Discussion document for review of TLD-WG workplan, meeting@localhost
- Date: Mon, 03 May 1999 17:44:05 +0100
- Organization: University College Dublin
I've prepared some input for the scheduled review of the TLD-WG workplan
during our session on Wednesday. Please find text and HTML versions of
this attached.
You will find that I suggest collapsing the workplan to a much smaller
number of sections, with better focus (I hope) on today's needs.
Niall O'Reilly
Chair, RIPE TLD-WG
Title: DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-33
Date: 3 May 1999
Status: Discussion Document
Next Review: RIPE-33, 5 May 1999
Discussion Document
for next review of
RIPE TLD-WG Workplan
The TLD-WG workplan is an organic document that will be formally
reviewed at each WG meeting. The workplan is listed under various
sections followed by specific activities to be undertaken within
each section.
This edition of the workplan includes revisions agreed on
28 January 1998 at RIPE 29 in Amsterdam.
A shaded background is used to highlight developments relevant to
the evolution of the workplan.
A different shading is used for proposals to be considered at the
next review.
In the plain-text version of the document, neither of these
shadings is visible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Index
IANA and Stability of the DNS Root Competition
TLD Coordination Project Activity DNS Infrastructure Resources
Documentation and alignment of Arbitration
practices
Emerging Registries
gTLDs
Legal
Cooperation With Governments
Tools and Techniques
Charging
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IANA and Stability of the DNS Root
Priority: Highest
Open Actions: None
The independence and stability of IANA is vital for the functioning
of the DNS. In order to help preserve this the following tasks need
to be done:
* Help support the following aims of IANA:
o protection from litigation
o recognition by official governmental bodies
o bottom-up authority to IANA
* Discuss and find a way for nTLDs to directly or indirectly
fund IANA.
* Formalise relationships with IANA within a bottom-up
framework.
ICANN has defined the model for Supporting Organizations.
These will be part of ICANN rather than separate corporations.
The Domain Names Supporting Organization (DNSO) will have its
inaugural constituency meetings and general assembly in Berlin
later this month.
CENTR has participated in the definition and formation processes
both of the DNSO and of the ccTLD constituency within DNSO.
Proposals
* Create two new sections to supersede this one:
1. IANA and ICANN
and
2. Stability of the Root.
* Under (1), consider
o participation through DNSO structure
or
just leave this to registries ... ?
o stance regarding transfer of functions from IANA to
ICANN
o stance regarding delegation relationship between
IANA/ICANN and ccTLD registries
* Under (2), consider
o desired responsibility for root server system
o desired implementation of same
--------------------------------------------------------------------
TLD Coordination Project Activity
Priority: High
Open Actions: None
Discuss and decide upon the structure of the TLD coordination
project. This project will be used to carry out actions decided
upon by the WG. The following need to be discussed:
* Location of project
* Size of project
* Scope of project
* Funding of project
Initial co-ordination project, RIPE-CENTR is to finish by 30 June
1999.
New CENTR organization, with registries as members, will have
co-ordination activity, but this seems likely not to cover all
TLD-WG interests.
TLD-WG activity is expected to depend mainly on volunteer effort.
Proposals
* Drop this section from workplan.
* Organise a task force for each active section of workplan.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Documentation and alignment of practices
Priority: High
Open Actions: None
* Collect and publish information on status and current practice
of nTLD registries, with particular reference to:
o publication of policy,
o national consultative framework,
o registration procedures,
o comparative charging,
o search/retrieval facilities on nTLD databases,
o availability of English-language versions of
documentation,
o domain name statistics,
o national character sets.
* Develop recommendations for best practice and alignment of
practices.
* Publish and promote any recommendations made.
RIPE CENTR project has begun collecting information.
Results to date are to be seen on CENTR Web site.
Proposals
* Identify activities complementary to CENTR work
* Set up task force(s) for specific activities
* Extend list of topics to cover information of interest but no
longer covered by specific section of workplan, such as:
o Co-operation with Governments
o Competition
o Arbitration and Dispute Resolution
o Legal Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------------
gTLDs
Priority: High
Open Actions: None
* Discuss development of gTLDs and how it affects nTLDs
* Decide upon desired relationship with gTLDs, CORE, POC, PAB
etc.
