From hostmaster at sztaki.hu Thu Oct 3 10:06:34 1996 From: hostmaster at sztaki.hu (Domain registration staff) Date: Thu, 3 Oct 1996 10:06:34 +0200 (MET DST) Subject: reverse DNS for RFC1918 addresses Message-ID: Dear Hostmaster, There are empty reverse zone files for RFC1918 private IP addresses (10/8, 172.16/12, 192.168/16). E.g. 16.172.in-addr.arpa. 86400 SOA zed.isi.edu. bmanning.zed.isi.edu. ( 1928512 ; serial 10800 ; refresh (3 hours) 900 ; retry (15 mins) 3600000 ; expire (41 days 16 hours) 86400 ) ; minimum (1 day) 16.172.in-addr.arpa. 86400 NS NS.isi.edu. 16.172.in-addr.arpa. 86400 NS RS0.INTERNIC.NET. (However ns.isi.edu contains no data about these zones.) Is this intentional? Maybe it would be useful to revoke this fake delegations, and leave peoples to put arbitrary entries into initial cache file of their DNS. I mean that if a smaller community want to use some private IP addresses, they could set up local reverse DNS-s for them. If all DNS of the community contains an entry in cache file like this 168.192.in-addr.arpa. NS local-reverse-ns.some.organization. subdomains could be delegated in the usual way, and local peoples could see "nice" traceroutes across local point-to-point links with RFC1918 addresses. Any comments? Regards Gabor Kiss From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Wed Oct 9 09:05:49 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:05:49 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs Message-ID: <9610090705.AA16199@ncc.ripe.net> How is the position on ITLDs coming along? We are receiving questions like the one included FYI below. I have also included our first answer for your enjoyment. Does the group have a problem if we use the minutes rather than the fully drafted statement to answer queries like this? Daniel ------- Forwarded Message Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 16:16:08 +0200 From: Andrea.RICCI at BXL.DG13.cec.be To: cc: Subject: DNS Dear Mr. Karrenberg, I'm Andrea Ricci from the Commission DG XIII Int. aspects of Information Socie ty in Brussels. I'm working on the DNS issue with reference to the Jonathan Pos tel proposal. I'm writing an internal note that should fit into the foreseen gr een paper on numbering. Annie Renard suggested me your name: I have a number of issues to discuss w/ you. You'll find below all the questions I sent today to the ncc at ripe.net address af ter a phone conversation. I'd like to have an idea of the mismanagement and the tension created by the .c om vs. .fr or .nl domain names. Domain name hijacking...frauds, disputes. I wou ld be also interested in having the most recent numbers on the .com domains/hos ts (and eventually the number of European companies that have a .com domain). Y our views on the question would be welcome w/ specific reference to the issues you would like to have discussed at European level . For example: is it bad tha t so many Europeans have a .com domain ? Who should be in charge of this manage ment? I'm working on this issue w/ short deadlines. I would be then grateful if you or your collegues could help me as soon as you can. Best regards Andrea Ricci ******************************************************************************* ************************************ are you aware of Mr. Postel proposals on DNS management (the reform would imply new top domains and a structure of multiple registers worldwide, each of them paying 2% to ISOC.. etc.) ? did RIPE discuss this issue in the recent meetings? in which way this change affects the present regime? have you issued documents in this respect? do you know what the asian Nic think of it? Are you aware of DNS based legal conflicts (Intellectual property rights/tradem ark issues) in Europe? Do parties refer to you when a conflict arise? Do you settle the dispute ? DO you have an equivalent to the NSI step96 dispute settlement document? How many delocalized centres for domain name management exist in Europe (in F, NL, UK and more) ? Who has decided the European management rules (.co.uk or .gouv.fr for example) ? Do the other European countries have DNS structures ? What is the sharing of responsibilities between RIPE and the other registers? If I want to register I domain, am I perfectly free to chose a .com or a .nl ? Do you think that there is a real advantage to file a .com instead of a ISO3166 ? Is it formally classified as international resources the .com top domain (i.e. does the customer know that he is buying a global domain?) Is there any form of check that a org is non profit and a .com is for profit? W ho checks? Could I buy a .com from belgium (I presume yes) but if I buy it from a service providers (like EUNet) did they buy the resource in advance in the US from NSI ? Is there a way to know how many .com come from European companies? MIDS say yes but they refuse to tell how they can produce those data...any clue? Have you too heard that NSI has developed a 30 mil. $ budget? Is RIPE earning resources for their activity? Thanks for your help. I understand that this requires time to answer. I'll appr eciate any form of support You can write or call me.Regards Andrea RIcci phone 32 2 29 58215 fax 32 2 29 68970 ------- End of Forwarded Message ------- Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:01:02 +0200 From: Daniel Karrenberg Sender: dfk at ripe.net To: Andrea.RICCI at bxl.dg13.cec.be Cc: k13 at nikhef.nl Subject: Re: DNS In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 08 Oct 1996 16:16:08 +0200. ------- Dear Mr Ricci, thank you for your message of yesterday. Due to previous experiences with similar matters I would like to know a few things myself before spending time to answer your questions: 1) What exactly are you going to do with this information? - what is the note about that tou are writing? - who has requested it? - what is the 'green paper' about? - who has requested it? - who is expected to do what with the results? - what are the timeframes for the above? 2) How will we receive credit for supplying information? 