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

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

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

Public trust & IANA?
by Sean＠Jackson.TC 30 Sep '98

30 Sep '98

Domain naming is subject to the public trust, says RFC1591. Given the all inclusive language in '1591 this must apply to the operation of the dot (root) domain as well as the gTLDS and ccTLDs. 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. Therefore introducing a rule which was dreamed up 'since RFC1591 was published' cannot be valid, and therefore Postel/IANA would be in breach of the public trust if they do anything except follow published RFC1591, and not any secretly amended versions God Bless You, Sean Sean Jackson, 3 Adams Road, Cambridge, CB3 9AD, United Kingdom. Tel: 01223 464 800 Fax: 0171 681 1268 -------- Logged at Thu Oct 1 17:13:50 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

The New IANA Needs Fiscal Controls
by bsemich＠mail.nu 30 Sep '98

30 Sep '98

The New IANA Bylaws: Who Controls the Money? By J. William Semich President and CFO .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bsemich at mail.nu The latest set of proposed bylaws (version 5) for the New IANA Corporation (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority), released on September 29 at IANA's Web Site at http://www.iana.org/bylaws5.html, is seriously flawed by its lack of fiscal accountability to all of us who will use its services and pay its fees. If the bylaws are approved unchanged by the White House as the basis for the Internet's first independent governance mechanism, the new Internet Authority would be able to set a wide range of Internet-related fees of any amount without constraint, float bonds of any amount which must be funded by future revenues, as well as collect additional fees of any amount to invest for undefined possible future needs, all such to be paid for by you, me and our children, the Internet's users of today and tomorrow, without their review, approval or control. The new version of the proposed bylaws for the new Internet Authority will likely be submitted today to Ira Magaziner of the White House, under the terms of the White House "White Paper" released last January, to create the replacement for the US Government's current contractual arrangement for management of the Internet, which is set to expire today ( Sept. 30, 1998). But the new bylaws are completely devoid of any provisions to create any type of fiscal accountability for this, the Internet's first all-powerful, government-sanctioned independent Authority. Although the new bylaws make it clear that the source of the new Internet Authority's revenues will be the Internet's end users and service providers, it leaves all spending, borrowing, investment and other financial decision-making solely in the hands of the Corporation's board of directors, who's members specifically "have the duty to act in ... the best interests of the Corporation and not as representatives of their Supporting Organizations, employers or any other organizations or constituencies." (Article V, Section 8) Nowhere in the bylaws is the Board of Directors required to consult with any outside groups, experts, or other interested parties on how best to set its fees or plan its budget. Nowhere in the bylaws is there any provision for any kind of independent budget review or hearing mechanism or approval process for the budget, borrowing, or any other fiscal decisions; And nowhere in the bylaws is there any provision for any kind of independent fee-setting review process or approval mechanism, either by those who must pay the fees (the Supporting Organizations, who represent the consumers of the services to be provided by the new Corporation) or by any independent body of fiscal experts. All these fiscal decisions are made solely by the new Internet Authority's own Board of Directors. The relevant language in the proposed new bylaws makes this absolute power of the Board clear: FIRST, it gives the board absolute control over any spending or borrowing decisions: "Article IV, Section 1 (a) "the powers of the Corporation will be exercised, its property controlled and its business and affairs conducted by or under the direction of the Board." SECOND, it gives the board absolute control over the fee setting decisions: "Article IV, Section 2. FEES AND CHARGES The Board shall set fees and charges for the services, rights and benefits provided by the Corporation to the Supporting Organizations and others, with the goal of fully recovering the reasonable costs of the operation of the Corporation and establishing reasonable reserves for future expenses and contingencies reasonably related to the legitimate activities of the Corporation." And THIRD, it gives the Board the sole authority and absolute control over setting its annual budget, with no requirement that it actually meet that budget or that the budget pass any kind of review process, all this in one simple line of the new Bylaws: "Article V, Section 25. ANNUAL BUDGET The Board shall prepare an annual budget, which shall be published on the Web Site." These three phrases are the total extent of any language in the new bylaws that might be construed as setting ANY spending, fee setting and raising, budgeting, borrowing, investing or any other fiscal constraints on the board of the new Internet Authority which will be the primary manager of the single most important communications resource in the world. Such an all-powerful and fiscally unaccountable organization as would be created by the new bylaws is a classic textbook "Public Authority" in its structure, and that is the crux of my problem with the fifth set of IANA bylaws released on Sept. 29. Look closely at any publicly-funded independent Authority in the US and you will find a self-perpetuating, quasi-governmental organization whose spending decisions cannot be challenged, who spends the public's money like water, who has absolute power over its particular area of activity, but no accountability to the public. In the present case of the bylaws for the new Internet Authority, there is minimal accountability for its policy decisions, and that is cause enough for concern. But there is NO accountability for its borrowing, spending and fee-setting structure. There needs to be some kind of mechanism in the new entity that will create a counter-force to the typical Public Authority's inevitable desire to grow and to spend more and more money and increase its sway in the world. The counter-force to spending increases could be a Budget Review Committee solely comprised of the groups that will fund the new Internet Authority. Or it could be a Finance Committee made up of independent, world-renowned fiscal experts who have no vested interest in the new Internet Authority or the Internet per se. Or it could be a committee of government finance experts with experience bringing public spending into line. Or it could be some combination of the above. It would be a real tragedy if, in its first efforts at self-government, the Internet community were to hand over management of the Internet to yet another quasi-public Authority, who's essence is perhaps best defined in an article I co-authored nearly ten years ago: "Authorities constitute a permanent, expansionist government, collecting and spending more and more public money, running up more and more public debt, and making more and more critical decisions on the public's behalf with each passing day. And because authorities do all this out of site - and beyond the control - of the general public, they constitute, finally, a Shadow Government." "Inside the Shadow Government," by John Strahinich and J. William Semich, cover article, Boston Magazine, November, 1989. About J. William Semich: Currently: President and Chief Financial Officer .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu "One of the top 20 Top Level Domain Name Registries in the World" (Source: Http://www.domainstats.com/iso.cfm) Formerly: - Director of Financial Analysis for the City of Boston - Chairman, Finance Committee, Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority Advisory Board (The MBTA's Budget Review and Approval body) - Financial Adviser to the Mayor of Boston for Tax Policy and Planning - Assistant to Collector-Treasurer, City of Boston - Deputy Director and Executive Secretary to the Board, Boston Economic Development and Industrial Commission Achievements: - Co-author, "Inside the Shadow Government," Boston Magazine, November, 1989, selected as one of the "Top 10 Magazine Investigations of 1989," by Investigative Reporters and Editors, Inc. (IRE); - Lead investigator and financial consultant, WBZ-TV Boston's "I-Team," in-depth 1995 investigative report on the Mass. Turnpike Authority's actions over a ten year period to extend it's life using fiscal manipulations; - Co-author, "The Money Pit," Boston Magazine, September, 1986, investigative article on abuses by the Mass. Convention Center Authority in its redevelopment of the Hynes Convention Center -------- Logged at Thu Oct 1 17:12:56 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

3:63 NL (NETHERLANDS)
by JimFleming＠unety.net 29 Sep '98

29 Sep '98

It looks like we can file this under G3 S63 for future reference... 3:63 NL (NETHERLANDS) http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 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 -----Original Message----- From: name.space <pgp at pgmedia.net> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org> Cc: postel at isi.edu <postel at isi.edu> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 2:50 PM Subject: [ifwp] Nomination: M.J. van der Peijl >Nomination: Marcel J. van der Peijl <m.j.van.der.peijl at eurorscg.nl> >Country: Netherlands >Region: European Union > > >ir. M.J. van der Peijl (ir is for 'ingenieur' = engineer = university >degree which you get after finishing your 4-year program but without >having the additional 4 years of writing a dissertation) > >Short history: > >Eindhoven University of Technology degree in compter sciences >('information systems') > >6 years digicash, of which 3 years as ecash team leader >author of ISpy WebCam software > >heavy into programming _anything_ (windows, dos, unix, smartcards, >embedded systems) in most languages > >current position: head of system architecture at EuroRSCG interactive, a >40-people internet development/design company which is part of a large >international organization of advertising agencies 'EuroRSCG' which >operates in 60 countries. > >http://www.eurorscg-interactive.com/ > > > >__________________________________________________ >To view the archive of this list, go to: >http://lists.interactivehq.org/scripts/lyris.pl?enter=ifwp > >To receive the digest version instead, send a >blank email to ifwp-digest at lists.interactivehq.org > >To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to: >subscribe-IFWP at lists.interactivehq.org > >To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to: >unsubscribe-ifwp at lists.interactivehq.org > >Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy at interactivehq.org. >___END____________________________________________ > > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 30 16:55:24 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Fw: minutes RIPE31
by JimFleming＠unety.net 29 Sep '98

29 Sep '98

Bob, Your IFWP group may want to review these meeting notes. David Kessens is from USC/ISI which is in the U.S. despite the fact that RIPE is mostly in Europe. You might note that the "assumption" is made that RIPE, ARIN and APNIC will be the monopoly distributors with no pricing changes. The IANA is assumed to be at the top of the MLM structure. While people are focused on domain name debates, the "land" in cyberspace is being divided up for sale or lease. IANA supporters never seem to be concerned about these monopoly arrangements. Why is that ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -----Original Message----- From: David Kessens <davidk at ISI.EDU> To: ipv6-wg at ripe.net <ipv6-wg at ripe.net> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 1998 1:36 PM Subject: minutes RIPE31 > >Hi, > >Below follow the preliminary minutes of the IPv6 wg. > >I would like to thank Sabrina Waschke of the RIPE NCC for taking the >minutes. > >The minutes will be regarded final and I will forward them to the RIPE >NCC if I don't receive comments within one week from now. > >Thank you all for attending the meeting, > >David K. >--- > >Minutes of IPv6 Working Group, 24th of Sept. 1998 > >1. Administrative stuff: > >Chair: David Kessens (Thomas Trede apologised) >Minutes: Sabrina Waschke ># Attendees: 81 > >2. Reports > >Report - 6Bone by David Kessens >- Status report > there are now about 300 IPv6 connected sites on the 6bone > the trend is to connect natively instead of using tunnels > (slides will be available at http://www.ripe.net/meeting/ripe/ripe31/pres/) >- Information on the 6bone can be found at: > see <http://www.6bone.net> > >3. Current status of RIPE regarding address assignments in IPv6 by >Paula Caslav > >- RIPE NCC is in process of discussing the documentation, finding > guidelines and procedures, by taking the IETF draft, looking at the > criteria, what documentation will we need, working on details with > other regional registries and will have a meeting with them, send than > a draft to the relevant working groups and the RIPE community, final > version will be published - Hopefully ready in January 1999 > >Question by: David Kessens: >Could you give more detail in the time scale ? > >Paula Caslav: >November 1998: first draft of procedures document ready to be discussed >among the regional registries and RIPE >January 1999: start allocating IPv6 addresses >(depends on IANA to be ready to allocate to the regional registries >and on the registries to get their databases and procedures compliant) >All regional registries will start allocating at the same time. > >There will be no change in the fee structure for the next year. > >Question by David Kessens: >Do you have any comments what will be different in the assignment >guidelines for the TLA's in the IETF draft and yours ? > >Paula Caslav: >We might do a slow start mechanism in meaning of allocating a sub TLA >first. > >Mirjam Kuehne: >We also need to define still how to determine if an organisation is a >transit provider. Many details are still under discussion. > >Comment by the audience: >It might be useful to have a document in this Working Group as soon as >possible. > >Mirjam Kuehne: >We are in the process of collecting input and will discuss it with the >other Working Groups. >We receive requests for IPv6 addresses, some are detailed, some are >just general. >We will see how we can implement this in the operations and >procedures. > >Paula Caslav: >If you have any ideas send them to us or the mailing list of this >Working Group. > > >2.3. News about manufacturers implementation >- input from the audience > >Bernhard Tuy showed an overview of all vendors and what they >currently support. For details see: >http://www.phoebe.urec.fr/G6 >http://www.ipv6.urec.fr/G6 > > >4. General Input from other Working Groups > >Routing WG presented by Joachim Schmitz >(slides will be available at http://www.ripe.net/meeting/ripe/ripe31/pres/) > >Do we need an IRR for IPv6 ? > >Need for an IPv6 IRR: >- due to the benefits: YES >- plus: manage interface ipv4 _> ipv6 >- time to early: NO > >We need an IPv6 routing registry ! > ><general acceptence without taking over any concrete initiative by >the audience> > >Joachim Schmitz: >Call for participation. >He expects a gradual move over, requirements in the beginning are not >very high, so one registry might be enough to start with. > >David Kessens: >The regional registries also need to think about assignment policies >for AS numbers, they might be different. > >David K: >There are several ways to go to a IPv6 routing registry: >1. just replace IPv4 with IPv6 addresses in RPSL, > and add IPv6 specific support later on >2. a special RPSLv6 draft with all bells and whistles that are > required to do IPv6 routing registries > >What is better ? > >Joachim Schmitz: >Both are needed, because RPSL took some time to be developed and we >need something running soon. >That's not sufficient but better than nothing. > > >David Kessens: >Coming out with an RPSL IPv6 version would make sense. > > >5. AOB: > >David Kessens: Keep this Working Group and move on because of the >large interest (81 attendees). Discuss the allocation and assignment >process in more detail. > >Action points: > >31.1 RIPE NCC will start allocating IPv6 addresses by the next RIPE > meeting in January. > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 30 16:53:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE statement on new IANA draft 4 bylaws
by k13＠nikhef.nl 28 Sep '98

28 Sep '98

RIPE Statement on the Draft Articles and Bylaws for the new IANA as published on September 17th 1998 Edinburgh, 25 September 1998 RIPE is the organisation which has provided the framework for Internet co-operation in Europe since 1989. At the 31st RIPE meeting, held in Edinburgh from 23 until 25 September 1998, 253 participants from the European Internet industry discussed the fourth draft of the Bylaws of the New IANA, published on 17 September by IANA, and decided unanimously to express the following concerns. - We find it inappropriate that provision is made in the Bylaws (Article IV, Section 1.d) which binds the new IANA to agreements to be made between third parties, whose terms are not yet announced. - We need to understand and consider the material consequences of Article IV, Section 1.e in order to determine whether we can accept this section. - We are concerned about the room for interpretation in Article V, Section 6 and would like to see a stronger requirement of diversity than to allow 50% of the board to be from one region. - We are concerned about the far-reaching repercussions of codifying, at this stage, aspects of a possible membership structure that previously were left for the Initial Board to define and implement. We do not understand the reason for the fact that the board members nominated by the supporting organisations have no say at all in how the membership structure is implemented (V.4.a.iv, V.9.c). - We need to understand the reasons for and the material consequences of the weakening of the language in Section VI.1.c which now speaks of recommendations by the supporting organisations to the board. - It appears that the change in wording of Article III.2 may now imply that minutes of supporting organisation bodies have to be approved by the Board of the new IANA. We find this inappropriate. - We are anxious about the possible consequences of the changes made to the requirements for supporting organisations, especially in Article VI, Sections 2 and 3.b. In the area of the address supporting organisation the participation of individuals and individual organisations currently happens at the local and regional levels. Many European ccTLD registries already operate similar processes; others have begun working along these lines. We need to understand whether the Bylaws allow for this practice to continue or if they constrain the supporting organisations sufficiently to require changes in these structures. We stress that we have no difficulty with the added openness requirements. We are willing to work to resolve the remaining issues with all parties concerned as soon as possible, and hope that this statement, expressing our concerns, will be received as a helpful contribution to the process. We urge all concerned not to proceed with the current proposal before our concerns are addressed. In the meantime the current IANA should continue to function and provide its services to us. Rob Blokzijl Chairman RIPE -------- Logged at Wed Sep 30 16:51:42 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

"You have 0 day(s) remaining to provide comments."
by JimFleming＠unety.net 28 Sep '98

