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

["andi payn" <payn@null.net>]

>> The idea is to draw up a long list and then in phase 2 remove those
>> items that there is significant objection to.  This gives us the
>> Addendum of the Majority.  In phase 3, we ask people to sign the
>> gTLD MOU, stipulating that the Addendum of the Majority applies.

First of all, I think we want to only comment on provisions actually in (or
expected to be added to) the gTLD-MoU itself, not on specific policy
decisions of iPOC or CORE, provisions in the CORE-MoU, ACP guidelines, etc.
We need to add an additional item (#18 below) to make such comments
unnecessary, and we may still want to add them onto the end as "additional
comments about existing policies and structure" or something.

OK, here's a few more items and a few comments.

>> 1       the financial barriers to CORE membership should be low
>> 2       CORE should begin operations with a large number of registrars,
>>         hundreds if at all possible

I think these provisions are up to CORE, not the MoU. However, the MoU could
state something like this to replace both:

1            CORE should establish its regulations in such a way as to
encourage as many Registrars as feasible to participate in the system

>> 3       CORE should begin operations as soon as possible

In particular, the system as a whole should be operational early enough to
be proven viable before NSI's contract expires... By the way, section 9a
states that the new gTLDs shall be created "effective upon the entry into
force of this MoU," which I think has already happened...

>> 4       CORE should be professionally managed
>> 5       CORE should run the gTLD registry itself, the registry should
>>         not be contracted out

I think #4-5 are decisions that belong to CORE, rather than IANA/ISOC/iPOC,
and don't need to be mentioned in the amendments to the gTLD-MoU.

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

How about:

6            CORE should, whenever possible, use existing software, and
modify existing software if necessary

>> 7       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use open standards
>> 8       CORE should be strongly encouraged to use public domain software

>> 9       CORE should be strongly encouraged to cooperate with other
>>         registries

I'm not sure about #9 as it's written. If you're referring to, say, the .uk
and .au registries, I agree. If you're referring to either "owned
TLD"-supporting registries (AlterNIC, eDNS, WebNames, etc.), or to
name.space, I don't.

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

This makes #3 unnecessary, of course.

>> 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)

I don't know how this is enforceable, so I wouldn't put it in.

>> 12      non-voting, advisory seats on the POC should be open to
>>         representatives of various communities affected by the
>>         Internet
>> 13      the ITU and WIPO should immediately lose any votes on the POC

I think specifics of the composition of POC should be left out of the
amendment, or we'll never get anyone to agree. I'd rather put something like
this:

12        The composition of POC as provided for in the current version of
the gTLD-MoU is unacceptable. The balance of representation needs to be
changed by adding additional voting and non-voting members and possibly by
removing some voting members. Specific changes should be based on the
current RFC process.

>> 14      domain names are addresses

>> 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 think #15 is going too far. Here's what I'd put:

15            The trademark policy in the gTLD-MoU, and the principle used
to justify it, are unacceptable in their current form. The principle should
state "a policy shall be implemented that attempts to balance the rights of
trademark holders and domain name holders, using existing national and
international trademark laws as a guideline." The policies and procedures
related to these issues should be rewritten around this principle, and if
Administrative Challenge Panels are to be used they must be held to this
principle.

In particular, the doctrines of confusion, misleading, and dilution should
guide trademark policy, as they guide trademark law in the US, the UK, most
other countries, most states within the US, etc.. A domain name in itself
does not generally lead to confusion, rarely constitutes in itself
intentional misleading, and only in special cases constitutes dilution.
Furthermore, satire and fair use should be allowable as a defense by a
domain name holder, as should the trademark owner's misuse of their own
trademark, just as they can in most courts. If all of these provisions are
upheld, I don't object to ACPs in principle. However, I think the statement
above (my revised #15) is enough.

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

>  17      Allow any and all existing RSC's with registry software and
>          domain name servers open access with their existing TLD's
>          to the root.

I object to that one. If CORE is to function as just another RSC, they have
no obligation to help the other RSC's compete with them; if CORE is to
function as the heart of the new DNS system, the other RSC's aren't part of
it. Furthermore, if this idea were put into place, the vast majority of the
new gTLDs will be "owned" TLDs, rather than shared, which defeats the entire
purpose of the MoU system. It's up to CORE to try to get themselves into the
root, not to help other RSC's get in.

Here's a few additions I'd make:

18        The signatories to this amended MoU agree with the principles and
provisions in the gTLD-MoU, except as noted in these amendments; however,
this does not necessarily imply agreement with any specific policies enacted
to this point by iPOC, CORE, or any other organizations, nor with other
documents such as the CORE-MoU, the ACP Guidelines, or the articles of
incorporation of any of the related organizations.
19        The signatories to this amended MoU reserve the right to withdraw
approval of and participation in this system, and annul their signatures, if
these objections are not addressed, or if the system is not brought on line,
by the end of 1997, or if it becomes clear at an earlier date that this will
not happen.
20        The signatories to this amended MoU agree to help gain public
support for this process so long as their objections are addressed.
21        The signatories to this amended MoU agree with all objections,
comments, and suggestions amended in these sections, and may have additional
objections, comments, and suggestions as well, subject to #22 below.
22        The objections of signatories to this amended MoU are limited
entirely to the following subsections (individual signatories' objections
may not include all of these subsections): 2f (trademark principle), 6c (POC
quorum), 6g (selection of POC members), 6h (terms of POC members), 6j-ii
(appropriate geographic distribution of registrars), 8a-c (ACPs), and 11e
(veto over MoU amendments for IANA and ISOC).
23        The Secretary-General of ITU cannot be relied upon solely for
circulation of the MoU and facilitation of outside cooperation; rather, POC,
PAB, and all signatories will have to work for support from all relevant
constituencies.
24        The signatories to this amended MoU request that IANA, ISOC, and
iPOC/POC examine this document and attempt to create a new MoU that takes
into account these objections and any changes made since the MoU was
drafted, so that it can be signed by all signatories and countersigned by
IANA, ISOC, and iPOC/POC.
25        PAB should be given, in addition to representation in POC, veto
power over changes to the gTLD-MoU and over other changes of similar
magnitude. Note that subsection 6-j-iv states that the POC can "recommend,
to the PAB, amendments to this MoU;" this implies that PAB actually makes
such changes. Clearly this is an error and should be fixed, but at the same
time it should be stated that PAB must approve such changes.
26        POC should be allowed to override an IANA or ISOC veto to
amendments in the MoU if the override is supported by a large (say,
over-two-thirds) majority in PAB as well as a large majority in POC.
27        Any existing PAB member or other signatory who wishes to annul
his/her/its initial signing of the MoU and re-sign with amendments, whether
these amendments or otherwise, should be allowed to do so at this point.
This option should be made public to existing PAB members. In addition, the
fact that signatories who sign with amendments can join PAB should be made
explicitly clear in the MoU and made public. After this is done, PAB members
should no longer be able to summarily annul their signatures unless they
have explicitly reserved the right to do so.
28        After creating the initial set of gTLDs and proving the viability
of the system, POC should experiment with variations, such as TLDs with
special limited-entry charters (which would still be registered by all CORE
registrars so long as those registrars signed the charters), after
consulting with interested parties, with PAB, and directly with the Internet
public to determine what other ideas people are interested in.
29        It should be a stated goal for CORE to assume responsibility for
.com, .org, and .net as soon as possible after the expiration of NSI's
contract--preferably immediatelly--so long as the CORE registry system has
been demonstrated to be reliable.