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

The Many Faces of .VI
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 30 Apr '98

30 Apr '98

Shown below are the ~50 names active in the .VI TLD DNS. It is unclear if this is all of the names "registered" because some people could claim that unlisted names also exist. If we assume there are no unlisted names, then the "owners" of the 50 names below are the "stakeholders" for the .VI TLD. The .VI TLD is a good TLD to use for discussion purposes because people can get their hands around 50 stakeholders as opposed to 2,000,000+ owners in .COM. There are at least five known uses of the .VI TLD: 1. .VI - United States Virgin Islands 2. .VI - Virgin Islands 3. .VI Text Editor Users 4. .VI Roman Numeral for 6 5. .VI - Very Intelligent or Very Important (short for VIP) If you take all of the names below and apply .VI to the right side and a WWW to the left side, you can start to classify the names below into the above five categories. For example, WWW.ALEXIS.VI. Which of the above five categories does that fall into ?....and most importantly, does it matter ? ALEXIS AMCUP AMENT AQUAMAN ARMOUR BCPHOTO BUSHTEA BVIMALL BXICARIBBEAN CAROLLEE CHARTERBOAT CO CROIX DAVIDJONES DIUSVI FANTASIA HOTELBOYNES ISLANDVIDEO IYC JNET JOHN LOCATION MARRIOTT MARRIOTT-FR MARRIOTT-MS MORRETT OCTAGON PISSARRO PRISCO ROLEXREGATTA ROTARY ROYALCARIBBEAN SANDDOLLAR SHIPS SOCCER-MASTERS ST-CROIX ST-JOHN ST-THOMAS STCROIX STJOHN STTHOMAS SUNREALTY THOMAS TRADEWINDS VISIT WEDUS WINDSURFING WSTA YACHTS ZBVI ===== As the 2 letter TLDs begin to join the other generic TLDs or vice versa, the market and marketing forces will help to define what a TLD means to people. No matter what it means, the <SLD>.TLD owners are the stakeholders and they have a right an responsibility to make sure that their TLD administration is handled in the manner they prefer. Their collective voice should be used to guide the direction the TLD takes. Let their voices be heard. Whomever they are... -------- Logged at Fri May 1 11:52:21 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Small Name Services Providers
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 30 Apr '98

