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 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