3) How will the positions of RIPE be identified as such and how will RIPE have the opportunity to correct any misrepresentation? 4) Will we receive copies of any documents produced using our information and/or positions promptly upon completion/publication? 5) How in general terms would you describe the benefit European ISPs would receive from the RIPE NCC spending time on this matter? Please understand that while I am quite willing to help you, I cannot do so until I have received satisfactory answers to the questions above. Let me add that the answers to most of your questions can be researched from public sources, most easily using the Internet itself. I suggest http://www.ripe.net/ as a good starting point. Also the various search engines available are very useful. Kind regards D. Karrenberg RIPE NCC From Dave.Morton at ecrc.de Wed Oct 9 13:34:58 1996 From: Dave.Morton at ecrc.de (Dave Morton) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 96 13:34:58 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs Message-ID: <9610091134.AA18147@scorpio.ecrc.de> >How is the position on ITLDs coming along? >We are receiving questions like the one included FYI below. >I have also included our first answer for your enjoyment. >Does the group have a problem if we use the minutes rather than >the fully drafted statement to answer queries like this? Good answer to the Commission Daniel - I'd also suggest that if they want all that information they should hire a consultant instead of perstering you guys. Dave > >Daniel > >------- Forwarded Message > >Date: Tue, 8 Oct 1996 16:16:08 +0200 >From: Andrea.RICCI at BXL.DG13.cec.be >To: >cc: >Subject: DNS > >Dear Mr. Karrenberg, > I'm Andrea Ricci from the Commission DG XIII Int. aspects of Information Socie >ty in Brussels. I'm working on the DNS issue with reference to the Jonathan Pos >tel proposal. I'm writing an internal note that should fit into the foreseen gr >een paper on numbering. Annie Renard suggested me your name: I have a number of > issues to discuss w/ you. > >You'll find below all the questions I sent today to the ncc at ripe.net address af >ter a phone conversation. >I'd like to have an idea of the mismanagement and the tension created by the .c >om vs. .fr or .nl domain names. Domain name hijacking...frauds, disputes. I wou >ld be also interested in having the most recent numbers on the .com domains/hos >ts (and eventually the number of European companies that have a .com domain). Y >our views on the question would be welcome w/ specific reference to the issues >you would like to have discussed at European level . For example: is it bad tha >t so many Europeans have a .com domain ? Who should be in charge of this manage >ment? I'm working on this issue w/ short deadlines. I would be then grateful if > you or your collegues could help me as soon as you can. >Best regards >Andrea Ricci > >******************************************************************************* >************************************ >are you aware of Mr. Postel proposals on DNS management (the reform would imply > new top domains and a structure of multiple registers worldwide, each of them >paying 2% to ISOC.. etc.) ? > >did RIPE discuss this issue in the recent meetings? >in which way this change affects the present regime? >have you issued documents in this respect? >do you know what the asian Nic think of it? > >Are you aware of DNS based legal conflicts (Intellectual property rights/tradem >ark issues) in Europe? >Do parties refer to you when a conflict arise? >Do you settle the dispute ? DO you have an equivalent to the NSI step96 dispute > settlement document? > >How many delocalized centres for domain name management exist in Europe (in F, >NL, UK and more) ? >Who has decided the European management rules (.co.uk or .gouv.fr for example) >? >Do the other European countries have DNS structures ? >What is the sharing of responsibilities between RIPE and the other registers? > >If I want to register I domain, am I perfectly free to chose a .com or a .nl ? >Do you think that there is a real advantage to file a .com instead of a ISO3166 > ? >Is it formally classified as international resources the .com top domain (i.e. >does the customer know that he is buying a global domain?) >Is there any form of check that a org is non profit and a .com is for profit? W >ho checks? >Could I buy a .com from belgium (I presume yes) but if I buy it from a service >providers (like EUNet) did they buy the resource in advance in the US from NSI >? > >Is there a way to know how many .com come from European companies? MIDS say yes > but they refuse to tell how they can produce those data...any clue? > >Have you too heard that NSI has developed a 30 mil. $ budget? >Is RIPE earning resources for their activity? > >Thanks for your help. I understand that this requires time to answer. I'll appr >eciate any form of support >You can write or call me.Regards >Andrea RIcci > > > >phone 32 2 29 58215 >fax 32 2 29 68970 > > >------- End of Forwarded Message > >------- >Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 09:01:02 +0200 >From: Daniel Karrenberg >Sender: dfk at ripe.net > >To: Andrea.RICCI at bxl.dg13.cec.be >Cc: k13 at nikhef.nl > >Subject: Re: DNS >In-Reply-To: Your message of Tue, 08 Oct 1996 16:16:08 +0200. > C/ADMD=RTT/C=BE/@MHS> >------- > > >Dear Mr Ricci, > >thank you for your message of yesterday. Due to previous experiences >with similar matters I would like to know a few things myself before >spending time to answer your questions: > >1) What exactly are you going to do with this information? > > - what is the note about that tou are writing? > - who has requested it? > - what is the 'green paper' about? > - who has requested it? > - who is expected to do what with the results? > - what are the timeframes for the above? > >2) How will we receive credit for supplying information? > >3) How will the positions of RIPE be identified as such and how will >RIPE have the opportunity to correct any misrepresentation? > >4) Will we receive copies of any documents produced using our >information and/or positions promptly