From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Jan 6 12:16:57 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 11:16:57 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29 Message-ID: <0EMD00O9X0O82E@hermes.ucd.ie> Please see draft agenda below for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29. Please let me know soonest of any additional items which need to be discussed, and take the opportunity to begin the discussion on the mailing list, tld-wg at ripe.net. My initial time estimates suggest that we will not be able to fit the business comfortably in a standard 90-minute meeting slot. I've asked for a double slot. A possible alternative is to look for an 11:00 slot and go late to lunch. What do you think ? Happy New Year Niall O'Reilly RIPE TLD-WG Chair RIPE 29 TLD-WG -- Proposed Agenda 1.Administrivia (09:00 or as scheduled -- other times tied to this, 5 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 Agenda bashing 2.Matters arising from RIPE 28 TLD-WG meeting (09:05, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list 3.Brief news (09:15, 5 mins) (not covered by other agenda items, if any) 4.Operational issues (09:20, 10 mins) (if any) 5.Review Workplan (09:30, 10 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. Without such proposals, this may be a null item. 8-) 6.IANA and stability of the root (09:40, 20 mins) 6.1 Presentation on recent developments (R.Blokzijl) 6.2 Review progress on action TLD-28.1 7.WG Support Activity (09:50, 15 mins) Review progress on action TLD-28.2 (RIPE-NCC) 8.nTLD issues (10:05, 15 mins) Documentation, harmonisation ... 9.gTLD issues (10:20, 15 mins) 10.AOB (10:35, 5 mins) 11.Conclusions (10:40, 10 mins) 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list Close (10:50) -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 13:53:35 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Tue Jan 6 13:53:10 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 13:53:10 +0100 Subject: Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29 In-Reply-To: Message from Niall O'Reilly of "Tue, 06 Jan 1998 11:16:57 +0000." <0EMD00O9X0O82E@hermes.ucd.ie> References: <0EMD00O9X0O82E@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <9801061253.AA00141@ncc.ripe.net> On Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998, Niall O'Reilly writes: > Please see draft agenda below for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29. > Please let me know soonest of any additional items which need to be > discussed, and take the opportunity to begin the discussion on the > mailing list, tld-wg at ripe.net. > My initial time estimates suggest that we will not be able to fit the > business comfortably in a standard 90-minute meeting slot. I've asked > for a double slot. A possible alternative is to look for an 11:00 slot > and go late to lunch. What do you think ? > Happy New Year > Niall O'Reilly > RIPE TLD-WG Chair > RIPE 29 TLD-WG -- Proposed Agenda > 1.Administrivia > (09:00 or as scheduled -- other times tied to this, 5 mins) > 1.1 recognition of Scribe > 1.2 Agenda bashing > 2.Matters arising from RIPE 28 TLD-WG meeting (09:05, 10 mins) > 2.1 adoption of minutes > 2.2 review of action list > 3.Brief news (09:15, 5 mins) > (not covered by other agenda items, if any) > 4.Operational issues (09:20, 10 mins) > (if any) > 5.Review Workplan (09:30, 10 mins) > Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. > Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should > be submitted before the meeting, please. > Without such proposals, this may be a null item. 8-) > 6.IANA and stability of the root (09:40, 20 mins) > 6.1 Presentation on recent developments (R.Blokzijl) > 6.2 Review progress on action TLD-28.1 > 7.WG Support Activity (09:50, 15 mins) > Review progress on action TLD-28.2 (RIPE-NCC) > 8.nTLD issues (10:05, 15 mins) > Documentation, harmonisation ... > 9.gTLD issues (10:20, 15 mins) > 10.AOB (10:35, 5 mins) > 11.Conclusions (10:40, 10 mins) > 11.1 revisit workplan priorities > 11.2 summarize action list > Close (10:50) Niall, Would like to suggest as additional item Berislav Todorovic's proposed addendum/changes to RFC-1591 to be discussed (see below). And ... > I think it would be good to have several regional (with 5 to 7 regions > covering the world) groups organized to represent the interests of the > contry code domain administrators. > An organization of this kind is already being formed in Europe. Is that covered by your agenda ? Marcel ---------------ENCLOSURE: PROPOSAL FROM ------------- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:56:00 +0100 From: Berislav Todorovic To: rms46 at geocities.com Cc: tld-admin at ripe.net Subject: Re: Query from a young TLD >> > "Follow the expressed wishes of the government of the country >> > with regard to the domain name manager for the country code >> > corresponding to that country". >> > >> > We have decided that this rule takes priority. We do not believe it is >> > wise to argue with the government of a country about the TLD for that >> > country. >> >> Interesting .... >> >> How if there are "two" or "more" governments in a country ? >> Not mention, each government has "sub-independent-governments", i.e. >> Head of State, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Telecommunication, >> Ministry of Education, Ministry of Technology. Now, which one will >> be in IANA's favor ? One more reason to create the RFC 1591++ or an add-on to the RFC 1519, dedicated to the nTLDs. >> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:10:19 +0100 >> From: Marcel Schneider >> Subject: RE: Query from a young TLD >> >> Should we bring that up at the next RIPE meeting ? Do you have any >> suggestions regarding content ? It would be very appropriate to put that on the TLD-WG agenda of the next meeting. My personal opinion is that the document has to be rather an add-on to the RFC 1591, than a totally new document. The reason is obvious: the structure of the root zone might be changed in the future, by introducing new gTLDs, while nTLDs will probably remain untouched. Am I right? Thus, a separate document, focusing on the problem of nTLD administration, is really needed. The document itself should address (but should not be limited to) some of the following topics: * Criteria for chosing a designated manager, especially in the case when different parties are involved. Who will have the priority and what criteria will be applied. * Framework for defining second and third level domain delegation policies under the nTLDs. Emphasis must be given to the right of the nTLD administrator to define any policy which fits in the given framework. * Duties of nTLDs, regarding MANDATORY publishing of the second and third level domain delegation policies, both in national and English language. * Technical requirements for the nTLD operation: clarify a bit more on DNS requirements - degree of connectivity, allowed percentage of unreachability time, recommended SOA parameters for nTLDs, minimum number and locations of the DNS servers. * Allowed time frame between a second or third level domain delegation request and domain registration under a nTLD, if the requestor satisfies all terms and conditions, defined by the nTLD policy. * Resolving appeals regarding nTLD administrator's work. * Resolving appeals and wishes from the govt's of the countries, which has been assigned country codes. The term "government" has to be defined precisely, which is not a simple task at all. The following cases might arise: - Countries with more than one country code assigned. - Protectorates with independent local government authorities. - Protectorates runned by a government of another country. - Unions and "weak" confederations having a unique country code. - Territories with country codes under the UN protection. - Countries occupied by other countries. - Cases when ISO deletes the country code (is it possible?). - Country "split-up" and "merge" cases. - ... (any other cases?). * Trademark issues - domain name dispute policies within a nTLD. Best regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: beri at ubbg.etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ UBBG System administrator | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 14:59:21 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Jan 6 14:58:25 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 13:58:25 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29 Message-ID: <0EMD0033M85DKA@hermes.ucd.ie> As far as agenda planning is concerned, this can be taken under item 8, nTLD issues, provided we have some structured input for the meeting. Otherwise it will be appropriate to task somebody (-bodies) to prepare input for discussion at RIPE 30 in May. I see this as mainstream documentation and harmonisation discussion. Assuming we find someone to present the input, we shall need to allow more time for this item. This will lead to a clearer requirement for a double timetable slot. Will you, Beri, be prepared to make a brief presentation covering the problems caused by deficiencies in RFC1591 and how these could be addressed in the suggested RFC1591++ ? Without such a focus for the discussion, we risk wasting time. In terms of the content, I would like to make the following observations personally and as IEDR manager with my WG-chair hat off. At RIPE 28, we recognised that a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, approach was preferable at first. I would prefer to focus on "best practice" rather than on "duty". I expect many nTLD-admins would share my preference at this time. In forming a recommendation on best practice, I feel it will be well to avoid descending too far into detail, especially with regard to parameters. What is an unacceptable delay for registration in one domain may be quite appropriate in another, due to differences in policy, for example with regard to production and verification of documents justifying the request for registration. Likewise, different business cultures and legal traditions may lead to different escalation and conflict resolution procedures. It may even be appropriate for legal reasons NOT to offer an English version of the rules and procedures for a particular nTLD registry. What is certainly useful in all cases is to make clear statements describing the policy framework aand what the parameters are. The standard "security" section of many RFC's comes to mind: a statement that certain matters are not addressed contributes clarity. Niall O'Reilly On 6 Jan 98 at 13:53, Marcel Schneider (quoting Berislav Todorovic) wrote: [ ... ] >It would be very appropriate to put that on the TLD-WG agenda of the >next meeting. My personal opinion is that the document has to be >rather an add-on to the RFC 1591, than a totally new document. The >reason is obvious: the structure of the root zone might be changed >in the future, by introducing new gTLDs, while nTLDs will probably >remain untouched. Am I right? Thus, a separate document, focusing on >the problem of nTLD administration, is really needed. > >The document itself should address (but should not be limited to) >some of the following topics: > >* Criteria for chosing a designated manager, especially in the case > when different parties are involved. Who will have the priority > and what criteria will be applied. > >* Framework for defining second and third level domain delegation > policies under the nTLDs. Emphasis must be given to the right > of the nTLD administrator to define any policy which fits in > the given framework. > >* Duties of nTLDs, regarding MANDATORY publishing of the second and > third level domain delegation policies, both in national and > English language. > >* Technical requirements for the nTLD operation: clarify a bit more > on DNS requirements - degree of connectivity, allowed percentage > of unreachability time, recommended SOA parameters for nTLDs, > minimum number and locations of the DNS servers. > >* Allowed time frame between a second or third level domain > delegation request and domain registration under a nTLD, if the > requestor satisfies all terms and conditions, defined by the nTLD > policy. > >* Resolving appeals regarding nTLD administrator's work. > >* Resolving appeals and wishes from the govt's of the countries, > which has been assigned country codes. The term "government" has > to be defined precisely, which is not a simple task at all. > The following cases might arise: > > - Countries with more than one country code assigned. > - Protectorates with independent local government authorities. > - Protectorates runned by a government of another country. > - Unions and "weak" confederations having a unique country code. > - Territories with country codes under the UN protection. > - Countries occupied by other countries. > - Cases when ISO deletes the country code (is it possible?). > - Country "split-up" and "merge" cases. > - ... (any other cases?). > >* Trademark issues - domain name dispute policies within a nTLD. > >Best regards, >Beri > -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 16:15:42 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Jan 6 16:14:47 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 15:14:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: TLD-WG documents for RIPE 29 Message-ID: <0EMD00P7QBOPA5@hermes.ucd.ie> I've just sent the following docs to the RIPE NCC Webmaster. Summary of TLD-WG session at RIPE 28 (which you may already have seen); Draft minutes of TLD-WG session at RIPE 28; TLD-WG Terms of Reference (alas, still without Appendix A); TLD-WG Workplan, current edition, for review at RIPE 29. I expect it will be most convenient for you to pick these from the RIPE NCC Web site. Best Regards Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 16:53:29 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Jan 6 16:52:36 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 15:52:36 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam Message-ID: <0EMD005NGDFPFH@hermes.ucd.ie> This is to encourage you to register for the upcoming RIPE 29 meeting in Amsterdam (see http://www.ripe.net) at the end of January. It is particularly important to have as many nTLD administrators present as possible for the Top-Level-Domain working group (TLD-WG) session. So far, I've identified only one domain registry among those who have registered their participation in the meeting. Well done, Annie Renard! Yes, I myself have yet to follow your good example. Niall O'Reilly Manager, IE Domain Registry Chair, RIPE TLD-WG -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 17:26:25 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Tue Jan 6 17:26:04 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Tue, 06 Jan 1998 17:26:04 +0100 Subject: Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam In-Reply-To: Message from Niall O'Reilly of "Tue, 06 Jan 1998 15:52:36 +0000." <0EMD005NGDFPFH@hermes.ucd.ie> References: <0EMD005NGDFPFH@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <9801061626.AA25379@ncc.ripe.net> On Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998, Niall O'Reilly writes: > This is to encourage you to register for the upcoming RIPE 29 meeting > in Amsterdam (see http://www.ripe.net) at the end of January. > It is particularly important to have as many nTLD administrators > present as possible for the Top-Level-Domain working group (TLD-WG) > session. > So far, I've identified only one domain registry among those who have > registered their participation in the meeting. Well done, Annie > Renard! Yes, I myself have yet to follow your good example. Me too :). Can only support Niall's recommendation. This will be an important meeting. We have two main topics in my point of view: 1. The stability of IANA, where we can hope to hear the latest news regarding negotiations between RIPE and IANA and 2. RIPE Council of European National TLD Registries (RIPE CENTR). This is the working title of a yet to-be-formed association, the one Jon Postel probably referes to in his second letter to us and the one RIPE seems to be silent to the grave about :). The RIPE'rs are probably still on holidays now they have so much money ... > Niall O'Reilly > Manager, IE Domain Registry > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG Marcel -------- Logged at Wed Jan 7 12:07:57 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Wed Jan 7 12:07:30 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Wed, 07 Jan 1998 12:07:30 +0100 Subject: Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 06 Jan 1998 17:26:04 +0100. <9801061626.AA25380@ncc.ripe.net> References: <9801061626.AA25380@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <9801071107.AA00933@ncc.ripe.net> Hi Marcel, As one of the silent RIPE'ers I will try to answer your questions. Sorry I have been quiet for the last period, but the setting up of our new legal construction took up a sizeable amount of my time. Anyway that is now all finished as the new legal framework is in place and working. * * Me too :). Can only support Niall's recommendation. This will be * an important meeting. We have two main topics in my point of view: * * 1. The stability of IANA, where we can hope to hear the latest news * regarding negotiations between RIPE and IANA and Myself or Daniel will give a presentation at the RIPE meeting and hopefully you will see a written report beforehand, in combination with the point below. * * 2. RIPE Council of European National TLD Registries (RIPE CENTR). * This is the working title of a yet to-be-formed association, the * one Jon Postel probably referes to in his second letter to us and * the one RIPE seems to be silent to the grave about :). The RIPE'rs * are probably still on holidays now they have so much money ... * Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up for comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is of course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. You will hear from me soon Regards Paul * > Niall O'Reilly * * > Manager, IE Domain Registry * > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG * * * Marcel * -------- Logged at Wed Jan 7 12:17:17 MET 1998 --------- From edd at aic.net Wed Jan 7 12:14:05 1998 From: edd at aic.net (Edgar Danielyan) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:14:05 +0300 (GMT) Subject: Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam