Re: Now it's .xxx

[Infobahn Consulting <infobahn@squall.mgl.ca>]

On Mon, 22 Sep 1997, andi payn wrote:
> I think there's a significant difference between .web and .xxx, assuming
> that the stories provided by the claimed owners are true. The claimed owner
> of .web requested, from IANA, the right to create the .web TLD. IANA agreed,
> and even collected money from him for this purpose. By contrast, the claimed
> owner of .xxx never had IANA approval and in fact (I think) didn't attempt
> to assert this claim until after the IAHC process had begun. I'm sure I'll
> be corrected if I'm wrong.
> 
> I don't know what should be done about .web, but I don't think that a
> precedent set in that case would in any way open the door for .xxx or for
> any gTLD created even later.

If the .web story is true, then I believe the IANA must honour this
commitment. It puts him in the same position as .ca or .ru or .za or any
other TLD and gives him a monopoly a la NSI. He went through the proper
channels and showed due respect to the regulatory agencies and he should
be recognised and rewarded for this. Whoever he is.

Speaking of Internet governance, this is the thing that governments always
forget. Yes, the governed owe respect and duty to their government, but
the govt also owes something to the governed, which, for lack of a better
word, we call justice. It is a social contract. And the IANA and its
cohorts have not learned this yet. But they are getting some hard lessons
in it now.

Use of the term "domain" always makes me think of some mediaeval monarchy
-- king-dom, duke-dom, earl-dom or whatever. And it is a good analogy. By
law (de jure), the kingdom is the personal property of its monarch to do
with as he pleases. He can give it away or will it away or split it or
whateve. The barons of the kingdom hold their lands as fiefs from the
Crown and they owe fealty/loyalty to the Crown for their lands -- this
means that when the king needs to raise an army, it is they who do the
raising and pay the expenses; when the king needs money, they pay taxes.
The barons may leave their estates to their heirs, but those heirs must
renew the fealty of their family to the Crown. If a baron dies without
heirs, the lands revert (escheat) to the Crown and the king may parcel
them out again or hold them himself.

This is the position of the IANA. Domain namespace is its personal
property -- all of it, whether named (mapped) or not. The IANA can
bequeath it away or give it away or vest it in agents. If a baron dies
without issue, the namespace reverts to the IANA's authority -- this is
what is about to happen to NSI next March.

But it works both ways. The king must not abuse his subjects. He must not
rob them. He must not steal their wives or daughters. He must not cheat
them. That's what Magna Carta was all about, the cornerstone of British
law and Parliamentary democracy (okay -- "parlement" was Edward I in 1275,
but close enough). Why? Because the serfs who live on the baron's lands
give him their service in exchange for protection. His knights are there
(ostensibly) to protect them from Vikings and other marauders. It's a
protection racket. Well, theoretically, the King must protect his barons
from larger predators. But, in practice (de facto), it never works this
way -- the king depends on his barons for his own troops and "the king's
men" are limited to what he can glean from his own holdings. So the King,
with all authority and lots of responsibility, is put in the position of
having to beg for the means to enforce it, while the barons, with lots of
real power but very little authority over their peers (other barons) are
set to fighting each other. But the concept of "Protection" is still at
the core of this arrangement -- protection is the chief responsibility
attached to kingly authority that he cannot avoid. He must be the
Protector of his barons or else risk losing his authority to govern them.

Hence Magna Carta --- the barons said to King John: we will withhold our
power from you unless you exercise your authority responsibly.

This is what the IANA and the rest of the alphabet-soup in charge of this
process **must** learn. They hold all the authority and most of the
responsibility for making the Internet work. But we -- individual sysops
with local DNS -- hold the power to make it or break it. The root servers
hold the power. NSI holds power. Rogue DNS is evidence of cracks in the
system -- Alternic and the others -- these are rebellious barons who have
grabbed power without regard for authority because they see an empty
throne. The Emperor has no clothes, yes?

So: the guy who grabbed .web and paid money to the IANA for the right to
be its registrar *must* be respected. He "swore fealty" to the Crown for
his lands and the Crown must not go back on its word. Maybe it was a
mistake? Tough. When NSI's contract expires next year, its "lands" will
escheat to the Crown and become the property of the IANA to reassign at
its pleasure. If the Alternic TLDs did not ask for confirmation of their
rights, then they must not expect to receive them. The IANA must be fair
and honest in all its dealings.

Bryan Trussler
(bryan@i-bahn.com)

******************************************************
             Infobahn Consulting Services
Mail: bryan@i-bahn.com  ||  Web: http://www.i-bahn.com
******************************************************
"All good Web sites resemble one another; every bad
Web site is bad in its own fashion"
       -- Leo Tolstoi in "Anna Karenina" (sort of ...)