Re: A position paper

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

Daniel Kaplan wrote:
> 
> Following is a draft paper we have begun discussing within the French
> Internet community (please read the "status" paragraph before you say it
> comes somewhat late).
> 
> We provide it to the list:
> - because it took us some work to write it (in bad English) :-)
> - because we'll use it as background to some of our remarks on IAHC's
> dec. 19 draft, which we consider an excellent proposal.

  Well, this is a matter of opinion.  most on this list do not agree
that it is an execellent perposal.  Most of the comment that has been
posted here has found very little of it reasonable or truely
enforcable.  I tend to agree with those sentaments.
> 
> After sending this paper we'll keep silent for 1 or 2 days, trying to
> catch up with the hundreds of messages which have accumulated while we
> were celebrating Xmas...

  Too bad, you missed alot!  Hope you read carefully ALL of the 
discussions thus far from over the holidays.

  Now I think I need to comment on your position paper a bit.
There are some thing in here that seemed a bit ascue in my mind.
> 
> Regards to all,
> 
> Daniel
> 
> -------------------
> POSITION PAPER ON IAHC DISCUSSIONS
> 
> December 20, 1996
> 
> DRAFTED BY:
> - Daniel Kaplan (dkaplan@terra-nova.fr)
> - Olivier Iteanu (iteanu@calva.net)
> 
> 1- STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT:
> - This document has been drafted at the request of the French Chapter of
> the
>   Internet Society and the French Telematics Association (AFTEL). It has
> yet to be
>   approved by both organizations and discussed between the members of the
> French ad
>   hoc mailing list (isoc.nommage@univ-rennes1.fr)
> - While it arrives after IAHC's 12/19 draft, we still believe it to be a
> useful
>   contribution to ongoing IAHC discussions, both (i) as a basis for our
> future
>   comments regarding the draft and (ii) as food for thought in the
> ongoing process
>   which IAHC has only initiated.
> - The authors are not technicians: Daniel is a consultant and Olivier is
> a lawyer.
>   They are therefore willing to admit that some of the technical
> consequences of
>   their proposals may have been overlooked.
> 
> 2- STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
> 2.1- The DNS is not a directory. However, its role is to provide mnemonic
> ways to reach hosts, and its databases will (must) be used by the
> providers of directories.
> 2.2- TLDs are not private properties to be managed at their owner's will,
> rather they are a common ownership of the Internet community. Only the
> leafs of the DNS tree may be considered as private properties.
> 
> 3- IS THERE A NEED FOR NEW iTLDs?
> Yes.
> 3.1- Because iTLDs already exist and removing them is not realistic;
> 3.2- Because we feel it necessary to promote "universality"
> ("universality" not being the opposite of "diversity") on the Internet;
> 3.3- Because the present concentration of names within .com creates too
> many problems, the two main ones being:
>      * name speculation
>      * excessive advantage for first comers.
> 
> 4- IS THERE A NEED FOR SHARED iTLDs?
> Yes.
> 4.1- Because iTLDs are not a private property;

 This has not been determined as far as I know.  And is a matter of
great despute as to weather iTLD's should or should not be private
property.

> 4.2- Because it provides for a better stability of the DNS, in case one
> registar disappears;
> 4.3- Because it promotes competition, and therefore better and cheaper
> service for registrants;
> 4.4- Because the present .com situation results in the fact that only US
> courts are able to solve name disputes.

  This is not entirely a true statment.  The international court 
has provisions for solving name disputes.  France is a member in
good standing, with judges appointed to this court and legal redress
function.
> 
> 5- MUST WE PREDEFINE WHICH iTLDs WILL BE CREATED ?
> Maybe in the short run, not in the long run.
> 5.1- In the short run:
> - We believe the expansion of iTLDs should be an experimental process,
> and undergo
>   continuous reviews of its consequences and possible drawbacks;
> - The first new iTLDs to be created could refer to very generic
> categories, for
>   which we feel that the Internet community has a right to predefine a
> rather
>   stringent set of rules (a charter) to be enforced by registries.

  Most of this I would agree with.  Stringent rules (a Charter) is
not a good idea if you are going to be shooting at a moving target,
(Expermental process).  This is contridictory within itself as 
stated here. Broad "Standards" should be ste not stringent rules
(Charter).

> 5.2- In the long run:
> - We will always fail to properly map the naming universe. It can only
> properly map
>   itself by a continuous trial and error (or "sort-of-free-market")
> process;
> - Prior mapping of the naming universe, eg by using WIPO trademark
> categories:
>   * neglects the fact that not only trademarks are protected (there can
> be
>     protection for artistic works, for "famous" persons names, etc.);
>   * neglects diversity in the way names are protected in the various
> countries
>     of the world;
>   * will probably neglect the fact that not everybody speaks English in
> the world.

  True not everybody in the world speeks english.  BUt it is the 
internationaly recognized universal language.
> 
> 6- HOW SHOULD iTLDs BE CREATED IN THE LONG RUN?
> 6.1- iTLDs should be created through an iterative process managed by
> IANA. This  process should be continuous.

