- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Meeting RIPE nTLD registries
by Boudewijn.Nederkoorn＠surfnet.nl 11 Feb '98

11 Feb '98

As a result of the wg-TLD meeting in Amsterdam, I have asked Paul Ridley tot prepare a meeting of nTLD registries in the RIPE area on short notice. The meeting is now scheduled for Monday, 2 March 1998 from 10.30 until 17.00. Venue; Schiphol Airport Amsterdam, Hilton Hotel. This mail goes only to the TLD-wg list. The formal invitation with the proposed agenda and further information will be sent to all registries as mentioned in Paul's mail, forwarded below. In the same mail Paul told me that he will resign from RIPE/NCC in the second half of March. I will contact Daniel Karrenberg to discuss other ways of getting support from RIPE/NCC. Boudewijn Nederkoorn -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 15:26:36 MET 1998 ---------

3 2

RIPE CENTR Project
by sabine＠denic.de 11 Feb '98

11 Feb '98

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. 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 | ----------------------------------+-------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Fri Feb 6 22:38:15 MET 1998 ---------

3 2

RIPE CENTR Project
by V.Casarosa＠cnuce.cnr.it 11 Feb '98

11 Feb '98

Italy also strongly supports the ideas contained in the RIPE CENTR proposal. Looking forward to meet you soon. Vittore Casarosa ----------------------------------------------------------- >Return-path: <owner-tld-wg at ripe.net> >Date: Tue, 10 Feb 1998 12:44:34 +0100 >From: Marcel Schneider <schneider at switch.ch> >Subject: Re: RIPE CENTR Project >Sender: owner-tld-wg at ripe.net >To: tld-wg at ripe.net >Content-id: <757.887111074.1 at limmat.switch.ch> >Delivered-to: lists-tld-wg-out at lists.ripe.net > >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 > -------------------------------------------------------------- From: Vittore Casarosa E-mail: V.Casarosa at cnuce.cnr.it CNR - IAT Phone : +39-50-593 325 36 Via Santa Maria Fax : +39-50-904 052 56126 PISA - ITALY Home : +39-50-554 928 -------- Logged at Wed Feb 11 09:55:05 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

List of nTLD registries in the RIPE area
by Boudewijn.Nederkoorn＠surfnet.nl 10 Feb '98

10 Feb '98

------- Forwarded Message Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 23:09:53 +0100 From: Paul Ridley <paul at ripe.net> To: Boudewijn.Nederkoorn at surfnet.nl Subject: nTLD meeting at Schiphol Hello Boudewijn, Underneath you can find the list of RIPE area nTLDs and the e-mail addresses of their contact persons. I have tried to find out who the 'decision making' person is and put thm as the contact person, but for the majority it is never 100% certain. However as long as you make it clear that it should be passed on to the appropriate person this will not matter so much. Before I go into the rest of the meeting details I want to bring you up to date with my own situation, as this may have some bearing on a few practical aspects of RIPE CENTR. As you may have already heard from Kees, I resigned from my job at RIPE NCC last Friday. Taking into account holidays etc this means that my last working day at RIPE NCC will be 17 March 1998, less than 6 weeks away. I find it very difficult to now draft an agenda for the ntld meeting since this was going to be based on the 4 goals/activities of RIPE CENTR that were in my proposal. However I will send you in a seperate mail a draft agenda assuming that thesame points need to be discussed although the who does what and when may now be changed. I have had requests from 2 parties as to when the meeting should be scheduled. .se and .no asked that the meeting not be held on Tuesday 24 FEB since there is a Scandinavian backbone meeting (or something like that) on that day. The second comment is from RIPE NCC. If you require admin support from us then this cannot be provided on Thursday 26 or Friday 27 FEB since we have internal management meetings for 2 whole days. Please let me know what admin support if any you will need for this meeting. Regards Paul Here is a list of contacts e-mail addresses for the RIPE area nTLDs. Where possible the contact is a 'decision making' person of that organisation. If this person was not known the admin contact as stated in the Internic Domain object is quoted. 1.ALBANIA .al Serzh, Qesteri QS15 inima at INIMA.AL 2.ALGERIA .dz Tafat, Mohand MT35 Mohand at ALGERIA.EU.NET 3.ANDORRA .ad Salvat, Jaume JS2216 Postmaster at DINIS.AD 4.ARMENIA .am Danielyan, Edgar ET22 edd at ACM.ORG 5.AUSTRIA .at Rastl, Peter PR67 Peter.Rastl at cc.univie.ac.at 6.AZERBAIJAN .az Degtyarev, Eugene ED678 root at DEM.BAKU.AZ 7.BAHRAIN .bh Araj, Ali AA288 ali at BATELCO.COM 8.BELARUS .by Andrey, Ivanov IA12 ivanov at OK.MINSK.BY 9.BELGIUM .be Verbaeten, Pierre PV19 admin at DNS.BE 10.BENIN .bj Agbaholou, Louis LA214 agbaholou at INTNET.BJ 11.BOSNIA AND HERZEGOWIN .ba Haris, Hadzialic HH475 haris at UTIC.NET.BA 12.BULGARIA .bg Slavov, Dragomir DS642 dhs at digsys.bg 13.BURKINA FASO .bf Tankoano, Joachim JT5 tankoano at DELGI.BF 14.CAMEROON .cm NTOKO, Alexander AN591 ntoko at ITU.INT 15.CAPE VERDE .cv Varela, Antonio AV358 varela at ISECMAR.CV 16.CHAD .td NDOUMANBE, TAROUSS TN1206 tit at FCR.FRANCE-TELEC OM.FR 17.COTE D'IVOIRE .ci Nakounou, Bobouo BN48 bobouo at INSET.CI 18.CROATIA .hr Pale, Predrag PP48 ppale at ETF.HR 19.CYPRUS .cy Stylianou, Agathoclis AS183 agatho at CYEARN.BIT NET 20.CZECH REPUBLIC .cz Rosendorf, Pavel PR131 prf at CZ.NET 21.DENMARK .dk No name DH188-ORG dk-tld-admin at DK-HOSTMASTER.DK 22.DJIBOUTI .dj Ramirez, Henri HR247 ramirez at RVA.FCR.FRANCE-T ELECOM.FR 23.EGYPT .eg Ghonaimy, Adeeb [EUN Director] AG233 adeeb at FR CU.EUN.EG 24.ERITREA .er Abraham, Zerai ZA41 sysop at EISA.GN.APC.ORG 25.ESTONIA .ee Lippmaa, Endel EL34 elippmaa at KBFI.EE 26.ETHIOPIA .et Gashaw, Abebe AG961 agashaw at TELECOM.NET.ET 27.FAROE ISLANDS .fo Hansen, Lis LH7 Lis.Hansen at NSAVN.FO 28.FINLAND .fi Helsingius, Johan JH188 fi-domain-admin at EUNET .FI 29.FRANCE .fr Renard, Annie AR41 Annie.Renard at INRIA.FR 30.GAMBIA .gm Grotnes, Jorn JG4240 jgr at COMMIT.GM 31.GEORGIA .ge Kashia, George GK52 kisho at SANET.GE 32.GERMANY .de Dolderer, Sabine SD24 dolderer at NIC.DE 33.GHANA .gh Quaynor, Nii Narku [Dr.] NNQ quaynor at NCS.COM. GH 34.GIBRALTAR .gi Linares, Gustave Anthony GAL6 nic at GIBNET.GI 35.GREECE .gr Vassilis, Spitadakis SV1033 spitad at ICS.FORTH. GR 36.GREENLAND .gl Greenland Administrative Contact GAC2-ORG nic @GH.GL 37.GUINEA .gn Kourouma, Moussa MK119 moussa at PADES.AC.GN 38.GUINEA-BISSAU .gw Embalo, Mario ME1004 cherno at SOL.UNDPBI.TELEPA C.NET 39.HOLY SEE (VATICAN) .va Zoebelein, Judith [Sister] JZ146 sjz at VATICAN. VA 40.HUNGARY .hu Martos, Balazs BM238 martos at SZTAKI.HU 41.ICELAND .is Jonsson, Helgi HJ18 hjons at ISGATE.IS 42.IRAN(ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF).ir Fazlollahi, Farshad FF179 fazl at ARCHWAY.NET 43.IRAQ .iq Alani, Saud SA1955 alani at MYNET.NET 44.IRELAND .ie Niall O'Reilly NO8 noreilly at ucd.ie 45.ISRAEL .il Nussbacher, Hank HN7 hank at ISOC.ORG.IL 46.ITALY .it Trumpy, Stefano ST43-RIPE S.Trumpy at CNUCE.CNR. IT 47.JORDAN .jo Nusseir, Yousef [Dr.] YN14 ynusseir at NIC.GOV.JO 48.KAZAKHSTAN .kz Gusev, Pavel PG134 pasha at RELCOM.KZ 49.KENYA .ke Ochuodho, Shem J. SJO2 shem at ARCC.OR.KE 50.KUWAIT .kw Al-Roumi, Salman [Undersecretary] SA81 sroumi @NCCDNS.MOC.KW 51.KYRGYZSTAN .kg Piryazev, Sergey SP312 adm at INFOTEL.BISHKEK.SU 52.LATVIA .lv Barzdins, Guntis GB2 guntis at LATNET.LV 53.LEBANON .lb Bukhalid, Nabil NB9 nabil at AUB.EDU.LB 00043289 20 at MCIMAIL.COM 54.LIBERIA .lr Urey, Mai Bright MU120 murey at LIBERIA.NET 55.LIBYAN ARAB JAMAHIRIYA .ly Registrar REG20-ORG fastnet at SAQNET.CO.UK 56.LIECHTENSTEIN .li Schneider, Marcel MS2220 schneider at SWITCH.CH 57.LITHUANIA .lt Tamulioniene, Daiva DT78 daiva at SC-UNI.KTU.LT 58.LUXEMBOURG .lu Duhautpas, Theo TD187 duhautpas at RESTENA.LU 59.MACEDONIA .mk Belcev, Dimitar DB53 Dimitar at E5.IJS.SI 60.MALI .ml Maiga, Tiemoko Mahamane TMM24 hostmaster at SOTE LMA.ML 61.MALTA .mt Nezval, Victor VN6 vnez at CIS.UM.EDU.MT 62.MAURITANIA .mr Haouba, Ahmedou Ould AOH2 haouba at UNIV-NKC.MR 63.MOLDOVA .md Chirev, Pavel PC63 CRI at ROEARN.ICI.RO 64.MONACO .mc Gall, Thierry TG1787 tgall at RAIN.FR 65.MOROCCO .ma unknown 66.NETHERLANDS .nl Boudewijn Nederkoorn nederkoorn at surfnet.nl 67.NIGER .ne Hennessee, Sean SH4919 sxh at NE800.COM 68.NIGERIA .ng Odusote, Iyabo [Mrs.] IO12 iyabo at YABA.CNUCE.C NR.IT 69.NORWAY .no Eidnes, Havard HE15 Havard.Eidnes at RUNIT.SINTE F.NO 70.OMAN .om Abduwani, Ali AA1036 abduwani at GTO.NET 71.POLAND .pl Krzanowski, Wiktor WK856 wiktor at NASK.PL 72.PORTUGAL .pt Veiga, Pedro PV542 Pedro.Veiga at FCCN.PT 73.QATAR .qa Marafih, Nasser NM379 nasser at DOHA.NET 74.ROMANIA .ro Tanase, Iustin IT190 ita at INFO.CNI.RO 75.RUSSIAN FEDERATION .ru Platonov, Alexey P. AP22 plat at KIAE.SU 76. old .su domain. Existing sub-domains managed by .ru 77.SAN MARINO .sm Gabellini, Andrea AG89-RIPE staff at OMNIWAY.SM 78.SAO TOME AND PRINCIPE .st Da Cruz Lima, Manuel Quaresma MQD2 lima at NAC.N ET 79.SAUDI ARABIA .sa Al-Musa, Abdullah Othman AOA2 aaic20 at KACST.ED U.SA 80.SENEGAL .sn Corenthin, Alex AC4 corenthin at UCAD.SN 81.SIERRA LEONE .sl Pratt, Reginald RP2972 pratt at SIERRATEL.SL 82.SLOVAKIA .sk Buechler, Gejza GB224 gejza at UNIBA.CS gejza at UN IBA.CS 84.SPAIN .es Sanz, Miguel A. MAS122 miguel.sanz at REDIRIS.ES 85.SUDAN .sd Osman, Ihab I IIO3 iiosman at AOL.COM 86.SVALBARD AND JAN MAYEN ISLANDS .sj Eidnes, Havard HE15 Havard.Eidnes at RUNIT .SINTEF.NO 87.SWEDEN .se administrator info at nic-se.se 88.SWITZERLAND .ch Schneider, Marcel MS2220 schneider at SWITCH.CH 89.SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC .sy Obied, Makram MO1837 STE-GM at SYRIATEL.NET 90.TAJIKISTAN .tj Tursoon-Zadeh, Irage M IMT13 irage at NIC.TJ 91.TOGO .tg YAWO, NAOGBODJI NY61 togo at NCS.COM.GH 92.TUNISIA .tn Mhiri, Dhafrallah DM2530 mhiri at TOUNES.ATI.TN 93.TURKEY .tr Ozgit, Attila AO14 ozgit at KNIDOS.CC.METU.EDU.T R 94.TURKMENISTAN .tm Karryev, Batyr BK3264 batyr at TM.SYNAPSE.RU 96.UNITED ARAB EMIRATES 95.UKRAINE .ua Kohmanyuk, Dmitry DK379 dk+ at UA.NET 96.UNITED ARAB EMIRATES .ae Rashid, Walid WR102 postmaster at EMIRATES.NET.A E 97.UNITED KINGDOM .uk William Black (Dr) wblack at nominet.org.uk 98. old .gb domain. Existing sub-domains maintained by .uk 99.UZBEKISTAN .uz Vostrikov, Alex AV48 alex at FREENET.UZ 100.WESTERN SAHARA .eh Not assigned 101.YEMEN .ye DMCOM DMC-ORG telyemen at BATELCO.COM.BH 102.YUGOSLAVIA .yu Tasic, Mirjana TM109 tasic at TIES.ITU.CH k ------- End of Forwarded Message -------- Logged at Tue Feb 10 18:08:14 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