In-Reply-To: <9801071107.AA00933@ncc.ripe.net> from "Paul Ridley" at Jan 7, 98 12:07:30 pm Message-ID: <199801071114.OAA05326@aic.net> Hi Paul, > Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up for > comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave > Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when > trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is of > course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. It would be great if someone could post the info to the list; because there are TLD admins which can't/won't attend the meeting (like me), Thanks Edgar AM NIC -------- Logged at Wed Jan 7 16:56:05 MET 1998 --------- From edd at aic.net Wed Jan 7 12:14:05 1998 From: edd at aic.net (Edgar Danielyan) Date: Wed, 7 Jan 1998 14:14:05 +0300 (GMT) Subject: Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam In-Reply-To: <9801071107.AA00933@ncc.ripe.net> from "Paul Ridley" at Jan 7, 98 12:07:30 pm Message-ID: <199801071114.OAA05326@aic.net> Hi Paul, > Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up for > comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave > Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when > trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is of > course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. It would be great if someone could post the info to the list; because there are TLD admins which can't/won't attend the meeting (like me), Thanks Edgar AM NIC -------- Logged at Thu Jan 8 11:55:47 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Jan 8 11:54:58 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:54:58 +0000 (GMT) Subject: Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam Message-ID: <0EMG00LGYOZSQA@hermes.ucd.ie> Paul, Are you planning a HTML version of your presentation RIPE CENTR ? If so, we can put it on the TLD-WG web site. Niall On 7 Jan 98 at 14:14, Edgar Danielyan wrote: > > >Hi Paul, > >> Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up for >> comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave >> Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when >> trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is of >> course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. > >It would be great if someone could post the info to the list; because >there are TLD admins which can't/won't attend the meeting (like me), > > >Thanks >Edgar >AM NIC > > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 8 13:24:16 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Thu Jan 8 13:24:02 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Thu, 08 Jan 1998 13:24:02 +0100 Subject: Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 08 Jan 1998 10:54:58 GMT. <0EMG00LGYOZSQA@hermes.ucd.ie> References: <0EMG00LGYOZSQA@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <9801081224.AA22028@ncc.ripe.net> Hi Niall, Any presentation given will be available in html format straight after the RIPe meeting. Also any document sthat may be published will be available in text, html, and postscript. Regards Paul Niall O'Reilly writes: * Paul, * * Are you planning a HTML version of your presentation RIPE CENTR ? * If so, we can put it on the TLD-WG web site. * * Niall * * On 7 Jan 98 at 14:14, Edgar Danielyan wrote: * * > * > * >Hi Paul, * > * >> Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up f * or * >> comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave * >> Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when * >> trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is * of * >> course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. * > * >It would be great if someone could post the info to the list; because * >there are TLD admins which can't/won't attend the meeting (like me), * > * > * >Thanks * >Edgar * >AM NIC * > * > * > * -------- Logged at Fri Jan 9 20:25:57 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Fri Jan 9 20:25:36 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 20:25:36 +0100 Subject: IANA Progress Report Message-ID: <9801091925.AA02441@ncc.ripe.net> Dear all, This short report and attached document aim to keep you informed as to the developments involving IANA and the role that the RIPE NCC is playing in this. Discussions on the future of IANA are currently intensifying. During the recent IETF meeting Rob Blokzijl and Daniel Karrenberg, on behalf of the RIPE community, pursued this matter with all concerned. The US government plans to continue funding IANA until September 1998, at which time US government funding will definitely cease. The University of Southern California still holds our initial contribution and will use it if necessary. Jon Postel is working on a plan to incorporate IANA as a legal entity and to get support from IANA's direct users as well as the community at large. Incorporation is planned for the first half of this year. Consensus is emerging about the IANA services. Attached is a position paper that Rob, Daniel and myself wrote and sent as input for that process. This position paper can shortly be found on the tld-wg and lir-wg websites. A more detailed report including the latest developments will be given at the RIPE meeting. Regards Paul Ridley RIPE NCC Business Manager -------------- next part -------------- ____________________________________________________ Position Paper on IANA Structure Rob Blokzijl Daniel Karrenberg Paul Ridley Document: IANA-paper Status This document is a position paper reflected the views of the three authors. Scope The intended audience for this position paper is all interested parties concerned with the future struc- ture of IANA. Comments to the authors are welcome. 1. Introduction The position paper looks at the activities carried out by IANA and at the direct users of these activi- ties. A organisational structure for IANA is then proposed based upon the principle of bottom-up gov- ernance, in which the direct users of the IANA activities govern IANA. 2. Activities The activities that IANA now carries out have been, and will continue to be, critical for the growth and stability of the Internet. Since these activities are critical they should stand central in any ____________________________________________________ IANA-paper.txt Page 1 Position Paper on IANA Structure Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley ____________________________________________________ discussion of the future structure of IANA. The activities currently carried out by IANA are the following: 2.1. Address Space Allocation and global policy forum * Provides an address space allocation/registra- tion service to the regional IRs (RIR). * Provides a process to establish global address space related policies. * Establishes a process for arbitration of con- flicts regarding these policies. * Provides coordination services to RIRs. 2.2. DNS TLD Allocation and Registration; Operation of Root Name Servers * Registers all TLDs. * Maintains root zone information. * Allocates nTLDs. gTLDs are allocated in a pro- cess outside IANA * Operates root name servers (may be delegated to individual operators). 2.3. Assigning Unique Parameters for Internet Protocols * Assigns and registers other unique parameters. 2.4. RFC Editor * Edits the RFC series of documents. * Provides a repository for these documents. 2.5. Internet Monthly Report (IMR) 3. Activity users Who are the direct users for these activities? It is stressed that the focus should be on the *direct* users as opposed to indirect users since persons even remotely connected with the Internet community could be classed as users. In order to allow scala- bility direct users who are inherently accountable (in good bottom-up fashion) to minor indirect users need to be the focus. ____________________________________________________ IANA-paper.txt Page 2 Position Paper on IANA Structure Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley ____________________________________________________ If direct users are mapped to activities the follow- ing direct user groupings appear. 3.1. IP number allocation, RIR coordination and global policy forum This activity has the following direct users: * RIPE NCC * ARIN * AP-NIC * Any future RIR 3.2. DNS TLD Allocation and Registration; Operation of Root Name Servers This activity has the following direct users: * CORE * Any future coordinating points for individual TLD registries since individual representation does not scale 3.3. Assigning unique parameters for Internet protocols This activity has the following direct users: * IETF 3.4. RFC editor This activity has the following direct users: * IETF 3.5. Internet Monthly Report (IMR) This activity has the following direct users: * The Internet community in general, however it should be borne in mind that this activity is very minor in comparison to the others. It merely compliments them. From this direct user to activity mapping it becomes apparent that there are three main groupings of direct users. They are the RIRs the TLD coordination points (TLD Coord), and the IETF. It is apparent that direct users are typically regional or global ____________________________________________________ IANA-paper.txt Page 3 Position Paper on IANA Structure Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley ____________________________________________________ entities. If at any time in the future other enti- ties than those mentioned become direct users of the IANA activities, then they should be recognised as such. In the discussion that follows this position paper other direct user groups will probably be mentioned. A few of these other groups are highlighted below with a explanation of why it is thought that they are not direct users but indirect users of the IANA activities. ISP's By means of the global bottom-up structures that are in place at the RIRs, the individual ISP has a voice within his own RIR community; the consensus of which the RIR brings to IANA. TLD Registries By means of the bottom up structures that are in place in the case of CORE or in the process of being started within the Regional areas (to more or less degrees) the individual TLD reg- istry has a voice within his own TLD Coord area community; the consensus of which the TLD Coord brings to IANA. Industry Industry is there to serve its client, normally an individual ISP or TLD registry, who is already represented by a direct user. If an individual industry player wants to get more involved then the option exists to put more input into the IETF or the Regional technical meetings which give advice to the RIRs. Government If, as is constantly espoused, the majority of governments want the Internet to be self-regu- lating then they should not be classed as direct users influencing policy. Their rela- tionship to the IANA activities is without doubt that they are indirect users or an inter- ested party. End user or individual An individual is always able to get involved in the IETF or the Regional technical meetings ____________________________________________________ IANA-paper.txt Page 4 Position Paper on IANA Structure Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley ____________________________________________________ which give advice to the RIRs. 4. Direct user / IANA relations IANA provides (if all of the activities are kept within IANA) definite services to all three direct user groupings; the RIRs, the TLD Coords, and IETF. Thus the relationship between IANA and these groups should be concrete and governing, in the same manner as the RIRs relate with the ISPs in their region, i.e. truly bottom-up. In such a structured relation- ship only the three direct users would fund and gov- ern the IANA activities. 5. Proposed IANA organisational structure principles In order to be able to constructively discuss a pro- posed structure for IANA the various organs of the IANA organisation need to be defined. The aim here is to be clear as to what a particular organ is and does and not be discuss whether the name of a par- ticular organ is appropriate or not. It is proposed that there are three distinct organs in IANA; the general council, the executive board, and the man- agement. General Council This organ is the ruling organ in IANA and consists of representatives from every direct user. Executive Board This organ is subordinate to the general council and is responsible for the day-to-day governance of IANA. The members of the executive board are elected by the general council. Management This organ is subordinate to the executive board and is responsible for daily operations of IANA. The executive board hires the management In general the three organs are expected to interact in the following manner. All direct users have a right to have a representative(s) on the general council. Each individual direct user would be responsible for how his representative(s) are cho- sen. The general council being the ruling organ of IANA would have the responsibility to adopt annual accounts, budgets, charging schemes, and general activities of IANA. General council members would ____________________________________________________ IANA-paper.txt Page 5 Position Paper on IANA Structure Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley ____________________________________________________ also be the sole funders of IANA. The general council would elect the executive board of approximately five members. The general council would be allowed to elect general council represen- tatives or external persons to be an executive board member. The terms of executive board members would be three years in a staggered rotation. The execu- tive board being responsible for day-to-day gover- nance would be responsible for, monitoring the finances of IANA, ensuring appropriate business pro- cedures are in place (including dispute procedures) and being used, legally representing IANA, and deciding upon IANAs activities within the mandate given by the general council. The executive board would report to the general council. The executive board would hire a management compris- ing of one or more persons. The management being responsible for the day-to-day operations of IANA would be responsible for IANA personnel hiring, exe- cuting of all IANA activities, financial management. The management would report to the executive board. The proposed IANA organisational structure outlined above is the governing structure. There could also be an advisory structure that compliments the gov- erning structure, but this advisory structure is not a critical success factor in the setting up of IANA. For that reason and to avoid complication, discus- sion of an advisory structure is not a topic of this position paper. 6. Open issues There are many details of the the proposed organisa- tion structure and operational rules that are not covered above. These details, the open issues, many well take time to agree upon but they are not insur- mountable. The authors feel that it is more impor- tant to first agree upon the organisation principles as outlined in this position paper before delving into the open issue details. Examples of open issues that must be addressed are: * although the direct users have been outlined in general the specific direct users need to be identified. * what criteria will be used to determine how many representatives each individual direct user has in the general council. ____________________________________________________ IANA-paper.txt Page 6 Position Paper on IANA Structure Blokzijl, Karrenberg, Ridley ____________________________________________________ * what mechanism will be used to elect executive board members * what is the usefulness of the IMR and can it be developed * what are the activity related budgets for IANA * what mechanism is used to determine how much each individual direct user is charged for the IANA services. 7. Summary The outline proposal given above is, in the opinion of the authors, the fairest and most stable way of structuring IANA in the future and thus gives most stability to the Internet. This proposal is true to the aim of global bottom-up governance within the Internet and is definitely global industry self-reg- ulating. By following a true bottom-up model (i.e. governance and funding by the direct users) democ- racy is enhanced together with the crucial impar- tiality of IANA. If parties other than the direct users were structurally able to fund and influence the IANA activities then this bottom-up democratic aim would not be achieved and more importantly the crucial impartiality of IANA would be questionable. ____________________________________________________ IANA-paper.txt Page 7 From edd at aic.net Sat Jan 10 11:31:52 1998 From: edd at aic.net (Edgar Danielyan) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:31:52 +0300 (GMT) Subject: IANA Progress Report In-Reply-To: <9801091925.AA02441@ncc.ripe.net> from "Paul Ridley" at Jan 9, 98 08:25:36 pm Message-ID: <199801101031.NAA12991@aic.net> Hi: > Jon Postel is working on a plan to incorporate IANA as a legal entity and > to get support from IANA's direct users as well as the community at large. > Incorporation is planned for the first half of this year. Could you please provide more information about legal status of IANA Incorporated: I guess it will be non-profit US corporation? Regards Edgar AM NIC -------- Logged at Mon Jan 12 09:43:09 MET 1998 --------- From edd at aic.net Sat Jan 10 11:31:52 1998 From: edd at aic.net (Edgar Danielyan) Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:31:52 +0300 (GMT) Subject: IANA Progress Report In-Reply-To: <9801091925.AA02441@ncc.ripe.net> from "Paul Ridley" at Jan 9, 98 08:25:36 pm Message-ID: <199801101031.NAA12991@aic.net> Hi: > Jon Postel is working on a plan to incorporate IANA as a legal entity and > to get support from IANA's direct users as well as the community at large. > Incorporation is planned for the first half of this year. Could you please provide more information about legal status of IANA Incorporated: I guess it will be non-profit US corporation? Regards Edgar AM NIC -------- Logged at Mon Jan 12 18:27:42 MET 1998 --------- From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Mon Jan 12 18:27:26 1998 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 18:27:26 +0100 Subject: IANA Progress Report In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 10 Jan 1998 13:31:52 +0300. <199801101031.NAA12991@aic.net> References: <199801101031.NAA12991@aic.net> Message-ID: <9801121727.AA26640@ncc.ripe.net> > Edgar Danielyan writes: > > Could you please provide more information about legal status of IANA Incorp > orated: > I guess it will be non-profit US corporation? The current plans are to set up a non-profit corporation in the US. Are there any issues with that. Daniel -------- Logged at Wed Jan 14 09:41:03 MET 1998 --------- From W.Black at nominet.org.uk Wed Jan 14 09:40:47 1998 From: W.Black at nominet.org.uk (Dr W Black) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:40:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation (fwd) Message-ID: I don't usually forward POC mailings, since I'm never sure of their confidentiality status, but I think this makes quite interesting reading and looks like it's fairly public. W.B. