-> revised draft WG charter
by Kent Crispin
-> FW: Re: System Administrator: Re: CONSENSUS PN TOP LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES
by kslim@merlion.singnet.com.sg (KOON SANG LIM)
-> Re: revised draft WG charter
by johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
-> Re: new draft WG charter
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: Who "owns" tld's
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: Who "owns" tld's
by chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
-> Re: Who "owns" tld's
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: revised draft WG charter
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: revised draft WG charter
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: new draft WG charter
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: new draft WG charter
by Michael Dillon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1996 12:21:54 -0700
From: Kent Crispin
Subject: revised draft WG charter
Here is yet another revised WG charter. The revisions were suggested
by Fred Baker. Comments please.
- --------------------------------------------------------------------
DRAFT
Shared Top Level Domains Working Group (STLDWG) Charter
Chair(s)
o TBD
(Someone from IANA?)
Internet Area Director(s)
o Scott Bradner
o Michael O'Dell
Mailing List Information
o General Discussion: shared-tld@higgs.net
o To Subscribe: shared-tld-request@higgs.net
o Archive:
http://www.higgs.net/mail/lists/shared-tld/shared-tld-digest.html
Description of Working Group
The Shared Top Level Domains Working Group is concerned with the
technical and logistic requirements of creating shared domain name
registration databases, and the administration of delegated top level
domains by multiple domain name registries. The motivation for this
concern is to minimize centralized management of all components of
the name space.
There are two high level concerns that the WG must address:
First, the primary underlying problem motivating change in the TLD
structure is resolution of trademark and possibly intellectual
property conflicts in domain names. The relationship of this problem
to any proposals resulting from this WG must be thoroughly explored.
Second, an explosion of TLDs would have potentially enormous negative
impact on DNS performance, and thus on the Internet itself. Any
proposal from this WG must address this issue.
Preliminary discussion indicates that there is at least a good
possibility that models for shared TLDs exist that at the very least
do not have a serious negative impact in these two areas, and perhaps
may significantly help, especially in the area of cleanly indemnifying
the IANA and the IETF from the legal morass of trademark and
intellectual property law, and "prior use". However, the main focus
of the WG is the mechanism for supporting shared TLDs, not necessarily
the creation of new TLDs.
Both these issues will be explictly addressed in the output of this
WG, either as a component of the RFC containing the proposals, or
possibly as a second RFC.
Since the proposals of this WG would directly impact the workings of
the IANA, it is recognized that the IANA must actively participate.
Three primary products are expected from this WG: First the STLD IETF
draft; second, a test implemtation of the ideas using the .SHARED TLD;
and third, a revised STLD IETF draft incorporating the lessons from
the experiment, which should become an RFC. If this RFC is unwieldy,
a possible fourth output would be an RFC discussing the the impact of
the proposals on legal issues, network performance, and possibly other
concerns.
In more detail, the areas of concern include
o relationship of shared TLD proposals to trademark issues
o impact of shared TLD proposals on the network performance
o fostering an appropriate blend of competition and
cooperation between cohort registries
o the relationship between STLD registries and the DNS
o the relationship between STLD registries and the IANA,
including suggested procedures for licensing a registry,
and the associated policies
o technical issues regarding management of the various
databases involved in running and coordinating registries.
This includes issues like distribution of updates, locking
of a shared coordination database, and so on
o the adminstrative procedures involved in running
a registry serving a Shared TLD
o authentication and authorization issues
o minimizing possible legal complexities
o as much as possible, making the relationships between
cohort registries self-regulating -- that is, minimizing
IANA's role in regulation or dispute resolution.
Goals and Milestones
Jan 1997
Submit a Shared Top Level Domain IETF Draft that outlines
one or more technical and policy solutions, along with
a fairly detailed discussion of the tradeoffs that led to
if (them).
Jan 1997
Establishment of the .SHARED TLD for purposes of testing
STLD proposals.
