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

[apnic-talk] APNIC Director General: what is the catch?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 May '98

09 May '98

This is only one small example of why Internet Governance structures should take business models into consideration, as well as technical issues. In the IPv8 Plan there is no need for APNIC as an IPv4-only organization. The IPv8 address spaces are managed by the TLD authorities and the IPv4 address space is divided in a distributed way for management by the TLD authorities. APNIC might want to take the path that RIPE is taking. Namely, they are branching into the TLD arena with RIPE CENTR. This gives them the needed hooks into that area so that they have a viable business model for the future. If APNIC does that, they might be able to attract business people to properly manage the company and to provide the best service for the region. Jim Fleming On Friday, May 08, 1998 9:34 PM, Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim[SMTP:rms46 at geocities.com] wrote: @Hello; @ @David R. Conrad wrote: @ @> Enclosed is the official APNIC Director General position posting. @ @So, the position is still empty? This is not the first time I saw @that announcement. Therefore, what is the catch? It seems, whether @we like it or not, that APNIC is Randy and Randy is APNIC. @ @ @> Feel free to recirculate where ever you feel appropriate. @ @I did it last time. It seems that it did not work. @ @ @> I _STRONGLY_ encourage anyone who has interest in the position @> to apply, regardless of whether or not you feel you meet all @> the requirements for the position. @ @There are not many fellows that understand both the technical part @and the policy/politic part of the issue. I am unfortunately @understand both. As I will not nominate myself (and thank you for @the big BOOBOO from behind), the closest Indonesian fellow that has @popped from my mind is Mr. Sanjaya from IndoInternet. @ @ @regards, @ @-- @Rahmat M.Samik-Ibrahim VLSM-TJT http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/6825 @-My clock display is QUALITATIVE:more sense,less positivist(m/tic)- @ @* APNIC-TALK: General APNIC Discussion List * @* To unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe" to apnic-talk-request at apnic.net * @ @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race -------- Logged at Mon May 11 11:14:35 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: .ITALY, .ROME, .PIZZA
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 05 May '98

05 May '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 6:22 PM To: 'DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET' Subject: .ITALY, .ROME, .PIZZA I wonder what http://www.Tombstone.Pizza would bring in terms of annual licensing fees to the Italian government ? ...not to mention the other thousands of Pizza companies... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Sat May 9 14:22:55 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: .FRANCE, .PARIS, .RIVIERA
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 05 May '98

05 May '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Monday, May 04, 1998 6:28 PM To: 'DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET' Subject: .FRANCE, .PARIS, .RIVIERA Would people from France opt for English TLDs or would they prefer French equivalents ? Will countries favor TLDs that generate revenue (registry fees) or stick with their cultural heritage ? http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Tue May 5 01:35:26 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

100% Government Backed TLDs
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 04 May '98

04 May '98

On Sunday, May 03, 1998 7:50 PM, Adam Todd[SMTP:at at AH.NET] wrote: @Looks like the Domain Policy list is warming up for news on the Green Paper @results. @ Actually, I think that things are getting quiet and falling into place. People close to the new IANA Inc. formation report that there will NOT likely be any significant number of new TLDs added. Supposedly the IAHC/CORE group will be given the go ahead to compete with NSI. They will be required to have a Registrar/Registry situation that is similar to the WorldNIC/InterNIC transition that is taking place under the supervision of the U.S. Government. The rumor is that CORE will start with THREE TLDs, just like NSI. Apparently, government officials from Australia and Europe were able to convince the U.S. Government that they should be involved at the registry level. Since they will need time to get up to speed, the approach of giving only CORE the go ahead is a compromise. Essentially, the ISOC is given the status of being a psuedo government in this plan. After CORE gets rolling, and NSI continues to roll, people expect to see other governments making proposals to the IANA Inc. to have THREE TLDs added via a registry they back. This will provide the government-backed stability that some people feel is needed to protect consumers. It will also allow countries to break from the shackles of the ISO TLDs that they may not desire. As this evolves, it appears that ALL TLDs at the registry-level (not registrar) will end up with some government supervision. .COM, .NET, and .ORG will be U.S. supervised. The CORE registry will be supervised by Switzerland unless CORE moves to the U.S. following their upcoming May 14th meeting. All of the Country Code TLDs will be supervised by the countries involved, or so they say. In order for companies to get the new IANA Inc. to add new TLDs, this plan would require them to find a "country" (or government) to escort them and back their registries. If this plan comes to pass, this will likely cause small countries to come into the international spot-light as they are lobbied to support THREE new TLDs from some registry confederation that is willing to turn the TLDs over to the country for trusteeship as they proceed to develop the registrar level of operations. This plan results in the real money being made at the registrar level with "Internet taxes" going to the registry level and probably to the country that is backing the three-TLD confederation. Because of the size and dominance of the United States, it will be unlikely that any companies will be able to lobby them to add any more TLDs. They will be able to live off of the .COM, .NET, .ORG, .US, .MIL, and .GOV for a long time. This plan helps to take much of the pressure off of the proposed IANA Inc. Rather than deal with companies who bring attorneys, the IANA can deal with countries who bring ambassadors. The IANA has not had a good track-record for dealing with companies. Because of the DOD roots of the IANA, it should be more comfortable dealing with governments. This plan helps to encourage the wide-spread clean-up of the two-letter country code registries. There will likely be a surge in education as companies begin to educate the various governments about the Registry Industry in hopes of getting a government endorsement for their proposed TLDs. Rather than move the Internet further from government control, it will help to place it in the international government's hands more tightly. This placement is likely to help balance creativity and prudence in the selection of the TLDs. It is unlikely that a recognized government will come to apply for controversial TLDs. Their citizens would likely object. Despite the commercial value of a .XXX or .SEX, it is unlikely that these will appear. This frees the IANA Inc. from having to deal with the potential censorship issues. This plan can be best described as "the Postage Stamp Plan". Countries currently design and print colorful and creative postage stamps, which could be compared to TLDs. They do not print stamps that would be considered objectional. Instead, stamps tend to reflect cultural diversity but still maintain the official "look" that goes with government-sanctioned designs. If this plan comes to pass, it will likely signal a turning point for the IPv4 Internet. The IPv4 Internet was built around the edges of the "old-school" telecommunciations infrastructure. It leveraged off it, but avoided being pulled into the massive beauracracy (and cost) that goes with government control. If the plan plays out as expected, the IPv4 Internet will likely become a core collection of infrastructure that the average person can no longer touch. If this occurs, the only solution is to start to build around this core infrastructure. IPv8 was designed in anticipation of this evolution. It appears that it will be needed sooner rather than later, because apparently this plan will be moving forward between now and September 1998. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Tue May 5 01:35:05 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Who is on the IDNB ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 03 May '98

