- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

No subject
by bogus＠does.not.exist.com 22 Apr '15

22 Apr '15

for arin-members-outgoing; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:38:09 GMT Received: (from pdenitto at localhost) by arin.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) id VAA28288 for arin-members at arin.net; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:38:08 GMT Received: from localhost (memsvcs at localhost) by arin.net (8.8.5/8.8.0) with SMTP id VAA28264 for <arin-members at arin.net>; Wed, 13 May 1998 21:36:49 GMT Date: Wed, 13 May 1998 17:36:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Member Services <memsvcs at arin.net> To: arin-members at arin.net Subject: Remarks by Ira Magaziner to DCISOC Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.3.96.980513173428.28092C-100000 at ops.arin.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-arin-members at arin.net Precedence: bulk A Synopsis of Remarks Made by Ira Magaziner on the Topic of Internet Governance Monday evening, May 11, 1998, Ira Magaziner, Senior Advisor to the President for Policy Development, spoke on the topic of Internet Governance before an audience assembled by the DC chapter of the Internet Society. His presentation addressed the subject from the perspective of the U.S. Government and re-enforced previously stated positions that support the decentralization and privatization of the Internet. It has been several months since the Green Paper (Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses) was published. During that period, some 1500 pages of commentary, submitted in response to that paper, have been reviewed and evaluated. By the end of this week, or early next week, Magaziner promised, the government will publish a White Paper, incorporating some of the suggestions submitted by the Internet community. This would be "the implementing draft" for the upcoming transition. While carefully not divulging information in advance of publication, Magaziner's presentation provided some insight into the general approach that the government intends to take in the area of Internet governance. Referencing recent history and the role that government agencies played in launching the Internet, he told the group that the government still has a legal obligation with respect to Internet Governance but is eager to effect a smooth transition that minimizes its future involvement. In the past, he said, a technology of this sort would invite centralized inter-governmental control. He illustrated this point with references to industries such as telephone, radio and television. A highly regulatory approach "does not make sense" today, according to Magaziner. Instead, he described the vision of the U.S. Government for the Internet as it proceeds forward as relying on private sector leadership that is decentralized and international in nature. Describing the non-profit organization that would assume responsibility for Internet governance as the government's role was phased out, Magaziner outlined four areas of responsibility falling under that authority. The first of these is the assigning of Internet Protocol (IP) address blocks to the numbering authorities. The second area would be policy decision-making in Domain Name issues and the third would be oversight of the management of root servers. The fourth area of responsibility would be the establishment of Internet protocol under IETF guidelines. One issue that emerged clearly from Magaziner's remarks is the government's position that in the future, Domain Name registration should involve competition among registrars with shared access to generic top-level domains. No specific details regarding plans for accomplishing this goal were presented. The composition of the governing organization, based on the information provided Monday evening, will closely resemble the structure outlined in the original green paper. The government will recommend the inclusion of representatives from ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC on the Board. The government, he emphasized, would not appoint the Board but would "recognize" the Board appointed by the Stakeholders. Elaborating on the nature of the appointed Board, Magaziner set forth certain conditions that the new organization must meet to succeed. First, he said that the new organization must operate in a transparent manner with by-laws that allow it to "re-form itself." It is also important for the new organization to be incorporated under one legal authority to ensure stability and hopefully avoid having questions settled by "twenty different courts around the world." The new non-profit entity responsible for governance must have the legal authority and credibility to withstand the "inevitable lawsuits" that will occur. It must, he said, "be robust enough to go forward." In addition, Magaziner said that the organization itself must be international in scope and Stakeholder based. He expressed his belief that the European stakeholders have also accepted the underlying principles behind the new governance structures and that consensus has been achieved in many important areas of concern. He is hopeful that by late summer, the new organization will get underway. He indicated that NSI's contract would not be renewed but that negotiations with NSI would begin quickly following the issuance of the white paper. The transition will occur, but the timetable will be determined by events. The sooner the new organization becomes stable, the sooner the government will withdraw from an active role. The stability of the Internet is at stake and the government recognizes its responsibility and authority to ensure that stability. The white paper will provide the rules to bring about the transfer of control. In his remarks, Magaziner emphasized the need for balance in addressing the multiple issues that presently confront the Internet community. Issues of taxes, tariffs, privacy, and intellectual property, he acknowledged, create complexity and will require international consensus. Recognizing in his concluding remarks that none of us fully understands what is happening as we enter this transition period, Magaziner indicated that at least "we know enough to understand that we do not understand." The key, he said, is in the creation of structures that are flexible enough to evolve. He is also hopeful that groups of people willing to take on these challenges will emerge to take on leadership roles. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.net IPv8 - Designed for the Rest of the Human Race AM Radio Stations ---> http://www.DOT.AM -------- Logged at Thu May 14 17:02:20 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

We will mail 4 U
by qfJAwvzpU＠1coakis.com 24 Nov '10

24 Nov '10

LET US DO YOUR BULK MAILINGS!!! ..$250 PER MILLION THE WAY OF THE FUTURE FOR SUCCESS IN YOUR BUSINESS! Our company will do bulk emailing for your product/service. Addresses are extracted daily by four of our computers, which run 24 hours a day 7 days a week, scanning the net for new addresses. They are fresh! Over 36 million addresses on file. No more than 2 pages (50 lines), no porn and no foul language. We do not do targeted mailings at this price. Targeted mailings $150 per 50,000 addresses extracted. There are no lower prices on the net. Your mailing can be done in a matter of hours. We have 4 computers extracting addresses 24/7. For the fastest service, cheapest prices and cleanest mailings call our processing and new accounts office at 904-282-0945, Monday - Friday 9 - 5 EST. If the line is busy, please keep trying, as bulk mailing is growing fast. We do want to work with you to advertise your product. $250 per million expires December 1, 1997. Price increases to $350 per million, $250 per 500,000. All orders received before December 1 will not reflect the increase. Even with the increase, we will still be the best prices on the net. To have your name removed, call our processing office. Any negative responses will be dealt with accordingly. -------- Logged at Sat Dec 6 23:50:01 MET 1997 ---------

1 0

[Fwd: [queue #24742] (sales) *** VERY URGENT *** .gen.tr .gen.tr]
by ozgit＠metu.edu.tr 14 May '00

14 May '00

[Sorry for cross-posting] Does anybody have any suggestion regarding to how I should pursue this matter? I already (Friday) send e-mail to "icann at icann.org". Best Regards. Attila Ozgit ".tr" ccTLD Administrator

2 3

[ripe.net #19537] Transfer of mailing list membership
by lee＠ripe.net 05 Apr '00

05 Apr '00

Hi all, the RIPE NCC has been requested by CENTR to forward email addresses of subscribers to the RIPE TLD WG to CENTR, for automatic inclusion in the new CENTR DNR forum list... <dnr-forum at lists.centr.org> This is an open list for discussion of domain name registration issues. If you do NOT wish to have your subscription transferred, please contact <ops at ripe.net> with such a statement before Wednesday, 19th April. Thanks, Lee Wilmot RIPE NCC -------- Logged at Sun May 14 14:45:39 CEST 2000 ---------

1 0

CENTR Public Forum at RIPE (replacing TLD-WG)
by fay＠centr.org 16 Feb '00

16 Feb '00

All, CENTR's new public forum will be launched at the RIPE 35 meeting next week in Amsterdam (morning of Wednesday 23/2/00) At the TLD-WG meeting at RIPE 34, the participants agreed to close the working which had a work plan related mostly to the creation of CENTR and work items which have been taken on by CENTR. Many thanks to Niall O'Reilly for all his work as in Chairing the group. The RIPE Chair Rob Blokzijl, advised he had received much interest from RIPE meeting participants for a forum allowing exchange of views and information from all sides involved in DN registration. Whilst the specific technical working groups such as DNS-WG remain under the wing of RIPE, it was felt that CENTR was the more appropriate organisation to facilitate a new public forum on the general aspects of domain Name registration. RIPE will continue to provide the infrastructure and all registering for the RIPE meeting can also attend the CENTR event. See: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/current/ripe-35/index.html The New forum will be called CENTR Domain Name Registration Forum (DNR-F) and is open not only to those associated with registries but to all with an interest in Domain Name registration. We hope to see you at the first meeting when a work plan and format for the group can be debated and agreed. The first meeting will be co-chaired by Fay Howard, CENTR General Manager (Registry)and Sharon Bush of Netnames (Registrar). One item on the agenda will be to select a permanent chair. It must be stressed that this is not a body with decision making powers to influence registry policy. It is hoped to build dialogue, exchange views and collaborate on ideas for improving service and potentially harmonising registration practices. It is also aimed to provide a European forum for discussion on wider issues effecting DN registration (e.g.ICANN, national and European legislation, creation .EU TLD) The first meeting aims primarily to establish the new forum in accordance with the views of those involved. Some potential work topics have been suggested after the draft agenda in order to form a work plan. These will also be placed on the CENTR website as well as the RIPE Meeting pages. See: http://www.centr.org Hope to see you in Amsterdam. Fay Howard ******************************************* Draft Agenda for First Meeting: 1.Welcome and Introductions 2. Introduction from CENTR General Manager and review of TLD-WG final meeting 3. Presentation on CENTR and it's current activities (including update from CENTR Technical Officer on CENTR Technical Meeting 21/2 ) 4.Setting up the DNR Forum: Permanent Chair Format for work (smaller groups?) Mailing lists 5. Establishing a Work plan (See possible subjects above) 6. Registry Information Presentation (to be announced)Possible Subject for work plan Registry/Registrar and Registry/Registrant Contracts Liaison with and Update from CENTR legal working Group Registration/Renewal Procedure Input from both sides on creating a good practice in some areas Registry presentations on their procedures for consultation in the local community Standardisation of Registration Template Merits of WIPO recommendation XML based template Data protection Use of zone file data Local legislation Creation of .EU TLD Technical Issues Investigate potential areas of collaborative work Liaison with CENTR Technical Group and RIPE DNS-WG *********************************************************** Fay Howard CENTR General Manager (Council of European Nation Top level domain Registries) email: <faycentr.org> Sandford Gate tel: +44 1865 332400 Sandy Lane West direct: +44 1865 332405 Oxford, OX4 5LB fax: +44 1865 332401 United Kigdom -------- Logged at Wed Apr 5 13:14:40 CEST 2000 ---------