Apr 1997
STLD RFC, possible second RFC
- --
Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint: B6 04 CC 30 9E DE CD FE 6A 04 90 BB 26 77 4A 5E
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1996 20:55:23 -0700
From: kslim@merlion.singnet.com.sg (KOON SANG LIM)
Subject: FW: Re: System Administrator: Re: CONSENSUS PN TOP LEVEL DOMAIN NAMES
Dear Simon
I personally have no objection. I think it is a reasonable dratf to start
with. If we do not waste more time I believe we may be able to meet the
targets set earlier in the dratf charters.(though some may think that the
targets set are too slow for their liking).
Best regards
KS Lim
- ---------------Original Message---------------
At 12:01 PM -0700 8/12/96, Eugene Kashpureff wrote:
>On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
>> > allow the possibility of shared
>> > and eclusive domain names cohabiting
>> > quite happily. Why are the proponants
>> > of Shared TLD's unable to do the same?
>> Because it perpetuates exactly the same kind of monopoly that the InterNIC
>> currently enjoys.
>
>How does it perpetuate the monopoly if it allows for BOTH shared and
>exclusive TLDs ? Why not even allow closed TLDs, for internal coporate
>uses, i.e. .MCI, .ATT. or .MSNBC ? As long as these shared TLDs exist
>to provide a competitive base for exclusive commercial TLDs, why not
>allow a mix of ALL these 'types' of TLD ?
>
>Do shared TLDs need to be protected from commercial registries for
>some reason ?
>
There is a place for shared, monopoly, and exclusive TLDs within context,
and I've provided for that in my draft. Shared is obvious - multiple
registries serving a TLD, and considered the way forward to break free of
the InterNIC-type monopoly situation. Monopoly is for those TLDs that
reasonably require tight registry controls - .INT is an example. The
exclusive TLDs are used and controlled by a single organization, such as
BTW, if I took section 7 ("Expanding the Top Level Domain Space" and the
trademark category TLDs) out of my draft (draft-higgs-tld-cat-02.txt),
would there be any objection to this becoming an RFC by the end of the
month?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1996 21:27:06 -0700
From: johnl@iecc.com (John R Levine)
Subject: Re: revised draft WG charter
>Here is yet another revised WG charter. The revisions were suggested
>by Fred Baker. Comments please.
Looks pretty good, thanks for doing the work to put it together.
>First, the primary underlying problem motivating change in the TLD
>structure is resolution of trademark and possibly intellectual
>property conflicts in domain names.
Is this really true? Whether or not it is, I'm not sure it needs to be in
the draft. Can you say what you're thinking about WRT shared domains? I
can't off hand see any difference from unshared for this particular issue.
Also, some of us think that shared TLDs would make a lot of sense even if
there are no new TLDs, since .COM, .ORG, and .NET would be excellent
candidates for sharing when the Internic's current contract is up, and some
ISO TLDs such as .US might be as well.
How about adjusting the wording to allow for this possibility, or at least to
clarify that adding new TLDs (other than the experimental .SHARED) needn't
be a prerequisite to having shared TLDs.
- --
John R. Levine, IECC, POB 640 Trumansburg NY 14886 +1 607 387 6869
johnl@iecc.com "Space aliens are stealing American jobs." - Stanford econ prof
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1996 21:35:32 -0700
From: Michael Dillon
Subject: Re: new draft WG charter
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Kent Crispin wrote:
> o TBD
> (Someone from IANA?)
Before you volunteer one of the four people who work part time on the IANA
activities, you really should ask them. I don't see any need for IANA
people to chair a shared TLD protocol WG and I think they will have more
important things to deal with in the next little while as new TLD's are
deployed. It wouldn't hurt to ask someone like Perry Metzger or Paul Vixie
if they would be interested or if they could suggest people for the
position.
> Internet Area Director(s)
>
> o Frank Kastenholz
> o Jeffrey Burgan
Have you asked either of these guys? The shared TLD stuff sure seems like
OPS area stuff to me.
> Description of Working Group
>
> The Shared Top Level Domains Working Group is concerned with the
> technical and logistic requirements of creating shared domain name
shared access to domain name ...
> registration databases, and the administration of delegated top level
> domains by multiple domain name registries. The motivation for this
multiple registration agents.
> concern is to minimize centralized management of all components of
> the name space.
> Since the proposals of this WG would directly impact the workings of
> the IANA, it is recognized that the IANA must actively participate.
