- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

.US and the USPS
by JimFleming＠unety.net 17 Sep '98

17 Sep '98

@@@@@ http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/usrfc/comments/8-17-98.htm "In response to the "Request for Public Comment on the Enhancement of the .us Domain Space," the United States Postal Service is prepared to coordinate the administration of the .us Country Code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) with direct input and participation from Internet stakeholders." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Sun Sep 20 23:00:57 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

At 10:27 AM 9/16/98 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote: >Hi Richard, > I agree that the current system is less than perfect, but how would >YOU select what is or not a country. Based on historical facts, not what some company in Europe (ISO) thinks for revisionist politial reasonings. Tibet *used* to be a country, I have Tibetan stamps and all, but China says it's not a country any more. Tough. Tibet is still a country to the Tibetans and to most of the rest of the world >Even further, are you sure it's a good >idea to actually have a body responsible for technical matters draw a list >of what is or not a country? Yes. >I feel that the creation of such a list is a >HIGHLY political affair (Is Palestine a country or not?) Ask the people who were born there. >Say you don't like the name of your street, and you don't like the fact that >your postman brings mail addressed to your street-name. Do you bash your >postman or the post-office? It's not the post-office that decides names for >streets, and to be honest it's not their business either. You take up the >issue of street names with whoever is in charge of naming them (say your >local town-hall for example). You don't start a national campaign >complaining about the way that the postal service designates streets >(basically because it's NOT the PS designating them). You're right, I didn't start a national campaign. Here's what I did: My current address is Box 2, RR #1 Eldorado, Ontario, K0K 1Y0, CANADA It would he hard to think of a more ugly address for a charming 200 year old hotel that is now my residence. Moreso, Eldorado is 10km south of here. Bannockburn actually does exist. We have a big government installed sign, and everything. You can see it here, if you want: http://hastings-county.vrx.net/centre/bannockburn/rd05.jpg So, looking back through the history books I noticed this place used to be called "The Maitland Hotel, Bannockburn, Ontario" So, I simply use the address Maitland House Bannockburn, Ontario, K0K 1Y0, CANADA and that works just fine. I didn't even have to tell Lois, the mail lady. She's bright enough to figure it out. I've never had a problem with people saying "your snail mail bounced". Now, UPS and Fed-Ex can't deliver to *either* of those two addresses. They get all FAW with rural addresses, so, for them our address is 17245 Hiway #62 Ontario, Canada. Include the postal code and it messes them up, all they go by is the 911 emergency markers on the road. >IANA doesn't choose to consider Tuvalu a country and not Scotland. IANA does >however choose to use the ISO-3166 country code list. Do you have any other >suggestion of a list which has the countries that you personally consider >countries with a nice list of two-letter codes (or whatever) that could be >used instead? Didn't think so. Was there a list of .com/net/org/mil/gov/intarpa/edu ? Didn't think so. They were simply created, and the same canbe done for rational country codes. This whole discussion is .moot anyway, because as soon as there is a procedure in place to create new tlds, people will simply deploy three letter country codes as "generic" TLDs (I suppose toretaliate for the "psuedo-generic" two letter contry codes like .to and .nu) which toa great extent is already happening: .pol, .bul, .usa, .aus already exist, and there is nothing that can prevent .tbt or .tibet, .sct or .scotland and so forth. The ISO2 codes are capricous and arbitrary and in a few years will seem as antiquated as .com; both falling into disuse as an obscure relic and a perfect exsmple of state-of-the-art 1986 ISO Internet taxonomoy. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Thu Sep 17 12:50:19 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

(Fwd) Proposed Agenda TLD-WG RIPE 31
by Niall.oReilly＠ucd.ie 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

