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

rfc 1591
by Sean＠Jackson.TC 20 Oct '98

20 Oct '98

The managers of MS. VG, & TC consider its only reasonable that the terms of RFC 1591 are adhered to. It was the basis on which top level domains were founded. Any attempt by the United States government to alter this would need international agreement. God Bless You, Sean Sean Jackson, 3 Adams Road, Cambridge, CB3 9AD, United Kingdom. Tel: 01223 464 800 Fax: 0171 681 1268 -------- Logged at Fri Nov 6 08:56:56 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Fw: 3:242 ES (SPAIN)
by JimFleming＠unety.net 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Adam, If the TLDs are grouped into 4s then the strong ones, as for example .ES below, can take care of the other 3 "seats" at the table. If there is no TLD authority for that, they can help to select a different label (TLD) or just mark it as not used. If someone comes to inquire whether the seat is taken, they can say, "No...welcome, have a seat...glad to know you..." This group of 32 is just one example...they should be able to self-organize on their own, given enough time... >http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt > > >3:224 MA (MOROCCO) >3:225 BERLIN >3:226 FLAX >3:227 WATCH >3:228 LU (LUXEMBOURG) >3:229 LIT >3:230 FLOOR >3:231 LT (LITHUANIA) >3:232 FX (FRANCE-METROPOLITAN) >3:233 GBR (UNITED-KINGDOM) >3:234 FILE >3:235 WASTE >3:236 BERN >3:237 FLUID >3:238 SK (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic)) >3:239 UNDERNET >3:240 FAQ >3:241 IRC >3:242 ES (SPAIN) > 1. Javier SOLA <jsola at aui.es> > http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00303.html 3:243 FOAM >3:244 VA (HOLY-SEE-(VATICAN-CITY-STATE)) >3:245 SPEECH >3:246 DUBLIN >3:247 FOODS >3:248 CHE (SWITZERLAND) >3:249 EE (ESTONIA) >3:250 FRA (FRANCE) >3:251 MAR (MOROCCO) >3:252 FOOT >3:253 BIH (BOSNIA-AND-HERZEGOWINA) >3:254 FI (FINLAND) >3:255 MENS > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 21 17:15:46 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 3

Joke from Jim Fleming (was: 0:201 COM News)
by JimFleming＠unir.com 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

-----Original Message----- From: John Charles Broomfield <jbroom at manta.outremer.com> To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming at unir.com> Cc: richard at vrx.net <richard at vrx.net>; bhelfant at globecomm.com <bhelfant at globecomm.com>; bobr at dprc.net <bobr at dprc.net>; at at ah.net <at at ah.net>; orobles at nic.mx <orobles at nic.mx>; tld-wg at ripe.net <tld-wg at ripe.net>; jnh at skyscape.net <jnh at skyscape.net>; phil at CHARON.MILEPOST.COM <phil at CHARON.MILEPOST.COM>; erony at marin.k12.ca.us <erony at marin.k12.ca.us>; Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>; pgp at pgmedia.net <pgp at pgmedia.net>; jc.praud at ludexpress.com <jc.praud at ludexpress.com>; MarshM at diebold.com <MarshM at diebold.com>; DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET <DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>; djrogers at enterprise.net <djrogers at enterprise.net>; dstein at TRAVEL-NET.COM <dstein at TRAVEL-NET.COM>; cgomes at internic.net <cgomes at internic.net>; chrisc at NETSOL.COM <chrisc at NETSOL.COM>; amr at chaos.com <amr at chaos.com>; Jay at Iperdome.com <Jay at Iperdome.com>; ivan at NETNAMES.COM <ivan at NETNAMES.COM>; usdh at mailhub2.ncal.verio.com <usdh at mailhub2.ncal.verio.com>; commerce at mail.house.gov <commerce at mail.house.gov>; com-priv at lists.psi.com <com-priv at lists.psi.com>; lessig at law.harvard.edu <lessig at law.harvard.edu>; mike.norris at heanet.ie <mike.norris at heanet.ie>; mueller at syr.edu <mueller at syr.edu>; domain-policy at open-rsc.org <domain-policy at open-rsc.org> Date: Tuesday, October 06, 1998 2:17 PM Subject: Joke from Jim Fleming (was: 0:201 COM News) > >Hey, nice joke there Jim... >So now YOU and Richard Sexton are the contacts for ".com" in your IPv8 >pipedream? >(...) >> 0:201 COM >> 1. Jim Fleming - JimFleming at unir.com >> 2. Richard Sexton - richard at vrx.net > John, As you should be aware, but apparently are not, the IPv8 Plan calls for 8 Trustees for each TLD. Only the top 2 Trustees are listed. The Trustees are arranged in a 2+2+4 structure. There are two leaders, 2 backup leaders and 4 support people. This helps to provide continuity. The 8 people decide who the 2 leaders are. We are trying to get the 8 leaders organized for .COM. If you are interested in that activity, let us know. Here is the form, that helps to show how the 8 people are structured in relation to each other. Keep in mind that these 8 people may not have anything to do with the registry operation or the registrars. They are the public oversight body for deciding what company is designated to do that, on behalf of the SLD owners who hopefully help to select the 8 Trustees. 5. ____________________ 3. ____________________ 6. ____________________ 1. ____________________ 2. ____________________ 7. ____________________ 4. ____________________ 8. ____________________ If you recall, you have consistently said that you do not want anyone looking over your shoulder as the Registry operator for the .MQ and .GP TLDs. You have also not been able to name 7 other people that help to provide public oversight for those TLDs. The Country of France has now announced that they want to end the "exploitation" of those TLDs. This may be because there is no public oversight. You might want to explain to everyone how you are governed by public oversight. Some people seem to miss it and you are always deflecting attention to other activities that are attempting to provide the oversight that people think is prudent. Why is that ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com 0:201 .COM http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt -------- Logged at Wed Oct 7 12:16:34 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

