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

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

Andi and all,

andi payn wrote:
> 
> >> 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.

  THis approach sounds fine to me.
> 
> 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

  I agree with this wording.  It provides a more open process for the
RSC's that are interested to become involved if they see it as an
advantage to their customers.
> 
> >> 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

  Ok this si fine.
> 
> >> 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.

  I like Jims wording better.
> 
> >> 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.

  Very good.  This is a bit more concise and to the point.
> 
> >> 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.

  I agree this does get to the hart of the Trademark issue, such as it
is.
My concern here is that this will never fly with the trademark lobby.
> 
> 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.

  My only addition to my #17 was that any and all RSC with existing
TLD's that are not unique will be responsible for those TLD's and they
shall not be added to the Root.  any and all other TLD's shall be 
required to run as shared TLD's.
> 
> 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).

  I would add to this (#22) that the ISOC and the IANA cannot have any
veto power unless there is a provision for an override vote of a 
2/3's majority from POC/PAB.

> 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.

  Besides the few brief changes I specified I like the #'s 18 thru 29
additional suggestions here as is.

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