September 1997 - tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by ray＠carpe.net 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

Hank Nussbacher wrote... > On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:21:44 +0200 you said: > >Great - a force that has zero control over the whole IAHC "process". > >Static electricity. We can not become part of the PAB because we can > >not sign the gTLD-MoU. It is an overly bureaucratic, flawed document > >that in the end solves very little, hinders free enterprise and gives > >ISOC and IANA power of attorney over the gTLD part of the Internet. > > I hate to break it to you, but IANA now holds 100% control of the > gTLDs as well as the nTLDs. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. The IANA doesn't even say this. Don't you think it a little ridiculous for basically a one man operation which is not a formal organization, but rather a named administrative task carried out by ISI/USC to be the sole decision maker for the future of all Internet TLDs? One non-entity decides the future of many multi-million dollar issues? I don't think so. By the way, ISI/Postel only started calling their task "IANA" as little as two years ago. Even USC says they are a non-control non-entity. See the quotes at the bottom of: http://www.wia.org/pub/iana.html `1997 USC General Counsel, acting on behalf of Jon Postel as a USC staff member in the suit Image Online Design v. IANA, et al, states for the record that IANA is not "a separate entity," but rather " a task performed by Dr. Postel under contract between USC and an agency of the federal government."' ISI/USC/Jon Postel (aka IANA) was hired by the US Government to take care of numeric assignments for protocols, IP address distribution, etc. Most recently the funding and direction comes from the FNC (Federal Networking Council) which is under the CCIC (Committee on Computing, Information, and Communications) which is under the NSTC (National Science and Technology Council) which is under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Although part of the US Government, the FNC is representative not only of many government agencies, but takes advice from non-government entities. The FNC has members from a lot of interesting US Government agencies and has an Advisory Committee (FNCAC) made up of civilian "senior representatives from technical, industrial, academic and user communities", like people from AT&T, Bellcore, CU, Chrysler, Cisco, Harvard, IBM, LBL, Lockheed, MCI, MCNC, SDSC, Stanford, Sun, etc. For a complete list of both, see: http://www.fnc.gov/FNC_Members.html http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_members.html This organization is much more representative of the whole of the Internet than the IAHC or any of it's other acronyms. If the FNC hired "ISI/USC/Jon Postel (aka IANA)" to take care of iTLDs and their insertion into the root, etc, then it follows that the FNC/US Government owns the root and the iTLDs. They invented it, and at the very least they took on the responsibility of managing the numbers and the top of DNS up to now. And they funded it. For over a year their Advisory Committee has recommended that the FNC/NSF get out of the domain name business and transfer "responsibility from NSF to an appropriate entity." As far as I can tell, they have not done so yet. In fact their April Minutes state that the NSF specifically has NOT turned this responsibility over to an outside organization. And the FNC says: "Following U.S. Government lead, the Federal Networking Council (FNC) has no policy concerning the IAHC proposal. The FNC Co-Chair, George Strawn, participated in the IAHC, and the FNC continues to encourage open discussion on domain name registration." I wonder if Jon Postel will insert the IAHC TLDs into the root servers if the FNC tells him not to? Hmmmm.... Additionally, NSI runs the primary root DNS server and NSI is also under contract with NSF. So if the FNC said no, I guess it wouldn't happen. Or visa-versa if they said "do it". As I see it, the US Government has always had control over the root and thus DNS and the creation of all TLDs. They may decide that they should not maintain control, but they are reviewing that issue in detail before doing something to screw things up. As NSI's proposal suggested, I would expect an orderly transition to be made to an appropriate, legal, international organization. Who, what and how has to be decided very carefully - not by the IANA. > >And it doesn't even touch on the biggest related problem we have, > >which is what happens to the "." and who controls it. You ought not > >to architect an office building before making sure the foundation > >can be laid on a stable surface. > > The gTLD MoU and all related items do not cover "." or nTLDs. Here > is where RIPE and other organizations can step in and propose what > should be done (at least one view - there are many). The IAHC/POC > was not mandated to touch ".". If I were mandated to figure out what happens to gTLDs in the future, I most certainly would include what happens to the root in my proposal. It is *the* most key technical issue related to DNS and the stability of the internet and the stability of the IAHC proposal. It is one of the main reasons why Postel published his initial gTLD draft which later became the IAHC thing. [By the way, I think the original Postel draft was much more in order than what the IAHC came up with.] But... the IAHC/gTLD-MoU/PAB/iPOC/CORE/WHATEVER didn't and hasn't addressed the dot. For the IAHC proposal to have its desired effect on the DNS and the registration and trademark issues it attempts to address, it needs to be sure that it controls all the gTLDs. But if it doesn't have a stable dot then it may not only be ineffective, but actually have a detrimental effect on the Internet as a whole and the end-users thereof. Not very clever in my view. Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 15:49:54 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:50:01 +0100 (BST) you said: >On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in > >I didn't say that. I said that the existing gTLDs were created >without giving much consideration to the existence of a world outside >the USA. That was an understandable error; no one expected the >Internet to become huge and important. But the proposal is to add >new gTLDs without taking any realistic steps to deal with the fact >that the gTLDs are international in scope. PAB/POC/CORE (why can't >anyone give this thing a name??) are perhaps solving a US problem, >but their solution doesn't deal reasonably with the international >ramifications of their solution. > So what would you recommend be done in this matter? >What is in everyone's interest is slow, careful changes to the DNS. Which is what POC/PAB is trying to do. Hank -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 14:48:52 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:21:44 +0200 you said: >Great - a force that has zero control over the whole IAHC "process". >Static electricity. We can not become part of the PAB because we can >not sign the gTLD-MoU. It is an overly bureaucratic, flawed document >that in the end solves very little, hinders free enterprise and gives >ISOC and IANA power of attorney over the gTLD part of the Internet. I hate to break it to you, but IANA now holds 100% control of the gTLDs as well as the nTLDs. They have done a terrfific job until now without committee intervention. The gTLD process is perhaps the start of reducing IANA's control over gTLDs/nTLDs, etc. This would have to be an evolutionary process, one where POC and PAB prove that they have enough common sense and legal status to do what needs to be done. I certainly wouldn't try to cut IANA or ISOC out of this at the first round. > >And it doesn't even touch on the biggest related problem we have, >which is what happens to the "." and who controls it. You ought not >to architect an office building before making sure the foundation >can be laid on a stable surface. The gTLD MoU and all related items do not cover "." or nTLDs. Here is where RIPE and other organizations can step in and propose what should be done (at least one view - there are many). The IAHC/POC was not mandated to touch ".". >> >This would of course only give you membership in the PAB, a powerless >> >body whose role is simply to give advice. The price for this is your >> >signature, which will be used as evidence of your support for the >> >entire gTLD MOU process. >> >> If they are powerless, how did they get 2 PAB members assigned to >> be observers to the iPOC? If the 150 members of PAB say something >> as one voice - it is listened to and acted upon. > >Which means nothing since 150 PAB members will likely never say >anything "as one voice". More importantly, the PAB has no legally >defined control over the iPOC or CORE. Whether they are listened >to or not is at the whim of whoever happens to be in the iPOC. The >same is true with the iPOC wrt CORE, as well as all of the above in >regards to the ISOC and IANA. PAB has voted and majority rules. For me that is one voice. > >The gTLD-MoU has gone out of its way to create a lot of new acronyms >with the semblance of a logical government, but with no definition >of control or checks and balances. Personally, I think the initial >framework outlined by Network Solutions in: > > http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html > >makes a lot more sense for the future and stability of the Internet >as well as the TLD issue. It's a more reasonable starting place. Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing with the other - competing monopolies. Jim seems to be saying that this is a US problem and it would appear that NSI's solution does not take into account non-USA interests. It would appear more to be in NSI's interest that it remain in control of com/net/org and let the new gTLDs fight for market recognition that NSI already has. How does that foster European interests? If I were a European - I would think to be against the NSI proposal. Please explain how the NSI solution is "good" for Europe. -Hank > >Cheers, >Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 15:50:33 MET DST 1997 ---------

3 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by ray＠carpe.net 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

