Re: A position paper

[Daniel Kaplan <dkaplan@terra-nova.fr>]

Jeff Williams said:
>Daniel Kaplan wrote:
>> [...] 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 having read the postings, I don't know about your "most". But it 
sure is a matter of opinion. Isn't it the very purpose of a discussion?


>> 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.
Which is why we first put it into our "statement of principles". 


>> 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).
I don't think it is contradictory. It all depends on what "stringent" 
means, and maybe my English lacks some nuances.
As I said to Simon Higgs:
I don't necessarily propose to be "stringent" on the registrants' type of 
activity, as this would clearly contradict the "generic" aspect of these 
gTLDs.
The rules we set forth in our position paper refer to:
- avoiding name speculation
- non-discriminatory behaviors
- administration and sharing
- and perhaps, a price- or profit-cap.


>> 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.
Okay. I agree.

>> 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.
I'm totally open for discussion on this, but I feel 2 months is very 
short to let (un)desirable (side-)effects develop.


>> 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.
I have read statements to the contrary.

>> 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.
Eventually, yes. However, courts will receive considerable help if such a 
process exists:
- because most conflicts will likely be solved before they reach courts;
- because courts can base their opinion on a set of recommendations 
provided by the Internet community, as well as on the process that has 
gone on before they were seized.

>> 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.  
I don't. But I definitely would like to find some way around the lottery, 
so that these organizations do not get excluded by a purely random 
process. Problem is, I'm still not convinced there is a way around.

Daniel

---------------------------------------------------
Daniel Kaplan                 dkaplan@terra-nova.fr
Consultant     -     Media & Commerce Electroniques
               -     Electronic  Commerce  &  Media
61 rue Monge     -    75005 Paris     -      France
Tel/Fax +33 01 42 17 07 54 - GSM +33 06 09 81 03 77
---------------------------------------------------