- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On 20 Sep 97 at 23:30, Dave Crocker wrote: > In any event, there has been a tendency for folks who lobby for > particular representation to ignore matters of actual content. On 20 Sep 97 at 17:32, I (Niall O'Reilly) wrote: The "Europe" which "has 2 people sitting on the iPOC" is that "Europe" (if any) to which these people are listening, and which they are keeping informed, and whose interests they are working to protect. I particularly avoid saying, "whose interests they represent", as I believe that if adequate protection is afforded actual representation may not need to be an issue. So far, this "Europe" is neither the "Europe of RIPE" nor the "Europe of the Commission". I'm not sure whether that reached the POC list. I'm also not certain how widely held is my view that representation is a secondary issue. This seems to be what Dave is saying too. If what I've called the "marketing gap" can be closed, this may perhaps diminish the demand for representation. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 13:23:15 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 22 Sep '97

22 Sep '97

On 21 Sep 97 at 7:53, Patrik Faltstrom wrote: >I am coming to the RIPE meeting on thursday. I'll remind you though that >there will be an open meeting with POC in Europe in late november, so this >will _not_ be the "presentation of POC and gTLDs" you might ask for. A lot >of things are happening as we type regarding starting operations so see >the visit on thursday as one occation when I come to RIPE to listen to >your concerns. That's good news. I'm looking forward to seeing you there. Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 12:17:03 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

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

22 Sep '97

On 21 Sep 97 at 17:57, Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie wrote: >I suggest that any brief news relevant to a particular agenda item >will best be heard when we begin to deal with that item. > >Likewise for the workplan: under each agenda item, the relevant part >of the workplan can be reviewed, amended if necessary, and assigned >a priority. I ought to have added: Similarly for liaison with other working groups: let's take it in context. Niall -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 11:48:29 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE 28 TLD-WG revised draft agenda
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

Some of you have let me have comments or have made me aware of time constraints. I've taken these into account in revising the agenda for Thursday. Here is the current version, with a tentative timeplan. I suggest that any brief news relevant to a particular agenda item will best be heard when we begin to deal with that item. Likewise for the workplan: under each agenda item, the relevant part of the workplan can be reviewed, amended if necessary, and assigned a priority. The more we can deal with before breaking for coffee, the better! RIPE 28 TLD-WG Draft Agenda Thursday, 24 September 1997 Park Plaza, Rokin (NB: Central Amsterdam -- NOT out in the sticks !!!) 1. (09:00) Administrivia, including: 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 Agenda bashing 2. (09:10) Matters arising from RIPE 27 BOF meeting 2.1 adoption of minutes 2.2 review of action list 3. (09:25) Brief news not covered by other agenda items 4. (09:30) Operational issues 4.1 dis- and re-appearance of ES 4.2 InterNIC TLD escalation procedure ... 5. (09:45) Review & adopt ToR 6. (10:00) Review Workplan overall framework material not covered by specific agenda items provisional priorities (10:30) Coffee 7. (11:00) nTLD issues: documentation, harmonisation ... [note NetSearchers proposal] 8. (11:25) IANA: status, funding, support from nTLD registries ... 9. (11:40) gTLD issues 10. (12:10) AOB 11. (12:20) Conclusions 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list (12:30) Close for lunch possibility of going late to lunch if need arises Niall O'Reilly -------- Logged at Mon Sep 22 11:32:33 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Draft Workplan
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