Hank Nussbacher also wrote ... > >The gTLD-MoU has gone out of its way to create a lot of new acronyms > >with the semblance of a logical government, but with no definition > >of control or checks and balances. Personally, I think the initial > >framework outlined by Network Solutions in: > > > > http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html > > > >makes a lot more sense for the future and stability of the Internet > >as well as the TLD issue. It's a more reasonable starting place. > > Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in > favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing > with the other - competing monopolies. Jim seems to be saying that > this is a US problem and it would appear that NSI's solution does not > take into account non-USA interests. I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not Jim Dixon and his views do not apply to me and have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I'm always having a hard time getting "IAHC people" to actually address the problems I point out, rather than either going off on another tangent (side-stepping) or picking on my spelling or some unimportant detail of what I said. My complaint is that the gTLD-MoU builds and imposes a sort of government, but there are no defined lines of power and there are no legal checks and balances. On top of this all changes to the gTLD-MoU must have approval by IANA and ISOC - thus they hold ultimate control over a not-very-well-defined process of governing the gTLD landscape (as well as your hard earned money, mine and everyone else in the world's). > It would appear more to be > in NSI's interest that it remain in control of com/net/org and let > the new gTLDs fight for market recognition that NSI already has. How > does that foster European interests? If I were a European - I would > think to be against the NSI proposal. > > Please explain how the NSI solution is "good" for Europe. -Hank Please explain how the NSI proposal is *not* good for Europe. As I see it, NSI's recommendations on how to move forward with the issue of TLDs is better for the Internet in general - Europe, US or wherever. Just read what they say - it's self explanatory. It says that the problems with the IAHC are: o It does not provide the incentive for TLD Registrars to invest in improved services o It risks the fragile stability of the Internet. o It is too bureaucratic o It is narrow and does not address the total situation. o Its approach to domain names disputes appears unworkable, will create increased conflicts, and is unfair to registrants in remote regions. NSI suggests that the goals be to: o Limit regulation. o Limit bureaucracy. o Minimize requirements. o Protect critical functions. o Establish legal sponsorship. And they go on to explain why and some suggestiong on how. See http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html or http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_97_04_minutes.html Cheers, Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 15:15:13 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG revised draft agenda (NetSearchers proposal)
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On 22 Sep 97 at 11:48, Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no wrote: >I can't seem to remember seeing this proposal distributed to this >list. If that is the case, can that please be fixed? Here it was. From: Self <CCLANA/NOREILLY> To: tld-admin at ripe.net Subject: (Fwd) A Guide to European NICs Copies to: iedr-team at listserv.hea.ie Send reply to: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Date sent: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:07:58 +0100 (BST) Dear TLD Administrators, I expect that many of you will have had the attached message from NetSearchers. I find the proposed survey and guide useful. As they suggest, I've referred to Willie Black; he speaks well of them. I intend to co-operate in this project, and suggest that you all consider doing the same. I'll forward Willie's comments in a following mail. Niall O'Reilly IE Domain Registry University College Dublin Computing Services ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 14:24:24 +0100 From: mo at netsearchers.co.uk (Mo Kerr) Subject: A Guide to European NICs To: noreilly at ucd.ie Organization: Legal Information Network Dear Mr O'Reilly Net Searchers is a company that supplies specialist services to legal companies and brand professionals who wish to protect their names and trade marks across the Internet. These services include searching and monitoring Internet audits and, of course, domain name registrations. Our client base includes the leading law firms in the UK Internet community, we realise that there is considerable demand for this information. To help us improve the service that we give our clients we have begun a research project to profile each of the European NICs. In discussing this with our clients and colleagues in the UK Internet community, we ealise that there is considerable demand for this information. Therefore we plan to publish the information at our web site and in a report to be distributed free of charge to all interested parties. We will be encouraging organisations like your own to link into it. If successful we aim to produce further editions at regular intervals. We hope that you wil co-operate with us in this project by supplying us with the information we ask for on the enclosed template at the end of this form. Please complete it in English. For an independent view on us, please contact Dr Willie Black, the managing director of Nominet UK. e-mail address w.black at nominet.org.uk If you have any queries about this report please do not hesitate to telephone me on 44 171 396 5676 or email me at nwood at netsearchers.co.uk Alternatively you might wish to look at our web site at www.netsearchers.co.uk We will be in touch with you again once we have completed the projectand will send you an advanced copy of our report. We look forward to hearing from you and thank your for your co-operation. Yours sincerely Nick Wood Director Net Searchers 28-33 Cato Street London W1H 5HS Template for A Guide to European NICs Please fill in the following form and return it to nwood at netsearchers.co.uk. If