28 Sep '98

This sort of says it all... @@@@ http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/CommitteeDisplay/CSTB-L-97-05-A?OpenDocument "You have 0 day(s) remaining to provide comments." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 12:16:26 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

regarding potential new IANA initial board members
by JimFleming＠unety.net 27 Sep '98

27 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Jon Postel <postel at ISI.EDU> To: ietf at ietf.org <ietf at ietf.org> Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 1:30 PM Subject: regarding potential new IANA initial board members > >Hello. > >There has been some discussion of candidates for the initial board for >the new IANA organization. While the current suggestions being >circulated are appreciated, i don't think they provide the kind of >board that would be most desireable. > >A key responsibility of the new IANA board is to see that policies and >procedures are developed in a fair and open manner, not to rehash all >the arguments and positions that go into developing those policies and >procedures. > Greetings from ::83C9:209.224.171.1 I assume that you are referring to the IPv4 (0:0) address space and therefore the .ARPA TLD. Obviously, other people on Earth will be managing address spaces and TLDs with different criteria and value systems from you and your high-school friends and ISOC associates. 0:0 .ARPA http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Assuming that the Board is bounded by .ARPA and 0:0.X.X.X.X I suggest that the current Internet Architecture BOARD (IAB) http://www.iab.org/iab/ be used to create an interim Board to get your U.S. corporation started. That will allow you to easily meet the U.S. Government deadlines. It will also provide the IAB with a legal structure, similar to the ISOC. As for the other address spaces and TLDs, in my opinion the exit of the U.S. Government on October 1st and availability of new TLDs and IPv8 address spaces will pave the way for privatization to rapidly occur. This expansion will depend for some period of time on the .ARPA 0:0.X.X.X.X legacy transport network. How that network is governed on a day to day basis does not have to impact the rest of the free world, from a long-term point of view. As with most aspects of the Internet, people can now route around the legacy 0:0 Internet if they so desire. The technology is readily available (http://www.bsdi.com) and the will of the "everday people" on planet Earth is still strong. I look forward to working with those people in the future. Good luck with .ARPA and 0:0.X.X.X.X, it is just one of many... 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 Sep 28 12:27:18 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Why we are looking at a fait accompli with the new IANA
by JimFleming＠unety.net 27 Sep '98

27 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker at brandenburg.com> <snip> > >One would think that, by now, the difference between ccTLDs which align >naturally with national borders (or the equivalent) and gTLDs which do not >align with any natural organization, would be quite clear. > How many "flavors" of TLDs are there ? .IO - Indian Ocean Territory - Based in England ? .CD - Audio CDs ? .IS - http://this.is .TV - Television ? .TM - http://www.nic.tm - Trademarks ? .FM - http://www.dot.fm - FM Radio Stations .TO - http://www.nic.to - "Second Chance for the Domain Name You Want" Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 12:14:37 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

"strong request by CENTRE"
by JimFleming＠unety.net 27 Sep '98

27 Sep '98

Bill, What is this "strong request by CENTRE" ? @@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00313.html "But it is *not* clear "that a DNSO must be formed very quickly," in light of the recent strong request by CENTRE that the process be slowed down, and I do not agree with that part of the statement." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 12:14:38 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[dnsproc-en] 1.3 IANA-2 Board Nominees
by JimFleming＠unety.net 26 Sep '98

26 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: toru <toru at tokyonet.ad.jp> To: Bob Allisat <bob at FCN.NET>; DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET <DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET> Cc: ietf at ietf.org <ietf at ietf.org>; dnsproc-en at wipo2.wipo.int <dnsproc-en at wipo2.wipo.int> Date: Saturday, September 26, 1998 5:10 AM Subject: RE: [dnsproc-en] 1.3 IANA-2 Board Nominees No Asian, no African, maybe. Big discrimination! Toru Takahashi @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ That is not the case in the IPv8 Plan. There are 8 Regions. G4 and G5 still need help. You could help. G0, G1, G3 and G6 are in good shape. G2 is still lagging behind. With 8 Regions and 2 people representing each Region elected from the people in that Region, we can have a fair distribution. It has to start with the Grass Roots to be from the bottom up. If people keep following those that want top-down solutions, they will get top-down answers. Some people will accept those top-down answers and others obviously have other plans. The choice is yours. Each person has a choice. Each person has a voice...in the IPv8 Plan... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 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 Sep 28 12:13:42 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Why not suggest MORE registries ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 26 Sep '98

26 Sep '98

Keith Mitchell, Chairman (KM) Wilfried Woeber, Secretary (WW) Kees Neggers, Member (KN) Daniel Karrenberg, RIPE NCC manager (DK) Frode Greisen, Member (FG) Wim Vink, Treasurer (WV) Rob Blokzijl (RB) Kees van Draanen (KvD) Paul Rendek (PR) @@@@ http://www.ripe.net/meetings/board/six.html "5. Hiring Policy DK informs the Board about the recruitment problems RIPE-NCC has recently been having.... However, in recent months we have been experiencing more and more immigration difficulties when recruiting staff from outside the EU. The authorities have increased their scrutiny of applications for working permits for new staff from outside the EU." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ The obvious solution seems to be to create MORE registries closer to where the people live. Why isn't that listed as an option ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)--<IPv4>--C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at --<IPv4>--(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 28 13:24:27 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Legal action?
by Sean＠Jackson.TC 25 Sep '98

25 Sep '98

We have today heard rumors about a multi-million dollar lawsuit that might be about to be served on NSI, the University of Southern California regarding the re least one TLD delegation. We understand this might relate to IANAs failure to follow its own published rules (presumably RFC1591.) Since IANA doesn't have statutory authority, it seems to us that must open up its officers to unlimited personal liability for damages. It also raised the question that if the threatened lawsuit does come to pass, then would seem that the main person concerned in drawing up the model for the future IANA hasn't been following their own existing rules! What sort of message is this going to send to the world at large? It will seriously damage everything we've all be working so hard to achieve over the last 2 or 3 months. And whoever it is who decided to start revoking TLD registrations at this most sensitive time will be the sole party responsible for it. So what is going on? Surely it is in the interest of everyone involved that the only published terms of delegation (RFC1591) be followed and, as we said, only the other day, RFC1591 must be our starting point for the future. Maybe there should be a class action on behalf of all TLD managers to make sure this is kept to? P. S Won't IANA Mk2 as the successor to IANA be liable for any resulting damages from any lawsuit? 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 Sep 25 10:06:26 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA
by gihan＠cse.mrt.ac.lk 23 Sep '98

23 Sep '98

>CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA In principle, I agree with the CENTR position. While the effect of some of the provisions are not clear to me, the process of creating the document seems to be flawed. I also agree that we should not pre-suppose any deadlines. Anything done in a hurry is likely to disadvantage weaker parties. Gihan Dias LK Domain Registrar -------- Logged at Thu Sep 24 19:11:33 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

It's been posted -- Boston Working Group
by domainz＠ibm.net 23 Sep '98

23 Sep '98

Dear ccTLD members, Here is the URL of the outcome of our meeting in Boston on Saturday last. My regards, PAtrick, .nz -----Original Message----- From: Karl Auerbach [SMTP:karl at cavebear.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 1998 8:50 AM To: dc at mama-tech.com; Ellen Rony; Eric Weisberg; Jorge Contreras; Mikki Barry; Milton Mueller; Patrick O'Brien; pdthrush at chambers.gen.nz; Peter R. Rony Subject: It's been posted -- Boston Working Group I just posted the following to the IANA comments list, ifwp, ifwp-law, and domain name policy... So we are live. --karl-- A group of IFWP participants gathered at an open meeting on the weekend of September 19 and 20th, 1998 to see whether it was possible to reconcile the NSI/IANA draft with the IFWP consensus points. We believe that we succeeded. For the results, see http://www.cavebear.com/bwg/ Summary of Changes - Added Preamble and statement of purpose. - Removed text that established the purpose of the corporation to be solely for "lessening the burdens of government". - Mandated that the Initial board create a membership structure, without exception. - Defined "fundamental" assets expected to be received from the US and added constraints upon what the corporation can do with those assets. - Removed President from the Board of Directors. - Re-cast Supporting Organizations to be essentially permanent advisory committees with very strong role in initiating and defining corporation policies. - Eliminated Supporting Organizations' ability to appoint Directors to either the Initial or the final Board. - Clarified that individuals may be members of Supporting Organizations. - Added on-the-record, roll-call voting on matters before the Board. - Added additional public access. - Broadened rights to Board Reconsideration. - Eliminated special and unique recognition of contracts between the US and NSI and between the US and University of Southern California. - Added a more robust business planning and cost-recovery model. - Required that conflict-of-interest statements be made public subject to reasonable privacy limitations. - Required that conflict-of-interest provisions be applied to officers as well as to members of the Board. - Recommended the reduction in the number of officers to the legal minimum. - Other minor matters of clarification of language and structure. -------- Logged at Thu Sep 24 19:10:56 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Sep '98

22 Sep '98

CENTR Statement on Fourth Draft Definition of the New IANA Edinburgh, 22 September 1998 Scope of this Document CENTR is in a position to speak on behalf of the European ccTLD Domain Registries and has already (March, July 1998) made known: its position concerning the future governance of the Internet; its requirements of the organisation which will be the successor (the "New IANA) to the present IANA; and its readiness to participate in the definition of, and to support the funding of this New IANA. This document comments on the fourth draft definition (Postel, Battista, September 1998) of the Bylaws of the New IANA in the light of CENTR's clearly expressed position and requirements. Process leading to the Fourth Draft Definition We have understood that the diverging opinions expressed at the Singapore IFWP meeting were taken into account by Jon Postel in preparing the third draft definition (Postel, August 1998) of the New IANA. We find that this draft represents a reasonable consensus which CENTR can support. We find it surprising that, in the process of preparing the fourth draft definition, a position paper from a particular stakeholder has apparently been given equal recognition to that accorded to Jon Postel's documentation, as we understood it, of a consensus process. This is a matter of global public interest and we believe that it is inappropriate that a private company should be allowed to have such influence in the process. Particular objections to the Fourth Draft Definition Section IV.1.d of the draft appears to have the intent of binding the New IANA to the terms of agreements yet to be made between third parties. It is our view that such a provision is entirely inappropriate. We cannot accept that the New IANA be bound in this way. The intent of Section IV.1.e is unclear. If the intent of this section is to ensure stability in the short-to-medium term, so that existing contracts and relationships, in particular delegation of TLD's, between IANA and involved parties are protected, the language of the section ought to make this clear. If the intent is rather to copper-fasten existing positions indefinitely and to offer protection against the introduction of competition, we find the section unacceptable. We fear that the headline set by sections IV.1.d and .e will lead to a situation where the process for establishing the proposed Domain Naming Supporting Organisation will also be dominated by similar private interests. We find that the terms of Section V.6 do not ensure a sufficiently broad spread of international representation, but rather allow a majority of members of the Board to come from a single region. We require instead that no more than one board member be elected from any support organization from each region. References CENTR, March 1998 "RIPE CENTR Position Paper on Future Governance of the Internet" <http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/governance.html> CENTR, July 1998, "CENTR Position on the New IANA structure" <http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/response-white.html> Postel, August 1998, "New Proposed Bylaws - Third Iteration" <http://www.iana.org/bylaws3.html> Postel, Battista, September 1998, "A Brief Explanation of the Joint IANA and NSI Documents ..." <http://www.iana.org/intro-coop.html> Postel, Battista, September 1998, "DRAFT BYLAWS FOR INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS" <http://www.iana.org/bylaws-coop.html> Postel, Battista, September 1998, "ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS" <http://www.iana.org/articles-coop.html> For Boudewijn Nederkoorn, CENTR Policy Group Chair, Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Wed Sep 23 11:07:52 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Fw: Fw: 3:242 ES (SPAIN)
by richard＠vrx.net 21 Sep '98

21 Sep '98

>>>The legacy TLD holders are mostly structued to make PROFIT. THe new TLD >>>holders are structued to banish to profits of those Legacy Holders. >>> >> >> legacy TLD holders was there for public interest. New candidates for >>holding new TLDs are for profit. C'mon, in this sort of TLD-gold rush new >>companies are entering bussiness for the money they can do, no for the >>public interest. Of course, hoist the freedom flag is the usual way to get >>the resource to exploit, fooling people. NObody needs ESP, neither AUS, >>IRC, GBR ... but to make money out of it. There are two possabilities. Either people who want to run new tlds want to do sosoly to make money, or they do not. If they are prevented from every being able to run tlds, then it is very easy to say "see, we stopped those bad people" and you have, in effect, a self fulfullng prophecy and the current monoply makes one company more wealthy. If on the other hand, new tlds are not being run solely to make egregious profits (and frankly, given there are more than 50 or so, no regisry should make a huge amount of money, the registrar business is much more lucritive) then by preventing them from exising, you have caused, a priori, a massive injustice. How can you be so sure you are right ? -- richard at culture.getty.edu "It's all just marketing" -------- Logged at Tue Sep 22 19:35:35 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE NCC comments on new IANA drafts published on September 17th
by Daniel.Karrenberg＠ripe.net 20 Sep '98

20 Sep '98

RIPE NCC Statement on the Draft Articles and Bylaws for the new IANA as published on September 17th 1998 Amsterdam, September 18th 1998 The RIPE NCC executive board,representing the RIPE NCC membership, has considered the draft articles and bylaws for the new IANA published jointly by NSI and the IANA on September 17th. We note that there are a considerable number of substantive changes from those previous draft documents published by the IANA which we publicly supported as the basis for further development. Given the number and the substance of the changes there has been insufficient time for due consideration and consultation. Yet the authors of the latest drafts indicate that they wish to proceed 'within a day or two'. With this in mind we have to state now that at this time the RIPE NCC cannot support the current drafts or commit to participate in a new IANA constituted by them. We need sufficient time to consider all the changes and in particular: - Codifying in the bylaws that the new IANA will a-priori respect arrangements between third parties without any knowledge of them. This requires careful consideration because of the far reaching implications such arrangements may have on the new IANA. (IV/1d) - We need to understand and consider the material consequences of art IV/1e in order to determine whether it is acceptable. - We are still concerned about the room for interpretation in art V/6 and would like to see a stronger requirement of diversity than allowing 50% of the board to be from one region. - We need to understand and consider the far-reaching repercussions of codifying, at this stage, aspects of a possible membership structure that previously were left for the Initial Board to define and implement. In this context we also need to re-evaluate the fact that the board members nominated by the supporting organisations have no say at all in how it is implemented (V/4b/iv V/9c). - We need to understand the reasons and the material consequences of the weakening of the language in VI/c which now speaks of recommendations by the supporting organisations to the board. - We need to get clarification that the change in wording of art III/2 does not now imply that minutes of supporting organisation bodies have to be approved by the Board of the new IANA. - We need to fully understand and consider the consequences of the changes made to the requirements for supporting organisations, especially VI/2 and VI/3b. In the area of the address supporting organisation the participation of individuals and individual organisations currently happens at the local and regional levels. We need to understand whether the bylaws allow for this practice to continue or if they constrain the supporting organisations sufficiently to require changes in these structures. We stress that we have no issue with the added openness requirements. We will work to resolve the remaining issues with all parties concerned as soon as possible. The upcoming series of RIPE and related meetings in Edinburgh between September 21st and 25th will provide a good opportunity to make progress in our geographical area. We urge all concerned not to proceed with the current proposal before these concerns are addressed and we have had the opportunity to ensure that the RIPE NCC can participate fully in the new IANA. In the meantime the current IANA should continue to function and provide its services to us. We are willing to immediately and unilaterally contribute US$ 50k towards the operational costs of the current IANA after September 30th. -------- Logged at Mon Sep 21 16:47:40 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Martinique in 1999 ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 19 Sep '98

