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

RIPE TLD-WG Draft Workplan
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

In helping the TOR volunteers put some structure on the group's terms of reference, Paul took the very useful action of identifying the topics proposed as either guidelines or specific tasks. The first group became the (already circulated) draft Terms of Reference (TOR). The second group is listed below as a draft workplan (WP). TLD-WG WORKPLAN The TLD-WG workplan is an organic document that will be formally reviewed at each WG meeting, and revised or (re-) prioritised as found appropriate. The workplan is listed under various sections followed by specific activities to be undertaken within each section. TLD Coordination Project Activity - 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 needs to be discussed: - Location of project - Size of project - Scope of project - Funding of project Standardisation - Develop recommendations for publishing policy. - Develop recommendations for national consultative framework. - Develop recommendations for common registration procedures. - Develop recommendations for availability of, and search/retrieval facilities on nTLD databases. - Develop recommendations for establishing of a common WHOIS database (common records) with an identification system. - Develop recommendations for the minimum standards required of a registry qua policy, pricing, web presentations, contracts, etc. - Develop recommendations for requiring all major documents of an nTLD to be available in English. - Publish and promote any recommendations made. Cooperation With Governments - Make contact with national and supernational governmental organisations in order to promote WG ideas to them. - Document and publish current state of the cooperation as it evolves. Pricing - Carry out and report on a comparison of participant TLD pricing - Investigate and report on whether each TLD subscribes to RIPE-152. - Carry out benchmarking of pricing for participant TLDs and answer the following questions. What differences are there and why? Look at the quality of service versus pricing. What is quality? Competition - Discuss the introduction of competition to nTLDs. DNS Infrastructure Resources - Document recommended practice for DNS infrastructure. This is to ensure functioning on a non-discriminatory basis and an avoidance of bottlenecks. Arbitration - Study suitable arbitration procedures and if applicable suitable legal jurisdictions for this. - Take account of different legal traditions: Napoleonic vs Common Law. IANA - 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. NSI - Discuss the role of NSI in domain names and its relationship to nTLDs. Make and document recommendations. gTLDs - Discuss development of gTLDs and how it affects nTLDs - Decide upon desired relationship with gTLDs, CORE, POC, PAB etc. Emerging Registries - Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries within the RIPE area. Legal - Study trademark and intellectual property issues - Monitor and report and legal occurrences/changes relevant to nTLDs. Other - Collect domain name statistics. - Support national character sets. - Limit number of subdomains. [End] -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 20:32:29 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by dcrocker＠brandenburg.com 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