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:43:39 -0500 From: Don Heath To: poc at gtld-mou.org Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation >>Received: from info.isoc.org (info [192.168.1.1]) by linus.isoc.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA04398 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:41:19 -0500 (EST) >X-Authentication-Warning: relay.pathfinder.com: Host [206.245.67.33] claimed to be pathfinderfw.twi.com >X-Sender: declan at mail.pathfinder.com >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:43:53 -0500 >To: politech at vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh >Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation >Sender: owner-politech at vorlon.mit.edu >Reply-To: declan at well.com >X-Loop: politech at vorlon.mit.edu >X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > >============================================ >Excerpts from transcript of press conference >============================================ > >Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, NTIA >January 8, 1998 >Washington, DC > >[...] > >Q Larry, you mentioned electronic commerce, but can you >tell us your progress on the green paper to privatize the >domain name registration? > >MR. IRVING: As many of you know, to my great chagrin and >disappointment November 1st came and went without us >releasing our green paper. I generally don't give dates >that we are going to release something, unless I am >absolutely certain that we can release it. In this case we >failed, and I apologize to those folks who were expecting >it, and I particularly apologize to Congress, and want to >thank those members of Congress who have ben forbearing, >and to those members of Congress who have gone home, and >because they are home haven't bothered to call me to >castigate me for not getting my paper in on time. > >We are working very diligently, and to be honest we thought >it was more important to get it right than to get it in on >time. There have been a lot of people across industry who >have a lot of issues. And what we began to discover was >looking just at the issue of domain name wasn't sufficient; >you have to look at the entire - there's a - (inaudible) - >affecting Internet governance, and there are a lot of >issues involved here. And we are trying hard to come up >with a comprehensive consensus document that we can deliver >to Congress. I can't give you another date, but it will be >soon. And one of the reasons it will be soon, because I >promised it two months ago and have not delivered it. >Another reason it will be soon is Congress is coming back, >and I think some of those people who requested it will want >it on their desk at or about the time they come back and >Congress reconvenes. But we will have a comprehensive >approach. Ira Magaziner and members of my staff, Becky >Bird (sp) and others, have done yeo person's work, or >yeoman's work - I'm not sure which is the non-sexist term - >but have worked diligently to come up with a product. >They've met with literally hundreds of people and/or read >thousands of pages of documents to get this right. And we >are committed to getting to the public and to the Congress >as good a report as we can. Anything we get is going to >have some critics, but we do think we can get a better >report by taking a little more time, being a little more >careful and talking to a few more people. > > >[...] > >Q If you abandon control of the Internet, or try to >minimize government regulations on the Internet, what >happens when you discover down the road perhaps - and let's >say perhaps dominating of the Internet by a few contract >providers - perhaps - (off mike) - how do you recover - >(off mike)? > >MR. IRVING: I think it is better to monitor and see if a >mistake is made then to start to regulate and assuredly >make some mistakes. > >Q Fair enough. What do you do once a mistake is made? > >MR. IRVING: You try to correct them. > >Q To minimize government regulation? > >MR. IRVING: We would - even if there are mistakes made, we >will try to correct those mistakes with minimal government >involvement. > >Q What tools do you have? > >MR. IRVING: You have all the tools you already have. You >have regulatory authority, you have litigation, you have >legislation. There is nothing - there is nothing that I >can't do prophylactically upfront that we couldn't do as a >government after the fact; but at least we'd know what the >issue is. Right now we'd be trying to - you know, it's >like trying to find a needle in the dark, in a 10,000 >square foot room. What problem am I trying to solve? And >right now we don't know. > >You know, nobody knew - none of us in this room would have >said in 1993 that in 1998 one trillion e-mails would be >transmitted around the globe. That's what happened last >year: one trillion - one trillion e-mails, according to >Financial Times, were transmitted around the globe. What >if I tried to do something to regulate e-mail based on what >I knew e-mail was going to be in 1993? I would have been >completely wrong, because I had no clue that there would be >one trillion e-mails in 1993. Did any of us know in 1996 >that real video would be a tool that people would be using >around the country, that you could watch the Rolling Stones >concert or pull up video - watch Savion Glover do a tap >dance recital on the Internet. Did any of us know that? >I didn't know in 1996 that in 1997 I could do that. I'd be >trying to regulate something I had no clue as to how it is >going to progress, and I might be stifling the progress. I >don't think that's good policy; more importantly, the >president and vice president don't think that's good >policy; Secretary Daley doesn't think that's good policy. >Let this thing grow at the rate it should grow as opposed >to. > >Internet telephony - 1995, 1994, who of you writing about >Internet telephony and talking about it as a real central >competitor, reducing prices and increasing opportunity for >entrepreneurs and for consumers? Have you thought - and >there were those calling to regulate Internet telephony. >The investments made would not have been made had we >started doing something when we were requested to with >regard to Internet telephony. We come down - I feel >strongly we have come down on the right side of this >debate. And I think that the people who are making >investments and who are building this industry, building >this economy, building this technology, feel strongly that >we should keep a relatively hands-off approach. That >doesn't mean we don't have guiding precepts. That doesn't >mean we are ignoring what's happening. It does mean we are >trying not to get in the way of a great success story >globally. > >[...] > >Q Larry, do you think that the present deregulatory >policy carved out for the Internet will hold insofar as >Internet service providers can withdraw from the universal >service - (off mike)? And then there's a growing debate >between federal policymakers and mayor and governors, both >that you met with and talked with, about taxation. That >issue won't go away, and it all gets to, you know, if and >how the Internet gets regulated. Is it always going to be a >hand-off approach, or will that just not hold and - (off >mike)? > >MR. IRVING: We're going to try to be as hands-off as >possible. The Internet, again, we have said this, and we >are going to continue to, the Internet has grown - has >rapidly grown precisely because of a lack of government >involvement in its regulation, in its structure, in its >future. And we are going to continue to try to make sure >that this is private sector-led. As frightening as some >people - as frightened as some people are of state and >local involvement - and the tax issue is an issue that I >think is resolvable. I mean, there is a way to resolve >that. And when you talk to people it's at the margins, but >there are ways to resolve that. > >I'm more concerned about the international implications for >regulation. I am very concerned that there are people >around the world - you know, in the United States and >Washington we are not scared of the Internet - we think >it's a good thing. We want the entrepreneurs to go out >there, we want them to build it. As you go around the >country there are people who are scared about the Internet, >and there are people who say that there should be >international governing bodies of the Internet. We don't >want that, and we are going to have to - you know, we are >going to have to make sure that people in Brussels, and >people in Geneva, and people in Paris, and people in >various capitals of the world don't get involved in >governing the Internet. There is, however, in industry and >among most of the nations that use the Internet, a >consensus that the Internet should be private sector-led, >developed, and industry should have development. There are >issues such as indecency, where there has to be some >government involvement to make sure things like parents >know where the good stuff on the Internet is - parents are >given the tools to protect their children from bad things >on the Internet. > >They agree within the Department of Justice and (IFPS ?) is >one instance where working with the government we can try >to find ways that children don't have access to things that >are inappropriate in it. Those are positive things that >have to happen. > >With regards to censorship or developing guidelines to how >the Internet - (inaudible) - to go - we don't want that. >With regard to domain name system, we don't want that. >With regard to privacy, we have said repeatedly, >consistently, we need the private sector to step up to the >plate and come up with comprehensive plans to ensure >protection of privacy of users of the Internet. Those >things I think are consistent and we can continue. > >With regard to access charge and other fees charged by >Internet service providers, we have been very careful to >say that as this industry is a nascent industry they should >not at this time be charged those kinds of fees. We've >also said we should continue to monitor and look at the >debate. There is a difference between whether or not an >economic entity should be treated the same as other >economic entities in terms of some kind of a fee structure, >and saying that we want to govern that entity. We do not >want to govern the Internet. We in Washington - and we are >going to work diligently - we are going to fight any effort >by others around the globe to start regulating the >Internet. > >[...] > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo at vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 -------- Logged at Wed Jan 14 13:42:13 MET 1998 --------- From W.Black at nominet.org.uk Wed Jan 14 09:40:47 1998 From: W.Black at nominet.org.uk (Dr W Black) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 08:40:47 +0000 (GMT) Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation (fwd) Message-ID: I don't usually forward POC mailings, since I'm never sure of their confidentiality status, but I think this makes quite interesting reading and looks like it's fairly public. W.B. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:43:39 -0500 From: Don Heath To: poc at gtld-mou.org Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation >>Received: from info.isoc.org (info [192.168.1.1]) by linus.isoc.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA04398 for ; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:41:19 -0500 (EST) >X-Authentication-Warning: relay.pathfinder.com: Host [206.245.67.33] claimed to be pathfinderfw.twi.com >X-Sender: declan at mail.pathfinder.com >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:43:53 -0500 >To: politech at vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh >Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation >Sender: owner-politech at vorlon.mit.edu >Reply-To: declan at well.com >X-Loop: politech at vorlon.mit.edu >X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > >============================================ >Excerpts from transcript of press conference >============================================ > >Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, NTIA >January 8, 1998 >Washington, DC > >[...] > >Q Larry, you mentioned electronic commerce, but can you >tell us your progress on the green paper to privatize the >domain name registration? > >MR. IRVING: As many of you know, to my great chagrin and >disappointment November 1st came and went without us >releasing our green paper. I generally don't give dates >that we are going to release something, unless I am >absolutely certain that we can release it. In this case we >failed, and I apologize to those folks who were expecting >it, and I particularly apologize to Congress, and want to >thank those members of Congress who have ben forbearing, >and to those members of Congress who have gone home, and >because they are home haven't bothered to call me to >castigate me for not getting my paper in on time. > >We are working very diligently, and to be honest we thought >it was more important to get it right than to get it in on >time. There have been a lot of people across industry who >have a lot of issues. And what we began to discover was >looking just at the issue of domain name wasn't sufficient; >you have to look at the entire - there's a - (inaudible) - >affecting Internet governance, and there are a lot of >issues involved here. And we are trying hard to come up >with a comprehensive consensus document that we can deliver >to Congress. I can't give you another date, but it will be >soon. And one of the reasons it will be soon, because I >promised it two months ago and have not delivered it. >Another reason it will be soon is Congress is coming back, >and I think some of those people who requested it will want >it on their desk at or about the time they come back and >Congress reconvenes. But we will have a comprehensive >approach. Ira Magaziner and members of my staff, Becky >Bird (sp) and others, have done yeo person's work, or >yeoman's work - I'm not sure which is the non-sexist term - >but have worked diligently to come up with a product. >They've met with literally hundreds of people and/or read >thousands of pages of documents to get this right. And we >are committed to getting to the public and to the Congress >as good a report as we can. Anything we get is going to >have some critics, but we do think we can get a better >report by taking a little more time, being a little more >careful and talking to a few more people. > > >[...] > >Q If you abandon control of the Internet, or try to >minimize government regulations on the Internet, what >happens when you discover down the road perhaps - and let's >say perhaps dominating of the Internet by a few contract >providers - perhaps - (off mike) - how do you recover - >(off mike)? > >MR. IRVING: I think it is better to monitor and see if a >mistake is made then to start to regulate and assuredly >make some mistakes. > >Q Fair enough. What do you do once a mistake is made? > >MR. IRVING: You try to correct them. > >Q To minimize government regulation? > >MR. IRVING: We would - even if there are mistakes made, we >will try to correct those mistakes with minimal government >involvement. > >Q What tools do you have? > >MR. IRVING: You have all the tools you already have. You >have regulatory authority, you have litigation, you have >legislation. There is nothing - there is nothing that I >can't do prophylactically upfront that we couldn't do as a >government after the fact; but at least we'd know what the >issue is. Right now we'd be trying to - you know, it's >like trying to find a needle in the dark, in a 10,000 >square foot room. What problem am I trying to solve? And >right now we don't know. > >You know, nobody knew - none of us in this room would have >said in 1993 that in 1998 one trillion e-mails would be >transmitted around the globe. That's what happened last >year: one trillion - one trillion e-mails, according to >Financial Times, were transmitted around the globe. What >if I tried to do something to regulate e-mail based on what >I knew e-mail was going to be in 1993? I would have been >completely wrong, because I had no clue that there would be >one trillion e-mails in 1993. Did any of us know in 1996 >that real video would be a tool that people would be using >around the country, that you could watch the Rolling Stones >concert or pull up video - watch Savion Glover do a tap >dance recital on the Internet. Did any of us know that? >I didn't know in 1996 that in 1997 I could do that. I'd be >trying to regulate something I had no clue as to how it is >going to progress, and I might be stifling the progress. I >don't think that's good policy; more importantly, the >president and vice president don't think that's good >policy; Secretary Daley doesn't think that's good policy. >Let this thing grow at the rate it should grow as opposed >to. > >Internet telephony - 1995, 1994, who of you writing about >Internet telephony and talking about it as a real central >competitor, reducing prices and increasing opportunity for >entrepreneurs and for consumers? Have you thought - and >there were those calling to regulate Internet telephony. >The investments made would not have been made had we >started doing something when we were requested to with >regard to Internet telephony. We come down - I feel >strongly we have come down on the right side of this >debate. And I think that the people who are making >investments and who