KIS ASS
by Roberto.Gaetano＠etsi.fr 09 Feb '98

09 Feb '98

Jay, May I start by making one thing clear: I am a member of CORE, and this choice of mine suggests that there is some basic disagreement between ourselves that we will not be able to solve with just a couple of messages. Nevertheless, I think that rather than looking at this difference, we should look at our similarities, pretty much as two human beings of different race, that for long time may be opposed by the colour of the skin before realizing this to be a minor detail compared to the rest. The rest is being part of the Net. The rest is being part of the international community that is overcoming physical borders like mountains, rivers and oceans; overcoming national and political borders like walls and barbed wire; building a common network that unites people of different culture and language. This is the Net, a project that is in the hearts and souls of human beings, and that cannot be ruled by politicians. A project that is aimed at sharing experiences, not at establishing hierarchies. A project that can survive violent flame cyber-wars, but will be unable to survive government interference. Any government interference. I completely agree with you that anarchy is not the best solution, that at some point some rules have to be enforced, that some decisions have to be made. 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. I know we have different point of view on the structure and operation of the Internet, and I assume we will find out even more differencies if we start discussing the details of "Internet Governance". Nevertheless, let me tell you that I will be able to accept in the future an Internet governed by your rules, endorsed in an internal democratic process, but I would be much less comfortable with an Internet governed by my rules, enforced by an external authority. This said (sorry for the wasted bandwidth, but I really had to do it, I feel better now), may I go to the specific point addressed by your message. You wrote: > I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you > attribute > to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce > Department > that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. > Some even > suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the > world, > resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide. > > As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in > this area. > May have some truth, but the deregulation in the telecom business (at least in Europe) has come from an internal process of the Telecom industry, and specifically of the Telecom operators, that adapted to the evolving market. The driving force was not a paper of some colour from some government, but market evolution. It is absolutely true that this tendency started in the US, but there was no formal action from the US Government to determine the future asset of the European Telecom. It also has to be noted, even if it is out of the context (but the subject "ITU" has already been brought up by the Prosecutor, as Perry Mason would have said), that the role of the ITU has been very important in allowing the developing countries to survive this evolution, and ITU's effort in establishing formal recommendations and regulations was not at all aimed at countering the market evolution, going towards deregulation, but to limit the perverse effects of this evolution on the weaker part of the globe. IMHO. > >Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world > to come up > > with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way > to enforce > >those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses > numerous > >borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will > be > >difficult. > > I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult. > Do you really believe that the US Government has consulted any other Government of the world or any other consortium, body, organization outside the US? I wish I could share your optimism on politicians. > >Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing > the press > >and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that > in...) and > > Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with > this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some > extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with > this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces > government to live up to our highest ideals. > > Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. > We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution > possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise. > I can't argue with this. If you have your reason to believe that the USG process has been a good one, you may be right. I personally think that governmental interference in this process is bad in itself, independently of which side they are on. What will happen now? Other government will be pissed off (the Europen Community is, for instance) and the whole matter will become a political fight. I don't know who will win, but I know who will lose: the Net, ourselves. EU will propose Eurocracy (as we call it on this side of the Ocean) versus American Rule, and, let me tell you, the powers of the world will get a political agreement in which the ideals that got "Our Thing" going will count less than yesterday's newspaper. Shouldn't we fight among ourselves, choosing the timing and weapons, instead of praising the intervention of external powers? > >The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If > anybody is to > >reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the > users, for > > the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any > government. > > That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of > the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas > and opinions are welcome. > You are absolutely right. Whatever the differencies between the two of us, even without knowing you I can tell you that I have more in common with you than with Ira Magaziner. Why should I now be forced to spend my time in fighting him instead of building something with you? Roberto -------- Logged at Sat Feb 7 14:02:08 MET 1998 ---------

7 9

KIS ASS
by wbenton＠NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP 09 Feb '98

09 Feb '98

The Internet is the only truely nationally boundless thing in the world. What the US Gov. is trying to do is to bind it. As it crosses international borders, the US has no right WHATSOEVER to try and contain it. They can withdraw their monies and support for it, but they should not be allowed to control it. Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world to come up with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way to enforce those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses numerous borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will be difficult. Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing the press and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that in...) and should not be allowed to control the Internet. Anything the US Govt. would try to do would end up placing borders on the internet within the US alone, but would have no effect elsewhere in the world. The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If anybody is to reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the users, for the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any government. The government has no controls over whom my company's President will be and neither should they try to decide who will head up the Internet as the internet is a large conglamorate of multi-national corporations, individuals, societies, and consortiums, similar to my own company. If the Govt. doesn't like what they see, then they should not use the Internet and instead, fund their own private project without the assistance of the Internet members/staff/corporations If they so desire. If you like it, use it; if not, then get the hell out; but don't try to control it. Sincerely, Walter Benton ___________________________________ ?? _______________________________________ ??: Re: KIS ASS ???: Bob Allisat <bob at wtv.net> at &NWS-Internet ??: 98/02/02 12:32 Tony wrote: >Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what >he thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the >respect of those operators. Over the last two years EVERYONE has ripped Postel's authority to shreds. And the pitiful respect of ten guys and a handful of IETF stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is deposed. What remains is to install the next regime. One which must be broad based and democratic. If any of you imagine what occured in the past was even remotely democratic you are deluding yourselves. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Fri Feb 6 13:08:40 MET 1998 ---------

4 3

Netizen's Message
by bob＠wtv.net 09 Feb '98

09 Feb '98

As the alleged technical master brains of the Internet drift further and further into error by never actually discussing the issues, we the people of the Internet grow ever more restless. No-one has dared to answered the quite basic questions. We say the current system could easily handle anywhere from ten to thirty thousand new Top Level Domains. We say the equipment necessary to operate a Domain Name Registrar/Registry (DNR) can easily reside on any standard WWW server like any other mildly interactive homepage on Earth. We even put up various demo version DNRs for one and all to see how damn simple it can be. No response except denial or silence from the super-brains. These forums are slowly bogging down on tangential concerns. Instead of addressing and clearly stating the facts the great "engineering" minds of the Earth, phucked and wandering, drift out of their area expertise and into the deep and dark shite minefield of political games. In the words of the immortal Robot: "Danger Will Robinson, DANGER"... The Internet routes around censorship. That's the way you silly people designed it to operate. And right about now the IETF/ISOC/IAB/IANA/IAHC/CORE/POC is looking more and more like a rather pathetic form of censorship of the diletante political newbie variety. To be routed around by every little motherphucker who wants to run a simple Domain Name Service like our own http://www.fcn.net (click on the blinking icon). To be routed around by every hacker pissed off at paying through the nose to Internic and facing the prospect of paying through every other orifice to the corporations you all seem hell bent upon installing or creating in the hell-alternative DNR scenarios you dummies dish up from time to time. Time for Bob to go into his eqaully bogus (but much more entertaining!) Oracle of the Net mode for a while. Suspension of disbelief hats on kids! This will be brief but fun, I promise you.... __________________________________________________________________ START Net to eggheads, Net to eggheads, come in Eggheads. This is an important message from the sixty million people who actually make up the Internet. Please remove your collective heads from your collective anai and listen up: We want our fucken namespace back. We liked it when it was for free, back before that heinous fifty dollar fee was shoved down our throats. Before the money hog craziness. Before all this stupid, over-blown garbage started coming from you people. We don't want "THE SYSTEM" (Insert reverb) to crash down. We don't want to fragment the damned thing either. We want as many independant, widely dispersed and differant options to choose from as TECHNICALLY (insert tunder) feasible. And we don't want them all to be big stinken lawyer infested corporate Domain Name Registries either. There's room for everyone and even for dissent, irony, humour and people who bust the idea of Trademarks to kingdom come. Now make it happen. Or else we will design code, java scripts, routing patterns and so on to obsolete the lot of you and your damned anal ideas about networking. And stop playing fucken god while you're at it with all your stupid "Black Hole" ideas and wanker hissy fits about anything/everything that even remotely offends your rather limited views of that big ole brawlen universe out there. End of message, over and out and a big 10-4 from your hugmongous everyone else out here newbie buddy which in totality make ya'll geek doinks look like so many gnats flying around so many elephants' assholes. Cheers! __________________________________________________________________ FINISH Now lets see if any of you can process that. I highly doubt it so far into even deeper bogosity have you all strayed. In fact I feel more and more assured that it is the Internet at large that will create the solution. That it's almost pointless to waste anymore time with such inconsequential diliberations. The old God Postel is wandering around, blind and senile, bellowing orders in his whisper voice. And all his pitiful dieties are scrambling around their silly cyber-olympus desparately trying to obey, hurling their ineffectual thunderbolts and crashing their tin cymbal thunderclaps to try and cow the billion people poised to occupy the net into their itsy bitsy teeny weeny vision of reality. All we have to do is sit back, smile and wait as the old world crashes down under the weight of the onrushing, all delusion crushing humanity of it all. Thank you for patiently abiding my illusions for this ephemeral and poignant moment in a wonky and getting even wonkier time-space continuum type of way. I remain... TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:33:53 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