At 10:37 AM 9/21/97 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote: >The outside perception is that the existing gTLDs have unsolveable Jim, since you have previously taken considerable exception to specific wording, I'm sure you will appreciate the error in the the "The" at the beginning of the sentence. It should, instead, say "Some outside perception". d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker at brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium info at imc.org, http://www.imc.org -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 19:11:00 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by jdd＠vbc.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >My impression is that while there may not be a specific European > >interest there is certainly a clearly visible US interest. Oddly > >enough, that US interest is best expressed as "there is no > >significant non-US interest". > > ... > >If .com was .com.us, there would be no PAB/POC/etc. Unfortunately > >those who originally designed the DNS forgot about the rest of the > >world. They set up a series of global categories (.com, .edu, .gov) > > ... > > In the final draft the IAHC created, we pondered the possibility of > freezing .com and making .us more useful (see section 8.1.1). We were > told by legal counsel that abolishing .com would land all of us in court > with multi-million dollar lawsuits on each of us. I am not saying that the com/net/org problem can now be solved easily. What I am saying is that the original design had a serious flaw, in that no one thought through the long-term implications of creating global TLDs. I am not castigating the designers either. But I would suggest that if the DNS had been designed in a smaller country, more thought would have been given to the fact that there are other countries out there. > >Unfortunately .com is global and generally speaking there is no > >sane way to resolve disputes, because the holder of a .com domain > >name may be in any country of the world and their right to the use > >of the name may be challenged from any other country in the world. > >Therefore it is impossible to set up a general mechanism for dealing > >with disputes, because to do that you have to resolve hundreds or > >thousands of contradictory trademark rules, something similar to > >trying to solve 1,000 simultaneous equations in 3 unknowns. > > WIPO has set up the ACP which is fast, online, and cheap to resolve > disputes. In a world where .com can't be frozen we have to find some > solution and I believe the WIPO ACP is so far the closest to a solution. I think that we could argue about this for a long time. > >The gTLD MOU approach does little to resolve this unsolveable problem; > >instead the proposal is to create many new gTLDs, each of which has > >the same unsolveable problems as .com. From an American perspective, > >this makes a certain amount of sense. From outside it looks mad. > > How many is many? We start with 7 and based on what will happen either > leave it at that or add more. The number isn't important. Remember that we were talking about a habitual way of thinking, which can be summarized as "there is no significant non-US interest". The US perception is that the .com name space has too many names in it. The simple solution is to make more gTLDs, so that new names can be spread over more gTLDs. The outside perception is that the existing gTLDs have unsolveable problems. These problems are not in the US but in the outside world. There are trademark/domain name conflicts that generally cannot be resolved because many incompatible legal systems are involved. The "solution" is to blur these together. While this may appear acceptable to US interests, especially the holders of "famous" trademarks, it is simply another way of saying that "there is no significant non-US interest". The number of new gTLDs isn't important. What is important is that creating new gTLDs solves no problems for people outside the US, but it does multiply existing problems and might well create new ones. > >Basically, the problem is that the Internet is excessively US-centric. > >We need people in the POC and elsewhere that are aware that there > >is a world outside of the United States. > > Backing up a few months, the original proposal of IAHC was to have a > lottery with registrars distributed by geographic regions. That would "There is no significant non-US interest." All parts of the world are exactly the same and should be weighed equally. > >There are arguments for gTLDs. But I think that if there had been a > >strong non-US involvement in IAHC/the POC, that the whole thing would > >have been redesigned to where it made more sense. As it is, this > >American problem is being exported to the rest of the world in all > >of its mad glory. > > If it is a USA only problem, then why should other regions care? As I said, there are arguments for gTLDs. In many countries the national registries charge excessively high prices, are run in such a way as to drive competitors out of business, and/or are run by repressive governments. We need gTLDs. But what is driving the gTLD MOU movement is US problems: the NSI monopoly, the perceived exhaustion of the .com name space, and so forth. The global problems that I listed in the preceding paragraph are not significant from the dominant US point of view. > Register > only in your .xx country code and not in .com and it is no longer your > problem. But as we know many companies throughout the world register > in .com and therefore it is everyone's problem. It is everyone's problem because you won't register in your .xx country code, that is, in .us. This is the glaringly obvious solution to the exhaustion of the .com name space. It is indeed everyone's problem, but it is being solved as a US problem. And that is the heart of the matter. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 11:45:57 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by ray＠carpe.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