1 0

A new type of referral
by schneider＠switch.ch 16 Nov '99

16 Nov '99

On Monday, 15 Nov 1999, Engin Gunduz writes: Dear Engin Gunduz We appreciate your efforts and consider your proposal a good idea. Looking forward to get it implemented asap. The CLIENTADDRESS will enable us to limit time and number of queries from referral servers by using a wrapper we wrote around our WHOIS that has configurable access mechanisms based on IP addresses. The background for all this is mainly privacy: people are currently using all means to get access to addresses of Internet users (mostly for spamming purposes). One means is querying RIPE's Josh because such queries could not be limited until now by the authoritative WHOIS server due to lack of detailed information (we would have had to limit the entire Josh). We also encourage other registries to configure their WHOIS servers to allow referral queries by RIPE and let their own WHOIS server answer authoritatively. Marcel > We will be implementing a new type of referral, to be used > to forward the querying client's IP address to the referred > whois server along with the query. Until now, there was no > way to let the referred whois server know the IP address > of the actual whois client, rendering the usage of an ACL > impossible without blocking all referred queries, on the side > of the referred whois server. > Briefly, > o A fourth kind of referral will be defined, CLIENTADDRESS (The other > three were RIPE, INTERNIC and SIMPLE). > o The IP address of the client will be sent to the referred whois > server, if the referral type is CLIENTADDRESS. > o The IP address will be sent using the -V flag. The version and the IP > address will be separated by a comma (eg, -Vripe2.3.1,193.140.45.45). > o No other flag will be forwarded to the referred whois server. > o When the server gets such a request, it will check the IP number of > the server which does the referral against a list of authorized whois > servers. If it is not in the list, it will be rejected. > o Then, the IP address of the client will be extracted from the -V flag > string and it will be regarded as if it is the IP address of a directly > querying whois client (ie, it is checked against the list of > DENYWHOISACESS list). > Please let us know about your ideas and comments regarding this issue, > Regards, > Engin Gunduz > RIPE NCC > DB Group -------- Logged at Fri Feb 18 11:03:25 CET 2000 ---------

1 0

A new type of referral
by engin＠ripe.net 15 Nov '99

15 Nov '99

Dear colleagues, We will be implementing a new type of referral, to be used to forward the querying client's IP address to the referred whois server along with the query. Until now, there was no way to let the referred whois server know the IP address of the actual whois client, rendering the usage of an ACL impossible without blocking all referred queries, on the side of the referred whois server. Briefly, o A fourth kind of referral will be defined, CLIENTADDRESS (The other three were RIPE, INTERNIC and SIMPLE). o The IP address of the client will be sent to the referred whois server, if the referral type is CLIENTADDRESS. o The IP address will be sent using the -V flag. The version and the IP address will be separated by a comma (eg, -Vripe2.3.1,193.140.45.45). o No other flag will be forwarded to the referred whois server. o When the server gets such a request, it will check the IP number of the server which does the referral against a list of authorized whois servers. If it is not in the list, it will be rejected. o Then, the IP address of the client will be extracted from the -V flag string and it will be regarded as if it is the IP address of a directly querying whois client (ie, it is checked against the list of DENYWHOISACESS list). Please let us know about your ideas and comments regarding this issue, Regards, Engin Gunduz RIPE NCC DB Group -------- Logged at Tue Nov 16 17:22:53 CET 1999 ---------

1 0

ccTLD's
by toddcooley＠yahoo.com 03 Nov '99

03 Nov '99

I am a third year law student at the University of Miami in Florida. I am currently writing a paper regarding ccTLD's and ownership. Do ccTLD's attach to the country they represent as appurtances of sovereignty? Any information you can provide on this topic would be appreciated. Thank you, Todd Cooley ===== __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com -------- Logged at Mon Nov 15 17:21:01 CET 1999 ---------

1 0

X-NCC-RegID EU.IBM Reversed address delegation for PI block
by rob_bron＠nl.ibm.com 21 Oct '99

21 Oct '99

(Embedded image moved to file: pic15241.pcx) Rob J Bron @ IBMNL 21/10/99 10:09 To: inaddr at ripe.net@internet, tld-wg at ripe.net cc: Franz_Fasching at at.ibm.nl@internet From: Rob J Bron/Netherlands/IBM at IBMNL Hello, Can you please help me with underneath request. Connect Austria obtained 194.24.128 /19 half a year ago. Because RIPE is the authorative point for this IP block, you should be able to arrange: Austria Conect run their own nameservers, and have everything in place, except the delegation of the de reversed arpa delegatipon to the RIPE nameservers ONE would need the reverse delegation for their address range delegated to their nameservers ns1.connect-austria.at 194.232.99.254 and ns2.connect-austria.at 194.232.98.254 their range is (as you know) 128.24.194.in-addr.arpa up to 149.24.194.in-addr.arpa. Can you advise / help us with the above. Thanks in advance Best regards, vriendelijke groeten, Rob Bron Team leader of the EMEA Order Management team http://w3.nl.ibm.com/services/emeaom AT&T Global Network Services Nederland B.V. International Customer Care Processes Boerhaavelaan 11, 2713 HA Zoetermeer, The Netherlands Tel: +31 79 322 2966 - Fax: +31 79 322 4411 E-mail: Rob_Bron at nl.ibm.com - Notes: Rob J Bron/Netherlands/IBM at IBMNL

1 0

ICANN renames RFC1591 as ICANN IPC1
by Jay＠Iperdome.com 04 Oct '99

04 Oct '99

FYI: Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 11:33:48 -0400 To: poised at lists.tislabs.com From: Gordon Cook <cook at cookreport.com> Subject: ICANN renames RFC1591 as ICANN IPC1 - implicatons??? Dear Poised list members.... please take a look at http://www.noie.gov.au/docs/gac3min.htm There you will find that: "Mr. Roberts reported that there were no further developments related to the review process for the delegation of management of ccTLDs since the May meeting of the GAC. He said that this reflects the limited resources and funding available to ICANN to address the matter and confirmed that ICANN views the matter as important. He said that the document previously known as "RFC 1591" is now titled "ICANN Policy Document 1" or "ICP 1" and is posted on the ICANN website for reference. He confirmed that ICP 1 does not contain any policy changes from RFC 1591 and is a simple restatement in the new format. " I have some questions for Mr. Roberts and list members. It is well known that the GAC would like to hand countrol of country code TLDs to the national governments of each country. If GAC/ICANN were not prepar ing to asset its own control over RFCs why would GAC/ICANN now be grabbing and renaming RFCs? I would imagine that Roberts and company might not be so foolish as to try to say that IPC1 could take precedence over RFC 1591. But I can see ICANN as part of its on going process of taking more and more authoity on to itsel f as saying: THIS is how we are interpreting the management of county code domains. If the IE TF doesn't agree that is the IETF's problem. After all the IETF is subbordinate to ICANN as one of three protocol supporting oganizations. ICANN will let the IETF keep its RFCs. It will just over ride them at will. Given the ICANN's behavior is this something that the IETF wishes to condone? ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:39:03 -0700 (PDT) From: Mike Roberts <mmr at darwin.ptvy.ca.us> To: poised at lists.tislabs.com Subject: Re: RFC1591 and ICANN ICP-1 As was the case with Gordon's last post to POISED, his alleged facts don't match reality very well. If anyone on the list wishes to explore this item beyond the scope of my points below, I'd be happy to discuss it with you offline - see contact info below. - the white paper and the DOC MOU with ICANN explicitly identify TLD delegations as an area of ICANN policy responsibility. We are currently in transition under those various agreements and moving from the era of Jon Postel stewardship of the TLD delegations to one of ICANN responsibility is a task we are now engaged in. The ICANN DNSO has a working group [see dnso.org] focusing on part of the complex issues involved and their recommendations will come to the ICANN Board in due course for further public comment, etc. - as a first step, it was necessary to update and restate the guidance contained in 1591 WITHOUT making any policy changes. This was done last April and May, and the resulting document was discussed by me and others in several meetings in Berlin at the end of May, including the public forum held on the Wednesday. Neither in the meetings in May, nor in the discussions in Santiago in August was there any feedback that ICP-1 was not consistent with previous IANA practice during Jon's management. - RFC-1591 was an informational, not a standards setting RFC. The IETF publishes numerous informational RFC's that meet various needs of the technical community. It was well known that 1591 was a document that Jon used in connection with his personal diplomacy in finding public spirited individuals and organizations around the world that were willing to help spread the Internet by putting up and maintaining a TLD server. ICANN aspires to do as well as Jon did with this task and it won't be easy. - The relationship between ICANN and IAB/IETF is set out in the PSO MOU, and in the exchange of correspondence between Esther Dyson and Brian Carpenter from last winter, which will shortly be the subject of an IAB/IANA MOU. These are public documents, they are not ambiguous, and they do not give any policy role to ICANN in the technical standards setting activity of the IETF. - Mike Roberts ----------- Michael M. Roberts Interim President and Chief Executive Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330, Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 +1 310.823.9358 voice +1 310.823.8649 fax http://www.icann.org Office of the Interim President & CEO 339 La Cuesta Drive, Portola Valley, CA 94028 USA +1.650.854.2108 voice / +1.650.854.8134 fax roberts at icann.org -------- Logged at Thu Oct 21 11:10:10 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

RIPE 34 TLD WG: Meeting Summary
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 24 Sep '99