are building this industry, building >this economy, building this technology, feel strongly that >we should keep a relatively hands-off approach. That >doesn't mean we don't have guiding precepts. That doesn't >mean we are ignoring what's happening. It does mean we are >trying not to get in the way of a great success story >globally. > >[...] > >Q Larry, do you think that the present deregulatory >policy carved out for the Internet will hold insofar as >Internet service providers can withdraw from the universal >service - (off mike)? And then there's a growing debate >between federal policymakers and mayor and governors, both >that you met with and talked with, about taxation. That >issue won't go away, and it all gets to, you know, if and >how the Internet gets regulated. Is it always going to be a >hand-off approach, or will that just not hold and - (off >mike)? > >MR. IRVING: We're going to try to be as hands-off as >possible. The Internet, again, we have said this, and we >are going to continue to, the Internet has grown - has >rapidly grown precisely because of a lack of government >involvement in its regulation, in its structure, in its >future. And we are going to continue to try to make sure >that this is private sector-led. As frightening as some >people - as frightened as some people are of state and >local involvement - and the tax issue is an issue that I >think is resolvable. I mean, there is a way to resolve >that. And when you talk to people it's at the margins, but >there are ways to resolve that. > >I'm more concerned about the international implications for >regulation. I am very concerned that there are people >around the world - you know, in the United States and >Washington we are not scared of the Internet - we think >it's a good thing. We want the entrepreneurs to go out >there, we want them to build it. As you go around the >country there are people who are scared about the Internet, >and there are people who say that there should be >international governing bodies of the Internet. We don't >want that, and we are going to have to - you know, we are >going to have to make sure that people in Brussels, and >people in Geneva, and people in Paris, and people in >various capitals of the world don't get involved in >governing the Internet. There is, however, in industry and >among most of the nations that use the Internet, a >consensus that the Internet should be private sector-led, >developed, and industry should have development. There are >issues such as indecency, where there has to be some >government involvement to make sure things like parents >know where the good stuff on the Internet is - parents are >given the tools to protect their children from bad things >on the Internet. > >They agree within the Department of Justice and (IFPS ?) is >one instance where working with the government we can try >to find ways that children don't have access to things that >are inappropriate in it. Those are positive things that >have to happen. > >With regards to censorship or developing guidelines to how >the Internet - (inaudible) - to go - we don't want that. >With regard to domain name system, we don't want that. >With regard to privacy, we have said repeatedly, >consistently, we need the private sector to step up to the >plate and come up with comprehensive plans to ensure >protection of privacy of users of the Internet. Those >things I think are consistent and we can continue. > >With regard to access charge and other fees charged by >Internet service providers, we have been very careful to >say that as this industry is a nascent industry they should >not at this time be charged those kinds of fees. We've >also said we should continue to monitor and look at the >debate. There is a difference between whether or not an >economic entity should be treated the same as other >economic entities in terms of some kind of a fee structure, >and saying that we want to govern that entity. We do not >want to govern the Internet. We in Washington - and we are >going to work diligently - we are going to fight any effort >by others around the globe to start regulating the >Internet. > >[...] > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo at vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 -------- Logged at Wed Jan 14 14:42:34 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Wed Jan 14 14:42:18 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1998 14:42:18 +0100 Subject: Proposal for RIPE area n-TLD interaction with IANA Message-ID: <9801141342.AA00370@ncc.ripe.net> Dear all, At the RIPE 28 meeting in Amsterdam in September 1997, a task force was asked to make a proposal for the interaction of the RIPe area n-tlds and IANA. This was as a result of concerns about the future of IANA, and the effect this may have on n-tlds. The task force has written this proposal, the draft version of which was given to IANA for use as input into their future planning. All tld-wg members and specifically all RIPe area n-tld administrators are encouraged to read and comment on this proposal. It can be found on the tld-wg web site at http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/task-force/ripe-centr-1.1.html Regards Paul Ridley -------- Logged at Tue Jan 20 14:37:55 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Jan 20 14:36:01 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 13:36:01 +0000 Subject: RIPE 29: reminder Message-ID: <0EN300C7N4G9N6@hermes.ucd.ie> I've just re-checked the list of participants for RIPE 29, looking for representatives of nTLD registries. I can find only 6 nTLD registries represented, to wit: CH, LI, FR, IE, NL, UK. As the description of a participant's organisation doesn't always make it clear to me whether s/he represents an nTLD, I may have missed some. If so, I'ld welcome corrections. The TLD Working Group is specifically intended to support nTLD registries (see http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/tld-tor.html). The more nTLD registries who can participate in this working group, the more effective and useful will be its work. If you haven't registered, there is still time to do so. I hope to see as many of you as possible at the meeting. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly IE Domain Registry Chair, RIPE TLD-WG -------- Logged at Tue Jan 20 16:07:13 MET 1998 --------- From Christopher.WILKINSON at bxl.dg13.cec.be Tue Jan 20 15:52:06 1998 From: Christopher.WILKINSON at bxl.dg13.cec.be (Christopher.WILKINSON at bxl.dg13.cec.be) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:52:06 +0100 Subject: RIPE 29: reminder In-Reply-To: <0EN300C7N4G9N6@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: Dear Niall: I am looking forward to your meeting of the TLD working group on 28 January in Amsterdam. In particular, it is of crucial importance that we have a full and informed discussion on that occasion of the reform of IANA, including the current proposal to the effect that some of the IANA Board would be appointed by an organisation (still to be formed) representing the TLD Registries. I have also read with interest the RIPE draft about the creation of of a "RIPE-Centr". I look forward to hearing from as many national TLD Registry representatives as possible on that occasion. Regards, Christopher Wilkinson. -------- Logged at Tue Jan 20 20:15:37 MET 1998 --------- From plat at ripn.net Tue Jan 20 20:14:51 1998 From: plat at ripn.net (Alexei Platonov) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 22:14:51 +0300 (MSK) Subject: RIPE 29: reminder In-Reply-To: <0EN300C7N4G9N6@hermes.ucd.ie> from "Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie" at "Jan 20, 98 01:36:01 pm" Message-ID: <199801201914.WAA28455@argo.ripn.net> Hi, RU nTLD will participate. Alexei Platonov RosNIIROS According to Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie: > I've just re-checked the list of participants for RIPE 29, looking > for representatives of nTLD registries. > > I can find only 6 nTLD registries represented, to wit: CH, LI, FR, > IE, NL, UK. > > As the description of a participant's organisation doesn't always > make it clear to me whether s/he represents an nTLD, I may have > missed some. If so, I'ld welcome corrections. > > The TLD Working Group is specifically intended to support nTLD > registries (see http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/tld-tor.html). The more > nTLD registries who can participate in this working group, the > more effective and useful will be its work. > > If you haven't registered, there is still time to do so. > > I hope to see as many of you as possible at the meeting. > > Best regards, > > Niall O'Reilly > > IE Domain Registry > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG > -------- Logged at Tue Jan 20 22:50:46 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Tue Jan 20 22:46:43 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 21:46:43 +0000 Subject: RIPE 29: reminder In-Reply-To: <199801201914.WAA28455@argo.ripn.net> References: <0EN300C7N4G9N6@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <0EN3004FQRBAXR@hermes.ucd.ie> Thanks, Alexei and others who corrected or updated my reading of the attendee list. I'm now aware of the intended participation of the following nTLD registries: AT, CH, FR, IE, LI, NL, NO, PT, UK. In addition, I have an apology from IL. Niall On 20 Jan 98 at 22:14, Alexei Platonov wrote: >Hi, >RU nTLD will participate. > >Alexei Platonov >RosNIIROS > >According to Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie: >> I've just re-checked the list of participants for RIPE 29, looking >> for representatives of nTLD registries. >> >> I can find only 6 nTLD registries represented, to wit: CH, LI, FR, >> IE, NL, UK. >> >> As the description of a participant's organisation doesn't always >> make it clear to me whether s/he represents an nTLD, I may have >> missed some. If so, I'ld welcome corrections. >> >> The TLD Working Group is specifically intended to support nTLD >> registries (see http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/tld-tor.html). The more >> nTLD registries who can participate in this working group, the >> more effective and useful will be its work. >> >> If you haven't registered, there is still time to do so. >> >> I hope to see as many of you as possible at the meeting. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Niall O'Reilly >> >> IE Domain Registry >> Chair, RIPE TLD-WG >> > -------- Logged at Wed Jan 21 12:15:36 MET 1998 --------- From plat at ripn.net Wed Jan 21 12:12:07 1998 From: plat at ripn.net (Alexei Platonov) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:12:07 +0300 (MSK) Subject: RIPE 29: reminder In-Reply-To: <0EN3004FQRBAXR@hermes.ucd.ie> from "Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie" at "Jan 20, 98 09:46:43 pm" Message-ID: <199801211112.OAA06646@argo.ripn.net> According to Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie: > Thanks, Alexei and others who corrected or updated my reading of the attendee > list. I'm now aware of the intended participation of the following nTLD > registries: > > AT, CH, FR, IE, LI, NL, NO, PT, UK. , RU :-) > > In addition, I have an apology from IL. > > Niall > -------- Logged at Wed Jan 21 13:23:50 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Wed Jan 21 13:22:32 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:22:32 +0000 Subject: Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder) Message-ID: <0EN4008INVPRRZ@hermes.ucd.ie> Thanks for the comments, Hank. I'm passing them to the list for a wider readership. It will be interesting for us all to know the outcome of the case you mention. Niall ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:33:09 +0200 From: Hank Nussbacher Subject: Re: RIPE 29: reminder To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie At 03:00 PM 1/20/98 +0000, you wrote: Do you have dates already in May so I can discuss with the rest of the board? I looked over the docs and have very few comments: - in the ntld doc you should mention rfc1591 and that iana and ntlds should work according to this rfc (in regards to transfer of ownership, etc.) - I think a set of docs need to be created by the ntld WG for any nTLD that is sued. IL has just been sued in the Supreme Court by a cybersquatter. An excellent resource used to be: http://www.digidem.com/legal/domain.html which compares many policies of ntlds - but we need to have something that continues to be maintained. When someone dislikes your authority in your country over your ntld - they will sue you and not iana. For that we need to be prepared. -Hank >> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:41:09 +0200 >> From: Hank Nussbacher >> Subject: Re: RIPE 29: reminder >> To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > >> Too short notice to attend - perhaps the next meeting? > >Pity. Was this he first notice you had ? There were others, even >in December. If you've time, I'ld appreciate it if you could take a >look at the current documents and comment as you see fit. They're >on > >I look forward to seeing you at RIPE 30 in Stockholm in May. > >Best regards, > >Niall > > -------- Logged at Wed Jan 21 13:45:28 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Wed Jan 21 13:44:01 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:44:01 +0000 Subject: RIPE 29: reminder In-Reply-To: <199801211112.OAA06646@argo.ripn.net> References: <0EN3004FQRBAXR@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <0EN40040GWPE56@hermes.ucd.ie> > Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:12:07 +0300 (MSK) > From: Alexei Platonov > Subject: Re: RIPE 29: reminder > To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > Cc: plat at ripn.net, tld-admin at ripe.net, tld-wg at ripe.net > Organization: Russian Institute for Public Networks (RosNIIROS) > > AT, CH, FR, IE, LI, NL, NO, PT, UK. > , RU Quite. Just the mistake I meant to avoid! 8-( Also, IT have signalled participation. Now, I suppose everyone has read the documents on the Web site (http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/) ? Niall -------- Logged at Wed Jan 21 14:07:25 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Wed Jan 21 14:06:53 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 14:06:53 +0100 Subject: Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Jan 1998 12:22:32 GMT." <0EN4008INVPRRZ@hermes.ucd.ie> Message-ID: <9801211307.AA15332@ncc.ripe.net> ... > - in the ntld doc you should mention rfc1591 and that iana and ntlds should > work according to this rfc (in regards to transfer of ownership, etc.) > - I think a set of docs need to be created by the ntld WG for any nTLD that > is sued. IL has just been sued in the Supreme Court by a cybersquatter. An > excellent resource used to be: > http://www.digidem.com/legal/domain.html > which compares many policies of ntlds - but we need to have something that > continues to be maintained. When someone dislikes your authority in your > country over your ntld - they will sue you and not iana. For that we need > to be prepared. Hank Nussbacher's comment is certainly valid. Please refer to the famous Haiti case: http://www.mids.org/mn/712/reht.html I am in complete agreement with John Quarterman's remark at the end of above article: "Perhaps regional NICs such as RIPE in Europe and APNIC in Asia Pacific, probably plus the eventual African and ALyC NICs, should consider going further than just funding IANA and assigning IP address space, and proceed to devolve more IANA functions to the regional level." RIPE CENTR could be the body to handle all nTLD matters within the territory of RIPE. Distributed, decentralized authority. In accordance with DNS and IP/AS number assignment. Marcel -------- Logged at Wed Jan 21 17:20:29 MET 1998 --------- From hank at ibm.net.il Wed Jan 21 17:18:11 1998 From: hank at ibm.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:18:11 +0200 Subject: Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980121161811.0069e304@max.ibm.net.il> At 02:06 PM 1/21/98 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >... >> - in the ntld doc you should mention rfc1591 and that iana and ntlds should >> work according to this rfc (in regards to transfer of ownership, etc.) >> - I think a set of docs need to be created by the ntld WG for any nTLD that >> is sued. IL has just been sued in the Supreme Court by a cybersquatter. An >> excellent resource used to be: >> http://www.digidem.com/legal/domain.html >> which compares many policies of ntlds - but we need to have something that >> continues to be maintained. When someone dislikes your authority in your >> country over your ntld - they will sue you and not iana. For that we need >> to be prepared. > >Hank Nussbacher's comment is certainly valid. Please refer to >the famous Haiti case: > >http://www.mids.org/mn/712/reht.html > >I am in complete agreement with John Quarterman's remark at the >end of above article: > >"Perhaps regional NICs such as RIPE in Europe and >APNIC in Asia Pacific, probably plus the >eventual African and ALyC NICs, should consider going further than just >funding IANA and assigning IP address space, and proceed >to devolve more IANA functions to the regional level." > >RIPE CENTR could be the body to handle all nTLD matters within >the territory of RIPE. Distributed, decentralized authority. In >accordance with DNS and IP/AS number assignment. How would the RIPE CENTR be any benefit from a legal standpoint? Someone will come forward and say "What gov't or treaty organization granted you authority?" RIPE CENTR would say IANA and we are back to square one. If IANA can attain some legal status that would help us. I have scanned most english rules for domains in Europe. Only Finland has its rules according to the gov't. All the rest are NICs and academic organizations that put together rules (there may be others that will have gov't legalized rules in the future - but so far only Finland has taken that step - and they even mention IANA!) If the RIPE CENTR is to be of any benefit it first has to have some major legal standing and not just our consensus (meaning those on this list). -Hank > > >Marcel > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 00:19:09 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Jan 22 00:17:21 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:17:21 +0000 Subject: nTLD participation in RIPE 29 -- latest confirmations Message-ID: <0EN500L2XQ2C5F@hermes.ucd.ie> Between those already registered to attend and others who have let me know privately of their plans, I now expect the following nTLD's to be represented at RIPE 29: AT, CH, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, LI, NL, NO, PT, RU, UK -- 13 so far. I look forward to finding a few more -- perhaps even from those already registered. I can see names from CZ, HU, PL, but I don't know whether they are representing their nTLD. