[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Revised Draft
Chris,
I will comment below where I have problems with this draft change.
Christopher Ambler wrote:
>
> Based on the comments I've seen here, as well as my own, I have taken
> the IAHC 19 December draft and made some changes. This is my current
> proposal.
>
> You will find that it is SIGNIFICANTLY different than my original
> draft earlier this month. This is no mistake, as I'm trying very
> hard to promote compromise. I would appreciate feedback on this
> draft rework.
I for one appritiate you willingness to compermise.
>
> ---------
> Image Online Design, Inc.
> Christopher Ambler
> 23 December, 1996
>
> Draft Specifications for Administration and Management of gTLDs
>
> 0. SCOPE
>
> This document is a reworking of the 19 December IAHC draft
> on the management of gTLDs. It is felt that this document
> represents a compromise amongst conflicting viewpoints
> on this controversial topic. It is hoped that this document
> may promote consensus amongst the participants of this
> discussion. This document has been created by taking the
> 19 December draft and adding, deleting, or modifying
> sections thereof. Unchanged sections are marked as such
> to avoid duplication of material unrelated to changes.
>
> 1. INTRODUCTION
>
> This section is unchanged
>
> 1.1 IAHC Charter
>
> This section is unchanged
>
> 1.2 Goals and Milestones
>
> This section is unchanged
>
> 1.3 Public Participation
>
> This section is unchanged
>
> 2. NATURE OF TLDS
>
> This section is unchanged
>
> 2.1 National
>
> This section is unchanged
>
> 2.2 International
>
> This section is unchanged, with the following addendum
>
> The only other International TLD to be considered is
> the .arpa TLD, which is used for reverse mapping
> (in-addr.arpa). The operation of the .int and .arpa
> TLDs will be defined and implemented by CORE (see
> below), with the acknowledgement that the existing
> registrar, NSI, currently operates .arpa and .int.
>
> 2.3 Generic
>
> RFC 1591 [Post94] refers to the TLDs .com, .org and .net as
> "generic" TLDs (gTLD). IAHC believes that this is the only
> accurate characterization of these TLDs. For example, these
> TLDs are, in practise, open to anyone who lives anywhere
> (which is why, perhaps, they have come to be referred to as
> "international".) However, there is no criterion that an
> applicant for a domain name in any of these spaces act in an
> international capacity. For example, a local entity with no
> activity outside of the local area (much less outside of the
> country) can obtain a domain name in these TLDs.
>
> The term "generic" TLD is used by IAHC to refer to a TLD in
> which any entity from any country may register, whether or
> not it has an international character, without having to
> conform to any particular criteria.
>
> Recognizing the de facto present situation, IAHC recommends
> that the existing special criteria should be lifted from
> .com, .org and .net and they should be considered to be gTLDs.
>
> 3. GTLDS
>
> 3.1 Whether to Create New gTLDs
>
> First 5 paragraphs unchanged.
>
> In addition, IAHC has decided to ensure that the new gTLDs
> are all to be operated in a shared fashion across a number
> of domain operators, as soon as all registering entities
> are in a position to do so. This is regarded as a secondary
> mechanism to ensure that each of these additional gTLDs are
> operated in an environment of a competitive market for
> access to these name spaces, and the same checks and
> balances of the competitive inter-gTLD access space also
> apply to the intra-gTLD space through this mechanism.
>
> 3.2 Sharing and Exclusive Use
>
> The ultimate goal is to create a system whereby all gTLDs
> are shared amongst all the registrars. There are two primary
> barriers to this goal.
>
> First, the existing registrar, NSI, is not in a position
> to be mandated to share the existing gTLDs (com/net/org).
> This barrier may be removed by the voluntary cooperation of
> NSI. Until such cooperation is given, or their current
> agreement with the NSF is dissolved, this barrier remains.
> Even once the agreement is dissolved, there is no guarantee
> that NSI will share their gTLDs. This issue will be given
> immediate attention by CORE in an attempt to secure an
> agreement condusive to sharing of gTLDs.
>
> Second, while there are many technical solutions for
> implementing such a shared system, none have been suggested,
> tested, or approved. It shall be the first responsibility
> of CORE to select and/or develop, test, and approve such
> a system.
>
> As sharing is not immediately feasable, the allocation of
> new gTLDs to new registrars shall be on an exclusive-use
> basis until these barriers are removed. Once sharing is
> possible, a migration to such a system will be undertaken
> with all due haste. All new registrars will agree to this
> provision as part of their application and acceptance.
>
> In the event that NSI is willing to share the existing
> gTLDs, and a technical solution is immediately available,
> there will be no exclusive use period.