Dear colleagues, I've had no suggestions for changes to this proposed agenda. Of course, we'll review it at the beginning of the meeting. Could the meeting secretariate please make the proposed TLD-WG agenda available on the Web ? Niall O'Reilly Chair, TLD-WG ------- Forwarded Message Follows ------- Date sent: Fri, 04 Sep 1998 10:47:56 +0100 From: Niall O'Reilly <Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie> Subject: Proposed Agenda TLD-WG RIPE 31 To: tld-wg at ripe.net Copies to: wg-chairs at ripe.net Send reply to: Niall.oReilly at ucd.ie Organization: University College Dublin Priority: normal RIPE 31 TLD-WG (Edinburgh, 23 September 1998) -- Proposed Agenda 1. Administrivia (14:00, 10 mins) 1.1 recognition of Scribe 1.2 agreement of Agenda 2. Matters arising from RIPE 30 TLD-WG meeting (14:10, 10 mins) 2.1 adoption of minutes (RIPE 29) 2.2 adoption of minutes (RIPE 30) 2.3 review of action list 3. Review Workplan (14:20, 10 mins) Workplan is due for formal review at each WG meeting. Many workplan items have received attention from RIPE-CENTR. Proposals for change and/or (re-) prioritization should be submitted before the meeting, please. 4. Liaison with other Working Groups (15:00, 30 mins) DB-WG re whois referral (following RIPE 30 TLD-WG) DNS-WG re best practice 5. RIPE-CENTR Progress (14:30, 30 mins) Presentation (Fay Howard) and discussion -- Break (15:30) -- 6. New IANA and Supporting Organisations (16:00, 60 mins) Additional participants will be welcome to join at this point! 7. AOB (17:00, 5 mins) 8. Conclusions (17:05, 20 mins) 11.1 revisit workplan priorities 11.2 summarize action list -- Close (17:25) -- -------- Logged at Wed Sep 16 19:06:42 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

At 12:20 PM 9/16/98 +1000, you wrote: >Lets get some facts straight first. > Tuvalu (.TV) is probably not a 'countire', but according to > the CIA World Factbook (http://umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact96/254.htm) > it is indeed a country. > > The CoCos (Keeling) Islands (.CC) is probably not a 'countire' either, > whatever that may be, but according to the CIA World Factbook > (http://umsl.edu/services/govdocs/wofact96/63.htm) it is indeed a country, > currently administered as a territory by the Commonwealth of Australia. Ans "Scotland" is a country administered as a territory by England and has no country code. I suggest a forensic analysis of the "county code" tlds is in order. This point was raised by a dozen or so folks in Geneva. A sincere "thank you" for your input and a heartfelt "bite me" for the way it was presented. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Wed Sep 16 16:19:13 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

branch structure in ccTLD domainname space.
by artur＠zoo.pl 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

Hallo, I'm working on a project of branch structurization of ccTLD domain name space. Can you, please, write me what do you thing about that kind of solving some trademarks problems, self governing, lowering prices for domains year by year etc. What kind of problems can you see in it? Project: I've got 100+ domains in pl. such like sport.pl, prasa.pl (press) etc. I've all macroreginal domains like www.tatry.pl (geografical parts of Poland) and some city domains (for instance www.warszawa.pl). In my project when you register a domain through my partner (every ISP can be my partner and every partner have 50% discount for regist. end user: X$, partner 0.5X$ a year, every partner can take any of my domain in administration, but it's not a must), informations about your firm (ex. www.sport-daily.mag.pl for Sport magazine which names Sport-daily) is propagating in magazines' branch server - www.mag.pl, sport server www.sport.pl, regional server and city server (if it's local magazine - region and cities in this region). If someone is claiming, that he has rights to the name sport-daily title, he can only sue the man which uses it in domains for press and magazines (which is in some way correlated with trademark class), not in .pl domain or .music.pl. I'm giving my domains for ISP if he can guarantee that he will be a part of project, and will keep the rules of registariation. I'm giving regional domains to regional ISP, city to city etc. Because domains are given to ISP, cost of managment are "bluring" and can be lower and lower.... till a simbolic payment which can help us in checking which domains are in use and which can be removed. Kind regards, Artur Grzymala -------- Logged at Wed Sep 16 15:38:59 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 16 Sep '98

