Re: TLD charters

[Don Heath <heath@linus.isoc.org>]

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

Well, yes, and it would certainly make sense for ISOC to
support the process of the IETF.

>However, contracts can refer to them, and thus an RFC could become
>legally binding on parties who contractually agreed to follow the 

This is the purpose of the MoU.

>that the IAHC proposal will probably become an RFC.  The MoU described
>in the proposal, when signed, presumably will gain a certain legal
>status.

That's the plan. 

>However, the process by which the IAHC document wends its way towards
>RFChood is not a standard RFC generating process -- in fact, the IAHC 
>was formed because the usual processes broke down.

I don't know if they broke down or not; but, I can tell you
that I did not consider that aspect at all when I formed the
IAHC.  The only thing on my mind was that there was a broad
body of folk around the world who were not coming to any
consensus on the issues, and I wanted to find a way to get
consensus.  The issues were going beyond just adding registries
and TLDs.

>Apparently motivated by the spectre of this breakdown, the IAHC
>proposal abdicates the issue of further TLD creation to an entity
>called "CORE".

The IAHC will not abdicate the responsibility, at least for the
first set of gTLDs.  It remains to be seen what will occur in
the future.  The implementation phase of this activity has yet
to begin, but it will have to recognize the continuing evolution
of the Internet.

>First, why shouldn't CORE define new TLDs? 

TBD.

>CORE, as described, and regardless of the composition of the board of
>trustees, is essentially, fundamentally, and in fact explicitly, a
>committee representing the "registry" industry.  TLDs, I believe, are

Yes, but its makeup will be such that it does not solely represent
the "registry" community.

>So what I am proposing is that IAHC split the proposal into two

I have always thought and planned that the IAHC would have
[at least] two phases:  1)  Resolve issues and document; 
2)  implementation.  In the implementation phase, there
must be room for the committee (maybe a subset  -  or a
superset of the IAHC) to act responsibly.

>Anyway, for your consideration...

Thanks for the good words.  Will do.

Don