In helping the TOR volunteers put some structure on the group's terms of reference, Paul took the very useful action of identifying the topics proposed as either guidelines or specific tasks. The first group became the (already circulated) draft Terms of Reference (TOR). The second group is listed below as a draft workplan (WP). TLD-WG WORKPLAN The TLD-WG workplan is an organic document that will be formally reviewed at each WG meeting, and revised or (re-) prioritised as found appropriate. The workplan is listed under various sections followed by specific activities to be undertaken within each section. TLD Coordination Project Activity - Discuss and decide upon the structure of the TLD coordination project. This project will be used to carry out actions decided upon by the WG. The following needs to be discussed: - Location of project - Size of project - Scope of project - Funding of project Standardisation - Develop recommendations for publishing policy. - Develop recommendations for national consultative framework. - Develop recommendations for common registration procedures. - Develop recommendations for availability of, and search/retrieval facilities on nTLD databases. - Develop recommendations for establishing of a common WHOIS database (common records) with an identification system. - Develop recommendations for the minimum standards required of a registry qua policy, pricing, web presentations, contracts, etc. - Develop recommendations for requiring all major documents of an nTLD to be available in English. - Publish and promote any recommendations made. Cooperation With Governments - Make contact with national and supernational governmental organisations in order to promote WG ideas to them. - Document and publish current state of the cooperation as it evolves. Pricing - Carry out and report on a comparison of participant TLD pricing - Investigate and report on whether each TLD subscribes to RIPE-152. - Carry out benchmarking of pricing for participant TLDs and answer the following questions. What differences are there and why? Look at the quality of service versus pricing. What is quality? Competition - Discuss the introduction of competition to nTLDs. DNS Infrastructure Resources - Document recommended practice for DNS infrastructure. This is to ensure functioning on a non-discriminatory basis and an avoidance of bottlenecks. Arbitration - Study suitable arbitration procedures and if applicable suitable legal jurisdictions for this. - Take account of different legal traditions: Napoleonic vs Common Law. IANA - The independence and stability of IANA is vital for the functioning of the DNS. In order to help preserve this the following tasks need to be done: - Help support the following aims of IANA: - protection from litigation - recognition by official governmental bodies - bottom-up authority to IANA - Discuss and find a way for nTLDs to directly or indirectly fund IANA. - Formalise relationships with IANA within a bottom-up framework. NSI - Discuss the role of NSI in domain names and its relationship to nTLDs. Make and document recommendations. gTLDs - Discuss development of gTLDs and how it affects nTLDs - Decide upon desired relationship with gTLDs, CORE, POC, PAB etc. Emerging Registries - Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries within the RIPE area. Legal - Study trademark and intellectual property issues - Monitor and report and legal occurrences/changes relevant to nTLDs. Other - Collect domain name statistics. - Support national character sets. - Limit number of subdomains. [End] -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 20:32:29 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by dcrocker＠brandenburg.com 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

At 10:37 AM 9/21/97 +0100, Jim Dixon wrote: >The outside perception is that the existing gTLDs have unsolveable Jim, since you have previously taken considerable exception to specific wording, I'm sure you will appreciate the error in the the "The" at the beginning of the sentence. It should, instead, say "Some outside perception". d/ -------------------- Dave Crocker +1 408 246 8253 Brandenburg Consulting fax: +1 408 249 6205 675 Spruce Dr. dcrocker at brandenburg.com Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA http://www.brandenburg.com Internet Mail Consortium info at imc.org, http://www.imc.org -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 19:11:00 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 1

