- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

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