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 00:19:23 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Jan 22 00:17:25 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 23:17:25 +0000 Subject: Proposed amendments to the TLD-WG Work Plan Message-ID: <0EN500L2RQ255F@hermes.ucd.ie> Dear colleagues, I have the following suggestions for amendments to the TLD-WP WorkPlan (agenda item 5). Work-area "Documentation and alignment of practices" is identified as having high priority, but has no work-items. This is rather paradoxical. I expect we need to define some work in this area. This is for item 8. One work-area is concerned only with NSI. I expect this should be subsumed into one or more other areas, such as "IANA and stability of the DNS root". The work-area "Other" is too much like an after-thought. It is not prioritized. The area could simply be dropped. Alternatively, the work-items could be re-allocated to the work-area "Documentation and Alignment of Practices". Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 11:52:59 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Jan 22 11:51:55 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 10:51:55 +0000 Subject: inquiry on CENTR In-Reply-To: <199801220636.PAA12057@cosmos.kaist.ac.kr> References: <0EN3006TEGPAFH@hermes.ucd.ie> from <"Niall.oReilly@ucd.ie"@Jan> Message-ID: <0EN600O33M6LXX@hermes.ucd.ie> > Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:36:31 +0900 (KST) > From: Kilnam Chon > Subject: Re: inquiry on CENTR > To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > thank you for the reply. > > one more inquiry on "... issues raised in OECD survey" in TLD Administration BOF > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Minutes of 22 May 1997. > > do you have the copy of the OECD survey mentioned above? As far as I know, it's still in preparation. I expect information as to current status and likely publication date soon. I have had contact with one of the OECD officials involved, and understand that OECD member-state government representatives are involved in the development of the document. These have been asked to contact the nTLD registries in their countries to obtain or verify information for the report. In at least one case, this didn't happen because the representative of the member state in question was absent from the meeting where this request was made. Niall -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 17:40:53 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Thu Jan 22 17:40:04 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 17:40:04 +0100 Subject: Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:18:11 +0200." <2.2.32.19980121161811.0069e304@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: <9801221640.AA20491@ncc.ripe.net> ... > How would the RIPE CENTR be any benefit from a legal standpoint? Someone > will come forward and say "What gov't or treaty organization granted you > authority?" RIPE CENTR would say IANA and we are back to square one. If > IANA can attain some legal status that would help us. Sure. Have no doubts that IANA is aware of this fact. We have been informed to hear more about it at the forthcoming RIPE meeting (by RIPE staff involved in negotiations with IANA). > I have scanned most > english rules for domains in Europe. Only Finland has its rules according > to the gov't. All the rest are NICs and academic organizations that put > together rules (there may be others that will have gov't legalized rules in > the future - but so far only Finland has taken that step - and they even > mention IANA!) > If the RIPE CENTR is to be of any benefit it first has to have some major > legal standing and not just our consensus (meaning those on this list). CORE seems to have found an answer. You know it better than me if it actually is one :). If yes, why not clone it ? > -Hank Marcel -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 17:50:10 MET 1998 --------- From hank at ibm.net.il Thu Jan 22 17:47:23 1998 From: hank at ibm.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:47:23 +0200 Subject: Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder) Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980122164723.006b9e90@max.ibm.net.il> At 05:40 PM 1/22/98 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >... >> How would the RIPE CENTR be any benefit from a legal standpoint? Someone >> will come forward and say "What gov't or treaty organization granted you >> authority?" RIPE CENTR would say IANA and we are back to square one. If >> IANA can attain some legal status that would help us. > >Sure. Have no doubts that IANA is aware of this fact. We have been >informed to hear more about it at the forthcoming RIPE meeting (by >RIPE staff involved in negotiations with IANA). > >> I have scanned most >> english rules for domains in Europe. Only Finland has its rules according >> to the gov't. All the rest are NICs and academic organizations that put >> together rules (there may be others that will have gov't legalized rules in >> the future - but so far only Finland has taken that step - and they even >> mention IANA!) > >> If the RIPE CENTR is to be of any benefit it first has to have some major >> legal standing and not just our consensus (meaning those on this list). > >CORE seems to have found an answer. You know it better than me if it >actually is one :). If yes, why not clone it ? Sure. That is if Magaziner doesn't torpedo the whole thing and favor NSI (see latest Network World article on the issue). -Hank > >> -Hank > > >Marcel > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 18:13:32 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Thu Jan 22 18:12:34 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:12:34 +0100 Subject: Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 22 Jan 1998 18:47:23 +0200." <2.2.32.19980122164723.006b9e90@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: <9801221713.AA24295@ncc.ripe.net> ... >> CORE seems to have found an answer. You know it better than me if it >> actually is one :). If yes, why not clone it ? > Sure. That is if Magaziner doesn't torpedo the whole thing and favor NSI > (see latest Network World article on the issue). Yes. Have seen it. But even if there will be only one new gTLD (or none at all) we have a model to start with. I also have asked our lawyers to do some legal investigation and it turned out that a Swiss Civil Code Association has indeed some benefits (reasons submitted to the date Mon, 08 Dec 1997 11:15:49 +0100). But it does not need to be a Swiss association. Other countries may have similar or better suited organizational forms. Marcel -------- Logged at Fri Jan 23 15:58:23 MET 1998 --------- From ncc at ripe.net Fri Jan 23 15:58:11 1998 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Annoucement Service) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:58:11 +0100 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-177 Message-ID: <199801231458.PAA03004@x28.ripe.net> New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-177 Title: RIPE CENTR Proposal Author: Paul Ridley Date: 23 January 1998 Format: PS=105584 TXT=21000 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: See also: Short content description ------------------------- This document is a proposal for the setting up of RIPE CENTR. The document outlines the goals and structure of the future organisation and describes a transition plan. This plan proposes that RIPE CENTR initially starts as a RIPE NCC project, before it eventually be spun off as a seperate legal entity. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-177.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-177.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-177 is available from the WWW , at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html Documents can also be retrieved from the RIPE document store using a mail server program. For more information on how to use the program, send email to with "send HELP" in the body text. -------- Logged at Fri Jan 23 16:02:27 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Fri Jan 23 16:02:16 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 16:02:16 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR proposal is published Message-ID: <199801231502.QAA03082@x28.ripe.net> Dear all, the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html This document is essential reading for all ntld administrators as is described the setting up of an organisation for RIPE area ntlds. I will also be making a presentation on this proposal at the forthcoming tld-wg meeting. Any comments to the author (although preferably on tld-wg at ripe.net) would be appreciated. I look forward to hearing your comments. Regards Paul -------- Logged at Fri Jan 23 23:00:01 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Fri Jan 23 22:59:41 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:59:41 +0100 Subject: Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder) In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 21 Jan 1998 18:18:11 +0200. <2.2.32.19980121161811.0069e304@max.ibm.net.il> References: <2.2.32.19980121161811.0069e304@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: <199801232159.WAA19042@kantoor.ripe.net> Hi Hank, It's a pity you cannot be at the RIPE meeting since people with input are always most welcome. FYI some of the points you raise may be answered in the various presentations given at the tld-wg, and these should be available on our web site (tld-wg web page) on the MOnday following the meeting. Maybe I can answer some of your points now however: Hank Nussbacher writes: * At 02:06 PM 1/21/98 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: * >... * >> - in the ntld doc you should mention rfc1591 and that iana and ntlds shou * ld * >> work according to this rfc (in regards to transfer of ownership, etc.) * >> - I think a set of docs need to be created by the ntld WG for any nTLD th * at * >> is sued. IL has just been sued in the Supreme Court by a cybersquatter. * An * >> excellent resource used to be: * >> http://www.digidem.com/legal/domain.html * >> which compares many policies of ntlds - but we need to have something tha * t * >> continues to be maintained. When someone dislikes your authority in your * >> country over your ntld - they will sue you and not iana. For that we nee * d * >> to be prepared. * > * >Hank Nussbacher's comment is certainly valid. Please refer to * >the famous Haiti case: * > * >http://www.mids.org/mn/712/reht.html * > * >I am in complete agreement with John Quarterman's remark at the * >end of above article: * > * >"Perhaps regional NICs such as RIPE in Europe an * d * >APNIC in Asia Pacific, probably plus the * >eventual African and ALyC NICs, should consider going further than just * >funding IANA and assigning IP address space, and proceed * >to devolve more IANA functions to the regional level." * > * >RIPE CENTR could be the body to handle all nTLD matters within * >the territory of RIPE. Distributed, decentralized authority. In * >accordance with DNS and IP/AS number assignment. * * How would the RIPE CENTR be any benefit from a legal standpoint? Someone * will come forward and say "What gov't or treaty organization granted you * authority?" RIPE CENTR would say IANA and we are back to square one. If * IANA can attain some legal status that would help us. I have scanned most * english rules for domains in Europe. Only Finland has its rules according * to the gov't. All the rest are NICs and academic organizations that put * together rules (there may be others that will have gov't legalized rules in * the future - but so far only Finland has taken that step - and they even * mention IANA!) * You are quite correct Hank the question of the granting of legal authority is as present tenuous to say the least! RIPE CENTR is in itself, as you rightly point out, is not the solution. I do see it however as a crucial link in the solution as a whole. In order for a credible authority line to exist between IANA and an individual nTLD registry then it is essential that IANA is an independant stable legal entity, as not a well meaning but hard to pin down function of the University of Southern california. This has been seen by IANA and those involved in the IANA chnages, as a crucial aspect and is being worked on. I am confident that when the final structure on IANA is agreed upon and make public this legal standing will nomlonger be an issue. Once a legally identifiable and stable IANA exists then I see that the role of RIPE CENTR will be very valuable as a conduit between IANA and the individual nTLDs (obviously in addition to the other cooperation, coordination activities that RIPE CENTR could undertake). If the RIPE CENTR is to be of any benefit it first has to have some major * legal standing and not just our consensus (meaning those on this list). * RIPE CENTR will have legal standing and will be independantly funded by those nTLDs that determine its policies. Even if RIPE CENTR is intially a project of RIPE NCC (as my proposal document ripe-177 details), it will still have legal standing due to a project contract between the individual nTLDs and RIPE NCC. Regards Paul * -Hank * * > * > * >Marcel * > * > * * -------- Logged at Fri Jan 23 23:31:15 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Fri Jan 23 23:29:07 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 22:29:07 +0000 Subject: Latest Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29 Message-ID: <0EN900PJZD6Q1H@hermes.ucd.ie> RIPE 29 TLD-WG -- Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia (09:00, 5 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 agreement of Agenda 2. Matters arising from RIPE 28 TLD-WG meeting (09:05, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list TLD-27.3 Daniel Karrenberg to prepare "IANA future structure" paper Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/wg/lir/iana-paper/IANA-paper.html To be discussed under item 6. TLD-28.1 Task Force to document proposed structure for support of management of DNS root Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/task-force/ripe-centr-1.1.html Proposes regional bodies to mediate nTLD support for IANA and RIPE-CENTR as such a body for RIPE area. To be discussed under item 6. TLD-28.2 RIPE-NCC to develop proposal for TLD Co-ordination activity Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html Proposes structure and activities of RIPE-CENTR To be discussed under item 7. TLD-28.3 WG Chair to alert TLD Administrators to DOC/NTIA enquiry and POC RFC's Part done -- mailed tld-admin at ripe.net 8 Oct 1997 re POC RFC's 3. Brief news (09:15, 5 mins) (not covered by other agenda items, if any) 4. Operational issues (09:20, 10 mins) (if any) 5. Review Workplan (09:30, 15 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. 6. IANA and stability of the root (09:45, 45 mins) 6.1 Presentation on recent developments (R.Blokzijl) 6.2 Review progress on action TLD-27.1 6.3 Review progress on action TLD-28.1 (M.Schneider) 6.4 Update on EU/US Government contacts (C.Wilkinson) -- Coffee Break (10:30, 30 mins) -- 7. WG Support Activity: RIPE-CENTR (11:00, 20 mins) Review progress on action TLD-28.2 (P.Ridley) 8. nTLD issues (11:20, 20 mins) Documentation, harmonisation ... Identify and assign first actions in this area 9. gTLD issues (11:40, 20 mins) POC information meetings Possible "boundary issues" with nTLD's 10. AOB (12:00, 5 mins) 11. Conclusions (12:05, 20 mins) 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list -- Close (12:25) -- -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 03:04:18 MET 1998 --------- From tKg01s3W5 at stak1ed.net Thu Jan 22 08:53:29 1998 From: tKg01s3W5 at stak1ed.net (tKg01s3W5 at stak1ed.net) Date: 22 Jan 98 8:53:29 PM Subject: Are You Happy? Message-ID: There is brilliant information available to you, that will enable you to fully understand yourself and everybody else. This knowledge can benefit you tremendously in many ways. It can help you to get the very best out of your career, or discover your most suitable new career, and of course being happy at work, really improves the finances. It can also really enhance your love life. If you're in a relationship, it works great, because you are able to fully understand your own and your partner's emotions and motivations. If you're not, you will know exactly what you want from your perfect mate and what they will find attractive about you. Another big advantage to becoming balanced and happy is that good health runs hand in hand. Take a closer look two free pages of information at: http://www.po9.com -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 19:01:01 MET 1998 --------- From hank at ibm.net.il Sat Jan 24 18:58:45 1998 From: hank at ibm.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 19:58:45 +0200 Subject: RIPE CENTR proposal is published Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980124175845.0068c1ec@max.ibm.net.il> At 04:02 PM 1/23/98 +0100, Paul Ridley wrote: Is there a major reason for maintaining tld-admin and tld-wg? The groups overlap and I see no reason for maintaining two groups? Can't they be merged? -Hank >Dear all, > >the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html > >This document is essential reading for all ntld administrators as is described >the setting up of an organisation for RIPE area ntlds. I will also be making a >presentation on this proposal at the forthcoming tld-wg meeting. > >Any comments to the author (although preferably on tld-wg at ripe.net) would be >appreciated. > >I look forward to hearing your comments. > >Regards > >Paul > > > > -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 20:22:35 MET 1998 --------- From hank at ibm.net.il Sat Jan 24 20:16:17 1998 From: hank at ibm.