New Top Level Domain BOF@IETF-LA'98
by bob＠wtv.net 02 Feb '98

02 Feb '98

Paul wrote: > End user or individual > > An individual is always able to get involved in > the IETF or the Regional technical meetings > which give advice to the RIRs. This individual requests the IETF hold a BOF at the upcoming meeting in LA following the draft outlined below. ______________START<PRE> New Top Level Domain BOF (Time/location To Be Announced) ================================ Chair: Bob Allisat DESCRIPTION: New Top Level Domain (nTLD) names have been proposed as a way of increasing the namespace choices available to Netizens worldwide. Currently people have only two choices: national registries and the traditional .COM/.ORG/.NET TLDs. Many nTLDs have been proposed to offer expanded identification opportunities for individuals, businesses and organizations. However, this raises various issues such as how many nTLDs are feasible, what are the required technical standards to run a Network Information Center (NIC) or Domain Name Registry (DNR) and so on. nTLD's are becoming more and more essential as more and more people utilize the Internet for their everyday communications. Everyone is experiencing the problem of a rapidly diminishing number of viable Domains. There is an urgent need to define mechanisms to achieve new Top Level Domain capabilies. Some of the issues that needs to be addressed are: 1. What are the basic technical requirements for Domain Name Registries (DNR). What are the technical requirements for Network Information Centres (NIC). Is there a differance between the two and if so we have to begin defining those differances. 2. Is there a necessity for various grades or "flavours" of DNR/nTLD (ie non-profit, commercial, small, mid-size, corporate). Are "shared" and "private" DNR/nTLD technically practical? Can shared and private DNRs technically co-exist. 3. What are the limitations and hindrances in existing software which may place practical limitations on the number of New TLDs. 4. How to provide Quality of Service while allowing widely dispersed, decentralized nTLD/DNRs and NICs. 5. Issues around "Root" servers. There are two basic challenges with naming: How to announce a server based on its nTLD, and how to find that server based on it's IP address. Currently this is done by 13 private Root servers to which all Domain Name Servers computers worldwide point to for that information. Is there a need for more Root Servers? What sort of technical regulation of these root servers require? How can we ensure universality of Internet addressing and still allow maximal dispersion of nTLDs, DNRs and NICs? The goals of the New Top Level Domain Name BOF are: 1. Decide if there is a need to form a working group to solve some or all of the problems above. 2. Which of the problems above should be addressed by the working group. 3. What will the working group produce. In our opinion, we need to interact with other groups such as various bodies of the UN, national governments, industry representatives and the general Netizenry to solve some or all of the problems above. 4. What other problems need to be solved for succesful deployment of new TLD's. AGENDA: Introduction, agenda review. Issue Briefs - 2 minute summaries of position papers to be filed and available on-line Discussion - succinct questions; 2 minute limit on answers, details and expansions presented as on-line addenda. Conclusion - organizing next steps. </PRE>______________FINISH TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat Director, World TeleVirtual Network http://www.wtv.net PO Box 191 St E Toronto Canada M6H 4E2 info at wtv.net -------- Logged at Sun Feb 1 23:35:32 MET 1998 ---------

13 17

OECD DNS Document and Corrigenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 02 Feb '98

02 Feb '98

Thanks, Sam. I'll pass the information on to the RIPE TLD-WG mailing list. Niall > Date: Mon, 02 Feb 1998 07:34:32 +0100 > From: Sam.PALTRIDGE at oecd.org > Subject: RE: OECD DNS Document and Corrigenda > To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > Niall, > > Sorry for the delay in replying to your e-mail as I have been away on > vacation until today. The document is now on our website at: > http://www.oecd.org/dsti/sti/it/index.htm > > > ---------- > > From: Niall O'Reilly[SMTP:Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie] > > Reply To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > > Sent: Thursday, 22 January, 1998 11:44AM > > To: Sam.PALTRIDGE at oecd.org > > Subject: OECD DNS Document and Corrigenda > > > > Sam, > > > > I'ld like to be in a position to say something about the "OECD DNS > > Document" at next week's RIPE 29. Could you please update me on > > current status and when it will become public ? > > > > Thanks > > > > Niall O'Reilly > > > > IE Domain Registry > > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG > > > -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 22:04:16 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

KIS ASS
by jim＠smallworks.com 02 Feb '98

02 Feb '98

Personally, I'm willing to follow Mr. Manning and especially Mr. Postel straight to network hell, if that is indeed where they're leading. Somehow, I belive the boat is headed the other direction as long as they stay at the helm. All the johny-come-latelys (including Mr. Denniger) can get off said boat whenever they like. I won't miss 'em. Jim -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 12:02:27 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

Europeans Disappointed By Net Names Plan
by hank＠ibm.net.il 02 Feb '98

02 Feb '98

I rest my case... Europeans Disappointed By Net Names Plan ( 1/30/98; 9:00 p.m. EST) By Douglas Hayward, TechWeb European Internet organizations could barely disguise their disappointment with a plan published Friday by the U.S. government to privatize the running of the Internet's domain name system. In what has been called the "green paper," the U.S. government said it wants a private nonprofit corporation to control the entire Internet domain name system. The new corporation would appoint up to five independent organizations -- known as registries -- to administer domain names. Each of these registries would be entitled to administer a single new top-level domain. Possible new top-level domains mentioned by the paper include .vend and .store. The U.S. government plan is a grievous blow to two closely related European-based organizations -- the Internet Policy Oversight Committee and the Council of Registrars (CORE) -- which proposed last year to create seven new top-level domains. The White House document gives no detailed timeline for introducing its five proposed new domains, whereas the European bodies planned to get their seven new domains operating by late March 1998. "The plans published today by the U.S. government will delay the introduction of competition among organizations registering domain names," said Jonathan Robinson, managing director of General Internet, a British domain-name registrar that sells .com and .co addresses to users. "That is something that will only serve the interests of entrenched monopolies," he said. "There is no way that cheaper Internet domains are now going to be made available to users right away," said Robinson, whose company hoped to sell addresses using the seven new domains proposed by the European groups. "There is no time frame in the U.S. government plan for establishing the new domain names," said Antony Van Couvering, president of the U.S. arm of London-based domain name registrar, NetNames. "It could be a year or more, despite the fact that CORE and some alternative registries are ready to go," he said. "The plan essentially pushes off all the difficult questions to a group that won't be formed until the year 2000," Van Couvering said. "What is everyone going to do in the meantime?" The green paper effectively guarantees the U.S. government a long-term role in directing the Internet, even though the Clinton administration is supposedly privatizing the administration of the Net, Robinson added. "This just entrenches the U.S government's position, when it should be handing power over to the Internet community," Robinson said. The Internet Policy Oversight Committee and CORE are not going to accept the U.S. government plans, said Robert Shaw, a leading member of the committee. The plan to give commercial groups control over individual top-level domains is a cause for concern, said Shaw, who is an adviser at the International Telecommunication Union, the Geneva-based United nations agency. "The problem with the concept of top-level domains being owned by commercial registries is that the database is worth tremendous commercial value," Shaw said. "We could have a situation where one company in the U.S. is going to have right to one very high value domain name, such as .inc," he said. The committee and CORE will meet with White House technology adviser Ira Magaziner soon to express their concerns, he added. European Internet service providers gave the plan a cautious welcome Friday, but said that the not-for-profit private organization proposed to run the new infrastructure would need greater input from service providers. "Overall, it looks like a pretty good plan, but we are concerned about a lack of recognition of the fact that Internet service providers are stakeholders in the Internet," said Jim Dixon, president of Euro-ISPA, a group which coordinates the activities of national Internet service providers' associations in Europe. "This is a bit silly, given that Internet service providers are investing billions of dollars in developing the Internet," he said. Dixon said the group would like to see the proposed new body restructured slightly so that Internet services providers as a whole have more influence. "But otherwise we are rather satisfied," Dixon said. Friday's plan is a setback for some European government officials who openly backed the two European groups in their failed attempt to create new domains and take over administration of the Internet's domain name system. "A lot of people in Europe are going to be extremely embarrassed by this plan, and we are going to have to come up with some graceful exit options for them," said a high-ranking manager at a European service provider, who asked not to be named. "They have made a major contribution to reforming the domain name system, but they lost the debate." -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 13:21:28 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

KIS ASS
by peter＠2day.net.nz 02 Feb '98

02 Feb '98

>mr.postel IS the root you fool :-) Everybody down here thinks he is a human, much like the rest of us. Maybe thats what happens if you spend too much time with name servers. One becomes a DOT. >he hase build them up at a time you probably where not even aware of your >self-me too and terefor i respekt dr.postel and would folow his lead for >ever For ever is a fairly long time :-) Sascha, you make a great supporter of the people you believe in, I give you that. That's about as strong a statement one can make about anybody else. I hope Dr Postel and others dont ever let you down. You may be in for some disappointment. regards Peter Mott Chief Enthusiast 2Day Internet Limited. -------- Logged at Mon Feb 2 03:17:24 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

[Fwd: US Govt. paper on Internet Government released]
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 31 Jan '98

31 Jan '98

An embedded message was scrubbed... From: "Wayne D. Correia" <wayne at domain.net> Subject: US Govt. paper on Internet Government released Date: Fri, 30 Jan 1998 10:31:57 -0800 Size: 2053 URL: <https://www.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/tld-wg/attachments/19980131/e7ed884…>

1 0

Magaziners views
by schneider＠switch.ch 27 Jan '98

27 Jan '98

For those who did not yet see it: http://www.wired.com/news/news/politics/story/9867.html "... The one big difference is in the root zone servers, which coordinate the addressing functions of the Net's top-level domains and are currently managed by NSI. They would be handed over to a private, non-profit organization that Magaziner said would be a "bottoms-up sort of stakeholder formed for the Internet." What Magaziner is essentially recommending is that the US government get out of the management of the Internet. He said that certain functions require coordination - such as assigning blocks of numeric IP addresses, currently handled by the government-chartered Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, or IANA. This coordination, Magaziner said, "should come from the Internet community and not from our government, or any other governmental institution. It rests from our government for historical reasons, but we need to get away from that." He is advocating the creation of a new non-profit, private sector institution - made up of the stakeholders of the Internet - to handle this kind of coordination, with current agencies such as IANA folded into it. ..." Marcel -------- Logged at Sat Jan 31 03:18:02 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

RIPE CENTR proposal is published
by balazs＠novell.aszi.sztaki.hu 26 Jan '98

26 Jan '98

>the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html In the RIPE CENTR proposal I found links on "activities of RIPE CENTR" pointing to RIPE NCC activities. What specific activities of these have been identified as RIPE CENTR activities? Balazs -------- Logged at Mon Jan 26 12:03:59 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

How Europe caused CORE to fail
by hank＠ibm.net.il 25 Jan '98

25 Jan '98

At 10:00 PM 1/24/98 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote: >> Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and >> Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go >> back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. > >Ignore the observers who are, after all, only observers. Correct the >count by adding Robert Shaw and Albert Tramposch back in (Tramposch >only just left the POC) and you have 6/11 Americans, or 55.5% American. >That is, the "decrease" in US representation is scarcely the issue. Unfortunately, the US gov't does not view people who live and work outside the USA for foreign organizations as representing "their" viewpoint. Albert and Bob fall into that category. As to observers - whether they vote or not - there are no Americans there. > >> Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based >> companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE >> stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% >> of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. >> So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we >> have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should >> migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). > >You can count this various ways. By domain count US-registered .COM >entries are somewhere in the low 70%s. > >> So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by >> Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to >> extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed >> the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and >> non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA >> has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of >> certain geographical interest groups. > >The POC was actually attempting to curry favour in Europe by handing >out seats. This succeeded in Europe but may certainly have backfired >in the States. Bingo! You hit the nail right on the head. > >But the gTLD MOU's problems aren't due to a lack of American presence. >They are due to a very vocal North American-based opposition who are >disdained by those who have been acting as spokesmen for the gTLD MOU >and to a lack of industry support. Of the world's 10,000 or so ISPs >only a few dozen have signed the MOU. Why? Essentially because the >gTLD MOU crowd have ignored them and ignored their interests. > >> What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". >> The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, >> controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls >> and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able >> to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the >> door and looked at what they had gained. > >All of this was done long ago and done by a US-dominated POC. The >loudest voices defending the decision to locate in Geneva (Crocker, >Shaw, Maher, Tramposch, etc) are certainly American. Because it was and still is the "right" thing to do. If Europe hopes to have CORE and the gTLD MoU succeed (and not lose it all) it should contact POC and state that the US gov't be allowed to determine the size and staffing of POC. Let Ira and Bill place reps from MCI and Uunet on POC. > >> You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. > >These comments are interesting set against reports that IANA, ISOC, >the POC, and CORE are intent on ignoring the US government and are >raising a $10 million war chest to fight expected lawsuits. Who wins? Not the US gov't. Not CORE. Not Europe. NSI does. Think about it. -Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > > -------- Logged at Sun Jan 25 16:00:10 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