you have any queries please email at the above address or telephone Nick Woods on 44 171 396 5676. -----------Please cut here--------- Address NIC Name: Postal: Street Town State Postal Code Country E-mail: Telephone: Fax: CONTACTS Director: Legal disputes: Registrations: MODEL/STRUCTURE Please indicate the structure of your organisation. Is it Commercial: Part of an university: Non profit: WEB SITE INFORMATION What information does your site contain. Please give the relevant URL Whois: Rules; On-line registration form: Statistics: Other relevant information, e.g.. links to relevant sites: COSTS New registration Maintenance Frequency of billing LEGAL DISPUTES Please give details of any court cases or legal disputes relating to domain names: MISSION STATEMENT OF THE NIC Please include a brief comment on your organisations policy Thank-you for your assistance. -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 13:45:41 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG revised draft agenda
by Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

Hi, it's possible I've not been sufficiently awake, but ... > 7. (11:00) nTLD issues: documentation, harmonisation ... > [note NetSearchers proposal] I can't seem to remember seeing this proposal distributed to this list. If that is the case, can that please be fixed? Regards, - H?vard -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 12:17:00 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On 20 Sep 97 at 23:30, Dave Crocker wrote: > In any event, there has been a tendency for folks who lobby for > particular representation to ignore matters of actual content. On 20 Sep 97 at 17:32, I (Niall O'Reilly) wrote: The "Europe" which "has 2 people sitting on the iPOC" is that "Europe" (if any) to which these people are listening, and which they are keeping informed, and whose interests they are working to protect. I particularly avoid saying, "whose interests they represent", as I believe that if adequate protection is afforded actual representation may not need to be an issue. So far, this "Europe" is neither the "Europe of RIPE" nor the "Europe of the Commission". I'm not sure whether that reached the POC list. I'm also not certain how widely held is my view that representation is a secondary issue. This seems to be what Dave is saying too. If what I've called the "marketing gap" can be closed, this may perhaps diminish the demand for representation. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 13:23:15 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On 21 Sep 97 at 7:53, Patrik Faltstrom wrote: >I am coming to the RIPE meeting on thursday. I'll remind you though that >there will be an open meeting with POC in Europe in late november, so this >will _not_ be the "presentation of POC and gTLDs" you might ask for. A lot >of things are happening as we type regarding starting operations so see >the visit on thursday as one occation when I come to RIPE to listen to >your concerns. That's good news. I'm looking forward to seeing you there. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 12:17:03 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG revised draft agenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On 21 Sep 97 at 17:57, Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie wrote: >I suggest that any brief news relevant to a particular agenda item >will best be heard when we begin to deal with that item. > >Likewise for the workplan: under each agenda item, the relevant part >of the workplan can be reviewed, amended if necessary, and assigned >a priority. I ought to have added: Similarly for liaison with other working groups: let's take it in context. Niall -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 11:48:29 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG revised draft agenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

Some of you have let me have comments or have made me aware of time constraints. I've taken these into account in revising the agenda for Thursday. Here is the current version, with a tentative timeplan. I suggest that any brief news relevant to a particular agenda item will best be heard when we begin to deal with that item. Likewise for the workplan: under each agenda item, the relevant part of the workplan can be reviewed, amended if necessary, and assigned a priority. The more we can deal with before breaking for coffee, the better! RIPE 28 TLD-WG Draft Agenda Thursday, 24 September 1997 Park Plaza, Rokin (NB: Central Amsterdam -- NOT out in the sticks !!!) 1. (09:00) Administrivia, including: 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 Agenda bashing 2. (09:10) Matters arising from RIPE 27 BOF meeting 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list 3. (09:25) Brief news not covered by other agenda items 4. (09:30) Operational issues 4.1 dis- and re-appearance of ES 4.2 InterNIC TLD escalation procedure ... 5. (09:45) Review & adopt ToR 6. (10:00) Review Workplan overall framework material not covered by specific agenda items provisional priorities (10:30) Coffee 7. (11:00) nTLD issues: documentation, harmonisation ... [note NetSearchers proposal] 8. (11:25) IANA: status, funding, support from nTLD registries ... 9. (11:40) gTLD issues 10. (12:10) AOB 11. (12:20) Conclusions 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list (12:30) Close for lunch possibility of going late to lunch if need arises Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 11:32:33 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0