- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

On Monday, April 27, 1998 12:37 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: @Why don't we establish a set of guidelines or purported guidelines we feel @may be pertinent, *then* move forward with issues regarding each? @ You might want to "suggest" that 2 letter TLD registries get on-board with some whois technology. There are several choices out there. RIPE is Perl-based. NSI's offering is compiled C. I believe that NSI and Microsoft recently announced some sort of joint partnership in this area. If we look at the Internet as one huge object-oriented computer system, then many of the registry data base issues would fall out. Unfortunately, most of the emphasis in the Internet is still on "Protocols" vs. "Platforms". If we could change this, we might be able to help make it easier for the 2 letter TLD registries who likely just want something that is turn-key and works without requiring an Internet mechanic to be on call. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 08:48:17 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

Yes, voluntary participation is the best way to go, plus local "neighbor net" approaches. That is one of the ways that I propose to build CARIBNIC.NET. It will be a way to link all of the participants in the Internet in the Caribbean. This can help everyone understand how the Internet resources are being managed via a common pooling of information for the TLDs and IP allocations for the region. JF On Monday, April 27, 1998 4:00 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: @It goes back to the original comment. @ @Good idea, we can suggest it but we cannot force them to do it. @ @On Mon, 27 Apr 1998, Jim Fleming wrote: @ @> On Monday, April 27, 1998 12:37 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: @> @Why don't we establish a set of guidelines or purported guidelines we feel @> @may be pertinent, *then* move forward with issues regarding each? @> @ @> @[not purposely avoiding the question] ;) @> @ @> @> One of the things that I have advocated in the past @> is the 2+2+4 Trustee structure. This is a structure @> that allows 8 people to be identified as the delegates @> of a resource such as a TLD. @> @> 5_________ @> 3_________ @> 6_________ @> 1_________ @> 2_________ @> 7_________ @> 4_________ @> 8_________ @> @> @> With this structure the people in the #1 and #2 positions @> are viewed as the co-Trustees and share the job. They @> speak for the TLD when an official statement is needed. @> Each of them has an assistant (#3 and #4). Then each @> of those people has two people to help provide more @> community coverage and voices. @> @> I wonder if each of the 2 letter TLDs could publish such @> a list ? @> @> @> - @> Jim Fleming @> Unir Corporation @> IBC, Tortola, BVI @> @> http://www.nic.vi @> @> @ @Regards @ @Steve Heflin @Domain Bank, Inc. @IDomains, Inc. @ @ @ - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 04:44:13 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

On Monday, April 27, 1998 12:37 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: @Why don't we establish a set of guidelines or purported guidelines we feel @may be pertinent, *then* move forward with issues regarding each? @ @[not purposely avoiding the question] ;) @ One of the things that I have advocated in the past is the 2+2+4 Trustee structure. This is a structure that allows 8 people to be identified as the delegates of a resource such as a TLD. 5_________ 3_________ 6_________ 1_________ 2_________ 7_________ 4_________ 8_________ With this structure the people in the #1 and #2 positions are viewed as the co-Trustees and share the job. They speak for the TLD when an official statement is needed. Each of them has an assistant (#3 and #4). Then each of those people has two people to help provide more community coverage and voices. I wonder if each of the 2 letter TLDs could publish such a list ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 03:00:56 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

On Monday, April 27, 1998 1:04 PM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom at manta.outremer.com] wrote: <snip For you and me a mismanaged TLD is probably something @important which should be dealt with. Some governments probably can't see @the importance of it (yet?), but that doesn't give legitimacy to someone @from outside trying to take it over. @ Just as the computer security experts will tell you.... the people on the "outside" may not be nearly as big a problem as the people on the "inside". While I understand the history of the 2 letter TLDs, I am not sure that you can enforce anything beyond what will become common in the generic TLDs. Also, in the end the Root Name Server Cluster operators make the decision and they may not know who has the endorsement of the government and who does not. Would you be in favor of requiring that some "official" statement/letter/etc. from a real government official be scanned and placed on the web site ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Tue Apr 28 00:56:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 28 Apr '98

28 Apr '98

On Monday, April 27, 1998 11:57 AM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom at manta.outremer.com] wrote: @ @Hi Jim, @ @> People seem to have no problem allowing the 2 letter TLDs @> to be grandfathered to have immunity from the Green Paper @> and the U.S. Government. The assumption appears to be @> that the 2 letter TLDs have been delegated to individuals, @> companies and in some cases governments with care. This @> is not necessarily the case. @ <snip> @The unwritten (is it not yet official?) addendum to RFC-1591 gives ultimate @authority in 2 letter TLDs to the government of that area. @This in fact means that the local government is sovereign for how any given @2 letter TLD is run. You seem to be making the assumption that the 2 letter TLDs are delegated to people endorsed/supervised by the government that the TLD supposedly is assigned to...is that the case ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Mon Apr 27 23:18:35 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 27 Apr '98

27 Apr '98

On Monday, April 27, 1998 12:17 PM, Steve Heflin[SMTP:steve at domainbank.net] wrote: <snip> @ @Now, making a statement of registry guidelines and recommendations, that @is good idea. How do we proceed? @> For starters, I think that the contact information for the TLD should be an actual government contact. The problem that I see with this is that it may be very difficult to find anyone in some of the government agencies that knows anything about the TLD delegation or the Registry Industry. What would you do in that case ? Will there be two-letter TLDs that are non-government ? (i.e. privately held) - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Mon Apr 27 23:38:19 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

Should Two Letter TLDs Be Immune ?
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 27 Apr '98

27 Apr '98

People seem to have no problem allowing the 2 letter TLDs to be grandfathered to have immunity from the Green Paper and the U.S. Government. The assumption appears to be that the 2 letter TLDs have been delegated to individuals, companies and in some cases governments with care. This is not necessarily the case. In my opinion, the 2 letter TLDs should be treated as generic tags and should not be given a pass when it comes to requirements for stable governance and operational excellence. If this is not done, consumers may be mislead that 2 letter TLDs have the same industry oversight via the IANA Inc. and self-regulation. Consumers may find that they are subjected to arbitrary policies, predatory price increases and shoddy operations unless they are warned that 2 letter TLDs are immune from IANA Inc. oversight. This will not be a good thing and may cause well-run 2 letter TLDs to suffer because of the unsatisfactory practices of a few, poorly managed 2 letter TLDs. Of course, part of the problem is defining what poorly managed means. In some parts of the world business practices may be tolerated that are not common in the U.S. For example, people may choose to discriminate based on a variety of reasons. One of the most obvious is that companies supporting the government obtain <SLD>.TLD registrations and those that do not are excluded. Much of this assumes that the government is the current delegate of the 2 letter TLDs. As the domain name debates rage on we find more and more that governments do not have a clue what is happening with the 2 letter TLD that was supposedly delegated to them. Instead, we find that the 2 letter TLDs have been casually delegated to people and companies that gave the right impression of representing the government or local people but who actually use the TLD for their own business purposes. None of these things can be easily fixed and there may be no need to fix them IF the consumer is alerted to this situation. Unfortunately, the Green Paper and the IANA Inc. might end up sending the wrong message if they require generic TLDs to be held to one standard while 2 letter TLDs are immune. In my opinion, all of the TLDs should be held to the same high standards of business ethics and operational integrity as agreed upon by the Registry Industry. The question remains as to how to do this...? To date much of the focus has been on ADDING TLDs to the legacy Root Name Servers that the U.S. Government supports. Before TLDs are added, there may have to be a review of the existing TLDs to see where they stand from a business ethics and operational standards point of view. In some cases, 2 letter TLDs may need to be removed from the legacy Root Name Servers. How this should be handled needs to be debated by the people actively involved in the Registry Industry. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI http://www.nic.vi -------- Logged at Mon Apr 27 22:47:06 MET DST 1998 ---------

3 2

Proposal for distribution of WHOIS data
by schneider＠switch.ch 23 Apr '98

23 Apr '98

Logistical and legal matters are intended to be covered by this proposal. A. Stage 1: Distribution to safe place ----------------------------------- The registries are encouraged to transfer entire WHOIS records to one or more places which are recognized as central repositories (REP). This could be RIPE/APNIC/ARIN, the new to be formed ccTLD organizations (like RIPE CENTR) and for gTLD's their corresponding organizations (e.g. CORE/InterNIC) or some other agreed upon sites. Transfer could either be from a registry to the REP's or vice versa, by means of file transfer, mirroring or other, but the entire process (storage at registry, transfer and storage at REP) should be reasonably well protected. B. Stage 2: Distribution to the public ----------------------------------- Contractors to the registries should be allowed to disseminate above WHOIS data to the public and to extract certain data from them according to their needs (e.g. to provide overviews, to watch the registration of marks etc.). Let's call these contractors DIST. The DIST should be required to a) agree on an AUP (Acceptable Use Policy) set up by the registries and to include the AUP with any data published by DIST. b) sign a contract with the REP's where use of data, access to data, responsibilities, price, origin of data, periodicity of gathering data, non-disclosed data etc. is stated. Any statistics extracted by DIST's are unofficial unless approved by the registries. The registries may derive stats by themselves through REP's which are then official. Above proposal should ensure distribution of WHOIS data in a well controlled manner and should protect registrants from misuse of their (personal) data. Use of WHOIS data for advertising or other commercial activities and/or for unsolicited mail is considered as abuse and should be avoided. In addition, the proposal may encourage the development of other technical facilities to present and distribute WHOIS data to the public (e.g. LDAP) and may have consequences to current and future WHOIS implementations (e.g. referral WHOIS data base, RWHOIS) and may lead to improved facilities for the public (e.g. fuzzy matches when only partial information is known like location and type of business). Examples: -------- Existing global WHOIS searches: http://www.netnames.com http://www.allwhois.com Existing AUP's: http://www.ripe.net/db/dbcopyright.html http://www.nic.ch/whois_readme.html Existing contracts: I'm only aware of 2: Nominet and SWITCH. The latter's contract is only available on paper. Marcel -------- Logged at Mon Apr 27 22:26:02 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: Structuring the Root
by Jay＠Iperdome.com 23 Apr '98