0:201 COM News
by JimFleming＠unir.com 07 Oct '98

07 Oct '98

Richard, As people can see, the .COM TLD is no different from the other TLDs. Changes are made from time to time. Hopefully, these changes will continue and .COM will become free of the legacy Root Name Servers in the IPv4 address space. It looks like Network Solutions is starting to make some of the recommended changes. I think that we all knew that adult supervision would play more and more of a role in the management of TLDs. It is great to see that NSI is playing a leadership role and moving away from the legacy root "playground". While on the subject of .COM, it seems useful to review the .COM neighborhood or "neighbor net" from an IPv8 point of view. As you can see below, .COM is between a vacant seat 0:200 and the .ISLAND TLD 0:202. I have not been able to locate any Trustees for .ISLAND, but I have a feeling they are out there. The Trustees for 0:199, .LTD have been in communication so the neighborhood is taking shape. Hopefully, we can find a group to pick up the 0:200 seat and things will start to fill in and the base of contacts will grow. This will help to keep people informed about what the status is of the various TLDs (including .COM). http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 0:199 LTD 1. David Rogers - djrogers at enterprise.net 2. Jason Hendeles - jnh at skyscape.net 0:200 <<<<<< AVAILABLE >>>>> 1. __________________________ 2. __________________________ 0:201 COM 1. Jim Fleming - JimFleming at unir.com 2. Richard Sexton - richard at vrx.net 0:202 ISLAND 1. __________________________ 2. __________________________ Hopefully, the RSCs and the GRS people will pick up on the changes that NSI has described below. Also, I hope that NSI continues to make more changes. It is good to see that the .COM TLD is moving away from the legacy roots and taking shape. If we all work together using the neighbor net approach, we can keep each other informed of these changes. Then, if someone has a question, people can go to the people that have been providing stewardship for a particular TLD. We should keep in mind that root server operators (RSCs) do not generally pay much attention to the day to day issues of a particular TLD. They have to look at all of the TLDs. People should not be surprised that RSCs may not be the best source of info about a particular TLD. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com 0:201 .COM http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt >>To: dholtz at internic.net ("David H. Holtzman") >>cc: nanog at merit.edu >>Subject: open letter (Re: NSI Bulletin 098-013 | gtld server) >>From: Paul Vixie <paul at vix.com> >>Date: 05 Oct 1998 22:25:50 -0700 >>Lines: 28 >>Sender: owner-nanog at merit.edu >> >>I have three questions about: >> >>dholtz at internic.net ("David H. Holtzman") writes: >> >>> In a continuing effort to enhance service to the community, Network >>> Solutions has added another gTLD server, f.gtld-servers.net (207.159.77.18) >>> at PAIX, Palo Alto, CA. The server will be operation in the next couple of >>> days. This server will serve the .com, .net and .org domains only. >>> _____________________________________ >>> David H. Holtzman (dholtz at internic.net) >>> Sr Vice President of Engineering >>> Network Solutions, Inc. >> >>1. As the operator of F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET, which is also at PAIX, I'm >>curious to know whether your reselection of the letter "F" in your host's >>name indicates a relationship between your "F" and my "F"? >> >>2. In the past, changes in the COM delegation have been made via IANA. >>Since IANA was not involved in this announcement, should I interpret this >>as a unilateral move on NSI's part? >> >>3. Does NSI still think of COM, NET, and ORG as its intellectual property? >>And is this belief bolstered in some way by the ICANN announcements? >>-- >>Paul Vixie >>La Honda, CA "Many NANOG members have been around >><paul at vix.com> longer than most." --Jim Fleming >>pacbell!vixie!paul (An H.323 GateKeeper for the IPv8 Network) >-- -------- Logged at Wed Oct 7 01:07:40 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Default behaviour for referred domain queries
by mike.norris＠heanet.ie 06 Oct '98