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 21:16:17 +0200 Subject: How Europe caused CORE to fail Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980124191617.006a155c@max.ibm.net.il> As many of you are aware the entire gTLD MoU and CORE setup is close to dissolving. Extract from: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0122dns.html Sources said Magaziner may reject the CORE proposal because it was designed "behind closed doors" and because it would have shifted domain naming from the U.S. to Geneva. Magaziner declined to comment. ----------------------------------------------------------- Best stop now if you don't want some serious flammage. One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark issues). Lets look at the current POC: Amadeu Abril i Abril, , Spain-Europe, appointed by CORE Rob Austein, , USA-Americas, appointed by IAB Willie Black, , UK-Europe, appointed by IANA Patrik F?ltstr?m, , Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB Christopher Gibson, , International Treaty Organization, appointed by WIPO Geert Glas, , Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA Alan Hanson, , USA-Americas, appointed by CORE Glen Kowack, , USA-Americas, appointed by IANA David W. Maher (POC Chair), , USA-Americas, appointed by ISOC Robert Shaw, , International Treaty Organization, appointed by ITU Christopher Wilkinson, , Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC PAB Observers Peter Mott, , New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Javier Sola, , Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. Out of 11 people on the IAHC clearly 6 were USA based and residing American citizens: Sally Abel, Georges Strawn, Perry Metzger, Dave Crocker, Don Heath, Dave Maher. Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of certain geographical interest groups. What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the door and looked at what they had gained. Today, as well as last year, Europe has zero say in anything regarding gTLDs. NSI and IANA do not listen to the ITU, WIPO, the EC nor anyone out of the USA government. We were on the way to convincing the USA gov't to go along with the plan and suddenly it finds out that only 30% of the people are American. So once Ira and Bill scuttle the CORE plan, ITU/WIPO/EC will be right back where it was a two years ago with once again zero say in the gTLD realm. You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. Hank Nussbacher former IAHC member former iPOC member IL nTLD contact Sorry I have been rather blunt, but just had to get this off my chest. -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 20:40:23 MET 1998 --------- From bmanning at ISI.EDU Sat Jan 24 20:37:21 1998 From: bmanning at ISI.EDU (Bill Manning) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:37:21 -0800 (PST) Subject: RIPE CENTR proposal is published In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19980124175845.0068c1ec@max.ibm.net.il> from "Hank Nussbacher" at Jan 24, 98 07:58:45 pm Message-ID: <199801241937.LAA10900@zephyr.isi.edu> Hank, I think that the tld-admin mail-list was formed as a closed list for tld-admins only. The tld-wg list is for RIPE members and is more open. There are tld-admins that are outside the sphere of influence of RIPE. I've seen that the tld-admin list try and come to grips with tld operational issues that are not RIPE specific. I'd like to see them as seperate lists. If RIPE chooses to merge them, then I'll see about hosting a list that will allow tld operators a forum for discussion. > > At 04:02 PM 1/23/98 +0100, Paul Ridley wrote: > > Is there a major reason for maintaining tld-admin and tld-wg? The groups > overlap and I see no reason for maintaining two groups? Can't they be merged? > > -Hank > > > >Dear all, > > > >the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at > >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html > > > >This document is essential reading for all ntld administrators as is described > >the setting up of an organisation for RIPE area ntlds. I will also be making a > >presentation on this proposal at the forthcoming tld-wg meeting. > > > >Any comments to the author (although preferably on tld-wg at ripe.net) would be > >appreciated. > > > >I look forward to hearing your comments. > > > >Regards > > > >Paul > > > > > > > > > > -- --bill -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 23:01:08 MET 1998 --------- From jdd at vbc.net Sat Jan 24 23:00:00 1998 From: jdd at vbc.net (Jim Dixon) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 22:00:00 +0000 (GMT) Subject: How Europe caused CORE to fail In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19980124191617.006a155c@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: On Sat, 24 Jan 1998, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire > proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark > issues). Do you mean the gTLDs from the USA? Or perhaps US representation from the POC? > Lets look at the current POC: > > Amadeu Abril i Abril, , Spain-Europe, appointed by > CORE > Rob Austein, , USA-Americas, appointed by IAB > Willie Black, , UK-Europe, appointed by IANA > Patrik F?ltstr?m, , Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB > Christopher Gibson, , International Treaty > Organization, appointed by WIPO Replaced Albert Tramposch (American) within the last few weeks. > Geert Glas, , Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA > Alan Hanson, , USA-Americas, appointed by CORE > Glen Kowack, , USA-Americas, appointed by IANA > David W. Maher (POC Chair), , USA-Americas, appointed > by ISOC > Robert Shaw, , International Treaty Organization, > appointed by ITU American. > Christopher Wilkinson, , > Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC > > PAB Observers > > Peter Mott, , New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by > gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body > Javier Sola, , Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy > Advisory Body > > Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and > Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go > back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. Ignore the observers who are, after all, only observers. Correct the count by adding Robert Shaw and Albert Tramposch back in (Tramposch only just left the POC) and you have 6/11 Americans, or 55.5% American. That is, the "decrease" in US representation is scarcely the issue. > Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based > companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE > stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% > of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. > So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we > have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should > migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). You can count this various ways. By domain count US-registered .COM entries are somewhere in the low 70%s. > So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by > Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to > extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed > the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and > non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA > has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of > certain geographical interest groups. The POC was actually attempting to curry favour in Europe by handing out seats. This succeeded in Europe but may certainly have backfired in the States. But the gTLD MOU's problems aren't due to a lack of American presence. They are due to a very vocal North American-based opposition who are disdained by those who have been acting as spokesmen for the gTLD MOU and to a lack of industry support. Of the world's 10,000 or so ISPs only a few dozen have signed the MOU. Why? Essentially because the gTLD MOU crowd have ignored them and ignored their interests. > What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". > The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, > controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls > and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able > to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the > door and looked at what they had gained. All of this was done long ago and done by a US-dominated POC. The loudest voices defending the decision to locate in Geneva (Crocker, Shaw, Maher, Tramposch, etc) are certainly American. > You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. These comments are interesting set against reports that IANA, ISOC, the POC, and CORE are intent on ignoring the US government and are raising a $10 million war chest to fight expected lawsuits. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 23:02:22 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Sat Jan 24 23:02:09 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 23:02:09 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR proposal is published In-Reply-To: Your message of Sat, 24 Jan 1998 11:37:21 PST. <199801241937.LAA10900@zephyr.isi.edu> References: <199801241937.LAA10900@zephyr.isi.edu> Message-ID: <199801242202.XAA09983@kantoor.ripe.net> Bill anf Hank, This mail and the other initial mails about RIPE CENTR were purposely sent to both tld-wg and tld-admin. As Bill correctly points out these lists are different with tld-admin being meant for use of tld regisrties to discuss operational matters. There is not plan to merge these two lists. Why then were the mails sent to both lists? It is obvious why RIPE CENTR mail was and should be sent to tld-wg list, since this working group initiated the discussion and is designed for the discussing of tld policy The initial RIPE CENTR mails were also sent to tld-admin to guarantee that all active RIPE area nTLDs were aware that RIPE CENTR existed and that discussion was taking place. Since RIPE area nTLDs are the potential members of RIPE CENTR it was crucial that this awareness was made. I think it can now safely be said that all active RIPE area nTLDs are aware of RIPE CENTR and the discussion surrounding it. Therefore I suggest that from now on discussion only takes place on *tld-wg*. If a subscriber to tld-admin is not a subcriber to tld-wg, and they want to follow the RIPE CENTR discussion then I suggest that they subscribe post haste. For subscribing details see (http://www.ripe.net/info/maillists.html#lists) Regards Paul Bill Manning writes: * * Hank, I think that the tld-admin mail-list was formed as a closed list for * tld-admins only. The tld-wg list is for RIPE members and is more open. * There are tld-admins that are outside the sphere of influence of RIPE. * I've seen that the tld-admin list try and come to grips with tld operational * issues that are not RIPE specific. * * I'd like to see them as seperate lists. If RIPE chooses to merge them, * then I'll see about hosting a list that will allow tld operators a forum * for discussion. * * * > * > At 04:02 PM 1/23/98 +0100, Paul Ridley wrote: * > * > Is there a major reason for maintaining tld-admin and tld-wg? The groups * > overlap and I see no reason for maintaining two groups? Can't they be mer * ged? * > * > -Hank * > * > * > >Dear all, * > > * > >the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be fou * nd at * > >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html * > > * > >This document is essential reading for all ntld administrators as is desc * ribed * > >the setting up of an organisation for RIPE area ntlds. I will also be mak * ing a * > >presentation on this proposal at the forthcoming tld-wg meeting. * > > * > >Any comments to the author (although preferably on tld-wg at ripe.net) would * be * > >appreciated. * > > * > >I look forward to hearing your comments. * > > * > >Regards * > > * > >Paul * > > * > > * > > * > > * > * > * * * -- * --bill * -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 23:22:26 MET 1998 --------- From jbroom at manta.outremer.com Sat Jan 24 23:24:28 1998 From: jbroom at manta.outremer.com (John Charles Broomfield) Date: Sat, 24 Jan 1998 18:24:28 -0400 (AST) Subject: RIPE CENTR proposal is published In-Reply-To: <199801242202.XAA09983@kantoor.ripe.net> from "Paul Ridley" at Jan 24, 98 11:02:09 pm Message-ID: <199801242224.SAA23214@manta.outremer.com> > Bill anf Hank, > > This mail and the other initial mails about RIPE CENTR were purposely > sent to both tld-wg and tld-admin. As Bill correctly points out > these lists are different with tld-admin being meant for use of > tld regisrties to discuss operational matters. There is not plan to > merge these two lists. (this being sent to tld-wg just to reduce the noise, as I think all subscribers of tld-admin are on it too) To be honest, I have yet to see a single message that would warrant the two separate lists. There CAN be a very good reason for using the tld-admin list: should the tld-wg (being open in its nature) become "infested" as happens to many public and open lists, we would at least have a sensible moderated forum left in which to communicate (may each one define "infested" as s/he so pleases). Meanwhile, I welcome the odd contribution from non TLD admins, so I'll try and cut down the junk. Yours, John Broomfield. GP & MQ NIC -------- Logged at Sun Jan 25 12:15:09 MET 1998 --------- From hank at ibm.net.il Sun Jan 25 12:13:26 1998 From: hank at ibm.net.il (Hank Nussbacher) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 13:13:26 +0200 Subject: How Europe caused CORE to fail Message-ID: <2.2.32.19980125111326.006a6a18@max.ibm.net.il> At 10:00 PM 1/24/98 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote: >> Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and >> Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go >> back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. > >Ignore the observers who are, after all, only observers. Correct the >count by adding Robert Shaw and Albert Tramposch back in (Tramposch >only just left the POC) and you have 6/11 Americans, or 55.5% American. >That is, the "decrease" in US representation is scarcely the issue. Unfortunately, the US gov't does not view people who live and work outside the USA for foreign organizations as representing "their" viewpoint. Albert and Bob fall into that category. As to observers - whether they vote or not - there are no Americans there. > >> Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based >> companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE >> stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% >> of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. >> So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we >> have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should >> migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). > >You can count this various ways. By domain count US-registered .COM >entries are somewhere in the low 70%s. > >> So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by >> Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to >> extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed >> the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and >> non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA >> has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of >> certain geographical interest groups. > >The POC was actually attempting to curry favour in Europe by handing >out seats. This succeeded in Europe but may certainly have backfired >in the States. Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head. > >But the gTLD MOU's problems aren't due to a lack of American presence. >They are due to a very vocal North American-based opposition who are >disdained by those who have been acting as spokesmen for the gTLD MOU >and to a lack of industry support. Of the world's 10,000 or so ISPs >only a few dozen have signed the MOU. Why? Essentially because the >gTLD MOU crowd have ignored them and ignored their interests. > >> What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". >> The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, >> controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls >> and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able >> to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the >> door and looked at what they had gained. > >All of this was done long ago and done by a US-dominated POC. The >loudest voices defending the decision to locate in Geneva (Crocker, >Shaw, Maher, Tramposch, etc) are certainly American. Because it was and still is the "right" thing to do. If Europe hopes to have CORE and the gTLD MoU succeed (and not lose it all) it should contact POC and state that the US gov't be allowed to determine the size and staffing of POC. Let Ira and Bill place reps from MCI and Uunet on POC. > >> You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. > >These comments are interesting set against reports that IANA, ISOC, >the POC, and CORE are intent on ignoring the US government and are >raising a $10 million war chest to fight expected lawsuits. Who wins? Not the US gov't. Not CORE. Not Europe. NSI does. Think about it. -Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > > -------- Logged at Sun Jan 25 16:00:10 MET 1998 --------- From heath at isoc.org Sun Jan 25 15:57:07 1998 From: heath at isoc.org (Don Heath) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 09:57:07 -0500 Subject: How Europe caused CORE to fail In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19980124191617.006a155c@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980125095707.00ab3100@pop.isoc.org> At 09:16 PM 1/24/98 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >As many of you are aware the entire gTLD MoU and CORE setup is >close to dissolving. > >Extract from: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0122dns.html >Sources said Magaziner may reject the CORE proposal because it was >designed "behind closed doors" and because it would have shifted domain I am so sick of hearing this, I find it hard to come up with the right words! The process was more open to public scrutiny than any other element ever introduced into the net! Further, it was open to anyone who wanted to participate. That some decided not to participate and, instead, shoot from the periphery, is only a testament to their different agenda - mostly because it was to their private interests, rather than the wider