John,

I am unsure whether your queries are made in your occupation as a journalist as
noted in your signature block, or as a member of this mailing list.

Given my uncertainty I have decided not to respond to your queries below other than by
this note, however I note that other list members may not feel simlarly constrained.

thanks,

   Geoff

At 3:53 PM 9/12/96, John Hilvert wrote:
>At 02:11 PM 09-12-96 +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
>>Here's a draft - comments welcome
>>
>>   Geoff
>>
>>
>>Internet Domain Names
>
>The paper raises a number of issues but it seems to me your key reform is at
>the last par:
>
>>
>>This does require some form of public instrument to effect this critical
>>change in recognising the authenticity of the Internet Domain Name
>>environment as a public name authority in its own right. It is noted that
>>such public recognition of the activity may be accompanied by operation of
>>the process by a duly created operating entity as a component of government
>>administration, or it may be accompanied by a process of more formal
>>delegation the responsibility for the operation to duly authorised bodies.
>>Either approach would be a significant step forward in preserving the value
>>and utility of the ".au" name domain over the current situation, as it
>>would add a visible line of derivation of authority within a process where
>>
>>
>
>I am not opposed to regulation, especially where it can make a market more
>efficient. 
>
>The four questions I wonder about are:
>
>a) Who benefits from such moves? Can you spell out what you mean by the
>"ultimate functionality of the Internet domain name system"? Are you arguing
>for some legal shield for the naming authorities? By creating a new right of
>ownership to a domain name, what responsibilities, if any, follow?
>
>b) What role is there for conventional contract (between a naming authority
>and the applicant, for example), intellectual property laws as well as
>markets generally in this proposed scheme? Just because there is legal
>backing for a naming process does not mean it can't or won't be challenged
>in the courts. 
>
>c) How does this fit in with how other countries are attacking the issue of
>contested domain names? Given that certain domain names have value, if
>Australia led in this area, can we rule out opportunism from overseas
>applicants for example. 
>
>d) Because the DNS seems connected to many other aspects of Net
>administration such as routing tables and the like, how great a risk is
>there of trading off creeping red tape for all for the occasional and
>inevitable litigatory snarls of the future?
>
>In short, why do you believe the litigation risk has become so great and so
>uncertain that we need The Government to sort it out?
>
>John Hilvert
>Journalist at Large
>"The shallower you are, the more ground you cover."
>For great education software reviews try http://www.edutainment.com.au/

-- 
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.
-----------------------