> >> 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&#167;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.
> -----------------------
> 
> 
>