24 Sep '99

RIPE 34: TLD-WG Summary Place: Grand Hotel Krasnapolsky, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Date: 22 September, 1999 Chair: Niall O'Reilly Scribe: Vesna Manojlovic Participants: 33 ccTLD Registries represented: 13 This short summary of the TLD-WG session was presented at the closing plenary session of RIPE 34. Please see the RIPE 34 TLD-WG Minutes (when available) for more detail. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Future of TLD WG The WG was closed. Now that CENTR is established, it appears to be the organisation which should best deal with most of the work areas belonging to the TLD WG. It is hoped that a CENTR working group will begin functioning soon and that it will meet at RIPE 35. Some work areas appear to fall more naturally to the continuing RIPE DNS WG. Work areas from the TLD-WG workplan were identified to be entrusted to DNS-WG and to CENTR, as shown below. DNS-WG: Stability of the DNS Root DNS Infrastructure Resources CENTR: IANA and ICANN Documentation and alignment of practices Emerging Registries Tools and Techniques ---------------------------------------------------------------- Input from other RIPE WG's DB-WG Input needed on specification of domain object for next revision of code. Operational difficulties around domain objects. Need decision on migration of domain objects -- CENTR to respond urgently. Specification input deferred until migration path decided. ---------------------------------------------------------------- CENTR Update Presentation by Fay Howard. CENTR has incorporated, is recruiting a Technical Project Officer, and is expected to have a technical programme, with its own working groups. CENTR is aware of problems wrt domain objects in RIPE DB and is in active dialogue with RIPE NCC. CENTR has had to concentrate on global ICANN and DNSO issues, and now expects to have a more "European" focus. Seven DNSO constituencies provisionally recognised, among which ccTLD constituency. ccTLD's have elected 3 NC members. Elections for ICANN Board follow in October. See http://www.centr.org. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Current Actions TLD-33.1 [Chair] Provide minutes for RIPE 32 TLD WG Draft ready; kept open; to be reviewed on list. TLD-33.2 [Chair] Initiate discussion of issues arising around domain objects in RIPE database. Some discussion has taken place between interested parties, especially RIPE-NCC, CENTR and certain registries. Transferred to CENTR, for decision during next week (beginning 27 September 1999). TLD-33.3 [Chair] Request information from registries on whether they are prepared to make their data available for pilot project using HARMONIC interface. NIC-FR is making contact directly. OBE; closed. TLD-33.4 [Chair] Place Future Direction of TLD-WG on Agenda for RIPE-34 and stimulate preparatory discussion on mailing list. Done; closed. TLD-33.5 [All] Contribute to workplan discussion on mailing list. OBE; closed. ---------------------------------------------------------------- New Actions TLD-34.1 [Chair] Ensure loose ends are tidied up, in particular by alerting inheritors of work areas and action items, and by taking care of minutes. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks I would like to thank everyone who has contributed to the TLD WG and who has made it an interesting experience for me as Chairman. I would particularly like to thank Vesna and also her predecessors at earlier meetings for taking the meeting notes. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Oct 5 00:00:53 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

DRAFT Minutes RIPE 32 TLD WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 23 Sep '99

23 Sep '99

I am now able to circulate draft minutes of the RIPE 32 TLD WG. This draft is for comment until 10 October 1999. In default of comment by then, this draft will become the official record of the meeting. Special thanks to Hans Niklasson, who took the notes. Niall O'Reilly DRAFT Minutes RIPE 32 TLD WG 1. Administrivia 1.1 Scribe: Hans Niklasson 1.2 Agenda: as drafted 2. Matters arising from RIPE 31 TLD-WG meeting 2.1 adoption of minutes RIPE 29 Only a summary was available. Wilfred Woeber proposed adoption of this as formal record; Mike Norris seconded. 2.2 adoption of minutes RIPE 30 Adoption of the minutes was proposed by Fay Howard 2.3 adoption of minutes RIPE 31 Adoption of the minutes was proposed by Daniel Karrenberg, seconded by Eva Froelich 2.3 review of action list TLD-31-1: Niall O'Reilly Finalise the minutes from the RIPE 29 meeting Completed (2.1 above) TLD-31-2: Niall O'Reilly Finalise the minutes from the RIPE 30 meeting Completed (2.2 above) TLD-31-3: Niall O'Reilly Obtain information on status of referral mechanism. Completed (4 below) 3. Review Workplan The group's workplan was found to need reorganisation, with merging if some sections. Chair agreed to prepare new draft for next meeting (Action: TLD-32.1). Activity relevant to the following particular work areas was noted. TLD Coordination Project Activity CENTR was expected to contines this as the successor to the RIPE CENTR project. Documentation and alignment of practices NIC-FR had developed a directory system. Philippe Renaud offered to demonstrate this at RIPE 33 (Action: TLD-32.4). DNS Infrastructure Resources DNS-WG was reported to be working on BCP document. Explicit reference to liaison with DNS-WG was needed in Workplan. DNSsec was expected in next version of BIND. Daniel Karrenberg offered to invite ISC presentation at next meeting if interest was sufficient. Chair undertook to make soundings on list (Action: TLD-32.2). 4. Whois referral feature Joao Luis Silva Damas gave a report on the database referral feature for domain names. Two ways to go, either leave it the way it is or another way to display. Four registries were believed to be using the RIPE whois and database code. Chair undertook to obtain firmer information (Action: TLD-32.3). It was agreed that the current implementation was just what was needed. 5. RIPE-CENTR Progress Fay Howard gave a report on current status of the RIPE CENTR Project. The creation of an independent CENTR organisation was under way, with an Executive Committee elected and incorporation expected shortly. This would allow the RIPE CENTR project to come to an end by 30 June 1999. 6. ICANN/DNSO Update Fay Howard reported developments to date in shaping of ICANN's Domain Names Supporting Organisation (DNSO), and described CENTR's position in this regard. CENTR was supporting ICANN, and was concerned to have continuity for ccTLD's and formalization of relationship between ccTLD's and ICANN. CENTR was participating in initative to form DNSO. A number of draft DNSO definitions had been proposed, including a draft from Ireland which had broad support from CENTR, but no consensus had yet emerged. Negotiations were continuing, most recently at and around a public meeting in Washington on 22 January and a closed meeting the day before. Negotiations were expected to continue in the near future, with ICANN pressing for conclusion by 5 February to allow a one-month notice period in advance of the Singapore ICANN meeting early in March. It was hoped to find ways for TLD-WG and CENTR to work together after resolution of the ICANN/DNSO issues and to maintain liason until then. 7. AOB Mike Norris suggested that it was timely to review the cocument RIPE-152, especially with regard to TLD registries, and agreed to co-ordinate this activity (Action: TLD-32.5). 8. Conclusions 8.1 revisit workplan priorities 8.2 summarize action list TLD-32.1 [Chair] Update Workplan TLD-32.2 [Chair] Determine DNS-SEC plans and need for support from DNS-WG TLD-32.3 [Chair] Advise DB-WG of number of registries planning to use RIPE whois code TLD-32.4 [Philippe Renaut] Present NIC-FR directory work at Vienna TLD-32.5 [Mike Norris] Co-ordinate review of RIPE-152 -- End -- -------- Logged at Fri Sep 24 12:11:36 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Status of TLD WG Actions
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 Sep '99

15 Sep '99

TLD-33.1 [Chair] Provide minutes for RIPE-32 TLD-WG. -- Still open: closure expected soon -- TLD-33.2 [Chair] Initiate discussion of issues arising around domain objects in RIPE database, including: the large number of domain objects in the RIPE DB, authority for these objects, quality of data in these objects, possibility of distributing data among several databases, single point of initial reference, control of access to the data, data privacy, and possible differences in policy among registries. These issues need to be discussed, next requirements determined, and corresponding resources identified. -- Open: discussion in progress between CENTR and RIPE-NCC -- TLD-33.3 [Chair] Request information from registries on whether they are prepared to make their data available for pilot project using HARMONIC interface. -- Open: some registries are already working with NIC-FR -- TLD-33.4 [Chair] Place Future Direction of TLD-WG on Agenda for RIPE-34 and stimulate preparatory discussion on mailing list. -- Done -- TLD-33.5 [All] Contribute to workplan discussion on mailing list. -- Open: some discussion has taken place -- -------- Logged at Thu Sep 23 21:00:20 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

PROPOSED Agenda RIPE 34 TLD WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 Sep '99

15 Sep '99

TLD-WG session at RIPE 34: Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia o recognition of Scribe (volunteer needed) o agreement of Agenda o minutes from RIPE 33 o review of action list 2. Input from other RIPE WG's, if any 3. CENTR Report (Fay Howard) 4. Future Direction of TLD WG 5. Review Workplan Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. This review must take account of the conclusions reached under item 4, above. 6. AOB 7. Conclusions -------- Logged at Wed Sep 15 22:36:46 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

DRAFT Minutes RIPE 33 TLD WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 Sep '99

