January 1998 - tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

New Top Level Domain BOF@IETF-LA'98
by bob＠wtv.net 02 Feb '98

02 Feb '98

Paul wrote: > End user or individual > > An individual is always able to get involved in > the IETF or the Regional technical meetings > which give advice to the RIRs. This individual requests the IETF hold a BOF at the upcoming meeting in LA following the draft outlined below. ______________START<PRE> New Top Level Domain BOF (Time/location To Be Announced) ================================ Chair: Bob Allisat DESCRIPTION: New Top Level Domain (nTLD) names have been proposed as a way of increasing the namespace choices available to Netizens worldwide. Currently people have only two choices: national registries and the traditional .COM/.ORG/.NET TLDs. Many nTLDs have been proposed to offer expanded identification opportunities for individuals, businesses and organizations. However, this raises various issues such as how many nTLDs are feasible, what are the required technical standards to run a Network Information Center (NIC) or Domain Name Registry (DNR) and so on. nTLD's are becoming more and more essential as more and more people utilize the Internet for their everyday communications. Everyone is experiencing the problem of a rapidly diminishing number of viable Domains. There is an urgent need to define mechanisms to achieve new Top Level Domain capabilies. Some of the issues that needs to be addressed are: 1. What are the basic technical requirements for Domain Name Registries (DNR). What are the technical requirements for Network Information Centres (NIC). Is there a differance between the two and if so we have to begin defining those differances. 2. Is there a necessity for various grades or "flavours" of DNR/nTLD (ie non-profit, commercial, small, mid-size, corporate). Are "shared" and "private" DNR/nTLD technically practical? Can shared and private DNRs technically co-exist. 3. What are the limitations and hindrances in existing software which may place practical limitations on the number of New TLDs. 4. How to provide Quality of Service while allowing widely dispersed, decentralized nTLD/DNRs and NICs. 5. Issues around "Root" servers. There are two basic challenges with naming: How to announce a server based on its nTLD, and how to find that server based on it's IP address. Currently this is done by 13 private Root servers to which all Domain Name Servers computers worldwide point to for that information. Is there a need for more Root Servers? What sort of technical regulation of these root servers require? How can we ensure universality of Internet addressing and still allow maximal dispersion of nTLDs, DNRs and NICs? The goals of the New Top Level Domain Name BOF are: 1. Decide if there is a need to form a working group to solve some or all of the problems above. 2. Which of the problems above should be addressed by the working group. 3. What will the working group produce. In our opinion, we need to interact with other groups such as various bodies of the UN, national governments, industry representatives and the general Netizenry to solve some or all of the problems above. 4. What other problems need to be solved for succesful deployment of new TLD's. AGENDA: Introduction, agenda review. Issue Briefs - 2 minute summaries of position papers to be filed and available on-line Discussion - succinct questions; 2 minute limit on answers, details and expansions presented as on-line addenda. Conclusion - organizing next steps. </PRE>______________FINISH TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat Director, World TeleVirtual Network http://www.wtv.net PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 info at wtv.net -------- Logged at Sun Feb 1 23:35:32 MET 1998 ---------

13 17

[Fwd: US Govt. paper on Internet Government released]
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 31 Jan '98

31 Jan '98

An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Wayne D. Correia" <wayne at domain.net> Subject: US Govt. paper on Internet Government released Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:31:57 -0800 Size: 2053 URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/tld-wg/attachments/19980131/e7ed884…>

1 0

Magaziners views
by schneider＠switch.ch 27 Jan '98

27 Jan '98

For those who did not yet see it: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/9867.html "... The one big difference is in the root zone servers, which coordinate the addressing functions of the Net's top-level domains and are currently managed by NSI. They would be handed over to a private, non-profit organization that Magaziner said would be a "bottoms-up sort of stakeholder formed for the Internet." What Magaziner is essentially recommending is that the US government get out of the management of the Internet. He said that certain functions require coordination - such as assigning blocks of numeric IP addresses, currently handled by the government-chartered Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA. This coordination, Magaziner said, "should come from the Internet community and not from our government, or any other governmental institution. It rests from our government for historical reasons, but we need to get away from that." He is advocating the creation of a new non-profit, private sector institution - made up of the stakeholders of the Internet - to handle this kind of coordination, with current agencies such as IANA folded into it. ..." Marcel -------- Logged at Sat Jan 31 03:18:02 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE CENTR proposal is published
by balazs＠novell.aszi.sztaki.hu 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