16 Sep '98

At 05:41 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Daniel Karrenberg wrote: > > > "Richard J. Sexton" <richard at sexton.com> writes: > > At 03:39 PM 9/14/98 +0200, Hakan Hansson wrote: > > >At 14:50 1998-09-14 , Richard J. Sexton wrote: > > > > > >>.FX is the country code for Metropolitan France. This is not a country. > > >>Neither is Tuvala any more. Or the Cocos Islands (.CC). > > > > > >FYI: Faroe Islands (.fo) and Greenland (.gl) are parts of Denmark (.dk) an > > d > > >they have _never_ been independant countries. Why did they get their own > > >ccTLD in the first place? > > > > I have no idea. Ask Jon Postel. > >No, read rfc1591. The possible ccTLDs are defined by the United Nations and >published by ISO as ISO standard 3166. The IANA has -very wiselty- decided >to use that list and not get involved in arguments exemplified by this >thread. 2. The Top Level Structure of the Domain Names In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. [...] In the country TLDs, there is a wide variation in the structure, in some countries the structure is very flat, in others there is substantial structural organization. In some country domains the second levels are generic categories (such as, AC, CO, GO, and RE), in others they are based on political geography, and in still others, organization names are listed directly under the country code. The organization for the US country domain is described in RFC 1480 [1]. Postel [Page 1] RFC 1591 Domain Name System Structure and Delegation March 1994 Each of the generic TLDs was created for a general category of organizations. The country code domains (for example, FR, NL, KR, US) are each organized by an administrator for that country. These administrators may further delegate the management of portions of the naming tree. These administrators are performing a public service on behalf of the Internet community. Descriptions of the generic domains and the US country domain follow. The problem seems to stem from the fact that "IANA is not in the business of determining what is and what isn't a country". This is a factual statementmade by IANA. The ISO3661 list containts codes that are not countries. This is a fact. IANA has mad entired in the root zone for two letter domains that are not countries. This is also a fact. So, are all two letter domains supposed to be countires, in which case .TV and .CC should be re-assessed, or, can any ISO code be made into a TLD, in which case .FX could be created. Given that IANA claims to not be inthe business of determining what a country is and instead uses a list that contains country code and non country codes, I would say this is a bit of a mess. -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:45:36 MET DST 1998 ---------

2 1

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 15 Sep '98

15 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Richard J. Sexton <richard at SEXTON.COM> To: DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET <DOMAIN-POLICY at LISTS.INTERNIC.NET> Date: Sunday, September 13, 1998 11:05 AM Subject: Re: .GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ? >At 09:05 AM 9/13/98 +0800, Dave Crocker wrote: >>At 02:49 PM 9/12/98 -0400, Richard J. Sexton wrote: >>>I also note that Jon Postel wants to see .TV and .TM removed >>>from the root zone, but NSI/NSF prevented that. >> >>please provide documentation for both of these assertions. > >Knock it off Dave, you were in the room in Singapore >when Don Telage announced this. Why didn't you ask him >for documentation? > > Again, I think that we need to look at the more global issue. What TLDs would Jon Postel (aka IANA) be proposing to remove from the legacy Root Name Server Cluster if the U.S. Government turns control over to him ? Does that list contain ? .GP .MQ .TV .TM .CC .NATO In my opinion registries and consumers have a right to know this well in advance. The other RSCs also need to socialize these proposed DELETIONS. Just because France tells Jon Postel to delete .MQ and .GP and to take away someone's IP addresses, I am not sure that he should do that. There has to be some checks and balances in the system. Where does the IAB and IETF enter this discussion ? It is one thing for the IETF to stand and cheer and endorse Jon Postel. It is another thing to be responsible for potential changes to the DNS that could impact companies, countries, etc. Jon Postel has delegated TLDs to people that clearly do not have the local support that some people claim. Now governments like France are going to try to have those TLDs removed. This is not stability. Stability can only come from open, fair hearings on these matters. In my opinion, the major RSCs should prepare a public response to France that indicates that they can NOT remove a TLD just because France says to do that. I think that the current operators of the TLD(s) should have some opportunity to have some say about the past, present and future plans for the TLD. This is the only way we can have some stability in the system. Just in case someone walked in late... @@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00298.html "Lastly, it is necessary to end rapidly the exploitation, by private operators having received no mandate from the French authorities, of the management of top level domains corresponding to French overseas departments (.gp for Guadeloupe, .mq for Martinique,...). IANA effectively considers that these are "national" domains. The French government must therefore request IANA to refuse to recognize these operators or to allocate them IP addresses." @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:34:21 MET DST 1998 ---------

4 4

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by JimFleming＠unety.net 15 Sep '98

15 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Einar Stefferud <Stef at nma.com> <snip> > >If you don't believe me, just ask the President of France;-)... > What about the thousands of people that could lose their .MQ or .GP domain names ? Don't they get any say ? Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:47:29 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

An IPv8 View of .MQ (Martinique)
by JimFleming＠unety.net 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