30 Apr '98

On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 10:19 PM, Peter deBlanc[SMTP:pdeblanc at usvi.net] wrote: @Thanks Bob, for your comments on this interesting concept. I have always @promoted public service internet access. In fact, my paper for the @Internet Society conference in Hawaii in 1995 was about a funding model @for public internet access in developing countries. After spending 5 @years working for the United Nations in such countries in the Caribbean, @It became clear that some method was needed to bridge the gap between @"information haves" and information have-nots". I am all in favor of @profitable enterprise. And I subscribe to the concept that pro bono @service is a responsibility of the mature professional. @ Peter, Do you have any plans to evolve the .VI DNS system to a more production-oriented structure ? As you can see below there are various levels delegated in your TLD Name Servers. This makes it more difficult to have a volume interface similar to the InterNIC where all .COM entries look like the CO.VI entry below: $ORIGIN vi. co IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. While entries like the following may make sense for a TLD registry that caters to a small number of domains that you are hosting or familiar with, this might be expensive to maintain in a volume (production) situation. ships IN A 208.200.189.167 In other words, one would expect that the name SHIPS.VI would cause an entry with a minimum of 2 name servers (as CO.VI has) and then the delegate for SHIPS.VI would be responsible for handling the traffic for that zone. At the present this is handled on the .VI "root" TLD Name Servers. I bring this up because now is the time to clean-up the .VI zone before it grows. It may be difficult or impossible to do that later. I am interested in your plans to bring the .VI TLD Name Servers to a point where it has a production-grade structure. I am also interested in the criteria for names being entered below the .VI TLD. I have heard the "Free Net" arguments that names are provided for worthy causes. I have also heard the argument that commercial companies should be under CO.VI. As shown below, there does not seem to be a consistent policy for the .VI TLD. What is the current policy for names directly under .VI. Can one assume that ALL names currently under .COM could also be registered under .VI, if those owners desired ? Free Nets seem to have a way of developing Free-Form policies that few people can articulate. Maybe you can work with Bob Allisat on articulating the policy for the .VI TLD. Thanks... Jim Fleming ============================== ; BIND version named 4.9.3-P1 Tue Jan 23 15:41:55 GMT 1996 ; BIND version polk at forge.BSDI.COM:/usr/src/usr.sbin/named/named ; zone 'vi' last serial 0 ; from 198.6.1.65 at Wed Apr 29 14:11:39 1998 $ORIGIN . vi IN SOA ns1.octagon.net. hostmaster.usvi.net. ( 1998042604 21600 1800 1728000 43200 ) IN NS auth00.ns.uu.net. IN NS auth01.ns.uu.net. IN NS ns.ripe.net. IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. $ORIGIN vi. alexis IN A 208.200.189.133 $ORIGIN alexis.vi. www IN CNAME alexis.vi. $ORIGIN vi. marriott-fr IN A 208.200.189.171 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN marriott-fr.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.171 $ORIGIN vi. tradewinds IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.141 $ORIGIN tradewinds.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.141 $ORIGIN st-croix.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. prisco IN MX 5 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.156 $ORIGIN prisco.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.156 $ORIGIN vi. rotary IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.139 $ORIGIN rotary.vi. www IN CNAME rotary.vi. $ORIGIN vi. imi IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. ac IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. pissarro IN A 208.200.189.164 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN pissarro.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.164 $ORIGIN stjohn.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. credit IN NS ns1.webservices.net. IN NS ns2.webservices.net. marriott IN A 208.200.189.170 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN marriott.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.170 $ORIGIN vi. sanddollar IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.190 $ORIGIN sanddollar.vi. www IN CNAME sanddollar.vi. $ORIGIN vi. ament IN A 208.200.189.165 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN ament.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.165 $ORIGIN vi. bxicaribbean IN A 208.200.189.187 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN bxicaribbean.vi. www IN CNAME bxicaribbean.vi. $ORIGIN st.thomas.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. gov IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. soccer-masters IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.178 $ORIGIN soccer-masters.vi. www IN CNAME soccer-masters.vi. $ORIGIN vi. coconutcoaststudios IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. rolexregatta IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.173 $ORIGIN rolexregatta.vi. www IN CNAME rolexregatta.vi. $ORIGIN vi. islands IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. wedus IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.184 $ORIGIN wedus.vi. www IN CNAME wedus.vi. $ORIGIN vi. morrett IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN morrett.vi. chad IN A 204.199.0.98 $ORIGIN vi. co IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. ships IN A 208.200.189.167 $ORIGIN ships.