Drop this bit. Either they will or they won't. In fact, I disagree that
this WG would *directly* impact the workings of IANA. Perhaps IANA will
choose to do things differently in the future due to the deployment of
this WG's work, but IMHO that is rather a indirect impact and could be
said of many WG's.
> The primary products of this WG are three: First the STLD Draft, and
> second,
define this draft more clearly. IMHO something like this:
First, the definition of a protocol for shared administrative
access to domain name registry databases capable of reserving
names, registering names and modifying name records in a
secure authenticated manner.
> a test implemtation of the ideas using the .SHARED TLD as a
> test,
Just say that it is a standards track protocol which implies two
implementations.
> and three, a revised STLD draft incorporating the lessons from
> the experiment, which should become an RFC
This is also implied by "standards track". Rather than stating the obvious
here, try to be more clear about why the protocol is needed, what the
requirements are, etc.
> o fostering an appropriate blend of competition and
> cooperation between cohort registries
good.
> o the relationship between STLD registries and the DNS
vague.
> o the relationship between STLD registries and the IANA,
> including suggested procedures for licensing a registry,
> and the associated policies
relationship is a bad word you know. And IANA has nothing to do with this
really. They will create TLD's but unless they mandate some sharing
timeframe this whole thing will be voluntarily done by some registries.
Also, you are overlapping the Postel draft in this clause.
> o technical issues regarding management of the various
> databases involved in running and coordinating registries.
> This includes issues like distribution of updates, locking
> of a shared coordination database, and so on
Rather than a partial list, try to choose words which describe the
complete scope of the problem. It is better to define boundaries and only
be specific with things that are mandatory result items. Within the
boundaries defined by the charter it is quite possible that the WG will
come up with new issues and/or decide that some issues currently mentioned
are actually not relevant.
> o the adminstrative procedures involved in running
> a registry serving a Shared TLD
This focuses too much on internal registry procedures rather than the
administrative protocols between registries which are where it should
focus, IMHO.
> o authentication and authorization issues
>
> o minimizing possible legal complexities
>
> o as much as possible, making the relationships between
> cohort registries self-regulating -- that is, minimizing
> IANA's role in regulation or dispute resolution.
Again, leave out IANA. It is not a court. If IANA publishes and RFC that
gives it arbitration rights, then so be it. If not, then leave them alone.
> Jan 1997
> Submit a Shared Top Level Domain IETF Draft that outlines
> one or more technical and policy solutions, along with
> a fairly detailed discussion of the tradeoffs that led to
> if (them).
Tradeoffs is good. It helps future designers understand the genesis of the
protocol. However I don't like "one or more". A single draft should
promote a single solution.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1996 21:40:45 -0700
From: Michael Dillon
Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
> Well, um, I guess I'm still stuck at the first principle: are
> tld's to be shared. IANA seems to indicate no, per the
> last draft-postel,
I beg to differ. As per the last draft, TLD's are exclusive property of
the registry to which they are delegated. This implies that the registry
may share the TLD if it so chooses. Obviously this will involve some sort
of commercial transaction but that is not neccessarily a bad thing.
> Wouldnt it make sense to resolve this question first,
It doesn't need to be resolved. If people really want shared access
registries, then the deals will be made.
Michael Dillon - ISP & Internet Consulting
Memra Software Inc. - Fax: +1-604-546-3049
http://www.memra.com - E-mail: michael@memra.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1996 21:41:47 -0700
From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's
>Wouldnt it make sense to resolve this question first,
>or have we settled up a "some are private, some
>are shared" notion?
I'm going under the latter assumption, which is the one I support.
- --
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.
.WEB Domain Registry, http://webtld.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 14 Aug 1996 22:30:09 -0700
From: Kent Crispin
Subject: Re: Who "owns" tld's
Richard J. Sexton allegedly said:
>
> At 02:58 PM 8/13/96 -0700, you wrote:
> >I am enclosing a new copy of the draft WG charter. I have
> >incorporated the SINGLE suggestion I got for changes (though in a
> >different place than suggested), and made serveral additions.
> >
> >Please review.
>
> Well, um, I guess I'm still stuck at the first principle: are
> tld's to be shared. IANA seems to indicate no, per the
> last draft-postel, many vocal and respected members of
> the net.community indicate yes.
