- tld-wg - mailman.ripe.net

Fairness in any draft
by JimFleming＠unety.net 12 Sep '98

12 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Christopher Ambler <cambler at iodesign.com> To: domain-policy at open-rsc.org <domain-policy at open-rsc.org> Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 4:52 PM Subject: Re: Fairness in any draft >Your claims of operating outside of the IANA process and >that some prospective registries did so knowing that IANA >did not authorize them is factually incorrect, at least in the >case of Image Online Design. > >Please, I implore you, read the newdom archives, specifically >the postings of Bill Manning and Jon Postel, as they directly >counter what you're saying. There is, of course, much more >evidence not on the newdom list - but the postings on newdom >should be more than sufficient. > This is one of the major problems. Not ALL of the "evidence" (as you call it) has been disclosed in public. People keep making these sweeping statements about the IANA authority, never answer the simple questions about why the IANA has not followed through on the IAHC/CORE promises, and refuse to look at facts. In my opinion, those facts will not ALL come out until we see what happens on October 1, 1998. The only fair thing to do at this point would be for NSI to begin actively working with all of the RSCs around the world, including the ORSC, to decide which TLDs NSI wants to add to the legacy Root Name Servers. In my opinion, it would be good for NSI to have an open, public dialog with a human representative from each of the following servers. >1. A - Network Solutions, Inc. (A) >2. B - University of Southern California (ISI2) >3. C - Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER) >4. D - University of Maryland (UMD-TERP) >5. E - NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA) >6. F - Internet Software Consortium (ISC) >7. G - DOD Network Information Center (DIIS-NS) >8. H - Army Research Laboratory (B) >9. I - [No name] (NORDU) (Sweden) >10. J - Network Solutions, Inc. (J) >11. K - European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (K) >12. L - University of Southern California (L) >13. M - WIDE Project (M) (JAPAN) > It seems odd that people from the Asia Pacific region are not providing input via WIDE. Likewise, one would assume that the "K" operators would provide RIPE views. Lastly, it should be noted that the B and L servers are registered to USC and not the IANA. 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 11:12:51 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Upcoming Events in the U.S.
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