> >> If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, > >> for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. > >> From this point of view, two seats are insufficient. > >> > >> Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, > >> the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC. > > > >Also, if you look at the participating members of the PAB it starts > >to become a joke. The totally unrepresentative PAB which has no > >power but recommends to the [i]POC which is unrepresentative and has > >no power but recommends to the some day CORE which is supposed to > >have power but doesn't because according to the gTLD-MoU the ISOC > >and IANA have veto power over everything. Neat, huh? > > And if everyone in RIPE joined the PAB, you would become a controlling > force rather than what you refer to as "a joke". 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. 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. ... > >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. 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. Cheers, Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 15:03:22 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:58:55 +0100 (BST) you said: >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. -Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 11:37:29 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:52:23 +0100 (BST) you said: >With some slight reservations, I agree with you. The real problem is >that the POC, which is supposed to make policy affecting the entire >Internet, is largely controlled by lawyers who have no understanding >of the Internet. I too thought like that when I started with this in 10/96. My dislike for lawyers is only exceeded by my dislike for politicians. :-) But the lawyers on the IAHC really are good and do know their stuff. My opinion of lawyers has changed dramatically over the past year. That is not to say that I don't agree with you that the makeup of POC should be 75% technical and 25% legal. Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 11:23:38 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:08:55 +0100 (BST) you said: >On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> This implies that the current members from IAB, ISOC and IANA represent >> USA interests. What I don't understand how there is a specific >> "European" interest that is different than a USA or Japanese interest >> in regards to gTLDs. No one from Europe has ever fully explained this >> difference to me. > >My impression is that while there may not be a specific European >interest there is certainly a clearly visible US interest. Oddly >enough, that US interest is best expressed as "there is no >significant non-US interest". > >The problem that the PAB/POC/CORE/gTLD MOU are supposed to solve >has two aspects: first, the existing gTLDs (com/net/org) ignore the >existence of the rest of the world. Secondly, the US is excessively >fond of litigation. > >If .com was .com.us, there would be no PAB/POC/etc. Unfortunately >those who originally designed the DNS forgot about the rest of the >world. They set up a series of global categories (.com, .edu, .gov) >that are universal, global. Then national TLDs for other countries >were added more or less as an afterthought. The underlying >assumption was {the rest of the world doesn't exist, there are no >borders, only the US matters} blurred together. > >If the companies now in .com were in .com.us, then any trademark >disputes would go to US courts and no one in the rest of the world >would care. This is certainly what happens in the UK where there >are disputes: the people involved are asked to go sort it out in >the courts. In the final draft the IAHC created, we pondered the possibility of freezing .com and making .us more useful (see section 8.1.1). We were told by legal counsel that abolishing .com would land all of us in court with multi-million dollar lawsuits on each of us. > >Unfortunately .com is global and generally speaking there is no >sane way to resolve disputes, because the holder of a .com domain >name may be in any country of the world and their right to the use >of the name may be challenged from any other country in the world. >Therefore it is impossible to set up a general mechanism for dealing >with disputes, because to do that you have to resolve hundreds or >thousands of contradictory trademark rules, something similar to >trying to solve 1,000 simultaneous equations in 3 unknowns. WIPO has set up the ACP which is fast, online, and cheap to resolve disputes. In a world where .com can't be frozen we have to find some solution and I believe the WIPO ACP is so far the closest to a solution. > >The gTLD MOU approach does little to resolve this unsolveable problem; >instead the proposal is to create many new gTLDs, each of which has >the same unsolveable problems as .com. From an American perspective, >this makes a certain amount of sense. From outside it looks mad. How many is many? We start with 7 and based on what will happen either leave it at that or add more. > >Basically, the problem is that the Internet is excessively US-centric. >We need people in the POC and elsewhere that are aware that there >is a world outside of the United States. Backing up a few months, the original proposal of IAHC was to have a lottery with registrars distributed by geographic regions. That would mean that out of 28 registrars only 7 would be in North America. This was specifically designed since the IAHC members did realize there is a world outside of the USA. This was abolished at the insistence of the EC. So we now have so far 10 signed up registrars, of which 50% are from North America. > >There are arguments for gTLDs. But I think that if there had been a >strong non-US involvement in IAHC/the POC, that the whole thing would >have been redesigned to where it made more sense. As it is, this >American problem is being exported to the rest of the world in all >of its mad glory. If it is a USA only problem, then why should other regions care? Register only in your .xx country code and not in .com and it is no longer your problem. But as we know many companies throughout the world register in .com and therefore it is everyone's problem. > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > Hank -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:37:57 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 23:45:07 +0200 you said: >> If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, >> for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. >> From this point of view, two seats are insufficient. >> >> Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, >> the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC. > >Also, if you look at the participating members of the PAB it starts >to become a joke. The totally unrepresentative PAB which has no >power but recommends to the [i]POC which is unrepresentative and has >no power but recommends to the some day CORE which is supposed to >have power but doesn't because according to the gTLD-MoU the ISOC >and IANA have veto power over everything. Neat, huh? And if everyone in RIPE joined the PAB, you would become a controlling force rather than what you refer to as "a joke". > >I don't really want to stir up yet another debate on this list since >there are plenty to bore everyone on the other related lists, but >personally I'd rather see RIPE make an effort to work on a logical, >workable, reasonable solution than to support the IAHC mess. > >My 0.02 Euros... >Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ > Hank -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:36:26 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List -- a further question