interest of the Internet. >naming from the U.S. to Geneva. Magaziner declined to comment. >----------------------------------------------------------- > >Best stop now if you don't want some serious flammage. > > >One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire >proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark >issues). > >Lets look at the current POC: > > Amadeu Abril i Abril, , Spain-Europe, appointed by > CORE > Rob Austein, , USA-Americas, appointed by IAB > Willie Black, , UK-Europe, appointed by IANA > Patrik F?ltstr?m, , Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB > Christopher Gibson, , International Treaty > Organization, appointed by WIPO > Geert Glas, , Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA > Alan Hanson, , USA-Americas, appointed by CORE > Glen Kowack, , USA-Americas, appointed by IANA > David W. Maher (POC Chair), , USA-Americas, appointed > by ISOC > Robert Shaw, , International Treaty Organization, > appointed by ITU > Christopher Wilkinson, , > Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC > >PAB Observers > > Peter Mott, , New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by > gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body > Javier Sola, , Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy > Advisory Body > >Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and >Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go >back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. > >Out of 11 people on the IAHC clearly 6 were USA based and residing >American citizens: Sally Abel, Georges Strawn, Perry Metzger, Dave >Crocker, Don Heath, Dave Maher. > >Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based >companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE >stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% >of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. >So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we >have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should >migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). > >So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by >Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to >extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed >the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and >non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA >has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of >certain geographical interest groups. > >What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". >The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, >controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls >and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able >to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the >door and looked at what they had gained. > >Today, as well as last year, Europe has zero say in anything regarding >gTLDs. NSI and IANA do not listen to the ITU, WIPO, the EC nor anyone >out of the USA government. We were on the way to convincing the USA >gov't to go along with the plan and suddenly it finds out that only 30% >of the people are American. So once Ira and Bill scuttle the CORE plan, >ITU/WIPO/EC will be right back where it was a two years ago with once >again zero say in the gTLD realm. > >You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. > >Hank Nussbacher >former IAHC member >former iPOC member >IL nTLD contact > > >Sorry I have been rather blunt, but just had to get this off my chest. > > > See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 -------- Logged at Sun Jan 25 17:36:47 MET 1998 --------- From jdd at vbc.net Sun Jan 25 17:36:05 1998 From: jdd at vbc.net (Jim Dixon) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 16:36:05 +0000 (GMT) Subject: How Europe caused CORE to fail In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19980125111326.006a6a18@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: On Sun, 25 Jan 1998, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > Unfortunately, the US gov't does not view people who live and work outside > the USA for foreign organizations as representing "their" viewpoint. Albert > and Bob fall into that category. As to observers - whether they vote or not > - there are no Americans there. Well, be this as it may, "how Europe caused CORE to fail" is inappropriate. The decisions to put the gTLD MOU's various entities in Geneva was made a long time ago and it was made by Americans. > >> So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by > >> Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to > >> extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed > >> the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and > >> non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA > >> has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of > >> certain geographical interest groups. > > > >The POC was actually attempting to curry favour in Europe by handing > >out seats. This succeeded in Europe but may certainly have backfired > >in the States. > > Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head. Well, yes, but "Europe" didn't do this, the POC (or iPOC) did. > >All of this was done long ago and done by a US-dominated POC. The > >loudest voices defending the decision to locate in Geneva (Crocker, > >Shaw, Maher, Tramposch, etc) are certainly American. > > Because it was and still is the "right" thing to do. Uhm, if it was right, it would have worked. It wasn't the right thing to do, it wasn't done right, and it hasn't worked. Locating CORE in Geneva was a fundamental error. There are certain circles in the USA to whom the international institutions of Geneva are anathema. If CORE was just going to be a registry for a handful of new TLDs, this wouldn't matter. But if the POC and CORE are to take over management of all of the gTLDs, including .com/net/org, the physical location of CORE matters a great deal. It automatically creates a very powerful anti-gTLD MOU lobby in Washington. This is exactly where we are today. The coalition against the gTLD MOU is formidable. It includes US flag-waving nationalists (most prominently the Black Helicopter/anti-Trilateralist nuts), the eDNS/AlterNIC/etc group, and large segments of the Internet industry. > If Europe hopes > to have CORE and the gTLD MoU succeed (and not lose it all) it should > contact POC and state that the US gov't be allowed to determine the size and > staffing of POC. Let Ira and Bill place reps from MCI and Uunet on POC. You are assuming that what its enemies claim about the POC is true: that it can and does make decisions entirely on its own, that the elaborate apparatus that they have for gathering feedback is a sham, that they can just change the rules of the game at a moment's notice. It would make more sense to simply move CORE to a less contentious jurisdiction. If, for example, CORE were moved to Virginia, US objections would immediately disappear. This is probably a necessary step in order to acquire control of .com/net/org. Much of the most vocal opposition to the gTLD MOU is from various individuals in the US and Canada. This could be defused by simply appointing these individuals to some sort of advisory board. Industry opposition could be similarly defused by offering a seat on the POC to, say, Barbara Dooley, executive director of the CIX. > >> You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. > > > >These comments are interesting set against reports that IANA, ISOC, > >the POC, and CORE are intent on ignoring the US government and are > >raising a $10 million war chest to fight expected lawsuits. > > Who wins? Not the US gov't. Not CORE. Not Europe. NSI does. Think about > it. -Hank Well, once again, this isn't Europe making a decision. It's CORE and the POC deciding to take on immensely more powerful opponents. Compromise would make a lot more sense. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Mon Jan 26 09:38:13 MET 1998 --------- From ncc at ripe.net Fri Jan 23 15:58:11 1998 From: ncc at ripe.net (RIPE NCC Document Annoucement Service) Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 15:58:11 +0100 Subject: New Document available: RIPE-177 Message-ID: <199801231458.PAA03004@x28.ripe.net> New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-177 Title: RIPE CENTR Proposal Author: Paul Ridley Date: 23 January 1998 Format: PS=105584 TXT=21000 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: See also: Short content description ------------------------- This document is a proposal for the setting up of RIPE CENTR. The document outlines the goals and structure of the future organisation and describes a transition plan. This plan proposes that RIPE CENTR initially starts as a RIPE NCC project, before it eventually be spun off as a seperate legal entity. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-177.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-177.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-177 is available from the WWW , at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html Documents can also be retrieved from the RIPE document store using a mail server program. For more information on how to use the program, send email to with "send HELP" in the body text. -------- Logged at Mon Jan 26 09:45:48 MET 1998 --------- From heath at isoc.org Sun Jan 25 15:57:07 1998 From: heath at isoc.org (Don Heath) Date: Sun, 25 Jan 1998 09:57:07 -0500 Subject: How Europe caused CORE to fail In-Reply-To: <2.2.32.19980124191617.006a155c@max.ibm.net.il> Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.19980125095707.00ab3100@pop.isoc.org> At 09:16 PM 1/24/98 +0200, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >As many of you are aware the entire gTLD MoU and CORE setup is >close to dissolving. > >Extract from: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0122dns.html >Sources said Magaziner may reject the CORE proposal because it was >designed "behind closed doors" and because it would have shifted domain I am so sick of hearing this, I find it hard to come up with the right words! The process was more open to public scrutiny than any other element ever introduced into the net! Further, it was open to anyone who wanted to participate. That some decided not to participate and, instead, shoot from the periphery, is only a testament to their different agenda - mostly because it was to their private interests, rather than the wider interest of the Internet. >naming from the U.S. to Geneva. Magaziner declined to comment. >----------------------------------------------------------- > >Best stop now if you don't want some serious flammage. > > >One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire >proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark >issues). > >Lets look at the current POC: > > Amadeu Abril i Abril, , Spain-Europe, appointed by > CORE > Rob Austein, , USA-Americas, appointed by IAB > Willie Black, , UK-Europe, appointed by IANA > Patrik F?ltstr?m, , Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB > Christopher Gibson, , International Treaty > Organization, appointed by WIPO > Geert Glas, , Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA > Alan Hanson, , USA-Americas, appointed by CORE > Glen Kowack, , USA-Americas, appointed by IANA > David W. Maher (POC Chair), , USA-Americas, appointed > by ISOC > Robert Shaw, , International Treaty Organization, > appointed by ITU > Christopher Wilkinson, , > Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC > >PAB Observers > > Peter Mott, , New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by > gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body > Javier Sola, , Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy > Advisory Body > >Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and >Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go >back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. > >Out of 11 people on the IAHC clearly 6 were USA based and residing >American citizens: Sally Abel, Georges Strawn, Perry Metzger, Dave >Crocker, Don Heath, Dave Maher. > >Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based >companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE >stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% >of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. >So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we >have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should >migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). > >So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by >Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to >extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed >the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and >non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA >has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of >certain geographical interest groups. > >What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". >The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, >controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls >and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able >to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the >door and looked at what they had gained. > >Today, as well as last year, Europe has zero say in anything regarding >gTLDs. NSI and IANA do not listen to the ITU, WIPO, the EC nor anyone >out of the USA government. We were on the way to convincing the USA >gov't to go along with the plan and suddenly it finds out that only 30% >of the people are American. So once Ira and Bill scuttle the CORE plan, >ITU/WIPO/EC will be right back where it was a two years ago with once >again zero say in the gTLD realm. > >You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. > >Hank Nussbacher >former IAHC member >former iPOC member >IL nTLD contact > > >Sorry I have been rather blunt, but just had to get this off my chest. > > > See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 -------- Logged at Mon Jan 26 11:25:18 MET 1998 --------- From balazs at novell.aszi.sztaki.hu Mon Jan 26 11:32:19 1998 From: balazs at novell.aszi.sztaki.hu (Balazs Martos) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:32:19 CEST Subject: RIPE CENTR proposal is published Message-ID: <2C9016D7416@aszi.sztaki.hu> >the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html In the RIPE CENTR proposal I found links on "activities of RIPE CENTR" pointing to RIPE NCC activities. What specific activities of these have been identified as RIPE CENTR activities? Balazs -------- Logged at Mon Jan 26 12:03:59 MET 1998 --------- From Paul.Ridley at ripe.net Mon Jan 26 12:03:48 1998 From: Paul.Ridley at ripe.net (Paul Ridley) Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 12:03:48 +0100 Subject: RIPE CENTR proposal is published In-Reply-To: Your message of Mon, 26 Jan 1998 11:32:19 EST. <2C9016D7416@aszi.sztaki.hu> References: <2C9016D7416@aszi.sztaki.hu> Message-ID: <199801261103.MAA07220@x28.ripe.net> Hi Balazs, "Balazs Martos" writes: * * >the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found * at * >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html * * In the RIPE CENTR proposal I found links on "activities of RIPE CENTR" point * ing * to RIPE NCC activities. What specific activities of these have been identifi * ed as * RIPE CENTR activities? * Balazs The link is due to the keyword referencing system that we use at RIPE NCC. Although this referencing system has many advantages this is one case where it falls down. There is no real link between the activities of RIPE CENTR and the activities of RIPE NCC. RIPE CENTR will be a project of RIPE NCC. It's funding and the acitivities it will carry out will be separate from those of RIPE NCC. Hope this clarifies things. As an extra point can we please stop cc'ing tld-admin and just keep this discussion on tld-wg. Regards Paul * * -------- Logged at Tue Jan 27 10:16:16 MET 1998 --------- From schneider at switch.ch Tue Jan 27 10:16:04 1998 From: schneider at switch.ch (Marcel Schneider) Date: Tue, 27 Jan 1998 10:16:04 +0100 Subject: Magaziners views Message-ID: <9801270916.AA28425@ncc.ripe.net> For those who did not yet see it: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/9867.html "... The one big difference is in the root zone servers, which coordinate the addressing functions of the Net's top-level domains and are currently managed by NSI. They would be handed over to a private, non-profit organization that Magaziner said would be a "bottoms-up sort of stakeholder formed for the Internet." What Magaziner is essentially recommending is that the US government get out of the management of the Internet. He said that certain functions require coordination - such as assigning blocks of numeric IP addresses, currently handled by the government-chartered Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA. This coordination, Magaziner said, "should come from the Internet community and not from our government, or any other governmental institution. It rests from our government for historical reasons, but we need to get away from that." He is advocating the creation of a new non-profit, private sector institution - made up of the stakeholders of the Internet - to handle this kind of coordination, with current agencies such as IANA folded into it. ..." Marcel -------- Logged at Sat Jan 31 03:18:02 MET 1998 --------- From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Sat Jan 31 03:14:34 1998 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 02:14:34 +0000 Subject: [Fwd: US Govt. paper on Internet Government released] Message-ID: <34D2890A.3EB77FBD@ucd.ie> An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Wayne D. Correia" Subject: US Govt. paper on Internet Government released Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:31:57 -0800 Size: 2053 URL: From bob at wtv.net Sat Jan 31 16:21:42 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:21:42 -0500 Subject: New Top Level Domain BOF@IETF-LA'98 Message-ID: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Paul wrote: > End user or individual > > An individual is always able to get involved in > the IETF or the Regional technical meetings > which give advice to the RIRs. This individual requests the IETF hold a BOF at the upcoming meeting in LA following the draft outlined below. ______________START

