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

"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