23 Apr '98

At 11:45 PM 4/20/98 +0100, Berislav Todorovic wrote: >* IP address allocation/assignment process is totally independent of > domain name delegations. IP address management hierarchy (IANA -> > Regional IRs -> ISPs/LIRs -> End users) is a logical consequence of the > hierarchy of the global routing system. Only a small fraction of the IP address space is allocated in this manner. Based on the limited information that I've seen, only about 30 /8s have been delegated to the regional IRs. A large portion of the IP address space has been allocated directly to some large, independent organizations, and a large portion remains available to the IANA for future allocations. Is this not accurate? Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com -------- Logged at Thu Apr 23 11:28:46 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: Round Table vs. Hierarchy
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 7:23 AM To: 'arin-council at arin.net'; 'BBURR at ntia.doc.gov'; 'Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov'; 'ARIN list' Cc: 'Tony Rutkowski'; 'Bala Pillai'; 'Christopher Ambler'; 'Gordon Cook'; 'Doug Humphrey'; 'John Gilmore'; 'Rey Blanco'; 'Jay at Iperdome.com'; 'John Charles Broomfield'; 'John Curran'; 'Jim Dixon'; 'Jeff Williams'; 'Karl Auerbach'; 'Karl Denninger'; 'KathrynKL'; 'Ken Fockler'; 'Kent Crispin'; 'Kim Hubbard'; 'John C Klensin'; 'Marc Hurst'; 'Michael Dillon'; 'Peter Deutsch'; 'Phil Howard'; 'Robert Raisch'; 'Richard J. Sexton'; 'Roeland M.J. Meyer'; 'Robert Shaw'; 'Robert L. Shearing'; 'Simon Higgs'; 'Scott Bradner'; 'Steve Wolff'; 'steve'; 'vinton g. cerf' Subject: Round Table vs. Hierarchy It appears that most parties involved in the planning of Internet Governance are more comfortable with evolving ARIN away from the IANA than using the ARIN structure as a basis to build the start of a Round Table structure with three "equal" partners, ARIANA, APNIC and RIPE. Surprisingly, even the people involved with ARIN appear to prefer the hierarchy structure. The two structures can be illustrated in the following crude stick diagrams. ==== Round Table Structure ===== ARIN / IANA \ / \ / \ APNIC-------------RIPE =========================== ==== Hierarchy Structure ======= IANA / | \ / | \ / | \ APNIC ARIN RIPE =========================== In the Round Table structure each participant at the table represents a historical collection of Internet resources (DNs, IPs, ASNs, etc.) and there is no central authority. More participants can be added to the Round Table as the Internet grows. When more than three participants are included a fully meshed commuication structure can be implemented via the Internet to help ensure that all participants are equals. This takes work, but in my opinion it is worth the effort. The Hierarchy takes less work. As shown above, the IANA (Inc.) plays a central coordination role and the regional registries are equals with each other, but not the IANA. The Hierarchy can be scaled by adding participants, but it is difficult to scale the IANA. This has been part of the problem with Internet Governance during the past few years. Despite the problems with the Hierarchy approach, it appears that most parties are more comfortable with that approach than the Round Table approach. Given that, the U.S. Government now has the difficult job of separating the ARIN and IANA tasks to allow ARIN to move to an arm's length position from the IANA Inc. It is unclear whether this will require the IANA to move away from ARIN or whether ARIN will move away from the IANA. They are currently intertwined, especially at the server, data base and operations level. Given that it appears that the ARIN Board and Advisory Council prefer to be part of the Hierarchy approach, it will be up to them to distance themselves from the IANA. This will require significant operational changes at ARIN. As a start, ARIN should deploy its own IN-ADDR.ARPA servers which can then be delegated parts of the IPv4 address space. This will distance ARIN from the legacy Root Name Servers operated by the U.S. Government and place it at arm's length. In the current situation, ARIN is using the USG roots for IN-ADDR.ARPA. The other two regional registries (RIPE and APNIC) are delegated parts of the IPv4 space. ARIN is not, because ARIN is tightly coupled with the IANA. This has to change. Since I am not an advocate of the Hierarchy approach, I will defer to other experts who seem to think that they can build a successful Internet using that centralized structure. I hope that they begin to enter these open forums to explain in detail how they intend to make this happen. It will be interesting to "watch" this metamorphosis take place. Note the emphasis on the word...watch... - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Apr 23 00:04:40 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

U.S. Goals, Global Values (was: Organization of...)
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

On Tuesday, April 21, 1998 11:25 AM, Jay Fenello[SMTP:Jay at IPERDOME.COM] wrote: <snip> @ @The way I see it, we face several possible outcomes under @the Green Paper process: @ 1) The GP garners the required consensus, and the root @ remains intact under a single authority structure. @ 2) The U.S. assumes the responsibility for a U.S. based @ root, and encourages Europe and others to do the same. @ Then, these independent roots can coordinate their @ activities as relative equals in the global Internet. @ 3) The Grass Root Servers are accepted, and each and @ every Netizen can choose for themselve. Jay, You might want to add #4. 4) Europe (mostly via RIPE) demonstrates that IP allocations and TLDs have something to do with each other and that people can work together without the DOD-centric IANA/ARIN approach. Then, U.S. companies realize the merits of this and move to this Round Table model. This is similar to #2 above but focuses on the fact that Europe and RIPE are in many ways ahead of the U.S. in this area. They have a healthier structure and do not seem to box themselves into corners like the IANA/ARIN people. For example, RIPE works on both IP and TLD issues. Join the discussion... http://www.ripe.net/mail-archives/tld-wg/current/index.html - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Tue Apr 21 19:21:41 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: Structuring the Root
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 1998 9:47 AM To: 'Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu' Cc: 'ARIN list' Subject: RE: Structuring the Root On Monday, April 20, 1998 3:56 PM, Valdis.Kletnieks at vt.edu wrote: @On Mon, 20 Apr 1998 14:15:50 CDT, Jim Fleming said: @ @> Based on the contents of the Root Zone file from the legacy @> Root Name Server Cluster operated by the U.S. Government, @> the following TLDs appear to be recognized: (only .ARPA is out of alpha order) @> @> 0 ARPA @> 1 AC @> 2 AD @ @> A simple way to do this is to use the number above to @> specify the value for bits in the fields labeled @> here as TTT.TTTTT. @> @> aaaaaTTT.TTTTTbbb.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb @ @Hmm.. Jim's mail arrived from host doorstep.unety.net (207.32.128.1) @ @Applying his scheme here, we find he just delegated his address space @management to someplace in the *.UK domain. Could have been worse, they @could have been delegated to the .ZA or .ZR domains. At least there's entries @for those two - what about .WS or .WR who aren't even in the WHOIS yet. @ @But hey, it *does* have the advantage of screwing people equally at random. @-- Having the .UK people providing stewardship over the 207.32.X.X IPv4 address space would not be a problem. They appear to be stable. As I have mentioned, stewardship does not necessarily imply management and operations. They could delegate those tasks to make sure the clerical and operational jobs are handled. Who knows, maybe ARIN could handle the clerical tasks ? In the IPv8 Plan, the 207.32.X.X IPv4 address space is delegated to the TLD authority with the G:S slot numbered 7:32. This is currently assigned to the .ROOF Top Level Domain. The current list is at... http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt Here are all of the IPv4 blocks that would fall under the stewardship of the .ROOF TLD. This TLD authority would also be responsible for the 7:32.X.X.X.X IPv8 address space which is as large as the current Internet. This should provide enough resources to manage to help keep the .ROOF registries and registrars in business. -------- IPv4 Blocks Delegated to G:S = 7:32 -------------- 7.32.0.0 15.32.0.0 23.32.0.0 31.32.0.0 39.32.0.0 47.32.0.0 55.32.0.0 63.32.0.0 71.32.0.0 79.32.0.0 87.32.0.0 95.32.0.0 103.32.0.0 111.32.0.0 119.32.0.0 127.32.0.0 135.32.0.0 143.32.0.0 151.32.0.0 159.32.0.0 167.32.0.0 175.32.0.0 183.32.0.0 191.32.0.0 199.32.0.0 207.32.0.0 215.32.0.0 223.32.0.0 231.32.0.0 239.32.0.0 247.32.0.0 255.32.0.0 /* * * usage: ipv4list g:s * * Generates a list of IPv4 address blocks given an IPv8 G:S number * * Copyright 1998, Unir Corporation, All Rights Reserved * */ #include <stdio.h> main(argc,argv) int argc; char *argv[]; { int g; int s; int i; int k; int n; if((argv[1][0] >= '0') && (argv[1][0] <= '7')){ g = argv[1][0] - '0'; } else{ exit(-1); } if(argv[1][1] != ':'){ exit(-2); } s = atoi(&argv[1][2]); k = ((g<<24) + (s<<16)) & 0x07ff0000; for(i=0; i<32; i++){ n = (i<<27) + k; printf("%d.%d.%d.%d\n", (n>>24)&0xff, (n>>16)&0xff, (n>>8)&0xff, n&0xff); } } ====== - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Tue Apr 21 19:08:17 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

The Registry Industry
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

On Monday, April 20, 1998 5:45 PM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu] wrote: <snip> @ @First off, the proposal tries to connect two administrative antipodes on @the Internet today: IP address space management (which is a pure technical @questin) and domain name delegations (which also have an inevitable legal @component). Let's try to stress out some facts, which describe the current @situation about reverse domain delegations: @ If you look at the Registry Industry as if it were the Banking Industry or the Health Care Industry, you might see that in all three of these industries there are "administrative antipodes". This is natural and I do not think that this means one has to take each antipode and separate it into a different business. In fact, if you do that, the business may fail. Examples: Can you have a bank with savings but no loans ? Can you have a hospital with no pharmacy ? In any young industry (like the Registry Industry) I think that it makes more sense to allow independent businesses to have a wide range of products and services instead of forcing (via regulation of social pressure) each service into a separate business. Also, you have to look at the industry and try to determine where you will get your experienced trustees or stewardship. In the Registry Industry it is best to turn to the registries. They are in the business and their businesses are most likely to have personnel who understand the industry and will be able to be around to support the customers. In my opinion, this makes better business sense than to force domain registries into one corner and IN-ADDR.ARPA registries into another corner when both are basically registries. Why not let the industry sort this out via natural evolution of the marketplace ? - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Tue Apr 21 10:23:55 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

On Monday, April 20, 1998 6:00 PM, Marsh, Miles (Gene)[SMTP:MarshM at diebold.com] wrote: @Jim, @ @Is it worth considering a method by which there could be more flexible @expansion of the number of potential TLD's? I know the prevailing @thought is that we must put a stake in the ground, but any constraining @factor could have negative potential. @ I think that all proposals are worth considering...fire away... I have a feeling that there will be a flexible or at least variable growth pattern once some minimal structure is put in place. As an example, if you take the 256 TLDs and declare that all can create 7 more TLDs they may all do it at different rates. This will appear to the consumers as a market-driven growth pattern. In my opinion, people should not be too concerned about the growth getting out of control. If there has been one thing that has been surprising over the past few years, it has been the fact that very few companies are willing to make the investments to understand and prepare to participate in the Registry Industry. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Tue Apr 21 02:20:02 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs
by MarshM＠diebold.com 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

