Geoff Huston wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the constructive posting George. I too agree that there is scope at this
> point in time to deliberately make changes in process on the basis of discussion
> and a deliberate effort to seek consensus.
> 
> I see a DNS system which admits only a small set of instruments of policy:
> 
>  - obtaining a name should involve a mandatory public notification period. Any
>    party which feels that its intellectual property rights are about to be infringed
>    may use this period to contact the applicant and work through the issue in
>    whatever manner the parties see fit. Obviously the registry will undertake the
>    delegation at the end of the public nofitication period unless the original
>    applicant requests that the action be held over, or a court of juristiction
>    issues an injunction against proceeding.
> 
>   Why slow down a process that folk want to happen quickly?
> 
>   To ensure that the process does not bog down in damages claims over
>   abuse of intellectual property rights. The use of a mandatory notification period
>   serves the purpose of allowing a third party to object to the proposed action,
>   but as the action has not happened, there is no damages component.
> 
>   It also serves the prupose of assisting the legitimacy of title to the applicant -
>   in so far as if a third party chooses to wait until the public notification period
>   has expired, the subsequent claim of infringement of rights and consequent
>   damages is severely weakened by their delay in not acting during a period
>   of public notification.
> 
>   In previous posts I had bemoaned the lack of public recognition of the legitimacy
>   of authority of DNS names, and the issue that after the event third parties
>   were appearing citing some form of superior authority for a name by citing
>   some other name authority. The instigation of a mandatory public notification
>   period prior to delegation does in my mind mind address this issue from a
>   practical viewpoint very effectively.
> 
> - the name space should be managed using a competitive marketplace model.
>   The issue here is that a monopoly provider runs the risk of engaging in
>   various forms of monopolistic trading practices, from overservicing to
>   price manipulation and discriminatory trading practices. To address such
>   risks you either have to regulate and then police the regulations, or you can
>   deliberately structure a competitive marketplace where the competitive
>   pressures effectively balance the market.
> 
> - Periodic charges for the maintenance of names are an effective mechanism to
>   reduce the risk of hoarding and speculation.
> 
> Note that I have NOT claimed that a party should need to provide any substantiation
> of a claim to any particular name, Instead I'm advocating the opposite - any
> party can apply for any name, and other parties can initiatie objections to
> the propsed action of delegation.
> 
> Note that I have NOT claimed that names are not tradeable. Indeed I see no
> reason why names should NOT be tradeable. (Of course you should expect
> to pay sales tax once the various taxation authorities get wind of these
> transactions :-) ).
> 
> Now if I uses these 3 policy principles (and just these)  to respond to George's points:...
> 
> >(1)    like vanity plates, the infrastructure should certainly NOT incur
> >       cost in the procedure, and probably SHOULD raise revenue as an outcome
> 
> Charges for names do have a role.
> 
> >(2)    the company running a given domain below .AU should NOT make profit
> >       from this kind of decision above and beyond that assessed as fair for
> >       the provision of this kind of service: Public interest dictates there
> >       be a far wider beneficiary (all of us) from what is essentially
> >       "common wealth" in any case
> 
> You can either structure a competitive marketplace to ensure that charges
> are kept to a level which would quate to cost of operation, or you can regulate
> and then expend resources to enforce the regulation, or you can mix the
> two a little.
> 
> I would be in favour of the latter (a mix of a regulatory framework of reserve
> powers to yank us out of the soup if it all breaks down, coupled with a
> competitive supply structure to ensure that the market is balanced in
> favour of providing efficient service to the consumer).
> 
> >(3)    substantive changes in service provision in this area to provide
> >       directory and related services will become vital. They probably need
> >       to be funded as hinted at in (1) and (2)
> 
> The Directory Problem is huge. I wonder if this is the right way to get
> resources to bear on it? However I agree that any directory structure
> is a public asset and should be treated as one from the outset.
> 
> >Its very easy to see from the whole ALTERNIC shambles that when the trust
> >breaks down, everybody looses. I think we owe it to a far wider audience
> >to get this right.
> 
> exactly
> 
>   cheers,
> 
>    Geoff
> 
> --
> 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  ....
> 
> Copyright of the original material in this message is asserted by Geoff Huston
> Permission to reproduce those parts of this message authored by Geoff Huston, in whole or in part, in
> any medium other than the Internet is expressly NOT provided by the copyright owner.
> -----------------------
Geoff

You have written several times about "public notification". Do you
envisage that the existing arrangement where names are pending to be
public notification with just the time period to be defined. It appears
to me to have the advantage of being linked to the existing system and
easily open to public access.

Happy New Year (to all)
Gary