15 Sep '99

RIPE 33: DRAFT TLD-WG Minutes Place: Palais Auersperg, Vienna, Austria Date: 5 May 1999 Chair: Niall O'Reilly Scribe: Maldwyn Morris Participants: 33 ccTLD Registries represented: 9 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia 2. Review Work plan 3. HarmoNIC Presentation by Philippe Renaut 4. CENTR Presentation by Fay Howard 5. ICANN/DNSO Presentation by Fay Howard 6. AOB 7. Conclusions 1. Administrivia 1.1 Recognition of Scribe Maldwyn Morris kindly volunteered to take notes of the meeting. 1.2 Approval of minutes from RIPE 32 No minutes from RIPE 32 ACTION 33.1 on Chair to ensure they are produced. 1.3 Agreement of Agenda The proposed agenda was agreed. 1.4 Review of Current Actions TLD-32.1 [Chair] Update Workplan Chair had recently posted workplan discussion document (http://www.ripe.net/???) to TLD-WG list. Most of those present had not yet seen this. Kept open. TLD-32.2 [Chair] Determine DNS-SEC plans and need for support from DNS-WG No registries have advised Chair of plans to implement DNS-SEC. A couple have indicated that guidance from DNS-WG would be welcome. One has indicated that preparatory study is in progress. Done TLD-32.3 [Chair] Advise DB-WG of number of registries planning to use RIPE whois code Nine registries are either using or considering using the code. Chair proposed new ACTION 33.2 on Chair to find out more about who is using RIPE database at RIPE NCC for domain objects. Done TLD-32.4 [Philippe Renaut] Present NIC-FR directory work at Vienna (Agenda item 3) Done TLD-32.5 [Mike Norris] Co-ordinate review of RIPE-152 Chair proposed to close as OBE. No disagreement from floor. Closed as OBE 2. Review Workplan Chair proposed to drop many sections and re-align others, as suggested in the discussion document, which he presented, as most present had not seen it. The following additional suggestions were made. o Split IANA and Stability of Root into two sections: IANA/ICANN and Root Stability. ICANN is now defined and supporting organizations are emerging. The inaugural meeting in Berlin will define them further. CENTR has helped define both the DNSO and the ccTLD area within DNSO. Fay said that Marcel Schneider had initiated an ICANN/TLD relations activity but this could be done by CENTR, not just Marcel. Root stability needs firmer plans. There should be no changes in Delegation without due process, and the DNSO was the forum for discussing this. o TLD coordination Project Activity. CENTR doesn't cover all TLD activities. Need task force to do TLD activities. The Chair proposed that task forces should be set up for specific TLD activities. Discussion on next steps was to be dealt with in Section 7 of this meeting. 3. HARMONIC: Directory Service of NIC.FR Presentation by Philippe Renaut Domain directory tool for all ccTLDs, initially working for .fr Enables users to find extra non-technical information not stored in the RIPE DB, such as Activities. Can search for Organizations by Postal Address, Activity, Sector. Can search for Domains by parts of name. Can search for web sites in .fr domain. It means users can search the net not by domain name, so this takes the pressure off domain names. Uses standardized address in address part of RIPE DB. Those interested are welcome to look: http://harmonic.nic.fr An no-image version will be developed. Other NICs are interested and it could become a global tool. An LDAP upper layer will be developed to standradise the information Philippe asked the permission of other ccTLDs to use their information in the system and suggested that they discuss it with him after the meeting. Philippe answered a number of questions from those present. Q: How is the information collected Philippe: Differs per country, but France's NIC collects the info for .fr Q: Who supplies the information ? Is it Official ? Philippe: Yes it is official. Some is from the RIPE Database, some is requested by the NIC when the domain is registered. Q: Who updates the info - Nic or the client ? Philippe: The client, but ISPs say they don't necessarily want to do it, so will allow both to do it. If clients don't want to appear, they don't have to. Q: Are updates handled automatically. Are they authenticated ? Philippe: Yes, Yes - with a password. Q: When is the Launch date ? Philippe: Already launched for .fr Q: What are the hit rates ? Philippe: 150 connections per day. 4. CENTR Update Presentation by Fay Howard. See http://www.centr.org. RIPE-CENTR Project is winding down. CENTR has elected a committee, has 23 intended member registries, is incorporated in UK following poll, locating in Oxford 7/6/99, looking for technical and admin officers. Fay Howard has been appointed General Manager. A technical workshop is planned in conjunction with RIPE-34. Gerhard Winkler mentioned possible technical work items for CENTR: o DNS secondary, structure, QOS, requirements o Whois DB - need or split from RIPE DB for domains ? o DNS SEC - need ?, how ? o Shared Registry system- how ?, need ? o How to run registry ? o Liaisons - ask other WGs o Share resources o Common Database structures Fay suggested that maybe RIPE NCC does not want to store domain names after CENTR is set up in Oxford. Rob Blokzijl, RIPE Chairman, said that he had indicated that we need to think about this, but that that didn't mean that RIPE is unwilling to continue to support it. [ Coffee Break ] 5. ICANN/DNSO Update Presentation by Fay Howard. See http://www.icann.org. Fay mentioned CENTR participation in consensus-building, and the different DNSO-definition proposals known as the Paris, BMW, Singapore documents. She described the current DNSO Formation ideas, with Constituencies and General Assembly. and that Inaugural Meetings had been scheduled in Berlin later this month. Fay asked who was planning to go to Berlin and three people indicated that they were intending to go. 6. AOB o Relations with other WGs DB-WG had raised concern over domain objects in RIPE database. This was discussed earlier in the meeting when reviewing the action items. It was reported that at the moment only Switzerland and Liechtenstein were known to use to use Referral. o Status of this WG Rob Blokzijl said that the meeting should consider putting in the agenda for this WG at RIPE 34, when CENTR is settled, the question of how to proceed with this WG. Chair said this largely overlaps with Section 7 of this meeting's agenda, but that the WG should discuss this on the tld-wg at ripe.net mailing list. 7. Conclusions o Directions for the group Chair proposed ACTION on chair to seek discussion of the directions for the group on the lir/wg mailing list. Floor concurred. o Revisiting the Work plan Chair proposed ACTION on ALL to discuss this on the tld-wg at ripe.net mailing list. Floor concurred. The chair thanked all the participants, and meeting was closed. The following actions were outstanding for the working group at the end of the meeting. TLD-33.1 [Chair] Provide minutes for RIPE-32 TLD-WG. TLD-33.2 [Chair] Initiate discussion of issues arising around domain objects in RIPE database, including: the large number of domain objects in the RIPE DB, authority for these objects, quality of data in these objects, possibility of distributing data among several databases, single point of initial reference, control of access to the data, data privacy, and possible differences in policy among registries. These issues need to be discussed, next requirements determined, and corresponding resources identified. TLD-33.3 [Chair] Request information from registries on whether they are prepared to make their data available for pilot project using HARMONIC interface. TLD-33.4 [Chair] Place Future Direction of TLD-WG on Agenda for RIPE-34 and stimulate preparatory discussion on mailing list. TLD-33.5 [All] Contribute to workplan discussion on mailing list. ---------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Wed Sep 15 22:36:08 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

RIPE handles delay
by woeber＠cc.univie.ac.at 15 Sep '99

15 Sep '99

Dear Vesa! => response to updates more directly related to the RIPE DB intended purpose => while still ensuring that others not so directly related will get => processed. = =This tactful comment probably means a turn to the right direction. =But I wish it was said loudly and clearly, maybe even as a complete =change in DB usage policy. We pay for address registration services, =please take the domain (non-rev-dns-related) objects elsewhere. To statr with I'd like to assure you that we are (sometimes painfully) aware of the issue(s) you'r point fingers at. Quite a bit of things have been achived already to allow us to move in the right direction in due time: Technically: the NCC already has implemented the WG-approved refer: attribute to allow referrals to "remote" autoritative servers for domain: objects. This is already being use by (a few) TLD registries, others are working towards that end. Logistics: CENTR was formed within the framework of the RIPE NCC quite a while ago to deal with TLD activites (or DNS issues in general). CENTR has meanwhile been incoprorated as a legal entity of it's own, and moved office to the UK. RIPE discussions: we have already (recently) started to discuss (both informally amongst the WG chairs, as well as within the various WG meetings) the issues with co-locating different registries within a single database environment (i.e. the IP-Registry, Routing-Registry, DNS-Registry). These issues are (amongst others) . authority for data and responsibility for data quality . access patterns ie.e. (updates vs. consumers, privacy, copyright) . providing operational resources As an aside, you are correct in stating that the NCC's main objective rests with the IP-Address, including reverseDNS and Routing Registry activites. But, at the same time, the creation of and support for CENTR and the DNS-related activites was agreed by the RIPE community and there was (still is?) a contract in place between the NCC and CENTR to have CENTR contribute equitably to the NCC's operational costs. I'm looking forward to continue this thread of discussion (within the DB-WG framework or somewhere else) as well as to corrections and amendments by the RIPE community and WG chairs, and/or from NCC staff. Best regards, and thanks for bringing this up (again) for consideration! Wilfried Woeber DataBase WG chair. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wilfried Woeber : e-mail: Woeber at CC.UniVie.ac.at Computer Center - ACOnet : Tel: +43 1 4277 - 140 33 Vienna University : Fax: +43 1 4277 - 9 140 Universitaetsstrasse 7 : RIPE-DB (&NIC) Handle: WW144 A-1010 Vienna, Austria, Europe : PGP public key ID 0xF0ACB369 __________________________________________________________________________ -------- Logged at Wed Sep 15 22:34:54 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

RIPE handles delay
by joao＠ripe.net 14 Sep '99

14 Sep '99

Hi, we have been having a lot of trouble lately here at the NCC. Apart from some HW problems, that are now fixed, we are still receiving updates at a rate and in a combination that the DB can't presently handle in a fast way. All messages sent are queued and processed in turn. We are working on optimizing the software to handle these updates faster. Also we are going to deploy a queue control system to ensure a prompt response to updates more directly related to the RIPE DB intended purpose while still ensuring that others not so directly related will get processed. Currently we are processing the mails that were causing the problems with a lower priority to ensure an adequate service to the community. I will be presenting an in depth report on the situation next week at the RIPE meeting (DB wg). Shall the TLD wg also be interested in the some sort of presentation or overview I will be glad to present it. We have been reporting on the situation to this and other RIPE wgs and shall continue to do so. At this moment the situation is such that messages are being processed as in the good old days :-) Best regards, Joao Damas RIPE DB Group Manager RIPE NCC On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Alfredo E. Cotroneo wrote: > Hi, > > For the last ten days or so we have noticed that replies for a new contact > handle to auto-dbm at ripe.net is taking much more than the usual 2-5 minutes > as it used to be in the good old times ;-) Although we request only a few > handles per month, a relly from RIPE takes now 10-20 hrs or more in some > cases, regardless of the time (day or night, week or week-end) when the > request is sent out. > > I have heard of some kind of explanation related to SW/HW upgrades at RIPE > and huge requests of handles being queued by some provider a few days ago, > however, can someone at RIPE tell if the situation is going to be solved > soon and when ? > > Unfortunately this is causing at least an additional 1+ day delay in the > registration of new domains at the Italian NIC, as IT-NIC requests that a > handle exists for each contact before the domain registration form is > submitted. Of course any comment from IT-NIC on how they can modify their > internal procedures to minimize such delays (i.e. by IT-NIC requesting a > new handle to RIPE directly) is also welcome. > > Thanks. > > > -- > Alfredo E. Cotroneo PO Box 11028, 20110, Milano, Italy > Phone: +39-335-214-614 (try first) / +39-02-266-6971 > email: alfredo at nexus.org fax: +39-02-706-38151 > > -------- Logged at Tue Sep 14 17:22:17 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by schneider＠switch.ch 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