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.167 $ORIGIN vi. location IN MX 10 mail.location.vi. IN MX 20 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.166 $ORIGIN location.vi. mail IN A 204.199.1.240 IN MX 10 mail.location.vi. IN MX 20 noc.usvi.net. www IN A 208.200.189.166 $ORIGIN vi. hotelboynes IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.162 $ORIGIN hotelboynes.vi. www IN CNAME hotelboynes.vi. $ORIGIN vi. wsta IN A 208.200.189.144 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN wsta.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.144 $ORIGIN vi. falcon IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. CarolLee IN MX 5 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.160 $ORIGIN CarolLee.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.160 $ORIGIN vi. octagon IN A 208.200.189.150 IN MX 10 octagon.usvi.net. IN MX 20 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN octagon.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.150 $ORIGIN vi. amcup IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.179 $ORIGIN amcup.vi. www IN CNAME amcup.vi. $ORIGIN vi. armour IN MX 10 rutabaga.armour.vi. IN MX 20 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.183 $ORIGIN armour.vi. impossibleapple IN A 204.199.0.92 peach IN A 204.199.0.95 chocolate IN A 204.199.0.94 cherry IN A 204.199.0.93 rutabaga IN A 204.199.0.90 www IN CNAME armour.vi. mincemeat IN A 204.199.0.97 pumpkin IN A 204.199.0.96 lemon IN A 204.199.0.91 $ORIGIN st.john.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. yachts IN A 208.200.189.132 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN yachts.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.132 $ORIGIN st-thomas.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. marriott-ms IN A 208.200.189.172 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN marriott-ms.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.172 $ORIGIN vi. zbvi IN A 208.200.189.169 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN zbvi.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.169 $ORIGIN vi. davidjones IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.191 $ORIGIN davidjones.vi. www IN CNAME davidjones.vi. $ORIGIN vi. k12 IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. $ORIGIN stcroix.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. royalcaribbean IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.10 $ORIGIN royalcaribbean.vi. www IN CNAME royalcaribbean.vi. $ORIGIN st.croix.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN st-john.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. gv IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. islandvideo IN A 208.200.189.155 IN MX 0 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN islandvideo.vi. www IN CNAME islandvideo.vi. $ORIGIN vi. fantasia IN A 208.200.189.147 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN fantasia.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.147 $ORIGIN vi. diusvi IN A 208.200.189.177 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN diusvi.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.177 $ORIGIN vi. jnet IN A 146.226.2.198 IN HINFO "i80586" "FreeBSD" IN MX 0 jnet.vi. $ORIGIN jnet.vi. www IN CNAME jnet.vi. $ORIGIN visit.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. tti IN MX 0 noc.usvi.net. org IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. $ORIGIN stthomas.vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. $ORIGIN vi. aquaman IN MX 10 mail.islands.vi. IN A 208.200.189.186 $ORIGIN aquaman.vi. www IN CNAME aquaman.vi. $ORIGIN vi. www IN CNAME redirect.www.usvi.net. windsurfing IN A 208.200.189.157 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN windsurfing.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.157 $ORIGIN vi. iyc IN A 208.200.189.168 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN iyc.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.168 $ORIGIN vi. charterboat IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.181 $ORIGIN charterboat.vi. www IN CNAME charterboat.vi. $ORIGIN vi. bcphoto IN A 208.200.189.176 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN bcphoto.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.176 $ORIGIN vi. sunrealty IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. IN A 208.200.189.182 $ORIGIN sunrealty.vi. www IN CNAME sunrealty.vi. $ORIGIN vi. vitelcom IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. test IN NS ns1.octagon.net. IN NS ns2.octagon.net. bvimall IN A 208.200.189.135 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN bvimall.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.135 $ORIGIN vi. bushtea IN A 208.200.189.148 IN MX 10 noc.usvi.net. $ORIGIN bushtea.vi. www IN A 208.200.189.148 ===================================== - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.unir.net -------- Logged at Thu Apr 30 14:56:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