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 20:05:36 +0000 you said: >Hank, > >I realised after sending my earlier message that I had omitted the >following question from the list which I described as indicating >the areas in which I would find more information helpful. > >I understand that the seven new gTLD's have some pilot or experimental >character. If so, what is the experimental hypothesis, how soon is it >to be tested, and what criteria will be used to determine whether >experience with the the seven new domains confirms the hypothesis ? > >Best regards, > >Niall I would prefer to stick to the topic that was raised, which was the makeup of the POC. There is even a specific place to discuss this: http://www.gtld-mou.org/notice-97-01/ Other questions in regards to the gTLD process should be directed to poc at gtld-mou.org. Not that I am trying to avoid the question but I left this process due to the amount of time involved and prefer to focus on just one aspect at the present time. Hank -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:17:27 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 22:14:30 +0100 (BST) you said: >If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, >for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. >From this point of view, two seats are insufficient. What region does WIPO and ITU represent? If none, then we are left with 7 people: 2 IAB, 2 ISOC, 2 IANA, 1 INTA. Out of those 7, 2 are from Europe, or 28%. But once we start down the slippery slope of politics, why do we assume that it will be based on Internet demographics, and not, population size or GNP or whatever other metric politicians will come up with? And even if we select Internet demographics, there will be cat fights about it as well. The current "checkers" acknowledge that more and more sites can't be polled. And what were to happen if a country with say 10,000 hosts says that for every host in their country there are 1000 users, vs country B that has 30,000 hosts and the Internet stats says 10 users per host. > >Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, >the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC. Which is what we should be worride about, and not whether the person comes from Japan, UK, Canada or the USA. Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:13:27 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by paf＠swip.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > > There was unanimous agreement by the participants that RIPE should > > nominate a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. > > > >This action item thus originates not in an attempt to impose a "European" > >agenda, but from what was understood as an invitation to become more > >involved. > > Which I think is what IAB resolved by appointing Patrik. I think I, and some other people, have been afraid when hearing that "Europe want a European candidate", that people in Europe want, and will, create the same kind of EU-Centric view on things as "we in Europe" think is bad with the US. Is the next step that people in Asia will look as bad on us in Europe as we look at the US? No, I think, and see in what is written in this thread, that the important thing is to get people from _non_-US. Unfortunately, it is so easy to generalize people and their opinions from where they live, and just because so many global solutions designed in the US has through history been very very local people think that _all_ people from the US think like that, still (people on POC don't!). So, a couple of remarks: + POC/PAB/CORE are global organizations, like IETF, IAB, ISOC, ITU, WIPO etc + The representatives from global organizations is representing that organization to 100%, which means that the person have to have a global view on things + I think/hope people in RIPE are saying that we need non-US people active and not only people from the US (for historical reasons) I _hope_ that the view from RIPE is not to push especially European interests, but truly global interests. I personally think RIPE and many others want these organizations, ISOC, IAB, IANA etc to show explicitely that they really are international, by electing people that can have a global view, which means of course stating explicitely that some US-centric things have to be stopped. I.e. I think this is a lack of confidence that these organizations are global. This is solved by having these organizations electing people which are not from the US, i.e. for example me. So, I do represent IAB, as is Rob, so I neither represent RIPE or EU, but I live here in Europe, I am used to work with an ISO-3166 country-code TLD, and I have been working a lot with the problems we have in Sweden because "com" et.al. exists, and I do know about the problems and benefits from working in something like the EU. > Not I. Perhaps Patrik. I am just an outsie observer at this > point :-) 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. >>>(Don't >>>forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit >>>on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently >>>on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size) >> >>I really think this is a red herring. Residency is not the issue. > >I don't think it is a red herring. If someone carries an EU passport, >pays taxes in an EU country and has lived in an EU country for 12 years >doesn't that qualify him/her to represent European interests? If not residency and knowledge is the issue, then what is it? Why should the EU have an explicit representative? As an inhabitant of a country in the EU, I don't want the EU, or representatives from the EU, behave like people from the US did some 20 years ago. We should have learned and should behave better. Especially on the Internet which is a truly global way of communicating. The same thing for RIPE (as RIPE and EU have different countries as member nations). I also, as a last point, think it is bad if RIPE want representatives from "Europe" as RIPE is covering also large parts of Africa and Asia. I.e. representatives from RIPE is one thing, but European membership is something different. >>The same, and very sincerely. I have a feeling that we may be involved >>here in the beginning of what I have sometimes heard called "a violent >>agreement". > > I enjoy every minute. -Hank Yeah, is not this fun? Regards, Patrik -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:09:02 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by jdd＠vbc.