Re: Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG

On  Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:17:23 +0100 (BST), Niall O'Reilly wrote:

	I'ld like to suggest some ideas in this area in advance of the
	WG meeting at RIPE 34.

	When we review the workplan, I expect we shall eliminate many
	work areas as no longer relevant, or better looked after now and
	in the future by CENTR.

	The residual work plan will be small.  If it vanishes, then we have
	a clear direction.

	Your comments are welcome.

	Niall O'Reilly

On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:24:07 +0200, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote:

	I wasn't at ripe-33, and in the archives I can only find the
	``Discussion document for review of TLD-WG workplan''
	(http://www.ripe.net/mail-archives/tld-wg/19990401-19990701/msg00004.html)
	and not the results of the review. So can you point me to the
	current workplan?

Jaap, no new edition of the workplan has been published since RIPE 33.

I have prepared a discussion document for review of the workplan
at RIPE 34 (see below).  As mentioned there, six work areas have 
survived.  Here are my comments on these, as a start to the debate.  
For purposes of argument, I'm taking the position of calling the
raison d'etre of the WG into question and assuming that all of
the work areas can be exported with advantage to other groups.


IANA and ICANN 
	CENTR is involved here.  Complementary involvement may
	be appropriate, especially involvement in other DNSO
	constituencies than the ccTLD constituency.  If so,
	we need to identify the motivation for such involvement.

Stability of the DNS Root
	Those with operational interest (including CENTR)
	have interest here, and should work to protect it.

Documentation and alignment of practices
	This work area overlaps with work which CENTR has
	under way.  We don't need to duplicate it.

DNS Infrastructure Resources
	We don't add value by shadowing DNS-WG.  We should
	recognize that.

Emerging Registries
	CENTR and DNS-WG can surely do more for emerging
	registries than we can.

Tools and Techniques
	This is a new area, with no activity yet.
	We need to decide what it's for.

I would like to have views from other people, especially those who
either disagree with the idea of "exporting" the existing work areas,
or would like to see other work areas in the work plan and feel
that the RIPE TLD-WG is the appropriate group to deal with them.


Niall O'Reilly


[Begin DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34]

      Title: DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34
      Date: 6 September 1999
      Status: Discussion Document
      Next Review: RIPE-34, 22 September 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 document reflects revisions to the workplan proposed on
      5 May 1999 at RIPE 33 in Vienna.

      Six work areas now remain. WG should consider at next review which
      of these need to be retained, and which should best be taken care
      of by other groups or organisations (eg: RIPE DNS-WG, CENTR, DNSO).

      WG should also consider whether it is appropriate to add any new
      work areas, and how the resulting (continued or new) work areas
      should be resourced.
      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      Index

      IANA and ICANN                       DNS Infrastructure Resources

      Stability of the DNS Root                     Emerging Registries

      Documentation and alignment of               Tools and Techniques
      practices

      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      IANA and ICANN

          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.
         * participation through DNSO structure
           or
           just leave this to registries ... ?
         * transfer of functions from IANA to ICANN
         * delegation relationship between IANA/ICANN and ccTLD
           registries

      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      Stability of the DNS Root

          Priority: Highest
      Open Actions: None

         * desired responsibility for root server system

         * desired implementation of same

      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      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,
              o Co-operation with Governments,
              o Competition,
              o Arbitration and Dispute Resolution,
              o Legal Issues.
         * Develop recommendations for best practice and alignment of
           practices.
         * Publish and promote any recommendations made.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      DNS Infrastructure Resources

          Priority: High
      Open Actions: None

         * Document recommended practice for DNS infrastructure. This is
           to ensure functioning on a non-discriminatory basis and an
           avoidance of bottlenecks.
         * Track DNS technology and pilots of new features.
         * Avail of opportunities for co-operation with RIPE DNS-WG.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      Emerging Registries

          Priority: High
      Open Actions: None

         * Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries
           within the RIPE area.

      --------------------------------------------------------------------

      Tools and Techniques

          Priority: High
      Open Actions: None

         * Maintain catalogue of useful tools and techniques

      --------------------------------------------------------------------

[End DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34]