>the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html In the RIPE CENTR proposal I found links on "activities of RIPE CENTR" pointing to RIPE NCC activities. What specific activities of these have been identified as RIPE CENTR activities? Balazs -------- Logged at Mon Jan 26 12:03:59 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

How Europe caused CORE to fail
by hank＠ibm.net.il 25 Jan '98

25 Jan '98

At 10:00 PM 1/24/98 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote: >> Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and >> Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go >> back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. > >Ignore the observers who are, after all, only observers. Correct the >count by adding Robert Shaw and Albert Tramposch back in (Tramposch >only just left the POC) and you have 6/11 Americans, or 55.5% American. >That is, the "decrease" in US representation is scarcely the issue. Unfortunately, the US gov't does not view people who live and work outside the USA for foreign organizations as representing "their" viewpoint. Albert and Bob fall into that category. As to observers - whether they vote or not - there are no Americans there. > >> Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based >> companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE >> stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% >> of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. >> So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we >> have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should >> migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). > >You can count this various ways. By domain count US-registered .COM >entries are somewhere in the low 70%s. > >> So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by >> Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to >> extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed >> the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and >> non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA >> has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of >> certain geographical interest groups. > >The POC was actually attempting to curry favour in Europe by handing >out seats. This succeeded in Europe but may certainly have backfired >in the States. Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head. > >But the gTLD MOU's problems aren't due to a lack of American presence. >They are due to a very vocal North American-based opposition who are >disdained by those who have been acting as spokesmen for the gTLD MOU >and to a lack of industry support. Of the world's 10,000 or so ISPs >only a few dozen have signed the MOU. Why? Essentially because the >gTLD MOU crowd have ignored them and ignored their interests. > >> What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". >> The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, >> controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls >> and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able >> to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the >> door and looked at what they had gained. > >All of this was done long ago and done by a US-dominated POC. The >loudest voices defending the decision to locate in Geneva (Crocker, >Shaw, Maher, Tramposch, etc) are certainly American. Because it was and still is the "right" thing to do. If Europe hopes to have CORE and the gTLD MoU succeed (and not lose it all) it should contact POC and state that the US gov't be allowed to determine the size and staffing of POC. Let Ira and Bill place reps from MCI and Uunet on POC. > >> You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. > >These comments are interesting set against reports that IANA, ISOC, >the POC, and CORE are intent on ignoring the US government and are >raising a $10 million war chest to fight expected lawsuits. Who wins? Not the US gov't. Not CORE. Not Europe. NSI does. Think about it. -Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > > -------- Logged at Sun Jan 25 16:00:10 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

How Europe caused CORE to fail
by hank＠ibm.net.il 25 Jan '98

25 Jan '98

As many of you are aware the entire gTLD MoU and CORE setup is close to dissolving. Extract from: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0122dns.html Sources said Magaziner may reject the CORE proposal because it was designed "behind closed doors" and because it would have shifted domain naming from the U.S. to Geneva. Magaziner declined to comment. ----------------------------------------------------------- Best stop now if you don't want some serious flammage. <FLAME> One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark issues). Lets look at the current POC: Amadeu Abril i Abril, <amadeu at nominalia.com>, Spain-Europe, appointed by CORE Rob Austein, <sra at epilogue.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IAB Willie Black, <w.black at nominet.org.uk>, UK-Europe, appointed by IANA Patrik F?ltstr?m, <paf at swip.net>, Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB Christopher Gibson, <christopher.gibson at wipo.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by WIPO Geert Glas, <geert.glas at lcv.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA Alan Hanson, <alan at finet.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by CORE Glen Kowack, <gkowack at well.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IANA David W. Maher (POC Chair), <dwmaher at ibm.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by ISOC Robert Shaw, <robert.shaw at itu.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by ITU Christopher Wilkinson, <christopher.wilkinson at bxl.dg13.cec.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC PAB Observers Peter Mott, <peter at 2day.net.nz>, New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Javier Sola, <jsola at aui.es>, Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. Out of 11 people on the IAHC clearly 6 were USA based and residing American citizens: Sally Abel, Georges Strawn, Perry Metzger, Dave Crocker, Don Heath, Dave Maher. Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of certain geographical interest groups. What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the door and looked at what they had gained. Today, as well as last year, Europe has zero say in anything regarding gTLDs. NSI and IANA do not listen to the ITU, WIPO, the EC nor anyone out of the USA government. We were on the way to convincing the USA gov't to go along with the plan and suddenly it finds out that only 30% of the people are American. So once Ira and Bill scuttle the CORE plan, ITU/WIPO/EC will be right back where it was a two years ago with once again zero say in the gTLD realm. You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. Hank Nussbacher former IAHC member former iPOC member IL nTLD contact </FLAME> Sorry I have been rather blunt, but just had to get this off my chest. -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 20:40:23 MET 1998 ---------