19 Sep '98

John, Maybe your group should host the next IETF meeting ? This might help to show France that you are organized and intend to try to protect your .MQ and .GP TLDs. http://www.ietf.org/meetings/0mtg-sites.txt @@@@ http://www.wwtld.org/lactld.txt os at atina.ar (Argentina AR - Oscar Sznajder) demi at agestado.com.br (Brazil BR - Demi Getschko) ppoblete at DCC.UCHILE.CL (Chile CL - Patricio Poblete) hsin at UNIANDES.EDU.CO (Columbia CO - Hugo Sin Triana) edgarn at geocities.com (Dominican Republic DO - Juan Edgar) jmiranda at ecnet.ec (Ecuador EC - Juan Miranda) ribarra at di.uca.edu.sv (El Salvador SV - Rafael Ibarra) jan.david at proximus.be (French Guiana GF - Jan David) jbroom at manta.outremer.com (Guadeloupe GP - John Broomfield) furlan at uvg.edu.gt (Guatemala GT - Luis R. Furlan) erlin at sdnhon.org.hn (Honduras HN - Erlin Palma) jbroom at manta.outremer.com (Martinique MQ - John Broomfield) orobles at nic.mx (Mexico MX - Oscar Robles Garay) Sean at Jackson.TC (Montserrat MS - Sean Jackson) ymena at gbm.net (Nicaragua NI - Yadira Mena) js at rcp.net.pe (Peru PE - Jose Soriano) Sean at Jackson.TC (South Georgia and Sandwich Isl. GS - Sean Jackson) danielsah at msn.com (Saint Lucia LC - Albert H. Daniels) P.Hosein at att.com (Trinidad and Tobago TT - Patrick Hosein) Sean at Jackson.TC (Turks and Ciacos Islands TC - Sean Jackson) holz at seciu.uy (Uruguay UY - Ida Holz) oaguirre at reacciun.ve (Venezuela VE - Oswaldo E.Aguirre) Sean at Jackson.TC (Virgin Islands [British] VG - Sean Jackson) pdeblanc at usvi.net (Virgin Islands [U.S.] VI - Peter de Blanc) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 21 17:14:51 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Four TLDs
by JimFleming＠unety.net 18 Sep '98

18 Sep '98

Sean, I see that you have 4 TLDs. How did you obtain so many ? @@@@ http://www.wwtld.org/lactld.txt Sean at Jackson.TC (Montserrat MS - Sean Jackson) Sean at Jackson.TC (South Georgia and Sandwich Isl. GS - Sean Jackson) Sean at Jackson.TC (Turks and Ciacos Islands TC - Sean Jackson) Sean at Jackson.TC (Virgin Islands [British] VG - Sean Jackson) @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 21 17:14:08 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.US and the USPS
by JimFleming＠unety.net 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

@@@@@ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc/comments/8-17-98.htm "In response to the "Request for Public Comment on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space," the United States Postal Service is prepared to coordinate the administration of the .us Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) with direct input and participation from Internet stakeholders." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Sun Sep 20 23:00:57 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

At 10:27 AM 9/16/98 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote: >Hi Richard, > I agree that the current system is less than perfect, but how would >YOU select what is or not a country. Based on historical facts, not what some company in Europe (ISO) thinks for revisionist politial reasonings. Tibet *used* to be a country, I have Tibetan stamps and all, but China says it's not a country any more. Tough. Tibet is still a country to the Tibetans and to most of the rest of the world >Even further, are you sure it's a good >idea to actually have a body responsible for technical matters draw a list >of what is or not a country? Yes. >I feel that the creation of such a list is a >HIGHLY political affair (Is Palestine a country or not?) Ask the people who were born there. >Say you don't like the name of your street, and you don't like the fact that >your postman brings mail addressed to your street-name. Do you bash your >postman or the post-office? It's not the post-office that decides names for >streets, and to be honest it's not their business either. You take up the >issue of street names with whoever is in charge of naming them (say your >local town-hall for example). You don't start a national campaign >complaining about the way that the postal service designates streets >(basically because it's NOT the PS designating them). You're right, I didn't start a national campaign. Here's what I did: My current address is Box 2, RR #1 Eldorado, Ontario, K0K 1Y0, CANADA It would he hard to think of a more ugly address for a charming 200 year old hotel that is now my residence. Moreso, Eldorado is 10km south of here. Bannockburn actually does exist. We have a big government installed sign, and everything. You can see it here, if you want: http://hastings-county.vrx.net/centre/bannockburn/rd05.jpg So, looking back through the history books I noticed this place used to be called "The Maitland Hotel, Bannockburn, Ontario" So, I simply use the address Maitland House Bannockburn, Ontario, K0K 1Y0, CANADA and that works just fine. I didn't even have to tell Lois, the mail lady. She's bright enough to figure it out. I've never had a problem with people saying "your snail mail bounced". Now, UPS and Fed-Ex can't deliver to *either* of those two addresses. They get all FAW with rural addresses, so, for them our address is 17245 Hiway #62 Ontario, Canada. Include the postal code and it messes them up, all they go by is the 911 emergency markers on the road. >IANA doesn't choose to consider Tuvalu a country and not Scotland. IANA does >however choose to use the ISO-3166 country code list. Do you have any other >suggestion of a list which has the countries that you personally consider >countries with a nice list of two-letter codes (or whatever) that could be >used instead? Didn't think so. Was there a list of .com/net/org/mil/gov/intarpa/edu ? Didn't think so. They were simply created, and the same canbe done for rational country codes. This whole discussion is .moot anyway, because as soon as there is a procedure in place to create new tlds, people will simply deploy three letter country codes as "generic" TLDs (I suppose toretaliate for the "psuedo-generic" two letter contry codes like .to and .nu) which toa great extent is already happening: .pol, .bul, .usa, .aus already exist, and there is nothing that can prevent .tbt or .tibet, .sct or .scotland and so forth. The ISO2 codes are capricous and arbitrary and in a few years will seem as antiquated as .com; both falling into disuse as an obscure relic and a perfect exsmple of state-of-the-art 1986 ISO Internet taxonomoy. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Thu Sep 17 12:50:19 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

(Fwd) Proposed Agenda TLD-WG RIPE 31
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

Dear colleagues, I've had no suggestions for changes to this proposed agenda. Of course, we'll review it at the beginning of the meeting. Could the meeting secretariate please make the proposed TLD-WG agenda available on the Web ? Niall O'Reilly Chair, TLD-WG ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 10:47:56 +0100 From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie> Subject: Proposed Agenda TLD-WG RIPE 31 To: tld-wg at ripe.net Copies to: wg-chairs at ripe.net Send reply to: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Organization: University College Dublin Priority: normal RIPE 31 TLD-WG (Edinburgh, 23 September 1998) -- Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia (14:00, 10 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 agreement of Agenda 2. Matters arising from RIPE 30 TLD-WG meeting (14:10, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes (RIPE 29) 2.2 adoption of minutes (RIPE 30) 2.3 review of action list 3. Review Workplan (14:20, 10 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Many workplan items have received attention from RIPE-CENTR. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. 4. Liaison with other Working Groups (15:00, 30 mins) DB-WG re whois referral (following RIPE 30 TLD-WG) DNS-WG re best practice 5. RIPE-CENTR Progress (14:30, 30 mins) Presentation (Fay Howard) and discussion -- Break (15:30) -- 6. New IANA and Supporting Organisations (16:00, 60 mins) Additional participants will be welcome to join at this point! 7. AOB (17:00, 5 mins) 8. Conclusions (17:05, 20 mins) 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list -- Close (17:25) -- -------- Logged at Wed Sep 16 19:06:42 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

At 12:20 PM 9/16/98 +1000, you wrote: >Lets get some facts straight first. > Tuvalu (.TV) is probably not a 'countire', but according to > the CIA World Factbook (http://umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact96/254.htm) > it is indeed a country. > > The CoCos (Keeling) Islands (.CC) is probably not a 'countire' either, > whatever that may be, but according to the CIA World Factbook > (http://umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact96/63.htm) it is indeed a country, > currently administered as a territory by the Commonwealth of Australia. Ans "Scotland" is a country administered as a territory by England and has no country code. I suggest a forensic analysis of the "county code" tlds is in order. This point was raised by a dozen or so folks in Geneva. A sincere "thank you" for your input and a heartfelt "bite me" for the way it was presented. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Wed Sep 16 16:19:13 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

branch structure in ccTLD domainname space.
by artur＠zoo.pl 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

Hallo, I'm working on a project of branch structurization of ccTLD domain name space. Can you, please, write me what do you thing about that kind of solving some trademarks problems, self governing, lowering prices for domains year by year etc. What kind of problems can you see in it? Project: I've got 100+ domains in pl. such like sport.pl, prasa.pl (press) etc. I've all macroreginal domains like www.tatry.pl (geografical parts of Poland) and some city domains (for instance www.warszawa.pl). In my project when you register a domain through my partner (every ISP can be my partner and every partner have 50% discount for regist. end user: X$, partner 0.5X$ a year, every partner can take any of my domain in administration, but it's not a must), informations about your firm (ex. www.sport-daily.mag.pl for Sport magazine which names Sport-daily) is propagating in magazines' branch server - www.mag.pl, sport server www.sport.pl, regional server and city server (if it's local magazine - region and cities in this region). If someone is claiming, that he has rights to the name sport-daily title, he can only sue the man which uses it in domains for press and magazines (which is in some way correlated with trademark class), not in .pl domain or .music.pl. I'm giving my domains for ISP if he can guarantee that he will be a part of project, and will keep the rules of registariation. I'm giving regional domains to regional ISP, city to city etc. Because domains are given to ISP, cost of managment are "bluring" and can be lower and lower.... till a simbolic payment which can help us in checking which domains are in use and which can be removed. Kind regards, Artur Grzymala -------- Logged at Wed Sep 16 15:38:59 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

At 05:41 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > "Richard J. Sexton" <richard at sexton.com> writes: > > At 03:39 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Hakan Hansson wrote: > > >At 14:50 1998-09-14 , Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > > > >>.FX is the country code for Metropolitan France. This is not a country. > > >>Neither is Tuvala any more. Or the Cocos Islands (.CC). > > > > > >FYI: Faroe Islands (.fo) and Greenland (.gl) are parts of Denmark (.dk) an > > d > > >they have _never_ been independant countries. Why did they get their own > > >ccTLD in the first place? > > > > I have no idea. Ask Jon Postel. > >No, read rfc1591. The possible ccTLDs are defined by the United Nations and >published by ISO as ISO standard 3166. The IANA has -very wiselty- decided >to use that list and not get involved in arguments exemplified by this >thread. 2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. [...] In the country TLDs, there is a wide variation in the structure, in some countries the structure is very flat, in others there is substantial structural organization. In some country domains the second levels are generic categories (such as, AC, CO, GO, and RE), in others they are based on political geography, and in still others, organization names are listed directly under the country code. The organization for the US country domain is described in RFC 1480 [1]. Postel [Page 1] RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994 Each of the generic TLDs was created for a general category of organizations. The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each organized by an administrator for that country. These administrators may further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree. These administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet community. Descriptions of the generic domains and the US country domain follow. The problem seems to stem from the fact that "IANA is not in the business of determining what is and what isn't a country". This is a factual statementmade by IANA. The ISO3661 list containts codes that are not countries. This is a fact. IANA has mad entired in the root zone for two letter domains that are not countries. This is also a fact. So, are all two letter domains supposed to be countires, in which case .TV and .CC should be re-assessed, or, can any ISO code be made into a TLD, in which case .FX could be created. Given that IANA claims to not be inthe business of determining what a country is and instead uses a list that contains country code and non country codes, I would say this is a bit of a mess. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:45:36 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 15 Sep '98

15 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Sexton <richard at SEXTON.COM> To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET <DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 11:05 AM Subject: Re: .GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ? >At 09:05 AM 9/13/98 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >>At 02:49 PM 9/12/98 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >>>I also note that Jon Postel wants to see .TV and .TM removed >>>from the root zone, but NSI/NSF prevented that. >> >>please provide documentation for both of these assertions. > >Knock it off Dave, you were in the room in Singapore >when Don Telage announced this. Why didn't you ask him >for documentation? > > Again, I think that we need to look at the more global issue. What TLDs would Jon Postel (aka IANA) be proposing to remove from the legacy Root Name Server Cluster if the U.S. Government turns control over to him ? Does that list contain ? .GP .MQ .TV .TM .CC .NATO In my opinion registries and consumers have a right to know this well in advance. The other RSCs also need to socialize these proposed DELETIONS. Just because France tells Jon Postel to delete .MQ and .GP and to take away someone's IP addresses, I am not sure that he should do that. There has to be some checks and balances in the system. Where does the IAB and IETF enter this discussion ? It is one thing for the IETF to stand and cheer and endorse Jon Postel. It is another thing to be responsible for potential changes to the DNS that could impact companies, countries, etc. Jon Postel has delegated TLDs to people that clearly do not have the local support that some people claim. Now governments like France are going to try to have those TLDs removed. This is not stability. Stability can only come from open, fair hearings on these matters. In my opinion, the major RSCs should prepare a public response to France that indicates that they can NOT remove a TLD just because France says to do that. I think that the current operators of the TLD(s) should have some opportunity to have some say about the past, present and future plans for the TLD. This is the only way we can have some stability in the system. Just in case someone walked in late... @@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00298.html "Lastly, it is necessary to end rapidly the exploitation, by private operators having received no mandate from the French authorities, of the management of top level domains corresponding to French overseas departments (.gp for Guadeloupe, .mq for Martinique,...). IANA effectively considers that these are "national" domains. The French government must therefore request IANA to refuse to recognize these operators or to allocate them IP addresses." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:34:21 MET DST 1998 ---------

4 4

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Einar Stefferud <Stef at nma.com> <snip> > >If you don't believe me, just ask the President of France;-)... > What about the thousands of people that could lose their .MQ or .GP domain names ? Don't they get any say ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:47:29 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

An IPv8 View of .MQ (Martinique)
by JimFleming＠unety.net 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

The IPv4 people have largely been funded by governments around the world. It should not be surprising that they have tied their future to the wishes of those governments. The recent news that the French Government wishes to take control of some of the TLDs for regions it controls, geographically, is not a surprise. There is more info on the .FR TLD and the people behind that TLD which is apparently the one that France wants to move .MQ and .GP under. In the IPv8 Plan, TLDs (and other Internet resources) are placed freely into the hands of the people. The TLDs are all equal. They are divided into 8 regions to allow people to more easily coordinate. The 8 regions are all equal. The TLDs have INTENTIONALLY been radomly placed within the regions to try to make sure that TLDs can stand on their own and not be captured by groups that want them to be "under them". http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt To illustrate how the IPv8 Plan is intended to work, we can look at the real world situation where some people want the .MQ TLD deleted. In the IPv8 Plan a concept called "neighbor nets" is used to allow TLDs to benefit from the self-governance of the other TLDs that are in their neighborhood. In the case of Martinique, one might look at the neighborhood from Grenada (.GD) to the British Virgin Islands (.VG). 1:247 GD (GRENADA) 1:248 B (Single Letter TLD) 1:249 MINNEAPOLIS 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) <----------- TO BE DELETED ? 1:251 PRINCETON 1:252 TCA (TURKS-AND-CAICOS-ISLANDS) 1:253 IDAHO 1:254 VG (VIRGIN-ISLANDS-(BRITISH)) If a super power is attempting to delete a small TLD like Martinique, then the other TLD managers in the "neighborhood" can come to Martinique's defense. Not only would this include the TLDs shown above but also all of the TLDs in the G1 Region. Even though people might find it strange for people in the .MINNEAPOLIS TLD or the .PRINCETON TLD to help Marinique, we have to realize that this is better than having the people in the .FR (France) TLD coming to the rescue because those people might be the very people that are trying to make .MQ go away. They may have financial reasons why they do not think .MQ should be allowed to exist. If it turns out that people are successful in convincing the RSCs to delete .MQ, then the 1:250 seat will be freed up to add a new TLD. The IPv8 address space 1:250.X.X.X.X would remain. Delegations under IN-ADDR.S250.G1 could remain, despite France's request for people's IP address allocations to be refused. In my opinion, it is not right to try to use the leverage of IP allocations to control the domain name industry. The IPv8 Plan attempts to prevent this. Hopefully, the RSCs around the world will come to some conclusion on how they intend to handle the .MQ TLD. Even though France carries a lot of political and economic weight, there still needs to be an element of the local decision making in both the real world and in cyberspace. I am confident that the collective reasoning of a broad group of people willl do the right thing about the .MQ TLD and the other TLDs that France wants removed. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ France top-level domain (FR-DOM) AFNIC (NIC France) c/o INRIA, Domaine de Voluceau Le Chesnay CEDEX, 78153 FRANCE Domain Name: FR Administrative Contact: Renard, Annie (AR41) Annie.Renard at INRIA.FR +33 01 39 63 55 92 (FAX) +33 01 39 63 55 34 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Lubrano, Philippe (PL613) Philippe.Lubrano at INRIA.FR +33 1 39 63 56 82 (FAX) +33 1 39 63 55 34 @@@@@@ "La cellule du "NIC-France", relevant de l'Institut National de la Recherche en Informatique et en Automatismes (INRIA), a assuri la mise en place du domaine ".fr" par diligation de l'IANA. Depuis le 1er janvier 1998, cette gestion a iti transfirie ` une association dinommie "AFNIC" (Association Frangaise pour le Nommage Internet en Coopiration). Ses adhirents sont essentiellement des prestataires techniques (fournisseurs d'acchs et d'hibergement) et des utilisateurs. Il existe aujourd'hui un peu plus de 16.000 sites enregistris sous le ".fr". La redevance d'enregistrement est actuellement, en fonction de l'option choisie, d'environ 400 F, ` laquelle s'ajoute depuis cette annie une redevance annuelle de 100 F." @@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:46:48 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