Jim, Is it worth considering a method by which there could be more flexible expansion of the number of potential TLD's? I know the prevailing thought is that we must put a stake in the ground, but any constraining factor could have negative potential. Gene Marsh Diebold Incorporated -----Original Message----- From: Jim Fleming [mailto:JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 5:51 PM To: 'Berislav Todorovic' Cc: arin-council at arin.net; BBURR at ntia.doc.gov; ietf at ietf.org; Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov; tld-wg at ripe.net Subject: Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs On Monday, April 20, 1998 5:45 PM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu] wrote: <snip> @ @The scheme you proposed, on the other hand, has several deficiencies. @First (the minor one) - the table is constrained to 256 TLDs - how ca @you predict that it won't be more than 256 TLDs in the future? Like Brian @Carpenter said in the RFC 2058, "the principle of constant change is @perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should survive @indefinitely". @ Thanks for the well written response. I will try to reply to each of your points. As you note, the following accommodates 256 TLDs. aaaaaTTT.TTTTTbbb.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb In the IPv8 Plan, we support 2,048 TLDs. That looks like... aaaaaTTT.TTTTTTTT.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb The extra bits get added to the right of the TTTTs... Applying this to the scheme I suggested, each of the existing TLDs in the initial group of 256 would be allowed to ADD 7 more TLDs at some point in the future. This will bring the number to 2,048. Here is more information as well as a list of the current IPv8 TLDs. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-2.htm http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Tue Apr 21 01:10:38 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: Structuring the Root
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

>> Date: Mon, 20 Apr 1998 15:15:49 -0500 >> From: Jim Fleming <JimFleming at doorstep.unety.net> >> Subject: FW: Structuring the Root >> To: "'tld-wg at ripe.net'" <tld-wg at ripe.net> >> To: 'arin-council at arin.net'; 'ARIN list' >> Cc: 'BBURR at ntia.doc.gov'; 'ietf at ns.ietf.org'; 'Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov' >> Subject: Structuring the Root >> >> Structuring the Root for the IPv4 Internet can be as simple as >> assigning each of the TLD authorities a section of the IPv4 address >> space to "manage" (not route). The IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file could >> be cleaned up once delegations are made in a more distributed >> manner. It is important to note that this methodology does not "use" >> all of the IPv4 addresses, it just distributes them fairly for management >> purposes. Many thanks for the copy of this pretty interesting proposal! However, I'd like to place some comments on it. First off, the proposal tries to connect two administrative antipodes on the Internet today: IP address space management (which is a pure technical questin) and domain name delegations (which also have an inevitable legal component). Let's try to stress out some facts, which describe the current situation about reverse domain delegations: * IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations are (naturally) closely related to the IP address allocations/assignments, since reverse domains somewhat reflect usage of the address space, allocated to an ISP or assigned to a user. In other words, reverse domains are closely related to IP addresses used in the network - NOT to the domain names in any way! * IP address allocation/assignment process is totally independent of domain name delegations. IP address management hierarchy (IANA -> Regional IRs -> ISPs/LIRs -> End users) is a logical consequence of the hierarchy of the global routing system. At an extreme point - a ccTLD could be used for Web hosting and similar purposes only, where IP address space is not needed (take many small countries in Oceania, which sold their domains to other countries - see NU TLD, for example). * Currently, regional registries provide IN-ADDR.ARPA delegations for all IP blocks they allocate to the ISPs/LIRs. The ISPs are, apparently, responsible for proper visibility of the reverse domains for the IP address space assigned to their end users. The scheme you proposed, on the other hand, has several deficiencies. First (the minor one) - the table is constrained to 256 TLDs - how ca you predict that it won't be more than 256 TLDs in the future? Like Brian Carpenter said in the RFC 2058, "the principle of constant change is perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should survive indefinitely". The second one (more important) is the question of responsibility: an ISP, assigning an IP network to end user is responsible for its rouitng and reverse domain mapping. Why? Because the user pays for that service! Now, the regional IR, allocating an IP block to the ISP is responsible for its IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation. Why? Because the ISP pays to the regional IR for the service they receive (IP address allocations and reverse domain name delegations). Now, with the transition you proposed, a user would have to delegate their reverse domains to a regional registry of a country which does not have anything to do with them. The following situation might arise: an ISP receives three independent allocations from the IRs. Now, part of their users would have to delegate their addresses with, say, TLD of Fiji (FJ), the other will have to ask the TLD of Cyprus (CY), the third group will have to go to the Russian (RU) TLD. And - all ISPs are located, say, in the USA! Funny, isn't it? The other side of the medal: suppose that your company, some university or - even Whitehouse or United Nations, received address space which has to be delegated by the TLD registrar of Western Samoa, since the digits in the IP addresses point to that registrar. Suppose Western Samoa TLD DNS servers fail. Who are you going to blame? Western Samoa TLD NIC? Their government? The current bottom-up structure of IN-ADDR.ARPA delegation might not be the best solution achievable today! But that's all we have today ... which does not mean it cannot change tomorrow! ;-) Best 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 Apr 20 23:57:34 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Stewardship and Management vs. IN-ADDR.ARPA Service
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 21 Apr '98

21 Apr '98

On Monday, April 20, 1998 5:45 PM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu] wrote: <snip> @ @Now, with the transition you proposed, a user would have to delegate their @reverse domains to a regional registry of a country which does not have @anything to do with them. I am sorry I was not more clear. In my opinion, you have at least three levels at play when you are looking at IP address management. They might be labeled as follows. 1. Stewardship - Traditional IANA-like Role 2. Management - RIPE-like Role 3. Operations - DNS, IN-ADDR.ARPA, etc. In my opinion, these three "levels" could be handled by different groups depending on the decisions made at the Stewardship level. The scheme I was suggesting distributes the Stewardship. It is like creating 256 IANAs. From there, you have to imagine that each of the 256 would evolve in their own way AND that evolution would depend on input from the stakeholders in the address space. This might result in the Stewardship being in Europe with the Management handed back to ARIN and the IN-ADDR.ARPA handled by the ISP/C. The goal here is NOT to delegate IP address space to people or companies with networks that fail. The goal is to delegate Stewardship (or what some call Trusteeship) and then to have those stewards/trustees work with the stakeholders to find the best management and operations. - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Tue Apr 21 00:56:49 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Growing from 256 to 2048 TLDs
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 20 Apr '98

20 Apr '98

On Monday, April 20, 1998 5:45 PM, Berislav Todorovic[SMTP:BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu] wrote: <snip> @ @The scheme you proposed, on the other hand, has several deficiencies. @First (the minor one) - the table is constrained to 256 TLDs - how ca @you predict that it won't be more than 256 TLDs in the future? Like Brian @Carpenter said in the RFC 2058, "the principle of constant change is @perhaps the only principle of the Internet that should survive @indefinitely". @ Thanks for the well written response. I will try to reply to each of your points. As you note, the following accommodates 256 TLDs. aaaaaTTT.TTTTTbbb.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb In the IPv8 Plan, we support 2,048 TLDs. That looks like... aaaaaTTT.TTTTTTTT.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb The extra bits get added to the right of the TTTTs... Applying this to the scheme I suggested, each of the existing TLDs in the initial group of 256 would be allowed to ADD 7 more TLDs at some point in the future. This will bring the number to 2,048. Here is more information as well as a list of the current IPv8 TLDs. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-2.htm http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt - Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Tue Apr 21 00:08:14 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

FW: Structuring the Root
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 20 Apr '98

20 Apr '98

---------- From: Jim Fleming[SMTP:JimFleming] Sent: Monday, April 20, 1998 2:15 PM To: 'arin-council at arin.net'; 'ARIN list' Cc: 'BBURR at ntia.doc.gov'; 'ietf at ns.ietf.org'; 'Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov' Subject: Structuring the Root Structuring the Root for the IPv4 Internet can be as simple as assigning each of the TLD authorities a section of the IPv4 address space to "manage" (not route). The IN-ADDR.ARPA zone file could be cleaned up once delegations are made in a more distributed manner. It is important to note that this methodology does not "use" all of the IPv4 addresses, it just distributes them fairly for management purposes. Based on the contents of the Root Zone file from the legacy Root Name Server Cluster operated by the U.S. Government, the following TLDs appear to be recognized: (only .ARPA is out of alpha order) 0 ARPA 1 AC 2 AD 3 AE 4 AF 5 AG 6 AI 7 AL 8 AM 9 AN 10 AO 11 AQ 12 AR 13 AS 14 AT 15 AU 16 AW 17 AZ 18 BA 19 BB 20 BE 21 BF 22 BG 23 BH 24 BI 25 BJ 26 BM 27 BN 28 BO 29 BR 30 BS 31 BT 32 BV 33 BW 34 BY 35 BZ 36 CA 37 CC 38 CD 39 CF 40 CG 41 CH 42 CI 43 CK 44 CL 45 CM 46 CN 47 CO 48 COM <------ See example below 49 CR 50 CU 51 CV 52 CX 53 CY 54 CZ 55 DE 56 DJ 57 DK 58 DM 59 DO 60 DZ 61 EC 62 EDU 63 EE 64 EG 65 ER 66 ES 67 ET 68 FI 69 FJ 70 FK 71 FM 72 FO 73 FR 74 GA 75 GB 76 GD 77 GE 78 GF 79 GG 80 GH 81 GI 82 GL 83 GM 84 GN 85 GOV 86 GP 87 GQ 88 GR 89 GS 90 GT 91 GU 92 GW 93 GY 94 HK 95 HM 96 HN 97 HR 98 HT 99 HU 100 ID 101 IE 102 IL 103 IM 104 IN 105 INT 106 IO 107 IQ 108 IR 109 IS 110 IT 111 JE 112 JM 113 JO 114 JP 115 KE 116 KG 117 KH 118 KI 119 KN 120 KR 121 KW 122 KY 123 KZ 124 LA 125 LB 126 LC 127 LI 128 LK 129 LR 130 LS 131 LT 132 LU 133 LV 134 LY 135 MA 136 MC 137 MD 138 MG 139 MH 140 MIL 141 MK 142 ML 143 MM 144 MN 145 MO 146 MP 147 MQ 148 MR 149 MS 150 MT 151 MU 152 MV 153 MW 154 MX 155 MY 156 MZ 157 NA 158 NC 159 NE 160 NET 161 NF 162 NG 163 NI 164 NL 165 NO 166 NP 167 NR 168 NU 169 NZ 170 OM 171 ORG 172 PA 173 PE 174 PF 175 PG 176 PH 177 PK 178 PL 179 PM 180 PN 181 PR 182 PT 183 PW 184 PY 185 QA 186 RE 187 RO 188 RU 189 RW 190 SA 191 SB 192 SC 193 SD 194 SE 195 SG 196 SH 197 SI 198 SJ 199 SK 200 SL 201 SM 202 SN 203 SO 204 SR 205 ST 206 SU 207 SV 208 SY 209 SZ 210 TC 211 TD 212 TF 213 TG 214 TH 215 TJ 216 TK 217 TM 218 TN 219 TO 220 TP 221 TR 222 TT 223 TV 224 TW 225 TZ 226 UA 227 UG 228 UK 229 UM 230 US 231 UY 232 UZ 233 VA 234 VC 235 VE 236 VG 237 VI 238 VN 239 VU 240 WF 241 WS 242 YE 243 YT 244 YU 245 ZA 246 ZM 247 ZR 248 ZW 249 <AVAILABLE> 250 <AVAILABLE> 251 <AVAILABLE> 252 <AVAILABLE> 253 <AVAILABLE> 254 <AVAILABLE> 255 <AVAILABLE> The last 7 slots could be used to add new TLDs as part of the transition described in the Department of Commerce's Green Paper. Once all 256 slots are filled the number on the left can be used to identify sections of the IPv4 Address Space that can be delegated to the various TLD authorities for "management" (and stewardship). A simple way to do this is to use the number above to specify the value for bits in the fields labeled here as TTT.TTTTT. aaaaaTTT.TTTTTbbb.bbbbbbbb.bbbbbbbb If the value of aaaaa is allowed to range from 0 to 31 for EACH of the values of TTT.TTTTT then prefixes can be identified for each of the TLD authorities to manage. This approach distributes the entire IPv4 address space to responsible parties for management and stewardship purposes. Using the value of 48 for the .COM TLD illustrates that the following IPv4 blocks would be placed in the hands of the InterNIC (NSF/NSI) for management. Since the NSF and NSI have delegated IPv4 numbering to ARIN, these 32 /13 blocks would be managed by ARIN. This would be all ARIN manages for revenue producing activities. The rest of the IPv4 space would be distributed to other TLD authorities to more fairly distribute the assets that produce revenue. 1.128-135.0.0 9.128-135.0.0 17.128-135.0.0 25.128-135.0.0 33.128-135.0.0 41.128-135.0.0 49.128-135.0.0 57.128-135.0.0 65.128-135.0.0 73.128-135.0.0 81.128-135.0.0 89.128-135.0.0 97.128-135.0.0 105.128-135.0.0 113.128-135.0.0 121.128-135.0.0 129.128-135.0.0 137.128-135.0.0 145.128-135.0.0 153.128-135.0.0 161.128-135.0.0 169.128-135.0.0 177.128-135.0.0 185.128-135.0.0 193.128-135.0.0 201.128-135.0.0 209.128-135.0.0 217.128-135.0.0 225.128-135.0.0 233.128-135.0.0 241.128-135.0.0 249.128-135.0.0 The following C program can be used to determine other ranges of blocks given a TLD index as shown above. /* * * gs n * * Generates a gs number based an 8 bit value * */ main(argc,argv) int argc; char *argv[]; { int i; int k; int n; k = ((atoi(argv[1]) << 19) & 0x07f80000); for(i=0; i<32; i++){ n = (i<<27) + k; printf("%d.%d-%d.%d.%d\n", (n>>24)&0xff, (n>>16)&0xff, ((n>>16)+7)&0xff, (n>>8)&0xff, n&0xff); } } ===== -------- Logged at Mon Apr 20 23:49:02 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Fay Howard Appointed RIPE CENTR Project Manager
by Daniel.Karrenberg＠ripe.net 02 Apr '98

