Re: gTLD-MoU Related News (August 19, 1997)

["Robert T. Nelson" <rnelson@internoc.com>]

On Mon, 25 Aug 1997, andi payn wrote:

> Adam Todd again:
> >The CORE-MoU need gTLD=MoU to exist, so there has to be a close connection
> >somewhere.
> 
> There clearly is a close connection: the gTLD-MoU, among other things,
> creates CORE and provides it with an explicit mission, explicit powers, and
> other guidelines. The CORE-MoU defines the obligations of each member of
> CORE. I don't think this gives anyone the power to enforce provisions of the
> gTLD against individual members of CORE who didn't sign the gTLD-MoU. It
> probably does give iPOC (and, later, POC) the power to enforce the
> provisions of the gTLD against CORE as a whole. At the most extreme, they
> could dissolve CORE and force all registrars to either join a new system or
> be left out. Actually, this may be all they could do, and most likely they
> wouldn't do that, because it would leave them with nothing...

There are no real provisions in the gTLD-MoU that pertain to CORE that are
not also stated in the CORE-MoU (that I saw).

Point here, is not only does POC have the power to enforce provisions of
documents on CORE members (and gTLD SLD holders by extension) but they do
also have the powers to ask CORE and PAB for advise on any changes they
desire (specifically called for with need for speed to operational
solutions as the reason) and not act on that. 

Further, IANA and ISOC together excercise complete (de facto) veto power
over any PAB recommendation, or POC decision. I have a few excerpts from
the gTLD-MoU and the CORE-MoU to wit: 


gTLD-MoU Preamble
...

Is of the view,
...
that the inclusion of a broad range of policy input, however, should not
impede the ability of the self-governing structure to take timely
decisions, having respect for the dynamics of the rapid decision-making 
processes that have facilitated Internet development; 
...

Article II, Section 6
...

d.The instrument used to conduct oversight of CORE and CORE-gTLDs and to
  set policies consistent with this MoU is the CORE-MoU which is signed by
  POC and all CORE-gTLD Registrars. 

e.POC defines the initial entry into force of the CORE-MoU by signing
  the CORE-MoU and no amendments may take effect until signed by POC. 
...

i.The Policy Oversight Committee shall coordinate with the CORE Executive
  Committee to ensure the enforcement of the requirement that each
  Registrar operate in all respects consistently with the requirements of 
  this MoU and the CORE-MoU. 

j.The Policy Oversight Committee may from time to time: 
     i.change the number of gTLDs and approve names of new gTLDs; 
    ii.change the number of Registrars, provided that appropriate
	global geographic distribution of Registrars shall be
	preserved; 
   iii.establish new terms and conditions for applications by
	entities desiring to become Registrars, including, among others,
	provisions for CORE to establish and collect fees for its registration 
	and any other services it may perform in such amounts as it may from 
	time to time determine; 
    iv.recommend, to the PAB, amendments to this MoU, including but
	not limited to, changes in the composition of the Policy Oversight
	Committee; 
     v.following consultation with the PAB and CORE, remove Registrars
	who do not operate consistently with the requirements of this MoU 
	and the CORE-MoU. 

Article IV Section 11

a.Signatories to this MoU shall include, in any event, the Internet
  Society (ISOC), Reston, Virginia, U.S.A., and the Internet Assigned
  Numbers Authority (IANA), Marina del Rey, California, U.S.A. 

b.This MoU shall enter into force from the date that it has been signed
  by both the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) and the Internet
  Society (ISOC). 

c.The Signatories agree to periodically review the results and
  consequences of their cooperation under this MoU and, when appropriate,
  consider the need for improvements in their cooperation, and make suitable 
  proposals for modifying and updating the arrangements, and the scope of 
  this MoU to the Policy Oversight Committee, through the Policy Advisory Body. 

d.Amendments to this MoU shall be initiated by the Policy Oversight
  Committee, after consultation with the PAB and CORE. 

e.No amendment to this MoU shall enter into force until it has been
  signed by both the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority and the Internet
  Society, and any such amendment shall enter into force on the date that
  it has been so signed. 


CORE-MoU Article 8

(c) The POC may initiate an amendment or amendments to this MoU only after
consultation with the PAB and CORE. An amendment to this CORE-MoU shall
enter into force when it has been signed on behalf of the POC; no other or
additional signature shall be required. 


Now, given all this, you can see a few things clearly. 

	1) All power is derived from the presumed authority of IANA and
	   ISOC

	2) All but the sole power to modify its own power is left soley 
	   to POC. Its power may only be changed by IANA and ISOC
	
	3) CORE can, with the approval (or perhaps only the lack of
	   disapproval) from POC, take it upon itself to use its legitmacy 
	   to determine what services (& Price) it may and will perform.
	   This is left undefined, and unlimited in scope with the
	   gTLD-MoU framework. 

Further, we seem to perpetuate the lack or questionability of legal status
of Authority for globally unique identifiers, by not creating POC as a
legal entity. (IANAL, and therefore could be going off here)

Can an attorney point out what the legal status of decsions made by POC
are, and who is liable? What is the relevance of that to the legal status
of CORE? Also once CORE is formed as a legal association, does dissolution
of the CORE-MoU or gTLD-MoU change its status?