3 2

RIPE CENTR proposal is published
by hank＠ibm.net.il 24 Jan '98

24 Jan '98

At 04:02 PM 1/23/98 +0100, Paul Ridley wrote: Is there a major reason for maintaining tld-admin and tld-wg? The groups overlap and I see no reason for maintaining two groups? Can't they be merged? -Hank >Dear all, > >the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html > >This document is essential reading for all ntld administrators as is described >the setting up of an organisation for RIPE area ntlds. I will also be making a >presentation on this proposal at the forthcoming tld-wg meeting. > >Any comments to the author (although preferably on tld-wg at ripe.net) would be >appreciated. > >I look forward to hearing your comments. > >Regards > >Paul > > > > -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 20:22:35 MET 1998 ---------

4 3

Latest Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

RIPE 29 TLD-WG -- Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia (09:00, 5 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 agreement of Agenda 2. Matters arising from RIPE 28 TLD-WG meeting (09:05, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list TLD-27.3 Daniel Karrenberg to prepare "IANA future structure" paper Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/wg/lir/iana-paper/IANA-paper.html To be discussed under item 6. TLD-28.1 Task Force to document proposed structure for support of management of DNS root Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/task-force/ripe-centr-1.1.html Proposes regional bodies to mediate nTLD support for IANA and RIPE-CENTR as such a body for RIPE area. To be discussed under item 6. TLD-28.2 RIPE-NCC to develop proposal for TLD Co-ordination activity Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html Proposes structure and activities of RIPE-CENTR To be discussed under item 7. TLD-28.3 WG Chair to alert TLD Administrators to DOC/NTIA enquiry and POC RFC's Part done -- mailed tld-admin at ripe.net 8 Oct 1997 re POC RFC's 3. Brief news (09:15, 5 mins) (not covered by other agenda items, if any) 4. Operational issues (09:20, 10 mins) (if any) 5. Review Workplan (09:30, 15 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. 6. IANA and stability of the root (09:45, 45 mins) 6.1 Presentation on recent developments (R.Blokzijl) 6.2 Review progress on action TLD-27.1 6.3 Review progress on action TLD-28.1 (M.Schneider) 6.4 Update on EU/US Government contacts (C.Wilkinson) -- Coffee Break (10:30, 30 mins) -- 7. WG Support Activity: RIPE-CENTR (11:00, 20 mins) Review progress on action TLD-28.2 (P.Ridley) 8. nTLD issues (11:20, 20 mins) Documentation, harmonisation ... Identify and assign first actions in this area 9. gTLD issues (11:40, 20 mins) POC information meetings Possible "boundary issues" with nTLD's 10. AOB (12:00, 5 mins) 11. Conclusions (12:05, 20 mins) 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list -- Close (12:25) -- -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 03:04:18 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder)
by hank＠ibm.net.il 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

