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

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