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

[Jim Dixon <jdd@matthew.uk1.vbc.net>]

On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, Jeff Williams wrote:

> > >> 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.

I split them up to avoid what we are in fact seeing right now: the system
being run in such a way that a few get the chance to establish market
dominance before letting the rest in to quarrel over the crumbs.
 
> > >> 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.

Hmmm.  How about this:

6	CORE should be encouraged to use or modify existing software for
	shared registries insofar as that makes it more likely that the
	CORE registry operational sooner.


> > >> 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.

I hadn't actually thought of AlterNIC, etc.  What I had in mind was the 
use of standard protocols (such as RIDE) for exchanging data between
registries.  But the broader formulation might be better.

> > >> 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.

If the intention is to modify the MOU, you can't use words like "current".
They refer to reality on 19 September 1997.  What you have to do is 
state what you want added to the MOU or deleted from it.

> My concern here is that this will never fly with the trademark lobby.

Ah yes ;-)

--
Jim Dixon                                                 Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd                http://www.vbc.net        tel +44 117 929 1316
-----------------------------------hobbies---------------------------------
Member of Council                                                 President
Internet Services Providers Association                       EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk                              http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679                                     tel +32 2 503 2265