06 Oct '98

In coincidence with your input, the db-wg also found that whenever the server shows data from a remote server instead of the local data in response to a query, the response should be preceded by a notice clearly informing the user that the information being displayed is coming from another server that contains the authoritative data. Right. It was also noted that the original proposal did not provide a way to look at the "local" object if it contained a refer attribute. In order to avoid potential confusion from a mode of operation where two objects are displayed, it would be better to provide a whois flag (-R was agreed) that would disable the referral and show the local object. Bear in mind that there could be multiple referrals involved i.e. the process is recursive. Suppose the query is for a third-level domain, that the second-level domain is referred from the RIPE DB to a TLD registry server, and that the target domain is referred onward from the TLD server to an ISP's whois server. Now what will the -R flag deliver - the local object in the RIPE DB? That'll give you the coordinates of the TLD server, which you again query with -R to get the ISP 'local' object. Regards. Mike -------- Logged at Tue Oct 6 16:28:05 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE)
by JimFleming＠unety.net 05 Oct '98

05 Oct '98

-----Original Message----- From: Jay Fenello <Jay at IPERDOME.COM> To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET <DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET> Date: Friday, October 02, 1998 5:20 PM Subject: Re: the free market decides (was Re: Registrars) >At 11:43 AM 10/2/98 , John Charles Broomfield wrote: >>Would Jay Fenello accept to have Iperdome run by registrants of ".per" (ie, >>that ".per" registrants would be the shareholders of Iperdome and vote for >>the board etc...) Would IOD accept to be run by registrants of ".web"? No, >>didn't think so... > > >Hi John, > >Given the number of times you've been proven wrong >in this debate, don't you think you should at least >give people a chance to answer the questions you ask? > >As usual, you are WRONG again! > >I would certainly consider transforming Iperdome into >a membership organization for ".per" registrants. > Not only that...Jay has provide a list of 8 Trustees for the .PER TLD under the IPv8 Plan. Those Trustees are like the trustees of a public library. They make the decision about what "registry" operates the TLD for the SLD.TLD owners. Think of them as a POC for the TLD. John Broomfield has NOT done this for the .MQ or .GP TLDs. John Broomfield has stated that he does not want anyone looking over his shoulder for those TLDs. Now, he has the country of France publishing a paper that says those TLDs are being exploited. Why does a country think that .MQ and .GP are being exploited ? It is ironic that .MQ and .GP do not qualify for the IPv8 Plan because they do not have proper PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. John Broomfield claims that he wants TLDs to have public oversight. Why not appoint 8 Trustees for .GP and 8 for .MQ ? Maybe Annie Renard can be a Trustee for each of them. Maybe someone from the French government can be named. How about some more people from .MQ and .GP. Why is John Broomfield the only person pursuing the .MQ and .GP TLDs ?....and he does not even use those TLDs for e-mail and such. Hopefully, people in the G1 and G2 Regions will look into this. I am busy with G0, especially 0:201 .COM. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) 2:82 GP (GUADELOUPE) Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Oct 5 15:15:00 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Default behaviour for referred domain queries
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 05 Oct '98