02 Apr '98

Dear Colleagues, I am pleased to announce that the RIPE NCC has found a very competent person for the RIPE CENTR project: Fay Howard has been appointed as RIPE CENTR Project Manager. In addition to providing support to the Policy Group of the (currently 34) participating NTLDs, she will manage the work carried out by RIPE NCC on behalf of the project. Until 1 May 1998, Fay will spend two thirds of her time on the CENTR project after which date she will work full time on RIPE CENTR issues. Some of you will recall Fay from her time at TERENA where she worked as Executive Officer for 16 months gaining an excellent understanding of the European networking community and the management of projects like RIPE CENTR. Her orignal background is in Insurance where she was a Senior Legal Liabilities Underwriter for many years. Fay will act as a focal point for all issues and queries regarding the RIPE CENTR project. If you have any questions, suggestions or specific needs, please do not hesitate to contact her. Daniel Karrenberg RIPE NCC General Manager -------- Logged at Thu Apr 2 16:20:38 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

RIPE 30: TLD-WG session planning
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 27 Mar '98

27 Mar '98

Dear TLD-WG-ers, Based on experience, I estimate that we may need half a day for the TLD-WG session at RIPE 30, and suggest as before the entire morning of day 2. For RIPE 30, that's Tuesday, 19 May. I expect that this is the only parallel session slot which can suit CENTR policy group members. Unless I receive objections no later than Friday 3 April, I shall understand that this timetabling is acceptable. I'll be glad to have your agenda proposals soon. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Mar 30 15:06:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Advertisement: Website Hosting
by info＠inexchange.net 25 Mar '98

25 Mar '98

http://www.inexchange.net info at inexchange.net InExchange would like to introduce our complete Hosting and Promotional service. FOR ONLY $19.95 PER MONTH ! * 20 MB (megabytes) of disk space * 750 MB of data transfer per month * 5 E-mail accounts * INTERNATIONAL Hosting * Access to your account anytime via the Web Control Panel * Full MS Front Page support * Unlimited FTP updates * Personal CGI directory for your own scripts (or use ours) * The best statistics analyzer in the industry * E-mail forwarding, auto responders and vacation reply * Domain name registration (www.yourname.com) * FREE registration of your domain with over 250 search engines * Real Audio/Video support * Inquire about our $16.95 plan * Other plans also include: Shopping cart application and database access/utilities Cold Fusion Hosting CyberCash, iBill and VersaNet ready Instant on-line credit card processing For additional details, please refer to our website: http://inexchange.net info at inexchange.net -------- Logged at Fri Mar 27 11:14:16 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Your Search Engine Listing
by list＠ListMe.com 21 Mar '98

21 Mar '98

To: tld-wg at ripe.net Is your site listed with the top search engines? ListMe will list you with 50 search engines and indexes for $90. Satisfaction guaranteed! Search engines are the only way most people have to find internet sites. But if your site is not listed, no one will find it. ListMe will submit your site for listing in the top 50 search engines for $90. Here's how it works: 1. Complete and return the form below. 2. We'll post your site to 50 search engines within two business days, and we'll send you a submission report when we're finished. 3. Pay nothing now. We'll send you an invoice after we've completed the posting. Your satisfaction is guaranteed! These are permanent listings. The $90 is a one-time fee. WHICH SEARCH ENGINES? Here's the list: Infoseek, Lycos, Excite, Alta Vista, Galaxy, HotBot, Magellan, Open Text Web Index, Web Crawler, BizWeb, New Riders WWW Yellow Pages, YelloWWWeb, True North, Northern Light, LinkMonster, The Weekly Bookmark, Seven Wonders, Jayde Online Directory, Starting Point, Web 100, Web Walker, New Page List, PeekABoo, One World Plaza, PageHost A-Z, Net-Announce, Project Cool, Where2Go, World Wide Business Yellow Pages, Sserv, Wow! Web Wonders!, WWW Worm, JumpCity, The Galactic Galaxy, TurnPike, Unlock:The Information Exchange, Your WebScout, Manufacturers Information Network, Net Happenings, Net Mall, Web World Internet Directory, InfoSpace, BC Internet, BizCardz Business Directory, Scrub The Web, WebVenture, Hotlist, What's New, WhatUSeek, JumpLink, Linkcentre Directory. ORDER FORM Hit the REPLY button on your e-mail program and fill out the following information. (This information will be posted to the search engines/indexes): Contact name: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: Contact e-mail address (in case we have questions about this order): URL: http:// Site Title: Description (250 characters): Key words (250 characters, in descending order of importance): If billing a different address, please complete the following: Addressee: Company Name: Address: City: State/Prov: Zip/Postal Code: Telephone: Fax: Email address: TERMS Terms are net 15 days from date of invoice. ______________________________________________________________________ ListMe, Inc. 1127 High Ridge Road - Suite 184 Stamford CT 06905 Phone: (203) 326-8519 Fax: (203) 322-4505 E-mail: list at listme.com -------- Logged at Thu Mar 26 18:20:23 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

NEW RIPE-CENTR Supporter !
by mhatz＠csi.forth.gr 17 Mar '98

17 Mar '98

Dear All As a representative of the Institute for Computer Science of the Foundation for research And Technology Hellas (ICS-FORTH GR) which acts as the .GR TLD Registry, I have to state that we are going to SUPPORT the RIPE CENTR project. Excuse our non-participation to the March 2nd meeting , as well as our rather late statement. Please and keep us up-to-date with current and future trends on RIPE CENTR. Manolis Hatzakis ICS-FORTH GR .GR TLD Administrator -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Sat Mar 21 01:09:44 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

(no subject)
by mhatz＠csi.forth.gr 17 Mar '98

17 Mar '98

subscribe mhatz at ics.forth.gr -------- Logged at Tue Mar 17 14:17:45 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE CENTR documents
by fay＠ripe.net 17 Mar '98

17 Mar '98

Dear wg members, Following the Amsterdam meeting of nTLD representatives on 2 March and agreement on the establishment of RIPE CENTR, work has begun in accordance with the RIPE TLD-WG work plan. Three important documents have been produced for wide distribution (see list below) and are now to be found on the newly created RIPE CENTR Web pages <http://www.ripe.net/centr/index.html> The documents are: RIPE CENTR Formation and Purpose <http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/formation.html> RIPE CENTR Response to Green Paper from US Government <http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/response-green.html> RIPE CENTR Position Paper on the Future Governance of the Internet <http://www.ripe.net/centr/docs/governance.html> Distribution of these documents includes: NTIA/OIA, Washington European Commission, DG XIII, Brussels. tld-wg (RIPE) <tld-wg at ripe.net> tld-admin (RIPE) <tld-admin at ripe.net> asian nTLDs <ap-tld at apnic.net> global tld admins gtlds for info <gtld-discuss at gtld-mou.org> RIPE area ISPs for info <lir at ripe.net> RIPE NCC board <I will mail them> Jon Postel <postel at isi.edu> POC and/or PAB <pab at gtld-mou.org> <poc-submit at gtld-mou.org> Kind regards Fay Howard RIPE CENTR Project RIPE NCC, Amsterdam tel: +31 20 535 4487 fax: +31 20 535 4455 -------- Logged at Tue Mar 17 14:05:56 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

OK to send e-mail?
by owl＠owlseye.com 15 Mar '98

15 Mar '98

OK to send an e-mail to tld-wg at ripe.net? -------- Logged at Tue Mar 17 11:56:49 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 27 Feb '98