September 19, 1998 @@@@ http://www.ifwp.org IFWP Meeting Boston - Cancelled ???? Contacts: Karl Auerbach - karl at cavebear.com Jim Dixon - jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net September 23, 1998 Cooper Union - New York "Internet Privatization: Open Competition or Monopoly Control ?" Contact: Michael Sondow - msondow at iciiu.net October 9, 1998 @@@@@ http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/annmtg98/fsf.html#Awards "CPSR joins with the Free Software Foundation as they present FSF's first annual Awards for the Advancement of Free Software Friday, October 9, 7:00 pm" October 10, 1998 @@@@ http://www.cpsr.org/conferences/annmtg98/ "Lawrence Lessig Professor, Harvard Law School Law of Cyberspace, Constitutional Law Saturday, October 10, 9:00am Einar Stefferud Internet pioneer; Founder, Network Management Associates & First Virtual "Internet Paradigms & Their Consequences for Society" The Computer Museum Saturday, October 10, 7:30pm @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 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 11:12:15 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Re: membership proposal
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Peter Deutsch <peterd at Bunyip.Com> <snip> > >I fully endorse the need for consensus, but can't see how >any government can agree to handing over any form of power >to an "non-entity", a diffuse set of entities, or a >self-policing group. > Did you miss the U.S. Government endorsement of ARIN ? What about the recent casual transfer of assets and rights from the old APNIC, based in the Seychelles and working out of borrowed offices in Japan to the new APNIC based in Australia ? Do you think that happened without a node from the U.S. Government ? RIPE may be the only group that is large enough and diverse enough to operate without much U.S. Government influence. In my opinion, that is a result of their open and distributed structure. It is very hard to find one person that claims to be the only person that speak for RIPE. Many people do and they have diverse views. RIPE also handles more than IP addresses. In my opinion that is good because it helps to broaden a group and make them more aware of the big picture. 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 11:10:26 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Re: theoretical question
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Martin B. Schwimmer <martys at interport.net> <snip> > >Your client asks you what to do. What do you tell him? > It depends. Today the answer might be to look for another .COM name. Next month the answer might be to select another TLD. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt If new TLDs are not added to the legacy Root Name Servers controlled by the U.S. Government then we all might as well agree that .COM is the new root or "dot" as some might say. This atually has some technical merit. Unfortunately, it would make all of the other non-COM TLDs worthless at some point. With ALL of the names under the .COM root, software developers would likely move quickly to a position where .COM disappears. We have already seen that trend with browsers. They assume that you want WWW.%name.COM. Would you prefer to have the entire DNS pushed down one level under .COM ? If you do that, then you effectively have 2,000,000+ TLDs. ATT, IBM, SUN, MICROSOFT, etc. all would have their own. The people with the generic words line .COMPUTER or .SYSTEMS would likely emerge to become the TLD registries. People would then be able to move to "grab" SUN.SYSTEMS.COM. but the .COM would not show up, it would be hidden by all popular software. Now, what does the Sun Microsystems do about the company that ends up with SUN.SYSTEMS ? How about SUN.OIL which would really be SUN.OIL.COM ? As I see it, you have two choices, expand the root or make .COM the root. Pick one. We can not have it both ways. Keep in mind that if the root is not expanded, then non-COM TLDs (like .UK) might as well close their doors. Is that what you want ? Again, there are two choices...this is not rocket science... Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:04:12 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] Re: request for clarification [2]
by JimFleming＠unety.net 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: cgomes at internic.net <cgomes at internic.net> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org> Date: Friday, September 11, 1998 7:36 AM Subject: [ifwp] Re: request for clarification [2] >Let me point out again what Don Telage clarified yesterday, >NSI did not refuse to participate in either meeting. > >Chuck Gomes > Chuck, Do you think it would be worthwhile for NSI to attend the smaller meeting that people are planning for next weekend ? Have any of the other members of the legacy Root Name Server Confederation (RSC) been involved in the talks between NSI and IANA ? >1. A - Network Solutions, Inc. (A) >2. B - University of Southern California (ISI2) >3. C - Performance Systems International Inc. (C-NYSER) >4. D - University of Maryland (UMD-TERP) >5. E - NASA Ames Research Center (NS-NASA) >6. F - Internet Software Consortium (ISC) >7. G - DOD Network Information Center (DIIS-NS) >8. H - Army Research Laboratory (B) >9. I - [No name] (NORDU) (Sweden) >10. J - Network Solutions, Inc. (J) >11. K - European Regional Internet Registry/RIPE NCC (K) >12. L - University of Southern California (L) >13. M - WIDE Project (M) (JAPAN) Is there any chance that some of the above groups could be represented ? Maybe USC/ISI could send people from http://www.east.isi.edu What about all of the U.S. Government agencies ? How do you see them fitting into this picture starting next month ? What about RIPE ? They have historically been an organization focused on IPv4 address resources, recently they have become very active in TLD administration. Since they apparently control the "K" server above, how do you see them represented in these discussions ? 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 11:02:10 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Policy of .zho
by wchao＠post.uni-bielefeld.de 11 Sep '98

11 Sep '98

REGISTRATION POLICY FOR THE .zho TOP LEVEL DOMAIN Document Version 1.2, Sep. 11 1998 by Wei-Lun Chao 1. Introduction o The .zho Top Level Domain (hereafter known as "the .zho TLD") is a three-letter country code for the Republic of China (in Chinese: "Zhonghua", well known as "Taiwan"). o The domain owner is Wei-Lun Chao <chaoweilun at sinanet.com>, who may delegate this registration duty as he sees fit to any duly designated representative. 2. General rules o Second level domains are reserved and not open for application. o Registration of a third level domain in the .zho TLD will not be subject to any fees or charges. o Organizations requestion for domain registration under the .zho TLD must have a real local presence in the Republic of China. o An organization should register only a single domain name for itself. For multiply domain name of the same organization must be presented an explanation. o Geographical names, Acronyms and generic terms may normally not be reistered as a third level domain. 3. Second level generic domains o .ent : commercial enterprises with stock o .com : commercial organizations without stock o .net : Internet related organizations o .reg : registried trademarks o .par : parliamentary organizations o .gov : governmental organizations o .mil : military organizations o .edu : educational organizations o .org : civil non-commercial organizations o .grp : unregistried groups o .geo : geographic regions o .nom : individuals with ID number 4. Syntax rules o A domain name is a string of 3~18 characters. The permitted characters are all English letters, numbers and dash ("-"). o The first character must be a letter and the last character should not be a dash. 5. Submitting o Applications are recommend to be submitted through the ISP of the applicant. o In submitting the application the applicant certifies that to his/her knowledge, the use of the name applied for does not violate any trademarks or other status. 6. Management o Once an applicant has got its domain name, it may register any and as many subdomains under this domain as it please. o Registrant is responsible for keeping information in the registry correct and up to date. o Registrant agrees that any registration in the .zho TLD shall be governed in all respects by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Republic of China. -------- Logged at Sun Sep 13 20:08:03 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