At 02:06 PM 1/21/98 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >... >> - in the ntld doc you should mention rfc1591 and that iana and ntlds should >> work according to this rfc (in regards to transfer of ownership, etc.) >> - I think a set of docs need to be created by the ntld WG for any nTLD that >> is sued. IL has just been sued in the Supreme Court by a cybersquatter. An >> excellent resource used to be: >> http://www.digidem.com/legal/domain.html >> which compares many policies of ntlds - but we need to have something that >> continues to be maintained. When someone dislikes your authority in your >> country over your ntld - they will sue you and not iana. For that we need >> to be prepared. > >Hank Nussbacher's comment is certainly valid. Please refer to >the famous Haiti case: > >http://www.mids.org/mn/712/reht.html > >I am in complete agreement with John Quarterman's remark at the >end of above article: > >"Perhaps regional NICs such as RIPE <URL:http://www.ripe.net/> in Europe and >APNIC <URL:http://www.apnic.net/> in Asia Pacific, probably plus the >eventual African and ALyC NICs, should consider going further than just >funding IANA and assigning IP address space, and proceed >to devolve more IANA functions to the regional level." > >RIPE CENTR could be the body to handle all nTLD matters within >the territory of RIPE. Distributed, decentralized authority. In >accordance with DNS and IP/AS number assignment. How would the RIPE CENTR be any benefit from a legal standpoint? Someone will come forward and say "What gov't or treaty organization granted you authority?" RIPE CENTR would say IANA and we are back to square one. If IANA can attain some legal status that would help us. I have scanned most english rules for domains in Europe. Only Finland has its rules according to the gov't. All the rest are NICs and academic organizations that put together rules (there may be others that will have gov't legalized rules in the future - but so far only Finland has taken that step - and they even mention IANA!) If the RIPE CENTR is to be of any benefit it first has to have some major legal standing and not just our consensus (meaning those on this list). -Hank > > >Marcel > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 00:19:09 MET 1998 ---------

3 2

RIPE CENTR proposal is published
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

Dear all, the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html This document is essential reading for all ntld administrators as is described the setting up of an organisation for RIPE area ntlds. I will also be making a presentation on this proposal at the forthcoming tld-wg meeting. Any comments to the author (although preferably on tld-wg at ripe.net) would be appreciated. I look forward to hearing your comments. Regards Paul -------- Logged at Fri Jan 23 23:00:01 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

New Document available: RIPE-177
by ncc＠ripe.net 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-177 Title: RIPE CENTR Proposal Author: Paul Ridley Date: 23 January 1998 Format: PS=105584 TXT=21000 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: See also: Short content description ------------------------- This document is a proposal for the setting up of RIPE CENTR. The document outlines the goals and structure of the future organisation and describes a transition plan. This plan proposes that RIPE CENTR initially starts as a RIPE NCC project, before it eventually be spun off as a seperate legal entity. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-177.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-177.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-177 is available from the WWW , at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html Documents can also be retrieved from the RIPE document store using a mail server program. For more information on how to use the program, send email to <mail-server at ripe.net> with "send HELP" in the body text. -------- Logged at Fri Jan 23 16:02:27 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder)
by hank＠ibm.net.il 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

At 05:40 PM 1/22/98 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >... >> How would the RIPE CENTR be any benefit from a legal standpoint? Someone >> will come forward and say "What gov't or treaty organization granted you >> authority?" RIPE CENTR would say IANA and we are back to square one. If >> IANA can attain some legal status that would help us. > >Sure. Have no doubts that IANA is aware of this fact. We have been >informed to hear more about it at the forthcoming RIPE meeting (by >RIPE staff involved in negotiations with IANA). > >> I have scanned most >> english rules for domains in Europe. Only Finland has its rules according >> to the gov't. All the rest are NICs and academic organizations that put >> together rules (there may be others that will have gov't legalized rules in >> the future - but so far only Finland has taken that step - and they even >> mention IANA!) > >> If the RIPE CENTR is to be of any benefit it first has to have some major >> legal standing and not just our consensus (meaning those on this list). > >CORE seems to have found an answer. You know it better than me if it >actually is one :). If yes, why not clone it ? Sure. That is if Magaziner doesn't torpedo the whole thing and favor NSI (see latest Network World article on the issue). -Hank > >> -Hank > > >Marcel > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 18:13:32 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

inquiry on CENTR
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:36:31 +0900 (KST) > From: Kilnam Chon <chon at cosmos.kaist.ac.kr> > Subject: Re: inquiry on CENTR > To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > thank you for the reply. > > one more inquiry on "... issues raised in OECD survey" in TLD Administration BOF > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Minutes of 22 May 1997. > > do you have the copy of the OECD survey mentioned above? As far as I know, it's still in preparation. I expect information as to current status and likely publication date soon. I have had contact with one of the OECD officials involved, and understand that OECD member-state government representatives are involved in the development of the document. These have been asked to contact the nTLD registries in their countries to obtain or verify information for the report. In at least one case, this didn't happen because the representative of the member state in question was absent from the meeting where this request was made. Niall -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 17:40:53 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Are You Happy?
by tKg01s3W5＠stak1ed.net 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