(Fwd) CENTR Technical Workshop
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

I forward for information an interesting announcement from the RIPE CENTR Project co-ordinator. Please note the restrictions on size. Niall O'Reilly ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Sun, 26 Apr 1998 19:14:07 +0200 From: Fay Howard <fay at ripe.net> Subject: CENTR Technical Workshop To: centr at ripe.net, Timo.Tuuli at thk.fi, Grete.Duna at uninett.no Dear CENTR participants/ccTLDs, Following the positive response at last week's CENTR meeting to the idea of TLD workshops, I am beginning arrangements for the first which will be: Technical Workshop for ccTLDs 25 - 26 June 1998 Venue: RIPE NCC Office, Singel 258, Amsterdam. It is proposed to hold the workshop over two days starting lunch time on Thursday, 25 June and finishing lunchtime on Friday, 26 June. Lunch will be provided on both days and dinner arranged for the Thursday evening. Transport and accommodation costs will be the responsibility of the workshop participants. Places will be limited to 18. If more than 18 applications are received, it will be necessary to limit attendance to one per TLD with preference given to TLDs who have committed to support RIPE CENTR in 1998(first come first served basis). If applications are well in excess of 18 it may be possible to run the workshop again at a later date. The workshop, which is aimed at staff involved in the operational side of running a TLD, will encourage discussion and exchange of experiences. Below are listed some topics to be covered but suggestions for other items are welcomed. Please contact me if you require any further information. If you would like to attend or to nominate suitable colleagues, please complete the application details given at the end of this mail and return to me. Fay Howard RIPE CENTR Project Manager Topics for the Workshop: Registry Databases Each TLD administrator keeps a database of registrations. The technical implementation of this database seems to be differing widely. Under this topic short case studies are presented and a general exchange of experiences follows. Aspects to be covered include - implementation of registry database - human interfaces - generation of DNS zone files - genertaing charging information - statistics Request Tracking TLD administrators process requests for additions, changes and deletions to the TLD registry. How are these requests received? How are they tracked while being processed? How are they documented for future reference? Experiences with request tracking systems. Aspects to be covered include - request origination e-mail / phone / bulk (registrars) - request tracking - human interfaces (external/internal) - request documentation / filing - statistics DNS Operations TLD administrators are responsible for the operation of TLD name servers. There are numerous technical aspects to this. We will look at operational experiences and get some technical presentations about developments in bind software. - zone file maintenance - primary nameserver - secondaries - software issues (bind) - security - load statistics - current developments of NS software (bind) Secure DNS Developments are under way to use public key cryptography to authenticate the origin of DNS zone information in a hierarchical manner. TLD administrators play a key role in its deployment because they are close to the root of the hierarchy. We will present an overview of this new technology and exchange views on its impact on operational procedures. - what ? - why ? - status - operational consequences ---------------------ooooooooOoooooooo--------------- APPLICATION Please complete the following and return to fay at ripe.net Name: Organization: Country: Job Function: Suggestions for Topics to be included other than those mentioned: If space permits or a repeat workshop is arranged, I would also like to nominate: Name: Organization: Country: Job Function: --------------------oooooooOooooooo---------- -------- Logged at Thu Apr 30 03:03:38 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Small Name Services Providers
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 10:19 PM, Peter deBlanc[SMTP:pdeblanc at usvi.net] wrote: @Thanks Bob, for your comments on this interesting concept. I have always @promoted public service internet access. In fact, my paper for the @Internet Society conference in Hawaii in 1995 was about a funding model @for public internet access in developing countries. After spending 5 @years working for the United Nations in such countries in the Caribbean, @It became clear that some method was needed to bridge the gap between @"information haves" and information have-nots". I am all in favor of @profitable enterprise. And I subscribe to the concept that pro bono @service is a responsibility of the mature professional. @ @You (all on the list) may be interested in reading my paper, "Networking @the Caribbean via the VIP FreeNet" @ @at http://www.usvi.net/cobex/inet95 @ People might also be interested in this lecture or other similar developments in the Virgin Islands and the Caribbean. @@@@ http://bviwelcome.com/limin/upcome.html May 8 - COLLEGE LECTURE SERIES - Lecture at 5:30 p.m) "Small Island Developing States in the Global Economy: Can the BVI Be a model for the development of other island economies?" by Pierre Encontre of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development based in Switzerland. Information: 284-494-4994 (date tentative @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.unir.net -------- Logged at Wed Apr 29 12:36:47 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 29 Apr '98