03 May '98

On Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:55 AM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard at SEXTON.COM] wrote: @At 09:25 AM 5/3/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: @>As a web designer, you also have to be concerned. @>If you can NOT get names in .VI but other companies @>can, then you can not design web sites. Or...your @>customers may be forced to get a domain name @>via Netnames under co.vi and they may not want that. @ @>From: Hank Nussbacher[SMTP:hank at ibm.net.il] @> @>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: @> 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. @ @Well, it would seem to be a simple matter of sending an email to the @IDNB then, wouldnt it ? @ Who is on the IDNB ? Is that the same as the ITAG ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Mon May 4 19:10:52 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: .VI = Virgin Islands ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 03 May '98

03 May '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:25 AM To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET Cc: 'Antitrust List'; 'antitrust at usdoj.gov'; 'Antony Van Couvering'; 'BBURR at ntia.doc.gov'; 'charles mueller'; 'Dan_Cohen at ntia.doc.gov'; 'dnrc-board at domain-name.org'; 'Dotty Sparks'; 'editor at vibj.com'; 'David Farber'; 'Hank Nussbacher'; 'Don Heath'; 'Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov'; 'Ivan Pope'; 'jason at ICANECT.NET'; 'jlucas at UVI.EDU'; 'Peter deBlanc'; 'Jon Postel'; 'rhanscom at USVI.NET'; 'Steven Pitzl'; 'Steve Wolff'; 'zbvi at caribsurf.com' Subject: RE: .VI = Virgin Islands ? On Sunday, May 03, 1998 9:04 AM, Richard J. Sexton[SMTP:richard at SEXTON.COM] wrote: @>@@@ http://www.zbvi.vi @> @>"ZBVI is the principal commercial and only "AM" radio station in the British Virgin Islands." @ @Waitta minute. NetNames site said "companies must use .co.vi". @ @Whats going on here? @ @I think if I paid thousands of dollars to NetNames to "protect my name" @and they gave me, say netscape.co.vi, I'd be pretty annoyed if Microsoft @(say) obtained netscape.vi and put MSIE there. @ @Good thing the "government sets policy" and NetNames's Antony Van Couvering @stated. @ @.emacs anybody ? @ @ @ @-- @Richard J. Sexton | Cheap ISDN + T1 feeds. @richard at vrx.net | Creative domain names. @VRx Network Services, | CGI/Database programmer. @Toronto, Canada | Web design with an attitude. @+1 (613) 473-1719 | http://richard-resume.vrx.net @ @ As a web designer, you also have to be concerned. If you can NOT get names in .VI but other companies can, then you can not design web sites. Or...your customers may be forced to get a domain name via Netnames under co.vi and they may not want that. Hank Nussbacher over in Israel (not Illinois), and a member of the Blue Ribbon IAHC claims that this is all well-organized. If you recall, he wrote... ======================== ---------- From: Hank Nussbacher[SMTP:hank at ibm.net.il] Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 1998 2:46 AM To: Jim Fleming; 'tld-wg at ripe.net' Subject: Re: Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ? 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. ===== - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Sun May 3 16:44:59 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.VI = Virgin Islands ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 03 May '98

03 May '98

On Saturday, May 02, 1998 9:30 PM, William X. Walsh[SMTP:william at TJNS.TJ] wrote: <snip> @ @The British Virgin Islands have their OWN 2 letter code, separate and @unique from the US Virgin Islands code. @ It makes no sense to carve up country code TLDs along hard and fast political boundaries. Those boundaries can change and people will want to continue to use their domain names. Stability of domain names is one of the arguments the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/POC/PAB/CORE use to justify their plan. How can they do that when the IANA (Jon Postel) plan for country codes does not support that ? Also, what is the purpose of having country codes if people ignore the boundaries ? @@@ http://www.zbvi.vi "ZBVI is the principal commercial and only "AM" radio station in the British Virgin Islands." @@@@@@@@@@@ Again...just so people are clear...I suggest that a TLD like .VI should cover the "region" known as the Virgin Islands and I also suggest that the stakeholders be the ones that determine the future of the TLD, not the IANA (Jon Poste). The stakeholders are the <SLD>.VI owners, in my opinion. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://vi.caribnic.net -------- Logged at Sun May 3 16:44:52 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0