New Top Level Domain BOF

(Time/location To Be Announced)
================================

Chair: Bob Allisat

DESCRIPTION:

New Top Level Domain (nTLD) names have been proposed as a way of
increasing the namespace choices available to Netizens worldwide.
Currently people have only two choices: national registries and
the traditional .COM/.ORG/.NET TLDs. Many nTLDs have been proposed
to offer expanded identification opportunities for individuals,
businesses and organizations. However, this raises various issues
such as how many nTLDs are feasible, what are the required technical
standards to run a Network Information Center (NIC) or Domain Name
Registry (DNR) and so on.

nTLD's are becoming more and more essential as more and more people
utilize the Internet for their everyday communications. Everyone is
experiencing the problem of a rapidly diminishing number of viable
Domains. There is an urgent need to define mechanisms to achieve new
Top Level Domain capabilies.

Some of the issues that needs to be addressed are:

1. What are the basic technical requirements for Domain Name Registries
(DNR). What are the technical requirements for Network Information
Centres
(NIC). Is there a differance between the two and if so we have to begin
defining those differances.

2. Is there a necessity for various grades or "flavours" of DNR/nTLD
(ie non-profit, commercial, small, mid-size, corporate). Are "shared"
and "private" DNR/nTLD technically practical? Can shared and private
DNRs technically co-exist.

3. What are the limitations and hindrances in existing software which
may place practical limitations on the number of New TLDs.

4. How to provide Quality of Service while allowing widely dispersed,
decentralized nTLD/DNRs and NICs.

5. Issues around "Root" servers. There are two basic challenges with
naming:  How to announce a server based on its nTLD, and how to find
that
server based on it's IP address.  Currently this is done by 13 private
Root servers to which all Domain Name Servers computers worldwide point
to for that information. Is there a need for more Root Servers? What
sort of technical regulation of these root servers require? How can we
ensure universality of Internet addressing and still allow maximal
dispersion of nTLDs, DNRs and NICs?

The goals of the New Top Level Domain Name BOF are:

1. Decide if there is a need to form a working group to solve some or
all
   of the problems above.

2. Which of the problems above should be addressed by the working group.

3. What will the working group produce. In our opinion, we need to
interact
   with other groups such as various bodies of the UN, national
governments,
   industry representatives and the general Netizenry to solve some or
all of
   the problems above.

4. What other problems need to be solved for succesful deployment of 
   new TLD's.


AGENDA:

  Introduction, agenda review.

  Issue Briefs - 2 minute summaries of position papers to be filed and 
  available on-line

  Discussion - succinct questions; 2 minute limit on answers, details
and
  expansions presented as on-line addenda.

  Conclusion - organizing next steps.
______________FINISH TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat Director, World TeleVirtual Network http://www.wtv.net PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 info at wtv.net -------- Logged at Sun Feb 1 23:35:32 MET 1998 --------- From bob at wtv.net Sat Jan 31 16:21:42 1998 From: bob at wtv.net (Bob Allisat) Date: Sat, 31 Jan 1998 10:21:42 -0500 Subject: New Top Level Domain BOF@IETF-LA'98 Message-ID: <34D34183.591A@wtv.net> Paul wrote: > End user or individual > > An individual is always able to get involved in > the IETF or the Regional technical meetings > which give advice to the RIRs. This individual requests the IETF hold a BOF at the upcoming meeting in LA following the draft outlined below. ______________START

New Top Level Domain BOF

(Time/location To Be Announced)
================================

Chair: Bob Allisat

DESCRIPTION:

New Top Level Domain (nTLD) names have been proposed as a way of
increasing the namespace choices available to Netizens worldwide.
Currently people have only two choices: national registries and
the traditional .COM/.ORG/.NET TLDs. Many nTLDs have been proposed
to offer expanded identification opportunities for individuals,
businesses and organizations. However, this raises various issues
such as how many nTLDs are feasible, what are the required technical
standards to run a Network Information Center (NIC) or Domain Name
Registry (DNR) and so on.

nTLD's are becoming more and more essential as more and more people
utilize the Internet for their everyday communications. Everyone is
experiencing the problem of a rapidly diminishing number of viable
Domains. There is an urgent need to define mechanisms to achieve new
Top Level Domain capabilies.

Some of the issues that needs to be addressed are:

1. What are the basic technical requirements for Domain Name Registries
(DNR). What are the technical requirements for Network Information
Centres
(NIC). Is there a differance between the two and if so we have to begin
defining those differances.

2. Is there a necessity for various grades or "flavours" of DNR/nTLD
(ie non-profit, commercial, small, mid-size, corporate). Are "shared"
and "private" DNR/nTLD technically practical? Can shared and private
DNRs technically co-exist.

3. What are the limitations and hindrances in existing software which
may place practical limitations on the number of New TLDs.

4. How to provide Quality of Service while allowing widely dispersed,
decentralized nTLD/DNRs and NICs.

5. Issues around "Root" servers. There are two basic challenges with
naming:  How to announce a server based on its nTLD, and how to find
that
server based on it's IP address.  Currently this is done by 13 private
Root servers to which all Domain Name Servers computers worldwide point
to for that information. Is there a need for more Root Servers? What
sort of technical regulation of these root servers require? How can we
ensure universality of Internet addressing and still allow maximal
dispersion of nTLDs, DNRs and NICs?

The goals of the New Top Level Domain Name BOF are:

1. Decide if there is a need to form a working group to solve some or
all
   of the problems above.

2. Which of the problems above should be addressed by the working group.

3. What will the working group produce. In our opinion, we need to
interact
   with other groups such as various bodies of the UN, national
governments,
   industry representatives and the general Netizenry to solve some or
all of
   the problems above.

4. What other problems need to be solved for succesful deployment of 
   new TLD's.


AGENDA:

  Introduction, agenda review.

  Issue Briefs - 2 minute summaries of position papers to be filed and 
  available on-line

  Discussion - succinct questions; 2 minute limit on answers, details
and
  expansions presented as on-line addenda.

  Conclusion - organizing next steps.
______________FINISH TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat Director, World TeleVirtual Network http://www.wtv.net PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 info at wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:25:47 MET 1998 ---------