[ifwp] membership proposal
by JimFleming＠unety.net 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

-----Original Message----- From: Jim Dixon <jdd at matthew.uk1.vbc.net> To: IFWP Discussion List <list at ifwp.org> Date: Thursday, September 10, 1998 9:39 AM Subject: [ifwp] membership proposal >A proposal for adding a membership to the new corporation replacing >IANA can be found at > > http://www.euroispa.org/papers/new.corp.membership.html > >This is most definitely work in progress; both public and private >comments would be very much appreciated. > Jim, You might want to note that the GIP people seem to be assuming some sort of "membership" structure, they mention "membership dues". It seems odd that some people are claiming that the GIP proposal is the funding vehicle for Jon Postel's IANA Inc. They might be assuming this because apparently Jon Postel and Vinton Cerf went to high school together. I am not sure that people can conclude that the GIP proposal and the IANA.ORG proposal are synchronized because one seems to support membership where the other does not. Of course, if one assumes that the GIP people are the "Board" of the IANA.ORG, then this could be an evolution where we are seeing what the operational board has decided. If that is the case, then people should be able to claim that the IANA Inc. is already responding to your comments and other people's comments about membership and other matters. @@@@ http://www.gip.org/newback.htm ... "After this period, the GIP believes that the new organization will be financed on the proceeds of its own fundraising efforts and membership dues." ... @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 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 P.S. The GIP people seem to match up with the profile of the IANA.ORG Board that Jon Postel described. They appear to be "well known" people that do not have a high net "profile"....except for maybe Vinton Cerf :-) -------- Logged at Fri Sep 11 14:54:46 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