On Monday, 13 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: ... > Currently, each registry has its own "domain registration/modify" > interface (some web-based, some mail based, maybe some are already > database based). > Soon, PGP or GNU-PG as means for authentication will come into > play. So, it's some to standardize, otherwise the RIPE members will > have to "write code back and forth". I start to understand that you are not talking about WHOIS but about some sort of registry-registrar protocol or maybe software. Is that correct ? If you're a CORE member you may present at RIPE-34 what you are doing. Or do you want RIPE members top develop a new one ? There ist the Registry- Registrar protocol currently developed by NSI with its testbed registrars and there is the SRS (Shared Registry System) proposed a while ago by CORE, but probably discontinued now. Hopefully we'll have Siegfried Langenbach at the RIPE meeting to learn more of the current status. Marcel -------- Logged at Tue Sep 14 15:04:36 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by schneider＠switch.ch 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

On Monday, 13 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: Hello Kurt > The RIPE TLD-WG might try to get a standards discussion started for > all technical interfaces into DNS registration: > - whois query interface > - template syntax > - syntax checks on fields > - Validity checks > - Change/Modify interface > in short, for every aspect required to automate as many tasks as possible > for domain delegation. Since IMO all TLD's in the RIPE area use RIPE WHOIS your proposal makes sense. I do not fully understand these issues: > - syntax checks on fields > - Validity checks Do you mean checks implemented in WHOIS or checks implemented by the interface offered by the registry to you to enter WHOIS information ? > - Change/Modify interface What interface ? WHOIS uses an ASCII text based simple query mechanism to communicate with. See RFC-954. Where ist the interface here ? Are you suggesting one ? Marcel -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 16:26:08 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

New TLD mailing list created
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

Hello, Apologies for possible mutual copies of this message. Please, feel free to distribute this message worldwide, to other ccTLD representatives, not being subscribed to wwtld or tld-wg mailing lists. Following the iniative on the <wwtld at ripe.net> mailing list, backed by several people, a new mailing list, dedicated to TECHNICAL issues of ccTLD operation, has been created on the DNSO mailing list server. The idea is to separate technical details from general issues. The mailing list address is: <wwtld-tech at dnso.org>. The mailing list is closed to the technical staff working with various ccTLD registries around the world (of course, admins are also welcome). If I receive no objections until this Friday, 17 Sep 1999, I'll add all current technical contacts from the NSI (InterNIC) Whois database automatically to the list. I would also suggest that someone from IANA (Bill Manning or Josh Elliott) be subscribed to this list. Should we also invite ISC (Paul Vixie) - his inputs might be extremely useful to all of us? For additions/removals to the list, contact <owner-wwtld-tech at dnso.org>. The scope of the list are discussions about various DNS software and their bugs (included crossposts from bugtraq related to the DNS), DNSSEC, whois implementations, tracking and ticketing systems, reports from root server administrators interesting for wide tech public etc. The list is NOT intended for non-technical issues (geographical diversity of Domain Council members, elections to SOs, government-TLD relationships etc.). 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 | 3218-350 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 14:47:26 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by schneider＠switch.ch 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

On Monday, 13 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: Hello Kurt ... > Well, then ask yourself: how much different is your workflow, e.g. > from the one from .at 8-) ? What exactly is your point ? > -- > MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! > LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net > Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 > D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 > For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." Marcel -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 14:12:34 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by schneider＠switch.ch 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

On Sunday, 12 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: Hello >> It may indeed be that only registries (only registries are >> members of CENTR) need to be involved in TLD issues. >> >> Is there another view ? > Basically, if they come to common standards, then there's no > need to intervene 8-) > As we currently delegate domains from more than one country, > some, ahem, standardisation might be useful. Currently, it's a mess > with different rules, templates etc for each country with respect to almost > everything. Hope you are aware that the registrars under COM/NET /ORG are allowed to have different policies as well. Check out e.g. NSI's that from register.com and the one from Namesecure at http://www.namesecure.com/services/dispute_policy.cfm. You will find many differences. I'm not against harmonization but you may also be aware the most commonly used policy, the one from NSI, is considered a debacle, at least with respect to marks. Would it help if anybody would adopt something that is considered a flop ? > I'm not sure whether this deviation from common ground is obvious > to the TLDs themselves, as they normally only deal with their > own TLD 8-) We know quite well what's happening outside our territory, don't be afraid ;-). > -- > MfG/Best regards, Kurt Jaeger 21 years to go ! > LF.net GmbH pi at LF.net Oberon.net GmbH pi at oberon.net > Vor dem Lauch 23 fon +49 711 90074-23 Friedrich-Ebert-Str.1 > D-70567 Stuttgart fax +49 711 7289041 40210 Duesseldorf fon +49 211 179253-11 > For Redmond: "nuke the site from orbit -- it's the only way to be sure." Marcel Schneider at SWITCH -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 10:13:29 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 13 Sep '99

13 Sep '99

On Mon, 13 Sep 1999 09:44:32 +0200, Marcel Schneider wrote: > On Sunday, 12 Sep 1999, "Kurt Jaeger" writes: > > Hello > [ ... ] > > Basically, if they come to common standards, then there's no > > need to intervene 8-) > > > As we currently delegate domains from more than one country, > > some, ahem, standardisation might be useful. Currently, it's a mess > > with different rules, templates etc for each country with respect to almost > > everything. > [ ... ] > > > I'm not sure whether this deviation from common ground is obvious > > to the TLDs themselves, as they normally only deal with their > > own TLD 8-) > > We know quite well what's happening outside our territory, don't > be afraid ;-). > Marcel, "outside our territory" indicates a perspective which is quite natural for a registry. Kurt's perspective is different, and one which I believe we registry people (although we understand it in principle) may not be sufficiently aware of. He is a customer of (or has to deal with) several registries. Maybe we can learn something useful from listening to how others see us. Kurt, would you like to say more ... ? Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 11:09:06 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 12 Sep '99

12 Sep '99

On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:02:04 +0200, Marcel Schneider wrote: > It still could be a forum for technical matters regarding > DNS, e.g. secure DNS, WHOIS servers and clients, security, > BIND stuff etc. but there is overlap with other WG's and > CENTR as you notice. Therefore it might be that no specific > TLD issues are left (well, maybe except technical management > of a TLD name registry). The suggestions I've seen for the technical workshop which CENTR is organising in conjunction with RIPE 34 seem to indicated that CENTR is trying to develop a set of technical activities. It may indeed be that only registries (only registries are members of CENTR) need to be involved in TLD issues. Is there another view ? Niall -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 10:06:08 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

HarmoNIC : progress report
by renaut＠nic.fr 10 Sep '99

10 Sep '99

Hi all, following Neil's mail on HarmoNIC, the NIC-FR's directory system, I can make a short progress report on it. This directory is currently operationnal in France in two languages at the following URL http://harmonic.nic.fr The news are : - it is being presented to a European Commission's call for proposal which should enable us to jump to 8 languages instead of two. - DENIC is in this project and will be using HarmoNIC directory too. These two news may help you to feel that this project is evolving nicely. A bi-country first phase of development can help getting rid of technical issues. It is still perfect momentum to try to create a harmonized European tool to offer to users a nice way of searching domains. So everyone which could be interested is welcome. Please let me know ! Philippe RENAUT AFNIC -------- Logged at Mon Sep 13 09:29:01 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 10 Sep '99

10 Sep '99

On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 14:02:04 +0200, Marcel Schneider wrote: > On Tuesday, 7 Sep 1999, Jaap Akkerhuis writes: > > Hi Jaap > > > I do agree with you that there is quite some overlap with work > > being carried out with by CENTRE and other groups make one wonder > > about the raison d'etre of the TLD-WG. > > The TLD-WG was created before CENTR. May 1997 seems such a long time ago! The raison-d'etre for a TLD WG was so much clearer then. > ... > > CENTR is a club concerned with policies and politics. Having > a technical group in addition _could_ be advantageous. This > probably is what Niall would like to have discussed and an > agenda if the RIPE TLD-WG stays alive. I think we should > support him with these tasks. > CENTR is starting to develop its own line of technical activities. I expect that some of the policy recommendations it develops will relate to the technical work of the registries. It would probably be useful to try to identify areas to which CENTR is unlikely to give early attention (for reasons of resources, priority), but which are nevertheless of concern to the RIPE community. Thanks, Marcel, for your kind expression of support. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 10:47:45 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