upon completion/publication? > >5) How in general terms would you describe the benefit European ISPs >would receive from the RIPE NCC spending time on this matter? > >Please understand that while I am quite willing to help you, I cannot do >so until I have received satisfactory answers to the questions above. > >Let me add that the answers to most of your questions can be researched >from public sources, most easily using the Internet itself. I suggest >http://www.ripe.net/ as a good starting point. Also the various search >engines available are very useful. > >Kind regards > >D. Karrenberg >RIPE NCC > From Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl Wed Oct 9 13:53:10 1996 From: Piet.Beertema at cwi.nl (Piet Beertema) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 13:53:10 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs In-Reply-To: "Your message of Wed, 9 Oct 96 13:34:58 +0200 " <9610091134.AA18147@scorpio.ecrc.de> Message-ID: <9610091153.AA28229=piet@kraai.cwi.nl> Good answer to the Commission Daniel - I'd also suggest that if they want all that information they should hire a consultant instead of perstering you guys. Fully agreed. And since the Commission at least *seems* to have IP connectivity, they should be able to read themselves the information that is already available on the RIPE whois server and on the websites and other information sources of the various European TLD registries. Piet From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Wed Oct 9 13:54:00 1996 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 13:54:00 MET-DST Subject: Position on ITLDs Message-ID: <009A9971.C953CF04.5@cc.univie.ac.at> >Good answer to the Commission Daniel - I'd also suggest that if they >want all that information they should hire a consultant instead of >perstering you guys. Well, I'd propose the RIPE-NCC as the consultant ! I perceive this request as a nuisance (to some degree) and as a chance at the same time to shortcut their hiring of a "typical" consultant ;-) Many of us know what the results might be... Interestingly enough they seem to believe that DNS is only available in FR, DE, and UK. At least for the other EU member countries they could have known better :-) Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ROBERT.SHAW at ITU.CH Wed Oct 9 13:34:50 1996 From: ROBERT.SHAW at ITU.CH (shaw) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 13:34:50 +0200 Subject: iTLDs Message-ID: <5850341409101996/A58455/TAU/11AA4BA23100*@MHS> Daniel, As public policy officials in DG XIII who have liaison responsibilities with the US State Department who are discussing problems with DNS policy issues (e.g., see http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/acicip.html and http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/intellec.html), they have a interest in this topic to formulate a cohesive European position. DNS issues are impacting public interests especially within an intellectual property context. For one example of domain name hijacking, see the attached message. IMHO, I think it might be in RIPE's interest to cooperate a little more with them since the issues are clearly impacting outside a normal "Net" technical context. Bob -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: Mark Henderson-Thynne Subject: Domain grabbers about Date: no date Size: 17213 URL: From mnorris at hea.ie Wed Oct 9 15:29:55 1996 From: mnorris at hea.ie (Mike Norris) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 96 14:29:55 +0100 Subject: Position on ITLDs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 09 Oct 96 09:05:49 +0200." <9610090705.AA16199@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <199610091329.OAA03021@dalkey.hea.ie> Classic answer, Daniel - fire back some questions to them. Dave is right too, they should have a specialist on this. It might be worth pointing out that the position of RIPE wrt European TLD registries is quite different from that of the Internic with all TLD registries. Neither RIPE nor any of its WGs nor the NCC are DNS registries in any sense. This is something the EC and others may be confused about, given the role of the RIPE NCC in IP address registration. At the same time, RIPE should not use your quite reasonable reply to mask its views on some of the questions concerning the proposal from J Postel for new TLDs and registries. The DNS WG has strong views on this, backed by RIPE, and these should be made known. Regards. Mike From Dave.Morton at ecrc.de Wed Oct 9 15:47:39 1996 From: Dave.Morton at ecrc.de (Dave Morton) Date: Wed, 9 Oct 96 15:47:39 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs Message-ID: <9610091347.AA19284@scorpio.ecrc.de> >>Good answer to the Commission Daniel - I'd also suggest that if they >>want all that information they should hire a consultant instead of >>perstering you guys. > > Well, I'd propose the RIPE-NCC as the consultant ! Wilfried - that was my hint, hint to DFK :-) > I perceive this request as a nuisance (to some degree) and as a chance at > the same time to shortcut their hiring of a "typical" consultant ;-) > Many of us know what the results might be... Too true unfortunately, thus I support your suggestion. > Interestingly enough they seem to believe that DNS is only available in FR, > DE, and UK. At least for the other EU member countries they could have > known better :-) Ve have vays of making them learn - start by asking them to attend RIPE meetings perhaps. Dave > Wilfried. From ola at tip.net Wed Oct 9 18:06:23 1996 From: ola at tip.net (Ola Johansson) Date: Wed, 09 Oct 1996 18:06:23 +0200 Subject: iTLDs References: <5850341409101996/A58455/TAU/11AA4BA23100*@MHS> Message-ID: <325BCD7F.66BA@tip.net> shaw wrote: > European position. DNS issues are impacting public interests > especially within an intellectual property context. For > one example of domain name hijacking, see the attached > message. > > IMHO, I think it might be in RIPE's interest to cooperate > a little more with them since the issues are clearly > impacting outside a normal "Net" technical