This is not how I would invision how it is managed in a free and open
manner.  I believe that Registrars should JOINTLY manage this process
with the IANA and the IEHC.

> 6.2- IANA should approve or reject proposals based on the usefulness of
> the new iTLD to the Internet community. This usefulness will mostly be
> asserted through:
> - the iTLD's name;
> - its proposed charter (see below some provisions that should be included
> in the charter) and policies.
> 6.3- New iTLDs should be created with a "pilot" status, pending review of
> their achievements after 3 and 6 month. They will then reach an
> "operational" status.

  This is a bit too long of a period.  1 to 2 months should be more than
enough time.

> 6.4- In order to reach "operational" status, an iTLD must be operated by
> at least two independent registries based in two different countries.
> 6.5- Two kinds of new iTLDs may be proactively created by IANA, with
> stringent charters designed in order to ensure maximum efficiency for the
> Internet community:
> - "Generic" iTLDs which designate a common resource of the Internet (eg,
> .WEB,
>   .WWW, .MAIL, .NEWS...)
> - Some iTLDs reserved for non-profit organizations.
> One of the provisions enclosed in the charter for those iTLDs should be a
> low price-cap for registrations, or a profit-cap for registries.
> 
> 7- HOW SHOULD REGISTRIES BE APPROVED?
> 7.1- Registries receive a delegation from IANA, not an permanent right.
> This delegation is valid for a period of (3-5) years.
> 7.2- Registries will be approved on objective criteria such as:
> - Proven technical ability to run the registry;
> - Financial stability;
> - Specific charters and detailed policies designed to enforce the
> charters
>   of the iTLDs they intend to run;
> - A commitment to have a non-discriminatory attitude towards registrants
> as well as
>   towards other registries sharing the same iTLDs.

The issue of Shared iTLD's is not a good idea and can lead to severe
legal and ethical problems.  It is not even known if it is technicaly
feasable to do it yet.

> 7.3- In order to facilitate sharing and the creation of directories,
> registries should commit to a common "replication" method of their domain
> database. By "domain database", we mean only the part of the DNS tree
> that the registry organizes; the registrants' names, physical
> coordinates, etc., are not part of that replication. A specific RFC
> should define the replication method.
> 7.4- Should registries fail to enforce these commitments, IANA may remove
> their delegation. In case of a conflict regarding the interpretation of
> these commitments, both IANA and the registries should recognize an
> organization (eg, ISOC) as the appeals authority.

 The only authoritive body that can serve as an appeals authority is the 
countries court system and the international house of justice.

> 
> 8- HOW DO WE DEAL WITH TRADEMARKS AND OTHER PROTECTED NAMES?
> 8.1- Two principles must first be asserted:
> - registries can simply not check wether an application infringes on any
> protected
>   name. Indeed, some *trademark* registries (such as INPI in France)
> don't do the
>   checking: they just assume the registrant has done its homework and
> knows the
>   risks it's taking.
> - however, we must (and can) make sure that:
>   * nameholders who feel that a domain name infringes *can* find a court
> in the
>     country where the registry is located;
>   * there can be sufficient presumptions of good faith from the
> registrant to
>     reduce the number of disputes and/or clarify disputes.
> 8.2- Registries should be located in a country which has signed the Paris
> Union Convention on Industrial Property (132 countries) and (or?) the
> Bern Union Convention on the Protection of Litterary and Industrial
> Property (111 countries in 1995).
> Why? Because if a registry is not located in one of those countries,
> chances are noone can prevent a registry from colluding with registrants
> and massively speculating with trademarks or other protected names.
> 8.3- iTLDs / registries charters should mandate that registrants provide
> some documentation which asserts that it is a legitimate holder of the
> name it applies for: first or last name, trademark, company name, title
> of an artistic work...
> The registry does not need to check for the document's validity: it only
> needs to store a certified copy. In case of a dispute, the court will do
> the checking, but this will help it evaluate the registrant's good or bad
> faith, and right to the name.
> 8.4- Apart from these provisions, registries should commit to "take all
> appropriate measures in order to prevent or limit name speculation, and
> abide by IANA recommendations in that order". Future experiences may (or
> may not) bring IANA to issue recommendations in order to reduce name
> speculation, and the registries should follow these recommendations.
> 
> 9- SHOULD WE GIVE PRIORITY TO ORGANIZATIONS WHO HAVE ALREADY BEEN WORKING
> ON NEW iTLDs ?
> Not formally, at least.
> We should definitely disallow all preemptive attitudes towards new iTLDs,
> which have used little-publicized openings by IANA to try and assert
> their rights over valuable iTLDs.

You are going to have alot of problems with this.

> However, having worked on the topic for several months, these
> organizations stand very good chances to become some of the first
> approved registries.

  I think they should be grandfathered in.  

Regards,

> 
> We welcome everybody's comments.
> 

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