How Europe caused CORE to fail
by hank＠ibm.net.il 25 Jan '98

25 Jan '98

As many of you are aware the entire gTLD MoU and CORE setup is close to dissolving. Extract from: http://www.nwfusion.com/news/0122dns.html Sources said Magaziner may reject the CORE proposal because it was designed "behind closed doors" and because it would have shifted domain naming from the U.S. to Geneva. Magaziner declined to comment. ----------------------------------------------------------- Best stop now if you don't want some serious flammage. <FLAME> One of the two major reasons the USA gov't has back off of this entire proposal is the removal of the USA from gTLDs (the other is trademark issues). Lets look at the current POC: Amadeu Abril i Abril, <amadeu at nominalia.com>, Spain-Europe, appointed by CORE Rob Austein, <sra at epilogue.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IAB Willie Black, <w.black at nominet.org.uk>, UK-Europe, appointed by IANA Patrik F?ltstr?m, <paf at swip.net>, Sweden-Europe, appointed by IAB Christopher Gibson, <christopher.gibson at wipo.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by WIPO Geert Glas, <geert.glas at lcv.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by INTA Alan Hanson, <alan at finet.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by CORE Glen Kowack, <gkowack at well.com>, USA-Americas, appointed by IANA David W. Maher (POC Chair), <dwmaher at ibm.net>, USA-Americas, appointed by ISOC Robert Shaw, <robert.shaw at itu.int>, International Treaty Organization, appointed by ITU Christopher Wilkinson, <christopher.wilkinson at bxl.dg13.cec.be>, Belgium-Europe, appointed by ISOC PAB Observers Peter Mott, <peter at 2day.net.nz>, New Zealand-Asia-Pacific, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Javier Sola, <jsola at aui.es>, Spain-Europe, appointed by gTLD-MoU Policy Advisory Body Out of 11+2 members on POC, Rob Austein, Dave Maher, Glen Kowack and Alan Hanson are USA reps. That makes USA representation about 30%. Go back a year and you will find that in the IAHC the USA made up 54%. Out of 11 people on the IAHC clearly 6 were USA based and residing American citizens: Sally Abel, Georges Strawn, Perry Metzger, Dave Crocker, Don Heath, Dave Maher. Now lets look at the current gTLDs: com/net/org. 99% of all USA based companies register their names in these 3 gTLDs. If we examine the RIPE stats that are published each month, I would guess that only about 10% of companies in Europe register in the gTLD area and prefer the nTLDs. So the general makeup of current users of gTLDs is overwhelming USA (we have said all along the gTLDs is a USA based problem and they should migrate to .us as everyone else is using the ISO3166 nTLD effectively). So for something that is mainly used by Americans, and created by Americans (Arpanet), and run by Americans (IANA), we were able to extract 46% non-USA participants. Not bad. But anyone who has followed the IAHC, iPOC, POC lists and discussions knows that Europe and non-Americans have been clamoring for *more* representation. So now USA has a minority stake in POC (30%), due to the unrelenting pressure of certain geographical interest groups. What have you gained? It could very well end up to be "king of nothing". The USA gov't is not stupid. The gTLD MoU was set up in Geneva, controlled via a very European run organization (ITU - go thru the halls and count the number of European employees) and we might have been able to pull it all off if certain people had checked their geo-egos at the door and looked at what they had gained. Today, as well as last year, Europe has zero say in anything regarding gTLDs. NSI and IANA do not listen to the ITU, WIPO, the EC nor anyone out of the USA government. We were on the way to convincing the USA gov't to go along with the plan and suddenly it finds out that only 30% of the people are American. So once Ira and Bill scuttle the CORE plan, ITU/WIPO/EC will be right back where it was a two years ago with once again zero say in the gTLD realm. You have only yourselves to blame if CORE gets dissolved. Hank Nussbacher former IAHC member former iPOC member IL nTLD contact </FLAME> Sorry I have been rather blunt, but just had to get this off my chest. -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 20:40:23 MET 1998 ---------

3 2

RIPE CENTR proposal is published
by hank＠ibm.net.il 24 Jan '98

24 Jan '98

At 04:02 PM 1/23/98 +0100, Paul Ridley wrote: Is there a major reason for maintaining tld-admin and tld-wg? The groups overlap and I see no reason for maintaining two groups? Can't they be merged? -Hank >Dear all, > >the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at >http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html > >This document is essential reading for all ntld administrators as is described >the setting up of an organisation for RIPE area ntlds. I will also be making a >presentation on this proposal at the forthcoming tld-wg meeting. > >Any comments to the author (although preferably on tld-wg at ripe.net) would be >appreciated. > >I look forward to hearing your comments. > >Regards > >Paul > > > > -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 20:22:35 MET 1998 ---------

4 3

Latest Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

RIPE 29 TLD-WG -- Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia (09:00, 5 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 agreement of Agenda 2. Matters arising from RIPE 28 TLD-WG meeting (09:05, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list TLD-27.3 Daniel Karrenberg to prepare "IANA future structure" paper Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/wg/lir/iana-paper/IANA-paper.html To be discussed under item 6. TLD-28.1 Task Force to document proposed structure for support of management of DNS root Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/task-force/ripe-centr-1.1.html Proposes regional bodies to mediate nTLD support for IANA and RIPE-CENTR as such a body for RIPE area. To be discussed under item 6. TLD-28.2 RIPE-NCC to develop proposal for TLD Co-ordination activity Done -- see http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html Proposes structure and activities of RIPE-CENTR To be discussed under item 7. TLD-28.3 WG Chair to alert TLD Administrators to DOC/NTIA enquiry and POC RFC's Part done -- mailed tld-admin at ripe.net 8 Oct 1997 re POC RFC's 3. Brief news (09:15, 5 mins) (not covered by other agenda items, if any) 4. Operational issues (09:20, 10 mins) (if any) 5. Review Workplan (09:30, 15 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. 6. IANA and stability of the root (09:45, 45 mins) 6.1 Presentation on recent developments (R.Blokzijl) 6.2 Review progress on action TLD-27.1 6.3 Review progress on action TLD-28.1 (M.Schneider) 6.4 Update on EU/US Government contacts (C.Wilkinson) -- Coffee Break (10:30, 30 mins) -- 7. WG Support Activity: RIPE-CENTR (11:00, 20 mins) Review progress on action TLD-28.2 (P.Ridley) 8. nTLD issues (11:20, 20 mins) Documentation, harmonisation ... Identify and assign first actions in this area 9. gTLD issues (11:40, 20 mins) POC information meetings Possible "boundary issues" with nTLD's 10. AOB (12:00, 5 mins) 11. Conclusions (12:05, 20 mins) 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list -- Close (12:25) -- -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 03:04:18 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder)
by hank＠ibm.net.il 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

At 02:06 PM 1/21/98 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >... >> - in the ntld doc you should mention rfc1591 and that iana and ntlds should >> work according to this rfc (in regards to transfer of ownership, etc.) >> - I think a set of docs need to be created by the ntld WG for any nTLD that >> is sued. IL has just been sued in the Supreme Court by a cybersquatter. An >> excellent resource used to be: >> http://www.digidem.com/legal/domain.html >> which compares many policies of ntlds - but we need to have something that >> continues to be maintained. When someone dislikes your authority in your >> country over your ntld - they will sue you and not iana. For that we need >> to be prepared. > >Hank Nussbacher's comment is certainly valid. Please refer to >the famous Haiti case: > >http://www.mids.org/mn/712/reht.html > >I am in complete agreement with John Quarterman's remark at the >end of above article: > >"Perhaps regional NICs such as RIPE <URL:http://www.ripe.net/> in Europe and >APNIC <URL:http://www.apnic.net/> in Asia Pacific, probably plus the >eventual African and ALyC NICs, should consider going further than just >funding IANA and assigning IP address space, and proceed >to devolve more IANA functions to the regional level." > >RIPE CENTR could be the body to handle all nTLD matters within >the territory of RIPE. Distributed, decentralized authority. In >accordance with DNS and IP/AS number assignment. How would the RIPE CENTR be any benefit from a legal standpoint? Someone will come forward and say "What gov't or treaty organization granted you authority?" RIPE CENTR would say IANA and we are back to square one. If IANA can attain some legal status that would help us. I have scanned most english rules for domains in Europe. Only Finland has its rules according to the gov't. All the rest are NICs and academic organizations that put together rules (there may be others that will have gov't legalized rules in the future - but so far only Finland has taken that step - and they even mention IANA!) If the RIPE CENTR is to be of any benefit it first has to have some major legal standing and not just our consensus (meaning those on this list). -Hank > > >Marcel > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 00:19:09 MET 1998 ---------

3 2

RIPE CENTR proposal is published
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

Dear all, the proposal for RIPE CENTR has been published as ripe-177. It can be found at http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html This document is essential reading for all ntld administrators as is described the setting up of an organisation for RIPE area ntlds. I will also be making a presentation on this proposal at the forthcoming tld-wg meeting. Any comments to the author (although preferably on tld-wg at ripe.net) would be appreciated. I look forward to hearing your comments. Regards Paul -------- Logged at Fri Jan 23 23:00:01 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

New Document available: RIPE-177
by ncc＠ripe.net 23 Jan '98

23 Jan '98

New/Revised RIPE Document Announcement -------------------------------------- A revised/new document is available from the RIPE document store. Ref: ripe-177 Title: RIPE CENTR Proposal Author: Paul Ridley Date: 23 January 1998 Format: PS=105584 TXT=21000 Obsoletes: Obsoleted by: Updates: Updated by: See also: Short content description ------------------------- This document is a proposal for the setting up of RIPE CENTR. The document outlines the goals and structure of the future organisation and describes a transition plan. This plan proposes that RIPE CENTR initially starts as a RIPE NCC project, before it eventually be spun off as a seperate legal entity. Accessing the RIPE document store --------------------------------- The RIPE document store is available via anonymous FTP to ftp.ripe.net, in the directory ripe/docs. The URLs for the new documents on the FTP-server are: ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-177.ps PostScript version ftp://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-177.txt plain text version You can also access the RIPE documents in HTML format via WWW. RIPE-177 is available from the WWW , at the following URL: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ripe-177.html Documents can also be retrieved from the RIPE document store using a mail server program. For more information on how to use the program, send email to <mail-server at ripe.net> with "send HELP" in the body text. -------- Logged at Fri Jan 23 16:02:27 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder)
by hank＠ibm.net.il 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

At 05:40 PM 1/22/98 +0100, Marcel Schneider wrote: >... >> How would the RIPE CENTR be any benefit from a legal standpoint? Someone >> will come forward and say "What gov't or treaty organization granted you >> authority?" RIPE CENTR would say IANA and we are back to square one. If >> IANA can attain some legal status that would help us. > >Sure. Have no doubts that IANA is aware of this fact. We have been >informed to hear more about it at the forthcoming RIPE meeting (by >RIPE staff involved in negotiations with IANA). > >> I have scanned most >> english rules for domains in Europe. Only Finland has its rules according >> to the gov't. All the rest are NICs and academic organizations that put >> together rules (there may be others that will have gov't legalized rules in >> the future - but so far only Finland has taken that step - and they even >> mention IANA!) > >> If the RIPE CENTR is to be of any benefit it first has to have some major >> legal standing and not just our consensus (meaning those on this list). > >CORE seems to have found an answer. You know it better than me if it >actually is one :). If yes, why not clone it ? Sure. That is if Magaziner doesn't torpedo the whole thing and favor NSI (see latest Network World article on the issue). -Hank > >> -Hank > > >Marcel > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 18:13:32 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

inquiry on CENTR
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 15:36:31 +0900 (KST) > From: Kilnam Chon <chon at cosmos.kaist.ac.kr> > Subject: Re: inquiry on CENTR > To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > thank you for the reply. > > one more inquiry on "... issues raised in OECD survey" in TLD Administration BOF > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > Minutes of 22 May 1997. > > do you have the copy of the OECD survey mentioned above? As far as I know, it's still in preparation. I expect information as to current status and likely publication date soon. I have had contact with one of the OECD officials involved, and understand that OECD member-state government representatives are involved in the development of the document. These have been asked to contact the nTLD registries in their countries to obtain or verify information for the report. In at least one case, this didn't happen because the representative of the member state in question was absent from the meeting where this request was made. Niall -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 17:40:53 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Are You Happy?
by tKg01s3W5＠stak1ed.net 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

There is brilliant information available to you, that will enable you to fully understand yourself and everybody else. This knowledge can benefit you tremendously in many ways. It can help you to get the very best out of your career, or discover your most suitable new career, and of course being happy at work, really improves the finances. It can also really enhance your love life. If you're in a relationship, it works great, because you are able to fully understand your own and your partner's emotions and motivations. If you're not, you will know exactly what you want from your perfect mate and what they will find attractive about you. Another big advantage to becoming balanced and happy is that good health runs hand in hand. Take a closer look two free pages of information at: http://www.po9.com -------- Logged at Sat Jan 24 19:01:01 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Proposed amendments to the TLD-WG Work Plan
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

