>
> On Tue, 16 Feb 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> > NOW we go back up a few thousand feet to the primary question, do TLD
> > charters serve a purpose?
>
> Why should they when they can not be enforced?
>
> el
>
[AVC] - Even though they are unenforceable, they might well serve a purpose.
A set of rules governing use don't have to be applied beforehand, although
there should be an element of this. A set of rules can also serve to
disqualify any protest when a rule-breaker is thrown out.
For instance, suppose you had a chartered TLD, .ISP, which had a set of
restrictions intended to make the domain one for internet access providers
only. Suppose there were a set of initial automatic tests *before* the
domain was delegated to an applicant, for instance you had to have some
functional nameservers and some functional mail servers. Suppose there were
also some non-tested restrictions, for instance you had to have at least 50
dial-up customers.
The domain would be open to illegitimate registrations by non-ISPs, because
there are people with name- and mail servers who aren't ISPs. However, if
it got to be a problem, you would still have the rules, and you could
(following a complaint, for instance) eliminate an illegitimate
registrations following an investigation.
A charter doesn't have to be 100% effective, or 100% enforceable, to have
some value.
I imagine the same thing would apply under .NA. If I could convince you
that I was a business in Windhoek, you might delegate me a name in .NA.
Once you found out, however, that I had never set foot outside of New York,
you might well consider it within your rights to delete my name from the .NA
root. There's a charter with rules that is not 100% enforceable, but there
are sanctions after the fact that make it workable.
Antony