context. For your information, the same have happened in Sweden, by the company Control Alt Delete. There are perhaps more occurances of this in other countries? There was a TV show last night on the Swedish TV Channel 4 covering this issue (!), showing that this has (at least in Sweden) some public interest. The domains registered below are companies, names, events and common expressions in Swedish (and English). Cheers, //Ola Johansson, Telia TeleCom Telia Internet Whois Search Result from server rs.internic.net: Control Alt Delete (NOBELPRICE-DOM) NOBELPRICE.COM Control Alt Delete (ORIENTALHOTEL-DOM) ORIENTALHOTEL.COM Control Alt Delete (POLITIK2-DOM) POLITIK.COM Control Alt Delete (POSTBANKEN-DOM) POSTBANKEN.COM Control Alt Delete (PRILOSEC-DOM) PRILOSEC.COM Control Alt Delete (PROCTERGAMBLE-DOM) PROCTERGAMBLE.COM Control Alt Delete (PRODUCENTHUSET2-DOM) PRODUCENTHUSET.COM Control Alt Delete (RAUSING-DOM) RAUSING.COM Control Alt Delete (RENTANAME-DOM) RENTANAME.COM Control Alt Delete (REXONA-DOM) REXONA.COM Control Alt Delete (ROYALVIKING-DOM) ROYALVIKING.COM Control Alt Delete (SALMING-DOM) SALMING.COM Control Alt Delete (SEBANK-DOM) SEBANK.COM Control Alt Delete (SEMBAWANG-DOM) SEMBAWANG.COM Control Alt Delete (SKANDIABANKEN-DOM) SKANDIABANKEN.COM Control Alt Delete (SPEJSAT-DOM) SPEJSAT.COM Control Alt Delete (SPENDRUP-DOM) SPENDRUP.COM Control Alt Delete (SPINTAB-DOM) SPINTAB.COM Control Alt Delete (SPRIT-DOM) SPRIT.COM Control Alt Delete (STENBECK-DOM) STENBECK.COM Control Alt Delete (SVENSKADAGBLADET-DOM) SVENSKADAGBLADET.COM Control Alt Delete (SWEBUS-DOM) SWEBUS.COM Control Alt Delete (SWEDISHMATCH-DOM) SWEDISHMATCH.COM Control Alt Delete (BANGOLUFSEN-DOM) BANGOLUFSEN.COM Control Alt Delete (VAL3-DOM) VAL98.COM Control Alt Delete (VINGRESOR-DOM) VINGRESOR.COM Control Alt Delete (VIRTUALBONDS-DOM) VIRTUALBONDS.COM Control Alt Delete (WALLENBERG-DOM) WALLENBERG.COM Control Alt Delete (WASABANKEN-DOM) WASABANKEN.COM Control Alt Delete (X35-DOM) X2000.COM Control Alt Delete (BONNIERS-DOM) BONNIERS.COM Control Alt Delete (BOOZE3-DOM) BOOZE.COM Control Alt Delete (BRAATHENS-DOM) BRAATHENS.COM Control Alt Delete (CHINALIGHT-DOM) CHINALIGHT.COM Control Alt Delete (CITYMAIL-DOM) CITYMAIL.COM Control Alt Delete (CLOETTA-DOM) CLOETTA.COM Control Alt Delete (CONTROLALTDELETE-DOM) CONTROLALTDELETE.COM Control Alt Delete (CYBERBONDS-DOM) CYBERBONDS.COM Control Alt Delete (CYBERFRIEND-DOM) CYBERFRIEND.COM Control Alt Delete (DAGAB-DOM) DAGAB.COM Control Alt Delete (DAGENSINDUSTRI-DOM) DAGENSINDUSTRI.COM Control Alt Delete (DAGENSNYHETER-DOM) DAGENSNYHETER.COM Control Alt Delete (DEO-DOM) DEO.COM Control Alt Delete (DIGIBONDS-DOM) DIGIBONDS.COM Control Alt Delete (DOMAINTRADE-DOM) DOMAINTRADE.COM Control Alt Delete (ELLOS-DOM) ELLOS.COM Control Alt Delete (EMATELSTAR-DOM) EMATELSTAR.COM Control Alt Delete (ENATOR2-DOM) ENATOR.COM Control Alt Delete (EUROPOLITAN-DOM) EUROPOLITAN.COM Control Alt Delete (FASTIGHETER-DOM) FASTIGHETER.COM Control Alt Delete (FOLKSAM-DOM) FOLKSAM.COM Control Alt Delete (FRITIDSRESOR-DOM) FRITIDSRESOR.COM Control Alt Delete (GLOBEN-DOM) GLOBEN.COM Control Alt Delete (GODJUL-DOM) GODJUL.COM Control Alt Delete (GODMAT-DOM) GODMAT.COM Control Alt Delete (GRATTIS-DOM) GRATTIS.COM Control Alt Delete (GUD-DOM) GUD.COM Control Alt Delete (HEJ-DOM) HEJ.COM Control Alt Delete (HONSHUPAPER-DOM) HONSHUPAPER.COM Control Alt Delete (HURRA-DOM) HURRA.COM Control Alt Delete (ALLNIPPONAIRWAYS-DOM) ALLNIPPONAIRWAYS.COM Control Alt Delete (ITOYOKADO-DOM) ITOYOKADO.COM Control Alt Delete (ITPRO-DOM) ITPRO.COM Control Alt Delete (JULREA-DOM) JULREA.COM Control Alt Delete (KAMPRAD-DOM) KAMPRAD.COM Control Alt Delete (KANSKE-DOM) KANSKE.COM Control Alt Delete (KONSUM-DOM) KONSUM.COM Control Alt Delete (KURABO-DOM) KURABO.COM Control Alt Delete (NEJ-DOM) NEJ.COM From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 11:08:11 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:08:11 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 09 Oct 1996 14:29:55 BST. <199610091329.OAA03021@dalkey.hea.ie> References: <199610091329.OAA03021@dalkey.hea.ie> Message-ID: <9610100908.AA14556@ncc.ripe.net> > "Mike Norris" writes: > > Classic answer, Daniel - fire back some questions to them. Well Mike, these weren't just some questions. They ask for the information I think I need before spending NCC resources on this issue. I need this information to justify doing this to the contributors. As you may recall from the discussion at the last contributors meeting, things like this are considered on the fringe of the NCC's mandate. > Dave is right too, they should have a specialist on this. More than one. The most dangerous thing is policy makers makingpolicy advised by the clueless or even the clueful with particular interests only. And I beleive that they are trying to do just that - get more opinions in. BTW: Do not assume DGXIII or even Mr. Ricci is not reading this. They may very well be. > It might be worth pointing out that the position of RIPE > wrt European TLD registries is quite different from that > of the Internic with all TLD registries. Neither RIPE > nor any of its WGs nor the NCC are DNS registries in any > sense. This is something the EC and others may be confused > about, given the role of the RIPE NCC in IP address > registration. That is true. RIPE ha no executive role in this, only and advisory one. > At the same time, RIPE should not use your quite reasonable > reply to mask its views on some of the questions concerning > the proposal from J Postel for new TLDs and registries. The > DNS WG has strong views on this, backed by RIPE, and these > should be made known. that was the point of my original issue. To repeat: 1) Do we have the final wordsmithed version of the position discussed at the lat meeting? If not when will we have it? 2) In the absence of that should I go and tell them what I think the position is? Could the chair(s) do that? Should I wait ? I'd appreciate (personal if you wish) feedback from the group and preferably the chair(s). Daniel From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 