* Discuss the role of NSI in domain names and its relationship
to nTLDs. Make and document recommendations.
Developments are being determined by ICANN and US DoC.
This section is covered by proposed new IANA and ICANN section.
Proposals
* Drop this section from workplan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooperation With Governments
Priority: Not prioritized
Open Actions: None
* Make contact with governmental and intergovernmental
organizations in order to promote WG ideas to them.
* Document and publish current state of the cooperation as it
evolves.
Registries and CENTR are expected to be active in this area.
Proposals
* Drop this section from workplan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Charging
Priority: Not prioritized
Open Actions: None
* Investigate and report on whether each TLD subscribes to
RIPE-152.
* Carry out benchmarking of charging for participant TLDs and
answer the following questions. What differences are there and
why? Look at the quality of service versus charging. What is
quality?
This section is covered by
Documentation and alignment of practices
Proposals
* Drop this section from workplan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Competition
Priority: Not prioritized
Open Actions: None
* Discuss the introduction of competition to nTLDs.
This section is covered by
Documentation and alignment of practices
Proposals
* Drop this section from workplan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
DNS Infrastructure Resources
Priority: Not prioritized
Open Actions: None
* Document recommended practice for DNS infrastructure. This is
to ensure functioning on a non-discriminatory basis and an
avoidance of bottlenecks.
Proposals
* Add following activities to this section:
o Track DNS technology and pilots of new features.
o Avail of opportunities for co-operation with RIPE
DNS-WG.
* Elevate priority of this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitration
Priority: Not prioritized
Open Actions: None
* Study suitable arbitration procedures and if applicable
suitable legal jurisdictions for this.
* Take account of different legal traditions: Napoleonic vs
Common Law.
This section is covered by
Documentation and alignment of practices
Proposals
* Drop this section from workplan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Emerging Registries
Priority: Not prioritized
Open Actions: None
* Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries
within the RIPE area.
Proposals
* Elevate priority of this section.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal
Priority: Not prioritized
Open Actions: None
* Study trademark and intellectual property issues
* Monitor and report and legal occurrences/changes relevant to
nTLDs.
This section is covered by
Documentation and alignment of practices
Proposals
* Drop this section from workplan
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Tools and Techniques
Proposed new section
Priority: Not prioritized
Open Actions: None
* Maintain catalogue of useful tools and techniques
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Title:
RIPE TLD-WG Workplan (Discussion Document)
Title: DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-33
Date: 3 May 1999
Status: Discussion Document
Next Review: RIPE-33, 5 May 1999
Discussion Document
for next review of
RIPE TLD-WG Workplan
The TLD-WG workplan is an organic document that will be formally
reviewed at each WG meeting. The workplan is listed under various
sections followed by specific activities to be undertaken within each
section.
This edition of the workplan includes revisions agreed
on 28 January 1998 at RIPE 29 in Amsterdam.
|
A shaded background is used to highlight developments
relevant to the evolution of the workplan.
|
|
A different shading is used for proposals
to be considered at the next review.
|
In the plain-text version of the document, neither of these
shadings is visible.
Index
IANA and Stability of the DNS Root
| Priority: |
Highest |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
The independence and stability of IANA is vital for the functioning
of the DNS. In order to help preserve this the following tasks need
to be done:
- Help support the following aims of IANA:
- protection from litigation
- recognition by official governmental bodies
- bottom-up authority to IANA
- Discuss and find a way for nTLDs to directly or indirectly
fund IANA.
- Formalise relationships with IANA within a bottom-up
framework.
|
ICANN has defined the model for Supporting Organizations.
These will be part of ICANN rather than separate corporations.
The Domain Names Supporting Organization (DNSO) will have its
inaugural constituency meetings and general assembly in Berlin
later this month.
CENTR has participated in the definition and formation processes
both of the DNSO and of the ccTLD constituency within DNSO.
|
Proposals
-
Create two new sections to supersede this one:
-
IANA and ICANN
and
-
Stability of the Root.
-
Under (1), consider
-
participation through DNSO structure
or
just leave this to registries ... ?
