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 ---------