Luke, neat response! :-) I'll draft the letter over the coming week (it'll take some days to get the words honed to the appropriate level of accuracy). thanks, Geoff At 10:11 AM 4/12/96, Luke Carruthers wrote: >> >> If this is not possible, then should the x-IA should be >> >> lobbying the government for legislation to protect DNS >> >> registering bodies from litigation? >> > >> >This has been raised with the relevant government bodies, but the >> >issue has not been definitively resolved one way or another as yet. >> >> I'm sorry but this is simply not good enough is my reaction. >> This is the ABSOLUTE CORE of the issue, and if there is >> ONE THING to fix to allow the DNS to work I'd suggest >> that this is IT (have I made the point clearly enough yet?) > >While I perhaps wouldn't have said it the same way, I must agree >that this is a central issue to any possible future structure for >DNS management. You have been part of the restructuring process from >the beginning, and I do recall your arguments in favour of this at >the last meeting. The "relevant government bodies" means essentially >DOCA - perhaps we can prevail upon you to draft a letter on behalf of >the DNS forum to DOCA regarding the issue? > >Luke Carruthers >Magna Data >Internet Solutions Provider > >> This is covered in http://www.aunic.net/doms.html but as so many of the >> readers of this list have evidently done their homework and read this >> background document, and the related DNS documents (NOT!) I'll quote >> from it: >> >> >> "The fundamental cause of this flawed environment is the implicit >> assumption that the Internet Domain Name environment is not considered >> an authoritative name source, and litigants can cite other name >> authorities as some form of overriding legitimacy of exclusive right >> to a name and claim damages against the operators of the domain name >> system. This is a flawed environment, and can only be addressed by a >> fundamental shift within the public regulatory environment to allow a >> managed framework of registration of Internet domain Names, where due >> adherence to the defined framework will ensure that the process >> creates a name authority for the a name which is functionally >> independent of any other means of citation of authority to use a >> name. Thus the process of assigning a domain name of, say, >> <b>xyz.com.au</b> to an entity (on the basis that the name >> <b>xyz.com.au</b> was not assigned to any other party, that the bona >> fides of the applicant had been established, the appropriate fees (if >> stipulated) had been paid and the relevant administrative policy and >> process for the .com.au SLD had been followed) should be an act which >> does not incur a subsequent liability on the part of the .com.au DA or >> the registry operators. This does require some form of public >> instrument to effect this critical change in recognising the >> authenticity of the Internet Domain Name environment. It is noted that >> such public regulation of the activity may be accompanied by operation >> of the process by a duly created operating entity as a component of >> government administration, or in other cases it may be accompanied by >> a process of passing the responsibility for the operation to duly >> licensed bodies. Either approach would be a significant step forward >> in preserving the value and utility of the <b>.au</b> name domain over >> the current situation, as it would add a visible line of derivation of >> authority within a process where the ultimate functionality of the >> Internet domain name system is the foremost concern and the integrity >> of that functionality would be best safeguarded through such >> measures." >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Geoff.Huston§telstra.net >> >> Network Technical Manager Locked Bag 5744, >> Telstra Internet Canberra ACT 2601 >> AUSTRALIA >> >> ph +61 6 208 1908 >> fax +61 6 248 6165 >> >> >> ----------------------- >> And as a quick postscript to those cut and paste reporters lurking >> out there... >> >> Copyright of this message is asserted by Geoff Huston >> Permission to reproduce this message in whole or in part in any medium >> other than the Internet is expressly NOT provided by the copyright owner. >> ----------------------- >> >> >>Received on Wed Dec 04 1996 - 11:52:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Sep 09 2017 - 22:00:02 UTC