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >Also, if you look at the participating members of the PAB it starts > >to become a joke. The totally unrepresentative PAB which has no > >power but recommends to the [i]POC which is unrepresentative and has > >no power but recommends to the some day CORE which is supposed to > >have power but doesn't because according to the gTLD-MoU the ISOC > >and IANA have veto power over everything. Neat, huh? > > And if everyone in RIPE joined the PAB, you would become a controlling > force rather than what you refer to as "a joke". The problem is that joining the PAB requires signing the gTLD MOU, which has some unacceptable provisions. There are suggestions that one can sign the gTLD MOU while disagreeing with certain of its provisions. DEC has done this. If people could agree on what parts of the gTLD MOU are disagreeable, it might well be worth while signing with a standard disclaimer. 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. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 11:21:14 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by jdd＠vbc.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, > >for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. > >From this point of view, two seats are insufficient. > > What region does WIPO and ITU represent? If none, then we are > left with 7 people: 2 IAB, 2 ISOC, 2 IANA, 1 INTA. Out of those > 7, 2 are from Europe, or 28%. > > But once we start down the slippery slope of politics, why do we > assume that it will be based on Internet demographics, and not, :-) I was simply responding to YOUR remark that Europe's representation was disproportionate. You introduced the notion of proportionate representation. > >Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, > >the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC. > > Which is what we should be worride about, and not whether the person > comes from Japan, UK, Canada or the USA. With some slight reservations, I agree with you. The real problem is that the POC, which is supposed to make policy affecting the entire Internet, is largely controlled by lawyers who have no understanding of the Internet. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 10:59:05 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sat, 20 Sep 1997 17:32:04 +0000 you said: > > I am aware that certain sensitivities and frustrations are > involved here, on all "sides". Please try to keep this in > mind when reading what follows. If you find anything > offensive, please consider that it may be due to simple > clumsiness or ignorance on my part, rather than to antagonism > or malice. > > There is an opportunity here to resolve, rather than to > exacerbate problems. All understood and I enjoy these discussions over some of the unmoderated lists and can take all criticism seriously since I respect the people here - as opposed to unknown email kings who spit out 20 pieces of garbage a day on gtld-discuss. > There was unanimous agreement by the participants that RIPE should > nominate a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. > >This action item thus originates not in an attempt to impose a "European" >agenda, but from what was understood as an invitation to become more >involved. Which I think is what IAB resolved by appointing Patrik. >I believe that the process is intrinsically -- certainly not exclusively -- >political, and that the political dimension needs to be recognised rather >than dismissed. The Internet has become a key element in the globalisation >of commerce, and is therefore quite legitimately the object of attention for >governments and trade organisations. Once we let the Internet be dominated by "political" interests - then it is the end of the Internet as we know it. How many of you think CIDR would have come off, if the "political dimension" had been thrown into the equation? How many small ISPs would have screamed that CIDR and non-portable addresses hurt their business? How many European ISPs would have run to the EC and complained, stating the CIDR benefits only Sprint, MCI and UUnet? >I am still missing some fundamentals. From putting the questions to >others, I understand I am far from alone. The following questions >indicate the areas in which I would find more information helpful. > >What problems are understood to be addressed by the proposals made in >the gTLD-MoU and associated documents ? > >To what extent are these problems expected to be solved by the new >procedures ? > >Unless there are specific entrance criteria for registration in each of the >new gTLD's, how will they not become mere clones of .COM ? Your questions require a fairly large reply and perhaps best is a face to face discussion, which I hope the iPOC can provide to RIPE. >>d) Europe has 2 people currently sitting on iPOC: Geert Glas, appointed >>by INTA (a lawyer) and Patrik Falstrom appointed by the IAB (a techie from >>Tele2). How do these people *not* serve a *European* perspective? > >Here, Hank, I think you beg the question which you have just raised. > >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". This implies that the current members from IAB, ISOC and IANA represent USA interests. What I don't understand how there is a specific "European" interest that is different than a USA or Japanese interest in regards to gTLDs. No one from Europe has ever fully explained this difference to me. > >I think it would be really useful if you, Hank, or Geert Glas or >Patrik Falstrom could join us in Amsterdam on Thursday. I realize that >this may not be possible. I also realize that the engagement whose lack >I keep decrying is a two-way process, and that I too ought perhaps have >done more sooner to bring it about. Not I. Perhaps Patrik. I am just an outsie observer at this point :-) > >>(Don't >>forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit >>on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently >>on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size) > >I really think this is a red herring. Residency is not the issue. I don't think it is a red herring. If someone carries an EU passport, pays taxes in an EU country and has lived in an EU country for 12 years doesn't that qualify him/her to represent European interests? > >>Regards, >>Hank > >The same, and very sincerely. I have a feeling that we may be involved >here in the beginning of what I have sometimes heard called "a violent >agreement". I enjoy every minute. -Hank > >Niall > -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 23:14:51 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 20 Sep '97

