RE: [ga-roots] TLD's

["L Gallegos" <jandl@jandl.com>]

On 20 May 2001, at 13:16, Dassa wrote:

> |> -----Original Message-----
> |> On Behalf Of L Gallegos
> |> Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 12:36 PM
> |> To: ga-roots@dnso.org
> |> Subject: RE: [ga-roots] TLD's
> 
> Leah
> 
> |> I think it is more to the point that this small number of
> |> people declined to determine the fate of a TLD precisely because it was
> |> inappropriate at the time.  Once there is a membership, committees can
> be formed to |> delve into this type of issue in terms of possible
> standards. |> However, a TLD holder controls a TLD and can assign his
> rights to it. It would |> certainly not be up to a trade association to
> dictate that |> function to a TLD holder.  The decision was to decline
> stewardship of .TLD at that |> time for what I feel are quite valid
> reasons.
> 
> Which brings us back to the problem of an individual having total authority
> over a TLD without any auditing or controls over what they do with it. That
> is one of the fundamental problems I have with the other roots and TLD
> operators.

many of the ccTLDs are controlled by an individuals or very small 
numbers of people.  What is different about any other TLD holder?  
Charters determine how they are handled.  If there were a myriad of 
TLDs, this would not seem such an insurmountable issue.  ISPs have 
responsibilities to large numbers of end users, yet some are one-man 
shows.  It's not much different.  People rely greatly on their email 
addresses provided by these ISPs, as well as other things, including 
their connectivity for e-commerce and personal activities.  You are 
placing a heavier burden on a service provider than is called for, Dassa.  
A TLD operator is responsible for providing a service and that will 
succeed or fail based on the reliability of service whether it is a large 
corporation or small enterprise.

You seem to be advocating governmental types of regulatory control for 
something that will not be a governmental function - at least as has 
been intended with the privatization of the Internet.  That seems to be 
the dilemma here.  It is to be governed or privatized?

> 
> |> As an initial board, we had not yet formed specific bylaws and rules |>
> governing that type of action.  That is the reason for a lengthly and |>
> thoughtful discussion of the issue and the position of the association at
> |> that point in time.  I am sure there will be other situations where the
> |> association will have to deal with decisions not covered in the |>
> bylaws. |> There will be discussion among members at those times as well. 
> It |> would be wonderful if every contingency could be planned for in |>
> advance.  Again, Dass, you are taking the minutes of a very new |>
> organization and dissecting them as if there were establshed rules |>
> governing them at the time.  We were and are in the process of forming |>
> those rules, which is the job of an initial board.  Until there is a |>
> membership, the board is limited to initial formation of criteria.
> 
> We are often hearing how the other roots and TLD operators have been around
> for a long time.  Surely, this is a very late stage to be having to
> introduce standards and rules for the operation of such TLD's and roots.

The TLDA will have nothing to do with how the roots are handled or 
operated, Dassa.  It is a trade association for TLD holders - not root 
operators.  However, if a root operator does individually hold a TLD, he 
or she is eligible to be a member of the TLDA.  It is still a separate 
function and that root operator will have to disassociate the TLD 
operation from the root operation for purposes of the membership in the 
TLDA.  If that root operator should no longer be a TLD holder, he would 
not be eligible for a voting membership.

> There have been calls for the recognition of other roots and the
> introduction of other root TLD's into the legacy root.  From what you are
> saying I would suggest that such calls are premature as the necessary
> policies and procedures to protect the end users is not evident at the
> present time.
> 
> |> We have nothing to do with any root, so associating the actions of a |>
> trade association with decisions made by roots is inappropriate. |>
> Personally, I have no input or knowledge of the methods used in making |>
> decisions in the roots and do not wish to make those decisions. |> Perhaps
> the TLDA will be respected enough that the roots will consider |> its
> opinions and actions when deciding what to include.
> 
> The TLDA would appear to be mostly associated with roots other than the
> legacy root.  To declare that it doesn't have anything to do with any root
> is a little misleading.  It is noticed that ORSC is one of the supporting
> associations to the TLDA as evidenced on the TLDA website.

Unfortunately, some of the information on the website is old - prior to 
the new incorporation of the TLDA.  At this time there are no associate 
members at all and no sponsors.  Associate memberships and 
sponsors have yet to be entered into the bylaws.  I would imagine those 
items will be dealt with soon, but as yet, that structure has not been 
determined.  Therefore, I still say to you that there is no tie to any root 
at all.  Further, if there are to be associate memberships for purposes of 
fund raising or sponsorship, they will be non-voting memberships and 
would simply indicate support for the association.  This is quite 
accepatable.

Thank you for bringing up the fact that there is still information on the 
website that needs to be changed.  I will inform the webmaster and the 
rest of the board that the situation exists.

