[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Oblique reference to registry access mod
This is making the rounds out in policy land. I wrote (in dnso-ip)
.. the underlying subject matter is registry access models, and people
posing policy choices should first check that the mechanisms exist to
instantiate any particular policy. There are only two efforts I know of on
the subject of registry access mechanisms -- the "shared registry"
mailing list (email@example.com) which met as a BOF at IETF-43 and
I believe will again at IETF-45, and the "shared registration system"
project at NSI (Scott Hollenbeck, program manager). I doubt that it would
be correct to characterize either mechanism as limited to supporting either,
or even both policy models, ("open or closed" vs "ccTLD or gTLD").
More fundamentally however, the "open vs closed" construction clearly
constrasts those registries which are subject primarily to private law
(made by a 501(c)) from those primarily subject to public law. The first
iso3166 regestries operated under private law, some variation of the
Friends-of-Jon-and-rough-consensus model, and some still do. Canada
(.CA) was a good example, which recently made the transition to a more
formal (public law) footing. Not all iso3166 registries are now primarily
subject to "public law", so the change in characterization offerd to the
two existing ICANN DNSO constituencies, from one which has a clear
meaning within the DNS namespace, to one with unclear meaning within
the private vs public law space, is something I discourage ICANN from.
If anyone thinks ICANN has posed a useful question and that I've
gotten something wrong, please let me know, but cc them as well.
The ICANN text follows below.
>**************** from http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnsoupdate.html
>In order to more fully explore an issue raised by one comment
>submitted in reaction to the draft ICANN Bylaw changes the ICANN
>Board seeks further comment on the following question:
>Should the initial DNSO Constituencies currently identified as
>"ccTLD registries" and "gTLD registries" be re-categorized as
>"open registries" and "closed registries," identified according to
>whether the registry is open to any registrant, worldwide
>("open"), or is instead limited to certain registrants based on
>geography, intended use, or other criteria ("closed")?
>Please submit comments to firstname.lastname@example.org.