27 Feb '98

Veni, In Ireland, legislative interest in the Internet has appeared only in relation to the distribution of pornography and the protection of minors. It is not clear what will come of this. I understand that relevant state agencies and ISP's are co-operating to address this area. Domain registry has not been involved, and would not wish to be. I expect that in the long term, legislation to regulate Internet communication will arrive in Ireland. Until now, and for the foreseeable future, state agencies are taking a non-interventionist approach. I expect the intent of any future legislation to be in support of industry needs rather than regulation for regulation's sake. I do not expect anything unwelcome. To my knowledge, some other countries also have quiet support of their TLD registry from state agencies, with a more developed relationship than we have in Ireland. In at least one case, a state agency is (or is becoming) involved directly in the TLD registry. All of this without problem. If your legislators are inclined to regulate the Internet, the challenge is to persuade them to do "the right thing", and to keep their intervention at a helpful, rather than intrusive, level. At the end of the day, your legislators are in charge in your country. You have to recognise this, and restrict your own efforts to area where you can make a difference. Courage and good luck! Niall O'Reilly > Date: Wed, 25 Feb 1998 19:31:05 +0200 > From: veni markovski <veni at isoc.bg> > Subject: Urgent help required on possible Internet law in Bulgaria > To: Paul Ridley <Paul.Ridley at ripe.net> > Cc: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie, burack at isoc.org, Daniel.Karrenberg at ripe.net, > heath at isoc.org, vcerf at mci.net, brian at hursley.ibm.com, martin at terena.nl > Paul, friends, colleagues > very urgent matter: > > A member of the Bulgarian parlament called me today, asking to > provide him with information about possible legislature in European > countries and the US about ISP licensing, Internet laws, etc. > > Could you: > a) point me to web sites where I can find this > b) briefly inform me what's the current status in your country or in > any other that you are familiar with? > > The Bulgarian government has proposed a draft decree to license > Internet services and regulate information spread over the net in > Bulgaria. > > Please, advise. Your help will be more than jus appreciated. > > Sincerely, > > > 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) > 805012 mailing address: p.o.box 71, Sofia 1164, Bulgaria > *** > Because e-mail can be altered electronically, > the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed. -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 12:20:14 MET 1998 ---------

6 7

Update on nTLD meeting 2 march
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 27 Feb '98

27 Feb '98

UPDATE NUMBER 4 DATED 27-2-98 Here is an updated list of attendees for the nTLD meeting on 2 march in Amsterdam. In summary 20 people representing 21 nTLDs will be attending the meeting in addition to a few observers listed below. If you represent a RIPE area nTLD registry and still intend to come to the meeting please let me know *very* asap. Regards Paul RIPE AREA NTLD MEETING 2 MARCH 1998, AMSTERDAM Hereafter follows a list of all those nTLD registries who have indicated that they will be present at the meeting, and who will reresent them. 1. ANDORRA .ad Jaume Salvat 2. AUSTRIA .at Gerhard Winkler 3. BELGIUM .be Pierre Verbaeten 4. DENMARK .dk Per Koelle 5. FRANCE .fr Herve Cosquer (note changed from Annie Renard) 6. GERMANY .de Sabine Dolderer 7. HUNGARY .hu Balazs Martos 8. IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly 9. ITALY .it Vittore Casarosa 10. LUXEMBURG .lu Marc Hensel 11. NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn 12. NORWAY .no Havard Eidnes 13. POLAND .pl Maciej Kozlowski 14. RUSSIA .ru Alexei Platonov (may be able to attend) 15. SLOVENIA .si Barbara Povse 16. SPAIN .es Miguel A. Sanz 17. SWEDEN .se Eva Froelich 18. SWITZERLAND .ch Marcel Schneider (also representing .li) 19. TURKMENISTAN .tm Mark Henderson-Thynne 20. UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black In addition to those mentioned above and myself + 1 for admin support, the following people will be attending at the invitation of the meeting host. To give a presentation and further stay in an observing role: 1. Christopher Wilkinson - European Commission 2. Daniel Karrenberg - RIPE NCC To attend in an observing role: 1. Rob Blokzijl - RIPE chair 2. Paul Kane - representing two British Dependent Territories nTLDs BRITISH INDIAN OCEAN TERRITORY .io and ACENSION ISLAND Hereafter follows a list of those nTLD registries who have indicated support for RIPE CENTR but who are unable to attend the meeting. 1. LATVIA .lv Guntis Barzdins 2. LITHUANIA .lt Daiva Tamulioniene 3. MALTA .mt Victor Nezval 4. SUDAN .sd Ihab I Osman 5. UKRAINE .ua Yuri Demchenko 6. YUGOSLAVIA .yu Berislav Todorovic -------- Logged at Fri Feb 27 17:09:14 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE CENTR Project
by demch＠cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua 26 Feb '98

26 Feb '98

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi, I have mission to pass text of Letter of Support of RIPE CENTR Project from ISPs Section under Ukrainian Telecommunication Operators Association (TELAS) also indicating Yuri Demchenko as contact person for activity of Project Working Group. The letter itself will be sent upon request. Unfortunately, nobody will be able to attend meeting in Amsterdam on February 2, 1998. Sincerely, Yuri Demchenko - ---------------------------------------------------------------------- - -- To: RIPE CENTR Project Working Group From: ISPs Section under Ukrainian Telecommunication Operators Association (TELAS) Subject: Letter of Support of RIPE CENTR Project Intending to improving coordination and cooperation in Internet development in Ukraine, Internet Section under Ukrainian Telecommunication Operators Association (TELAS) plans to initiate establishing effective regulatory basis for National TLD of Ukraine in conditions of current International changes in this area. This document intends to declare TELASs support of establishing RIPE Council of European National Top Level Domain Registries (RIPE CENTR) and willing to participate in an activity of RIPE CENTR Project Working Group. TELAS ISPs Section will coordinate interaction between RIPE CENTR Project Working Group and Ukrainian ISPs for the transition period till the moment when independent Association of Ukrainian ISPs will be founded. Contact person for activity of RIPE CENTR Project Working Group reporting to TELAS ISPs Section is Yuri Demchenko (Kiev Polytechnic Institute, demch at cad.ntu-kpi.kiev.ua). Chairman of the Ukrainian Telecommunication Operators Association (TELAS) O.Prozhivalsky February 25, 1998 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0 Charset: noconv iQA/AwUBNPWhWzxadMss24xyEQLn+QCfbvkWQXn4xsVIZFB6XhQ/e8LOIU0AoL02 p1fRz8Si6bORsKqeS1fRF1vI =XuJe -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 20:34:05 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

EC slams domain proposal, By Reuters (fwd)
by martin＠terena.nl 25 Feb '98

25 Feb '98

FYI: (For those not on the very noisy related lists. Forwarded without comment.) http://www.news.com/News/Item/0,4,19450,00.html EC slams domain proposal By Reuters Special to CNET NEWS.COM February 24, 1998, 5:10 p.m. PT BRUSSELS, Belgium--The European Commission has criticized a U.S. proposal for reforming the Internet's naming and address system, saying it would give Americans too much control over the global computer network. "The current U.S. proposals would...seem to consolidate permanent U.S. jurisdiction over the Internet as a whole, including dispute resolution and trademarks used on the Internet," it said in a draft reply to the initiative. The European Union executive, in a text that it hopes will be adopted by the 15 EU states, urges Washington to adopt a more international approach and to enter into "full bilateral consultations" before proceeding. The U.S. government formally published a proposal last week for phasing out its management of the address system for Internet locations--such as email and Web sites--and turning it over to a U.S.-based nonprofit corporation. It would also end the monopoly of U.S. company Network Solutions (NSI), which registers the most popular Internet addresses, including those ending in ".com," ".org," and ".net." Known as generic top-level domains (TLDs), they signify commercial users, not-for-profit organizations, and network service providers. The plan would create up to five new generic TLDs, each with a registry to manage a database of addresses. Other companies would compete to register the addresses. The Commission's draft reply, to be discussed by EU telecommunications ministers on Thursday, accuses Washington of ignoring a plan for a new registry system drawn up by the International Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC), a group of Internet companies and organizations. IAHC proposed last year setting up seven new generic domains--such as ".store" for shops and ".arts" for culture--along with an international council of registrars. The commission also faults the U.S. "green paper" for seemingly giving the United States jurisdiction over all conflicts over trademarks in Internet addresses and failing to mention efforts to set up Internet dispute-resolution procedures within the World Intellectual Property Organization. The U.S. Commerce Department gave interested parties until March 23 to comment on the proposal. A U.S. official in Brussels said the initiative was "not set in stone" and that comments by the EU and other parties would be taken into account. "There have been consultations going on and there will be further consultations going on before we put the plan into action," the official added, noting that the proposal built on previous work on the issue. The EU telecommunications ministers are likely to direct their ambassadors in Brussels Thursday to finalize an EU response, diplomats said. Story Copyright ? 1998 Reuters Limited All rights reserved. --end John Martin TERENA, Singel 466-468, NL - 1017 AW Amsterdam phone: +31 20 5304488 ** fax: +31 20 5304499 ** http://www.terena.nl/ ** Please note new telephone and fax numbers -------- Logged at Thu Feb 26 12:04:41 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Update on nTLD meeting 2 march
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 25 Feb '98

25 Feb '98

UPDATE NUMBER 3 DATED 25-2-98 Here is an updated list of attendees for the nTLD meeting on 2 march in Amsterdam. In summary 17 people representing 18 nTLDs will be attending the meeting. If you represent a RIPE area nTLD registry and still intend to come to the meeting please let me know asap. Regards Paul RIPE AREA NTLD MEETING 2 MARCH 1998, AMSTERDAM Hereafter follows a list of all those nTLD registries who have indicated that they will be present at the meeting, and who will reresent them. 1. AUSTRIA .at Gerhard Winkler 2. BELGIUM .be Pierre Verbaeten 3. DENMARK .dk Per Koelle 4. FRANCE .fr Herve Cosquer (note changed from Annie Renard) 5. GERMANY .de Sabine Dolderer 6. HUNGARY .hu Balazs Martos 7. IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly 8. ITALY .it Vittore Casarosa 9. LUXEMBURG .lu Marc Hensel 10. NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn 11. POLAND .pl Maciej Kozlowski 12. RUSSIA .ru Alexei Platonov (may be able to attend) 13. SLOVENIA .si Barbara Povse 14. SPAIN .es Miguel A. Sanz 15. SWEDEN .se Eva Froelich 16. SWITZERLAND .ch Marcel Schneider (also representing .li) 17. UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black Hereafter follows a list of those nTLD registries who have indicated support for RIPE CENTR but who are unable to attend the meeting. 1. LATVIA .lv Guntis Barzdins 2. LITHUANIA .lt Daiva Tamulioniene 3. MALTA .mt Victor Nezval 4. SUDAN .sd Ihab I Osman 5. YUGOSLAVIA .yu Berislav Todorovic -------- Logged at Wed Feb 25 23:56:15 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

