Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!apple!bionet!agate!ucbvax!nrtc.northrop.com!Stef From: Stef@nrtc.northrop.com (Einar Stefferud) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso Subject: Re: OSI Registration Message-ID: <4473.636099523@nma.com> Date: 27 Feb 90 06:18:43 GMT References: <101@slovax.WA.COM> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: Stef@nrtc.northrop.com Organization: The Internet Lines: 31 Your observations about national and State (or even lower) "standing" for a given organization to use a given name are right on the mark. The US ANSI Procedures that have been adopted for OSI Organizational Name Registration account for this by preregistering each State, the District of Columbia, and all the (6-7) Outlying Areas (e.g., Guam, Puerto Rica, etc) to become (sub)registration authorities for organizations that only have standing in their jurisdictions. The next step in the problem then is to alert the states that they have an obligation to OSI to establish (sub)registries for their organizations (and citizens). Then, the rules are simple. You apply for a name, which is published on a "challenge" list. if anyone challenges, the registration process stops and waits for the challenger/applicant pair to resolve the challenge, without any help from ANSI or the state (sub)registries. If after the challenge period closes, someone decides to challenge a registered name, it is their privilege, but the name remains registered until it is agreed that the challenger shall have the right to force de-registration, or turnover of the registration to the challenger. Again, this action is all taken in the normal legal context of intellectual property rights, which includes litigation in the courts if the challenger and the defendant so wish. Now then, all this seems quite rational, until we notice that some OSI standards, like X.400 ORAddress Attribute Values require a single flat national namespace. (e.g., PRMD and ADMD Names) More on this in the next episode...\Stef