At 12:13 PM 9/14/98 +0100, Berislav Todorovic wrote: >>> I also note that Jon Postel wants to see .TV and .TM removed >>> from the root zone, but NSI/NSF prevented that. Perhaps the >>> other RSCs around the world should honor the IANA request. >>> >>> I'd be particularly interested in knowing the WWTLD's position >>> on this. Do we follow IANA directive and remove .TV, .TM or do >>> we go with NSI polict and leave them there. > >First off, let's see what RFC 1591 says about that: > > 2) Country Codes > > The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is > not a country. .FX is the country code for Metropolitan France. This is not a country. Neither is Tuvala any more. Or the Cocos Islands (.CC). -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 15:39:33 MET DST 1998 ---------

5 5

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by jc.praud＠ludexpress.com 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

Berislav Todorovic wrote: > > >> As a french citizen living in Metropolitan France, I could try and see > >> what happens ;o) > > And did you try? Did you get nack from IANA? Please elaborate ... not yet. But you are tempting me... hehe. > > >> Seriously: maybe the mistake is for DNS to be based on ISO ccCodes... > >> It could become more messy if 3-letters codes are used for "country" > >> TLDs: .COM would mean Comores :o) > > And what criterion to use? Who to ask whether something is a country or > not? UN? ITU? US gov't? EU? Jim Flemming? good question... The Internet was built by researchers, some gov actions, commercial business, now politics, etc. But above all by its own users... When you surf on the Net, you don't care about the geo location of the sites you're consulting... Maybe, governments and politics have nothing to do with that... The US funded the moon expeditions, but they declared the results belonged to Humanity... The Internet is a bigger Step for Humanity, as it concerns everybody in daily life, whichever the country... Maybe am I too idealistic, there's much more money to make on the Internet than on the moon... Anyway, governments, even in the most advanced countries (from the Internet point of view), are not the only players. -- Jean-Christophe PRAUD - LUDEXPRESS http://www.ludexpress.com http://www.nicwine.net http://www.irsc.ah.net 3:213 WINE Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu n'gah Bill R'lyeh Wgah'nagl fhtagn -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 21:45:49 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ? (Not yet!!!)
by JimFleming＠unety.net 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: John Charles Broomfield <jbroom at manta.outremer.com> <snip> > >There are some interesting recomendations there where the doc says that >exploitation of ".gp" & ".mq" by private operators should be stopped whereas >".pf" & ".wf" should be allowed to continue (note: there are no domains >delegated in ".pf" or in ".wf". .pf being under control of Inria, and .wf >under control of the post-office). <snip> >What I ask is that if everyone here in Guadeloupe & Martinique is happy with >how things are being done, nobody is getting rich out of this, all providers >are in agreement (even though in other areas these same providers are at >each outhers throats because they are competitors), then why change the >status-quo? >As a side note, I'd like to add that as yet, nobody from the government in >France mainland has even tried to get in touch (phone, email, letter, fax) >with me or any of the admin contacts for either ".gp" or ".mq" to >ask/say/announce/inform/get informed about what is going on with these two >TLDs, so I think it would be a bit bizarre to say the least if they suddenly >"vanished". John, Thanks for the long description of your side of the story. It appears that someone in the French government decided that .GP and .MQ were being exploited by private operators. They must have done this without much input from you or other people with SLDs under .GP and/or .MQ. Is it possible that they read your statements that said that you do not want anyone looking over your shoulder with those TLDs and they decided this was not what they wanted ? Is there any chance that a group of "trustees" could be assembled from the <SLD>.GP owners and the <SLD>.MQ owners to help provide a broader base of views ? One problem that seems to plague several of the ccTLDs is that there is one person speaking for them and it is hard to get a sense of what the SLD population feels. Maybe it would be good to have several people that are known to take an interest in .GP and .MQ so that France and the rest of the world do not see these as private TLDs run by a local ISP. Governments may get nervous when they find one vocal person running the show. Even though you might be willing to throw in the towel to France, I think that the French Government should give these TLDs a chance. If governments start to steam-roll TLDs whenever they feel like it, then we could lose large populations of people who have chosen to gather, like a tribe, in cyberspace under a common banner. One of the concerns that I have is that you do not seem to be interested in encouraging more members of the .MQ and .GP tribes to voice their positions. I think that would help to make sure RSCs get a sense for what the situation is. How many people depend on .MQ and .GP ? Can some of them step forward to save these TLDs ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:44:44 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

ISO 3166: Very useful link!
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

Everyone interested in the ISO 3166 topic may find an interesting article (better said a copy of an email message, written by Cord Wischhoefer from ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency) at: www.ftp.uni-erlangen.de/cgi-bin/view/pub/doc/ISO/english/ISO-3166-background Cord Wischhoefer explains the genesis of ISO 3166 standard, its parts, reasons why something is done this or that way and gives all answers to many questions which appeared here last few days. I'd recommend anyone willing to discuss more on this matter to view this brilliant text. Regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:43:54 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

>> The problem seems to stem from the fact that "IANA is not in the business >> of determining what is and what isn't a country". This is a factual >> statementmade by IANA. >> >> The ISO3661 list containts codes that are not countries. This is a fact. It is. However, IANA makes an assumption: country :== ISO.3166.entry. Period. Of course, IANA could be wrong indeed - Jon Postel is an engineer, not a law expert. OK - let's see what law experts from ISO have to say about that: http://www.iso.ch/infoe/agency/3166-1.htm I've found the following information: ISO 3166-1:1997 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions -- Part 1: Country codes Maybe ISO is also wrong. Who knows ... ;) Regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:43:09 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

>> As a french citizen living in Metropolitan France, I could try and see >> what happens ;o) And did you try? Did you get nack from IANA? Please elaborate ... >> Seriously: maybe the mistake is for DNS to be based on ISO ccCodes... >> It could become more messy if 3-letters codes are used for "country" >> TLDs: .COM would mean Comores :o) And what criterion to use? Who to ask whether something is a country or not? UN? ITU? US gov't? EU? Jim Flemming? Regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:42:29 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

>> At 04:03 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Jean-Christophe Praud wrote: >> > >> >It seems to problem is more in ISO than in DNS... >> >> I am not sure I agree. The problem seems to be with IANA. Rather that >> figure out what is a country, IANA uses the ISO3661 list. Correct ... also documented in RFC 1591 and repeated so many times by IANA people. >> Problem is,many things on that list are nor countries, so, IANA has >> to figure out what is a country. According to the previous statement, that should not be a problem. Everything that IANA does is a lookup in the ISO 3166 table. >> For example, what happens if somebody >> from Metropolitan France asks Jon Postel for the delegation for >> the .FX TLD. He may say "it's not a country" in which case he >> is deciding what is and what isn't a country or he may grant it >> which would certainly be bogus. I don't think so ... did you try to do it? Or - better said - do you know of any case where IANA refused to delegate a TLD for a legal ISO 3166 country code? If so - would you, please be kind to share that information with us? Regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:39:52 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

At 04:03 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Jean-Christophe Praud wrote: >Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >It seems to problem is more in ISO than in DNS... >If France isn't happy with ccCodes, it should probably ask ISO for >changes. If they are accepted, ccTLDs can be updated accordingly. >Then, it will become a DNS issue... > >This situation is common for many countries with oversea territories. I am not sure I agree. The problem seems to be with IANA. Rather that figure out what is a country, IANA uses the ISO3661 list. Problem is,many things on that list are nor countries, so, IANA has to figure out what is a country. For example, what happens if somebody from Metropolitan France asks Jon Postel for the delegation for the .FX TLD. He may say "it's not a country" in which case he is deciding what is and what isn't a country or he may grant it which would certainly be bogus. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 17:41:57 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net> <snip> > > > > I have no idea. Ask Jon Postel. > >No, read rfc1591. The possible ccTLDs are defined by the United Nations and >published by ISO as ISO standard 3166. The IANA has -very wiselty- decided >to use that list and not get involved in arguments exemplified by this >thread. > Using a list is one thing, assigning the TLDs to various "managers" is another. Are you saying that Jon Postel's decisions are supposed to over-rule countries like France ? What happens if two groups in a country claim to be the authority ? What about the ccTLDs that have no country ? Will RIPE be handling those ? What ever happened to all of those bogus statements about IP addresses and Domain Names having nothing to do with each other ? Was that just to divert the attention of the U.S. government officials ? Why doesn't RIPE just admit that they are interested in both IP addresses and TLDs ? Isn't that more honest ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:40:29 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Top Down and Bottom Up
by JimFleming＠unety.net 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr> To: 'open-process at star-nets.com' <open-process at star-nets.com> Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:04 AM Subject: RE: membership of the new corporation >Comments on: > >> http://www.euroispa.org/papers/new.corp.membership.html >> >follow. > >Membership Groups >I have some problems with the way the Membership Classes (or Groups) are >defined. If you look at the U.S. Congressional model, there is a Senate and House. The Senate is derived "top-down" and the House is grass-roots or "bottom-up". You might want to look at the Root Name Server Cluster (RSC) owner/operators as similar to the Senate. The TLD owner/operators could are similar to the House. [As an aside, I think I reversed these last time, sorry.] The RSCs have a lot of power but that is balanced by the collective will of the TLDs. In both cases, almost anyone can get involved in either group by providing real infrastructure. In my opinion, it is best to design the various round table structures so that they are independent of various companies and organizations such as ISOC, CORE, ITU, etc. I think that we are better off documenting the major RSCs and the major TLDs. The RSCs can collectively come up with a decision and so can the TLDs. Only major decisions should require these two groups to collaborate and hammer out a decision. Of course, some people will be part of both groups. I suppose that is like saying that each Senator also has a Representative by virtue of the fact that they are a human and live somewhere. In order to not get too focused on a U.S.-centric system, other than for examples, it might be easier to use top-down and botto-up to characterize the two camps that seem to form in these debates and need a place to meet in the "middle". Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:41:16 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

At 03:39 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Hakan Hansson wrote: >At 14:50 1998-09-14 , Richard J. Sexton wrote: > >>.FX is the country code for Metropolitan France. This is not a country. >>Neither is Tuvala any more. Or the Cocos Islands (.CC). > >FYI: Faroe Islands (.fo) and Greenland (.gl) are parts of Denmark (.dk) and >they have _never_ been independant countries. Why did they get their own >ccTLD in the first place? I have no idea. Ask Jon Postel. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 16:45:38 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

>> I also note that Jon Postel wants to see .TV and .TM removed >> from the root zone, but NSI/NSF prevented that. Perhaps the >> other RSCs around the world should honor the IANA request. >> >> I'd be particularly interested in knowing the WWTLD's position >> on this. Do we follow IANA directive and remove .TV, .TM or do >> we go with NSI polict and leave them there. First off, let's see what RFC 1591 says about that: 2) Country Codes The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list. COMMENT: AFAIK, TV and TM are ISO 3166 codes for Tuvalu and Turkmenistan, respetively and they have full right to be represented in the ccTLD club. According to the RFC 1591, IANA should remove them only if the ISO 3166 committee decides to revoke them from their table. In my personal opinnion, removal of a ccTLD from the root zone will be exception to the RFC 1591 and, as we know fairly well, each exception may become a general rule and lead to some possible future removals. On the other hand, forced change of designated manager of a domain is an operation fully compliant with the RFC 1591. Regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ Hostmaster of the YU TLD | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 15:26:33 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by steve＠domainbank.net 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

But I thought ISO 3166 ISO 3166 provides accepted representation of names of countries, *dependencies*, **territories** and areas of geographical interest? [almost verbatim from their literature] Best Regards, Steve Heflin iDomains, Inc. -----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Sexton <richard at sexton.com> To: Berislav Todorovic <BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu> Cc: tld-wg at ripe.net <tld-wg at ripe.net>; ifwp at ifwp.org <ifwp at ifwp.org> Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 9:22 AM Subject: Re: .GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ? >At 12:13 PM 9/14/98 +0100, Berislav Todorovic wrote: >>>> I also note that Jon Postel wants to see .TV and .TM removed >>>> from the root zone, but NSI/NSF prevented that. Perhaps the >>>> other RSCs around the world should honor the IANA request. >>>> >>>> I'd be particularly interested in knowing the WWTLD's position >>>> on this. Do we follow IANA directive and remove .TV, .TM or do >>>> we go with NSI polict and leave them there. >> >>First off, let's see what RFC 1591 says about that: >> >> 2) Country Codes >> >> The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is >> not a country. > >.FX is the country code for Metropolitan France. This is not a country. >Neither is Tuvala any more. Or the Cocos Islands (.CC). > > > >-- >"I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is >better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in >general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris > > > -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 16:34:38 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Sexton <richard at sexton.com> To: domain-policy at open-rsc.org <domain-policy at open-rsc.org> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 9:03 PM Subject: Re: .GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ? >At 03:37 PM 9/13/98 -0700, Einar Stefferud wrote: > >(A very interesting essay.) > >So, under what conditions do we remove a country code TLD >from our roots? > This is the essential question. I am not sure there is a good answer if one assumes that the U.S. Government (via the IANA) is going to direct the future. This can be compared to the situation we might have if we had an Air Force Base that was being converted to private use. Imagine what the solution would be if people discovered in the final hour that all sorts of "airlines" had been approved for landing by the Air Force "contractor". One could assume that life could then go on with privatization but problems could arise. Where there once was an indirect endorsement of the Air Force for the landings and take-offs, the private sector might take a CLOSER look. I think that is what is happening. People are now in shock at what they are finding. Some people's solution seems to be to cancel ALL of the flights and then start adding them back one by one as they are qualified to operate at a major non-military airport. This would be equivalent to removing ALL of the ccTLDs and then adding them back quickly as they present credentials. With governments now stepping into the picture (like France) some of the RSCs may have no choice but to follow this course of action. By the way, obviously the major ccTLDs would be added back in a millisecond. This would be similar to when the InterNIC put RIPE.NET on hold for non-payment. Once detected, it was quickly corrected. ccTLDs will have to watch the RSCs more closely now. Some of the ccTLDs think that their IANA endorsement (landing rights) gave them assurance of being recognized after October 1st. With privatization, the ccTLDs will now have to do their homework just like all of the TLDs. This makes them more like generic TLDs everyday. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 15:25:52 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ AURSC ] Application for New TLD's
by JimFleming＠unety.net 13 Sep '98