International public administration
by Annie.Renard＠nic.fr 10 Sep '98

10 Sep '98

An interesting proposal in the current context... Annie _______________________ The Internet an International Public Treasure A Proposal by Ronda Hauben ronda at panix.com In testimony before the Subcommittee on Basic Research of the Committee on Science of the U.S. Congress on March 31, 1998, Robert Kahn, co-inventor of TCP/IP, indicated the great responsibility that must be taken into account before the U.S. Government changes the administrative oversight, ownership and control of essential aspects of the Internet that are part of what is known as the Domain Name System (DNS)*. Kahn indicated that "the governance issue must take into account the needs and desires of others outside the United States to participate." His testimony also indicated a need to maintain "integrity in the Internet architecture including the management of IP addresses and the need for oversight of critical functions." He described how the Internet grew and flourished under U.S. Government stewardship (before the privatization - I wish to add) because of 2 important components. 1) The U.S. Government funded the necessary research and 2) It made sure the networking community had the responsibility for its operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from bureaucratic obstacles and commercial matters so it could evolve dynamically. He also said that "The relevant US government agencies should remain involved until a workable solution is found and, thereafter retain oversight of the process until and unless an appropriate international oversight mechanism can supplant it." And Kahn recommended insulating the DNS functions which are critical to the continued operation of the Internet so they could be operated "in such a way as to insulate them as much as possible from bureaucratic, commercial and political wrangling." When I attended the meeting of the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) in Geneva in July, which was a meeting set up by the U.S. Government to create the private organization to take over these essential DNS functions September 30, 1998, none of the concerns that Kahn raised at this Congressional hearing were indicated as concerns by those rushing to privatize these critical functions of the global Internet. I wrote a report which I circulated about the political and commercial pressures that were operating in the meeting to create the Names Council that I attended. (See "Report from the Front", Meeting in Geneva Rushes to Privatize the Internet DNS and Root Server Systems". The URL is http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ ) But what is happening now with the privatization plan of the U.S. Government involves privatization of the functions that coordinate the International aspects of the Internet and thus the U.S. Government has a very special obligation to the technical and scientific community and to the the U.S. public and the people of the world to be responsible in what it does. I don't see that happening at present. A few years ago I met one of the important pioneers of the development of time-sharing, which set the basis for the research creating the Internet. This pioneer, Fernando Corbato, suggested I real a book "Management and the Future of the Computer" which was edited by Martin Greenberger, another time-sharing pioneer. The book was the proceedings of a conference about the Future of the Computer held at MIT in 1961 to celebrate the centennial anniversary of MIT. The British author, Charles Percy Snow made the opening address at the meeting and he described the importance of how government decisions would be made about the future of the computer. Snow cautioned that such decisions must involve people who understood the problems and the technology. And he also expressed the concern that if too small a number of people were involved in making important government decisions, the more likely it would be that serious errors of judgment would be made. Too small a number of people are being involved in this important decision regarding the future of these strategic aspects of the Internet and too many of those who know what is happening and are participating either have conflicts of interest or other reasons why they are not able to consider the real problems and technological issues involved. (About the 1961 conference, see chapter 6 of Netizens at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120) What is happening with the process of the U.S. Government privatization of the Domain Name System is exactly the kind of danger that C.P. Snow warned against. I have been in contact with Ira Magaziner, Senior advisor to the U.S. President on policy with these concerns and he asked me to write a proposal or way to put my concerns into some "operational form." The following draft proposal for comment is my beginning effort to respond to his request. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Draft Proposal Toward an International Public Administration of Essential Functions of the Internet - The Domain Name System Ronda Hauben ronda at panix.com Recently, there has been a rush to find a way to change significant aspects of the Internet. The claim is that there is a controversy that must be resolved about what should be the future of the Domain Name System. It is important to examine this claim and to try to figure out if there is any real problem with regard to the Domain Name System (DNS) that has to be solved. The Internet is a scientific and technical achievement of great magnitude. Fundamental to its development was the discovery of a new way of looking at computer science.(1) The early developers of the ARPANET, the progenitor of the Internet, viewed the computer as a communication device rather than only as an arithmetic engine. This new view, which came from research conducted by those in academic computer science, made the building of the ARPANET possible.(2) Any changes in the administration of key aspects of the Internet need to be guided by a scientific perspective and principles, not by political or commercial pressures. It is most important to keep in mind that scientific methods are open and cooperative. Examining the development of the Internet, an essential problem that becomes evident is that the Internet has become international, but the systems that allow there to be an Internet are under the administration and control of one nation. These include control over the allocation of domain names, over the allocation of IP addresses, over the assignment of protocol numbers and services, as well as control over the root server system and the protocols and standards development process related to the Internet. These are currently under the control and administration of the U.S. Government or contractors to it. Instead of the U.S. Government offering a proposal to solve the problem of how to share the administration of the DNS, which includes central points of control of the Internet, it is supporting and encouraging the creation of a new private entity that will take over and control the Domain Name System. This private entity will magnify many thousands fold the commercial and political pressures and prevent solving the genuine problem of having an internationally shared protection and administration of the DNS, including the root server system, IP number allocations, Internet protocols, etc. Giving these functions over to a private entity will make it possible for these functions to be changed and for the Internet to be broken up into competing root servers, etc. It is the DNS whose key characteristic is to make the network of networks one Internet rather than competing networks with competing root server systems, etc. What is needed is a way to protect the technology of the Internet from commercial