>
> 3.3 Which gTLDs to Create
>
> The decision of which gTLDs to create is a business aspect
> of running a registration service, and is outside the scope
> of the IAHC. As such, registrars will be solely responsible
> for the selection of the initial gTLDs, with no registrar
> selecting more than 3 gTLDs. Once the initial formation of
> CORE is complete, CORE shall have, as one of its operating
> responsibilities, the creation of new, shared, gTLDs at
> the request of participating registrars. The procedures and
> policies for such creations shall be defined by CORE.
>
> These new gTLD's will consist of letter strings of three to
> five letters each. The general or contextual meaning of these
> strings is left to the registrar.
>
> In the case of a conflict in the selection of gTLDs where
> two or more registrars select the same gTLD, and an exclusive
> use period will be in effect, the allocation of said gTLD
> will be determined in the following manner:
>
> First, the conflicting registrars will be requested to attempt
> to arrive at a resolution on their own. Failing this, CORE
> will assign the gTLD in question based upon documented evidence
> of prior use in the establishment of a working registry and
> a business plan to develop the gTLD in question. Should no
> clear indication of such use prevail, the contesting parties
> agree, as part of their application, to binding arbitration.
Costs of this arbitration should also be set forth within this
application as well.
>
> 4. REGISTRIES AND REGISTRARS
>
> 4.1 Definition of Terms
>
> Definitions unchanged.
>
> 4.2 Choosing gTLD Registrars
>
> The ultimate goal for registries operating in the gTLD space
> is that any qualified entity may be a registrar, and that
> every registrar shares responsibility for registering domain
> names in all gTLDs.
>
> IAHC will establish the qualifications required of each
> applicant to become a registrar. These qualifications will
> be objective and will be subject to independent
> confirmation. The application forms for Registrars will be
> prepared by IAHC, and will include the following provisions:
>
> (a) Each application must be accompanied by a US$ 20,000
> fee. This fee will be refunded in the event an
> applicant is found to be not qualified.
I object to this amount as a fee. I also object to only being
refunded the original $20,000.00. I would think that some intrest
accumulated during the evaluation period should also be paid.
Also what is the evaluation period? What are all the criterian
for that evaluation?
>
> (b) Each applicant will be responsible for payment of an
> appropriate fee for a report by an independent business and
> credit reporting agency, designated by IAHC, which will
> confirm the validity of information submitted by the
> applicant; this fee is non-refundable;
Whom are the credit reporting agencies? Some are not creditable
themselvs
I.E. TRW.
>
> (c) Each successful applicant will be required to be a
> signatory to the Council of Registrars Memorandum of
> Understanding (CORE-MoU);
>
> (d) Each applicant will be required to submit any disputes
> regarding the selection process to binding arbitration in a
> location to be specified by IAHC;
>
> (e) Applicants must commit to sharing all gTLDs once a
> technical solution for such sharing is available and all
> existing gTLDs are shared.
>
> (f) Applications are limited to one per organization. An
> organization is any unit whose legal and financial
> responsibilities are shared.
>
> (g) Award of registrar status is non-transferable.
>
> 4.3 Objective Criteria for Registrar Selection
>
> Certain objective criteria, including verifiable factual
> information as well as pledges to abide by certain minimum
> levels of service shall be used to qualify a registrant for
> the position of a registrar. These shall include:
>
> 1. Documentation of sufficient connectivity to the Internet to support
> the
> operation of a registrar. This connectivity shall have, as a
> minimum,
>
> a. Full multi-homed connectivity, with each leg of that
> connectivity being at a non-aggregated data rate of
> 1.536Mbps (US standard ESF/B8Zs T1) or better.
>
> b. Route advertisement via BGP4 for the connectivity must be
> operational for at least two of the connections maintained under the
> multi-homed provision, and the network should be operating in a
> defaultless configuration.
>
> 2. Documentation of the operation of at least two nameservers for the
> gTLDs in question (total, not two per gTLD). These nameservers
> shall run the latest "consumable" release of the BIND code (4.9.x
> at present), and may include local enhancements, changes, or operational
> improvements. These name servers must be operational concurrent with the
> application, and must be authoratative for the SLD nic.[gTLD] as an
> example.
>
> 3. A statement that the applicant intends to operate as a registrar for
> a period of time not less than two consecutive years.
>
> 4. A written offer, which may or may not be called by CORE, to operate
> a root domain server as part of the general Internet infrastructure.
> This commitment to provide this service shall be perpetual during
> the life of the registrar.
>
> 5. A written agreement that the applicant agrees to the terms and
> conditions of the sharing goal, and will abide by them.