13 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Jean-Christophe Praud <jc.praud at ludexpress.com> To: aursc at lists.ah.net <aursc at lists.ah.net> Cc: Sascha Ignjatovic <sascha at isoc.vienna.org>; Robert Shaw <robert.shaw at itu.int>; Jim Dixon <jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net>; Michael Sondow <msondow at ic.sunysb.edu>; Jay at Iperdome.com <Jay at Iperdome.com>; Hank Nussbacher <hank at ibm.net.il>; Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net>; Edgar Danielyan <edd at aic.net>; Artur Grzymala <artur at zoo.pl>; Annie Renard <Annie.Renard at nic.fr>; tld-wg at ripe.net <tld-wg at ripe.net> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 1:09 PM Subject: Re: [ AURSC ] Application for New TLD's >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - >AURSC Information and User Mail List. Open. >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- - <snip> > >I'm responsible for G3. jc.praud at ludexpress.com > >For more info about G3/EURSC domain names, look at http://www.eursc.net > @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Have the G3 people looked at the following and come to any conclusion on it ? @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ ----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Sexton <richard at SEXTON.COM> To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET <DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 11:05 AM Subject: Re: .GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ? >At 09:05 AM 9/13/98 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >>At 02:49 PM 9/12/98 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >>>I also note that Jon Postel wants to see .TV and .TM removed >>>from the root zone, but NSI/NSF prevented that. >> >>please provide documentation for both of these assertions. > >Knock it off Dave, you were in the room in Singapore >when Don Telage announced this. Why didn't you ask him >for documentation? > > Again, I think that we need to look at the more global issue. What TLDs would Jon Postel (aka IANA) be proposing to remove from the legacy Root Name Server Cluster if the U.S. Government turns control over to him ? Does that list contain ? .GP .MQ .TV .TM .CC .NATO In my opinion registries and consumers have a right to know this well in advance. The other RSCs also need to socialize these proposed DELETIONS. Just because France tells Jon Postel to delete .MQ and .GP and to take away someone's IP addresses, I am not sure that he should do that. There has to be some checks and balances in the system. Where does the IAB and IETF enter this discussion ? It is one thing for the IETF to stand and cheer and endorse Jon Postel. It is another thing to be responsible for potential changes to the DNS that could impact companies, countries, etc. Jon Postel has delegated TLDs to people that clearly do not have the local support that some people claim. Now governments like France are going to try to have those TLDs removed. This is not stability. Stability can only come from open, fair hearings on these matters. In my opinion, the major RSCs should prepare a public response to France that indicates that they can NOT remove a TLD just because France says to do that. I think that the current operators of the TLD(s) should have some opportunity to have some say about the past, present and future plans for the TLD. This is the only way we can have some stability in the system. Just in case someone walked in late... @@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00298.html "Lastly, it is necessary to end rapidly the exploitation, by private operators having received no mandate from the French authorities, of the management of top level domains corresponding to French overseas departments (.gp for Guadeloupe, .mq for Martinique,...). IANA effectively considers that these are "national" domains. The French government must therefore request IANA to refuse to recognize these operators or to allocate them IP addresses." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:36:41 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

[ AURSC ] Application for New TLD's
by JimFleming＠unety.net 13 Sep '98

13 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Adam Todd <at at ah.net> To: aursc at lists.ah.net <aursc at lists.ah.net> <snip> > >Who is responsoble for G3? > >Where is the web site? What is the email address? > The answer to your first question is... the TLD authorities in G3...I have not looked at G3 lately but many of the TLDs in the European region were in there. I have copied some of the people that might have an interest. If I recall, there were some new people added for Poland. I am not sure where they stand. That is for the people in that region to work out. This is what self-governance is all about. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt I am not sure there is one web site for G3 or one e-mail address. In theory there should be about 256 of them. You should be able to query the DNS to find all of the G3 info, just like G6. G3 self-governance will depend on the TLD authorities in that region. If they work together they will have a nice neighbor net situation. They can start selling, leasing, or giving away IPv8 addresses to be used with IPv6 now, once they have their G:S number. If they make a mess of it, that is their mess. C'est la vie. 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 UNETY Systems, Inc. - http://www.unety.net -------- Logged at Wed Sep 9 11:22:12 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

Raising $500,000 for the new IANA
by JimFleming＠unety.net 13 Sep '98

13 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: vinton g. cerf <vcerf at MCI.NET> To: Jim Fleming <JimFleming at unety.net> Cc: tld-wg at ripe.net <tld-wg at ripe.net>; domain-policy at open-rsc.org <domain-policy at open-rsc.org>; DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET <DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET>; ietf at ietf.org <ietf at ietf.org> Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 8:39 PM Subject: Re: Raising $500,000 for the new IANA Jim the idea was to limit maximum contribution to $50,000 and to assume/work towards a funding model which does NOT require any contributions at all in the steady state. The funding proposed is strictly for start-up to avoid the possibility that initial funding would be a show-stopper. vint @@@@@ OK...if 500 companies step forward with $1,000 to apply, then I suppose we could send the $50,000 back to each of the large donors. 250 of the initial companies could be from the "existing" legacy TLDs. This would place everyone on an equal footing and will raise an instant $250,000. In light of France's recent decision to take control of some of the so-called ccTLDs, I think it is time for the Internet community to recognize that a TLD, is a TLD, is a TLD. @@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00298.html "Lastly, it is necessary to end rapidly the exploitation, by private operators having received no mandate from the French authorities, of the management of top level domains corresponding to French overseas departments (.gp for Guadeloupe, .mq for Martinique,...). IANA effectively considers that these are "national" domains. The French government must therefore request IANA to refuse to recognize these operators or to allocate them IP addresses." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:31:14 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 13 Sep '98

13 Sep '98

At 01:34 PM 9/12/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: >It appears that the "country" of France, wants the >TLDs .GP and .MQ. Why were they delegated by >the IANA to people that were not "authorized" ? >This seems counter to what has been reported >in these forums. > >@@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00298.html > >"Lastly, it is necessary to end rapidly the exploitation, by private >operators >having received no mandate from the French authorities, of the management >of top level domains corresponding to French overseas departments >(.gp for Guadeloupe, .mq for Martinique,...). IANA effectively considers >that >these are "national" domains. The French government must therefore >request IANA to refuse to recognize these operators or to allocate them >IP addresses." Hmm. Operationally this presents a bit of a problem. I'm not sure people who have names under .gp want names unde .co.gp.fr. Perhaps what the .gp operator should do is deploy the ISO3 code for Guadaloupe and let people decide which they prefer. I also note that Jon Postel wants to see .TV and .TM removed from the root zone, but NSI/NSF prevented that. Perhaps the other RSCs around the world should honor the IANA request. I'd be particularly interested in knowing the WWTLD's position on this. Do we follow IANA directive and remove .TV, .TM or do we go with NSI polict and leave them there. I'd really like an answer to the latter question, or just feedback and comments. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:21:24 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

Raising $500,000 for the new IANA
by JimFleming＠unety.net 13 Sep '98

13 Sep '98

To: Vinton Cerf http://www.gip.org Vint, If 500 new TLDs are added, and each applicant pays $1,000 then you have raised your $500,000. To allow a few large companies to dominate the funding is very dangerous in my opinion. I do not believe people when they claim there will not be any strings attached to that funding. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm P.S. I am curious why Jon Postel did not mention the GIP funding in his recent talk to the IETF. -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:25:00 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

.GP and .MQ to be Removed ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 13 Sep '98

13 Sep '98

It appears that the "country" of France, wants the TLDs .GP and .MQ. Why were they delegated by the IANA to people that were not "authorized" ? This seems counter to what has been reported in these forums. @@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00298.html "Lastly, it is necessary to end rapidly the exploitation, by private operators having received no mandate from the French authorities, of the management of top level domains corresponding to French overseas departments (.gp for Guadeloupe, .mq for Martinique,...). IANA effectively considers that these are "national" domains. The French government must therefore request IANA to refuse to recognize these operators or to allocate them IP addresses." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:20:32 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

.GP and .MQ to be Removed ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 13 Sep '98

13 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Einar Stefferud <Stef at nma.com> To: domain-policy at open-rsc.org <domain-policy at open-rsc.org> Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY at lists.internic.net <DOMAIN-POLICY at lists.internic.net>; tld-wg at ripe.net <tld-wg at ripe.net>; IFWP ORG <ifwp at ifwp.org>; rsctalk at ah.net <rsctalk at ah.net> Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 8:08 PM Subject: Re: .GP and .MQ to be Removed ? >Sine the original IANA policy was to grant two letter DNS Domains to >goverments that are recognized by ISO-3166 with registration of two >letter ISO codes. IANA was nto then concerned about what kind of Govt >it was, as they simply took the ISO-3166 list as their guide. > If you start from a position that ccTLDs are special then you might come to the conclusions that you have reached. From an IPv8 point of view, a TLD, is a TLD, is a TLD. I think that it is better for people to abandon the notion that the IANA was ever able to delegate ccTLDs to government sanctioned people. If you stick with that notion, then you may run the risk of having to go back almost to square one and have ALL of the ccTLDs re-apply with the "new" IANA in order to prove that they are sanctioned by their government. In my opinion, that will open a can of worms that will never end. I think that it is better to recognize that this IANA charage of ccTLDs and close government ties does not exist. We need to move forward and allow the free market to take care of the legacy that the IANA is going to leave. If we do not, the governments will step in and really make a mess. I claim that there is room in the root zone for all of the following: .US .USA .AMERICA Let's let customers decide which they like, OK ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:23:12 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Fairness in any draft
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Christopher Ambler <cambler at iodesign.com> To: domain-policy at open-rsc.org <domain-policy at open-rsc.org> Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Fairness in any draft >Your claims of operating outside of the IANA process and >that some prospective registries did so knowing that IANA >did not authorize them is factually incorrect, at least in the >case of Image Online Design. > >Please, I implore you, read the newdom archives, specifically >the postings of Bill Manning and Jon Postel, as they directly >counter what you're saying. There is, of course, much more >evidence not on the newdom list - but the postings on newdom >should be more than sufficient. > This is one of the major problems. Not ALL of the "evidence" (as you call it) has been disclosed in public. People keep making these sweeping statements about the IANA authority, never answer the simple questions about why the IANA has not followed through on the IAHC/CORE promises, and refuse to look at facts. In my opinion, those facts will not ALL come out until we see what happens on October 1, 1998. The only fair thing to do at this point would be for NSI to begin actively working with all of the RSCs around the world, including the ORSC, to decide which TLDs NSI wants to add to the legacy Root Name Servers. In my opinion, it would be good for NSI to have an open, public dialog with a human representative from each of the following servers. >1. A - Network Solutions, Inc. (A) >2. B - University of Southern California (ISI2) >3. C - Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER) >4. D - University of Maryland (UMD-TERP) >5. E - NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA) >6. F - Internet Software Consortium (ISC) >7. G - DOD Network Information Center (DIIS-NS) >8. H - Army Research Laboratory (B) >9. I - [No name] (NORDU) (Sweden) >10. J - Network Solutions, Inc. (J) >11. K - European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (K) >12. L - University of Southern California (L) >13. M - WIDE Project (M) (JAPAN) > It seems odd that people from the Asia Pacific region are not providing input via WIDE. Likewise, one would assume that the "K" operators would provide RIPE views. Lastly, it should be noted that the B and L servers are registered to USC and not the IANA. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:12:51 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Upcoming Events in the U.S.
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

September 19, 1998 @@@@ http://www.ifwp.org IFWP Meeting Boston - Cancelled ???? Contacts: Karl Auerbach - karl at cavebear.com Jim Dixon - jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net September 23, 1998 Cooper Union - New York "Internet Privatization: Open Competition or Monopoly Control ?" Contact: Michael Sondow - msondow at iciiu.net October 9, 1998 @@@@@ http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/annmtg98/fsf.html#Awards "CPSR joins with the Free Software Foundation as they present FSF's first annual Awards for the Advancement of Free Software Friday, October 9, 7:00 pm" October 10, 1998 @@@@ http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/annmtg98/ "Lawrence Lessig Professor, Harvard Law School Law of Cyberspace, Constitutional Law Saturday, October 10, 9:00am Einar Stefferud Internet pioneer; Founder, Network Management Associates & First Virtual "Internet Paradigms & Their Consequences for Society" The Computer Museum Saturday, October 10, 7:30pm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:12:15 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Re: membership proposal
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Peter Deutsch <peterd at Bunyip.Com> <snip> > >I fully endorse the need for consensus, but can't see how >any government can agree to handing over any form of power >to an "non-entity", a diffuse set of entities, or a >self-policing group. > Did you miss the U.S. Government endorsement of ARIN ? What about the recent casual transfer of assets and rights from the old APNIC, based in the Seychelles and working out of borrowed offices in Japan to the new APNIC based in Australia ? Do you think that happened without a node from the U.S. Government ? RIPE may be the only group that is large enough and diverse enough to operate without much U.S. Government influence. In my opinion, that is a result of their open and distributed structure. It is very hard to find one person that claims to be the only person that speak for RIPE. Many people do and they have diverse views. RIPE also handles more than IP addresses. In my opinion that is good because it helps to broaden a group and make them more aware of the big picture. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:10:26 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Re: theoretical question
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Martin B. Schwimmer <martys at interport.net> <snip> > >Your client asks you what to do. What do you tell him? > It depends. Today the answer might be to look for another .COM name. Next month the answer might be to select another TLD. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt If new TLDs are not added to the legacy Root Name Servers controlled by the U.S. Government then we all might as well agree that .COM is the new root or "dot" as some might say. This atually has some technical merit. Unfortunately, it would make all of the other non-COM TLDs worthless at some point. With ALL of the names under the .COM root, software developers would likely move quickly to a position where .COM disappears. We have already seen that trend with browsers. They assume that you want WWW.%name.COM. Would you prefer to have the entire DNS pushed down one level under .COM ? If you do that, then you effectively have 2,000,000+ TLDs. ATT, IBM, SUN, MICROSOFT, etc. all would have their own. The people with the generic words line .COMPUTER or .SYSTEMS would likely emerge to become the TLD registries. People would then be able to move to "grab" SUN.SYSTEMS.COM. but the .COM would not show up, it would be hidden by all popular software. Now, what does the Sun Microsystems do about the company that ends up with SUN.SYSTEMS ? How about SUN.OIL which would really be SUN.OIL.COM ? As I see it, you have two choices, expand the root or make .COM the root. Pick one. We can not have it both ways. Keep in mind that if the root is not expanded, then non-COM TLDs (like .UK) might as well close their doors. Is that what you want ? Again, there are two choices...this is not rocket science... 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 14 11:04:12 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Re: request for clarification [2]
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: cgomes at internic.net <cgomes at internic.net> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org> Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:36 AM Subject: [ifwp] Re: request for clarification [2] >Let me point out again what Don Telage clarified yesterday, >NSI did not refuse to participate in either meeting. > >Chuck Gomes > Chuck, Do you think it would be worthwhile for NSI to attend the smaller meeting that people are planning for next weekend ? Have any of the other members of the legacy Root Name Server Confederation (RSC) been involved in the talks between NSI and IANA ? >1. A - Network Solutions, Inc. (A) >2. B - University of Southern California (ISI2) >3. C - Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER) >4. D - University of Maryland (UMD-TERP) >5. E - NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA) >6. F - Internet Software Consortium (ISC) >7. G - DOD Network Information Center (DIIS-NS) >8. H - Army Research Laboratory (B) >9. I - [No name] (NORDU) (Sweden) >10. J - Network Solutions, Inc. (J) >11. K - European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (K) >12. L - University of Southern California (L) >13. M - WIDE Project (M) (JAPAN) Is there any chance that some of the above groups could be represented ? Maybe USC/ISI could send people from http://www.east.isi.edu What about all of the U.S. Government agencies ? How do you see them fitting into this picture starting next month ? What about RIPE ? They have historically been an organization focused on IPv4 address resources, recently they have become very active in TLD administration. Since they apparently control the "K" server above, how do you see them represented in these discussions ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:02:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Policy of .zho
by wchao＠post.uni-bielefeld.de 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