There is brilliant information available to you, that will enable you to fully understand yourself and everybody else. This knowledge can benefit you tremendously in many ways. It can help you to get the very best out of your career, or discover your most suitable new career, and of course being happy at work, really improves the finances. It can also really enhance your love life. If you're in a relationship, it works great, because you are able to fully understand your own and your partner's emotions and motivations. If you're not, you will know exactly what you want from your perfect mate and what they will find attractive about you. Another big advantage to becoming balanced and happy is that good health runs hand in hand. Take a closer look two free pages of information at: http://www.po9.com -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 19:01:01 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Proposed amendments to the TLD-WG Work Plan
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

Dear colleagues, I have the following suggestions for amendments to the TLD-WP WorkPlan (agenda item 5). Work-area "Documentation and alignment of practices" is identified as having high priority, but has no work-items. This is rather paradoxical. I expect we need to define some work in this area. This is for item 8. One work-area is concerned only with NSI. I expect this should be subsumed into one or more other areas, such as "IANA and stability of the DNS root". The work-area "Other" is too much like an after-thought. It is not prioritized. The area could simply be dropped. Alternatively, the work-items could be re-allocated to the work-area "Documentation and Alignment of Practices". Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 11:52:59 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

nTLD participation in RIPE 29 -- latest confirmations
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

Between those already registered to attend and others who have let me know privately of their plans, I now expect the following nTLD's to be represented at RIPE 29: AT, CH, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, LI, NL, NO, PT, RU, UK -- 13 so far. I look forward to finding a few more -- perhaps even from those already registered. I can see names from CZ, HU, PL, but I don't know whether they are representing their nTLD. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 00:19:23 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder)
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 21 Jan '98

21 Jan '98

Thanks for the comments, Hank. I'm passing them to the list for a wider readership. It will be interesting for us all to know the outcome of the case you mention. Niall ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:33:09 +0200 From: Hank Nussbacher <hank at ibm.net.il> Subject: Re: RIPE 29: reminder To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie At 03:00 PM 1/20/98 +0000, you wrote: Do you have dates already in May so I can discuss with the rest of the board? I looked over the docs and have very few comments: - in the ntld doc you should mention rfc1591 and that iana and ntlds should work according to this rfc (in regards to transfer of ownership, etc.) - I think a set of docs need to be created by the ntld WG for any nTLD that is sued. IL has just been sued in the Supreme Court by a cybersquatter. An excellent resource used to be: http://www.digidem.com/legal/domain.html which compares many policies of ntlds - but we need to have something that continues to be maintained. When someone dislikes your authority in your country over your ntld - they will sue you and not iana. For that we need to be prepared. -Hank >> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:41:09 +0200 >> From: Hank Nussbacher <hank at ibm.net.il> >> Subject: Re: RIPE 29: reminder >> To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > >> Too short notice to attend - perhaps the next meeting? > >Pity. Was this he first notice you had ? There were others, even >in December. If you've time, I'ld appreciate it if you could take a >look at the current documents and comment as you see fit. They're >on > >I look forward to seeing you at RIPE 30 in Stockholm in May. > >Best regards, > >Niall > > -------- Logged at Wed Jan 21 13:45:28 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

RIPE 29: reminder
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 21 Jan '98

21 Jan '98

I've just re-checked the list of participants for RIPE 29, looking for representatives of nTLD registries. I can find only 6 nTLD registries represented, to wit: CH, LI, FR, IE, NL, UK. As the description of a participant's organisation doesn't always make it clear to me whether s/he represents an nTLD, I may have missed some. If so, I'ld welcome corrections. The TLD Working Group is specifically intended to support nTLD registries (see http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/tld-tor.html) The more nTLD registries who can participate in this working group, the more effective and useful will be its work. If you haven't registered, there is still time to do so. I hope to see as many of you as possible at the meeting. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly IE Domain Registry Chair, RIPE TLD-WG -------- Logged at Tue Jan 20 16:07:13 MET 1998 ---------

3 5

Proposal for RIPE area n-TLD interaction with IANA
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 14 Jan '98

14 Jan '98

Dear all, At the RIPE 28 meeting in Amsterdam in September 1997, a task force was asked to make a proposal for the interaction of the RIPe area n-tlds and IANA. This was as a result of concerns about the future of IANA, and the effect this may have on n-tlds. The task force has written this proposal, the draft version of which was given to IANA for use as input into their future planning. All tld-wg members and specifically all RIPe area n-tld administrators are encouraged to read and comment on this proposal. It can be found on the tld-wg web site at http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/task-force/ripe-centr-1.1.html Regards Paul Ridley -------- Logged at Tue Jan 20 14:37:55 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation (fwd)
by W.Black＠nominet.org.uk 14 Jan '98

