Re: Thread 5: Defining the namespace (was Re: Thread 1: Sharing)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Simon Higgs wrote:
> 
> At 2:06 PM +0200 12/25/96, Hank Nussbacher wrote:
> 
> > At 10:50 AM 12/24/96 PST, Christopher Ambler wrote:
> > >The draft resolution, then, could be that everyone agrees to share as
> > >soon as a technical solution is found and NSI agrees to share as well.
> > >Until that time, registrars have exclusive use of selected gTLDs, while
> > >NSI continues as they have been. CORE will define/choose and implement
> > >a sharing procedure immediately, and implement it as soon as sharing
> > >is an option.
> >
> > Does this mean you are in favor of selecting initially 7 registrars via
> > lottery that will each have an exclusive over one of the gTLDs or you prefer
> > that we select 20 registrars by lottery and each has an exclusive over
> > 1 of 20 new GTLDs (an assumption is that the number of gTLDs increases
> > from 7 to 20)?  Not that I agree or disagree, I just want to understand your
> > proposal.
> >
> 
> None of the above. Like I said at the IAHC bof - these are all symptoms.
> 
> Let's do this in the right order and fix the underlying problem... :-)
> 
> 1. Define the namespace. The new TLDs need to be proposed (this can be by
>    anyone including prospective registries or organizations simply requesting
>    suitable names). Many proposals already exist in the form of applications
>    received by IANA. [The IAHC, in NOT defining their proposed 7 gTLDs, have
>    made the mistake of putting the cart before the horse]

  I must agree with this assertion.  Defining the perposed 7 gTLDs
should
have been part of the Dec 19th Draft.
> 
> 2. The TLD proposal/application explains the purpose and use that the TLD
>    would be put to. The IAHC may request further information in evaluating
>    these applications.

  This could be problamatical.  It should be defind as to percisely what
additional information that IHAC can reasonable request.  Otherwise that
process could go on indefinatly. 
> 
> 3. The use and purpose determines whether the TLD should be created and whether
>    or not it should be shared or not (e.g. .INT or .COM) and (according to my
>    telephone conversations with Jon Postel back in September) is the first
>    function of the IAHC. The basis of whether the TLD should be shared is
>    dependant on the use and how tightly controlled the delegation needs to be.
>    Trademarked names within a specific category TLD would most likely need this
>    kind of control while the delegation for general registrations under generic
>    TLDs would be able to be shared. At this point, each TLD's charter is
>    written.

  Hummmm?  How would this be done in your mind?  I find this somewhat 
problamatic in some respects.  Whom would be the enforcment agent, for
instance?  IAHC or CORE?
> 
> 4. Once the TLD is "approved", one or more registries apply for delegation
>    (this depends upon whether the TLD is to be shared or not). The selection
>    of registries for these pending TLDs is the second IAHC function. Each
>    pending TLD's charter is completed by the creation of the delegation
>    license to the applicable registry.

  Ahhhh,  this partly answers my previous question.  So ina a sense you
are
saying that for each registrary a charter is to be associated and filed 
outlining its intended use of the TLD(S) it has?
> 
> 5. The end result is a properly defined name space that will satisfy the needs
>    of both the "public trust" of the namespace, as well as the commercial
>    viability of registration services.

  If done as you say here, I would be agreeable.  Nice points Simon.

Regards,

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

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. 
Phone :972-447-1878
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com