(Fwd) Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper
Niall O'Reilly Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie
Tue Feb 24 11:14:03 CET 1998
For information, in case you haven't seen it already. Niall O'Reilly ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:43:44 +0000 From: John Martin <martin at terena.nl> (by way of Michael Walsh) Subject: Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper To: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie For info, Michael. >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:41:39 +0000 >From: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com> >Organization: IBM Internet Division >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: ietf at ns.ietf.org >Subject: Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper > >Note to the IETF from the IAB: > >The IAB has carefully studied the US Government Green Paper >at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm >and has considered the opinions expressed on the >IETF and other mailing lists. We have sent the attached note >to Ira Magaziner in response to the Green Paper. > >The IAB will not comment on who should or should not >be entitled to operate a gTLD registry. There is clearly no >consensus on this in the IETF. It is also a question >affecting business practices, which is not a legitimate subject >of debate for a standards organization under anti-trust law. >The IAB was happy to nominate technical representatives to >the IAHC, and to the gTLD-MOU POC, and within reason would do >the same for any IANA-approved gTLD registry requesting technical >advice. > >> Subject: IAB comments on Green Paper >> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:33:41 +0000 >> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com> >> To: Ira Magaziner <Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov> >> CC: iab at iab.org >> >> >> To: Ira C Magaziner >> From: Internet Architecture Board >> >> Ira, >> >> 1. The IAB generally welcomes the proposal to replace US >> Government funding of the central technical administration >> of the Internet by a new non-governmental body with widely >> based, international participation. The IAB, as a technical >> group, will not take a position on details of the public policy >> aspects of the proposal. >> >> 2. There appears to be considerable confusion in the community >> about the definition of 'registry' as presented in this paper. >> It is our understanding that this is meant to identify a shared >> database for registrations in a TLD. There are no technical >> limitations to management of such a database by multiple parties, >> even if the database is physically unique for technical reasons. >> The discussion concerning 'lock-in' reinforces the viewpoint that >> a single entity would control a database and therefore a gTLD. We >> do not believe this is required by database technology. As >> this issue is one of the most contentious, clarification of the >> text is required. >> >> Assuming we have correctly interpreted the word 'registry', >> the IAB wishes to point out that there is no technical reason >> for the proposed limit of one gTLD per such registry. >> >> On the other hand, a very large increase in the total number of gTLDs >> (say to thousands) would lead us into technically unknown territory. >> >> We note that the green paper attempts to define specifics and >> details concerning the number of gTLDs, the number of registries, >> and the number of gTLDs per registry. In keeping with the >> principles that have allowed the Internet to flourish, that is, >> bottom-up consensus-building and self-determination, we >> encourage the US government to avoid specific detail and, instead, >> allow self governance the opportunity to determine the details. >> We also note that considerable progress has been made over the >> last 12 months in developing gTLD criteria and dispute resolution >> procedures, and this progress is not adequately recognized in >> the green paper. >> >> 3. The IAB is a committee of the IETF, the open international >> voluntary standards organization for basic Internet protocols. >> We are therefore concerned that the proposed responsibility >> of the new corporation to >> >> >> coordinate the development of other >> >> technical protocol parameters as needed to maintain universal >> >> connectivity on the Internet. >> >> might be misread in such a way as to undermine the autonomy of the >> IETF. We propose that the word "development" should be replaced by >> the word "assignment". This would be consistent with the existing >> relationship between the IANA and the IETF, which has proved >> beneficial to all parties. >> >> 4. We support the authority of the current IANA, including that over >> the DNS root, throughout the transition period and we will be very >> happy to assist in any measures to reinforce that authority. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Brian E Carpenter (IAB Chair) brian at hursley.ibm.com >> IBM United Kingdom Laboratories http://www.hursley.ibm.com/~bc/ >> MP 185 phone: +44 1962 816833 >> Hursley Park fax: +44 1962 818101 >> Winchester >> Hampshire SO21 2JN, UK >> > John Martin TERENA, Singel 466-468, NL - 1017 AW Amsterdam phone: +31 20 5304488 ** fax: +31 20 5304499 ** http://www.terena.nl/ ** Please note telephone and fax numbers -------- Logged at Tue Feb 24 12:42:31 MET 1998 ---------
[ tld-wg Archives ]