Re: TLD charters

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@imc.org>]

At 12:41 AM -0800 1/12/97, Kent Crispin wrote:
>A TLD charter should be considered an internet standard, and
>internet standards are embodied in RFCs.  So we could just define a

	A TLD charter pertains to network operations rather than network
technology.  Internet standards pertain to technology.  Perhaps (and I only
say perhaps) the IETF instrument called Best Current Practise (BCP) is
applicable, but I personally doubt it.

>RFCs in general have no particular legal standing in themselves.
>However, contracts can refer to them, and thus an RFC could become
>legally binding on parties who contractually agreed to follow the
>RFC.

	This is an extremely interesting point.  It is identical with the
construct in the IAHC proposal called CORE-MoU.  That is, a document which
contains relevant detail and to which adherents commit themselves.

>We could characterize the current IAHC proposal as essentially a TLD
>charter for a particular kind of TLD, the gTLDs.  It has been stated

	Not quite.  The proposal provides enabling text which should, in
turn, THEN lead to the kind of charter you indicate.

>that the IAHC proposal will probably become an RFC.  The MoU described

	Yes, though what label or status it will be published with is
unclear to me.

>in the proposal, when signed, presumably will gain a certain legal
>status.

	This is the important point.  A specification of this type takes on
force of law not by the wonderfulness of its sponsoring agencies or the
wonderfulness of its authors (no matter how wonderful such folk might be)
but, rather, by explicit agreement of its adherents.

>was formed because the usual processes broke down.

	With respect to operations-related procedures, rather than
technology-related specifications, there really is little standard practise
on the Net.

>to make progress on the NEWDOM front, I still think the RFC process
>is the best one for developing new TLDs.  And I think the work of the

	What "RFC process" do you mean?  The RFC "process" is simply and
only a mechanism for publishing documents.  Some have official status and
others don't.  The official status comes from OTHER processes, e.g., IETF
Standards process or IETF BCP process.  Lest this sound like simple
nitpicking, please be assured that I think it essential to understand
exactly what you are suggesting.

d/


----------------------------
Dave Crocker, Director                                       +1 408 246 8253
Internet Mail Consortium                                 (f) +1 408 249 6205
127 Segré Place                                             dcrocker@imc.org
Santa Cruz, CA  95060 USA                                 http://www.imc.org

[IAHC member, expressing strictly (or loosely) personal opinions]