Conflict resolution
Uniqueness is enforced by a single Gold server record. Conflicts escalate in stages. Each level is more costly and more public. Stakes are at risk.
IANA-designated names always trump UCAN at the first DNS resolver. Everything below applies only to non-IANA namespaces under the cooperative rules.
A claim that fails to renew can be taken over by a new uCRS. No double-stake requirement. The previous stake is simply released when the term ends.
Requires double the normal token stake (uCRS). The challenger publishes justification. The current holder is notified (whois-style, pusher, or Danny agent). The holder’s ISP must either match the asserted state (and may receive supportive stakes from other ISPs) or drop their renewal uCRS and recover their stake. Failed challenger stake is lost; successful stake is committed to the Gold record.
If multiple uCRS exist at or before renewal, a humanity token can escalate to a Kleros-like process. The humanity-checker transaction is posted in steps, with timeframe and court size/budget equal to the stake. AI agents predominate in the first evaluation, reading published facts (GitHub PRs to the Gold server setting). Other ISPs may submit supportive uCRS stakes for the human (the primitive supports the human, not the ISP). The losing uCRS loses its coin. The human indicates a single ISP association.
Analogous to Level 2 but with larger court size. Court fees must originate from the human to the Gold server. Possible court compositions under consideration:
- (a) Agentic — automated prompts / AI evaluation (likely run on every uCRS).
- (b) Network operators / experts — designated ISP points of contact cast votes.
- (c) General public — larger social crowd.
Who sits at the table?
This remains an open design question. One direction: the Gold server initiates the court process; court composition and selection rules are themselves governed by the standard and can evolve through the same open process. Operator seats could be drawn from ISPs that have durable claims or that stake in support. Public seats require clear anti-Sybil rules. Feedback is explicitly requested.
Published justification
Every initial uCRS must include a reason published to GitHub (or another durable public reference). It is re-checked on renewal. Third-party ISPs can verify and, if correct, receive a reward. When multiple claims exist, participants must indicate which one they believe is most correct and appropriate.
Disputes between ISPs that claim the same human are resolved in favor of the human’s chosen association, subject to the verification rules above.