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

[Simon Higgs <simon@higgs.com>]

At 8:38 PM +0000 12/25/96, Jeff Williams wrote:

> 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
> > > over1 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
> >    applicationsreceived 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.

I was assuming that the current /templates/domain-template.txt was being used.

> > 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 firstfunction 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?
>

IAHC.

> > 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 in 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?

Not quite. Each TLD has it's own unique charter. Within that charter it
defines how it is to be administered, what the criteria for
registrations are, and who fulfills the registrar function. This allows
the namespace to remain a responsibly maintained public resource, and
yet fluid enough to meet the growing needs of the internet community.

> > 5. The end result is a properly defined name space that will satisfy the
> >    needsof both the "public trust" of the namespace, as well as the
> >    commercialviability of registration services.
>
>   If done as you say here, I would be agreeable.  Nice points Simon.
>

Thanks!

Regards,

Simon

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