(Fwd) Top 100 Maintainers List
by k13＠nikhef.nl 10 Sep '99

10 Sep '99

Folks, +--- Start of included message from: Jaap Akkerhuis ----- | | Hi Niall, | | Let me make some remarks about this. We probably should this dicuss | in details this later at the meeting. | | This message from the RIPE-NCC Database Group shows that a | number of domain registries appear among the top-scoring | maintainers of inconsistent objects in the RIPE Database. | | Yeah, and we're the winner! And we could have done better :-). I'll | discuss the situation further on. | | Irrespective of the future of the TLD-WG, we need to identify | how best to address these concerns and, in particular, this | problem of inconsistent objects. | | Let me start to raise some questions. Citating (probably incorrectly) | Daniel Karrenberg, ``Ripe is in the IP-number business, not in the | naming business''. Given that, one wonders whether domein name | objects should be part of the Ripe database at all. Since Centr is | now in de name business, I wonder whether control of this part of | the database should not be adressed bij Centr. This has been brought to the attention of CENTR some time ago already. There are a few possibilities: + CENTR takes over this activity + RIPE NCC keeps on doing it, covered by an agreement with CENTR + forget about the whole thing It is one of the issues that CENTR should (and will) be discussing amongst themselves. Rob -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 17:03:10 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 10 Sep '99

10 Sep '99

Thanks for your comments, Jaap. I would like to identify issues for which the TLD-WG could become a useful focus. Registry interests are well covered by CENTR. Perhaps registrars, ISP's, others involved in naming, but not represented in CENTR, have concerns for which this RIPE WG would be the place for discussion. Given such a new role for the WG, it would be appropriate to consider a new Workplan, changes in the Terms of Reference, (maybe even a new Chairman !). Niall On Tue, 07 Sep 1999 13:41:58, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at nic.nl> wrote: > Niall, > > Thanks for bringing me up to date with the tld-wg and preparing > the discussion document. > > I do agree with you that there is quite some overlap with work > being carried out with by CENTRE and other groups make one wonder > about the raison d'etre of the TLD-WG. > > jaap > -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 09:52:07 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Action TLD-33.3 (HARMONIC and other registries)
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 10 Sep '99

10 Sep '99

TLD-33.3 [Chair] Request information from registries on whether they are prepared to make their data available for pilot project using HARMONIC interface. Philippe Renaud gave an excellent presentation at RIPE 33 on NIC-FR's directory system, HARMONIC. This allows registry data to be searched by geographical area, market (product or service) segment or company name, using natural language and is suggested as a means to 'take the heat out of naming'. HARMONIC is designed to integrate data from multiple registries in a single coherent query system. I understand that at least one other registry is interested in exploring use of this system, and that NIC-FR is eager to involve other registries. To explore, you can visit <http://harmonic.nic.fr/> If your registry is interested in co-operating in this project, please let Philippe know, either directly or via the tld-wg list. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Fri Sep 10 09:50:28 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

(Fwd) Top 100 Maintainers List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 09 Sep '99

09 Sep '99

This message from the RIPE-NCC Database Group shows that a number of domain registries appear among the top-scoring maintainers of inconsistent objects in the RIPE Database. This is one aspect of the concerns which have been expressed regarding domain objects in the RIPE DB. Irrespective of the future of the TLD-WG, we need to identify how best to address these concerns and, in particular, this problem of inconsistent objects. Niall O'Reilly ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 17:45:54 +0200 From: RIPE Database Administration <ripe-dbm at ripe.net> Subject: Top 100 Maintainers List To: db-wg at ripe.net, lir-wg at ripe.net, routing-wg at ripe.net Dear list members, This is biweekly report on inconsistent objects in the RIPE whois database. The first 100 maintainers are listed as a table below sorted according to number of their inconsistent objects in the database. The rest of the maintainers which have inconsistent objects can be found at http://www.ripe.net/db/state/mntnerreport1.html You can find further information about the Consistency Project at http://www.ripe.net/db/state/ Regards, RIPE NCC Database Group =============================================================== Maintainer no of name inconsistent objects 1 NL-DOMREG 51932 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NL-DOMREG.html 2 DENIC-P 34021 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DENIC-P.html 3 XLINK-MNT 30463 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/XLINK-MNT.html 4 DK-DOMREG 23138 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DK-DOMREG.html 5 AS1849-MNT 6033 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1849-MNT.html 6 FR-NIC-MNT 2818 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/FR-NIC-MNT.html 7 ROKA-P 2446 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ROKA-P.html 8 DTAG-NIC 1966 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DTAG-NIC.html 9 SCHLUND-P 1524 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SCHLUND-P.html 10 BO-DOMREG 1320 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/BO-DOMREG.html 11 NACAMAR-NOC 1303 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NACAMAR-NOC.html 12 ECORE-NET 1287 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ECORE-NET.html 13 AS1717-MNT 1114 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1717-MNT.html 14 DENIC-N 1070 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DENIC-N.html 15 WWW-MNT 1009 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/WWW-MNT.html 16 DKNET-MNT 651 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DKNET-MNT.html 17 SEKTORNET-MNT 539 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SEKTORNET-MNT.html 18 INTERNET-NOC 534 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/INTERNET-NOC.html 19 NETTUNO 499 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NETTUNO.html 20 CSL-MNT 494 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/CSL-MNT.html 21 DK-NIC 494 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DK-NIC.html 22 DFN-NTFY 474 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DFN-NTFY.html 23 PSINET-UK-SYSADMIN 435 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/PSINET-UK-SYSADMIN.h 24 RAIN-TRANSPAC 385 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/RAIN-TRANSPAC.html 25 DIGITALWEB-MNT 375 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DIGITALWEB-MNT.html 26 NACAMAR-RES 372 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NACAMAR-RES.html 27 HIGHSPEED-DOM 367 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/HIGHSPEED-DOM.html 28 EU-IBM-NIC-MNT 360 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/EU-IBM-NIC-MNT.html 29 SDT-NOC 354 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SDT-NOC.html 30 AS1267-MNT 352 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1267-MNT.html 31 AS5378-MNT 345 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS5378-MNT.html 32 GLOBAL-MNT 343 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/GLOBAL-MNT.html 33 AS6678-MNT 339 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS6678-MNT.html 34 ITNET-MNT 334 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ITNET-MNT.html 35 NACAMAR-POP 324 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NACAMAR-POP.html 36 TDK-MNT 299 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TDK-MNT.html 37 DE-VOSS 298 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/DE-VOSS.html 38 IDNET-MNT 298 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IDNET-MNT.html 39 AT-DOM-MNT 288 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AT-DOM-MNT.html 40 KNIPP-NOC-MNT 259 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/KNIPP-NOC-MNT.html 41 IL-P 254 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IL-P.html 42 FR-EASYNET 248 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/FR-EASYNET.html 43 RAK-NET 246 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/RAK-NET.html 44 INX-MNT 233 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/INX-MNT.html 45 MARIDAN-P 229 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/MARIDAN-P.html 46 GIGABELL-MNT 223 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/GIGABELL-MNT.html 47 EUROCONNECT 222 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/EUROCONNECT.html 48 AS2120-MNT 211 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS2120-MNT.html 49 AS1899-MNT 207 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1899-MNT.html 50 IWAY-NOC 205 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IWAY-NOC.html 51 AS5617-MNT 197 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS5617-MNT.html 52 AS3233-MNT 195 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS3233-MNT.html 53 IT-NIC 192 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IT-NIC.html 54 AS2529-MNT 189 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS2529-MNT.html 55 NDH-P 187 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NDH-P.html 56 NLNET-MNT 183 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NLNET-MNT.html 57 EU-IBM-NIC-MNT2 181 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/EU-IBM-NIC-MNT2.html 58 FREENAME-NOC 179 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/FREENAME-NOC.html 59 IBGNET 179 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IBGNET.html 60 OLEANE-NOC 175 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/OLEANE-NOC.html 61 ROM-MIKNET 158 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ROM-MIKNET.html 62 AS5427-MNT 156 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS5427-MNT.html 63 TRMD-MNT 154 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TRMD-MNT.html 64 SL-CUS-MNT 153 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SL-CUS-MNT.html 65 EVOSYS-MNT 151 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/EVOSYS-MNT.html 66 MBT-MNT 150 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/MBT-MNT.html 67 AS1241-MNT 149 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS1241-MNT.html 68 AS5551-MNT 135 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS5551-MNT.html 69 AS2871-MNT 134 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS2871-MNT.html 70 NNCC 125 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NNCC.html 71 NETCOLOGNE-MNT 124 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/NETCOLOGNE-MNT.html 72 OMNILINK-MNT 124 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/OMNILINK-MNT.html 73 ONE2ONE-MNT 121 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ONE2ONE-MNT.html 74 WESPE-MNT 117 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/WESPE-MNT.html 75 IMAGINET-NOC-MNT 115 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/IMAGINET-NOC-MNT.htm 76 AS3292-MNT 112 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS3292-MNT.html 77 ROSNIIROS-MNT 108 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ROSNIIROS-MNT.html 78 ISB-MNT 107 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ISB-MNT.html 79 ECRC-MNT 103 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ECRC-MNT.html 80 FO-DOMREG 100 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/FO-DOMREG.html 81 TELIANET-LIR 100 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TELIANET-LIR.html 82 ISMA-MNT 98 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ISMA-MNT.html 83 GARR-LIR 95 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/GARR-LIR.html 84 SEICOM-MNT 93 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/SEICOM-MNT.html 85 PROFI-MNT 92 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/PROFI-MNT.html 86 AS6721-MNT 87 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS6721-MNT.html 87 TINET-NOC 85 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TINET-NOC.html 88 XNC-MNT 84 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/XNC-MNT.html 89 AS8875-MNT 82 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/AS8875-MNT.html 90 ISTLD-MNT 82 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ISTLD-MNT.html 91 TPNET 80 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/TPNET.html 92 JIPS-NOSC 78 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/JIPS-NOSC.html 93 MDA-Z 78 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/MDA-Z.html 94 PRHO-GUARDIAN 78 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/PRHO-GUARDIAN.html 95 ISAR-NIC 77 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/ISAR-NIC.html 96 INETWIRE-MNT 76 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/INETWIRE-MNT.html 97 GLOBAL-ONE 74 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/GLOBAL-ONE.html 98 MAINT-AS3352 70 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/MAINT-AS3352.html 99 JO-YN14 67 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/JO-YN14.html 100 WEB4YOU-MNT 66 http://www.ripe.net/db/state/maintainers/WEB4YOU-MNT.html -------- Logged at Thu Sep 9 17:03:07 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

