Hi Hugh,
Thanks for the honest and unbiased observations wrt the LCC draft that
John has produced and requested public comment on. I'll provide some of
my thoughts and observations below...
[email protected] wrote:
Sorry Bradley, I tend to sometimes forget? to look where I am walking.
Your directions are quite helpful. I sent a tiny contribution off to
David? -- then my little (4 ft, 79 lb) superintendent wife asked if I
put the extra 2 cents on my envelope.
You should try surfing through the IETF sometime - now that is a
nightmare akin to the old medieval maze gardens :) Yes, we try to
organize content as best we can but it does get a litle buried
regardless, and anytime you need or want to find something that does
exist please, just ask and most people here will try to accommodate you :)
Hey -- nobody needs to apologize for the writing in the below
referenced docs. It is refreshing and straight forward and appears
honest enough. I put #s just for my lack of organization.
That is our endeavor here, and John has done a great job toward that
end. Something like the LCC draft he's currently working on requires
quiet thought and isolation for extended periods of time in order not to
get distracted and lose the editorial thoughts one has for the next
three paragraphs. Sometimes when my daughter interupts me with a bit of
pokemon trivia or some joke she saw on a kids channel I get sidetracked
for hours!
1. Most distressing is this under the glossary:
*/TLD Holder/Owner: /* A TLD holder/owner is the entity (person or
organization) that claims a TLD and is responsible for its operation.
The reason that we call this entity a “holder/owner” is because there
is some question in legal circles as to whether a TLD is property that
can be owned, and the TLDA is making no judgment on this question but
will leave it up to the lawyers and courts.
/The understanding is OK but fundamentally flawed. Ownership is really
not debated. And we generally do not really think of ownership and
property titles here. What it boils down to here is akin to a seat at
the Opera. Who the hell knows or cares who owns it. When you have a
ticket you have the exclusive(i hope) right to the seat. The whole
concept of the CC is all about that. Hence many agree that the term
USER or RIGHTFUL USER is appropriate. You cannot define that which is
your whole purpose for existing. Or we can fully say "the person or
entity that has the right to use". I know that means that you are
arbiters and justices regarding individual rights, but get used to it
and wear it with dignity./
Yes, I agree. And another analogy that has been used is a phone number ;)
Gene Marsh, during the original organization of the TLDA way back,
coined the term, "TLD Holder", for that very reason. it implies more
than custodianship, yet avoids a notion of ownership, for some of the
very reasons you site. Karl Auerbach has been insistent too, on this
perhaps not so sutle distinction, although really , we are talking about
total control under the umbrella of an implied responsibility to
registrants and surfers in the Internet community at large - even though
it may only be a matter of semantics.
wrt SLDs under any TLD in the name space, this is completely and
universally understood to be a "registration" - which, if you don't pay
for renewal on, it expires and all of your stuff gooes bye bye. With
TLDs, on the other hand, this cannot ever be the case, and a lot of
banter has centered around operators who are here today and gone
tomorrow - Take New.Net for example of a registry database that simply
got turned off when it suited IdeaLabs and Earthlink.
//
/2. The purposes and intent section seems a bit on the limiting side.
It reads and sounds like you still want one central authority deciding
what is right for all Internet Users. And the only difference between
you and ICANN would be -- the Who./
I'm not looking at his draft right now, but I'll be sure to keep your
comment in mind when I get back to working on my observations and
suggestions for the doc.
I can say that this WOULD NOT be the intent that John was trying to
inject. TLDA is an international Trade organization for the benefit of
TLD Holders, we feature their products in our news articles and promote
their use and correct inclusion into all roots - ICANN included. We have
ccTLD Holders as well as other Members whose TLDs have actually been
entered into the Legacy root, which, IMO, is a good thing - because we
want all of our Members to have their TLDs included in the rootzones of
all roots for the sake of completeness.
But no, aside from the fact that it is outside our charter, TLDA cannot
and does not have any ambitions on becoming some sort of governance
organization, although we participate in Internet governance arenas all
the time - it's in our best interests to put forth our interests.
//
/3. Nowhere do you tell the commoner what the hell your talking about. /
Yes, that really isn't our focus. The document is intended for use as an
operational set of standards and procedures for use by a technical body
(Mainly, our compliance Committee), There's really no intent or reason
to explain the technical substance to a layperson. There's a couple of
ponts to that:
1.) A TLD Holder either understands this, or they have contracted or
hired competent DNS administrators to digest and understand the nature
of the DNS naming protocol - someone who has done neither has no
business operating a TLD, because they can't. They physically can't do it.
2.) The website, and our organization does not exist to enjoy the
understanding of the general public with regards to the technical
implementations of DNS technologies anymore than IANA or the IETF does.
