Re: [faoc] Re: xTLD BoF and mailing list

[Patrik Faltstrom <paf@swip.net>]

On Fri, 6 Feb 1998, Milton Mueller wrote:

> The gTLD-MoU formed by ITU, ISOC, and WIPO cannot be equated with
> "The Internet Community."

It was formed by the IAHC committee, and signed by IANA and ISOC, not ITU
and WIPO.

> Nor is it accurate to say that the US Government is
> interfering with the actions of this so-called "community."
> Indeed, this way of thinking is one of the reasons why the transition to
> a fully international Internet administered by a body independent of the
> US government is so difficult.

Ok, more facts: The POC is not the same thing as CORE. Our responsibility
have been from the beginning to listen to what people, not only in the
IETF, think, and compile ideas that comes from all various sources.

One of the main things that have been discussed for a long long time,
especially with governments all over the world, and organisations like
MITI in Japan, is how a registry is run, under what rules, and under what
forms the registry and the registrar work.

So, if one want to start a discussion on how/if/when gTLDs have to be
created, one have to discuss things like IF we should have gTLDs, and more
important (as we can say that removing .com is not possible) how the
registries are to exist.

You have to think about how to handle disputes between domain name holders
and the whole domain name system, regarding exclusions and disputes in all
gTLDs. You also have to think about disputes between registrars, and the
registrar and the registry.

The only way of solving these things, IAHC and POC found after discussing
this for some 1.5 years, that one have to limit the number of registries,
to probably one or two, and also that things work best if the registries
together form the registry, like in the UK and Sweden -- especially the UK
which have a system that works!

The "fun stuff" should be to be a registrar, not a registry!


The problem POC (not CORE, remember that!) see with the green paper is
that it restarts the discussion, and that can be ok, BUT it does not start
from the beginning!!!! It already draws some conclusions on how the
registry should act -- like the fact that each registry should have one
gTLD -- which in turn says that we should have many registries, which the
trade mark community says definitely no to because disputes will be so
difficult to handle.


So, if we should start from the beginning which the GP does, let's start
from the beginning. The GP does NOT start from the beginning at all. There
are hundreds of nasty dragons hidden in the GP paper which you will
encounter not until you start writing down the details.


    Patrik