CENTR employment opportunity
by fay＠ripe.net 07 Sep '99

07 Sep '99

All, FYI: I attach in text format, a job advert for a Technical Project Oficer which has been posted to the new 'employment opportunities' page of CENTR's web site Fay Howard

1 0

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by schneider＠switch.ch 07 Sep '99

07 Sep '99

On Tuesday, 7 Sep 1999, Jaap Akkerhuis writes: Hi Jaap > I do agree with you that there is quite some overlap with work > being carried out with by CENTRE and other groups make one wonder > about the raison d'etre of the TLD-WG. The TLD-WG was created before CENTR. It still could be a forum for technical matters regarding DNS, e.g. secure DNS, WHOIS servers and clients, security, BIND stuff etc. but there is overlap with other WG's and CENTR as you notice. Therefore it might be that no specific TLD issues are left (well, maybe except technical management of a TLD name registry). CENTR is a club concerned with policies and politics. Having a technical group in addition _could_ be advantageous. This probably is what Niall would like to have discussed and an agenda if the RIPE TLD-WG stays alive. I think we should support him with these tasks. Marcel -------- Logged at Tue Sep 7 14:14:56 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 07 Sep '99

07 Sep '99

On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:17:23 +0100 (BST), Niall O'Reilly wrote: I'ld like to suggest some ideas in this area in advance of the WG meeting at RIPE 34. When we review the workplan, I expect we shall eliminate many work areas as no longer relevant, or better looked after now and in the future by CENTR. The residual work plan will be small. If it vanishes, then we have a clear direction. Your comments are welcome. Niall O'Reilly On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:24:07 +0200, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: I wasn't at ripe-33, and in the archives I can only find the ``Discussion document for review of TLD-WG workplan'' (http://www.ripe.net/mail-archives/tld-wg/19990401-19990701/msg00004.html) and not the results of the review. So can you point me to the current workplan? Jaap, no new edition of the workplan has been published since RIPE 33. I have prepared a discussion document for review of the workplan at RIPE 34 (see below). As mentioned there, six work areas have survived. Here are my comments on these, as a start to the debate. For purposes of argument, I'm taking the position of calling the raison d'etre of the WG into question and assuming that all of the work areas can be exported with advantage to other groups. IANA and ICANN CENTR is involved here. Complementary involvement may be appropriate, especially involvement in other DNSO constituencies than the ccTLD constituency. If so, we need to identify the motivation for such involvement. Stability of the DNS Root Those with operational interest (including CENTR) have interest here, and should work to protect it. Documentation and alignment of practices This work area overlaps with work which CENTR has under way. We don't need to duplicate it. DNS Infrastructure Resources We don't add value by shadowing DNS-WG. We should recognize that. Emerging Registries CENTR and DNS-WG can surely do more for emerging registries than we can. Tools and Techniques This is a new area, with no activity yet. We need to decide what it's for. I would like to have views from other people, especially those who either disagree with the idea of "exporting" the existing work areas, or would like to see other work areas in the work plan and feel that the RIPE TLD-WG is the appropriate group to deal with them. Niall O'Reilly [Begin DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34] Title: DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34 Date: 6 September 1999 Status: Discussion Document Next Review: RIPE-34, 22 September 1999 Discussion Document for next review of RIPE TLD-WG Workplan The TLD-WG workplan is an organic document that will be formally reviewed at each WG meeting. The workplan is listed under various sections followed by specific activities to be undertaken within each section. This document reflects revisions to the workplan proposed on 5 May 1999 at RIPE 33 in Vienna. Six work areas now remain. WG should consider at next review which of these need to be retained, and which should best be taken care of by other groups or organisations (eg: RIPE DNS-WG, CENTR, DNSO). WG should also consider whether it is appropriate to add any new work areas, and how the resulting (continued or new) work areas should be resourced. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Index IANA and ICANN DNS Infrastructure Resources Stability of the DNS Root Emerging Registries Documentation and alignment of Tools and Techniques practices -------------------------------------------------------------------- IANA and ICANN Priority: Highest Open Actions: None The independence and stability of IANA is vital for the functioning of the DNS. In order to help preserve this the following tasks need to be done: * Help support the following aims of IANA: o protection from litigation o recognition by official governmental bodies o bottom-up authority to IANA * Discuss and find a way for nTLDs to directly or indirectly fund IANA. * Formalise relationships with IANA within a bottom-up framework. * participation through DNSO structure or just leave this to registries ... ? * transfer of functions from IANA to ICANN * delegation relationship between IANA/ICANN and ccTLD registries -------------------------------------------------------------------- Stability of the DNS Root Priority: Highest Open Actions: None * desired responsibility for root server system * desired implementation of same -------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation and alignment of practices Priority: High Open Actions: None * Collect and publish information on status and current practice of nTLD registries, with particular reference to: o publication of policy, o national consultative framework, o registration procedures, o comparative charging, o search/retrieval facilities on nTLD databases, o availability of English-language versions of documentation, o domain name statistics, o national character sets, o Co-operation with Governments, o Competition, o Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, o Legal Issues. * Develop recommendations for best practice and alignment of practices. * Publish and promote any recommendations made. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DNS Infrastructure Resources Priority: High Open Actions: None * Document recommended practice for DNS infrastructure. This is to ensure functioning on a non-discriminatory basis and an avoidance of bottlenecks. * Track DNS technology and pilots of new features. * Avail of opportunities for co-operation with RIPE DNS-WG. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Registries Priority: High Open Actions: None * Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries within the RIPE area. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tools and Techniques Priority: High Open Actions: None * Maintain catalogue of useful tools and techniques -------------------------------------------------------------------- [End DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34] -------- Logged at Tue Sep 7 13:39:32 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

Some ideas on the future direction of the RIPE TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 03 Sep '99

03 Sep '99

I'ld like to suggest some ideas in this area in advance of the WG meeting at RIPE 34. When we review the workplan, I expect we shall eliminate many work areas as no longer relevant, or better looked after now and in the future by CENTR. The residual work plan will be small. If it vanishes, then we have a clear direction. Your comments are welcome. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Fri Sep 3 11:21:39 CEST 1999 ---------

2 1

Hallo, RIPE TLD-WG!
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 28 Aug '99

28 Aug '99

Dear TLD-WG People, The period between the Spring and Autumn RIPE meetings is usually dominated for me by two things: summer upgrades (since I work in a university computer centre) and holidays (with some luck). I don't know exactly what keeps all of you so busy, but I hope you have at least been able to enjoy a holiday break. Before long, the TLD WG meets again at RIPE 34. I look forward to meeting as many of you as possible -- again, or perhaps for the first time -- and to a productive TLD WG meeting. But first, some preparation. Please take a look at <http://www.ripe.net/mail-archives/tld-wg/index.html> and in particular at the workplan discussion document presented at RIPE 33 and the action list as of the end of that meeting. The key topic for the TLD WG session will be the future direction of the WG. The conditions which led to the establishment of the WG have changed utterly since May 1997. Much of this change has come about as a result of work begun in the TLD WG: in particular, CENTR has been established, and has has been instrumental in shaping the DNSO and Names Council. Besides all that, ICANN has been created and is functioning. Our energies have been focused on the emerging organisational structure. The structure is now in place, and it is time to shift focus to questions of what the policy and operational priorities should be and how the network of organisations (registries and registrars as well as those already mentioned) is to be influenced. We have open issues since RIPE 33 which have both operational and policy aspects: domain objects in the RIPE DB, and participation in the HARMONIC project. Much of our workplan, which we must formally review, can be traced back to the RIPE 27 BOF. I expect sections of it may become redundant when we have identified the appropriate future directions. One way or another, a less grandiose and more focused workplan would surely be better, with identified co-ordinators (or even task forces) for each area. I'm asking you to do the following: refer to the mail archive, consider where the TLD-WG now stands, look at what baggage we are carrying, identify what we don't need any more, tell us all what you think, and how you would like to participate in the future directions. Simple, no ? See you in Amsterdam Niall O'Reilly TLD WG Chair -------- Logged at Fri Sep 3 10:17:37 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

HarmoNIC.
by renaut＠nic.fr 11 Jun '99

11 Jun '99

Hi everybody, I am getting in contact with you so that we can evaluate and elaborate together the future devlopment of the tool that has been presented to you at the last RIPE Meeting : HarmoNIC. For those of you who weren't there, I just remind you that it is a directory of domain names, now only available on the .fr zone, but accessible in both english and french. If you want more details you can have a look at the site : http://harmonic.nic.fr I would like that people being interested in the idea of the tool, just react on this list so that we can have a discussion group, or task force to see what can be done with it. To give you material to react on, I attach you three .doc files ( sorry for the format !), containing a potential architecture of this directory in a European development. I am waiting for your reactions ! Philippe RENAUT AFNIC

1 0

DNSSEC
by eva＠nic-se.se 09 Jun '99

09 Jun '99

>From ???@??? Mon Jun 14 11: 17:29 1999 There was a work-shop on DNSSEC in midmay in STockholm, Sweden. Ed Lewis, ISC, was there and gave a presentation. The slides he had is now available on our site. The minutes is coming soon on the web of ISOC-SE. For those not speaking swedish, the minutes in swedish was from a third day while we were discussing DNSSEC in the light of the structure in Sweden. You find the information on <http://www.nic-se.se/dnssec/>. / Eva Fr?lich NIC-SE _______________________________________________________________________ Eva Fr?lich e-mail: eva at nic-se.se NIC-SE, Box 5774, 114 87 Stockholm http://www.nic-se.se -------- Logged at Sat Aug 28 00:20:27 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