20 Sep '97

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:30:46 +0000 you said: >RIPE-27-TLD-5: > - RIPE to nominate European candidate to iPOC seat. > [?] As a former IAHC and iPOC member let me ask a few questions: a) How does one define what Europe is? b) If you use the conventional definition of Europe, then why would not Africa, North America, Asia and the Middle East each request a seat? c) How do you then not make the process political - rather than functional? d) Europe has 2 people currently sitting on iPOC: Geert Glas, appointed by INTA (a lawyer) and Patrik Falstrom appointed by the IAB (a techie from Tele2). How do these people *not* serve a *European* perspective? (Don't forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size) Regards, Hank -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 18:33:36 MET DST 1997 ---------

3 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List -- a further question
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 20 Sep '97

20 Sep '97

Hank, I realised after sending my earlier message that I had omitted the following question from the list which I described as indicating the areas in which I would find more information helpful. I understand that the seven new gTLD's have some pilot or experimental character. If so, what is the experimental hypothesis, how soon is it to be tested, and what criteria will be used to determine whether experience with the the seven new domains confirms the hypothesis ? Best regards, Niall -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 23:45:38 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 20 Sep '97

20 Sep '97

I am aware that certain sensitivities and frustrations are involved here, on all "sides". Please try to keep this in mind when reading what follows. If you find anything offensive, please consider that it may be due to simple clumsiness or ignorance on my part, rather than to antagonism or malice. There is an opportunity here to resolve, rather than to exacerbate problems. On 19 Sep 97 at 7:48, Hank Nussbacher wrote: >On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 22:30:46 +0000 you [Niall O'Reilly] said: >>RIPE-27-TLD-5: >> - RIPE to nominate European candidate to iPOC seat. >> [?] > >As a former IAHC and iPOC member let me ask a few questions: It may help if I quote from the RIPE 27 TLD-BOF Minutes, item 10. For full text, please see www.ripe.net. - With regards to iPOC, IANA is sensitive about Europe being left out. IANA is looking for a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. [...] There was unanimous agreement by the participants that RIPE should nominate a European candidate to fill an iPOC seat. This action item thus originates not in an attempt to impose a "European" agenda, but from what was understood as an invitation to become more involved. >a) How does one define what Europe is? >b) If you use the conventional definition of Europe, then why would not >Africa, North America, Asia and the Middle East each request a seat? >c) How do you then not make the process political - rather than functional? I think these are all aspects of the same question. I believe that the process is intrinsically -- certainly not exclusively -- political, and that the political dimension needs to be recognised rather than dismissed. The Internet has become a key element in the globalisation of commerce, and is therefore quite legitimately the object of attention for governments and trade organisations. As you suggest, there are many ways of defining "Europe". One definition might be "those countries served by the RIPE-NCC". Another would certainly be "those countries whose interests are represented by the EU Commission"; by this I mean to include present and future EU member-states and candidate member-states. Many other definitions are possible, each with a particular validity. Whichever "Europe" we are talking about, that "Europe" -- indeed, each of those "Europes" -- needs to be sure of how its interests will be affected by what has grown from the IAHC proposals, and that those interests are adequately protected by the processes now being set up. Even at this stage, over a year after the beginning of the chain of events which led to the IAHC report, many of us are quite unsure whether what is flowing from this report represents a new hope for the management of domain names, or rather simply a cloning of the ".COM" domain, with all that that implies. When I say "many of us", I mean people with experience of the Internet or of government (rarely of both!), who have conscientiously tried to read and interpret the mountain of opinion which has been expressed on the subject. In my own case, I have had to stop at a certain point, after having begun to appreciate with sympathy the enormous effort which you, Hank and the other members of the IAHC have applied to the problem. I am still missing some fundamentals. From putting the questions to others, I understand I am far from alone. The following questions indicate the areas in which I would find more information helpful. What problems are understood to be addressed by the proposals made in the gTLD-MoU and associated documents ? To what extent are these problems expected to be solved by the new procedures ? Unless there are specific entrance criteria for registration in each of the new gTLD's, how will they not become mere clones of .COM ? Many stakeholders have since been identified who were not engaged in the IAHC process. It may be possible to convince some of these stakeholders, who today find a critical stance appropriate, to adopt instead one of support for the process, if only their confidence in the process can be built. Are those driving the process aware of this "marketing gap" ? Will they address it ? >d) Europe has 2 people currently sitting on iPOC: Geert Glas, appointed >by INTA (a lawyer) and Patrik Falstrom appointed by the IAB (a techie from >Tele2). How do these people *not* serve a *European* perspective? Here, Hank, I think you beg the question which you have just raised. 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 think it would be really useful if you, Hank, or Geert Glas or Patrik Falstrom could join us in Amsterdam on Thursday. I realize that this may not be possible. I also realize that the engagement whose lack I keep decrying is a two-way process, and that I too ought perhaps have done more sooner to bring it about. >(Don't >forget the WIPO and ITU reps who live and work in Geneva who also sit >on the iPOC - and you get to a total of 4 resident Europeans currently >on the iPOC - a number way out of proportion to Europe's size) I really think this is a red herring. Residency is not the issue. >Regards, >Hank The same, and very sincerely. I have a feeling that we may be involved here in the beginning of what I have sometimes heard called "a violent agreement". Niall -------- Logged at Sat Sep 20 19:41:40 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