REGISTRATION POLICY FOR THE .zho TOP LEVEL DOMAIN Document Version 1.2, Sep. 11 1998 by Wei-Lun Chao 1. Introduction o The .zho Top Level Domain (hereafter known as "the .zho TLD") is a three-letter country code for the Republic of China (in Chinese: "Zhonghua", well known as "Taiwan"). o The domain owner is Wei-Lun Chao <chaoweilun at sinanet.com>, who may delegate this registration duty as he sees fit to any duly designated representative. 2. General rules o Second level domains are reserved and not open for application. o Registration of a third level domain in the .zho TLD will not be subject to any fees or charges. o Organizations requestion for domain registration under the .zho TLD must have a real local presence in the Republic of China. o An organization should register only a single domain name for itself. For multiply domain name of the same organization must be presented an explanation. o Geographical names, Acronyms and generic terms may normally not be reistered as a third level domain. 3. Second level generic domains o .ent : commercial enterprises with stock o .com : commercial organizations without stock o .net : Internet related organizations o .reg : registried trademarks o .par : parliamentary organizations o .gov : governmental organizations o .mil : military organizations o .edu : educational organizations o .org : civil non-commercial organizations o .grp : unregistried groups o .geo : geographic regions o .nom : individuals with ID number 4. Syntax rules o A domain name is a string of 3~18 characters. The permitted characters are all English letters, numbers and dash ("-"). o The first character must be a letter and the last character should not be a dash. 5. Submitting o Applications are recommend to be submitted through the ISP of the applicant. o In submitting the application the applicant certifies that to his/her knowledge, the use of the name applied for does not violate any trademarks or other status. 6. Management o Once an applicant has got its domain name, it may register any and as many subdomains under this domain as it please. o Registrant is responsible for keeping information in the registry correct and up to date. o Registrant agrees that any registration in the .zho TLD shall be governed in all respects by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of China. -------- Logged at Sun Sep 13 20:08:03 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] membership proposal
by JimFleming＠unety.net 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Jim Dixon <jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org> Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 9:39 AM Subject: [ifwp] membership proposal >A proposal for adding a membership to the new corporation replacing >IANA can be found at > > http://www.euroispa.org/papers/new.corp.membership.html > >This is most definitely work in progress; both public and private >comments would be very much appreciated. > Jim, You might want to note that the GIP people seem to be assuming some sort of "membership" structure, they mention "membership dues". It seems odd that some people are claiming that the GIP proposal is the funding vehicle for Jon Postel's IANA Inc. They might be assuming this because apparently Jon Postel and Vinton Cerf went to high school together. I am not sure that people can conclude that the GIP proposal and the IANA.ORG proposal are synchronized because one seems to support membership where the other does not. Of course, if one assumes that the GIP people are the "Board" of the IANA.ORG, then this could be an evolution where we are seeing what the operational board has decided. If that is the case, then people should be able to claim that the IANA Inc. is already responding to your comments and other people's comments about membership and other matters. @@@@ http://www.gip.org/newback.htm ... "After this period, the GIP believes that the new organization will be financed on the proceeds of its own fundraising efforts and membership dues." ... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm P.S. The GIP people seem to match up with the profile of the IANA.ORG Board that Jon Postel described. They appear to be "well known" people that do not have a high net "profile"....except for maybe Vinton Cerf :-) -------- Logged at Fri Sep 11 14:54:46 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

International public administration
by Annie.Renard＠nic.fr 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

An interesting proposal in the current context... Annie _______________________ The Internet an International Public Treasure A Proposal by Ronda Hauben ronda at panix.com In testimony before the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science of the U.S. Congress on March 31, 1998, Robert Kahn, co-inventor of TCP/IP, indicated the great responsibility that must be taken into account before the U.S. Government changes the administrative oversight, ownership and control of essential aspects of the Internet that are part of what is known as the Domain Name System (DNS)*. Kahn indicated that "the governance issue must take into account the needs and desires of others outside the United States to participate." His testimony also indicated a need to maintain "integrity in the Internet architecture including the management of IP addresses and the need for oversight of critical functions." He described how the Internet grew and flourished under U.S. Government stewardship (before the privatization - I wish to add) because of 2 important components. 1) The U.S. Government funded the necessary research and 2) It made sure the networking community had the responsibility for its operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from bureaucratic obstacles and commercial matters so it could evolve dynamically. He also said that "The relevant US government agencies should remain involved until a workable solution is found and, thereafter retain oversight of the process until and unless an appropriate international oversight mechanism can supplant it." And Kahn recommended insulating the DNS functions which are critical to the continued operation of the Internet so they could be operated "in such a way as to insulate them as much as possible from bureaucratic, commercial and political wrangling." When I attended the meeting of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) in Geneva in July, which was a meeting set up by the U.S. Government to create the private organization to take over these essential DNS functions September 30, 1998, none of the concerns that Kahn raised at this Congressional hearing were indicated as concerns by those rushing to privatize these critical functions of the global Internet. I wrote a report which I circulated about the political and commercial pressures that were operating in the meeting to create the Names Council that I attended. (See "Report from the Front", Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems". The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ ) But what is happening now with the privatization plan of the U.S. Government involves privatization of the functions that coordinate the International aspects of the Internet and thus the U.S. Government has a very special obligation to the technical and scientific community and to the the U.S. public and the people of the world to be responsible in what it does. I don't see that happening at present. A few years ago I met one of the important pioneers of the development of time-sharing, which set the basis for the research creating the Internet. This pioneer, Fernando Corbato, suggested I real a book "Management and the Future of the Computer" which was edited by Martin Greenberger, another time-sharing pioneer. The book was the proceedings of a conference about the Future of the Computer held at MIT in 1961 to celebrate the centennial anniversary of MIT. The British author, Charles Percy Snow made the opening address at the meeting and he described the importance of how government decisions would be made about the future of the computer. Snow cautioned that such decisions must involve people who understood the problems and the technology. And he also expressed the concern that if too small a number of people were involved in making important government decisions, the more likely it would be that serious errors of judgment would be made. Too small a number of people are being involved in this important decision regarding the future of these strategic aspects of the Internet and too many of those who know what is happening and are participating either have conflicts of interest or other reasons why they are not able to consider the real problems and technological issues involved. (About the 1961 conference, see chapter 6 of Netizens at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120) What is happening with the process of the U.S. Government privatization of the Domain Name System is exactly the kind of danger that C.P. Snow warned against. I have been in contact with Ira Magaziner, Senior advisor to the U.S. President on policy with these concerns and he asked me to write a proposal or way to put my concerns into some "operational form." The following draft proposal for comment is my beginning effort to respond to his request. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Draft Proposal Toward an International Public Administration of Essential Functions of the Internet - The Domain Name System Ronda Hauben ronda at panix.com Recently, there has been a rush to find a way to change significant aspects of the Internet. The claim is that there is a controversy that must be resolved about what should be the future of the Domain Name System. It is important to examine this claim and to try to figure out if there is any real problem with regard to the Domain Name System (DNS) that has to be solved. The Internet is a scientific and technical achievement of great magnitude. Fundamental to its development was the discovery of a new way of looking at computer science.(1) The early developers of the ARPANET, the progenitor of the Internet, viewed the computer as a communication device rather than only as an arithmetic engine. This new view, which came from research conducted by those in academic computer science, made the building of the ARPANET possible.(2) Any changes in the administration of key aspects of the Internet need to be guided by a scientific perspective and principles, not by political or commercial pressures. It is most important to keep in mind that scientific methods are open and cooperative. Examining the development of the Internet, an essential problem that becomes evident is that the Internet has become international, but the systems that allow there to be an Internet are under the administration and control of one nation. These include control over the allocation of domain names, over the allocation of IP addresses, over the assignment of protocol numbers and services, as well as control over the root server system and the protocols and standards development process related to the Internet. These are currently under the control and administration of the U.S. Government or contractors to it. Instead of the U.S. Government offering a proposal to solve the problem of how to share the administration of the DNS, which includes central points of control of the Internet, it is supporting and encouraging the creation of a new private entity that will take over and control the Domain Name System. This private entity will magnify many thousands fold the commercial and political pressures and prevent solving the genuine problem of having an internationally shared protection and administration of the DNS, including the root server system, IP number allocations, Internet protocols, etc. Giving these functions over to a private entity will make it possible for these functions to be changed and for the Internet to be broken up into competing root servers, etc. It is the DNS whose key characteristic is to make the network of networks one Internet rather than competing networks with competing root server systems, etc. What is needed is a way to protect the technology of the Internet from commercial and political pressures, so as to create a means of sharing administration of the key DNS functions and the root server system. The private organization that the U.S. Government is asking to be formed is the opposite of protecting the Internet. It is encouraging the take over by a private, non accountable corporate entity of the key Internet functions and of this International public resource. In light of this situation, it is important to draft a proposal which will help to establish a set of principles and recommendations on how to create an international cooperative collaboration to administer and protect these key functions of the Internet from commercial and political pressures. This draft is offered as a beginning of this process. The first essential requirement is that the U.S. Government stop the process it is involved in, including the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) whose objective is to create a private organization to be given the key Domain Name System including the root server system by September 30, 1998. The second essential requirement is that the U.S. Government create a research project or institute (which can be in conjunction with universities, appropriate research institutes, etc.) The goal of this project or institute is to sponsor and have carried out the research to solve the problem of what should be the future of the DNS and its component parts including the root server system. The U.S. should invite the collaboration (including funding, setting up similar research projects, etc.) of any country interested in participating in this research. The researchers from the different nations will work collaboratively. A collaborative international research group will undertake the following: 1) To identify and describe the functions of the DNS system that need to be maintained. (The RFC's or other documents that will help in this need to be gathered and references to them made available to those interested.) 2) To look first at the Internet and then at how the DNS system and root server system is serving the diverse communities and users of the Internet, which include among others the scientific community, the education community, the librarians, the technical community, Governments (National as well as local), the university community, the art and cultural communities, nonprofit organizations, the medical community, the communications functions of the business community, and most importantly the users whoever they be, of the Internet. 3) To maintain an online means of input into their work and of reporting on what they are doing.(This should include as many of the open processes used in the development of Usenet and the ARPANET as possible, including appropriate Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, RFC's etc.) 4) To produce a proposal at the end of a specified finite period of time. The proposal should include: a) an accurate history of how the Internet developed and how the Domain Name System developed and why. b) a discussion of the vision for the future of the Internet that their proposal is part of. This should be based on input gathered from the users of the Internet, and from research of the history and development of the Internet. c) a description of the role the Domain Name System plays in the administration and control of the Internet, how it is functioning, what problems have developed with it. d) a proposal for its further administration, describing how the proposal will provide for the continuation of the functions and control hitherto provided by U.S. Government agencies like NSF and DARPA. Also, problems for the further administrations should be clearly identified and proposals made for how to begin an open process for examining the problems and solving them. e) a description of the problems and pressures that they see that can be a danger for the DNS administration. Also recommendations on how to protect the DNS administration from succumbing to those pressures. (For example from pressures that are political or commercial.) In the early days of Internet development in the U.S. there was an acceptable use policy (AUP) that protected the Internet and the scientific and technical community from the pressures from political and commercial entities. Also in the U.S., Government funding of a sizeable number of people who were the computer science community also protected those people from commercial and political pressures. f) a way for the proposal to be distributed widely online, and the public not online should also have a way to have access to it. It should be made available to people around the world who are part of or interested in the future development of the Internet. Perhaps help with such distribution can come from international organizations like the ITU, from the Internet Society, the IETF, etc. g) comment on what has been learned from the process of doing collaborative work to create the proposal. It should identify as much as possible the problems that developed in their collaborative efforts. Identifying the problems will help clarify what work has to be done to solve them. h) It will be necessary to agree to some way to keep this group of researchers free from commercial and political pressures -- government funding of the researchers is one possible way and maybe they can be working under an agreed upon Acceptable Use Policy for their work and funding. Please let me know any thoughts or comments you have on this draft proposal as it is a beginning effort to figure out what is a real way to solve the problem that is the essential problem in the future administration of the Internet, and that if the principles can be found to solve this problem, the same principles will help to solve other problems of Internet administration and functioning as well. ------------------ Notes: (1) See Michael Hauben, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the ARPANET and Computer Science", in "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE CS Press, 1997, p. 109. See also "Internet, nouvelle utopie humaniste?" by Bernard Lang, Pierre Weis and Veronique Viguie Donzeau-Gouge, "Le Monde", September 26, 1997, as it describes how computer science is a new kind of science and not well understood by many. The authors write: "L'informatique est tout a la fois une science, une technologie et un ensemble d'outils....Dans sa pratique actuelle, l'introduction de l'informatique a l'ecole, et malheureusement souvent a la'universite, est critiquable parce qu'elle entretient la confusion entre ces trois composantes." (2) Ibid. -------------------------------------------------------------- An updated copy of this proposal, as well as other related material will be available at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ I will also try to have copies available at http://lrw.net/hauben/ Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 Last Updated: September 4, 1998 --------------- Note: *I am requesting help circulating this proposal among the Internet community and asking for comments and discussion both on the proposal and on the issues involved with the U.S. government plan to privatize these essential functions of the Internet by September 30, 1998. Also we will be starting a mailing list for those interested in discussing this and it would be good if a newsgroup would be created on Usenet about this issue as well. For too long these issues have been carried out where most people online and off do not know of what is happening or are being told it isn't important, or where it is hard for interested people to find a way to participate. Please write me at ronda at panix.com with any comments on the proposal. -------- Logged at Thu Sep 10 17:43:28 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Soon-to-be-Announced Internet Management Organization
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

@@@@ http://www.gip.org/pressctr.htm > >New Campaign to Raise Start-Up Funding for >Soon-to-be-Announced Internet Management Organization > >Press Advisory >Who, What, Why, When, How > >Press Conference Participant Biographies >John Patrick, Vice President, Internet Technology, IBM Corporation; and >chairman, Global Internet Project >Vinton G. Cerf, senior vice president - Internet Architecture and >Engineering, MCI Communications Corporation; and chairman of the Internet >Society > >Media Coverage > >Companies To Give Money To New Net Names Authority (Reuters 9/9/1998) > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Thu Sep 10 17:42:32 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