14 Jan '98

I don't usually forward POC mailings, since I'm never sure of their confidentiality status, but I think this makes quite interesting reading and looks like it's fairly public. W.B. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:43:39 -0500 From: Don Heath <heath at isoc.org> To: poc at gtld-mou.org Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation >>Received: from info.isoc.org (info [192.168.1.1]) by linus.isoc.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA04398 for <heath at mailhub.isoc.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:41:19 -0500 (EST) >X-Authentication-Warning: relay.pathfinder.com: Host [206.245.67.33] claimed to be pathfinderfw.twi.com >X-Sender: declan at mail.pathfinder.com >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:43:53 -0500 >To: politech at vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> >Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation >Sender: owner-politech at vorlon.mit.edu >Reply-To: declan at well.com >X-Loop: politech at vorlon.mit.edu >X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > >============================================ >Excerpts from transcript of press conference >============================================ > >Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, NTIA >January 8, 1998 >Washington, DC > >[...] > >Q Larry, you mentioned electronic commerce, but can you >tell us your progress on the green paper to privatize the >domain name registration? > >MR. IRVING: As many of you know, to my great chagrin and >disappointment November 1st came and went without us >releasing our green paper. I generally don't give dates >that we are going to release something, unless I am >absolutely certain that we can release it. In this case we >failed, and I apologize to those folks who were expecting >it, and I particularly apologize to Congress, and want to >thank those members of Congress who have ben forbearing, >and to those members of Congress who have gone home, and >because they are home haven't bothered to call me to >castigate me for not getting my paper in on time. > >We are working very diligently, and to be honest we thought >it was more important to get it right than to get it in on >time. There have been a lot of people across industry who >have a lot of issues. And what we began to discover was >looking just at the issue of domain name wasn't sufficient; >you have to look at the entire - there's a - (inaudible) - >affecting Internet governance, and there are a lot of >issues involved here. And we are trying hard to come up >with a comprehensive consensus document that we can deliver >to Congress. I can't give you another date, but it will be >soon. And one of the reasons it will be soon, because I >promised it two months ago and have not delivered it. >Another reason it will be soon is Congress is coming back, >and I think some of those people who requested it will want >it on their desk at or about the time they come back and >Congress reconvenes. But we will have a comprehensive >approach. Ira Magaziner and members of my staff, Becky >Bird (sp) and others, have done yeo person's work, or >yeoman's work - I'm not sure which is the non-sexist term - >but have worked diligently to come up with a product. >They've met with literally hundreds of people and/or read >thousands of pages of documents to get this right. And we >are committed to getting to the public and to the Congress >as good a report as we can. Anything we get is going to >have some critics, but we do think we can get a better >report by taking a little more time, being a little more >careful and talking to a few more people. > > >[...] > >Q If you abandon control of the Internet, or try to >minimize government regulations on the Internet, what >happens when you discover down the road perhaps - and let's >say perhaps dominating of the Internet by a few contract >providers - perhaps - (off mike) - how do you recover - >(off mike)? > >MR. IRVING: I think it is better to monitor and see if a >mistake is made then to start to regulate and assuredly >make some mistakes. > >Q Fair enough. What do you do once a mistake is made? > >MR. IRVING: You try to correct them. > >Q To minimize government regulation? > >MR. IRVING: We would - even if there are mistakes made, we >will try to correct those mistakes with minimal government >involvement. > >Q What tools do you have? > >MR. IRVING: You have all the tools you already have. You >have regulatory authority, you have litigation, you have >legislation. There is nothing - there is nothing that I >can't do prophylactically upfront that we couldn't do as a >government after the fact; but at least we'd know what the >issue is. Right now we'd be trying to - you know, it's >like trying to find a needle in the dark, in a 10,000 >square foot room. What problem am I trying to solve? And >right now we don't know. > >You know, nobody knew - none of us in this room would have >said in 1993 that in 1998 one trillion e-mails would be >transmitted around the globe. That's what happened last >year: one trillion - one trillion e-mails, according to >Financial Times, were transmitted around the globe. What >if I tried to do something to regulate e-mail based on what >I knew e-mail was going to be in 1993? I would have been >completely wrong, because I had no clue that there would be >one trillion e-mails in 1993. Did any of us know in 1996 >that real video would be a tool that people would be using >around the country, that you could