RIPE 33

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.

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.

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

Stability of the DNS Root

TLD Coordination Project Activity

Documentation and alignment of practices

gTLDs

Cooperation With Governments

Charging

Competition

DNS Infrastructure Resources

Arbitration

Emerging Registries

Legal

Tools and Techniques

 


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:
    • 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.
  • 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

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,
    • Co-operation with Governments,
    • Competition,
    • Arbitration and Dispute Resolution,
    • Legal Issues.
  • 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.

 


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: 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.

 


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: High
Open Actions: None
  • Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries within the RIPE area.

Proposals

  • Elevate priority of this section.