As far as agenda planning is concerned, this can be taken under item 8,
nTLD issues, provided we have some structured input for the meeting.
Otherwise it will be appropriate to task somebody (-bodies) to prepare
input for discussion at RIPE 30 in May.
I see this as mainstream documentation and harmonisation discussion.
Assuming we find someone to present the input, we shall need to allow
more time for this item. This will lead to a clearer requirement for a
double timetable slot.
Will you, Beri, be prepared to make a brief presentation covering the
problems caused by deficiencies in RFC1591 and how these could be
addressed in the suggested RFC1591++ ? Without such a focus for the
discussion, we risk wasting time.
In terms of the content, I would like to make the following
observations personally and as IEDR manager with my WG-chair hat off.
At RIPE 28, we recognised that a descriptive, rather than prescriptive,
approach was preferable at first. I would prefer to focus on "best
practice" rather than on "duty". I expect many nTLD-admins would share
my preference at this time.
In forming a recommendation on best practice, I feel it will be well to
avoid descending too far into detail, especially with regard to
parameters. What is an unacceptable delay for registration in one
domain may be quite appropriate in another, due to differences in policy,
for example with regard to production and verification of documents
justifying the request for registration.
Likewise, different business cultures and legal traditions may lead to
different escalation and conflict resolution procedures. It may even
be appropriate for legal reasons NOT to offer an English version of the
rules and procedures for a particular nTLD registry.
What is certainly useful in all cases is to make clear statements
describing the policy framework aand what the parameters are. The
standard "security" section of many RFC's comes to mind: a statement
that certain matters are not addressed contributes clarity.
Niall O'Reilly
On 6 Jan 98 at 13:53, Marcel Schneider (quoting Berislav Todorovic) wrote:
[ ... ]
>It would be very appropriate to put that on the TLD-WG agenda of the
>next meeting. My personal opinion is that the document has to be
>rather an add-on to the RFC 1591, than a totally new document. The
>reason is obvious: the structure of the root zone might be changed
>in the future, by introducing new gTLDs, while nTLDs will probably
>remain untouched. Am I right? Thus, a separate document, focusing on
>the problem of nTLD administration, is really needed.
>
>The document itself should address (but should not be limited to)
>some of the following topics:
>
>* Criteria for chosing a designated manager, especially in the case
> when different parties are involved. Who will have the priority
> and what criteria will be applied.
>
>* Framework for defining second and third level domain delegation
> policies under the nTLDs. Emphasis must be given to the right
> of the nTLD administrator to define any policy which fits in
> the given framework.
>
>* Duties of nTLDs, regarding MANDATORY publishing of the second and
> third level domain delegation policies, both in national and
> English language.
>
>* Technical requirements for the nTLD operation: clarify a bit more
> on DNS requirements - degree of connectivity, allowed percentage
> of unreachability time, recommended SOA parameters for nTLDs,
> minimum number and locations of the DNS servers.
>
>* Allowed time frame between a second or third level domain
> delegation request and domain registration under a nTLD, if the
> requestor satisfies all terms and conditions, defined by the nTLD
> policy.
>
>* Resolving appeals regarding nTLD administrator's work.
>
>* Resolving appeals and wishes from the govt's of the countries,
> which has been assigned country codes. The term "government" has
> to be defined precisely, which is not a simple task at all.
> The following cases might arise:
>
> - Countries with more than one country code assigned.
> - Protectorates with independent local government authorities.
> - Protectorates runned by a government of another country.
> - Unions and "weak" confederations having a unique country code.
> - Territories with country codes under the UN protection.
> - Countries occupied by other countries.
> - Cases when ISO deletes the country code (is it possible?).
> - Country "split-up" and "merge" cases.
> - ... (any other cases?).
>
>* Trademark issues - domain name dispute policies within a nTLD.
>
>Best regards,
>Beri
>
-------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 16:15:42 MET 1998 ---------