?:? .FLIA
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

Walter, It would help if you would put the TLD that you are interested in, in the Subject line. Also, from what I understand AURSC is mostly focused on Australia. You might want to get more people from the RIPE or G3 region involved. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -----Original Message----- From: wbrun at thepla.net <wbrun at thepla.net> To: aursc at lists.ah.net <aursc at lists.ah.net> Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 8:50 AM Subject: [ AURSC ] Application for TLD's ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AURSC Information and User Mail List. Open. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AURSC Information and User Mail List. Open. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >TLD .ONG >TLD .NGO >TLD .RED >TLD .GOB >TLD .MRA >TLD .RTM >.FlY Three letter code for world wide tourism themes.. >These looks fine to me. Not ISO. >.OLE Three letter code spanish tourism themes. >Nice to see my suggestion! Thanks:-) >.FLIA Four letter code for Family in Spanish. >I am currently aware of a .FAM being claimed by another non IRSC member >RSC. It might bee seen that having two like TLDs could be a >disadvantage to Global uniformity. I still think that 400,000,000 Spanish Speakers may feel more identified and confortable with .FLIA than with .FAM. FLIA does not clash with others TLD's and is lets said "cultural appropiate" :-0. I do not think that will pose competition. eg: pedro at gonzalez.flia will be more attractive to the consumer in this instance. >.PLANET Six letter code for users of free web base email services of >ThePlaNet CyberGate. >AURSC policy does not support the use of propriatary TLDs. There is >nothing stopping ThePlaNet from using the TLD inside it's own network >for local use - although .local is recommended. This will be a global free web based email and is relevant to the service. We do not own the PLANET (but we can contibute with it! ) >AURSC members are invited to comment. Especially those who have been >rejected on this policy previously. >TLD >.AND Three letter code for Andorra >.ARG Three letter code for Argentina >.BLZ Three letter code for Belize >.BOL Three letter code for Bolivia >.BRA Three letter code for Brasil >.CHL Three letter code for Chile >.COL Three letter code for Colombia >.CRI Three letter code for Costa Rica >.CUB Three letter code for Cuba >.ECU Three letter code for Ecuador >.ESP Three letter code for Espaqa (Spain) >.GTM Three letter code for Guatemala >.MAC Three letter code for Macao (Macau??) >.MEX Three letter code for Mixico >.PRY Three letter code for Paraguay >.PRT Three letter code for Portugal >.PRI Three letter code for Puerto Rico These are all 3 letter ISO codes. AURSC suports the use of these only for local country of origin. The policy submitted as special conditions relects this (see original posting) so I have no problem >.ESV Three letter code for El Salvador >.FLP Three letter code for Filipinas >.ISM Three letter code for Islas Malvinas (FALKLAND Islands) >.NCG Alternative three letter code for Nicaragua >.PVO Three letter code for Pais Vasco (Vasc Country) >.PAN Three letter code for Panama >.PRU Three letter code for Perz >.RDO Three letter code for Repzblica Dominicana >.TIM Three letter code for Timor del Este (East Timor) >.TRT Three letter code for Trinidad y Tobago >.URU Three letter code for Uruguay >.VEN Three letter code for Venezuela >>I don't have these listed?? muhhhhh...Somehow I got them mixed up ;( Lets stick to the ISO for those countries). >.HON Three letter code for Honduras >Honduras is actually HDN >.NGUA Four letter code for Nicaragua >I don't think this is necessary. We withdraw the request. >.EEUU Four letter code for Estados Unidos (U.S.A) Spanish >convention to abbreviate USA. Ideal for the 40 million Spanish Speakers >in the US.I need more comments on this. I'm not familiar with the >code. Try this: http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/ on the dialog box type: U.S.A U.S. United States Of America. Then select: English to Spanish, and you will get some peace of mind !(and a friendly translator:-)) Walter wbrun at thepla.net ============================================== Why surf a pond? when you can surf ThePlaNet ! ThePlaNet CyberGate Internet Services and Consultancy http://www.thepla.net Internet Access without costing the Earth! ============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to list at lists.ah.net with the body containing unsubscribe aursc user at domain.name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Thu Sep 10 17:38:07 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

2:141 .PLANET
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Terra Communications <wbrun at thepla.net> <snip> >again! Sorry folks no room. > > >Walter >wbrun at thepla.net If you are concerned that there is no room in IPv8, I suggest that you check out IPv4 and RIPE. With 2,048 "seats", IPv8 will handle about 10 times as many TLDs as are currently in the legacy Root Name Servers. This is 10 times more than some people would like to see. While I agree that there really is no limit, because of technology we have to set the boundaries at some reasonable point. If you like think of it like a large auditorium with 2,048 seats. There are logistics to getting people in and out and most importantly to making sure they do not collide. I suggest that people focus on taking one seat at a time to make sure there is room for other people that want a seat. The 8 large regions just help to keep things organized, as it turns out, .PLANET is in G2 and not G3. That may suit you better because G2 started with an emphasis on South America which has many spanish speaking people. 2:141 PLANET Keep in mind that domain names are only part of the challenge ahead. The other goal is to spread the IPv8 address resources around. With the .PLANET TLD the TLD authority can now start to sell, lease or give away IPv8 addresses in the 32-bit block with the following range. 2:141.X.X.X.X. This is an address space as large as the ENTIRE current IPv4 Internet. It will need to be managed well. IN-ADDR.PLANET should be used for reverse delegations in the DNS. If you need any help, there are more and more people familiar with the DNS and the Internet in general. I hope to see your involvement grow and I hope that you help others to get involved. The key to the Internet is to try to help keep it expanding. We also have to try to avoid having all of the resources being captured by a small elite group. That will only happen if many people work to fairly distribute the resources. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Wed Sep 9 16:24:04 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ AURSC ] Application for New TLD's
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

One really has to admire people with open minds. Hopefully, history will remember who they are. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Karrenberg <Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net> To: W.Sylwestrzak at icm.edu.pl <wojsyl1 at icm.edu.pl> Cc: Hank Nussbacher <hank at ibm.net.il>; tld-wg at ripe.net <tld-wg at ripe.net> Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 4:50 AM Subject: Re: [ AURSC ] Application for New TLD's > >Filtering the RIPE WG lists has been suggested earlier. In the discussions >there was consensus that content or sender based filters are a dangerous >proposition because the RIPE WG should be as open as possible. Therefore >we currently filter only messages which are clearly commercial spam. > >I personally think that it is much better if everyone decides indicidually >whether to read particular messages. I for one completely filter anything >from Jim Fleming. > >Daniel > > > "W.Sylwestrzak at icm.edu.pl" <wojsyl1 at icm.edu.pl> writes: > > > > Well, wouldn't it be more efficient to filter such things at the listserv > > instead then ? I'm sure it would safe many people lots of time ... > > > > Or isn't it possible to exclude certain emails from some mailing lists > > for excessive off-topic postings, if this is the case ? > > That would be a normal practice and would be favoured by people > > subscribing to focused discussion lists, such as RIPE WG lists. > > > > shouldn't be a hard thing to do ... > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 9 16:21:55 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ AURSC ] Application for New TLD's
by hank＠ibm.net.il 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

At 11:23 AM 9/9/98 +0200, W.Sylwestrzak at icm.edu.pl wrote: >Er, what are you talking about ? >what is all this G3, IPv8 etc ? never heard about it ... IPv8 is a figment of Jim's imagination. People see his emails and begin to think that perhaps there is some technology they missed in their reading, so they ask around, and Jim is more than happy to reply. Think about someone who places a URL of 5 and 12 year old technical books in his sig that he once wrote. Most people on the Internet have him in their email filters so as not to see his stuff since it proves to be a large waste of time. -Hank > >--w > >> >> >> The answer to your first question is... >> the TLD authorities in G3...I have not >> looked at G3 lately but many of the TLDs >> in the European region were in there. I >> have copied some of the people that >> might have an interest. If I recall, there >> were some new people added for >> Poland. I am not sure where they stand. >> That is for the people in that region to >> work out. This is what self-governance >> is all about. >> >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt >> >> I am not sure there is one web site for >> G3 or one e-mail address. In theory >> there should be about 256 of them. >> You should be able to query the DNS >> to find all of the G3 info, just like G6. >> >> G3 self-governance will depend on the >> TLD authorities in that region. If they >> work together they will have a nice >> neighbor net situation. They can start >> selling, leasing, or giving away IPv8 >> addresses to be used with IPv6 now, >> once they have their G:S number. >> >> If they make a mess of it, that is their >> mess. C'est la vie. >> >> >> 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 >> UNETY Systems, Inc. - http://www.unety.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 9 11:44:13 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

[ AURSC ] Application for New TLD's
by hank＠ibm.net.il 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

At 11:45 AM 9/9/98 +0200, W.Sylwestrzak at icm.edu.pl wrote: >Hank Nussbacher >> >> At 11:23 AM 9/9/98 +0200, W.Sylwestrzak at icm.edu.pl wrote: >> >Er, what are you talking about ? >> >what is all this G3, IPv8 etc ? never heard about it ... >> >> IPv8 is a figment of Jim's imagination. People see his emails and begin to >> think that perhaps there is some technology they missed in their reading, so >> they ask around, and Jim is more than happy to reply. Think about someone >> who places a URL of 5 and 12 year old technical books in his sig that he >> once wrote. Most people on the Internet have him in their email filters so >> as not to see his stuff since it proves to be a large waste of time. >> >> -Hank >> > >Well, wouldn't it be more efficient to filter such things at the listserv >instead then ? I'm sure it would safe many people lots of time ... > >Or isn't it possible to exclude certain emails from some mailing lists >for excessive off-topic postings, if this is the case ? >That would be a normal practice and would be favoured by people >subscribing to focused discussion lists, such as RIPE WG lists. > >shouldn't be a hard thing to do ... APNIC did that about 3 months ago. I would not be against it for RIPE lists. -Hank >--w > > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 9 11:49:20 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

The State of ccTLDs
by richard＠sexton.com 08 Sep '98

08 Sep '98

At 07:57 PM 9/7/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: >It looks like the ORSC and the other RSCs >will have their work cut out for them just to >get the legacy TLDs documented. > >@@@@@ http://www.apng.org/apcctld/minutes/inaugural.html > >"6. Comments from ITU >Bob Shaw, ITU. Research on Domains. >Mr. Shaw's department had surveyed 220+ ccTLD administrators, >contacting people by email, phone, fax and even telex, to try and >identify who is the correct contact point for each ccTLD and record >their address details. Current records of ccTLD administrative >contacts are woefully out of date, and it is important that accurate >records of who is the primary contact for ccTLDs is maintained. > >The data collected has been sent to the IANA, and is currently >available from as a database of >"Internet ISO 3166-Based Top Level Domains". This resource will be >linked from the APccTLD web site" I understand there will be a more comprehensive report soon, but not from Bob's "department". It will include ALL tld's. As Bob has discovered, there are many ccTLDs with no contact information whatsoever. 11 I believe. I think there is also one ctlsd withonly one nameserver listed and one with only one working. It's interesting to note that the technical requirements the new tld community has set for itself far exceeds the vast majority of cctlds. I don't mean to slag anybody, I'm just pointing this out. -- "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. " - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) -------- Logged at Tue Sep 8 19:06:55 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

ccTLDs to Pay IANA
by JimFleming＠unety.net 08 Sep '98

08 Sep '98

Will the ccTLDs have to pay to be part of the ORSC ? @@@@ http://www.apng.org/apcctld/minutes/inaugural.html "Fay Howard, RIPE CENTR Project Manager" ... "However, ccTLD registries operate under local jurisdiction and receive quite limited services from the IANA --maintenance of their TLD in the root server-- , but do realize they will have to pay something towards the new IANA." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 8 19:06:05 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

ccTLDs to Pay IANA
by richard＠sexton.com 08 Sep '98

08 Sep '98

At 08:08 PM 9/7/98 -0500, Jim Fleming wrote: >Will the ccTLDs have to pay to be part >of the ORSC ? > >@@@@ http://www.apng.org/apcctld/minutes/inaugural.html > >"Fay Howard, RIPE CENTR Project Manager" >... >"However, ccTLD registries operate under local jurisdiction >and receive quite limited services from the IANA --maintenance of their >TLD in the root server-- , but do realize they will have to pay >something towards the new IANA." Not at this time. It's expected a nominal membership fee may be imposed at some point. The numbers that have been suggestd ar in the $35 - $100 range, $1000 for corporate membership, but nothing is final. -- "It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. " - Albert Einstein (1879-1955) -------- Logged at Tue Sep 8 19:06:56 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

IANA ccTLD Contracts ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 08 Sep '98

08 Sep '98

Has anyone seen one of these ccTLD contracts from the IANA ? @@@@@ http://www.apng.org/apcctld/minutes/inaugural.html "10. Report on Domainz, New Zealand, Patrick O'Brien, Chief Executive, Domainz" ... "* Obtain a contract to operate the ccTLD. Important to agents and customers that the registry has a firm contract with the new IANA." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 8 19:07:00 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

The State of ccTLDs
by JimFleming＠unety.net 08 Sep '98

08 Sep '98

It looks like the ORSC and the other RSCs will have their work cut out for them just to get the legacy TLDs documented. @@@@@ http://www.apng.org/apcctld/minutes/inaugural.html "6. Comments from ITU Bob Shaw, ITU. Research on Domains. Mr. Shaw's department had surveyed 220+ ccTLD administrators, contacting people by email, phone, fax and even telex, to try and identify who is the correct contact point for each ccTLD and record their address details. Current records of ccTLD administrative contacts are woefully out of date, and it is important that accurate records of who is the primary contact for ccTLDs is maintained. The data collected has been sent to the IANA, and is currently available from as a database of "Internet ISO 3166-Based Top Level Domains". This resource will be linked from the APccTLD web site" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 8 19:05:21 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

TLDs accepted
by JimFleming＠unety.net 08 Sep '98

08 Sep '98

The RSCs might want to pass this on to all of the various TLD managers. @@@@ http://www.apng.org/apcctld/minutes/sg-mtg.html "5. Membership Resolution: We accept any TLD which wants to participate as a member." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 8 19:04:07 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Re: Start of a new Proposal. Was: It's been ...
by JimFleming＠unety.net 06 Sep '98

06 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Christopher Ambler <cambler at iodesign.com> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org> Date: Sunday, September 06, 1998 1:58 PM Subject: [ifwp] Re: Start of a new Proposal. Was: It's been ... >>> I believe that Paul Garrin's event in New York city in mid-September is >still >>> on > >I find it impossible to support anything organized by a company that not >only is infringing on .web, but claims to be the clearing house for all TLDs >for that matter. > >Until name.space comes back down to Earth, I cannot support anything >that they do. > >Christopher > Chris, Will anyone from .WEB be attending this workshop ? @@@ http://www.ripe.net/centr/training/workshop-2.html "CENTR Workshop for Managers of TLDs" @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 7 13:45:00 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE CENTR Meeting - September 22, 1998
by JimFleming＠unety.net 06 Sep '98

06 Sep '98

While some people are focusing on cancelling meetings, we should note that the RIPE CENTR meeting will be held September 22, 1998. http://www.ripe.net/centr/meetings/centr-4/index.html RIPE is one of the more open (and fair) organizations on the Internet. Even though they are mostly focused on IPv4 allocations, they have discovered the merits of being involved with the evolution of TLDs. From an IPv8 point of view, this is a good thing. People tried to divide the world by claiming that IP addresses and domain names have nothing to do with each other. That may be true from a technical sense but is not the case from a business and industry point of view. It is costly to have IP-only registries and those costs are passed on to ISPs and the consumers. In my opinion, it is better to have each of the TLD registries handle a small part of the IP allocation load. This helps to keep the cost down, to spread the resources around in a more fair and equitable manner and helps facilitate the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. This is essentially what IPv8 helps do. Again, I suggest the real issues are with IP address allocations. The TLD issues fall out once the IP resources are allocated fairly. IP addresses are like land and domain names are like billboards. The farmers that control the land along the information superhighway ultimately control the billboards on the highway. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 8 19:03:18 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Proposed Agenda TLD-WG RIPE 31
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 04 Sep '98

04 Sep '98

RIPE 31 TLD-WG (Edinburgh, 23 September 1998) -- Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia (14:00, 10 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 agreement of Agenda 2. Matters arising from RIPE 30 TLD-WG meeting (14:10, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes (RIPE 29) 2.2 adoption of minutes (RIPE 30) 2.3 review of action list 3. Review Workplan (14:20, 10 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Many workplan items have received attention from RIPE-CENTR. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. 4. Liaison with other Working Groups (15:00, 30 mins) DB-WG re whois referral (following RIPE 30 TLD-WG) DNS-WG re best practice 5. RIPE-CENTR Progress (14:30, 30 mins) Presentation (Fay Howard) and discussion -- Break (15:30) -- 6. New IANA and Supporting Organisations (16:00, 60 mins) Additional participants will be welcome to join at this point! 7. AOB (17:00, 5 mins) 8. Conclusions (17:05, 20 mins) 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list -- Close (17:25) -- -------- Logged at Mon Sep 7 13:44:04 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Oh, bother.
by JimFleming＠unety.net 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Carl Malamud <carl at media.org> To: David R. Conrad <David_Conrad at isc.org> Cc: JimFleming at unety.net <JimFleming at unety.net>; list at ifwp.org <list at ifwp.org>; ietf at ietf.org <ietf at ietf.org> Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 2:52 PM Subject: Re: [ifwp] Oh, bother. > >> Another "yes" vote for Anti-Flem filters on the IETF mailing list. > >> Regards, >> -drc > >I agree. Can't our IESG at least convene a working group >to figure out how to properly filter this mailing list? >I know this is a radical idea, but perhaps a sequence of >draft a charter, appoint a chair, circulate a draft, >check out any working code, meet at the next IETF, >and send it up to the IESG as a proposed standard? > >Our leaders don't seem to be able to moderate the direction >of the list, so perhaps a mechanical means such as >Noel suggested is in order. Otherwise, a once-valuable >resource will continue to degenerate beyond the current >low level of pretty-much-useless. > >Carl > > Carl, Are you still in charge of the ISC ? Has ISC finished converting from a non-profit company to for-profit company ? Are you and David Conrad trying to avoid answering about what you plan to do at the end of this month ? Again... What does ISC plan to do at the end of this month as part of the legacy Root Name Server Cluster ? Have you developed your policies on that yet ? Do you plan to just pull whatever root zone that Network Solutions provides ? 1. A - Network Solutions, Inc. (A) 2. B - University of Southern California (ISI2) 3. C - Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER) 4. D - University of Maryland (UMD-TERP) 5. E - NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA) 6. F - Internet Software Consortium (ISC) 7. G - DOD Network Information Center (DIIS-NS) 8. H - Army Research Laboratory (B) 9. I - [No name] (NORDU) (Sweden) 10. J - Network Solutions, Inc. (J) 11. K - European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (K) 12. L - University of Southern California (L) 13. M - WIDE Project (M) (JAPAN) Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com -------- Logged at Fri Sep 4 11:48:11 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Fw: (ngtrans) AAAA Record Transition Strategy
by JimFleming＠unety.net 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