05 Oct '98

I'ld like to give input as requested on this topic. For the TLD people who may have missed the DB session, here is first a brief description of how the referral feature works. I don't know the details at this stage. When a request is received by the "central" server for a domain object marked (locally) for referral, the query is referred to the authoritative server and the data from the authoritative server is returned to the client. If the domain object requested is not found on the "central" server, the specified domain name is truncated (successively, if necessary ?) until a higher-level domain is found to be marked for referral, and the query is then referred to the authoritative server for that (higher-level) domain. The following suggestions seem to be almost agreed, but need to be written down. By default, the response returned to the client for a referred query should include the following elements: Alert that referral has been used Response from authoritative server I expect that the authoritative response will include a copyright and/or AUP banner from the authoritative server, but this is the responsibility of the authoritative registry, and not of the registry providing the referring server. I expect that a 'verbose mode' will provide a response including the following elements: Response from referring server as if no referral was used, including referring registry's standard (C)/AUP banner Alert that referral is spin effect for the domain in question Response from authoritative server Whichever of the modes described above is used, it should be possible to specify whether recursive lookup and display of related person/role (and in future, nameserver) objects is to be done. IHTH, Niall -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 12:12:46 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 2

the free market decides (was Re: Registrars)
by JimFleming＠unety.net 01 Oct '98

01 Oct '98

-----Original Message----- From: Kent Crispin <kent at SONGBIRD.COM> <snip> > >> When you start a business, you may choose from >> one of many TLDs. You can choose a ccTLD (which, I might note, >> nobody is calling monopolies. Funny, that). > >ccTLDs *are* monopolies, but they are controlled by governments. >[In fact, a reasonable definition of a government is an entity with a >monopoly on force.] > Kent, It might be useful if you refresh everyone's memory about who your employer is. Are you still employed by the U.S. Government ? As for the so-called ccTLDs. Numerous examples have been cited to show that your above statement is not true. Two of the more high-profile examples are the .MQ and .GP TLDs, as well as the .FR TLD. It is now becoming clear that France does not control those TLDs. Sure, the French government wrote a paper about them, but people are thumbing their noses at the French government. Those TLDs remain. The flip side of this is the U.S. Government is trying to control .COM. People are thumbing their noses at that. If you had not noticed, there is a pattern here. TLDs are TLDs are TLDs. The people that control them all act the same way. Governments seem to have little or no impact. What use is it to continue to try to continue the myth that governments have control of the ccTLDs ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com 0:201 .COM http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Fri Oct 2 22:12:57 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Public trust & IANA? - monopolistic rule-making
by nlockett＠Sidley.com 01 Oct '98

01 Oct '98

QUOTE: Section 3. NOTICE AND COMMENT PROVISIONS (b) Prior to adoption of any policies that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third parties, the Board will: (i) provide public notice on the Web Site explaining what policies are being considered for adoption and why; (ii) provide a reasonable opportunity for parties to comment on the adoption of the proposed policies, to see the comments of others, and to reply to those comments; and (iii) after a reasonable comment period, take action on the proposed policies, establishing an effective date, and publishing the reasons for the action taken. UNQUOTE Which appears to mean: (i)We will tell you what we intend to do (ii) We will seek your comments (iii) after a reasonable comment period, we will do as we choose - regardless of our obligation to act in public trust function, your comments and our pre-existing obligations. Shouldn't iii) have something built in about requiring a majority of Registrars to expressly consent or not more than 5 registrars to object or similar. IANA still appear to be ignoring the fact that their authority to act is only by consensus and constrained by public trust functions. Where pre-existing rules have operated they appear to have obtained the status of contractual terms and those terms could only be changed by consent. Nick Lockett E-Mail: <mailto:NLOCKETT at sidley.com> Private E-mail: <mailto:netlaw at netlaw.co.uk> This message is the personal opinion of Nick Lockett -no liability is accepted -------- Logged at Fri Oct 2 14:59:37 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: Public trust & IANA?
by nlockett＠Sidley.com 01 Oct '98

01 Oct '98

> -----Original Message----- > Sent: 01 October 1998 13:17 > To: 'govt-role at worldnames.net' > Subject: RE: Public trust & IANA? > > > > If IANA has made secret rule changes without going through the same > process of rule-making consensus as 1591 did, then whoever makes these > secret rule changes is working in breach of the public trust. > > > If acting in breach of trust the actions are probably void, I wonder > whether the public trust status may mean that the beneficiaries can > enforce local law? > > Does that breach also mean that IANA are open to a challenge that they are > unfit under RFC 1591?? <grin> > > Does that breach carry over with the obligations and liabilities > transferred to IANA2?? > <deep in thought> > > Regards > Nick Lockett > E-Mail: <mailto:NLOCKETT at sidley.com> > Private E-mail: <mailto:netlaw at netlaw.co.uk> > This message is the personal opinion of Nick Lockett. Where this message > contains legal issues, then no liability is accepted. -------- Logged at Thu Oct 1 17:13:09 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0