> Additionally, a written agreement that the applicant will be a
> signatory to the CORE-MoU.
>
> 6. Documentation of a means, via the "whois" protocol, to search the
> database of SLDs maintained by the registrar.
>
> 7. A written agreement that the applicant will operate a help desk and
> staff to answer questions via electronic mail, fax, and telephone
> during customary business hours, as a minimum level of service.
I believe this should be 7x24 in terms of hours. Phone access should
be Toll free as a minimum as well.
>
> 8. A published set of policies, including (but not limited to)
>
> a. fees
> b. service policies
> c. services offered
> d. dispute policies (including refund policies)
> e. registration procedures, including all methods acceptable
Refunding policies should include intrest on full amount.
>
> These policies shall be available, as a minimum, via the following
> methods,
>
> a. WWW
> b. E-mail responder
> c. FTP
>
> 9. A written agreement indicating that registrations will be accepted
> by, as a minimum,
>
> a. WWW form and submission
> b. E-mail template(s)
> c. Surface mail
> d. Fax
>
> 5. REGISTRY OPERATION
>
> 5.1 Council of Registrars (CORE)
>
> IAHC delegates stewardship for the set of gTLDs to the
> Council of Registrars (CORE), comprising the multiple,
> competing gTLD registrars.
>
> CORE will be established through a Memorandum of
> Understanding (CORE-MoU). The CORE-MoU will be drafted
> by the first membership of CORE. The CORE-MoU provides the
> necessary contractual, legal, oversight and public policy
> framework under which CORE and the individual Registrars must
> operate.
>
> Internet Registrars are mandatory signatories to the CORE-
> MoU.
>
> The CORE-MoU will stipulate that the Internet top level
> domain space is regarded as a public resource and subject to
> the public trust. Therefore, any administration, use and/or
> evolution of the Internet TLD space is a public policy issue
> and must be carried out in an open and public manner in the
> interests and service of the public.
>
> The Board of trustees for CORE will ensure that gTLDs are
> administered and operated in a public and open manner which
> balances the commercial interests of registries with the
> public policy interests of the Internet domain name space..
> The Board shall comprise: One member from each registrar,
> and the full membership of the IAHC as comprised at the
> time. The policy for appointment to the IAHC shall remain
> as it is, with members being appointed by the different
> Internet operation groups.
>
> CORE provides first-level oversight and coordination among
> those registrars, ensuring consistent service by registrars
> and fairness among them. The details of its management will
> be determined by CORE Board of trustees. CORE will develop
> procedures for handling disputes among Registrars and/or
> other signatories preferably by binding arbitration.
> Creation of any future gTLDs is under the aegis and policy
> coordination of the CORE. CORE will make available public
> reports and statistics available about registration
> activities during fixed reporting periods.
>
> CORE will be a not-for-profit association, funded through
> member fees, on a cost-recovery basis. Fees for membership
> will be determined by the Board of trustees.
>
> 5.2 Existing gTLD Registrars
>
> Registrars for existing gTLDs are required to join CORE
> and abide by CORE principles and rules, unifying the
> handling of all gTLDs and obtaining equal benefits with
> other gTLD registries. Understanding that the existing
> registrar, NSI, is under no obligation to join CORE at
> this time, CORE is under no obligation to share new
> gTLDs with NSI. The final decision on this issue,
> however, is left to the first CORE board.
>
> 5.3 gTLD Repository
>
> CORE will contract with an independent and neutral third-
> party for operation of the shared gTLD repository data base
> (gDB). The specific details of gDB subcontracting and
> operation will be determined by CORE.
>
> Members of CORE will have equal access to the repository
> data base. Allocation of SLD registrations is made on a
> first-come/first-served basis among the registries.
>
> The cost of operating the gDB shall be shared equally
> amongst all registrars.
>
> 5.4 Second-Level Domains
>
> SLD application
>
> IAHC will specify the information to be required in all
> applications for SLDs under gTLDs, subject to modification
> by CORE. It is desirable that a domain name application
> include sufficient information regarding the applicant and
> the applicant's intended use of the domain name to ensure
> applicant accountability and to ensure that sufficient
> information is available to enable trademark owners to assess
> the need for a challenge to the proposed SLD domain.
> The application must therefore include sufficient contact
> and intended use information, appointment of an agent for
> service of process and an agreement to jurisdiction in the
> event of trademark litigation. Appendix A, attached,
> includes the information that must be included in a SLD
> application. Applications submitted electronically
> must include state of the art electronic identification;
> written applications must be signed by the applicant, if an
> individual, or by an officer or other legally authorized
> representative if the applicant is an entity.