-
stance regarding transfer of functions from IANA to ICANN
-
stance regarding delegation relationship between
IANA/ICANN and ccTLD registries
-
Under (2), consider
-
desired responsibility for root server system
-
desired implementation of same
|
TLD Coordination Project Activity
| Priority: |
High |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
Discuss and decide upon the structure of the TLD coordination
project. This project will be used to carry out actions decided
upon by the WG. The following need to be discussed:
- Location of project
- Size of project
- Scope of project
- Funding of project
|
Initial co-ordination project, RIPE-CENTR is to finish by 30 June 1999.
New CENTR organization, with registries as members, will have co-ordination
activity, but this seems likely not to cover all TLD-WG interests.
TLD-WG activity is expected to depend mainly on volunteer effort.
|
Proposals
-
Drop this section from workplan.
-
Organise a task force for each active section of workplan.
|
Documentation and alignment of practices
| Priority: |
High |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Collect and publish
information on status and current practice of nTLD registries,
with particular reference to:
- publication of policy,
- national consultative framework,
- registration procedures,
- comparative charging,
- search/retrieval facilities on nTLD databases,
- availability of English-language versions of documentation,
- domain name statistics,
- national character sets.
- Develop recommendations for best practice and alignment of practices.
- Publish and promote any recommendations made.
RIPE CENTR project has begun collecting information.
Results to date are to be seen on CENTR Web site.
|
Proposals
-
Identify activities complementary to CENTR work
-
Set up task force(s) for specific activities
-
Extend list of topics to cover
information of interest but no longer covered by specific
section of workplan, such as:
- Co-operation with Governments
- Competition
- Arbitration and Dispute Resolution
- Legal Issues
|
gTLDs
| Priority: |
High |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Discuss development of gTLDs and how it affects nTLDs
- Decide upon desired relationship with gTLDs, CORE, POC, PAB etc.
- Discuss the role of NSI in domain names and its relationship to nTLDs.
Make and document recommendations.
|
Developments are being determined by ICANN and US DoC.
This section is covered by proposed new
IANA and ICANN section.
|
Proposals
-
Drop this section from workplan
|
Cooperation With Governments
| Priority: |
Not prioritized |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Make contact with governmental and intergovernmental
organizations in order to promote WG ideas to them.
- Document and publish current state of the cooperation as it
evolves.
|
Registries and CENTR are expected to be active in this area.
|
Proposals
-
Drop this section from workplan
|
Charging
| Priority: |
Not prioritized |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Investigate and report on whether each TLD subscribes to RIPE-152.
- Carry out benchmarking of charging for participant TLDs and answer
the following questions. What differences are there and why? Look
at the quality of service versus charging. What is quality?
|
This section is covered by
Documentation and alignment of practices
|
Proposals
-
Drop this section from workplan
|
Competition
| Priority: |
Not prioritized |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Discuss the introduction of competition to nTLDs.
|
This section is covered by
Documentation and alignment of practices
|
Proposals
-
Drop this section from workplan
|
DNS Infrastructure Resources
| Priority: |
Not prioritized |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
-
Document recommended practice for DNS infrastructure. This is to
ensure functioning on a non-discriminatory basis and an avoidance
of bottlenecks.
Proposals
-
Add following activities to this section:
-
Track DNS technology and pilots of new features.
-
Avail of opportunities for co-operation with RIPE DNS-WG.
-
Elevate priority of this section.
|
Arbitration
| Priority: |
Not prioritized |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Study suitable arbitration procedures and if applicable suitable
legal jurisdictions for this.
- Take account of different legal traditions: Napoleonic vs
Common Law.
|
This section is covered by
Documentation and alignment of practices
|
Proposals
-
Drop this section from workplan
|
Emerging Registries
| Priority: |
Not prioritized |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries within
the RIPE area.
Proposals
-
Elevate priority of this section.
|
Legal
| Priority: |
Not prioritized |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Study trademark and intellectual property issues
- Monitor and report and legal occurrences/changes relevant to nTLDs.
|
This section is covered by
Documentation and alignment of practices
|
Proposals
-
Drop this section from workplan
|
Tools and Techniques
|
Proposed new section |
|---|
| Priority: |
Not prioritized |
|---|
| Open Actions: |
None |
|---|
- Maintain catalogue of useful tools and techniques
|
|
|
|
you are here: RIPE -> RIPE Maillists > Archives