(Fwd) Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 24 Feb '98

24 Feb '98

For information, in case you haven't seen it already. Niall O'Reilly ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Tue, 24 Feb 1998 09:43:44 +0000 From: John Martin <martin at terena.nl> (by way of Michael Walsh) Subject: Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper To: niall.oreilly at ucd.ie For info, Michael. >Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:41:39 +0000 >From: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com> >Organization: IBM Internet Division >Mime-Version: 1.0 >To: ietf at ns.ietf.org >Subject: Fwd: IAB comments on Green Paper > >Note to the IETF from the IAB: > >The IAB has carefully studied the US Government Green Paper >at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/dnsdrft.htm >and has considered the opinions expressed on the >IETF and other mailing lists. We have sent the attached note >to Ira Magaziner in response to the Green Paper. > >The IAB will not comment on who should or should not >be entitled to operate a gTLD registry. There is clearly no >consensus on this in the IETF. It is also a question >affecting business practices, which is not a legitimate subject >of debate for a standards organization under anti-trust law. >The IAB was happy to nominate technical representatives to >the IAHC, and to the gTLD-MOU POC, and within reason would do >the same for any IANA-approved gTLD registry requesting technical >advice. > >> Subject: IAB comments on Green Paper >> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 11:33:41 +0000 >> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian at hursley.ibm.com> >> To: Ira Magaziner <Ira_C._Magaziner at oa.eop.gov> >> CC: iab at iab.org >> >> >> To: Ira C Magaziner >> From: Internet Architecture Board >> >> Ira, >> >> 1. The IAB generally welcomes the proposal to replace US >> Government funding of the central technical administration >> of the Internet by a new non-governmental body with widely >> based, international participation. The IAB, as a technical >> group, will not take a position on details of the public policy >> aspects of the proposal. >> >> 2. There appears to be considerable confusion in the community >> about the definition of 'registry' as presented in this paper. >> It is our understanding that this is meant to identify a shared >> database for registrations in a TLD. There are no technical >> limitations to management of such a database by multiple parties, >> even if the database is physically unique for technical reasons. >> The discussion concerning 'lock-in' reinforces the viewpoint that >> a single entity would control a database and therefore a gTLD. We >> do not believe this is required by database technology. As >> this issue is one of the most contentious, clarification of the >> text is required. >> >> Assuming we have correctly interpreted the word 'registry', >> the IAB wishes to point out that there is no technical reason >> for the proposed limit of one gTLD per such registry. >> >> On the other hand, a very large increase in the total number of gTLDs >> (say to thousands) would lead us into technically unknown territory. >> >> We note that the green paper attempts to define specifics and >> details concerning the number of gTLDs, the number of registries, >> and the number of gTLDs per registry. In keeping with the >> principles that have allowed the Internet to flourish, that is, >> bottom-up consensus-building and self-determination, we >> encourage the US government to avoid specific detail and, instead, >> allow self governance the opportunity to determine the details. >> We also note that considerable progress has been made over the >> last 12 months in developing gTLD criteria and dispute resolution >> procedures, and this progress is not adequately recognized in >> the green paper. >> >> 3. The IAB is a committee of the IETF, the open international >> voluntary standards organization for basic Internet protocols. >> We are therefore concerned that the proposed responsibility >> of the new corporation to >> >> >> coordinate the development of other >> >> technical protocol parameters as needed to maintain universal >> >> connectivity on the Internet. >> >> might be misread in such a way as to undermine the autonomy of the >> IETF. We propose that the word "development" should be replaced by >> the word "assignment". This would be consistent with the existing >> relationship between the IANA and the IETF, which has proved >> beneficial to all parties. >> >> 4. We support the authority of the current IANA, including that over >> the DNS root, throughout the transition period and we will be very >> happy to assist in any measures to reinforce that authority. >> >> Kind regards, >> >> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - >> Brian E Carpenter (IAB Chair) brian at hursley.ibm.com >> IBM United Kingdom Laboratories http://www.hursley.ibm.com/~bc/ >> MP 185 phone: +44 1962 816833 >> Hursley Park fax: +44 1962 818101 >> Winchester >> Hampshire SO21 2JN, UK >> > John Martin TERENA, Singel 466-468, NL - 1017 AW Amsterdam phone: +31 20 5304488 ** fax: +31 20 5304499 ** http://www.terena.nl/ ** Please note telephone and fax numbers -------- Logged at Tue Feb 24 12:42:31 MET 1998 ---------

3 2

Update on nTLD meeting 2 march
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 23 Feb '98

23 Feb '98

UPDATE NUMBER 2 DATED 23-2-98 Here is an updated list of attendees for the nTLD meeting on 2 march in Amsterdam. In summary 15 people representing 16 nTLDs will be attending the meeting. If you represent a RIPE area nTLD registry and still intend to come to the meeting please let me know asap. Regards Paul RIPE AREA NTLD MEETING 2 MARCH 1998, AMSTERDAM Hereafter follows a list of all those nTLD registries who have indicated that they will be present at the meeting, and who will reresent them. 1. AUSTRIA .at Gerhard Winkler 2. DENMARK .dk Per Koelle 3. FRANCE .fr Annie Renard 4. GERMANY .de Sabine Dolderer 5. IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly 6. ITALY .it Vittore Casarosa 7. LUXEMBURG .lu Marc Hensel 8. NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn 9. POLAND .pl Maciej Kozlowski 10. RUSSIA .ru Alexei Platonov (may be able to attend) 11. SLOVENIA .si Barbara Povse 12. SPAIN .es Miguel A. Sanz 13. SWEDEN .se Eva Froelich 14. SWITZERLAND .ch Marcel Schneider (also representing .li) 15. UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black Hereafter follows a list of those nTLD registries who have indicated support for RIPE CENTR but who are unable to attend the meeting. 1. LATVIA .lv Guntis Barzdins 2. LITHUANIA .lt Daiva Tamulioniene 3. SUDAN .sd Ihab I Osman 4. YUGOSLAVIA .yu Berislav Todorovic -------- Logged at Tue Feb 24 11:14:58 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Update on nTLD meeting 2 March
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 20 Feb '98

20 Feb '98

Dear all, As promised a quick mail to inform you as to which nTLD will be coming to the meeting on 2 March. As you will see there has been an encouraging response in a short time period. Those nTLD registries who still intend to come but have not yet replied should notify me asap. Those nTLD registries who are unable to come to the meeting but support the principles of RIPE CENTR should also mail me so that the true feelings within the nTLD community can be guaged. All the reponses I have received so far are listed below. Regards Paul RIPE AREA NTLD MEETING 2 MARCH 1998, AMSTERDAM Hereafter follows a list of all those nTLD registries who have indicated that they will be present at the meeting, and who will reresent them. 1. DENMARK .dk Per Koelle 2. FRANCE .fr Annie Renard 3. GERMANY .de Sabine Dolderer 4. IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly 5. ITALY .it Vittore Casarosa 6. LUXEMBURG .lu Marc Hensel 7. NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn 8. RUSSIA .ru Alexei Platonov (may be able to attend) 9. SLOVENIA .si Barbara Povse 10. SPAIN .es Miguel A. Sanz 11. SWEDEN .se Eva Froelich 12. SWITZERLAND .ch Marcel Schneider (also representing .li) 13. UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black Hereafter follows a list of those nTLD registries who have indicated support for RIPE CENTR but who are unable to attend the meeting. 1. LATVIA .lv Guntis Barzdins 2. LITHUANIA .lt Daiva Tamulioniene 3. SUDAN .sd Ihab I Osman 4. YUGOSLAVIA .yu Berislav Todorovic -------- Logged at Mon Feb 23 20:54:04 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

IMPORTANT nTLD meeting 2 March 1998
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 19 Feb '98

19 Feb '98

I am in principle willing to support the RIPE CENTR project. Name: Niall O'Reilly nTLD represented: IE Function within the nTLD: Registry Manager I will attend the meeting on March 2, 1998 (y/n) Yes I am in principle willing to commit funds in 1998 (y/n) Yes (the level of funding to be decided) -------- Logged at Fri Feb 20 21:45:23 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

nTLD meeting 2 March 1998
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 17 Feb '98

17 Feb '98

This evening an invitation has been sent to all RIPE area nTLD registires, inviting then to the nTLD meeting being held at Schiphol on 2 March 1998. As will already be known to this list the aim of the meeting is to discuss RIPE CENTR and get initial commitment from those registries willing to support and fund RIPE CENTR. This invitation was sent ot the contact person as listed in the mail sent by Boudewijn Nederkoorn on 10 Feb (the correction for .sk has been incorporated). This list will be repeated at the end of this mail. If you are managing an nTLD registry within the RIPE area and have not yet received the invitation then please obtain from the contact person for your registry, or if this data is incorrect mail me and I will forward you an invitation asap. This list will be kept informed as to how many registries will be attending the meeting and of course will be informed of any outcome of the meeting. Regards Paul Ridley -------- Logged at Thu Feb 19 16:29:49 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE CENTR Project
by schneider＠switch.ch 16 Feb '98

16 Feb '98

On Friday, 6 Feb 1998, Sabine Dolderer writes: > Hello, > just to keep you informed an to start things moving. > Yesterday we had a internal meeting and we decided that we will > strongly support the efforts to organize the nTLDs on a more formal base. > The DENIC will therefore partizipate and support the startup of the > project. > I look forward to see you in Amsterdam. Me too. Boudewijn Nederkoorn has promised to organize that meeting and we are all looking forward to do it :). > Regards Sabine > ----------------------------------+------------------------------------------- > Sabine Dolderer | eMail : Sabine.Dolderer at denic.de > DENIC eG | Fon : +49 69 27235 0 > Wiesenhuettenplatz 26 | Fax : +49 69 27235 235 > D-60329 Frankfurt | > ----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- Marcel -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 15:17:50 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

Misleading AGAIN about 3rd world... (was: Re: CORE == Big Brother ??)
by jbroom＠manta.outremer.com 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