Dear colleagues, I have the following suggestions for amendments to the TLD-WP WorkPlan (agenda item 5). Work-area "Documentation and alignment of practices" is identified as having high priority, but has no work-items. This is rather paradoxical. I expect we need to define some work in this area. This is for item 8. One work-area is concerned only with NSI. I expect this should be subsumed into one or more other areas, such as "IANA and stability of the DNS root". The work-area "Other" is too much like an after-thought. It is not prioritized. The area could simply be dropped. Alternatively, the work-items could be re-allocated to the work-area "Documentation and Alignment of Practices". Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 11:52:59 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

nTLD participation in RIPE 29 -- latest confirmations
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Jan '98

22 Jan '98

Between those already registered to attend and others who have let me know privately of their plans, I now expect the following nTLD's to be represented at RIPE 29: AT, CH, DE, ES, FR, IE, IT, LI, NL, NO, PT, RU, UK -- 13 so far. I look forward to finding a few more -- perhaps even from those already registered. I can see names from CZ, HU, PL, but I don't know whether they are representing their nTLD. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Thu Jan 22 00:19:23 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Documentation suggestions (was: RIPE 29: reminder)
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 21 Jan '98

21 Jan '98

Thanks for the comments, Hank. I'm passing them to the list for a wider readership. It will be interesting for us all to know the outcome of the case you mention. Niall ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Wed, 21 Jan 1998 13:33:09 +0200 From: Hank Nussbacher <hank at ibm.net.il> Subject: Re: RIPE 29: reminder To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie At 03:00 PM 1/20/98 +0000, you wrote: Do you have dates already in May so I can discuss with the rest of the board? I looked over the docs and have very few comments: - in the ntld doc you should mention rfc1591 and that iana and ntlds should work according to this rfc (in regards to transfer of ownership, etc.) - I think a set of docs need to be created by the ntld WG for any nTLD that is sued. IL has just been sued in the Supreme Court by a cybersquatter. An excellent resource used to be: http://www.digidem.com/legal/domain.html which compares many policies of ntlds - but we need to have something that continues to be maintained. When someone dislikes your authority in your country over your ntld - they will sue you and not iana. For that we need to be prepared. -Hank >> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 1998 15:41:09 +0200 >> From: Hank Nussbacher <hank at ibm.net.il> >> Subject: Re: RIPE 29: reminder >> To: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie > >> Too short notice to attend - perhaps the next meeting? > >Pity. Was this he first notice you had ? There were others, even >in December. If you've time, I'ld appreciate it if you could take a >look at the current documents and comment as you see fit. They're >on > >I look forward to seeing you at RIPE 30 in Stockholm in May. > >Best regards, > >Niall > > -------- Logged at Wed Jan 21 13:45:28 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

RIPE 29: reminder
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 21 Jan '98

21 Jan '98

I've just re-checked the list of participants for RIPE 29, looking for representatives of nTLD registries. I can find only 6 nTLD registries represented, to wit: CH, LI, FR, IE, NL, UK. As the description of a participant's organisation doesn't always make it clear to me whether s/he represents an nTLD, I may have missed some. If so, I'ld welcome corrections. The TLD Working Group is specifically intended to support nTLD registries (see http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/tld-tor.html). The more nTLD registries who can participate in this working group, the more effective and useful will be its work. If you haven't registered, there is still time to do so. I hope to see as many of you as possible at the meeting. Best regards, Niall O'Reilly IE Domain Registry Chair, RIPE TLD-WG -------- Logged at Tue Jan 20 16:07:13 MET 1998 ---------

3 5

Proposal for RIPE area n-TLD interaction with IANA
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 14 Jan '98

14 Jan '98

Dear all, At the RIPE 28 meeting in Amsterdam in September 1997, a task force was asked to make a proposal for the interaction of the RIPe area n-tlds and IANA. This was as a result of concerns about the future of IANA, and the effect this may have on n-tlds. The task force has written this proposal, the draft version of which was given to IANA for use as input into their future planning. All tld-wg members and specifically all RIPe area n-tld administrators are encouraged to read and comment on this proposal. It can be found on the tld-wg web site at http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/task-force/ripe-centr-1.1.html Regards Paul Ridley -------- Logged at Tue Jan 20 14:37:55 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation (fwd)
by W.Black＠nominet.org.uk 14 Jan '98

14 Jan '98

I don't usually forward POC mailings, since I'm never sure of their confidentiality status, but I think this makes quite interesting reading and looks like it's fairly public. W.B. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 1998 11:43:39 -0500 From: Don Heath <heath at isoc.org> To: poc at gtld-mou.org Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation >>Received: from info.isoc.org (info [192.168.1.1]) by linus.isoc.org (8.8.6/8.8.6) with ESMTP id UAA04398 for <heath at mailhub.isoc.org>; Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:41:19 -0500 (EST) >X-Authentication-Warning: relay.pathfinder.com: Host [206.245.67.33] claimed to be pathfinderfw.twi.com >X-Sender: declan at mail.pathfinder.com >Date: Fri, 9 Jan 1998 20:43:53 -0500 >To: politech at vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan at well.com> >Subject: FC: Larry Irving on domain names, censorship, regulation >Sender: owner-politech at vorlon.mit.edu >Reply-To: declan at well.com >X-Loop: politech at vorlon.mit.edu >X-URL: Politech is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ > >============================================ >Excerpts from transcript of press conference >============================================ > >Larry Irving, Assistant Secretary of Commerce, NTIA >January 8, 1998 >Washington, DC > >[...] > >Q Larry, you mentioned electronic commerce, but can you >tell us your progress on the green paper to privatize the >domain name registration? > >MR. IRVING: As many of you know, to my great chagrin and >disappointment November 1st came and went without us >releasing our green paper. I generally don't give dates >that we are going to release something, unless I am >absolutely certain that we can release it. In this case we >failed, and I apologize to those folks who were expecting >it, and I particularly apologize to Congress, and want to >thank those members of Congress who have ben forbearing, >and to those members of Congress who have gone home, and >because they are home haven't bothered to call me to >castigate me for not getting my paper in on time. > >We are working very diligently, and to be honest we thought >it was more important to get it right than to get it in on >time. There have been a lot of people across industry who >have a lot of issues. And what we began to discover was >looking just at the issue of domain name wasn't sufficient; >you have to look at the entire - there's a - (inaudible) - >affecting Internet governance, and there are a lot of >issues involved here. And we are trying hard to come up >with a comprehensive consensus document that we can deliver >to Congress. I can't give you another date, but it will be >soon. And one of the reasons it will be soon, because I >promised it two months ago and have not delivered it. >Another reason it will be soon is Congress is coming back, >and I think some of those people who requested it will want >it on their desk at or about the time they come back and >Congress reconvenes. But we will have a comprehensive >approach. Ira Magaziner and members of my staff, Becky >Bird (sp) and others, have done yeo person's work, or >yeoman's work - I'm not sure which is the non-sexist term - >but have worked diligently to come up with a product. >They've met with literally hundreds of people and/or read >thousands of pages of documents to get this right. And we >are committed to getting to the public and to the Congress >as good a report as we can. Anything we get is going to >have some critics, but we do think we can get a better >report by taking a little more time, being a little more >careful and talking to a few more people. > > >[...] > >Q If you abandon control of the Internet, or try to >minimize government regulations on the Internet, what >happens when you discover down the road perhaps - and let's >say perhaps dominating of the Internet by a few contract >providers - perhaps - (off mike) - how do you recover - >(off mike)? > >MR. IRVING: I think it is better to monitor and see if a >mistake is made then to start to regulate and assuredly >make some mistakes. > >Q Fair enough. What do you do once a mistake is made? > >MR. IRVING: You try to correct them. > >Q To minimize government regulation? > >MR. IRVING: We would - even if there are mistakes made, we >will try to correct those mistakes with minimal government >involvement. > >Q What tools do you have? > >MR. IRVING: You have all the tools you already have. You >have regulatory authority, you have litigation, you have >legislation. There is nothing - there is nothing that I >can't do prophylactically upfront that we couldn't do as a >government after the fact; but at least we'd know what the >issue is. Right now we'd be trying to - you know, it's >like trying to find a needle in the dark, in a 10,000 >square foot room. What problem am I trying to solve? And >right now we don't know. > >You know, nobody knew - none of us in this room would have >said in 1993 that in 1998 one trillion e-mails would be >transmitted around the globe. That's what happened last >year: one trillion - one trillion e-mails, according to >Financial Times, were transmitted around the globe. What >if I tried to do something to regulate e-mail based on what >I knew e-mail was going to be in 1993? I would have been >completely wrong, because I had no clue that there would be >one trillion e-mails in 1993. Did any of us know in 1996 >that real video would be a tool that people would be using >around the country, that you could watch the Rolling Stones >concert or pull up video - watch Savion Glover do a tap >dance recital on the Internet. Did any of us know that? >I didn't know in 1996 that in 1997 I could do that. I'd be >trying to regulate something I had no clue as to how it is >going to progress, and I might be stifling the progress. I >don't think that's good policy; more importantly, the >president and vice president don't think that's good >policy; Secretary Daley doesn't think that's good policy. >Let this thing grow at the rate it should grow as opposed >to. > >Internet telephony - 1995, 1994, who of you writing about >Internet telephony and talking about it as a real central >competitor, reducing prices and increasing opportunity for >entrepreneurs and for consumers? Have you thought - and >there were those calling to regulate Internet telephony. >The investments made would not have been made had we >started doing something when we were requested to with >regard to Internet telephony. We come down - I feel >strongly we have come down on the right side of this >debate. And I think that the people who are making >investments and who are building this industry, building >this economy, building this technology, feel strongly that >we should keep a relatively hands-off approach. That >doesn't mean we don't have guiding precepts. That doesn't >mean we are ignoring what's happening. It does mean we are >trying not to get in the way of a great success story >globally. > >[...] > >Q Larry, do you think that the present deregulatory >policy carved out for the Internet will hold insofar as >Internet service providers can withdraw from the universal >service - (off mike)? And then there's a growing debate >between federal policymakers and mayor and governors, both >that you met with and talked with, about taxation. That >issue won't go away, and it all gets to, you know, if and >how the Internet gets regulated. Is it always going to be a >hand-off approach, or will that just not hold and - (off >mike)? > >MR. IRVING: We're going to try to be as hands-off as >possible. The Internet, again, we have said this, and we >are going to continue to, the Internet has grown - has >rapidly grown precisely because of a lack of government >involvement in its regulation, in its structure, in its >future. And we are going to continue to try to make sure >that this is private sector-led. As frightening as some >people - as frightened as some people are of state and >local involvement - and the tax issue is an issue that I >think is resolvable. I mean, there is a way to resolve >that. And when you talk to people it's at the margins, but >there are ways to resolve that. > >I'm more concerned about the international implications for >regulation. I am very concerned that there are people >around the world - you know, in the United States and >Washington we are not scared of the Internet - we think >it's a good thing. We want the entrepreneurs to go out >there, we want them to build it. As you go around the >country there are people who are scared about the Internet, >and there are people who say that there should be >international governing bodies of the Internet. We don't >want that, and we are going to have to - you know, we are >going to have to make sure that people in Brussels, and >people in Geneva, and people in Paris, and people in >various capitals of the world don't get involved in >governing the Internet. There is, however, in industry and >among most of the nations that use the Internet, a >consensus that the Internet should be private sector-led, >developed, and industry should have development. There are >issues such as indecency, where there has to be some >government involvement to make sure things like parents >know where the good stuff on the Internet is - parents are >given the tools to protect their children from bad things >on the Internet. > >They agree within the Department of Justice and (IFPS ?) is >one instance where working with the government we can try >to find ways that children don't have access to things that >are inappropriate in it. Those are positive things that >have to happen. > >With regards to censorship or developing guidelines to how >the Internet - (inaudible) - to go - we don't want that. >With regard to domain name system, we don't want that. >With regard to privacy, we have said repeatedly, >consistently, we need the private sector to step up to the >plate and come up with comprehensive plans to ensure >protection of privacy of users of the Internet. Those >things I think are consistent and we can continue. > >With regard to access charge and other fees charged by >Internet service providers, we have been very careful to >say that as this industry is a nascent industry they should >not at this time be charged those kinds of fees. We've >also said we should continue to monitor and look at the >debate. There is a difference between whether or not an >economic entity should be treated the same as other >economic entities in terms of some kind of a fee structure, >and saying that we want to govern that entity. We do not >want to govern the Internet. We in Washington - and we are >going to work diligently - we are going to fight any effort >by others around the globe to start regulating the >Internet. > >[...] > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe: send a message to majordomo at vorlon.mit.edu with this text: >subscribe politech >More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/ >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > See you at INET'98, Geneva 21-24, July 98 <http://www.isoc.org/inet98/> -------- Logged at Wed Jan 14 13:42:13 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