The IPv4 people have largely been funded by governments around the world. It should not be surprising that they have tied their future to the wishes of those governments. The recent news that the French Government wishes to take control of some of the TLDs for regions it controls, geographically, is not a surprise. There is more info on the .FR TLD and the people behind that TLD which is apparently the one that France wants to move .MQ and .GP under. In the IPv8 Plan, TLDs (and other Internet resources) are placed freely into the hands of the people. The TLDs are all equal. They are divided into 8 regions to allow people to more easily coordinate. The 8 regions are all equal. The TLDs have INTENTIONALLY been radomly placed within the regions to try to make sure that TLDs can stand on their own and not be captured by groups that want them to be "under them". http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt To illustrate how the IPv8 Plan is intended to work, we can look at the real world situation where some people want the .MQ TLD deleted. In the IPv8 Plan a concept called "neighbor nets" is used to allow TLDs to benefit from the self-governance of the other TLDs that are in their neighborhood. In the case of Martinique, one might look at the neighborhood from Grenada (.GD) to the British Virgin Islands (.VG). 1:247 GD (GRENADA) 1:248 B (Single Letter TLD) 1:249 MINNEAPOLIS 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) <----------- TO BE DELETED ? 1:251 PRINCETON 1:252 TCA (TURKS-AND-CAICOS-ISLANDS) 1:253 IDAHO 1:254 VG (VIRGIN-ISLANDS-(BRITISH)) If a super power is attempting to delete a small TLD like Martinique, then the other TLD managers in the "neighborhood" can come to Martinique's defense. Not only would this include the TLDs shown above but also all of the TLDs in the G1 Region. Even though people might find it strange for people in the .MINNEAPOLIS TLD or the .PRINCETON TLD to help Marinique, we have to realize that this is better than having the people in the .FR (France) TLD coming to the rescue because those people might be the very people that are trying to make .MQ go away. They may have financial reasons why they do not think .MQ should be allowed to exist. If it turns out that people are successful in convincing the RSCs to delete .MQ, then the 1:250 seat will be freed up to add a new TLD. The IPv8 address space 1:250.X.X.X.X would remain. Delegations under IN-ADDR.S250.G1 could remain, despite France's request for people's IP address allocations to be refused. In my opinion, it is not right to try to use the leverage of IP allocations to control the domain name industry. The IPv8 Plan attempts to prevent this. Hopefully, the RSCs around the world will come to some conclusion on how they intend to handle the .MQ TLD. Even though France carries a lot of political and economic weight, there still needs to be an element of the local decision making in both the real world and in cyberspace. I am confident that the collective reasoning of a broad group of people willl do the right thing about the .MQ TLD and the other TLDs that France wants removed. @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ France top-level domain (FR-DOM) AFNIC (NIC France) c/o INRIA, Domaine de Voluceau Le Chesnay CEDEX, 78153 FRANCE Domain Name: FR Administrative Contact: Renard, Annie (AR41) Annie.Renard at INRIA.FR +33 01 39 63 55 92 (FAX) +33 01 39 63 55 34 Technical Contact, Zone Contact: Lubrano, Philippe (PL613) Philippe.Lubrano at INRIA.FR +33 1 39 63 56 82 (FAX) +33 1 39 63 55 34 @@@@@@ "La cellule du "NIC-France", relevant de l'Institut National de la Recherche en Informatique et en Automatismes (INRIA), a assuri la mise en place du domaine ".fr" par diligation de l'IANA. Depuis le 1er janvier 1998, cette gestion a iti transfirie ` une association dinommie "AFNIC" (Association Frangaise pour le Nommage Internet en Coopiration). Ses adhirents sont essentiellement des prestataires techniques (fournisseurs d'acchs et d'hibergement) et des utilisateurs. Il existe aujourd'hui un peu plus de 16.000 sites enregistris sous le ".fr". La redevance d'enregistrement est actuellement, en fonction de l'option choisie, d'environ 400 F, ` laquelle s'ajoute depuis cette annie une redevance annuelle de 100 F." @@@@@@ Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:46:48 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

.GP, .TM, .TV and .MQ to be Removed ?
by richard＠sexton.com 14 Sep '98

14 Sep '98

At 12:13 PM 9/14/98 +0100, Berislav Todorovic wrote: >>> I also note that Jon Postel wants to see .TV and .TM removed >>> from the root zone, but NSI/NSF prevented that. Perhaps the >>> other RSCs around the world should honor the IANA request. >>> >>> I'd be particularly interested in knowing the WWTLD's position >>> on this. Do we follow IANA directive and remove .TV, .TM or do >>> we go with NSI polict and leave them there. > >First off, let's see what RFC 1591 says about that: > > 2) Country Codes > > The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is > not a country. .FX is the country code for Metropolitan France. This is not a country. Neither is Tuvala any more. Or the Cocos Islands (.CC). -- "I think it is important to understand that distribution of authority is better than dictatorship, and that the governance of TLDs and domains in general should be distributed rather than centralized." - Paul Mockapetris -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 15:39:33 MET DST 1998 ---------

5 5