Re: The "Statement of Principles"

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

Kent and all,

  First let us state emphatically that we consider this "Statement of
Principals" to
a compleatly free and open process to becoming a member of PAB and
represents a road block to open discussion and debate regarding decisions
that PAB may be discussing or determining.  Much like the MoU, these
"Statement of Principals", may not reflect the actual development of
gTLD's or TLD's within the Internet DNS structure or the registries
that already are in existence, and seek to restrict those activities in a
manner that excludes some of these activities that are in place or
in progress.

  I shall attempt here below to point out those deficiencies where restrictions
are obvious.  (See below "Statement of Principals" Points)

Kent Crispin wrote:

> To gtld-discuss:
>
> While you are twiddling your thumbs waiting for the white paper,
> here's something to think about:
>
> Appended is a draft "Statement of Principles".  It is intended that a
> signature on this document would be sufficient to become a member of
> PAB.  Note that signatures must be from bona fide entities.
>
> Also note that explicitly, a signature does not legally bind a
> signatory to anything.  Thus, membership is essentially open --
> instead of charging $35/year or something like that, the basic
> membership requirement is being a bona fide entity with sufficient
> interest to go to the trouble of submitting a signature.
>
>    STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES CONCERNING GENERIC TOP LEVEL DOMAINS
>
> This declaration represents an agreement among the undersigned on a
> broad statement of principles that should govern 1) the administration
> of the global domain name system (DNS) of the Internet, and 2) the set
> of generic top level domains (gTLDs).

  First question might be here is what are 'The Set" or generic Top level
domains to which you refer?

>
>
> This statement is not intended to and shall not impose legal
> obligations on those who sign.
>
>   I.  The administration of the DNS is now under the control of the
>   Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), a private organization
>   that derives its authority from its standing in the Internet
>   community, and by charter from the Internet Architecture Board, the
>   fundamental standards body of the Internet.

  There are other standards bodies for the Internet.  For instance the IETF and
the W3C are examples.

  The IANA does not control all of the gTLD's and TLD's that are available
currently.  Nor has it been able to get added to the LEGACY root's those
gTLD's that the MoU recommended.  Hence it is obvious that the IANA
in it's present form does not have this authority, though it may play a part in
that decision.

>
>
>   II.  IANA currently has control over all TLDs in the global DNS,
>   including the ISO 3166 Country Code TLDs (ccTLDs), the specialized
>   TLDs (sTLDs), and the generic TLDs (gTLDs).  ccTLD registries are
>   delegated by IANA to appropriate political authorities; sTLDs are
>   governed by charters approved by IANA, and gTLDs are governed by
>   a tradition of fair use codified in RFCs and IANA policies.

  As I stated above, recent events an some long past events would seem to
make this "Principal" incorrect.  NSI refused to add the MoU's recommended
gTLD's to the LEGACY roots some time ago is ample evidence that the IANA
does not have complete authority over the DNS system at this time.

>
>
>   III.  Administration of the DNS should remain under the control of a
>   private organization, either IANA or some organization derived from
>   IANA, in the legal form of a corporation or otherwise.  This
>   organization should operate in the public interest, for the benefit
>   of the Internet, not for profit; and must be responsive to public
>   policy concerns.

  Agreed.

>
>
>   IV.  Administration of the DNS should not at any time be under the
>   control of any national government.

  Agreed.

>
>
>   V.  Each gTLD registry shall be subject to the following policies or
>   principles, enforced ultimately by IANA, or its successor:

  Agreed with the proviso that the IANA or it's successor cannot act or
direct any policy without the vote of all stakeholders and the Internet
community'
approval via a majority user vote.

>
>
>     (a) IANA, or its successor, shall determine when and whether to
>     create new gTLDs including specification of the alphanumeric
>     strings, the timing of introduction of new gTLDs, and the number of
>     gTLDs, through an open, unbiased, public procedure.

  Agreed.  As long as that public procedure is inclusive of all of the Internet
community through popular vote and stakeholder approval.

>
>
>     (b) The data in each registry shall be freely available to the
>     public, subject only to restrictions relating to privacy.

  Agreed.

>
>
>     (c) gTLD registries shall operate in the public interest on a cost
>     recovery basis and not for profit, under the ultimate supervision
>     of IANA (or its successor).

  This is too restrictive.  SHould a registry wish to operate as a
For-profit entity it should have the freedom to do so should it so choose.

>
>
>     (d) Access for registration of second level domains in all gTLD
>     registries shall be equally available to all qualified registrars
>     on a non-discriminatory basis.  The qualifications for registrars
>     will be under the control of IANA (or its successor).

  Agreed as long as the IANA is bound to the majority vote of the Stakeholder
and internet user community.

>
>
>     (e) IANA (or its successor) will establish a uniform procedure for
>     resolving disputes involving trademarks and other intellectual
>     property issues concerning domain names.  This procedure will
>     offer an efficient and inexpensive means of dispute resolution
>     without supplanting or interfering with the jurisdiction of
>     national courts or the rights of Internet users to have resort to
>     the courts.

  Agreed as long at that procedure(s), is flexible enough to enable the
disputing parties to choose what arbitrator or arbitrator service those
parties should so choose.

>
>
>     (f) Registration services for second level domain names in the
>     gTLDs should be globally distributed, and, except in exceptional
>     circumstances, should be shared among all registrars that meet
>     appropriate technical qualifications.

  Agreed.

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html

 Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com