> As for your assertions that CORE > is about to open up the application > process no-one is convinced of this. > Furthermore, the current technical > and fiscal requirements CORE places > as the minimum are wildly exagerated. > The USG Green Paper makes the same > error. By setting standards so high > just about every individual or not > for profit group and most of the so > called Third or Under-Developed World > is shut *out* of the picture forever. > US$10,000 and a US$300,000 line of > credit are unattainable. Not when > one will make pennies per domain in > profits or funds raised. This is *again* one of those arguments that gets beaten into the dust, people seem to accept that it's a fallacy, and after a few months it comes up again. -sigh-. For the umpteenth time, connectivity in itself is INCREDIBLY expensive in 3rd world countries. There seems to be some sort of economic law which imposes that the more technologically backward a country is, the more expensive the links are (in REAL money, which means that relative to the average income, the prices rocket). Here in Guadeloupe we have a 256K link at the ISP where I work, for this we pay ~80,000ff (around $13,000) PER MONTH (just think of the link you can get in the U.S. for that price). Btw, that price INCLUDES "generous" discounts from the Telco... And Guadeloupe is a French province (albeit in the Caribbean). Go somewhere deep in Africa or even a place like India, and LINK prices soar. What I'm trying to say is that if the 3rd world company is large enough to be able to afford a link, it CERTAINLY has assets way beyond $300K, and $10K is more or less peanuts for them. If anything, this hurts the wanabees who think that because they can afford their 64K link they are ready to take on the world (yes Bob, I mean you), which are -of course- mostly located in U.S. & Canada, because nowhere else can you get permanent 64K links to the 'net for $100/month or less... You can continue to complain that it shuts out companies like yours, but leave out the 3rd world because *this* is not what is shutting them out. Apart from that... Probably it's going to be hard to recover cash through registrar operation, which is exactly as it should be, because something that you're nearly OBLIGED to get (a domain name) should not be open to someone who wants to bleed you for it. Name registration should be a service that companies have in addition to something else and rarely just as a service in itself (because of the low margins). It's natural that a contractor can sell you (amongst other things) a brick, but you wouldn't expect a building contractor to base a business on solely selling bricks. The NATURAL registrar is going to be an ISP, and only rarely will you have other types of companies (the other types which I can envision are the NetNames type or IDnames, or vi.net... a purely niche market). Look at the UK market to see what I mean. Yours, John Broomfield. -------- Logged at Mon Feb 16 13:01:22 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

CORE == Big Brother ??
by Roberto.Gaetano＠etsi.fr 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

Hi, Jeff. About my sentence: > Roberto Gaetano wrote: <snip> > > There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other > > Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing. > You answered: > It is true that there has been no voting, yet. This is part of what > must > be done > And later: ... so you statment here is > without > basis of fact on that score. > Is it true, or is it without basis of fact that there has been no voting? If USG will organize a vote, extended to the Internet community, on the Green Paper I'll buy you a beer (or the drink of your choice) Roberto P.S.: In case you win (which I doubt ;>)), don't ask for some Barolo, Domaine Cavallotto, year 1994, because 1994 was such a bad year that they decided not to make Barolo, but to use all their production for the plain Nebbiolo brand (which I wholeheartedly recommend, by the way). -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 22:49:07 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

CORE == Big Brother ??
by CirqueFan＠aol.com 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

In a message dated 98-02-12 14:26:18 EST, jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com writes: << That is not what the MoU says. >> Maybe an 8th grade reading level is necessary at this point. MANY of the registrars in CORE have NOT signed the Gtld-Mou. IT IS NOT NOW nor has it ever been a requirement of being a CORE member. Read it again....or ask someone to translate it for you! Audrey -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 22:34:45 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

CORE == Big Brother ??
by CirqueFan＠aol.com 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

In a message dated 98-02-12 12:48:15 EST, bob at wtv.net writes: << And they're not taking any more applications >> Anyone could have become a register in the time frame first introduced. The fact that they are not at this time taking registrations has no bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Talk is underway right now to reopen the application process and allow more registrars to enter. You might not want to believe it but a significant number of persons have expressed interest in joining the process. I fail to understand the big deal about a $300,000 line of credit...Most 3 bedroom homes in the Northeast United States are worth more than that. What is wrong with wanting businesses associated with you to have some legitimacy? You go on and on about the closed society...it doesn't float. The anarchy you propose would do more damage in a millisecond of operation than the all the other propositions in the world. Face it, you are two hundred and twenty-two years to late to make the changes you would propose. The Europian community WAS not asked for input by Magaziner prior to the release of the greenpaper...the proof of that is now appearing in their formal statements of opposition to the GP. Magaziner treated this as an American decision then and continues to do so. This is a much bigger issue than all the CORE Associations in the world. What is happening right in front of your eyes is the most disturbing. In several meetings and in several statements to the press Magaziner has basically said he really doesn't care what the world community has to say, this is a United States Commerce issue and will be treated as such...be careful...The Big Brother you are speaking of is the sheep in wolves clothing. There are many "good" people at NSI and SAIC that would love for you to believe this is being done in the interest of the Internet. I am one of Magaziner's true experiments...forced in to managed health care. So far nothing the man has set out to accomplish has done anything but cause grief for the very people he claims to want to help. Look at his track record..No good can come of the USGP as no one in the commerce department even has a grasp of the realities. Read the technical specs..it is there in black and white..you would think they would have to understand the system wouldn't you? I am not saying the CORE way is the only way....what I am saying is that if in an attempt to derail whom you perceive as the enemy you side with the USG you will have handed the rope to the executioner. I am not saying join the Gtld- Mou...I am not even saying to stop all your negative attacks on it...what I am saying is don't look to the United States Government to be your savior..because if you do you may end up with a sack full of promises and bits of shells...our history speaks for itself. Audrey -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 20:29:57 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

CORE == Big Brother ??
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

On Thursday, February 12, 1998 11:07 AM, CirqueFan at aol.com wrote: @In a message dated 98-02-12 11:41:14 EST, jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com writes: @ @<< Setting restrictions for participation such @ as signing @ th MoU do not lend themselves to this. Hence you now do not have any thing @ close to a consensus of the internet community as a whole or of the @ Stakeholders >> @ @YOU DID NOT HAVE TO SIGN THE GTLD-MOU to become a member of CORE. @ @How many times must this be said before you get it???? @ @ Yes....and you do not have to become a member of CORE to participate in the commercial expansion of the Registry Industry. The U.S. Government has made it clear that they intend to allow many participants to have their TLD delegations placed in the legacy Root Name Server Confederation that the U.S. Government has funded and therefore controls. Unfortunately, the IAHC/CORE crowd made a strategic mistake. They claim that there is only ONE valid Root Name Server Confederation and the one they follow is the legacy RSC controlled by the U.S. Government. They were unable to understand the difference in one true root name space and one true root server confederation. NOW, they do not want to allow the U.S. Government to have say over their own legacy Root Name Server Confederation. This is typical of the IAHC/CORE crowd. They do not want people to have a choice. They want to dictate the rules and to have everyone blindly follow. Some people have followed and some people have not. Some have paid $$$ to follow. Some will continue to pay $$$ to follow. That will drive UP the price of their services. Other companies have chosen to respect the rights of the U.S. Government to control the destiny of its Root Name Server Confederation. This same respect has been extended to large and small companies that operate their own Root Name Server Confederations. CORE seems to lack the basic need to respect other people's and government's rights. This seems to be an attitude problem that was inherited from the people that organized CORE. Here is an old posting that might help to paint the picture... ==== === If the IAHC Discovered America....the following may have occurred... Scene 1: Landing on the Beach Columbus: "You men go scout around for some food." Scout #1: "Boss, there might be some dangerous animals out there, should we take some weapons from the ship?" Columbus: "Of course not, if you have any problems just call 911 on your cellular phone and report it to the Police" Scout #2: "Boss, I am not sure they have cellular phones here, if you recall, we did not even see any street lights when we sailed into the harbor last night." Columbus: "Details, details, keep in mind I am an executive, don't trouble me with the details, just get me some food." Scouts #1 and #2: "Yes Sir !" Scene 2: In a Clearing Scout #1: "Did you hear something?" Scout #2: "I think so, and I think I saw a human" Scout #1: "Yes, so did I, is that possible ?" Scout #2: "No, we are the only people on Earth" Scout #1: "There it is again, I am sure I saw a person run behind that tree." Scout #2: "Could you tell if that person was a member of one of our working groups?" Scout #1: "I don't know, maybe we better go back to the ship and tell the boss, and see if we can find out if there are people living here, and where they would have come from. The boss has an answer for tough questions like that." Scout #2: "Well if there are people here, it does not matter because our charter is to discover the New World and we are the only ones allowed to do that." Scout #1: "That is true, but keep in mind the boss wants food and we need to find some and if we can find some people here maybe they can give us a hand getting food for the boss." Scout #2: "Let's go back first and ask the boss what to do, I am not sure he knows that there are people here." Scene 3: Back on the Ship Scout #1: "Sir, we have not yet found your food, but we did see some people running around in the forest, we would like to know what to do." Columbus: "People ? Nonsense ! We are the first people here. Haven't you noticed, there are no other ships in the harbor and we have not even heard any planes taking off or landing." Scout #2: "Sir, maybe they do not have ships or planes." Columbus: "Impossible, how would they go site seeing in Switzerland if they did not have planes? Besides, this is the New World and we have been chartered to discover it. If we do meet up with any people, we should just ignore them, because no one back in Europe will know they are here and we will not mention them in any of our reports....Now, what about food? " Scout #1: "OK, what do you suggest that we do if we do meet up with some people? Should we ask them for some food if they have it?" Columbus: "Ask? Why ask? just take anything that you see. We are in charge. You keep forgetting I am an executive, if you run into any problems just tell these people I authorized everything." Scout #2: "Boss, they may not even know who we are. They may want to discuss this." Columbus: "What are you talking about, our domain name is painted on our ship. If they want to know who we are, they can look it up. I don't have time to deal with details, if there are people out there, tell them to give us their food and not to ask any questions." Scout #1: "What if they do not speak English?" Columbus: "Nonsense, everyone speaks English and if they don't, then they better have enough money to hire an interpretor because we do not have time to delay, we have to discover the New World soon and get ready for our trips to Hong Kong and Malaysia next year. Those are going to be significant events after we get this New World discovery mission wrapped up here on the East Coast....now, please find us some food, before we starve..." Scouts #1 and #2: "Yes Sir !" Scene 4: Back on shore Scout #1: "I'm not sure what we should do. I thought that he would send more help with us. He does not seem to be concerned about the people we saw." Scout #2: "He told me that others volunteered to come with us, and that they are also searching for food, but I have not seen them. Maybe they went fishing?" Scout #1: "I have an idea, let's put up a big sign and place all of our demands on it. Then we can hide and see if anyone comes to read it. If they do, then we know they can read English, they will know that we want food, and we can watch them to see if they are friendly." Scout #2: "Good idea, where should we put it?" Scout #1: "How about up on that hill over there, then we can watch from the ship." Scout #2: "Hmmm, how big should it be?" Scout #1: "How about 10 feet high and 20 feet wide?" Scout #2: "I don't know, that may be too small, how about 21 feet wide?" Scout #1: "That throws off the ratio, maybe we should first decide what to write on the sign, and then decide how much space we need." Scout #2: "I think that we should write, WE ARE HERE TO DISCOVER THE NEW WORLD, WE ARE AUTHORIZED TO DO THIS, PLEASE GIVE US 20,000 BUSHELS OF CORN OR OTHER FOOD SO THAT WE CAN FINISH OUR MISSION AND GO SAILING AROUND THE WORLD" Scout #1: "Why should we tell them that we are going to use the food to go sailing? Maybe, we should leave that last part off ?" Scout #2: "If we do that, then they will not clearly see what the food is for and may not bring it." Scout #1: "We don't even know if there are people here, whether they have any food, whether they can read English, or whether they understand what sailing around the world is all about. It seems like we are assuming too much." Scout #2: "Maybe we should go back to the ship and ask the boss." Scout #1: "OK" Scene 5: Back on the Ship Scout #1: "Boss, we have an idea and we need your help. We want to post a sign on that hill above the shore and use it to explain to people why we need food." Scout $2: "Yes, and we can also watch to see who looks at it and find out if there are people here and if they can read English." Columbus: "What do you need from me? I am a busy executive I have been busy scanning the horizon for other ships and watching the weather. What is it ?" Scout #1: "We need you to help us decide how big to make the sign." Scout #2: "Yes, and we need you to decide what words to put on the sign." Columbus: "It does not matter to me, I sent some other scouts out fishing and they are catching fish. So, do what you like with the sign. If there are people on shore, it might help to keep them busy while we fish here in the harbor. We have plenty of food, it is swimming right under the boat. At last count, there were 7 million fish in this harbor." Scout #1: "If that is the case, then maybe we should catch fish and give them to people on shore. This would be a way to make friends." Scout #2: "Or, we could put up a sign on shore that says, "FRESH FISH FOR SALE", and then we could sell the fish to the people who wander by." Columbus: "Our mission is to discover the New World, we do not have time to sell fish and we certainly are not going to give them away. We will stock up here and then set sail for our other adventures. You can return to shore if you like, but be careful, don't let anyone on shore know about the fish out here. And also, make sure they understand that we have discovered this land they are on." Scouts #1 and #2: "Yes Sir !" Scene 6: Back in the Clearing Scout #1: "This is a great sign we made. I bet people will really respond to this. How does it look ?" Scout #2: "Great, I think it is just the right size, this will work." Scout #1: "Let me read it out loud, to see how it sounds... WARNING: THIS AREA OFF LIMITS AND RESERVED FOR FUTURE EXPANSION. NO FISHING OR SWIMMING ALLOWED. BY THE ORDER OF THE NEW WORLD DISCOVERY TEAM WHICH IS SAILING AROUND THE WORLD HELPING OTHER PEOPLE LIKE YOU. Scout #2: "Yes, that will do the trick. The next time we come here there will be plenty of fish and plenty of land to build houses. This will keep anyone away that has any ideas. Now, back to the ship for some of that fish." Closing Scene: At the Dinner Table below Deck Columbus: "Well maties, we have accomplished our mission. We have discovered the New World and we are ready to set sail for new advantures. We have left a sign on shore to make sure that no one goes near this harbor which has filled our boat with more fish than we can carry." Scout #1: "Sir, I was just up on deck and I have news to report." Columbus: "What is it ? We are busy, can't you see that ?" Scout #1: "Well sir, the sign is gone, some people took it and cut it into firewood. Then they made a fire, grilled some fish, and had a feast. Now they are singing and dancing." Columbus: "They have a lot of nerve, they must have watched us catching fish and are copying our techniques. We need to sail out of here, before they try to tell us they have rights to that land. The next thing you know, they will be asking us to give them a ride to Hong Kong and Malaysia. They have a lot of nerve." Scout #1: "But sir, they burned the sign, it no longer says that we reserved the land. They just ignored it." Columbus: "I am a busy executive, details like that sign do not matter, the next time we come here, we will explain to them that the sign was there for 60 days and therefore they have to move on.This will not be a problem, because we will authorize it." Scout #2: "But sir, the sign was only there a short time, not 60 days." Scout #1: "Yes, but those people do not know how long it was there and besides, our intentions were to have it there for 60 days, it is not our fault that they could not read the sign and used it for firewood." Columbus: "Yes, that is right, we are doing the right thing, we always do, just because people can not read our signs, that does not diminish our claims. Tomorrow we sail for new adventures. Our mission here is accomplished. We have discovered the New World, just like we were told to do. Now, when we get back to Europe not a word to anyone about those people on shore. As far as we know we left the sign and it is still there and there are still 6 million fish in the harbor. That is 2 million for each of us. Scouts #1 and #2: "Yes Sir !" ....and they sailed on... ====== Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 18:55:16 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