and political pressures, so as to create a means of sharing administration of the key DNS functions and the root server system. The private organization that the U.S. Government is asking to be formed is the opposite of protecting the Internet. It is encouraging the take over by a private, non accountable corporate entity of the key Internet functions and of this International public resource. In light of this situation, it is important to draft a proposal which will help to establish a set of principles and recommendations on how to create an international cooperative collaboration to administer and protect these key functions of the Internet from commercial and political pressures. This draft is offered as a beginning of this process. The first essential requirement is that the U.S. Government stop the process it is involved in, including the International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) whose objective is to create a private organization to be given the key Domain Name System including the root server system by September 30, 1998. The second essential requirement is that the U.S. Government create a research project or institute (which can be in conjunction with universities, appropriate research institutes, etc.) The goal of this project or institute is to sponsor and have carried out the research to solve the problem of what should be the future of the DNS and its component parts including the root server system. The U.S. should invite the collaboration (including funding, setting up similar research projects, etc.) of any country interested in participating in this research. The researchers from the different nations will work collaboratively. A collaborative international research group will undertake the following: 1) To identify and describe the functions of the DNS system that need to be maintained. (The RFC's or other documents that will help in this need to be gathered and references to them made available to those interested.) 2) To look first at the Internet and then at how the DNS system and root server system is serving the diverse communities and users of the Internet, which include among others the scientific community, the education community, the librarians, the technical community, Governments (National as well as local), the university community, the art and cultural communities, nonprofit organizations, the medical community, the communications functions of the business community, and most importantly the users whoever they be, of the Internet. 3) To maintain an online means of input into their work and of reporting on what they are doing.(This should include as many of the open processes used in the development of Usenet and the ARPANET as possible, including appropriate Usenet newsgroups, mailing lists, RFC's etc.) 4) To produce a proposal at the end of a specified finite period of time. The proposal should include: a) an accurate history of how the Internet developed and how the Domain Name System developed and why. b) a discussion of the vision for the future of the Internet that their proposal is part of. This should be based on input gathered from the users of the Internet, and from research of the history and development of the Internet. c) a description of the role the Domain Name System plays in the administration and control of the Internet, how it is functioning, what problems have developed with it. d) a proposal for its further administration, describing how the proposal will provide for the continuation of the functions and control hitherto provided by U.S. Government agencies like NSF and DARPA. Also, problems for the further administrations should be clearly identified and proposals made for how to begin an open process for examining the problems and solving them. e) a description of the problems and pressures that they see that can be a danger for the DNS administration. Also recommendations on how to protect the DNS administration from succumbing to those pressures. (For example from pressures that are political or commercial.) In the early days of Internet development in the U.S. there was an acceptable use policy (AUP) that protected the Internet and the scientific and technical community from the pressures from political and commercial entities. Also in the U.S., Government funding of a sizeable number of people who were the computer science community also protected those people from commercial and political pressures. f) a way for the proposal to be distributed widely online, and the public not online should also have a way to have access to it. It should be made available to people around the world who are part of or interested in the future development of the Internet. Perhaps help with such distribution can come from international organizations like the ITU, from the Internet Society, the IETF, etc. g) comment on what has been learned from the process of doing collaborative work to create the proposal. It should identify as much as possible the problems that developed in their collaborative efforts. Identifying the problems will help clarify what work has to be done to solve them. h) It will be necessary to agree to some way to keep this group of researchers free from commercial and political pressures -- government funding of the researchers is one possible way and maybe they can be working under an agreed upon Acceptable Use Policy for their work and funding. Please let me know any thoughts or comments you have on this draft proposal as it is a beginning effort to figure out what is a real way to solve the problem that is the essential problem in the future administration of the Internet, and that if the principles can be found to solve this problem, the same principles will help to solve other problems of Internet administration and functioning as well. ------------------ Notes: (1) See Michael Hauben, "Behind the Net: The Untold Story of the ARPANET and Computer Science", in "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet", IEEE CS Press, 1997, p. 109. See also "Internet, nouvelle utopie humaniste?" by Bernard Lang, Pierre Weis and Veronique Viguie Donzeau-Gouge, "Le Monde", September 26, 1997, as it describes how computer science is a new kind of science and not well understood by many. The authors write: "L'informatique est tout a la fois une science, une technologie et un ensemble d'outils....Dans sa pratique actuelle, l'introduction de l'informatique a l'ecole, et malheureusement souvent a la'universite, est critiquable parce qu'elle entretient la confusion entre ces trois composantes." (2) Ibid. -------------------------------------------------------------- An updated copy of this proposal, as well as other related material will be available at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ I will also try to have copies available at http://lrw.net/hauben/ Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook also in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6 Last Updated: September 4, 1998 --------------- Note: *I am requesting help circulating this proposal among the Internet community and asking for comments and discussion both on the proposal and on the issues involved with the U.S. government plan to privatize these essential functions of the Internet by September 30, 1998. Also we will be starting a mailing list for those interested in discussing this and it would be good if a newsgroup would be created on Usenet about this issue as well. For too long these issues have been carried out where most people online and off do not know of what is happening or are being told it isn't important, or where it is hard for interested people to find a way to participate. Please write me at ronda at panix.com with any comments on the proposal. -------- Logged at Thu Sep 10 17:43:28 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

