Re: addendum to the gTLD MOU: phase 1: building a list

[Amadeu Abril i Abril <pab@fcr.es>]

Jim Dixon wrote:

  On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Jeff Williams wrote:

  > > Anyone care to work on a standard addendum to the gTLD MOU, one which
  > > would enable a few hundred more organizations to sign it?

  Why don't you do that?  Why doesn't everyone do that?

  I would suggest

OK let's do that.

  1       the financial barriers to CORE membership should be low

This not a matter for gTLD-MoU, even not for CORE-MoU. The requirements weret in
the application form. And they are low, Jim. But don't send 25 mails answering
that point: we both would easily agree that they could be lower, and that they
should be still lower.

  2       CORE should begin operations with a large number of registrars,
          hundreds if at all possible

Yeah, everyody being forced to be registrar... Come on THE VAST MAJORITY OF
NON-APPLICANTS will stay home NOT because the requirementsts are dilt to meet,
but
simplysinmply becaus they are interested in this business. Bm involved n the iet
or not. Do you really believe that, if let's say Microsoft or General Motors do
not become registrars is because they cna get a credit line????.

  3       CORE should begin operations as soon as possible

There we agree. But your move could only lead to stop current selection process
and start everything form scratch is quite inconsistent with this goal,as far as
I can see.

  4       CORE should be professionally managed

This is exactly the kind of  provision which inclusion in a
basic,onstitutional-like doc as the gTLD-MoU is essential. I'll ask form
tomorrow that the Maastricht Treaty be reformed to provide that custom officers
must be highly-qualified professionals speaking at least seven languages.

Jim, this is an OPERATIONAL issue that has no place in gTLD-MoU. Nor in any
other doc. How do you enforce such a provision? What do you mean by
"professional"?

  5       CORE should run the gTLD registry itself, the registry should
          not be contracted out

Yes, and we will prevent General Motors  from buying or subcontracting outside
its conglomerate.

  6       if at all possible, existing shared registry software should
          be used in CORE's operations

"Existing shared registry"?? Now you sound funny. Are you against progress? Has
the software industry reached that point of maturity where no improvement is
needed, convenient, possible? This is eften known as the beginning of
obsolescence.

[I don't have any good reason aginst using existing software. But it cannot be a
religious dogma. And I can't see this provision bringing "hundreds" of
signatories to the gTLD-MoU rakns. Unless I had mmissed the formation of a large
Coalition for the Peservationof Software Tradition ;-) ]

  7       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use open standards

CORE should be encouraged to use reliable software. Use of often standards is
indeed desirable, to the extent it  is possible and never to the expesnes of
quality of service.

  8       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use public domain software

Public domain db that large, powerful and reliable? Well, if they exist.... But
again fitting this is a
second order choice, after service quality.

  9       CORE should be strongly encouraged to cooperate with other
          registries

Oh, and if they don't want to cooperate, we send Perry, Bob Allisat and me to
force them, nicht
wahr? But wait, perhaps you have got a call from NSI or ES-NIC....

Come on, make a little effort and you'll get the name you ar looking for when
writing all the previous items: I help you. It has seven letters.

  10      a gTLD name server should put put on line as quickly as
          possible, preferably by 15 October

Perfect, before the selection period ends. Or still better, before you convince
us to redo the whole thing. Any idea where could we locate this server?

  11      a good understanding of some aspect of Internet operations
          should be prerequisite to having a vote on the POC (that is,
          if you are going to tell people how do do things, you should
          know what you are talking about)

Ooops. I DON'T vote on iPOC.. Add that some good understanding on what to put on
a MoU should
also be a prerequisite. The P of POC stands for policy, if you don't mind.
Techcnical advice can
be contracted outside. Policy sensiubility is more difficult to find.

  12      non-voting, advisory seats on the POC should be open to
          representatives of various communities affected by the
          Internet

Wholly agreed, but replace Internet by DNS. gTLD-MoU is not about governing
Internet. It is adding a new DNS management model.

  13      the ITU and WIPO should immediately lose any votes on the POC

I note you say votes, not presence. I agree.

  14      domain names are addresses

Yes, and the millions of people who may think otherwise should be reeducated .
Period. If everybody could agree that they are ONLY addresses we would not be
discussing all this.

  15      the rights of trademark holders should be recognized, but only
          in cases where there is a clear attempt by a domain name
          holder to pass himself off as a trademark holder

I'd could devise more precise legal terms ;-) I notice you are not bothered
about reverse hijacking, or other ways of pirating htat occur.

  16      the Internet community should recognize the contributions of
          the members of the IAHC and the iPOC

And PAB. And registrars. And maillist contributors. And fierce opponents. But
not as an addendum ot a MoU, Jim. Let's be serious [...]

Apart from building Nominet II and promoting some rather day-to-day operational
issues as the
Ground Norms for Internet Governance Evolution, do you have any other
suggestion?

I translate my mail: I'm not saying that any of your proposals is nonsense. Most
are not quite the contrary. I'm just pointing out that I CAN'T BELIEVE that the
thousands of people you claim are wihing to enter the system but are prevented
by the current content of gTLD-MoU would be much impressed by these amendments.
And that many of them would simply read ridiculous in a MoU, no matter how sound
they are.

The road may be the right one. The examples are not. Making policy is more
difficult than
cirticizing somebody else's efforts. I encourage you to provide a better list

Amadeu, speaking only for himself.