Subject: Re: Trust anchor key IPR issues within existing DNS operations business model

From: Thierry Moreau <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 14:52:24 -0500

Ian Jackson wrote:
> 
> There are numerous registries in the hierarchy which do not have
> similar `business models' and may not even be businesses. [...]
> 
> Ian.
> 

You correctly point out that neither ccTLDs nor third level (and up) 
registrations in gTLDs generate transaction-based revenue to ICANN (a 
fee structure is being discussd for ccTLDs but it does not exist today).

Regards,

-- 

- Thierry Moreau

CONNOTECH Experts-conseils inc.
9130 Place de Montgolfier
Montreal, Qc
Canada   H2M 2A1

Tel.: (514)385-5691
Fax:  (514)385-5900

web site: http://www.connotech.com
e-mail: [email-masked]

--
to unsubscribe send a message to [email-masked] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://ops.ietf.org/lists/namedroppers/>

---

From: Ian Jackson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:58:51 +0000

[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
   a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.  
   With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore 
   delete relevant posts by non-subscribers. 
   Please fix your subscription addresses. ]

Thierry Moreau writes ("Trust anchor key IPR issues within existing DNS operations business  model"):
> This post addresses the IPR issue with respect to trust anchor
> key management for IETF purposes.
> 
> The current business model for DNS is registration fees paid by
> registrants to registrars [...]

This is somewhat off-topic but I would like to point out that this
assertion is not true.  (I also agree with those who say that it is
not a good idea for the IETF to make these kind of assumptions.)

There are numerous registries in the hierarchy which do not have
similar `business models' and may not even be businesses.  Just three
examples with which I'm familiar:

 * Delegation from `.' to the CC-tlds is done as a matter of sovereign
   right and it is far from clear that the root server operators or
   zone administrators ought to be put in the position of needing to
   pay for licenses.

 * Delegation from `cam.ac.uk' to its subsidiary bodies including
   Colleges (which are independent legal institutions) is not
   accompanied by a `business model'.  (The delegation in some cases
   takes the form of a DNS zone cut with independent zone maintenance,
   and in others is essentially administrative.)

 * Delegation from `ucam.org' (which I help run).  ucam.org is a
   not-for-profit special purpose registry, of a kind of which there
   are very many.  It is not even a legal entity, let alone a
   `business', and there is no `business model' for extracting
   `revenue'.

Ian.