- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

14 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

14 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

14 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

13 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

13 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Adam Todd <at at ah.net> To: aursc at lists.ah.net <aursc at lists.ah.net> <snip> > >Who is responsoble for G3? > >Where is the web site? What is the email address? > The answer to your first question is... the TLD authorities in G3...I have not looked at G3 lately but many of the TLDs in the European region were in there. I have copied some of the people that might have an interest. If I recall, there were some new people added for Poland. I am not sure where they stand. That is for the people in that region to work out. This is what self-governance is all about. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt I am not sure there is one web site for G3 or one e-mail address. In theory there should be about 256 of them. You should be able to query the DNS to find all of the G3 info, just like G6. G3 self-governance will depend on the TLD authorities in that region. If they work together they will have a nice neighbor net situation. They can start selling, leasing, or giving away IPv8 addresses to be used with IPv6 now, once they have their G:S number. If they make a mess of it, that is their mess. C'est la vie. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm UNETY Systems, Inc. - http://www.unety.net -------- Logged at Wed Sep 9 11:22:12 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

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

13 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

13 Sep '98

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

3 2

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

13 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

13 Sep '98

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

3 2

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

13 Sep '98

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

1 0

Fairness in any draft
by JimFleming＠unety.net 12 Sep '98

12 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

11 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

11 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

11 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Martin B. Schwimmer <martys at interport.net> <snip> > >Your client asks you what to do. What do you tell him? > It depends. Today the answer might be to look for another .COM name. Next month the answer might be to select another TLD. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt If new TLDs are not added to the legacy Root Name Servers controlled by the U.S. Government then we all might as well agree that .COM is the new root or "dot" as some might say. This atually has some technical merit. Unfortunately, it would make all of the other non-COM TLDs worthless at some point. With ALL of the names under the .COM root, software developers would likely move quickly to a position where .COM disappears. We have already seen that trend with browsers. They assume that you want WWW.%name.COM. Would you prefer to have the entire DNS pushed down one level under .COM ? If you do that, then you effectively have 2,000,000+ TLDs. ATT, IBM, SUN, MICROSOFT, etc. all would have their own. The people with the generic words line .COMPUTER or .SYSTEMS would likely emerge to become the TLD registries. People would then be able to move to "grab" SUN.SYSTEMS.COM. but the .COM would not show up, it would be hidden by all popular software. Now, what does the Sun Microsystems do about the company that ends up with SUN.SYSTEMS ? How about SUN.OIL which would really be SUN.OIL.COM ? As I see it, you have two choices, expand the root or make .COM the root. Pick one. We can not have it both ways. Keep in mind that if the root is not expanded, then non-COM TLDs (like .UK) might as well close their doors. Is that what you want ? Again, there are two choices...this is not rocket science... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:04:12 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

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

11 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

11 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

10 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

10 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

09 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

09 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

09 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

09 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

09 Sep '98

At 11:23 AM 9/9/98 +0200, W.Sylwestrzak at icm.edu.pl wrote: >Er, what are you talking about ? >what is all this G3, IPv8 etc ? never heard about it ... IPv8 is a figment of Jim's imagination. People see his emails and begin to think that perhaps there is some technology they missed in their reading, so they ask around, and Jim is more than happy to reply. Think about someone who places a URL of 5 and 12 year old technical books in his sig that he once wrote. Most people on the Internet have him in their email filters so as not to see his stuff since it proves to be a large waste of time. -Hank > >--w > >> >> >> The answer to your first question is... >> the TLD authorities in G3...I have not >> looked at G3 lately but many of the TLDs >> in the European region were in there. I >> have copied some of the people that >> might have an interest. If I recall, there >> were some new people added for >> Poland. I am not sure where they stand. >> That is for the people in that region to >> work out. This is what self-governance >> is all about. >> >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt >> >> I am not sure there is one web site for >> G3 or one e-mail address. In theory >> there should be about 256 of them. >> You should be able to query the DNS >> to find all of the G3 info, just like G6. >> >> G3 self-governance will depend on the >> TLD authorities in that region. If they >> work together they will have a nice >> neighbor net situation. They can start >> selling, leasing, or giving away IPv8 >> addresses to be used with IPv6 now, >> once they have their G:S number. >> >> If they make a mess of it, that is their >> mess. C'est la vie. >> >> >> Jim Fleming >> Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com >> End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC >> http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm >> UNETY Systems, Inc. - http://www.unety.net >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -------- Logged at Wed Sep 9 11:44:13 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

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

09 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

08 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

08 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

08 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

08 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

08 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

08 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

06 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

06 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

04 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

03 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

03 Sep '98

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

2 1

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

03 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

03 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

02 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

02 Sep '98

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

1 0

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

01 Sep '98

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

4 7