Re: Future of IANA (and IETF)

[Kent Crispin <kent at songbird.com>]

On Tue, Feb 03, 1998 at 05:40:52PM -0500, Jay at Iperdome.com wrote:
[...]
> >I'll also note that the Magaziner Green Paper will provide no meaningful
> >oversight to the for-profit registries, thereby making their misbehavior
> >that much more likely.
> 
> Ok Dave, I'll call your bluff.
> 
> Are you suggesting that if I agree to change Iperdome into
> a not-for-profit corporation, that you and the MOUvement
> will support our entry into the root.

I won't speak for Dave, and I don't speak for PAB in this.  But as far
as I personally am concerned, if you run a non-profit registry, and
you allow open access for shared registrars, then yes, I probably
would support your entry into the root.  As long as the two entities
(registrar and registry) were appropriately separate, I would also
support your being able to run a registrar that would register in your
registry, as well as any other shared TLD registries. 

I will be a little more specific:  The model I have long advocated is 
that there be an authority (let's call it the Root Zone Authority, or RZA) 
that approves what I have called "charters" for new TLDs.  Anyone can 
propose a charter, but obviously there would be basic requirements 
that must be met (running on a cost-recovery basis, and sharing, for 
example). 

A TLD charter would be a legal document -- besides defining how the 
registry would be run, it would define the requirements that shared 
registrars must meet to be able to register names in that registry.  
All registrars that wished to register in this shared registry would 
sign the charter (similar to the CORE MoU).

As an example, consider the .mus registry that Cary Karp has 
proposed:   it is designed to support bona-fide museums of all kinds.  
There already is an international association of museums to decide 
what is a legitimate museum and what is not.  Someone would write a 
charter for the .mus registry; one of the conditions of registering a 
name in .mus would be that the international museum association 
(whatever it's called) would approve.  However, that association 
would not run the registry.  

Any registrar who signed the charter for the .mus registry would be 
able to register names in the registry; and the registry would be 
open to any registry willing to sign the charter.

> If this is all that it will take for us to gain entry into 
> the root, then I am prepared to take you up on your offer.  
> If not, then please clarify your position.

Well, according to this scheme you would have to write a charter and 
get it approved, and whether or not I actually supported it would 
depend on the details you put in the charter.  But on the face of it, 
I think a .per registry is a fine idea, and it certainly could 
compete with .nom, for example.

But note that the charter idea is actually a great deal more flexible 
-- you really could have a .law tld only for lawyers, for example, or 
a .med.  The complaint has been that what constitutes a legal 
professional or a medical professional is hard to define 
internationally.  But this way you make it the responsibility of the 
proposer of the charter to answer those hard questions.

> Please note:  This will introduce competition at the 
> registry level, regardless of whether we are a for-profit 
> or a not-for-profit corporation.  In either case, the best 
> interests of the Internet community will be served.

That's what I always thought :-)

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent at 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