watch the Rolling Stones >concert or pull up video - watch Savion Glover do a tap >dance recital on the Internet. Did any of us know that? >I didn't know in 1996 that in 1997 I could do that. I'd be >trying to regulate something I had no clue as to how it is >going to progress, and I might be stifling the progress. I >don't think that's good policy; more importantly, the >president and vice president don't think that's good >policy; Secretary Daley doesn't think that's good policy. >Let this thing grow at the rate it should grow as opposed >to. > >Internet telephony - 1995, 1994, who of you writing about >Internet telephony and talking about it as a real central >competitor, reducing prices and increasing opportunity for >entrepreneurs and for consumers? Have you thought - and >there were those calling to regulate Internet telephony. >The investments made would not have been made had we >started doing something when we were requested to with >regard to Internet telephony. We come down - I feel >strongly we have come down on the right side of this >debate. And I think that the people who are making >investments and who are building this industry, building >this economy, building this technology, feel strongly that >we should keep a relatively hands-off approach. That >doesn't mean we don't have guiding precepts. That doesn't >mean we are ignoring what's happening. It does mean we are >trying not to get in the way of a great success story >globally. > >[...] > >Q Larry, do you think that the present deregulatory >policy carved out for the Internet will hold insofar as >Internet service providers can withdraw from the universal >service - (off mike)? And then there's a growing debate >between federal policymakers and mayor and governors, both >that you met with and talked with, about taxation. That >issue won't go away, and it all gets to, you know, if and >how the Internet gets regulated. Is it always going to be a >hand-off approach, or will that just not hold and - (off >mike)? > >MR. IRVING: We're going to try to be as hands-off as >possible. The Internet, again, we have said this, and we >are going to continue to, the Internet has grown - has >rapidly grown precisely because of a lack of government >involvement in its regulation, in its structure, in its >future. And we are going to continue to try to make sure >that this is private sector-led. As frightening as some >people - as frightened as some people are of state and >local involvement - and the tax issue is an issue that I >think is resolvable. I mean, there is a way to resolve >that. And when you talk to people it's at the margins, but >there are ways to resolve that. > >I'm more concerned about the international implications for >regulation. I am very concerned that there are people >around the world - you know, in the United States and >Washington we are not scared of the Internet - we think >it's a good thing. We want the entrepreneurs to go out >there, we want them to build it. As you go around the >country there are people who are scared about the Internet, >and there are people who say that there should be >international governing bodies of the Internet. We don't >want that, and we are going to have to - you know, we are >going to have to make sure that people in Brussels, and >people in Geneva, and people in Paris, and people in >various capitals of the world don't get involved in >governing the Internet. There is, however, in industry and >among most of the nations that use the Internet, a >consensus that the Internet should be private sector-led, >developed, and industry should have development. There are >issues such as indecency, where there has to be some >government involvement to make sure things like parents >know where the good stuff on the Internet is - parents are >given the tools to protect their children from bad things >on the Internet. > >They agree within the Department of Justice and (IFPS ?) is >one instance where working with the government we can try >to find ways that children don't have access to things that >are inappropriate in it. Those are positive things that >have to happen. > >With regards to censorship or developing guidelines to how >the Internet - (inaudible) - to go - we don't want that. >With regard to domain name system, we don't want that. >With regard to privacy, we have said repeatedly, >consistently, we need the private sector to step up to the >plate and come up with comprehensive plans to ensure >protection of privacy of users of the Internet. Those >things I think are consistent and we can continue. > >With regard to access charge and other fees charged by >Internet service providers, we have been very careful to >say that as this industry is a nascent industry they should >not at this time be charged those kinds of fees. We've >also said we should continue to monitor and look at the >debate. There is a difference between whether or not an >economic entity should be treated the same as other >economic entities in terms of some kind of a fee structure, >and saying that we want to govern that entity. We do not >want to govern the Internet. We in Washington - and we are >going to work diligently - we are going to fight any effort >by others around the globe to start regulating the >Internet. > >[...] > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo at vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 <http://www.isoc.org/inet98/> -------- Logged at Wed Jan 14 13:42:13 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