In my opinion, people following the IFWP and White Paper discussions should make sure that they also closely follow the IPv6 evolution. The following note from Jim Bound of DEC is a very important message. Since some of you people are not technical, I would like to point out that IPv8 is not impacted by the situation below. IPv8 uses the IPv4 DNS, as-is, without requiring revolutionary change. IPv8 is able to use IPv6 for basic transport features. Those have nothing to do with the serious IPv6 DNS issues discussed below. We are tracking the IPv6 evolution (or revolution). I will try to continue to keep people informed when major points are raised by people working on IPv6. Besides the points below, Jim Bound made some other excellent points at the IETF meeting last week in Chicago. It was sort of a shame that they have been lost in some of the noise about the new IANA Inc. bylaws. One of Jim's points was about the IETF now having the talent needed to work effectively in certain areas. As more people from the IFWP process make their way to the IETF, they might be able to supply some of the needed talent. The expanding Internet will require a diverse collection of people to make it go. It may be somewhat of a challenge to convince groups like the IETF that they need to be more diverse. Hopefully, gotchas like those described below will help make them realize that they do not have all of the answers. No one has all of the answers. We have to all work together to put the pieces of the puzzle together one piece at a time. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com -----Original Message----- From: bound at zk3.dec.com <bound at zk3.dec.com> To: ngtrans at sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM <ngtrans at sunroof.Eng.Sun.COM> Date: Wednesday, September 02, 1998 3:31 PM Subject: (ngtrans) AAAA Record Transition Strategy >Folks, > >I spoke with the chairs of ngtrans, ipng, and Thomas Narten IESG AD. > >It appears the isssue of moving from the existing AAAA record to the new >AAAA record (e.g. dname, bit-boundaries, edns) will not get done until after >IPv6 has been deployed and in many cases shipped by vendors. > >Hence, we need a plan. After talking to Paul Vixie and a few others >here is a suggestion. > >Assumptions: > a) New AAAA record support should be in the ISC BIND releases > around the summer of 1999 and edns. > b) The integrating drafts for this New AAAA record should be PS > in the IETF and have DNSIND consensus too by summer of 1999. > >A plan: > > a) Deploy IPv6 in the market using the existing AAAA records, > and keep them on the 6bone nodes. > b) Vendors make sure your stub resolvers can accomodate the > i) query for dame records and the reverse. > ii) keep it transparent to the dns apis upon return of > hostent like structure. > c) We should not add an AAAA-Type New or OLD flag to the IPv6 > API (basic or advanced) as we don't want to expose this > to the ISV community building IPv6 apps. > d) Use the eventual edns dns metaquery to be done in BIND too > with the new AAAA records to request AAAA records for > the new type - Note this implies we have a new type rec > for the new AAAA record. > e) Tell users to use the existing AAAA records and when the > new AAAA record is ready then they can also distribute their > name space as approiate to with the updates to AAAA and to > DNS in general (e.g. edns, TSIG, DNSSEC). > f) Vendors this will affect how dynamic updates to dns works > at the server and I am hoping not at the client (this is > a question for Matt). But we need to think about this. > Esp if you have this done which most of us do. > >Other ideas or enhancments or replacements, we need to discuss... > >/jim > > > > -------- Logged at Thu Sep 3 17:02:51 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Internet Administration in the RIPE Area
by veni＠isoc.bg 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

DEAR Daniel, [quote] In the RIPE area the administration of ccTLDs is at widely varying stages of development. However I'd like to emphasize that the structures are quite well developed in those countries with a relatively long Internet history. Typically ccTLDs in those countries are administered by a not-for-profit foundation or association created for that purpose. These bodies are established such that all the stakeholders can be represented. These bodies are typically watched very closely by a number of interest groups, the legislature and the government. [end quote] WHAT do you consider long Internet history? daniel kalchev (daniel at digsys.bg) claims he provides internet since 1989. And he's the ccTLD since 1991. Is this long? If it's long, why the .bg is still a private company, yet an ISP, which is an obvious example of unfair competition? [quote] It is important to point out that not all ccTLDs in the RIPE area have yet reached the sophistication the oldest ones have. Some of the more recently established ccTLDs are still administered by single individuals or academic institutions. However they are all developing and the trend towards open non-for-profit self-regulating structures is quite strong. [end quote] DO YOU mean Bulgaria is inlcuded in this list, too? Because the .bg tlda is definitely not doing any of the things you've mentioned above. regards, Veni Markovski, Chairmain, the Internet Society - Bulgaria, http://www.isoc.bg, http://www.bulgaria.com/isoc/, http://www.bol.bg/isoc/ phone: (+359-2) 9809666, phone/fax (+359-2) 9806431 mailing address: p.o.box 71, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria -------- Logged at Thu Sep 3 15:56:54 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Re: Membership organization
by JimFleming＠unety.net 03 Sep '98

03 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: mueller <mueller at syr.edu> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org> Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 1:11 AM Subject: [ifwp] Re: Membership organization >ISOC's leadership has made some terrible and costly mistakes in the past two >years. My idea was by no means intended to be a vote of support for them or >even for ISOC as it now exists. > >The point was that it is the only organization with an international >membership apparatus in place. If we're serious about a membership >organization that is *individually* based, the question of how membership is >established, verified, votes tallied, etc. becomes extremely important. I >think some of us are not thinking about the practical implications of >implementing that. > I disagree. Some of "us" have been thinking about this for a long time. In my particular case, the IPv8 Plan is the structure that I am assuming will handle most of the needs in this area. The IPv8 Plan is based on individuals that join small trusteeships which I call 2+2+4 because 2 of the people rise to the leadership roles, they each have a back-up and then there are 4 people that help to fill out the group for continuity and eventual rise to leadership roles. In the IPv8 Plan, 2,048 TLDs each have a 2+2+4 trusteeship. That is 16,000+ people. Those 16,000 people are organized into 8 regions with 256 TLDs in each region. The regions are a mix of geocentric TLDs and generic TLDs. People can be a trustee of a TLD and not have anything to do with the registry or registrar operations. The trustees determine what companies get to do those jobs. The trustees represent the people. They are like a mini-IANA for each of the TLDs. With 8 regions, there can be some simple process for having 2 delegates from each region to be selected to work periodically in a 16 person global round table to deal with any global issues that should be rare. The idea is to encourage problems to be solved inside each region and local to what is affectionately called a "neighbor net". That is simply the sum of one trusteeship and the two trusteeships on either side of the TLD. Various schemes can be worked out. Some might prefer that the 2+2 part of the center trusteeship be joined by the 2 leaders from the neighboring trusteeships when problems can not be solved inside of a TLD trusteeship. As an example, recently people were debating some issues with the .PL TLD for Poland. In the IPv8 Plan the trusteeship for the .PL TLD would try to resolve the problem. If they can not, then they could ask for help from the .SALT and .ROME TLD trustees. If necessary, maybe the .GR and .CANVAS trustees would be asked to help. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 3:174 GR (GREECE) 3:175 SALT 3:176 PL (POLAND) <---------- Dispute 3:177 ROME 3:178 CANVAS All the IPv8 Plan takes is an agreement that TLDs are a public resource that should have some small number of people acting as trustees. Then those trustees can be grouped in regions and encouraged to organize themselves. People could become trustees of as many TLDs that will allow them to join. By building upon individual people and using the TLDs as focal points for trusteeships then we can have a structure that allows many people to participate, is immune from capture and encourages people to think global but act local. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com -------- Logged at Thu Sep 3 11:03:33 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

replace .tw with .rc
by wchao＠post.uni-bielefeld.de 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

> >> could any alternate root server help us to do this? > >> An entry in ISO 3166 like > >> China, Republic of RC ROC 158 > >> would be right and better. > Using an alternate root server, you can do whatever you want, except: > (1) You won't change the root zone maintained by the IANA. > (2) You cannot change the ISO 3166 table (at all!). > To solve (1), you'll have to contact IANA, but they strictly follow > the ISO 3166 table. So, you must solve (2) first and that requires an > official contact with the ISO 3166 authority from your government. As > far as I heard, the authority which has to be contacted is located at > DIN offices in Berlin. Because there is no member of ISO in the Republic of China(Taiwan), (I don't know why, althought we do have such an Institute.) so I write a letter to DIN (postmaster at din.de) and wait for an answer.... Wei-Lun Chao -------- Logged at Thu Sep 3 10:50:13 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Internet Administration in the RIPE Area
by Daniel＠karrenberg.net 02 Sep '98

02 Sep '98

Hello, I have written a few personal notes on Internet administration in the RIPE area. Those following the current debate around the issue of establishing a new IANA may find them interesting to read. I'll be happy to receive comments by e-mail. A HTML version can be found at http://www.ripe.net/home/daniel/euro-notes.html A text only version at http://www.ripe.net/home/daniel/euro-notes.txt Daniel -------- Logged at Thu Sep 3 10:54:15 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

CENTR workshop for ccTLD Managers
by estaicut＠linkguide.ici.ro 01 Sep '98

01 Sep '98

> > ************************** > REGISTRATION FOR CENTR WORKSHOP > > I wish to attend the CENTR workshop for Managers of TLD Rgistries > > Name: Eugenie Staicut > > Organization and country: Research Institute for Informatics, Romania > > Position held: Data Communication Center Manager > > Any other Comments: Technical Manager for .ro TLD > Eugenie Staicut -------- Logged at Mon Aug 31 10:51:53 MET DST 1998 ---------

4 7

Problems with PL ccTLD's administrator
by JimFleming＠unety.net 01 Sep '98

01 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: W.Sylwestrzak at icm.edu.pl <wojsyl1 at icm.edu.pl> To: Artur Grzymala <artur at zoo.pl> Cc: tld-wg at ripe.net <tld-wg at ripe.net> Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 7:00 PM Subject: Re: Problems with PL ccTLD's administrator Artur Grzymala: > > Hi, > > I'm looking for help. PL administrator stole my domain. Where can I write > about it? Which internet organization can help me? > First of all, a domainname is not your 'property', actually it's no-one's property. And please don't explain what you mean by PL administrator *stealing* *your* domain. if you have a legal agreement with him, then just sue him for breaking it. --w @@@@@@@@@ I am not sure that it makes sense to fill the courts with domain name disputes that might be easily handled, using the Internet, by the Internet community in the "region" where the dispute is located. Using the "neighbor net" approach, we see that the trustees from Greece and Switzerland and the TLDs in between can come together to help resolve these types of disputes. One person can not do the job. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt 3:174 GR (GREECE) <-------------- Can these people help ? 3:175 SALT 3:176 PL (POLAND) <---------- Dispute 3:177 ROME 3:178 CANVAS 3:179 BEL (BELGIUM) 3:180 LIE (LIECHTENSTEIN) 3:181 FINE 3:182 TUR (TURKEY) 3:183 GEO (GEORGIA) 3:184 CH (SWITZERLAND) <--------- Can these people help ? As the picture above fills in, the dispute would be handled even more local to the .PL domain. In an ideal case we will have the 8 trustees for the .PL domain who can provide a forum to give people a fair hearing. Working out from the .PL domain, the trustees for the .SALT and .ROME domains would be called upon to help. Not the whole world. In summary, this is like a large auditorium. If someone has an illness in one of the "seats" the entire population does not have to rush to their rescue. In many cases, the people local to the situation can resolve the problem. Let's say the person faints. It might be a simple matter of reviving them. The answer is not to bring the whole world in and then to sue everyone. Think global and act local... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com -------- Logged at Wed Sep 2 18:50:42 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

CIX's Position in the IFWP Steering Committee detailed below
by JimFleming＠UNETY.NET 01 Sep '98

01 Sep '98

Dave, Thanks for the summary. To clarify, my main agenda is not IPv6 or IPv8. My main agenda is to help create more resources and to allow those resources to find their way into people's hands around the world with as low a distribution cost as possible to help allow more people to use the Internet without funding a bunch of lounge lizards to fly around the world every time they feel like it funded by taxes they collect from the disadvantaged people that they have under their thumbs....or IN-ADDR.ARPA. I was hopeful that the IETF (without the ISOC) would continue to be a good group to help encourage the low-cost distribution of resources. It now appears that the new IANA Inc. may be a better facilitator for that mission because the IETF has been captured by the ISOC "suits". Even though the IFWP people mean well, they have now attracted the IAHC CORE crowd that is mainly looking to cash in on some quick buck schemes. I am hopeful that Jon Postel saw enough of the IAHC result to know better than to go near the IFWP this time around. He has also been able to witness the "members only" approach used in ARIN and which the IFWP people seem to think provides a democracy. I am confident that Jon Postel and the various old-school IETF people will be able to push forward to move the IANA Inc. to a point where it is legally disjoint from the ISOC and the IETF. When that occurs, we might have a chance to all work to renew the faith and to bring more resources to people around the world at a low cost. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com -----Original Message----- From: Dave Paulsen <dave at reststop.net> To: Multiple recipients of list <com-priv at lists.psi.com> Date: Monday, August 31, 1998 11:38 PM Subject: Re: CIX's Position in the IFWP Steering Committee detailed below >On 30 Aug 98,, Eric Weisberg wrote: > >> 2. Is Jim Flemming correct that this is not worth getting excited about? >> >Well, in some ways. His agenda, of course, is IPvX. Which, I also believe, is >more important in the grand scheme of things than the hoopla over TLDs. >Some of his concerns, however, are equally valid in both debates. > >Other TLDs are being successfully used--on a technical level. And, on a >technical level, the IP address space problem could be migrated more >smoothly into TNG if some of the "big boys" (and I use this term loosely here >(no, it's _mine_, you can't _make_ me give it back)) would aggregate/return >more of the current address space. > >Part of the problem in both debates is the concern over whose "deserving" >pockets the profits are going into, and especially on the in-addr.arpa side, >that profiteering not take place on the _necessary_ resource. I mean, a TLD >is just a string of characters, and with GUIs, no longer of much real use >outside of marketing. For Internet based communications to occur at all, >though, you _need_ an affordable, routable, IP address. > >I think for efficient, ubiquitous use of Internet technologies, both TLDs and >IPvX need to be based on open protocol standards, and centrally managed >(even with a regional second tier for day to day operations) to prevent >collisions and non-reachable sites. As far as I'm aware, the only way to have >this, at least on this particular planet, is either with a "benign" government >agency, or an international non-profit organization, ideally run by geeks. > >And I make that last little comment because _what_ people do on the >Internet is a social phenomena and the capitalists, politicians, and marketers >can do what they will to try to sleaze their way into the mindset of the user; >that people _can_ do what they will on the Internet is solidly in the domain of >the engineer and meddling merely decreases efficiency. > > >_dave_(seemingly obligatory and definitely resource wasting .sig) > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 2 08:52:13 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0