Soon-to-be-Announced Internet Management Organization
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

@@@@ http://www.gip.org/pressctr.htm > >New Campaign to Raise Start-Up Funding for >Soon-to-be-Announced Internet Management Organization > >Press Advisory >Who, What, Why, When, How > >Press Conference Participant Biographies >John Patrick, Vice President, Internet Technology, IBM Corporation; and >chairman, Global Internet Project >Vinton G. Cerf, senior vice president - Internet Architecture and >Engineering, MCI Communications Corporation; and chairman of the Internet >Society > >Media Coverage > >Companies To Give Money To New Net Names Authority (Reuters 9/9/1998) > >@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ 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 Thu Sep 10 17:42:32 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0

?:? .FLIA
by JimFleming＠unety.net 09 Sep '98

09 Sep '98

Walter, It would help if you would put the TLD that you are interested in, in the Subject line. Also, from what I understand AURSC is mostly focused on Australia. You might want to get more people from the RIPE or G3 region involved. 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 -----Original Message----- From: wbrun at thepla.net <wbrun at thepla.net> To: aursc at lists.ah.net <aursc at lists.ah.net> Date: Wednesday, September 09, 1998 8:50 AM Subject: [ AURSC ] Application for TLD's ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AURSC Information and User Mail List. Open. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AURSC Information and User Mail List. Open. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >TLD .ONG >TLD .NGO >TLD .RED >TLD .GOB >TLD .MRA >TLD .RTM >.FlY Three letter code for world wide tourism themes.. >These looks fine to me. Not ISO. >.OLE Three letter code spanish tourism themes. >Nice to see my suggestion! Thanks:-) >.FLIA Four letter code for Family in Spanish. >I am currently aware of a .FAM being claimed by another non IRSC member >RSC. It might bee seen that having two like TLDs could be a >disadvantage to Global uniformity. I still think that 400,000,000 Spanish Speakers may feel more identified and confortable with .FLIA than with .FAM. FLIA does not clash with others TLD's and is lets said "cultural appropiate" :-0. I do not think that will pose competition. eg: pedro at gonzalez.flia will be more attractive to the consumer in this instance. >.PLANET Six letter code for users of free web base email services of >ThePlaNet CyberGate. >AURSC policy does not support the use of propriatary TLDs. There is >nothing stopping ThePlaNet from using the TLD inside it's own network >for local use - although .local is recommended. This will be a global free web based email and is relevant to the service. We do not own the PLANET (but we can contibute with it! ) >AURSC members are invited to comment. Especially those who have been >rejected on this policy previously. >TLD >.AND Three letter code for Andorra >.ARG Three letter code for Argentina >.BLZ Three letter code for Belize >.BOL Three letter code for Bolivia >.BRA Three letter code for Brasil >.CHL Three letter code for Chile >.COL Three letter code for Colombia >.CRI Three letter code for Costa Rica >.CUB Three letter code for Cuba >.ECU Three letter code for Ecuador >.ESP Three letter code for Espaqa (Spain) >.GTM Three letter code for Guatemala >.MAC Three letter code for Macao (Macau??) >.MEX Three letter code for Mixico >.PRY Three letter code for Paraguay >.PRT Three letter code for Portugal >.PRI Three letter code for Puerto Rico These are all 3 letter ISO codes. AURSC suports the use of these only for local country of origin. The policy submitted as special conditions relects this (see original posting) so I have no problem >.ESV Three letter code for El Salvador >.FLP Three letter code for Filipinas >.ISM Three letter code for Islas Malvinas (FALKLAND Islands) >.NCG Alternative three letter code for Nicaragua >.PVO Three letter code for Pais Vasco (Vasc Country) >.PAN Three letter code for Panama >.PRU Three letter code for Perz >.RDO Three letter code for Repzblica Dominicana >.TIM Three letter code for Timor del Este (East Timor) >.TRT Three letter code for Trinidad y Tobago >.URU Three letter code for Uruguay >.VEN Three letter code for Venezuela >>I don't have these listed?? muhhhhh...Somehow I got them mixed up ;( Lets stick to the ISO for those countries). >.HON Three letter code for Honduras >Honduras is actually HDN >.NGUA Four letter code for Nicaragua >I don't think this is necessary. We withdraw the request. >.EEUU Four letter code for Estados Unidos (U.S.A) Spanish >convention to abbreviate USA. Ideal for the 40 million Spanish Speakers >in the US.I need more comments on this. I'm not familiar with the >code. Try this: http://babelfish.altavista.digital.com/ on the dialog box type: U.S.A U.S. United States Of America. Then select: English to Spanish, and you will get some peace of mind !(and a friendly translator:-)) Walter wbrun at thepla.net ============================================== Why surf a pond? when you can surf ThePlaNet ! ThePlaNet CyberGate Internet Services and Consultancy http://www.thepla.net Internet Access without costing the Earth! ============================================== ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to list at lists.ah.net with the body containing unsubscribe aursc user at domain.name ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- Logged at Thu Sep 10 17:38:07 MET DST 1998 ---------

1 0