The core audience is not the general public - it's TLD
Holders/Operators/Managers and the technical DNS community.
3.) where it is practical, we attempt to explain a bit about what a
Top-Level Domain is, why some are available via certain DNS root
services and why some aren't. The main job of reaching the public with a
layperson friendly explanation of everything TLD related is really the
job of the roots and the various respective registries for each TLD.
Those are the entities that the burden of explanation to the average
falls upon. If they can't impart the understanding of basic concepts
required to make someone want to register an SLD via one of their
registrars or registration centers, then they have failed to produce a
viable business product - that goes both for commercial and
non-commercial models.
4.) The TLD is, however, here to assist the various TLD Holders, their
registries, and by extension, their registrars in educating the general
public about their business products. Such is part of the mission of a
trade organization - to promote the success of their members products.
/From reading it, I get the impression this club is only for brainiacs
and sophisticated computer engineering folk./
That is why a non-technically oriented TLD Holder may, at their
pleasure, designate someone to be the TLDA Member representing their
TLD. It was understood a long time ago that it is often the case that
when an idea is a great idea, a savvy businessperson will employ someone
with the true ability to launch a product, to launch their product. It
is often the case that the savvy businessperson is the money person, and
the brainiac that makes it all work has no independent command of the
resources needed to support the business infrastructure.
/Sorry but you are suggesting that you effect millions of dotcommoners
and leaving them out of the founding documents makes you little more
than the stakeholderless ICANN./
Network Solutions, as the TLD Holder for .COM, is very welcome to Join
TLDA anytime they choose to. We also accept Sponsoring memberships from
businesses and individuals that support the TLDA mission.
Remember, it is the business products (whether commercial or
non-commercial - it is still a business product if registrations are
offered to the public or implemented on an a companies corporate
Intranet) of our members and other TLD Holders that affect millions of
dotcommers - in this case, if you are referring to dotcommers who have
registered SLDs under the .COM TLD, then it is Network Solutions'
business product that is affecting millions of dotcommers ;)
The business products of our members and non-member TLD Holders alike;
to wit: TLDs, do affect millions of ISP subscribers who access the
Internet via their subscriptions with their respective ISPs, however.
For that reason, we have both flexible and non-flexible standards for
membership in the TLDA, to ensure that our members, at the very least,
are capable of actually operating a TLD and providing a stable and
permanent name space for those Internet subscribers, as well as their
respective ISPs, who themselves subscribe to the Internet via their
upstream providers of Internet service or via peering arrangements with
other service providers.
//
It is my hope that you can accept me and my expertise as I wholly rely
on you and yours.
Oh, you are VERY welcome Hugh :) We value your input and observations.
It is my belief that you want to do the right thing, but I know you do
not know how to express it -- legalese aside. Technical engineering
expertise is not something that is innate. You must work hard and
study to be good at it. Likewise, thinking abstractly and in a manner
that is logical and inclusive is not innate, you must work and work
and study to become even satisfactory at it. Why do we accept this in
the engineering but assume anyone can do it in the logical thinking arena?
Yes, but again, our target industry and audience is the brainiacs ;)
_Cogito Ergo Sum_ is not intended to be a placebo.
//
<snippage>
>
In the post you received in your inbox posted by John on 31 May 2009
at appx 22:42hrs.
0r you can get it from the member's list archives Here:
http://tldainc.org/pipermail/members_tldainc.org/2009-June/001266.html
Your looking for the attachment to the post which is below:
http://tldainc.org/pipermail/members_tldainc.org/attachments/20090601/5490a90b/attachment-0001.doc
<condensed and snipped>
>
>
John Palmer wrote:
>
> Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 5:43 PM
>
> Hugh - This organization will rise and fall on whether we get
> people to participate in a positive way to build the
organization into
> something that is credible and of value to the community.
> We are trying to offer an alternative vision to the one
that ICANN
> presents.
> The start to that is the core document that describes how the
> Compliance Committee vettes TLD instances for the reccommended list.
> Might I suggest, if you want to help out, that you lend a hand
> cleaning this up. I'm no lawyer, I just wrote it from a policy
> perspective.
> I'm sure it would get howls of laughs from even first year law
> students.
> Just a suggestion
> Thanks in advance for any support that you decide to give us.
> John
> all snippeded>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
http://tldainc.org/mailman/listinfo/public_tldainc.org
--
Bradley D. Thornton
Manager Network Services
NorthTech Computer
TEL: +1.949.544.1931
http://NorthTech.US
_______________________________________________
Public mailing list
[email protected]
http://tldainc.org/mailman/listinfo/public_tldainc.org