29 Apr '98

Dear Mr. Nussbacher, As a distinguished member of the Blue Ribbon IAHC panel that developed the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/CORE/POC/PAB proposal your comments carry a lot of weight. It is nice to see that you are still active in these forums. It is also nice that the European community supports these discussions via RIPE. As you know, there are many debates going on with respect to the management of Top Level Domains. The United States Government has decided to help bring an end to the confusion caused by the IAHC and the attempts to move the control of domains to Switzerland and the ITU. The U.S. Government, via the Department of Commerce has published its Green Paper outlining their proposals. Many people have commented in open forums like these. As the final plans for the U.S. Government's actions come together, there are many details that need to be worked out. As I have pointed out below, there could be problems in not addressing the 2 letter (so-called country code) TLDs more directly in the USG process. One of the main reasons is that 2 letter TLDs are quickly becoming generic. I offer <http://this.is> and <http://www.internet.tm> as only a couple of examples. One of the other major problems is the perception on the part of the consumers that government agencies "back" the operations of the 2 letter TLDs. We all know this is not the case, and in my opinion it would be wrong to have consumers mislead into thinking that a registration in a TLD will be MORE stable than so-called gTLDs. In looking for an example, the United States Government does not have to venture far from home. They can turn to the United States Virgin Islands (.VI) where Bill Clinton and his family regularly vacation. In looking at the .VI TLD several questions can be asked. Which government controls that TLD ? Is it the local USVI government or the United States Federal Government ? Also, the question should be raised about local stakeholder participation. If you happen to visit the Virgin Islands or some of the web sites, you might find that local people have a perception that the .VI TLD will be blown away with a hurricane and therefore the .COM/.NET/.ORG domains are preferred. Beyond this, there is another local issue and that is, does the .VI TLD cover the "Virgin Islands" or just the U.S. Virgin Islands ? Again, if you return to the local culture and you consult with truely local inhabitants, you will find that the term Virgin Islands for them implies BOTH the U.S. and British Virgin Islands. They view the government boundaries that have been imposed as legal but not cultural. This is EXACTLY the view that many Internet leaders try to claim should be the basis for domain boundaries. It seems inconsistent for people to be claiming that domains cover a group of stakeholders and do not stop at government and legal boundaries, and then turn around and claim that some TLDs (like the 2 letter ones) do have hard legal/government boundaries. It also seems inconsistent to have many 2 letter TLDs which are now truely generic, while people try to claim they are still tied to a government. In closing, I suggest that the United States Government use the United States Virgin Islands (.VI) TLD as an example to guide the rest of the world. As the U.S. rolls out its Department of Commerce rules, I would hope they make sure that ALL of the United States conforms to those rules. It would not be correct for the U.S. to be imposing rules on the rest of the world when they do not follow them themselves. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation P.S. With regard to your comments about Unir. You might be interested to know that Unir intends to help "build up" and beef up current TLD registries. and future TLD registries. With over 240 TLDs currently recognized by the U.S. Government there is need for everyone in the Registry Industry to try to help bring it to a higher level of operational excellence. Unir will continue to try to do that despite your viewpoint. On Tuesday, April 28, 1998 2:46 AM, Hank Nussbacher[SMTP:hank at ibm.net.il] wrote: @At 03:20 PM 4/27/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @In your opinion? Want to make a mess of nTLDs as has happened to gTLDs? @RFC1591 defines specific rules as to what is allowed or not allowed. @ @To quote: @ @3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the @ domain that request domain names. @ @ This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all @ requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and @ academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal @ basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come @ from customers of some other business related to the manager -- @ e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data @ network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular @ mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used. @ @4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that @ the designated manager is the appropriate party. @ @ The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement @ among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things @ unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the @ designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA @ step in. @ @ However, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have @ some voice in selecting the designated manager. @ @ There are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may @ establish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of @ it: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the @ applying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole @ country. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a @ country is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a @ country -- this is sometimes called a "proxy" DNS service. @ @ The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee @ established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in @ which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The @ IDNB's decisions will be binding. @ @Believe me, if a gov't finds that some Unir organization has appropriated @it's nTLD and is running it into the ground - they will find the way to take @it over. @ @Everyone, Jim has always been and always will be an "agent provocateur". @Lets just ignore his ramblings and leave the matter alone. @ @-hank @ @ @> @>People seem to have no problem allowing the 2 letter TLDs @>to be grandfathered to have immunity from the Green Paper @>and the U.S. Government. The assumption appears to be @>that the 2 letter TLDs have been delegated to individuals, @>companies and in some cases governments with care. This @>is not necessarily the case. @> @>In my opinion, the 2 letter TLDs should be treated as generic @>tags and should not be given a pass when it comes to requirements @>for stable governance and operational excellence. If this is not @>done, consumers may be mislead that 2 letter TLDs have the @>same industry oversight via the IANA Inc. and self-regulation. @>Consumers may find that they are subjected to arbitrary policies, @>predatory price increases and shoddy operations unless they @>are warned that 2 letter TLDs are immune from IANA Inc. oversight. @>This will not be a good thing and may cause well-run 2 letter @>TLDs to suffer because of the unsatisfactory practices of a few, @>poorly managed 2 letter TLDs. @> @>Of course, part of the problem is defining what poorly managed @>means. In some parts of the world business practices may be @>tolerated that are not common in the U.S. For example, people @>may choose to discriminate based on a variety of reasons. One @>of the most obvious is that companies supporting the government @>obtain <SLD>.TLD registrations and those that do not are excluded. @> @>Much of this assumes that the government is the current delegate @>of the 2 letter TLDs. As the domain name debates rage on we @>find more and more that governments do not have a clue what is @>happening with the 2 letter TLD that was supposedly delegated to @>them. Instead, we find that the 2 letter TLDs have been casually @>delegated to people and companies that gave the right impression @>of representing the government or local people but who actually @>use the TLD for their own business purposes. @> @>None of these things can be easily fixed and there may be no @>need to fix them IF the consumer is alerted to this situation. @>Unfortunately, the Green Paper and the IANA Inc. might end @>up sending the wrong message if they require generic TLDs to @>be held to one standard while 2 letter TLDs are immune. In my @>opinion, all of the TLDs should be held to the same high standards @>of business ethics and operational integrity as agreed upon @>by the Registry Industry. The question remains as to how to do @>this...? @> @>To date much of the focus has been on ADDING TLDs to the @>legacy Root Name Servers that the U.S. Government supports. @>Before TLDs are added, there may have to be a review of the @>existing TLDs to see where they stand from a business ethics @>and operational standards point of view. In some cases, 2 letter @>TLDs may need to be removed from the legacy Root Name @>Servers. How this should be handled needs to be debated by @>the people actively involved in the Registry Industry. @> @> - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.unir.net -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 22:46:40 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by hank＠ibm.net.il 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