IANA Progress Report
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 12 Jan '98

12 Jan '98

Dear all, This short report and attached document aim to keep you informed as to the developments involving IANA and the role that the RIPE NCC is playing in this. Discussions on the future of IANA are currently intensifying. During the recent IETF meeting Rob Blokzijl and Daniel Karrenberg, on behalf of the RIPE community, pursued this matter with all concerned. The US government plans to continue funding IANA until September 1998, at which time US government funding will definitely cease. The University of Southern California still holds our initial contribution and will use it if necessary. Jon Postel is working on a plan to incorporate IANA as a legal entity and to get support from IANA's direct users as well as the community at large. Incorporation is planned for the first half of this year. Consensus is emerging about the IANA services. Attached is a position paper that Rob, Daniel and myself wrote and sent as input for that process. This position paper can shortly be found on the tld-wg and lir-wg websites. A more detailed report including the latest developments will be given at the RIPE meeting. Regards Paul Ridley RIPE NCC Business Manager

3 2

Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 08 Jan '98

08 Jan '98

Paul, Are you planning a HTML version of your presentation RIPE CENTR ? If so, we can put it on the TLD-WG web site. Niall On 7 Jan 98 at 14:14, Edgar Danielyan wrote: > > >Hi Paul, > >> Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up for >> comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave >> Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when >> trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is of >> course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. > >It would be great if someone could post the info to the list; because >there are TLD admins which can't/won't attend the meeting (like me), > > >Thanks >Edgar >AM NIC > > > -------- Logged at Thu Jan 8 13:24:16 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 07 Jan '98

07 Jan '98

Hi Marcel, As one of the silent RIPE'ers I will try to answer your questions. Sorry I have been quiet for the last period, but the setting up of our new legal construction took up a sizeable amount of my time. Anyway that is now all finished as the new legal framework is in place and working. * * Me too :). Can only support Niall's recommendation. This will be * an important meeting. We have two main topics in my point of view: * * 1. The stability of IANA, where we can hope to hear the latest news * regarding negotiations between RIPE and IANA and Myself or Daniel will give a presentation at the RIPE meeting and hopefully you will see a written report beforehand, in combination with the point below. * * 2. RIPE Council of European National TLD Registries (RIPE CENTR). * This is the working title of a yet to-be-formed association, the * one Jon Postel probably referes to in his second letter to us and * the one RIPE seems to be silent to the grave about :). The RIPE'rs * are probably still on holidays now they have so much money ... * Yes the RIPE CENTR is what Jon is talking about. The will be written up for comment and a presentation will be given at the RIPE meeting. We gave Jon a sneak preview so that he could take all things into account when trying to reorganise IANA. The name, function and scope of RIPE CENTR is of course still open and awaited comment ffrom the community. You will hear from me soon Regards Paul * > Niall O'Reilly * * > Manager, IE Domain Registry * > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG * * * Marcel * -------- Logged at Wed Jan 7 12:17:17 MET 1998 ---------

2 1

Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam
by schneider＠switch.ch 06 Jan '98

06 Jan '98

On Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998, Niall O'Reilly writes: > This is to encourage you to register for the upcoming RIPE 29 meeting > in Amsterdam (see http://www.ripe.net) at the end of January. > It is particularly important to have as many nTLD administrators > present as possible for the Top-Level-Domain working group (TLD-WG) > session. > So far, I've identified only one domain registry among those who have > registered their participation in the meeting. Well done, Annie > Renard! Yes, I myself have yet to follow your good example. Me too :). Can only support Niall's recommendation. This will be an important meeting. We have two main topics in my point of view: 1. The stability of IANA, where we can hope to hear the latest news regarding negotiations between RIPE and IANA and 2. RIPE Council of European National TLD Registries (RIPE CENTR). This is the working title of a yet to-be-formed association, the one Jon Postel probably referes to in his second letter to us and the one RIPE seems to be silent to the grave about :). The RIPE'rs are probably still on holidays now they have so much money ... > Niall O'Reilly > Manager, IE Domain Registry > Chair, RIPE TLD-WG Marcel -------- Logged at Wed Jan 7 12:07:57 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Upcoming RIPE 29 Meeting in Amsterdam
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 06 Jan '98

06 Jan '98

This is to encourage you to register for the upcoming RIPE 29 meeting in Amsterdam (see http://www.ripe.net) at the end of January. It is particularly important to have as many nTLD administrators present as possible for the Top-Level-Domain working group (TLD-WG) session. So far, I've identified only one domain registry among those who have registered their participation in the meeting. Well done, Annie Renard! Yes, I myself have yet to follow your good example. Niall O'Reilly Manager, IE Domain Registry Chair, RIPE TLD-WG -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 17:26:25 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

TLD-WG documents for RIPE 29
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 06 Jan '98

06 Jan '98

I've just sent the following docs to the RIPE NCC Webmaster. Summary of TLD-WG session at RIPE 28 (which you may already have seen); Draft minutes of TLD-WG session at RIPE 28; TLD-WG Terms of Reference (alas, still without Appendix A); TLD-WG Workplan, current edition, for review at RIPE 29. I expect it will be most convenient for you to pick these from the RIPE NCC Web site. Best Regards Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 16:53:29 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 06 Jan '98

06 Jan '98

As far as agenda planning is concerned, this can be taken under item 8, nTLD issues, provided we have some structured input for the meeting. Otherwise it will be appropriate to task somebody (-bodies) to prepare input for discussion at RIPE 30 in May. I see this as mainstream documentation and harmonisation discussion. Assuming we find someone to present the input, we shall need to allow more time for this item. This will lead to a clearer requirement for a double timetable slot. Will you, Beri, be prepared to make a brief presentation covering the problems caused by deficiencies in RFC1591 and how these could be addressed in the suggested RFC1591++ ? Without such a focus for the discussion, we risk wasting time. In terms of the content, I would like to make the following observations personally and as IEDR manager with my WG-chair hat off. At RIPE 28, we recognised that a descriptive, rather than prescriptive, approach was preferable at first. I would prefer to focus on "best practice" rather than on "duty". I expect many nTLD-admins would share my preference at this time. In forming a recommendation on best practice, I feel it will be well to avoid descending too far into detail, especially with regard to parameters. What is an unacceptable delay for registration in one domain may be quite appropriate in another, due to differences in policy, for example with regard to production and verification of documents justifying the request for registration. Likewise, different business cultures and legal traditions may lead to different escalation and conflict resolution procedures. It may even be appropriate for legal reasons NOT to offer an English version of the rules and procedures for a particular nTLD registry. What is certainly useful in all cases is to make clear statements describing the policy framework aand what the parameters are. The standard "security" section of many RFC's comes to mind: a statement that certain matters are not addressed contributes clarity. Niall O'Reilly On 6 Jan 98 at 13:53, Marcel Schneider (quoting Berislav Todorovic) wrote: [ ... ] >It would be very appropriate to put that on the TLD-WG agenda of the >next meeting. My personal opinion is that the document has to be >rather an add-on to the RFC 1591, than a totally new document. The >reason is obvious: the structure of the root zone might be changed >in the future, by introducing new gTLDs, while nTLDs will probably >remain untouched. Am I right? Thus, a separate document, focusing on >the problem of nTLD administration, is really needed. > >The document itself should address (but should not be limited to) >some of the following topics: > >* Criteria for chosing a designated manager, especially in the case > when different parties are involved. Who will have the priority > and what criteria will be applied. > >* Framework for defining second and third level domain delegation > policies under the nTLDs. Emphasis must be given to the right > of the nTLD administrator to define any policy which fits in > the given framework. > >* Duties of nTLDs, regarding MANDATORY publishing of the second and > third level domain delegation policies, both in national and > English language. > >* Technical requirements for the nTLD operation: clarify a bit more > on DNS requirements - degree of connectivity, allowed percentage > of unreachability time, recommended SOA parameters for nTLDs, > minimum number and locations of the DNS servers. > >* Allowed time frame between a second or third level domain > delegation request and domain registration under a nTLD, if the > requestor satisfies all terms and conditions, defined by the nTLD > policy. > >* Resolving appeals regarding nTLD administrator's work. > >* Resolving appeals and wishes from the govt's of the countries, > which has been assigned country codes. The term "government" has > to be defined precisely, which is not a simple task at all. > The following cases might arise: > > - Countries with more than one country code assigned. > - Protectorates with independent local government authorities. > - Protectorates runned by a government of another country. > - Unions and "weak" confederations having a unique country code. > - Territories with country codes under the UN protection. > - Countries occupied by other countries. > - Cases when ISO deletes the country code (is it possible?). > - Country "split-up" and "merge" cases. > - ... (any other cases?). > >* Trademark issues - domain name dispute policies within a nTLD. > >Best regards, >Beri > -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 16:15:42 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29
by schneider＠switch.ch 06 Jan '98

06 Jan '98

On Tuesday, 6 Jan 1998, Niall O'Reilly writes: > Please see draft agenda below for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29. > Please let me know soonest of any additional items which need to be > discussed, and take the opportunity to begin the discussion on the > mailing list, tld-wg at ripe.net. > My initial time estimates suggest that we will not be able to fit the > business comfortably in a standard 90-minute meeting slot. I've asked > for a double slot. A possible alternative is to look for an 11:00 slot > and go late to lunch. What do you think ? > Happy New Year > Niall O'Reilly > RIPE TLD-WG Chair > RIPE 29 TLD-WG -- Proposed Agenda > 1.Administrivia > (09:00 or as scheduled -- other times tied to this, 5 mins) > 1.1 recognition of Scribe > 1.2 Agenda bashing > 2.Matters arising from RIPE 28 TLD-WG meeting (09:05, 10 mins) > 2.1 adoption of minutes > 2.2 review of action list > 3.Brief news (09:15, 5 mins) > (not covered by other agenda items, if any) > 4.Operational issues (09:20, 10 mins) > (if any) > 5.Review Workplan (09:30, 10 mins) > Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. > Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should > be submitted before the meeting, please. > Without such proposals, this may be a null item. 8-) > 6.IANA and stability of the root (09:40, 20 mins) > 6.1 Presentation on recent developments (R.Blokzijl) > 6.2 Review progress on action TLD-28.1 > 7.WG Support Activity (09:50, 15 mins) > Review progress on action TLD-28.2 (RIPE-NCC) > 8.nTLD issues (10:05, 15 mins) > Documentation, harmonisation ... > 9.gTLD issues (10:20, 15 mins) > 10.AOB (10:35, 5 mins) > 11.Conclusions (10:40, 10 mins) > 11.1 revisit workplan priorities > 11.2 summarize action list > Close (10:50) Niall, Would like to suggest as additional item Berislav Todorovic's proposed addendum/changes to RFC-1591 to be discussed (see below). And ... > I think it would be good to have several regional (with 5 to 7 regions > covering the world) groups organized to represent the interests of the > contry code domain administrators. > An organization of this kind is already being formed in Europe. Is that covered by your agenda ? Marcel ---------------ENCLOSURE: PROPOSAL FROM <BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu>------------- Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 12:56:00 +0100 From: Berislav Todorovic <BERI at etf.bg.ac.yu> To: rms46 at geocities.com Cc: tld-admin at ripe.net Subject: Re: Query from a young TLD >> > "Follow the expressed wishes of the government of the country >> > with regard to the domain name manager for the country code >> > corresponding to that country". >> > >> > We have decided that this rule takes priority. We do not believe it is >> > wise to argue with the government of a country about the TLD for that >> > country. >> >> Interesting .... >> >> How if there are "two" or "more" governments in a country ? >> Not mention, each government has "sub-independent-governments", i.e. >> Head of State, Ministry of Justice, Ministry of Telecommunication, >> Ministry of Education, Ministry of Technology. Now, which one will >> be in IANA's favor ? One more reason to create the RFC 1591++ or an add-on to the RFC 1519, dedicated to the nTLDs. >> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 1997 10:10:19 +0100 >> From: Marcel Schneider <schneider at switch.ch> >> Subject: RE: Query from a young TLD >> >> Should we bring that up at the next RIPE meeting ? Do you have any >> suggestions regarding content ? It would be very appropriate to put that on the TLD-WG agenda of the next meeting. My personal opinion is that the document has to be rather an add-on to the RFC 1591, than a totally new document. The reason is obvious: the structure of the root zone might be changed in the future, by introducing new gTLDs, while nTLDs will probably remain untouched. Am I right? Thus, a separate document, focusing on the problem of nTLD administration, is really needed. The document itself should address (but should not be limited to) some of the following topics: * Criteria for chosing a designated manager, especially in the case when different parties are involved. Who will have the priority and what criteria will be applied. * Framework for defining second and third level domain delegation policies under the nTLDs. Emphasis must be given to the right of the nTLD administrator to define any policy which fits in the given framework. * Duties of nTLDs, regarding MANDATORY publishing of the second and third level domain delegation policies, both in national and English language. * Technical requirements for the nTLD operation: clarify a bit more on DNS requirements - degree of connectivity, allowed percentage of unreachability time, recommended SOA parameters for nTLDs, minimum number and locations of the DNS servers. * Allowed time frame between a second or third level domain delegation request and domain registration under a nTLD, if the requestor satisfies all terms and conditions, defined by the nTLD policy. * Resolving appeals regarding nTLD administrator's work. * Resolving appeals and wishes from the govt's of the countries, which has been assigned country codes. The term "government" has to be defined precisely, which is not a simple task at all. The following cases might arise: - Countries with more than one country code assigned. - Protectorates with independent local government authorities. - Protectorates runned by a government of another country. - Unions and "weak" confederations having a unique country code. - Territories with country codes under the UN protection. - Countries occupied by other countries. - Cases when ISO deletes the country code (is it possible?). - Country "split-up" and "merge" cases. - ... (any other cases?). * Trademark issues - domain name dispute policies within a nTLD. Best regards, Beri .-------. | --+-- | Berislav Todorovic, B.Sc.E.E. | E-mail: beri at ubbg.etf.bg.ac.yu | /|\ UBBG System administrator | |-(-+-)-| School of Electrical Engineering | Phone: (+381-11) 3221-419 | \|/ Bulevar Revolucije 73 | 3370-106 | --+-- | 11000 Belgrade SERBIA, YUGOSLAVIA | Fax: (+381-11) 3248-681 `-------' -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 14:59:21 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Draft Agenda for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 06 Jan '98