11:09:33 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:09:33 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 09 Oct 1996 15:47:39 +0200. <9610091347.AA19284@scorpio.ecrc.de> References: <9610091347.AA19284@scorpio.ecrc.de> Message-ID: <9610100909.AA14572@ncc.ripe.net> > Dave Morton writes: > >>Good answer to the Commission Daniel - I'd also suggest that if they > >>want all that information they should hire a consultant instead of > >>perstering you guys. > > > > Well, I'd propose the RIPE-NCC as the consultant ! > > Wilfried - that was my hint, hint to DFK :-) Dave, I hope you weren't serious. In my present position as NCC manager I cannot consult for them even if I wanted to. Daniel From Dave.Morton at ecrc.de Thu Oct 10 11:20:37 1996 From: Dave.Morton at ecrc.de (Dave Morton) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 11:20:37 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs Message-ID: <9610100920.AA10375@scorpio.ecrc.de> > > Dave Morton writes: > > >>Good answer to the Commission Daniel - I'd also suggest that if they > > >>want all that information they should hire a consultant instead of > > >>perstering you guys. > > > > > > Well, I'd propose the RIPE-NCC as the consultant ! > > > > Wilfried - that was my hint, hint to DFK :-) > >Dave, > >I hope you weren't serious. >In my present position as NCC manager I cannot consult for them even >if I wanted to. Daniel - no - not *you* personally but the NCC.....that was also Wilfried's suggestion as I understood it. Dave >Daniel > From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 11:23:53 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:23:53 +0200 Subject: iTLDs In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 09 Oct 1996 18:06:23 +0200. <325BCD7F.66BA@tip.net> References: <325BCD7F.66BA@tip.net> Message-ID: <9610100923.AA14966@ncc.ripe.net> Ola, indeed domain name hijacking is a problem. The question however is one of how to solve it. My *personal* current answer is that there are established ways of solving this, i.e. trademark and intellectual property laws and jurisprudence (precedents) for deciding similar cases. If one party is using a name it should not be using according to another party, they can solve it between themselves, in the courts if necessary. This *works*. Of course it is made complicated by the fact that the Internet transcedes locality: which law is applicable, what is the scope of a domain name. In this respect the sysem of country toplevel domains has advantages! Technically speaking this is all he consequence of the lack of a real directory service on the Internet. If we had that the focus would shift to that rather than the names which are not intended to be overloaded with so much meaning as they currently are. Now we do not have that (although WEB search engines are quite a ways in that direction). None of this is *any* reason for those with particular interests to succeed in establishing Internet regulation or even rushed legislation anywhere. THIS IS THE REAL DANGER! Again *personal* opinions. Daniel > Ola Johansson writes: > shaw wrote: > > > European position. DNS issues are impacting public interests > > especially within an intellectual property context. For > > one example of domain name hijacking, see the attached > > message. > > > > IMHO, I think it might be in RIPE's interest to cooperate > > a little more with them since the issues are clearly > > impacting outside a normal "Net" technical context. > > For your information, the same have happened in Sweden, by the > company Control Alt Delete. There are perhaps more occurances of > this in other countries? There was a TV show last night on the > Swedish TV Channel 4 covering this issue (!), showing that this has > (at least in Sweden) some public interest. > > The domains registered below are companies, names, events and common > expressions in Swedish (and English). > > Cheers, > //Ola Johansson, Telia TeleCom > Telia Internet > > Whois Search Result from server rs.internic.net: > > Control Alt Delete (NOBELPRICE-DOM) NOBELPRICE. > COM > Control Alt Delete (ORIENTALHOTEL-DOM) ORIENTALHOTEL. > COM > Control Alt Delete (POLITIK2-DOM) POLITIK. > COM > Control Alt Delete (POSTBANKEN-DOM) POSTBANKEN. > COM > Control Alt Delete (PRILOSEC-DOM) PRILOSEC. > COM > Control Alt Delete (PROCTERGAMBLE-DOM) PROCTERGAMBLE. > COM > Control Alt Delete (PRODUCENTHUSET2-DOM) PRODUCENTHUSET. > COM > Control Alt Delete (RAUSING-DOM) RAUSING. > COM > Control Alt Delete (RENTANAME-DOM) RENTANAME. > COM > Control Alt Delete (REXONA-DOM) REXONA. > COM > Control Alt Delete (ROYALVIKING-DOM) ROYALVIKING. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SALMING-DOM) SALMING. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SEBANK-DOM) SEBANK. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SEMBAWANG-DOM) SEMBAWANG. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SKANDIABANKEN-DOM) SKANDIABANKEN. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SPEJSAT-DOM) SPEJSAT. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SPENDRUP-DOM) SPENDRUP. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SPINTAB-DOM) SPINTAB. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SPRIT-DOM) SPRIT. > COM > Control Alt Delete (STENBECK-DOM) STENBECK. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SVENSKADAGBLADET-DOM) SVENSKADAGBLADET. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SWEBUS-DOM) SWEBUS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (SWEDISHMATCH-DOM) SWEDISHMATCH. > COM > Control Alt Delete (BANGOLUFSEN-DOM) BANGOLUFSEN. > COM > Control Alt Delete (VAL3-DOM) VAL98. > COM > Control Alt Delete (VINGRESOR-DOM) VINGRESOR. > COM > Control Alt Delete (VIRTUALBONDS-DOM) VIRTUALBONDS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (WALLENBERG-DOM) WALLENBERG. > COM > Control Alt Delete (WASABANKEN-DOM) WASABANKEN. > COM > Control Alt Delete (X35-DOM) X2000. > COM > Control Alt Delete (BONNIERS-DOM) BONNIERS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (BOOZE3-DOM) BOOZE. > COM > Control Alt Delete (BRAATHENS-DOM) BRAATHENS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (CHINALIGHT-DOM) CHINALIGHT. > COM > Control Alt Delete (CITYMAIL-DOM) CITYMAIL. > COM > Control Alt Delete (CLOETTA-DOM) CLOETTA. > COM > Control Alt Delete (CONTROLALTDELETE-DOM) CONTROLALTDELETE. > COM > Control Alt Delete (CYBERBONDS-DOM) CYBERBONDS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (CYBERFRIEND-DOM) CYBERFRIEND. > COM > Control Alt Delete (DAGAB-DOM) DAGAB. > COM > Control Alt Delete (DAGENSINDUSTRI-DOM) DAGENSINDUSTRI. > COM > Control Alt Delete (DAGENSNYHETER-DOM) DAGENSNYHETER. > COM > Control Alt Delete (DEO-DOM) DEO. > COM > Control Alt Delete (DIGIBONDS-DOM) DIGIBONDS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (DOMAINTRADE-DOM) DOMAINTRADE. > COM > Control Alt Delete (ELLOS-DOM) ELLOS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (EMATELSTAR-DOM) EMATELSTAR. > COM > Control Alt Delete (ENATOR2-DOM) ENATOR. > COM > Control Alt Delete (EUROPOLITAN-DOM) EUROPOLITAN. > COM > Control Alt Delete (FASTIGHETER-DOM) FASTIGHETER. > COM > Control Alt Delete (FOLKSAM-DOM) FOLKSAM. > COM > Control Alt Delete (FRITIDSRESOR-DOM) FRITIDSRESOR. > COM > Control Alt Delete (GLOBEN-DOM) GLOBEN. > COM > Control Alt Delete (GODJUL-DOM) GODJUL. > COM > Control Alt Delete (GODMAT-DOM) GODMAT. > COM > Control Alt Delete (GRATTIS-DOM) GRATTIS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (GUD-DOM) GUD. > COM > Control Alt Delete (HEJ-DOM) HEJ. > COM > Control Alt Delete (HONSHUPAPER-DOM) HONSHUPAPER. > COM > Control Alt Delete (HURRA-DOM) HURRA. > COM > Control Alt Delete (ALLNIPPONAIRWAYS-DOM) ALLNIPPONAIRWAYS. > COM > Control Alt Delete (ITOYOKADO-DOM) ITOYOKADO. > COM > Control Alt Delete (ITPRO-DOM) ITPRO. > COM > Control Alt Delete (JULREA-DOM) JULREA. > COM > Control Alt Delete (KAMPRAD-DOM) KAMPRAD. > COM > Control Alt Delete (KANSKE-DOM) KANSKE. > COM > Control Alt Delete (KONSUM-DOM) KONSUM. > COM > Control Alt Delete (KURABO-DOM) KURABO. > COM > Control Alt Delete (NEJ-DOM) NEJ. > COM > From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 11:38:37 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:38:37 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 10 Oct 1996 11:20:37 +0200. <9610100920.AA10375@scorpio.ecrc.de> References: <9610100920.AA10375@scorpio.ecrc.de> Message-ID: <9610100938.AA15272@ncc.ripe.net> > Dave Morton writes: > Daniel - no - not *you* personally but the NCC.....that was also > Wilfried's suggestion as I understood it. The NCC cannot *consult* for them because there would be a clear conflict of interest were we to accept work and money from the comission. Of course we can (and will) provide them with information once we know enough about the purpose of this to convince me that I can defend this towards the contributors. Are we communicating? DAniel From mnorris at hea.ie Thu Oct 10 13:05:36 1996 From: mnorris at hea.ie (Mike Norris) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 12:05:36 +0100 Subject: Position on ITLDs In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 10 Oct 96 11:38:37 +0200." <9610100938.AA15272@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <199610101105.MAA04848@dalkey.hea.ie> >Of course we can (and will) provide them with information once we know >enough about the purpose of this to convince me that I can defend this >towards the contributors. Right, Daniel, and I reckon you're the best judge as to how serious/important this is. >Are we communicating? Loud and clear. Mike From Dave.Morton at ecrc.de Thu Oct 10 15:06:43 1996 From: Dave.Morton at ecrc.de (Dave Morton) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 96 15:06:43 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs Message-ID: <9610101306.AA16574@scorpio.ecrc.de> > > Dave Morton writes: > > Daniel - no - not *you* personally but the NCC.....that was also > > Wilfried's suggestion as I understood it. > >The NCC cannot *consult* for them because there would be a clear conflict >of interest were we to accept work and money from the comission. Hmm, I see now what you mean. Well at least point them to someone who is competent instead of having them end up with some twit of a Brussels consultant who as Wilfried pointed out will probably produce the predictable results. >Of course we can (and will) provide them with information once we know >enough about the purpose of this to convince me that I can defend this >towards the contributors. Ok - fine. Perhaps you need to have a new RIPE work item called "Reeducating the Commission" :-). It would after all be part of the lobbying/training function discussed already by the contributors. >Are we communicating? Yep. Cheers, Dave >DAniel From ROBERT.SHAW at ITU.CH Thu Oct 10 14:05:29 1996 From: ROBERT.SHAW at ITU.CH (shaw) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 14:05:29 +0200 Subject: iTLDs In-Reply-To: <9610100923.AA14966@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <5729051510101996/A66583/TAU/11AA53C51B00*@MHS> >property laws and jurisprudence (precedents) for deciding similar cases. >If one party is using a name it should not be using according to another >party, they can solve it between themselves, in the courts if necessary. >This *works*. > Well, not exactly and this is especially problematic for iTLDs. Trademark law is fundamentally national. Therefore there is a question of *which* country's courts have jurisdiction over domain name conflicts. For some background, see www.itu.int/intreg/dns.html (see the section on domain names & trademarks) >Of course it is made complicated by the fact that the Internet >transcedes locality: which law is applicable, what is the scope of a >domain name. In this respect the sysem of country toplevel domains has >advantages! > true - it does provide some relief since jurisdiction is arguably more clear-cut. >Technically speaking this is all he consequence of the lack of a real >directory service on the Internet. If we had that the focus would shift >to that rather than the names which are not intended to be