TLD-WG Draft TOR
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 19 Sep '97

19 Sep '97

RIPE TLD-WG -- Draft Terms of Reference (TOR) -- September 1997 Aim Of The WG The aim of the TLD-WG is to initiate and enhance coordination of nTLDs within the RIPE geographical area. This increased coordination should lead to increased stability, effectiveness and uniformity of procedures within top level domain environs. Coordination will be done by means of discussion, consensus building regarding action points, and the monitoring of any actions carried out. Who Can Participate In The WG? In accordance with RIPE principles the WG is open to all parties administering nTLDs or wide area IP networks within the RIPE area, and those who have an interest in such matters. There is no formal membership of RIPE or of the TLD-WG. Specifically it is desired that all RIPE area nTLD administrators actively participate in the WG. How To Participate In The WG The working group will communicate by means of an open mailing list <tld-wg at ripe.net>. This list is managed by majordomo at ripe.net. In addition the WG will physically meet three times a year at the RIPE meetings. These meetings will be open to all RIPE meeting attendees not just WG members. They will be chaired by the TLD-WG chair and minutes will be published on the RIPE NCC web site <http://www.ripe.net/>. NOTE: A list of RIPE area nTLDs can be found at Appendix A. Relationships With Key Organisations The WG needs to develop and/or maintain relationships with all key TLD related organisations. These include but are not limited to IANA, RIPE NCC, ITU, CORE, POC, PAB, and any pertinent governmental regulatory bodies. The exact form these relationships would take on are a discussion point for the WG. TLD Coordination Project Activity The WG should discuss, form, and direct a TLD coordination project. The location, size, and scope of the project is to be decided. The aims of this project would be to: - carry out the actions decided upon by the WG - act as a focus point for relational contacts - give regular updates of actions undertaken - give regular reports of developments in the TLD arena Policies Of The WG Here follows a framework of policies for the WG. Policy details can be found in the WG workplan. - To promote harmonization of registration policies and practices by publishing recommendations. - To give input to actions carried out by TLD coordination project. - To design a framework for physical representation of the WG to relevant organisations and at important TLD meetings. - To provide a forum for the sharing of experiences. - To promote the independence and stability of relevant organisations necessary to the stability of the root domain and of the DNS as a whole, and to look at ways to improve the present situation. - To clarify and harmonise RIPE area conflict settlement procedures. [End RIPE TLD-WG -- Draft Terms of Reference (TOR)] -------- Logged at Thu Sep 18 23:32:06 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 19 Sep '97

