- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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

22 Apr '15

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

1 0

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

24 Nov '10

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

1 0

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

14 May '00

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

2 3

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

05 Apr '00

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

1 0

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

16 Feb '00

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

1 0

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

16 Nov '99

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

1 0

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

15 Nov '99

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

1 0

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

03 Nov '99

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

1 0

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

21 Oct '99

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

1 0

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

04 Oct '99

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

1 0