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

.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