RIPE 33: TLD-WG Summary
by niall.oreilly＠ucd.ie 17 May '99

17 May '99

Please find attached revised TLD-WG summary, as text and as HTML. I have not yet finished with the minutes. Niall O'Reilly

1 0

Discussion document for review of TLD-WG workplan
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 03 May '99

03 May '99

I've prepared some input for the scheduled review of the TLD-WG workplan during our session on Wednesday. Please find text and HTML versions of this attached. You will find that I suggest collapsing the workplan to a much smaller number of sections, with better focus (I hope) on today's needs. Niall O'Reilly Chair, RIPE TLD-WG

1 0

Status of current actions
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 30 Apr '99

30 Apr '99

RIPE TLD-WG -- Status of current actions as of 30 Apr 1999 TLD-32.1 [Chair] Update Workplan Outstanding TLD-32.2 [Chair] Determine DNS-SEC plans and need for support from DNS-WG Done TLD-32.3 [Chair] Advise DB-WG of number of registries planning to use RIPE whois code Done TLD-32.4 [Philippe Renaut] Present NIC-FR directory work at Vienna Scheduled for Vienna meeting TLD-32.5 [Mike Norris] Co-ordinate review of RIPE-152 Outstanding -------- Logged at Mon May 3 18:40:08 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

ICANN/DNSO/Constituencies: short reading list
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 30 Apr '99

30 Apr '99

In case you haven't already found all this for yourself, here is a short list of places to start reading all about it. 04 Mar 1999 Domain Name Supporting Organization Formation Concepts http://www.icann.org/dnso-formation.html Comment trail on "DNSO Formation Concepts" statement http://www.icann.org/comments-mail/comment-so/maillist.html 15 Mar 1999 DNSO-related changes to ICANN Bylaws http://www.icann.org/dnso/dnsobylaws1.html 31 Mar 1999 ICANN Special Meeting approves changes to Bylaws http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-31mar99.html 21 Apr 1999 ICANN announces competitive domain name registrars http://www.icann.org/icann-pr19apr99.htm Ongoing (last updated 29 Apr 1999) DNSO Constituency Group Formation Process http://www.icann.org/dnso/constituency_groups.html -- Ends Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Fri Apr 30 11:53:35 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Proposed Agenda for TLD-WG at RIPE-33
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 30 Apr '99

30 Apr '99

Please find below the proposed agenda and tentative timetable for the TLD-WG session at RIPE 33, scheduled for 14:00 on Wednesday, 5 May 1999. 1. Administrivia (14:00, 15 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 agreement of Agenda 1.3 minutes from RIPE 32 1.4 review of action list 2. Review Workplan (14:15, 15 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. In person on Wednesday morning is fine, too! 3. HARMONIC: Directory service of NIC FR (14:30, 30 mins) Presentation (Philippe Renaut) and discussion (see http://harmonic.nic.fr/) 4. RIPE-CENTR Progress (15:00, 30 mins) Report (Fay Howard) and discussion The RIPE CENTR Project is winding down and CENTR is preparing to locate in England and to incorporate there. -- Break (15:30) -- 5. ICANN/DNSO Update (16:00, 30 mins) Report (Fay Howard) and discussion 6. AOB (16:30, 5 mins) 7. Conclusions (16:35, 25 mins) 8.1 directions 8.2 revisit workplan priorities 8.3 summarize action list -- Close (17:00) -- -------- Logged at Fri Apr 30 11:42:56 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Need input for actions from RIPE-32
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 15 Apr '99

15 Apr '99

Among the actions from RIPE 32 are the following two for which I need input from TLD registries so that I can relay the information to the other working groups involved. Please let me know your plans and requirements. If you wish, you may of course reply to me directly. I'll summarize for the other working groups, and copy the TLD-WG and CENTR lists. TLD-32.2 [Chair] Determine DNS-SEC plans and need for support from DNS-WG DNS-WG wishes to be made aware of TLD registry plans and whether there is a demand for guidance from DNS-WG. TLD-32.3 [Chair] Advise DB-WG of number of registries planning to use RIPE whois code Of the 8 TLD registries represented at the RIPE 32 TLD-WG session, 5 indicated that they intended to use the RIPE whois code, perhaps with local adaptations. Please will other registries let me know if they have the same plan. Thanks Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Thu Mar 4 17:36:06 CET 1999 ---------

1 1

DNSO decision
by fay＠ripe.net 04 Mar '99

04 Mar '99

All, The ICANN board have just held a press confeence following a closed board meeting at which, some decisions were reached on the DNSO. Both Applications ("BMW" and"Paris") were considered, along with all comment received including the Singapore Consensus document based on the CENTR principles. At the press conference, they distributed the DNSO Formation Concepts which will be posted to the ICANN Website overnight (www.icann.org). These concepts provide some structuring and mechanisms for ICANN to amend theri bylaws to recognise the DNSO. It is interesting to note that most of the CENTR princcciples are included, most notably, spearate cconstituencies for ccTLDs and gTLDs. THere will be a General ASsemblyin which anyone can contribute work but without voting rights. The Names Coucnil will act as a steering committee managing consensus and making recommendations ot ICANN. We now need to move to organising our constituency. The ICANN will call the first General Assembly meeting of the DNSO in Berlin during their scheduled meeting, 25 - 27 May 1999. AS you know, it is hoped to stage a CENTR meeting around this event giving members the opportunity to attend the ICANN events. We are off to the bar to celebrate the fact theat we no longer have to attend DNSO formation meetings :-) Fay PS DEnnis was a star! -------- Logged at Thu Apr 15 16:11:33 CEST 1999 ---------

1 0

Operational: query about slave NS service
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Feb '99

22 Feb '99

Sometimes (quite rarely, in fact) I get a request for advice from a local SLD-holder who needs to re-home his slave NS server(s) on account of changes in his relationship with whoever has been providing this service. Are some of you out there (TLD registries or ISP's or Universities) interested in offering a slave-DNS-only service to SLD-holders outside your own country ? Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Feb 22 10:33:09 CET 1999 ---------

2 1

Announcementt: New CENTR Mailing lists
by fay＠ripe.net 15 Feb '99

15 Feb '99

FYI: CENTR, Council of European National Top level domain Registries, is now using its own domain name, centr.org. In the next few days, the old lists under "ripe.net" will be stopped. The CENTR Website is now using the new URL and with immediate effect, mailing lists are arranged as indicated below: CENTR Webpages: http://www.centr.org (link from RIPE NCC maintained) Mailing Lists: CENTR members (closed list for the representatives of those registries who have committed to join CENTR by signing the MoU): <ga at centr.org> CENTR technical (currently, those previously on centr-tech) <tech at centr.org> General list for distributing & receiving information to/from a wider range of TLDs including participants in the CENTR project who have yet to join. <centr-list at centr.org> Address for general enquiries to CENTR <info at centr.org> (to be published on the Website) If you have any queries about the lists please let me know <fay at centr.org> Kind regards Fay Howard CENTR Project Manager -------- Logged at Tue Feb 16 16:31:02 CET 1999 ---------

1 0

Summary RIPE 32 TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 29 Jan '99

29 Jan '99

1 0

A fresh approach to defining a DNSO for ICANN
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Jan '99

22 Jan '99

Many of you will have seen the plain text version already. If you prefer HTML, please look at <http://www.ucd.ie/hostmaster/ie-dnso-proposal-1.0.html> Best regards, Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Fri Jan 29 09:43:43 CET 1999 ---------

1 0

Notes to Agenda for RIPE 32 TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 20 Jan '99

20 Jan '99

The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any another MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: TLDmin30.txt Date: 20 Jan 1999, 17:07 Size: 5508 bytes. Type: Text

1 0

Notes to Agenda for RIPE 32 TLD-WG
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 20 Jan '99

20 Jan '99

1. Administrivia (09:00, 10 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 agreement of Agenda 2. Matters arising from RIPE 31 TLD-WG meeting (09:10, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes RIPE 29 These will require too much editing. I suggest instead to declare as "Minutes" the summary given in the RIPE 29 Plenary. This is already on the Web site (http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/summary-29.html). A plain-text copy is attached. 2.2 adoption of minutes RIPE 30 2.3 adoption of minutes RIPE 31 Now ready and attached. HTML copies for the Web site have been sento the RIPE NCC. 2.3 review of action list Action TLD-31-1: Niall O'Reilly Finalise the minutes from the RIPE 29 meeting before October 31, 1998. Substitute proposed (see above) Action TLD-31-2: Niall O'Reilly Finalise the minutes from the RIPE 30 meeting before October 31, 1998. Done but late. Action TLD-31-3: Niall O'Reilly Obtain information from DB-WG on status of referral mechanism. Addressed by agenda item 4 3. Review Workplan (09:20, 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. Otherwise we don't spend time on this item. 4. Whois referral feature (09:30, 30 mins) DB-WG: Presentation (Joao Luis Silva Damas) and discussion 5. RIPE-CENTR Progress (10:00, 30 mins) Report (Fay Howard) and discussion CENTR will become an MoU-based organisation. MoU has been signed by a number of participants. A Board will be formed to conduct CENTR business. -- Break (10:30) -- 6. ICANN/DNSO Update (11:00, 60 mins) Report (Fay Howard) and discussion Wednesday's plenary with Esther Dyson and the previous week's meetings in Washington will be the background to this session. Many DNSO proposals are in the air. Additional participants will be welcome to join at this point! 7. AOB (12:00, 5 mins) 8. Conclusions (12:05, 20 mins) 8.1 revisit workplan priorities 8.2 summarize action list -- Close for Lunch (12:25) -- -------- Logged at Wed Jan 20 18:36:12 CET 1999 ---------

1 0