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by jdd＠vbc.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997, Hank Nussbacher wrote: > >My impression is that while there may not be a specific European > >interest there is certainly a clearly visible US interest. Oddly > >enough, that US interest is best expressed as "there is no > >significant non-US interest". > > ... > >If .com was .com.us, there would be no PAB/POC/etc. Unfortunately > >those who originally designed the DNS forgot about the rest of the > >world. They set up a series of global categories (.com, .edu, .gov) > > ... > > In the final draft the IAHC created, we pondered the possibility of > freezing .com and making .us more useful (see section 8.1.1). We were > told by legal counsel that abolishing .com would land all of us in court > with multi-million dollar lawsuits on each of us. I am not saying that the com/net/org problem can now be solved easily. What I am saying is that the original design had a serious flaw, in that no one thought through the long-term implications of creating global TLDs. I am not castigating the designers either. But I would suggest that if the DNS had been designed in a smaller country, more thought would have been given to the fact that there are other countries out there. > >Unfortunately .com is global and generally speaking there is no > >sane way to resolve disputes, because the holder of a .com domain > >name may be in any country of the world and their right to the use > >of the name may be challenged from any other country in the world. > >Therefore it is impossible to set up a general mechanism for dealing > >with disputes, because to do that you have to resolve hundreds or > >thousands of contradictory trademark rules, something similar to > >trying to solve 1,000 simultaneous equations in 3 unknowns. > > WIPO has set up the ACP which is fast, online, and cheap to resolve > disputes. In a world where .com can't be frozen we have to find some > solution and I believe the WIPO ACP is so far the closest to a solution. I think that we could argue about this for a long time. > >The gTLD MOU approach does little to resolve this unsolveable problem; > >instead the proposal is to create many new gTLDs, each of which has > >the same unsolveable problems as .com. From an American perspective, > >this makes a certain amount of sense. From outside it looks mad. > > How many is many? We start with 7 and based on what will happen either > leave it at that or add more. The number isn't important. Remember that we were talking about a habitual way of thinking, which can be summarized as "there is no significant non-US interest". The US perception is that the .com name space has too many names in it. The simple solution is to make more gTLDs, so that new names can be spread over more gTLDs. The outside perception is that the existing gTLDs have unsolveable problems. These problems are not in the US but in the outside world. There are trademark/domain name conflicts that generally cannot be resolved because many incompatible legal systems are involved. The "solution" is to blur these together. While this may appear acceptable to US interests, especially the holders of "famous" trademarks, it is simply another way of saying that "there is no significant non-US interest". The number of new gTLDs isn't important. What is important is that creating new gTLDs solves no problems for people outside the US, but it does multiply existing problems and might well create new ones. > >Basically, the problem is that the Internet is excessively US-centric. > >We need people in the POC and elsewhere that are aware that there > >is a world outside of the United States. > > Backing up a few months, the original proposal of IAHC was to have a > lottery with registrars distributed by geographic regions. That would "There is no significant non-US interest." All parts of the world are exactly the same and should be weighed equally. > >There are arguments for gTLDs. But I think that if there had been a > >strong non-US involvement in IAHC/the POC, that the whole thing would > >have been redesigned to where it made more sense. As it is, this > >American problem is being exported to the rest of the world in all > >of its mad glory. > > If it is a USA only problem, then why should other regions care? As I said, there are arguments for gTLDs. In many countries the national registries charge excessively high prices, are run in such a way as to drive competitors out of business, and/or are run by repressive governments. We need gTLDs. But what is driving the gTLD MOU movement is US problems: the NSI monopoly, the perceived exhaustion of the .com name space, and so forth. The global problems that I listed in the preceding paragraph are not significant from the dominant US point of view. > Register > only in your .xx country code and not in .com and it is no longer your > problem. But as we know many companies throughout the world register > in .com and therefore it is everyone's problem. It is everyone's problem because you won't register in your .xx country code, that is, in .us. This is the glaringly obvious solution to the exhaustion of the .com name space. It is indeed everyone's problem, but it is being solved as a US problem. And that is the heart of the matter. -- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 11:45:57 MET DST 1997 ---------

2 2

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by ray＠carpe.net 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

> >> If you measure things in Internet terms, by looking at host counts, > >> for example, Europe represents something like 25% of the Internet. > >> From this point of view, two seats are insufficient. > >> > >> Of course, if you look at things from a functional point of view, > >> the Internet itself is seriously under-represented on the iPOC. > > > >Also, if you look at the participating members of the PAB it starts > >to become a joke. The totally unrepresentative PAB which has no > >power but recommends to the [i]POC which is unrepresentative and has > >no power but recommends to the some day CORE which is supposed to > >have power but doesn't because according to the gTLD-MoU the ISOC > >and IANA have veto power over everything. Neat, huh? > > And if everyone in RIPE joined the PAB, you would become a controlling > force rather than what you refer to as "a joke". 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. 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. ... > >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. 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. Cheers, Ray http://www.STOP-gTLD-MoU.org/ -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 15:03:22 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:58:55 +0100 (BST) you said: >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. -Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 11:37:29 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0

RIPE TLD-WG Action List
by HANK＠VM.TAU.AC.IL 21 Sep '97

21 Sep '97

On Sun, 21 Sep 1997 09:52:23 +0100 (BST) you said: >With some slight reservations, I agree with you. The real problem is >that the POC, which is supposed to make policy affecting the entire >Internet, is largely controlled by lawyers who have no understanding >of the Internet. I too thought like that when I started with this in 10/96. My dislike for lawyers is only exceeded by my dislike for politicians. :-) But the lawyers on the IAHC really are good and do know their stuff. My opinion of lawyers has changed dramatically over the past year. That is not to say that I don't agree with you that the makeup of POC should be 75% technical and 25% legal. Hank > >-- >Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net >tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015 > -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 11:23:38 MET DST 1997 ---------

1 0