06 Jan '98

Please see draft agenda below for TLD-WG session at RIPE 29. Please let me know soonest of any additional items which need to be discussed, and take the opportunity to begin the discussion on the mailing list, tld-wg at ripe.net. My initial time estimates suggest that we will not be able to fit the business comfortably in a standard 90-minute meeting slot. I've asked for a double slot. A possible alternative is to look for an 11:00 slot and go late to lunch. What do you think ? Happy New Year Niall O'Reilly RIPE TLD-WG Chair RIPE 29 TLD-WG -- Proposed Agenda 1.Administrivia (09:00 or as scheduled -- other times tied to this, 5 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 Agenda bashing 2.Matters arising from RIPE 28 TLD-WG meeting (09:05, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list 3.Brief news (09:15, 5 mins) (not covered by other agenda items, if any) 4.Operational issues (09:20, 10 mins) (if any) 5.Review Workplan (09:30, 10 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. Without such proposals, this may be a null item. 8-) 6.IANA and stability of the root (09:40, 20 mins) 6.1 Presentation on recent developments (R.Blokzijl) 6.2 Review progress on action TLD-28.1 7.WG Support Activity (09:50, 15 mins) Review progress on action TLD-28.2 (RIPE-NCC) 8.nTLD issues (10:05, 15 mins) Documentation, harmonisation ... 9.gTLD issues (10:20, 15 mins) 10.AOB (10:35, 5 mins) 11.Conclusions (10:40, 10 mins) 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list Close (10:50) -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 13:53:35 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Lasers/Optics/Optical Tables - Save!
by ifWv47JOi＠re-searc1hes.com 05 Dec '97

05 Dec '97

MWK INDUSTRIES SALE! JUST A QUICK LETTER TO SHOW YOU SOME LASERS- OPTICS AND OPTICAL TABLES SURPLUS THAT WE JUST RECEIVED. ITEM TRIMMU12 14 WATT ARGON LASER MADE FOR HEART SURGERY, TRIMEDYNE MODEL 900 TEMOO, POLORIZED,220VAC INPUT , WATER COOLED , FIBER LAUNCH, ALL ON ROLLAROUND CART EXCELENT FOR LAB USE, THE POWER WAS MEASURED AT 13 TO 14 WATTS. PRICE $9500 12 MONTH WARRANTEE. ITEM: COHERENT ARTICULATING ARM FROM A MODEL 451 CO2 MEDICAL LASER. ECCELLENT COND. $200 ITEM CO220A: CO2 LASER MADE BY PFIZER ,1990, FOR SURGERY, TATTOO REMOVAL ECT. 20 WATT OUTPUT , TESTED AND IN EXC. COND. 110 VAC INPUT, COST $40,000 NEW OUR PRICE 4,900. MODEL 20-C ITEM:PDA-1U1 SPECTRA PHYSICS QUANTRA RAY PULSED DYE LASER , GOOD FOR SPARE PARTS MODEL PDA-1 $500 ITEM NEWU1 NEWPORT OPTICAL TABLE 16" BY 36" 4" THICK, 1 " HOLE SPACING, COMES WITH A RUBBER ISOLATED TABLE STAND, NOT AIR SUPPORTED, $750 ITEM: HEPSN1 HELIUM NEON POWER SUPPLY KIT OPERATES UP TO A 15 mW LASER, INCLUDES ALL COMPONENTS AND PRINTED CIRCUIT BOARD, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS STUFF AND SOLDER THE CIRCUIT BOARD . 4" BY 3" BY 3", PRICE $75 ITEM HENEU12 1 TO 1.5 MW HE-NE LASER 632.8 nM INCLUDES 12VDC INPUT POWER SUPPLY ALL IN A PLASTIC HOUSING 6.25 IN. BY 1.375IN BY 2.25 IN. TEMOO,RANDOM POL. ,1.7 MR DIVERGENCE. 12 MONTH WARRANTEE , PRICE $45 ITEM MELU12 1 TO 2 mW HE-NE LASER 632.8 NM , PULLS FROM MEDICAL EQUIPMENT .EACH UNIT INCLUDES HE-NE HEAD AND POWER SUPPLY[110VAC INPUT]. ALL YOU NEED TO PROVIDE IS A POWER CORD AND A FUSE TO MAKE THE UNIT OPERATIONAL. THE BEAM IS TEM00, POLORIZED WE WILL COVER EACH UNIT WITH A 12 MONTH UNLIMITED HOUR WARRANTEE, EXCELLENT FOR FOR LAB OR HOME USE. NEW THESE COST APPROX. $350 OUR PRICE $85. DIMENSIONS 9.75 BY 1.25 INCHES, P.S. 4.25 BY 3.25BY 1.25 INCHES. ITEM RAMCNS1: RAMAN CELL OPTICS 308 nm AR/AR 4600 A 0=0 DEGREES 1000 MM FL. 2" DIA. NEW. ORIGINAL PRICE $520 OUR PRICE $175 ITEM TFPOLNS1: POLARIZERS , THIN FILM FOR 532 nm , NEW, ORIGINAL COST $590 EACH OUR PRICE $200 EACH 10 MM DIA. ITEM CO2OCNS1: CO2 HIGH REFECTOR AND OUTPUT COUPLER 10.5 MM DIA, OC =79%R NEW. $200 A SET. ITEM 25MNS1: DIELECTRIC BROADBAND MIRRORS 450 TO 700NM , NEW WITH PLASTIC PROTECTIVE COATINGS , 2 SIZES 25 MM SQ. AND 50 MM SQ. RECOMENDED FOR HIGHER POWER LASERS. 25MM SIZE ITEM 25MNS1 $20 50MM SIZE ITEM 50MNS1 $25 ITEM # BSDNS1: 50/50 DIELECTRIC COATED PLATE BEAM SPLITTER 630 TO 660 NM COMES IN A TRIANGLE SHAPE EACH SIDE APPROX. 1" PRICE $20 ITEM # 45NS1 45 DEGREE RED REFLECTOR , PASSES 488 TO 532NM , CAN BE USED TO COMBINE RED AND GREEN/BLUE LASERS TO CREATE A WHITE LIGHT LASER. 1" SQ. PRICE $15 ITEM# PCINS1 PLANO/CONVEX LENS COATED FOR YAG 1064NM , AR COATED, 10MM DIA. NEW, ORIG. COST $250 OUR PRICE $100 ITEM# INFILTER : INTERFERENCE FILTERS USED FOR PASSING A PARTICULAR SPECTRAL LINE , 11.8 MM DIA. CAREFULLY REMOVED FROM MEDICAL EQUIPMENT AND WRAPPED IN LENSE PAPER. THE FOLLOWING WAVE LENGTHS ARE AVAILABLE. 523.5, 547.4 , 572.1, 512.9, 550.6, 488, 505.7 nm price $20 each. FOR A COMPLETE LINE OF NEW AND USED LASERS - OPTICS -ELECTRO OPTICS- LASER SHOWS ORDER A COMPLETE CATALOG AT MWKINDUSTRIES.COM TO: ORDER GO TO OUR WEB SITE MWKINDUSTRIES.COM {SECURE ORDERING SITE} QUESTIONS OR REMOVAL FROM MAILING LIST EMAIL: MWK at WORLDNET.ATT.NET MWK INDUSTRIES 1269 POMONA RD CORONA CA 91720 PHONE 909-278-0563 FAX 909-278-4887 -------- Logged at Tue Jan 6 12:17:52 MET 1998 ---------

1 0

Agenda for November 25th meeting in Brussels Available
by robert.shaw＠itu.int 20 Nov '97

20 Nov '97

The agenda for the meeting "Internet domain name system - European information meeting on the gTLD-MoU (sponsored by the European Commission, DG XIII)" is now available. Please see http://www.gtld-mou.org/docs/nov25agenda.htm Robert - -- Robert Shaw (shaw at itu.int) Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure International Telecommunication Union (http://www.itu.int) Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland -------- Logged at Tue Nov 25 17:48:06 MET 1997 ---------

1 0

Internet DNS: European information meeting with the interim Policy Oversight Committee, Brussels 25 November 1997
by Christopher.WILKINSON＠BXL.DG13.cec.be 23 Oct '97

23 Oct '97

I am glad to confirm that the arrangements for the above meeting are going forward as previously announced. Please open the following page for the registration document: http://www.ispo.cec.be/eif/dns/regform.html Sincerely, Christopher Wilkinson. -------- Logged at Thu Nov 20 10:45:46 MET 1997 ---------

1 0

Houses of Science Basic Research Subcommittee hearing
by Paul.Ridley＠ripe.net 08 Oct '97

08 Oct '97

Hi all, Here is a useful URL with some background information and details on the Houses of Science Basic Research Subcommittee hearing on domain names. http://www.democracy.net/archive/09251997/ Regards Paul -------- Logged at Wed Oct 8 16:15:40 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by ray＠carpe.net 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