overloaded >with so much meaning as they currently are. Now we do not have that >(although WEB search engines are quite a ways in that direction). > For a nice analysis that echos this see http://ksgwww.harvard.edu/iip/bradner.html Bob From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 16:33:10 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:33:10 +0200 Subject: iTLDs In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 10 Oct 1996 14:05:29 +0200. <5729051510101996/A66583/TAU/11AA53C51B00*@MHS> References: <5729051510101996/A66583/TAU/11AA53C51B00*@MHS> Message-ID: <9610101433.AA26308@ncc.ripe.net> Bob, thanks for your comments. What I would be most interested in however would be your comment on the one statement in that particular message which you did not comment on: > None of this is *any* reason for those with particular interests to > succeed in establishing Internet regulation or even rushed legislation > anywhere. THIS IS THE REAL DANGER! Is the ITU currently viewing the Internet as something they should regulate? If so, why? If not, why not? ;-) Daniel From Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net Thu Oct 10 16:43:37 1996 From: Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net (Daniel Karrenberg) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 16:43:37 +0200 Subject: Position on ITLDs In-Reply-To: Your message of Thu, 10 Oct 1996 15:06:43 +0200. <9610101306.AA16574@scorpio.ecrc.de> References: <9610101306.AA16574@scorpio.ecrc.de> Message-ID: <9610101443.AA26733@ncc.ripe.net> > Dave Morton writes: > > Ok - fine. Perhaps you need to have a new RIPE work item called > "Reeducating the Commission" :-). It would after all be part of the > lobbying/training function discussed already by the contributors. If you mean a "RIPE NCC" work item I was under the impression that this was exactly what the contributors meeting told me to be very careful with. There was certainly no consensus that the NCC should be doing this and there was consensus that if RIPE wanted to do lobbying and industry representation per se it should not be done by the NCC but seperately in order not to interfere with the NCC's neutrality. Hence I have removed activity N.4 in all its generality from the activity plan. On the other hand the contributors gave the NCC a mandate to speak to issues directly concerning our activities. Domain names are somewhat at the fringes there. Now I certainly sound less pragmatic than at other times. And it worries me my self to some extent. Where is "go for it not matter what" Daniel? ;-) But these issues are certainly very political and not important enough to rush into action. Daniel From ROBERT.SHAW at ITU.CH Thu Oct 10 17:14:11 1996 From: ROBERT.SHAW at ITU.CH (shaw) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 17:14:11 +0200 Subject: iTLDs In-Reply-To: <9610101433.AA26308@ncc.ripe.net> Message-ID: <8911141810101996/A68351/TAU/11AA548E0A00*@MHS> Daniel, >thanks for your comments. What I would be most interested in >however would be your comment on the one statement in that >particular message which you did not comment on: > Fish that live to an old age have learned long ago to avoid the easy bait - there's usually a hook behind it. ;-) > > None of this is *any* reason for those with particular interests to > > succeed in establishing Internet regulation or even rushed legislation > > anywhere. THIS IS THE REAL DANGER! > >Is the ITU currently viewing the Internet as something they should >regulate? If so, why? If not, why not? ;-) > No, the ITU does not view the Internet as something that should be regulated. (unless you're using the word "regulate" in the sense of encouraging "deregulation") which is what the folks like us and the Commission have been trying to do. While it may be fun to deride folks in DG XIII as clueless bureaucrats, in fact they are strangely your allies because they're trying to force open competition in Europe which drives down ridiculous leased line prices, etc. This is a tremendous enabling factor for the Net. That's a contributing factor to why Internet penetration in Finland is almost twice that of the US. Despite populist belief, the Internet doesn't exist in some vacuum - it's layered on top of the public telecommunications infrastructure which is a giant industry under tremendous transformation. It hasn't been lost on too many people of the correlation between lack of "top-down" involvement in the "Net" and its success. However, to quote Peter Ustinov: "Revolutions have never succeeded until the establishment does three-quarters of the work". And this will also hold true for the Internet, one of the great revolutions of this century. The embracement of the Net by a mainstream 'establishment' has assured its success. But this establishment includes many new stakeholders in a several hundred-billion dollar global communications industry of consumers, mega-corporations, Internet service providers, telcos, equipment manufacturers, the legal profession, broadcasters, content providers, governments, regulatory bodies and many others. Over the next few years, you will find the core Internet 'community' values increasingly at odds with the values of other communities (and there are many other communities in the new Internet establishment). This is an inescapable consequence of the strategic and commercial importance of the Net for global trade and commerce. The current problem issues with DNS are only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. Imagine the problems that will come up when IP telephony takes off or when you've got to do interexchange settlements for RSVP. Then we'll be having big-time fun. I guess the point I'm trying to make here is that it behooves the 'Internet technical community' to recognize potential allies and not immediately assume that everyone is a "foe" to their cause. In this aspect, the technical community can often be their own worst enemy. If you want to maintain your Net culture and ethics in an adversarial world, it seems to me that you've got to try and educate others why they