CORE == Big Brother ??
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

On Thursday, February 12, 1998 7:50 AM, Roberto Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: <snip> @> @> Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... @> @Thank you. @I appreciate this. @I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common @effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the @process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from @this open round table. @And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. @ I hope that people understand that I do NOT support the U.S. Government's Green Paper for any IPv8 related matters. IPv8 does not need this type of government intervention because proper planning has been done. With IPv4 (and IPv6) the picture is much different. Significant U.S. Government leadership will be required because there is no benevolent leadership from the academic or private sectors. Therefore, the U.S. Government must provide that leadership. Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 17:32:46 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

CORE == Big Brother ??
by CirqueFan＠aol.com 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

In a message dated 98-02-12 11:41:14 EST, jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com writes: << Setting restrictions for participation such as signing th MoU do not lend themselves to this. Hence you now do not have any thing close to a consensus of the internet community as a whole or of the Stakeholders >> YOU DID NOT HAVE TO SIGN THE GTLD-MOU to become a member of CORE. How many times must this be said before you get it???? -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 18:39:50 MET 1998 ---------

3 2

RIPE CENTR project ...
by BERI＠etf.bg.ac.yu 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

Hello, The YU TLD fully supports the RIPE CENTR project, since it is certainly a way of better coordination among nTLDs. Due to some organizational problems and other hostmasters' duties in that time, we won't be able to participate at the Amsterdam meeting. However, we'll be willing to participate in all actions of the RIPE CENTR. Best 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 Thu Feb 12 14:53:51 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE CENTR project
by daiva＠sc-uni.ktu.lt 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

Hi, TLD .lt supports the RIPE CENTR project. Regards, ========================================================================= Daiva Tamulioniene Kaunas University of Technology LT hostmaster LITNET NOC Studentu 48a-101, Kaunas, Lithuania tel. 370-7-762896/ 370-98-36652 fax. 370-7-799925 ========================================================================= -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 14:30:08 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Meeting RIPE nTLD registries
by guntis＠latnet.lv 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

At 22:40 11/02/98 +0100, Boudewijn Nederkoorn wrote: >I understand fully your problems to go to Amsterdam, just for one meeting. >Let me explain what the objectives are. >First: we want to generate support for the RIPE-CENTR project in order to >carry out the wg-TLD workprogramme. It would be nice if you would send a >mail to the wg-TLD list with your support for the RIPE-CENTR project. In the name of LV-NIC (nTLD of Latvia, .lv) I would like to express our support for RIPE-CENTR project and we are looking forward to participate in RIPE-CENTR activities. Best regards, -- Guntis Barzdins, LV-NIC -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 12:27:22 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

CORE == Big Brother ??
by Roberto.Gaetano＠etsi.fr 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

Hi, Jim. You wrote: > On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto > Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: > @Jay, > @ > @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, > <snip> > @My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and > those > @decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. > @We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and > @resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. > @ > > Roberto, > > Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well > as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the > decisions for you. > Let me disagree. I've participated in all decisions CORE has made, since its foundation. This doesn't mean that I have agreed on everything, but I have always had the possibility of knowing the different positions, made up my mind, and participate. I also had the possibility to make my voice heard, and to try to get other people on my side. Whether I was succesful or not, I can't tell, and it doesn't matter. The process has been always open and democratic. This is not the case with the Green Paper. The decision was forced upon the Internet community, and all we can do is agree or comment in the hope that the comment will be taken into account. There has been no open discussion, no consultation of the other Governments of the world, no vote, no nothing. > The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people > and companies that are strong enough to stand on their > own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month > to lobby for them. > The amount of the payments the Registrars make to CORE, and the use of the money by CORE, are discussed and decided by the Registrars. CORE Members like Deutsche Telekom or Telia, just to make an example, are strong and big enough not to need a "big brother". They are actually stronger and bigger than CORE itself. Nevertheless, companies of any size happen to coordinate in order to achieve their goals. It's the purpose of all associations of any sort. We ourselves (ETSI) are a not-for-profit association of some 450 members in the Telecom business worldwide, most of which far bigger than the association itself. They decide the fees, pay them, and decide what ETSI has to do with the money. Nobody in those companies (IBM, Nokia, Ericsson, France Telecom, NEC, ....) thinks at ETSI as a Big Brother. I agree that, on the long term, the $10,000 "entry fee" has to be removed. But in the short term, how do you think we could have raised the money for setting up the system, considering that we strongly believe in a Shared Registry System as the only reasonable answer to the needs for the management of the Domain Names? We could have asked to Ira Magaziner or other people. Maybe we would have had the money from a Big Brother or a Big Sister, so no need for $10K, but would you think Big Brother would have left ourselves arbiter of the choices? No, Big Brother would have decided himself. The only answer was to give ourselves financial independence to be free to decide. Which we did. Of course, once the system will be up and running (and paid for), the "bareers" will be gradually removed, because they will be no longer needed (even counterproductive, because they will limit participation). > One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows > many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions > are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and > mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in > real-time. People at those round tables have already grown > up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not > have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others > making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and > their voices are heard. > > Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... > Thank you. I appreciate this. I have no doubts of the power of the open round tables, and the common effort of the Netizens. My point was only that the Green Paper, and the process that originated it, is what you can think the farthest away from this open round table. And I am astonished about why some people can accept it. Best regards Roberto -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 15:27:46 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

CORE == Big Brother ??
by JimFleming＠doorstep.unety.net 12 Feb '98

12 Feb '98

On Friday, February 06, 1998 7:27 PM, Roberto Gaetano[SMTP:Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr] wrote: @Jay, @ @May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, <snip> @My point is that these rules have to be enforced by ourselves, and those @decisions have to be made by ourselves, the cybernauts. @We have to grow up to the point in which we decide for ourselves, and @resist the temptation to have "big brother" decide for all of us. @ Roberto, Your "big brothers" are CORE and the POC/PAB as well as the ITU/ISOC/IANA/IAHC, etc. They are making the decisions for you. The heart and soul of the Registry Industry are the people and companies that are strong enough to stand on their own without paying a "big brother" $10,000 and $2,000/month to lobby for them. One of the interesting aspects of the Internet is that it allows many, many people to sit at the round tables where decisions are made. Those tables are as close as your keyboard and mouse. You can communicate with the other participants in real-time. People at those round tables have already grown up to the point where they decide for themselves. They do not have much trouble resisting the temptation of having others making decisions for them. They speak for themselves and their voices are heard. Those round tables are always open to you...and everyone... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation IBC, Tortola, BVI -------- Logged at Thu Feb 12 11:38:02 MET 1998 ---------

1 0