At 03:20 PM 4/27/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: In your opinion? Want to make a mess of nTLDs as has happened to gTLDs? RFC1591 defines specific rules as to what is allowed or not allowed. To quote: 3) The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain that request domain names. This means that the same rules are applied to all requests, all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion, and academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal basis. No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come from customers of some other business related to the manager -- e.g., no preferential service for customers of a particular data network provider. There can be no requirement that a particular mail system (or other application), protocol, or product be used. 4) Significantly interested parties in the domain should agree that the designated manager is the appropriate party. The IANA tries to have any contending parties reach agreement among themselves, and generally takes no action to change things unless all the contending parties agree; only in cases where the designated manager has substantially mis-behaved would the IANA step in. However, it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager. There are two cases where the IANA and the central IR may establish a new top-level domain and delegate only a portion of it: (1) there are contending parties that cannot agree, or (2) the applying party may not be able to represent or serve the whole country. The later case sometimes arises when a party outside a country is trying to be helpful in getting networking started in a country -- this is sometimes called a "proxy" DNS service. The Internet DNS Names Review Board (IDNB), a committee established by the IANA, will act as a review panel for cases in which the parties can not reach agreement among themselves. The IDNB's decisions will be binding. Believe me, if a gov't finds that some Unir organization has appropriated it's nTLD and is running it into the ground - they will find the way to take it over. Everyone, Jim has always been and always will be an "agent provocateur". Lets just ignore his ramblings and leave the matter alone. -hank > >People seem to have no problem allowing the 2 letter TLDs >to be grandfathered to have immunity from the Green Paper >and the U.S. Government. The assumption appears to be >that the 2 letter TLDs have been delegated to individuals, >companies and in some cases governments with care. This >is not necessarily the case. > >In my opinion, the 2 letter TLDs should be treated as generic >tags and should not be given a pass when it comes to requirements >for stable governance and operational excellence. If this is not >done, consumers may be mislead that 2 letter TLDs have the >same industry oversight via the IANA Inc. and self-regulation. >Consumers may find that they are subjected to arbitrary policies, >predatory price increases and shoddy operations unless they >are warned that 2 letter TLDs are immune from IANA Inc. oversight. >This will not be a good thing and may cause well-run 2 letter >TLDs to suffer because of the unsatisfactory practices of a few, >poorly managed 2 letter TLDs. > >Of course, part of the problem is defining what poorly managed >means. In some parts of the world business practices may be >tolerated that are not common in the U.S. For example, people >may choose to discriminate based on a variety of reasons. One >of the most obvious is that companies supporting the government >obtain <SLD>.TLD registrations and those that do not are excluded. > >Much of this assumes that the government is the current delegate >of the 2 letter TLDs. As the domain name debates rage on we >find more and more that governments do not have a clue what is >happening with the 2 letter TLD that was supposedly delegated to >them. Instead, we find that the 2 letter TLDs have been casually >delegated to people and companies that gave the right impression >of representing the government or local people but who actually >use the TLD for their own business purposes. > >None of these things can be easily fixed and there may be no >need to fix them IF the consumer is alerted to this situation. >Unfortunately, the Green Paper and the IANA Inc. might end >up sending the wrong message if they require generic TLDs to >be held to one standard while 2 letter TLDs are immune. In my >opinion, all of the TLDs should be held to the same high standards >of business ethics and operational integrity as agreed upon >by the Registry Industry. The question remains as to how to do >this...? > >To date much of the focus has been on ADDING TLDs to the >legacy Root Name Servers that the U.S. Government supports. >Before TLDs are added, there may have to be a review of the >existing TLDs to see where they stand from a business ethics >and operational standards point of view. In some cases, 2 letter >TLDs may need to be removed from the legacy Root Name >Servers. How this should be handled needs to be debated by >the people actively involved in the Registry Industry. > > >- >Jim Fleming >Unir Corporation >IBC, Tortola, BVI > >http://www.nic.vi > > > > -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 19:43:34 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