 Also from:
> http://www.tlda.org/about/press/PR2001032501.html The TLDA has issued the
> following preliminary mission statement:
> 
> The Top Level Domain Association (TLDA) is a not-for-profit trade
> association of Top Level Domain Holders, serving the public interest. Among
> our purposes are to represent member TLD Holders as a whole to business,
> industry, government, and the media; to promote Internet commerce through
> the growth of the world-wide TLD industry and its related businesses; to
> document and promote standards and best practices for the operation and
> management of TLDs; to serve as a clearing house providing for the fair
> resolution of TLD collisions; to promote cooperation and provide liaison
> between TLD Holders and Root Managers in the interests of collision-free
> choice to the world Internet community; to periodically publish a single,
> up-to-date, comprehensive compilation of all known TLDs; and to educate and
> inform the public of the public service that TLDA provides.
> 
> It is noted the mission statement includes references to Root Managers.

It mentions that the TLDA would act as liaison with root managers in 
the interests of collision-free choice....  That does not indicate ties any 
more than others act in the same manner with Congress, other 
companies, etc.  Dassa, please don't misconstrue things.  If I had a 
company that was dealing with other entities and employed an 
intermediary to negotiate or deal with those entities, it would not 
indicate my company had ties with those we were attempting to 
negotiate with.  If you like, consider it to be a lobbying effort on behalf of 
TLD holders with root managers - all root managers.

> 
> I gather the intention of the TLDA is to be inclusive of TLD operators in
> both the legacy and other roots, is this correct? 

Yes.

 It will be extremely
> interesting to see the membership details in another 6-12 months and to see
> how many root TLD operators join.  Does the TLDA intend to also allow
> memberships from ccTLD's?

What is a root TLD operator?  It is one or the other.  As I said, if a root 
operator also happens to hold a TLD, he or she or it must separate the 
two for purposes of that membership.  There will be no consideration of 
the root itself in the TLDA membership.

I am looking forward to seeing this come together.  As was stated, all 
TLD holders are welcome to join the TLDA.  It is not exclusive to any 
segment of the Internet or region.

> 
> |> Once again, this has nothing whatever to do with how decisions are
> |> made wrt to TLDs by the roots.  Nothing.  They are two totally
> |> different concepts and functions.
> 
> That would seem at odds with the Mission Statement.

Not at all.  Liaison is not membership or ties.  It is simply acting on 
behalf of TLD holders who at this point have no real input regarding their 
fate in any root.  

Speaking for myself, Dassa, it is vitally important to me that registrants 
and users are protected.  That is why I remain active wrt to an IDNHC.  
It seems that both DN holders and TLD holders are in limbo.  Both are 
dependent on the other.  From my perspective as a TLD holder and a 
domain name holder, I can see where cooperation must exist.  There is 
a business consideration on the one hand, but I am determined to also 
protect registrants in any way possible. That is also my reason for 
becoming active with the TLDA.  I would like to think I could have a part 
in helping to foster the cooperation the mission statement speaks about.

> 
> |> The only possible observation is that this association declined
> |> stewardship of a TLD.  It was certainly not determinative of
> |> the fate of the TLD or its transfer.  It was not transferred - at least
> not |> by or to the association.  That was precisely the point, I beleive.
> 
> No, the point I was making was the fact that a TLD "could" be transferred
> in such a way.  And that the only parties involved in the potential
> transfer were the individual TLD operator and the Board of TLDA, a total of
> 6 people.

And there was no transfer, was there.  Again, it was inappropriate and 
was not considered.  The only possible consideration might have been 
to "hold" it until a manager could be found.  It did not happen because 
there was no mechanism by which we could do so fairly, so it was not 
done.  I can think of no more fair response than that.  

Any business can be transferred, Dassa. Why is it so very different with 
a TLD?  If registrants are served, does it matter who serves them?  If a 
TLD is operated so that accessibilty is afforded its registrants and 
services provided, why should there be a barrier to the transfer?  
Operation viability is the issue, not the name of the holder.

> 
> I appreciate the time you are taking in answering my questions.  I hope
> that all benefit from the exchange and more knowledge is gained that will
> benefit us all.
> 

We have a long way to go, Dassa.   The call for membership just went 
out as of today.  I would suggest that we give the organization a chance 
to form before making determinations as to its success or direction.  I 
have no doubt there will be growing pains in the process, but I honestly 
think there is an excellent chance it could make a satisfactory 
difference for the entire community.  I'd hate to see a cooperative effort 
killed because of misinformation or negativity.

This is the private sector, Dassa.  Let's give it a chance to evolve.


Leah

> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.
> 
> 

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-roots@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-roots" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html