are important. Cheers, Bob From Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Thu Oct 10 20:24:15 1996 From: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie (Niall O'Reilly) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 18:24:15 +0000 Subject: Position on ITLDs Message-ID: <0DZ2LOL3C003QS@hermes.ucd.ie> On 10 Oct 96 at 11:06, Mike Norris wrote: >I had to leave before the end of the DNS WG mtg, but maybe >Niall (scribe and almost co-chair) has the agreed text. > >Mike But it wasn't finalised in the meeting, or even in the special sub-committee meeting. Ruediger did a lot of work between this and the closing plenary, and there was even then to be further discussion on the list. My notes of Liman's report to the plenary from the dns-wg session show an action on Ruediger to send his draft to the list for discussion. Niall From woeber at cc.univie.ac.at Thu Oct 10 19:44:32 1996 From: woeber at cc.univie.ac.at (Wilfried Woeber, UniVie/ACOnet) Date: Thu, 10 Oct 1996 19:44:32 MET-DST Subject: Position on ITLDs Message-ID: <009A9A6B.EC0C4C24.12@cc.univie.ac.at> = > Dave Morton writes: = > = > Ok - fine. Perhaps you need to have a new RIPE work item called = > "Reeducating the Commission" :-). It would after all be part of the = > lobbying/training function discussed already by the contributors. = =If you mean a "RIPE NCC" work item I was under the impression that this =was exactly what the contributors meeting told me to be very careful =with. There was certainly no consensus that the NCC should be doing =this and there was consensus that if RIPE wanted to do lobbying and =industry representation per se it should not be done by the NCC but =seperately in order not to interfere with the NCC's neutrality. =Hence I have removed activity N.4 in all its generality from the activity =plan. May I try to get us down to reality... I still perceive this request as a chance, and I appreciate Bob Shaws contribution! (Although I'd like to add that the issue of educating the other side about benefits and values should be seen bidirectionally. But that would get us into EU business and politics...) The party/ies which might try these days to catch up and to obtain information cannot be expected to have all the details about RIPE at large, the RIPE-NCC in particular and it's funding structure. Otherwise we wouldn't discuss this issue. What I took home from the CC meeting (in my admittedly bad memory :-), was that the NCC is not supposed to do *industry representation* and *lobbying*. Mostly because there might not be implicit consensus about the aims, methods and there might be interference with other activities towards that goal. Please correct me if I'm wrong. =On the other hand the contributors gave the NCC a mandate to speak to =issues directly concerning our activities. Exactly. And please bear in mind that this issue affects the whole community. The impact is not confined to the ISPs and contributing organisations. I think the NCC should keep that in mind. Otherwise it might be perceived as doing exactly what it wants to avoid - lobbying (for the ISPs). =Domain names are =somewhat at the fringes there. This is *unfortunately* true. This was also the reason why I timidly suggested to think about the mandate in that area and -if necessary- the funding aspect involved. We certainly don't have a 1:1 match of ISPs and TLD administrations? I don't see any reason why we shouldn't think about having the TLD admins in the CC? BTW, shouldn't we at least try to get the CC involved by cc'ing them and asking about their position? =Now I certainly sound less pragmatic than at other times. And it worries =me my self to some extent. Where is "go for it not matter what" Daniel? ;-) =But these issues are certainly very political and not important enough =to rush into action. Daniel, I think there is a (growing) need to do DNS coordination in Europe. Much like we evolved the Registry business. Having uniform rules in place really helps *a lot*. I get goose bumps if I try to figure out how it would feel to run the IP-address business in the same way as we run DNS these days. Our customers and counterparts are certainly working and coordinating themself across borders. The truly national approach and splendid isolation might be flawed in the end. If the RIPE NCC feels or becomes blocked in supporting it, it's probably going to happen elsewhere. I'd prefer to have it done within the framework of RIPE. You might want to copy the reasons for that from the CERT-CC discussion. BTW, I fully support the controlled approach and the attempt to find out what this is all about and what the rules are. But I think we shouldn't miss that or similar opportunities - if they really *are* opportunities. Wilfried. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Vienna University : Tel: +43 1 4065822 355 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : Fax: +43 1 4065822 170 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : NIC: WW144 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- From ROBERT.SHAW at ITU.CH Fri Oct 11 11:49:09 1996 From: ROBERT.SHAW at ITU.CH (shaw) Date: Fri, 11 Oct 1996 11:49:09 +0200 Subject: iTLDs In-Reply-To: <8911141810101996/A68351/TAU/11AA548E0A00@ITU.CH> Message-ID: <6309491211101996/A73249/TAU/11AA5B310800*@MHS> A few items: See NSI Fuels Speculation to Go Public at: http://www.idg.com/idg/news/itnews/October/100796/07.htm Also, I've been doing some statistical analysis on NSI registration growth rates. Averaged over the last twelve months, there is approximately a 15% growth rate per month in registrations done by NSI (they've just passed 600,000 total registrations mark). If this growth continues unabated, then by the end of September 1997, there will be approximately 3.1 million registrations generating a maximum annual revenue of US$ 158 million dollars. Furthermore, by the end of the NSF cooperative agreement with NSI (September 1998) there will be approximately 17 million NSI domain name registrations which gives a projected annual revenue of US$ 841 million dollars. Bob