>
> The information included in an application for SLDs shall be
> considered to be public information at all times.
>
> Renewal and non-use
>
> To promote accountability, discourage extortion and minimize
> obsolete entries, SLD assignments must be renewed annually.
> Appendix B, attached, includes the information that must be
> included in a renewal application. Renewal applications
> submitted electronically must include state of the art
> electronic identification; written renewal applications must
> be signed by the applicant, if an individual, or by an
> officer or other legally authorized representative if the
> applicant is an entity.
>
> In addition to requiring annual renewal, CORE shall develop
> policies to ensure the recovery of sub-domains which no
> longer have an authoritative source (lame delegations).
>
> Trademark concerns for SLDs
>
> The allocation and use of SLDs has raised concerns with
> respect to their relation to trademarks. It is recognized
> that trademark owners have a legitimate interest, under
> national trademark law, in policing against infringement,
> and that SLDs are capable of infringing trademark rights.
> Disputes can arise between trademark owners and
> "extortionists" - those who deliberately obtain a SLD that
> mirrors a well-known mark or name for the purpose of selling
> it to the trademark owner or the highest bidder - and
> between trademark owners and holders of SLDs for legitimate
> business or personal use. However, trademark
> considerations have not, for the most part, been taken into
> account in the context of SLD allocation, which has led, as
> electronic commerce has exploded, to a predictable collision
> between SLD allocation and national trademark law. There is
> no single, universal international law of trademark, so it
> is not possible to reserve disputes involving trademark and
> domain names to an international body applying a globally
> recognized body of law.
>
> NSI has attempted to address this problem by
> inserting itself as an arbiter of disputes between trademark
> owners and SLD holders: The registrar will put an SLD on
> hold at the behest of the owner of a trademark registration
> certificate if the holder of an "identical" SLD, once
> challenged, cannot produce its own, trumping trademark
> certificate or otherwise establish that its use of the
> domain predates either the effective date or first use date
> of trademark registration. This policy,
> which has generated significant controversy, unjustifiably
> confers upon a non-judicial body the discretion to
> essentially grant an injunction against continued use of a
> SLD, without any adjudication of the merits of the trademark
> owner's claim against the domain holder. Such an approach
> is inconsistent with basic tenets of trademark law and
> principles of equity and fair play. The dispute policy
> unfairly burdens the domain holder - who may actually have
> trademark rights superior to those of the challenging
> trademark registrant.
>
> IAHC seeks a policy in which registrars are involved as
> little as possible in trademark disputes. It is recognized
> that there is a substantial interest in minimizing
> litigation, including litigation against registries, and in
> encouraging resolution of legitimate disputes prior to the
> time that significant investment is made in a domain name.
> In order that domain name applicants/holders may be held
> appropriately accountable for any infringement of legal
> rights, sufficient contact and context information should be
> available, and there should be sufficient public notice
> before a domain name is assigned, to facilitate dispute
> resolution.
>
> 60-day publication period
>
> In light of the legitimate interests of domain name holders
> and trademark owners, and in the overall interests of
> consistency and fair play, IAHC strongly believes all gTLD
> registries and ISO country code registries should,
> therefore, publish applications for SLDs, for a period of
> sixty (60) days. Such publication should take place on a publicly
> available, publicized web site and include the SLD and the
> contact and use information contained in the application
> (see Appendix A). This publication period does not preclude the
> immediate inclusion of the SLD into the DNS, however.
>
> 6. OTHER NAME SPACES
>
> 6.1 ISO 3166 Country Codes
>
> This section is unchanged.
>
> 6.2 Trademark-specific Domain Name Spaces
>
> This section is unchanged.
>
> 7.
>
> This section deleted.
>
> 8. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
>
> This section is unchanged.
>
> 9. REFERENCES
>
> [Post94] Postel, J. , Domain Name System Structure and
> Delegation, RFC 1591, March 1994.
>
> This section includes all drafts submitted to the IAHC
> as a result of their call for proposals.
>
> 10. CONTACT
>
> In addition to the IAHC contacts, unchanged
>
> Christopher Ambler
> President, Image Online Design, Inc.
> 1241 Johnson Avenue, Suite 201
> San Luis Obispo, California, 93401 US
> +1 805 543 4716 Voice
> +1 805 543 4735 Fax
> chris@iodesign.com
>
> 11. APPENDIX
>
> 11.1 Appendix A - SLD Application Requirements
>
> This section is unchanged.
>
> 11.2 Appendix B - SLD Renewal Application Requirements
>
> This section is unchanged.
>
> [end of document]
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group.
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com