Hank Nussbacher wrote... > On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:21:44 +0200 you said: > >Great - a force that has zero control over the whole IAHC "process". > >Static electricity. We can not become part of the PAB because we can > >not sign the gTLD-MoU. It is an overly bureaucratic, flawed document > >that in the end solves very little, hinders free enterprise and gives > >ISOC and IANA power of attorney over the gTLD part of the Internet. > > I hate to break it to you, but IANA now holds 100% control of the > gTLDs as well as the nTLDs. Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. The IANA doesn't even say this. Don't you think it a little ridiculous for basically a one man operation which is not a formal organization, but rather a named administrative task carried out by ISI/USC to be the sole decision maker for the future of all Internet TLDs? One non-entity decides the future of many multi-million dollar issues? I don't think so. By the way, ISI/Postel only started calling their task "IANA" as little as two years ago. Even USC says they are a non-control non-entity. See the quotes at the bottom of: http://www.wia.org/pub/iana.html `1997 USC General Counsel, acting on behalf of Jon Postel as a USC staff member in the suit Image Online Design v. IANA, et al, states for the record that IANA is not "a separate entity," but rather " a task performed by Dr. Postel under contract between USC and an agency of the federal government."' ISI/USC/Jon Postel (aka IANA) was hired by the US Government to take care of numeric assignments for protocols, IP address distribution, etc. Most recently the funding and direction comes from the FNC (Federal Networking Council) which is under the CCIC (Committee on Computing, Information, and Communications) which is under the NSTC (National Science and Technology Council) which is under the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Although part of the US Government, the FNC is representative not only of many government agencies, but takes advice from non-government entities. The FNC has members from a lot of interesting US Government agencies and has an Advisory Committee (FNCAC) made up of civilian "senior representatives from technical, industrial, academic and user communities", like people from AT&T, Bellcore, CU, Chrysler, Cisco, Harvard, IBM, LBL, Lockheed, MCI, MCNC, SDSC, Stanford, Sun, etc. For a complete list of both, see: http://www.fnc.gov/FNC_Members.html http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_members.html This organization is much more representative of the whole of the Internet than the IAHC or any of it's other acronyms. If the FNC hired "ISI/USC/Jon Postel (aka IANA)" to take care of iTLDs and their insertion into the root, etc, then it follows that the FNC/US Government owns the root and the iTLDs. They invented it, and at the very least they took on the responsibility of managing the numbers and the top of DNS up to now. And they funded it. For over a year their Advisory Committee has recommended that the FNC/NSF get out of the domain name business and transfer "responsibility from NSF to an appropriate entity." As far as I can tell, they have not done so yet. In fact their April Minutes state that the NSF specifically has NOT turned this responsibility over to an outside organization. And the FNC says: "Following U.S. Government lead, the Federal Networking Council (FNC) has no policy concerning the IAHC proposal. The FNC Co-Chair, George Strawn, participated in the IAHC, and the FNC continues to encourage open discussion on domain name registration." I wonder if Jon Postel will insert the IAHC TLDs into the root servers if the FNC tells him not to? Hmmmm.... Additionally, NSI runs the primary root DNS server and NSI is also under contract with NSF. So if the FNC said no, I guess it wouldn't happen. Or visa-versa if they said "do it". As I see it, the US Government has always had control over the root and thus DNS and the creation of all TLDs. They may decide that they should not maintain control, but they are reviewing that issue in detail before doing something to screw things up. As NSI's proposal suggested, I would expect an orderly transition to be made to an appropriate, legal, international organization. Who, what and how has to be decided very carefully - not by the IANA. > >And it doesn't even touch on the biggest related problem we have, > >which is what happens to the "." and who controls it. You ought not > >to architect an office building before making sure the foundation > >can be laid on a stable surface. > > The gTLD MoU and all related items do not cover "." or nTLDs. Here > is where RIPE and other organizations can step in and propose what > should be done (at least one view - there are many). The IAHC/POC > was not mandated to touch ".". If I were mandated to figure out what happens to gTLDs in the future, I most certainly would include what happens to the root in my proposal. It is *the* most key technical issue related to DNS and the stability of the internet and the stability of the IAHC proposal. It is one of the main reasons why Postel published his initial gTLD draft which later became the IAHC thing. [By the way, I think the original Postel draft was much more in order than what the IAHC came up with.] But... the IAHC/gTLD-MoU/PAB/iPOC/CORE/WHATEVER didn't and hasn't addressed the dot. For the IAHC proposal to have its desired effect on the DNS and the registration and trademark issues it attempts to address, it needs to be sure that it controls all the gTLDs. But if it doesn't have a stable dot then it may not only be ineffective, but actually have a detrimental effect on the Internet as a whole and the end-users thereof. Not very clever in my view. Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 15:49:54 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 14:50:01 +0100 (BST) you said: >On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >> Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in > >I didn't say that. I said that the existing gTLDs were created >without giving much consideration to the existence of a world outside >the USA. That was an understandable error; no one expected the >Internet to become huge and important. But the proposal is to add >new gTLDs without taking any realistic steps to deal with the fact >that the gTLDs are international in scope. PAB/POC/CORE (why can't >anyone give this thing a name??) are perhaps solving a US problem, >but their solution doesn't deal reasonably with the international >ramifications of their solution. > So what would you recommend be done in this matter? >What is in everyone's interest is slow, careful changes to the DNS. Which is what POC/PAB is trying to do. Hank -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 14:48:52 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 13:21:44 +0200 you said: >Great - a force that has zero control over the whole IAHC "process". >Static electricity. We can not become part of the PAB because we can >not sign the gTLD-MoU. It is an overly bureaucratic, flawed document >that in the end solves very little, hinders free enterprise and gives >ISOC and IANA power of attorney over the gTLD part of the Internet. I hate to break it to you, but IANA now holds 100% control of the gTLDs as well as the nTLDs. They have done a terrfific job until now without committee intervention. The gTLD process is perhaps the start of reducing IANA's control over gTLDs/nTLDs, etc. This would have to be an evolutionary process, one where POC and PAB prove that they have enough common sense and legal status to do what needs to be done. I certainly wouldn't try to cut IANA or ISOC out of this at the first round. > >And it doesn't even touch on the biggest related problem we have, >which is what happens to the "." and who controls it. You ought not >to architect an office building before making sure the foundation >can be laid on a stable surface. The gTLD MoU and all related items do not cover "." or nTLDs. Here is where RIPE and other organizations can step in and propose what should be done (at least one view - there are many). The IAHC/POC was not mandated to touch ".". >> >This would of course only give you membership in the PAB, a powerless >> >body whose role is simply to give advice. The price for this is your >> >signature, which will be used as evidence of your support for the >> >entire gTLD MOU process. >> >> If they are powerless, how did they get 2 PAB members assigned to >> be observers to the iPOC? If the 150 members of PAB say something >> as one voice - it is listened to and acted upon. > >Which means nothing since 150 PAB members will likely never say >anything "as one voice". More importantly, the PAB has no legally >defined control over the iPOC or CORE. Whether they are listened >to or not is at the whim of whoever happens to be in the iPOC. The >same is true with the iPOC wrt CORE, as well as all of the above in >regards to the ISOC and IANA. PAB has voted and majority rules. For me that is one voice. > >The gTLD-MoU has gone out of its way to create a lot of new acronyms >with the semblance of a logical government, but with no definition >of control or checks and balances. Personally, I think the initial >framework outlined by Network Solutions in: > > http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html > >makes a lot more sense for the future and stability of the Internet >as well as the TLD issue. It's a more reasonable starting place. Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing with the other - competing monopolies. Jim seems to be saying that this is a US problem and it would appear that NSI's solution does not take into account non-USA interests. It would appear more to be in NSI's interest that it remain in control of com/net/org and let the new gTLDs fight for market recognition that NSI already has. How does that foster European interests? If I were a European - I would think to be against the NSI proposal. Please explain how the NSI solution is "good" for Europe. -Hank > >Cheers, >Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 15:50:33 MET DST 1997 ---------

3 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by ray＠carpe.net 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

Hank Nussbacher also wrote ... > >The gTLD-MoU has gone out of its way to create a lot of new acronyms > >with the semblance of a logical government, but with no definition > >of control or checks and balances. Personally, I think the initial > >framework outlined by Network Solutions in: > > > > http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html > > > >makes a lot more sense for the future and stability of the Internet > >as well as the TLD issue. It's a more reasonable starting place. > > Hmmm. Jim Dixon says not to create any more gTLDs and you are in > favor of the NSI solution, which means limitless gTLDs - each competing > with the other - competing monopolies. Jim seems to be saying that > this is a US problem and it would appear that NSI's solution does not > take into account non-USA interests. I'm not sure what your point is. I'm not Jim Dixon and his views do not apply to me and have nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. I'm always having a hard time getting "IAHC people" to actually address the problems I point out, rather than either going off on another tangent (side-stepping) or picking on my spelling or some unimportant detail of what I said. My complaint is that the gTLD-MoU builds and imposes a sort of government, but there are no defined lines of power and there are no legal checks and balances. On top of this all changes to the gTLD-MoU must have approval by IANA and ISOC - thus they hold ultimate control over a not-very-well-defined process of governing the gTLD landscape (as well as your hard earned money, mine and everyone else in the world's). > It would appear more to be > in NSI's interest that it remain in control of com/net/org and let > the new gTLDs fight for market recognition that NSI already has. How > does that foster European interests? If I were a European - I would > think to be against the NSI proposal. > > Please explain how the NSI solution is "good" for Europe. -Hank Please explain how the NSI proposal is *not* good for Europe. As I see it, NSI's recommendations on how to move forward with the issue of TLDs is better for the Internet in general - Europe, US or wherever. Just read what they say - it's self explanatory. It says that the problems with the IAHC are: o It does not provide the incentive for TLD Registrars to invest in improved services o It risks the fragile stability of the Internet. o It is too bureaucratic o It is narrow and does not address the total situation. o Its approach to domain names disputes appears unworkable, will create increased conflicts, and is unfair to registrants in remote regions. NSI suggests that the goals be to: o Limit regulation. o Limit bureaucracy. o Minimize requirements. o Protect critical functions. o Establish legal sponsorship. And they go on to explain why and some suggestiong on how. See http://www.netsol.com/papers/internet.html or http://www.fnc.gov/FNCAC_97_04_minutes.html Cheers, Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 15:15:13 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG revised draft agenda (NetSearchers proposal)
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On 22 Sep 97 at 11:48, Havard.Eidnes at runit.sintef.no wrote: >I can't seem to remember seeing this proposal distributed to this >list. If that is the case, can that please be fixed? Here it was. From: Self <CCLANA/NOREILLY> To: tld-admin at ripe.net Subject: (Fwd) A Guide to European NICs Copies to: iedr-team at listserv.hea.ie Send reply to: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Date sent: Thu, 11 Sep 1997 11:07:58 +0100 (BST) Dear TLD Administrators, I expect that many of you will have had the attached message from NetSearchers. I find the proposed survey and guide useful. As they suggest, I've referred to Willie Black; he speaks well of them. I intend to co-operate in this project, and suggest that you all consider doing the same. I'll forward Willie's comments in a following mail. Niall O'Reilly IE Domain Registry University College Dublin Computing Services ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 14:24:24 +0100 From: mo at netsearchers.co.uk (Mo Kerr) Subject: A Guide to European NICs To: noreilly at ucd.ie Organization: Legal Information Network Dear Mr O'Reilly Net Searchers is a company that supplies specialist services to legal companies and brand professionals who wish to protect their names and trade marks across the Internet. These services include searching and monitoring Internet audits and, of course, domain name registrations. Our client base includes the leading law firms in the UK Internet community, we realise that there is considerable demand for this information. To help us improve the service that we give our clients we have begun a research project to profile each of the European NICs. In discussing this with our clients and colleagues in the UK Internet community, we ealise that there is considerable demand for this information. Therefore we plan to publish the information at our web site and in a report to be distributed free of charge to all interested parties. We will be encouraging organisations like your own to link into it. If successful we aim to produce further editions at regular intervals. We hope that you wil co-operate with us in this project by supplying us with the information we ask for on the enclosed template at the end of this form. Please complete it in English. For an independent view on us, please contact Dr Willie Black, the managing director of Nominet UK. e-mail address w.black at nominet.org.uk If you have any queries about this report please do not hesitate to telephone me on 44 171 396 5676 or email me at nwood at netsearchers.co.uk Alternatively you might wish to look at our web site at www.netsearchers.co.uk We will be in touch with you again once we have completed the projectand will send you an advanced copy of our report. We look forward to hearing from you and thank your for your co-operation. Yours sincerely Nick Wood Director Net Searchers 28-33 Cato Street London W1H 5HS Template for A Guide to European NICs Please fill in the following form and return it to nwood at netsearchers.co.uk. If you have any queries please email at the above address or telephone Nick Woods on 44 171 396 5676. -----------Please cut here--------- Address NIC Name: Postal: Street Town State Postal Code Country E-mail: Telephone: Fax: CONTACTS Director: Legal disputes: Registrations: MODEL/STRUCTURE Please indicate the structure of your organisation. Is it Commercial: Part of an university: Non profit: WEB SITE INFORMATION What information does your site contain. Please give the relevant URL Whois: Rules; On-line registration form: Statistics: Other relevant information, e.g.. links to relevant sites: COSTS New registration Maintenance Frequency of billing LEGAL DISPUTES Please give details of any court cases or legal disputes relating to domain names: MISSION STATEMENT OF THE NIC Please include a brief comment on your organisations policy Thank-you for your assistance. -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 13:45:41 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG revised draft agenda
by Havard.Eidnes＠runit.sintef.no 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

Hi, it's possible I've not been sufficiently awake, but ... > 7. (11:00) nTLD issues: documentation, harmonisation ... > [note NetSearchers proposal] I can't seem to remember seeing this proposal distributed to this list. If that is the case, can that please be fixed? Regards, - H?vard -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 12:17:00 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0