some reason.  What would be the basis for a 
lawsuit?  Karl is fond of citing "restraint of trade", but it isn't 
at all clear to me that there is any basis for it.  Any thoughts on 
the matter?  The issue of legal liability was something I thought 
about quite a bit -- that's why I emphasized the voluntary character 
of the relationship between the root servers and the ISOC/IETF.

Of course the root servers could be sued as well, for voluntarily 
following the recommendations of the ISOC/IETF.  


> >        5.1.2. Process applications and grant licenses for sTLD registries.
> >
> >            Individuals and organizations that wish to become a
> >            registry for an already existing sTLD must submit an
> >            application to the LA, together with an application fee of
> >            $XXXX.  The LA will review the application, and
> >            publish it for a 30 day comment period.  [6] After this
> >            period the LA will examine the comments, and either A)
> >            approve the license, B) disapprove the license, or C) pass
> >            it to an Ad Hoc committee for further consideration.  [7]
> 
> Again, you need objective criteria - not a 60 day "publish period"
> on an iahc-discuss-like list with a 95% noise ratio.

I wasn't thinking about an iahc-discuss-like list, I was thinking of 
something more like the announcement of an ietf draft.

Anyway, I'm not sure that having objective criteria would give you any
insulation whatsoever from lawsuits.  The IETF/ISOC could always be 
sued if someone didn't like the criteria, right?  The only way I 
could see to avoid lawsuit was to make all the relationships 
voluntary, and spread the responsibility widely across international 
boundaries.  Even that wouldn't prevent lawsuits, but my hope was 
that, if carefully set up, it would make them too difficult and 
unproductive to be a viable way of extorting compliance with people's 
whims about how things should be done.

-- 
Kent Crispin				"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov		the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E  87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F