19 Sep '97

RIPE TLD-WG -- Action List, Status as of 18 September 1997 RIPE-27-TLD-1: - Niall O'Reilly, Willie Black, Lars-Johan Liman, Marcel Schneider to prepare terms of reference for new working group. [Draft ready. Thanks to Paul Ridley, who acted as r?dacteur.] RIPE-27-TLD-2 - Willie Black and Marcel Schneider to attend Brussels meeting 27 May. [?] RIPE-27-TLD-3: - Daniel Karrenberg to write IANA future structure paper. [?] RIPE-27-TLD-4: - Niall O'Reilly to arrange a TLD working group mailing list. [Done. Thanks to RIPE-NCC staff.] RIPE-27-TLD-5: - RIPE to nominate European candidate to iPOC seat. [?] [End] -------- Logged at Fri Sep 19 08:01:53 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

A Guide to European NICs
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 16 Sep '97

16 Sep '97

On 16 Sep 97 at 10:48, Mo Kerr wrote: >Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately Nick can't attend RIPE 28 in >Amsterdam as it is a closed session. Somebody's misinformed. I'm to chair the session. I can assure you it's not closed. Nick will be welcome, if it's convenient for him to come. Niall O'Reilly IE Domain Registry University College Dublin Computing Services -------- Logged at Thu Sep 18 23:31:56 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG: Suggestions for Agenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 Sep '97

15 Sep '97

On 15 Sep 97 at 11:33, Christopher.WILKINSON at BXL.DG1 wrote: >I would suggest to add to the agenda : > >- assessment of the US DOC/NTIA enquiry > >- reply to IPOC enquiry regarding the composition and selection of POC and >the designation of new gTLDs. (published 13 September on the >gTLD-MOU site) I suggest we take the above as specific items under "gTLD issues". >- current status of the OECD report (to be discussed in TISP/ICCP >tomorrow.) Probably "Short News" is the item for this. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Tue Sep 16 13:23:51 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG: Suggestions for Agenda
by schneider＠switch.ch 15 Sep '97

15 Sep '97

On Friday, 12 Sep 1997, Niall O'Reilly writes: Niall Everything OK what you suggest but the IANA should possibly be given more attention. How about IANA: authorization, funding and protection. Hope we will be able to have a first review of Daniel Karrenberg's proposal in this context. Ahem :). Marcel > I expect to announce a draft agenda for RIPE-28 TLD-WG > early next week. You may wish to let your suggestions > be known before that, or at least before the meeting begins. > I have the following skeleton in mind already. > 1. Administrivia, including: > 1.1 recognition of Scribe > 1.2 Agenda bashing > 2. Matters arising from RIPE 27 BOF meeting > 2.1 adoption of minutes > 2.2 review of action list > 3. Brief news > eg: IANA update, re-appearance of ES ... > 4. Review of ToR > 5. Review of Workplan > 6. Operational issues > 6.1 Internic TLD Escalation procedure > 7. nTLD issues: documentation, harmonisation ... > [note NetSearchers proposal] > 8. gTLD issues > 9. ... > Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 15 11:42:25 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1

RIPE 28 TLD-WG: Suggestions for Agenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 Sep '97

15 Sep '97

I expect to announce a draft agenda for RIPE-28 TLD-WG early next week. You may wish to let your suggestions be known before that, or at least before the meeting begins. I have the following skeleton in mind already. 1. Administrivia, including: 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 Agenda bashing 2. Matters arising from RIPE 27 BOF meeting 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list 3. Brief news eg: IANA update, re-appearance of ES ... 4. Review of ToR 5. Review of Workplan 6. Operational issues 6.1 Internic TLD Escalation procedure 7. nTLD issues: documentation, harmonisation ... [note NetSearchers proposal] 8. gTLD issues 9. ... Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 15 11:10:41 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1

subscribe
by karen＠ripe.net 08 Sep '97

08 Sep '97

subscribe -------- Logged at Fri Sep 12 19:46:54 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0