IANA Progress Report
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 12 Jan '98

12 Jan '98

Dear all, This short report and attached document aim to keep you informed as to the developments involving IANA and the role that the RIPE NCC is playing in this. Discussions on the future of IANA are currently intensifying. During the recent IETF meeting Rob Blokzijl and Daniel Karrenberg, on behalf of the RIPE community, pursued this matter with all concerned. The US government plans to continue funding IANA until September 1998, at which time US government funding will definitely cease. The University of Southern California still holds our initial contribution and will use it if necessary. Jon Postel is working on a plan to incorporate IANA as a legal entity and to get support from IANA's direct users as well as the community at large. Incorporation is planned for the first half of this year. Consensus is emerging about the IANA services. Attached is a position paper that Rob, Daniel and myself wrote and sent as input for that process. This position paper can shortly be found on the tld-wg and lir-wg websites. A more detailed report including the latest developments will be given at the RIPE meeting. Regards Paul Ridley RIPE NCC Business Manager

3 2

Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 08 Jan '98

08 Jan '98

Paul, Are you planning a HTML version of your presentation RIPE CENTR ? If so, we can put it on the TLD-WG web site. Niall On 7 Jan 98 at 14:14, Edgar Danielyan wrote: > > >Hi Paul, > >> Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up for >> comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave >> Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when >> trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is of >> course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. > >It would be great if someone could post the info to the list; because >there are TLD admins which can't/won't attend the meeting (like me), > > >Thanks >Edgar >AM NIC > > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 8 13:24:16 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 07 Jan '98

07 Jan '98

Hi Marcel, As one of the silent RIPE'ers I will try to answer your questions. Sorry I have been quiet for the last period, but the setting up of our new legal construction took up a sizeable amount of my time. Anyway that is now all finished as the new legal framework is in place and working. * * Me too :). Can only support Niall's recommendation. This will be * an important meeting. We have two main topics in my point of view: * * 1. The stability of IANA, where we can hope to hear the latest news * regarding negotiations between RIPE and IANA and Myself or Daniel will give a presentation at the RIPE meeting and hopefully you will see a written report beforehand, in combination with the point below. * * 2. RIPE Council of European National TLD Registries (RIPE CENTR). * This is the working title of a yet to-be-formed association, the * one Jon Postel probably referes to in his second letter to us and * the one RIPE seems to be silent to the grave about :). The RIPE'rs * are probably still on holidays now they have so much money ... * Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up for comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is of course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. You will hear from me soon Regards Paul * > Niall O'Reilly * * > Manager, IE Domain Registry * > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG * * * Marcel * -------- Logged at Wed Jan 7 12:17:17 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam
by schneider＠switch.ch 06 Jan '98

06 Jan '98

On Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998, Niall O'Reilly writes: > This is to encourage you to register for the upcoming RIPE 29 meeting > in Amsterdam (see http://www.ripe.net) at the end of January. > It is particularly important to have as many nTLD administrators > present as possible for the Top-Level-Domain working group (TLD-WG) > session. > So far, I've identified only one domain registry among those who have > registered their participation in the meeting. Well done, Annie > Renard! Yes, I myself have yet to follow your good example. Me too :). Can only support Niall's recommendation. This will be an important meeting. We have two main topics in my point of view: 1. The stability of IANA, where we can hope to hear the latest news regarding negotiations between RIPE and IANA and 2. RIPE Council of European National TLD Registries (RIPE CENTR). This is the working title of a yet to-be-formed association, the one Jon Postel probably referes to in his second letter to us and the one RIPE seems to be silent to the grave about :). The RIPE'rs are probably still on holidays now they have so much money ... > Niall O'Reilly > Manager, IE Domain Registry > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG Marcel -------- Logged at Wed Jan 7 12:07:57 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 06 Jan '98

06 Jan '98

This is to encourage you to register for the upcoming RIPE 29 meeting in Amsterdam (see http://www.ripe.net) at the end of January. It is particularly important to have as many nTLD administrators present as possible for the Top-Level-Domain working group (TLD-WG) session. So far, I've identified only one domain registry among those who have registered their participation in the meeting. Well done, Annie Renard! Yes, I myself have yet to follow your good example. Niall O'Reilly Manager, IE Domain Registry Chair, RIPE TLD-WG -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 17:26:25 MET 1998 ---------

1 0