On Monday, April 27, 1998 12:37 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: @Why don't we establish a set of guidelines or purported guidelines we feel @may be pertinent, *then* move forward with issues regarding each? @ You might want to "suggest" that 2 letter TLD registries get on-board with some whois technology. There are several choices out there. RIPE is Perl-based. NSI's offering is compiled C. I believe that NSI and Microsoft recently announced some sort of joint partnership in this area. If we look at the Internet as one huge object-oriented computer system, then many of the registry data base issues would fall out. Unfortunately, most of the emphasis in the Internet is still on "Protocols" vs. "Platforms". If we could change this, we might be able to help make it easier for the 2 letter TLD registries who likely just want something that is turn-key and works without requiring an Internet mechanic to be on call. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 08:48:17 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

Yes, voluntary participation is the best way to go, plus local "neighbor net" approaches. That is one of the ways that I propose to build CARIBNIC.NET. It will be a way to link all of the participants in the Internet in the Caribbean. This can help everyone understand how the Internet resources are being managed via a common pooling of information for the TLDs and IP allocations for the region. JF On Monday, April 27, 1998 4:00 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: @It goes back to the original comment. @ @Good idea, we can suggest it but we cannot force them to do it. @ @On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @> On Monday, April 27, 1998 12:37 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: @> @Why don't we establish a set of guidelines or purported guidelines we feel @> @may be pertinent, *then* move forward with issues regarding each? @> @ @> @[not purposely avoiding the question] ;) @> @ @> @> One of the things that I have advocated in the past @> is the 2+2+4 Trustee structure. This is a structure @> that allows 8 people to be identified as the delegates @> of a resource such as a TLD. @> @> 5_________ @> 3_________ @> 6_________ @> 1_________ @> 2_________ @> 7_________ @> 4_________ @> 8_________ @> @> @> With this structure the people in the #1 and #2 positions @> are viewed as the co-Trustees and share the job. They @> speak for the TLD when an official statement is needed. @> Each of them has an assistant (#3 and #4). Then each @> of those people has two people to help provide more @> community coverage and voices. @> @> I wonder if each of the 2 letter TLDs could publish such @> a list ? @> @> @> - @> Jim Fleming @> Unir Corporation @> IBC, Tortola, BVI @> @> http://www.nic.vi @> @> @ @Regards @ @Steve Heflin @Domain Bank, Inc. @IDomains, Inc. @ @ @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 04:44:13 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

On Monday, April 27, 1998 12:37 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: @Why don't we establish a set of guidelines or purported guidelines we feel @may be pertinent, *then* move forward with issues regarding each? @ @[not purposely avoiding the question] ;) @ One of the things that I have advocated in the past is the 2+2+4 Trustee structure. This is a structure that allows 8 people to be identified as the delegates of a resource such as a TLD. 5_________ 3_________ 6_________ 1_________ 2_________ 7_________ 4_________ 8_________ With this structure the people in the #1 and #2 positions are viewed as the co-Trustees and share the job. They speak for the TLD when an official statement is needed. Each of them has an assistant (#3 and #4). Then each of those people has two people to help provide more community coverage and voices. I wonder if each of the 2 letter TLDs could publish such a list ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 03:00:56 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

On Monday, April 27, 1998 1:04 PM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom at manta.outremer.com] wrote: <snip For you and me a mismanaged TLD is probably something @important which should be dealt with. Some governments probably can't see @the importance of it (yet?), but that doesn't give legitimacy to someone @from outside trying to take it over. @ Just as the computer security experts will tell you.... the people on the "outside" may not be nearly as big a problem as the people on the "inside". While I understand the history of the 2 letter TLDs, I am not sure that you can enforce anything beyond what will become common in the generic TLDs. Also, in the end the Root Name Server Cluster operators make the decision and they may not know who has the endorsement of the government and who does not. Would you be in favor of requiring that some "official" statement/letter/etc. from a real government official be scanned and placed on the web site ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 00:56:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1