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

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

Robert,

  We have spoken on the phone befor.  I am glad you posted this
rather than myself in light of the current situation and our
current possition as to the CORE-MoU and gTLD-MoU.  

  Now for my comments (Again) on the porvisions that you have
been so kind to provide here.  (See below your comments/excerpts)

Robert T. Nelson wrote:
> 
> 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;

  One of the stronger points of the gTLD-MoU.  However not very clear
as to how and under what spicific conditions.
> ...
> 
> 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.

  This is fine.  But what input do those that are NOT singers of the
CORE-MoU have that are also stake holders in the Name space?  None!
Therefore this will never work long term.
> ...
> 
> 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.

  This implies that those that are signators of the CORE-MoU, must also
be in agreement with the gTLD-MoU.  Is that right?  COnfusing.
> 
> 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;

  Again, does not apply to other RSC's ALREADY in operation.  

>    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;

  This provision is way too general.  More spicific language needs to
be added as to clarify it.

>     iv.recommend, to the PAB, amendments to this MoU, including but
>         not limited to, changes in the composition of the Policy Oversight
>         Committee;

  Good idea.  

>      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.

  What are those registrars redress procedures if this was to become
considered necessary?  Not spicific enough again!
> 
> 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.

  Much to cumbersom of a procedure as to provide for expediancy.  
Contradictory to previous portions.  (See preamble)
> 
> d.Amendments to this MoU shall be initiated by the Policy Oversight
>   Committee, after consultation with the PAB and CORE.

  Same as just above.
> 
> 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.

  Not expediant enough.  Time frames of wwhat and when the IANA and the 
ISOC must either sighn or reject need to be specified here.
> 
> 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.

  This is better.  But not spicific enough as to timeframes for which
these
decisions must be made.  Also contradictory with the Preamble.
> 
> Now, given all this, you can see a few things clearly.
> 
>         1) All power is derived from the presumed authority of IANA and
>            ISOC

  True.
> 
>         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

  Good idea.  But how and under what conditions is the applicable?
Not defined.  Poor language, and ineffectual from a time standpoint.
> 
>         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.

  Perhaps???  There you just hit the nail on the head.  That Perhaps
needs to be specified one way or the other.  Ineffectual in some
instances.
> 
> 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)

  I don't find any current law that indemnifies POC or any current
org, including the ISOC to have any legal authority.
> 
> 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?

  There is no legle standing for CORE, POC, PAB, for for that matter
the ISOC.  

Regards,

-- 
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java Development Eng.
Information Eng. Group. IEG. INC. 
Phone :913-294-2375 (v-office)
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com