On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 09:17:23 +0100 (BST), Niall O'Reilly wrote: I'ld like to suggest some ideas in this area in advance of the WG meeting at RIPE 34. When we review the workplan, I expect we shall eliminate many work areas as no longer relevant, or better looked after now and in the future by CENTR. The residual work plan will be small. If it vanishes, then we have a clear direction. Your comments are welcome. Niall O'Reilly On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:24:07 +0200, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: I wasn't at ripe-33, and in the archives I can only find the ``Discussion document for review of TLD-WG workplan'' (http://www.ripe.net/mail-archives/tld-wg/19990401-19990701/msg00004.html) and not the results of the review. So can you point me to the current workplan? Jaap, no new edition of the workplan has been published since RIPE 33. I have prepared a discussion document for review of the workplan at RIPE 34 (see below). As mentioned there, six work areas have survived. Here are my comments on these, as a start to the debate. For purposes of argument, I'm taking the position of calling the raison d'etre of the WG into question and assuming that all of the work areas can be exported with advantage to other groups. IANA and ICANN CENTR is involved here. Complementary involvement may be appropriate, especially involvement in other DNSO constituencies than the ccTLD constituency. If so, we need to identify the motivation for such involvement. Stability of the DNS Root Those with operational interest (including CENTR) have interest here, and should work to protect it. Documentation and alignment of practices This work area overlaps with work which CENTR has under way. We don't need to duplicate it. DNS Infrastructure Resources We don't add value by shadowing DNS-WG. We should recognize that. Emerging Registries CENTR and DNS-WG can surely do more for emerging registries than we can. Tools and Techniques This is a new area, with no activity yet. We need to decide what it's for. I would like to have views from other people, especially those who either disagree with the idea of "exporting" the existing work areas, or would like to see other work areas in the work plan and feel that the RIPE TLD-WG is the appropriate group to deal with them. Niall O'Reilly [Begin DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34] Title: DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34 Date: 6 September 1999 Status: Discussion Document Next Review: RIPE-34, 22 September 1999 Discussion Document for next review of RIPE TLD-WG Workplan The TLD-WG workplan is an organic document that will be formally reviewed at each WG meeting. The workplan is listed under various sections followed by specific activities to be undertaken within each section. This document reflects revisions to the workplan proposed on 5 May 1999 at RIPE 33 in Vienna. Six work areas now remain. WG should consider at next review which of these need to be retained, and which should best be taken care of by other groups or organisations (eg: RIPE DNS-WG, CENTR, DNSO). WG should also consider whether it is appropriate to add any new work areas, and how the resulting (continued or new) work areas should be resourced. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Index IANA and ICANN DNS Infrastructure Resources Stability of the DNS Root Emerging Registries Documentation and alignment of Tools and Techniques practices -------------------------------------------------------------------- IANA and ICANN Priority: Highest Open Actions: None The independence and stability of IANA is vital for the functioning of the DNS. In order to help preserve this the following tasks need to be done: * Help support the following aims of IANA: o protection from litigation o recognition by official governmental bodies o bottom-up authority to IANA * Discuss and find a way for nTLDs to directly or indirectly fund IANA. * Formalise relationships with IANA within a bottom-up framework. * participation through DNSO structure or just leave this to registries ... ? * transfer of functions from IANA to ICANN * delegation relationship between IANA/ICANN and ccTLD registries -------------------------------------------------------------------- Stability of the DNS Root Priority: Highest Open Actions: None * desired responsibility for root server system * desired implementation of same -------------------------------------------------------------------- Documentation and alignment of practices Priority: High Open Actions: None * Collect and publish information on status and current practice of nTLD registries, with particular reference to: o publication of policy, o national consultative framework, o registration procedures, o comparative charging, o search/retrieval facilities on nTLD databases, o availability of English-language versions of documentation, o domain name statistics, o national character sets, o Co-operation with Governments, o Competition, o Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, o Legal Issues. * Develop recommendations for best practice and alignment of practices. * Publish and promote any recommendations made. -------------------------------------------------------------------- DNS Infrastructure Resources Priority: High Open Actions: None * Document recommended practice for DNS infrastructure. This is to ensure functioning on a non-discriminatory basis and an avoidance of bottlenecks. * Track DNS technology and pilots of new features. * Avail of opportunities for co-operation with RIPE DNS-WG. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Emerging Registries Priority: High Open Actions: None * Detail and provide initial support for emerging registries within the RIPE area. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Tools and Techniques Priority: High Open Actions: None * Maintain catalogue of useful tools and techniques -------------------------------------------------------------------- [End DISCUSS-RIPE-TLD-WG-Workplan-34] -------- Logged at Tue Sep 7 13:39:32 CEST 1999 ---------