-> Yet another draft WG charter
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: new draft WG charter
by Dan Busarow
-> Re: The World Verses NSI/NSA/USA
by Simon Higgs
-> Re: new draft WG charter
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: Yet another draft WG charter
by Michael Dillon
-> Re: Yet another draft WG charter
by Kent Crispin
-> Re: revised draft WG charter
by "David R. Conrad"
-> FW: Lost People
by kslim@merlion.singnet.com.sg (KOON SANG LIM)
-> FW: new draft WG charter
by kslim@merlion.singnet.com.sg (KOON SANG LIM)
-> Re: revised draft WG charter
by Kent Crispin
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1996 01:29:56 -0700
From: kslim@merlion.singnet.com.sg (KOON SANG LIM)
Subject: FW: Re: FW: Re: FW: Re: FW: Shared TLD's Will NOT Work
Dear Bob
As a person I am always willing to compromise as I believe that sometime this
is the best and most practical approach. However, for this particular issue,
my worry is that the "Exclusivity" may be abused! I am not saying that you
would abuse the system but I am quite sure that sooner or later some one
would! Though I am but one of the poor millions of users of the net, I
believe I belong to the majority.
Best regards
KS Lim
- ---------------Original Message---------------
On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, KOON SANG LIM wrote:
> Well, if you are arguing for a free,non-profit, charitable type of
> services then I believe you need not worry about any commercial
> competition! Your TLD will be as good as exclusive or non-shared!
> However, you still did not address the point how the registries of
> a shared-TLD can not be operated as humanly as an exclusive one.
I, Bob Allisat replied:
: Non-shared TLD's that are
: geared to specific groups,
: professions or organizations
: will gear all of their procedures
: to their clients. For example
: World TeleVirtual Network will
: organize it's entire .WTV TLD
: registry and directory services
: to independant and small Web
: Television clients.
:
: When the client picks up the
: phone or sends E-mail or registers
: they will be dealling with a closed
: house process. We can control for
: quality and content at every step.
: Introduce third parties into the
: picture and the circle is broken
: by people who don't have a clue
: about the clientelle or the
: specific media.
:
: In order to provide the requisite
: high quality of service we will
: not allowISP's or other, generic
: TLD's to handle our clientelle.
: They will bungle the job no matter
: how many charters we send them.
:
On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, KOON SANG LIM wrote:
> By your argument, I believe that the incompetent registries
> would die a natural death. You still need not worry.
If .WTV were a "shared" TLD perhaps
the incompetants would die a natural
death from their mistakes. In the
process, howver, they will take many
of .WTV's clientelle with them. Something
I do not want to see occur.
There is a clear place for "Non-Shared"
Top Level Domain registries. Please
show some willingness to compromise.
TeleVirtually Yours,
Bob Allisat tor@wtv.net
Director,
World Televirtual Network http://www.wtv.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1996 01:47:46 -0700
From: kslim@merlion.singnet.com.sg (KOON SANG LIM)
Subject: FW: Re: Removing .SG
Dear Kevin
I didn't know that IANA has so much power and authority. I suggest you check
with them first!
I persoanlly disagree with any attempt to interfere with any country's
sovereignty. No one has the right to play God here!
Best regards
KS Lim
- ---------------Original Message---------------
>On Sun, 11 Aug 1996, Jim Fleming wrote:
>
>> Do any of the root servers plan to remove .SG from their data base because
>> of the recent new laws in Singapore which place users behind caching proxy
>> servers and which restrict a broad selection of content.
>
>Matthew Skala wrote:
>
>While I dislike the Singaporean government's current policies and many of
>their past ones, I don't think it's the DNS's place to impose political
>sanctions on them. The DNS's purpose is to provide a stable system of
>names for referring to computers on the Net. Making the nations of the
>world treat their citizens nicely is a worthwhile goal, but it's no part
>of the DNS's mandate. It would be a major step backward if we try to make
>the basically amoral Internet structure enforce a political goal, no
>matter how worthy the goal may be.
Not the job of DNS to enforce politics, but the job of IANA who delegate
the .sg domainname. The joining of the Internet should bring with it
rights and responsibility. Right to freedom of access and responsibility to
act according to democratically decided rules. Can Pol Pot join the Net
with the blood of millions on his hand via delegated TLD for Cambodia?
Could Hitler, if he were alive and well today, and in control, have
registered a TLD domain with a web site with Quicktime VR of burning Jews?
Extreme example ? Yes! Where do we draw the line. If we do not care about
law and order and democratic processes on the net, then we help the
downfall of democracy. The net is not and never will be exempt from
politics, this is real life out here. IANA needs to police more than simple
technical issues.
Scene that never happened (but could in some form):
IANA: " Bummer those QTVR pictures of burning Jews, but hey, this guy
Hitler has his shit together with his DNS servers....man we can't get
involved, its politics. Good job we delegated the .de TLD to Hitler though,
he keeps those DNS servers running and up 24 hours a day. Hey dudes, lets
watch Baywatch, this is gross....."
Hitler was elected by the sitting parliment. Would IANA, if it had existed
then, have delegated to him?
Extreme? Yes! See where it could end up? ( Apologies to the survivors of
WW2, I wish to make a point, not denigrate or trivialse a horrific event in
history. This is serious. I am a man of extreme examples, because life is
like that. We must not forget history and it's lessons. How will we act
when it repeats itself?)
Democracy is taken as a right in the US, where it is enshrined. But
everyone in the world cannot pretend we are in the US and act accordingly.
We must fight a continual battle for democracy, and world-wide democracy.
Rules. We have a chance for an International community to set standards
about the net, and that means enforcible standards ( rules, laws, what have
you). IANA want to be in the hot seat of rule maker, and that bears
responsibility. If the Majority of worldwide internet associations/users
vote that freedom is a must, then yes, we cut off Singapore until the
government wants to act in a democratic fashion. Politics? Yes, but don't
be simplistic, all our lives we are ruled by political action. The Internet
is no different. However , we have a chance of a better place, politically
speaking. New TLDs are JUST THE TIP OF THE ICEBURG.... there are many more
issues than IANAs control of "."
>
>It would be comparable to the proposal we've heard about putting a required
>"suitable/not suitable for readers under 18" flag in the IPv6 packet
>header. Technically possible, but structurally inappropriate. Politics
>should be a function of the application layer, dammit!
>
>This is a strong argument in favor of root DNS being controlled by the
>UN. As far as I'm concerned, it would be cool if then the UN refused to
>serve .com until the USA pays its many years of overdue UN membership
>dues, but in objective terms that's probably just as political as
>removing .sg.
Politics touches everything including the Net. Remember, the next world war
might just be fought on the net by non-democratic countries trying to
expand their despotic rule. Wake up!
Kevin
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Kevin Brown | N \ We operate in Ireland
NetComm | e / and the Middle East
Unix Training, Consultancy | t \ --IRELAND--
Networking | C / Voice: 353-1-282-7342
| o \ Fax: 353-1-282-7342
| m / --DUBAI--
We will design and | m \ Voice: 971-4-491476
construct your Web Site. | / Fax: 971-4-492957
Install a firewall Today! | \ email: kevinbr@netcomm.ie
| / (Internet)
| \
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1996 07:14:35 -0700
From: Kent Crispin
Subject: Re: Potential WG for top level domains with shared registries
Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no allegedly said:
>
> Technically, is there any reason why the .SHARED TLD test with
> multiple registries could not be done under .SHARED.NET or similar?
>
> This would seem to separate the technical concerns from the political,
> and there's nothing magic about TLDs; I'd guess co.uk needs it almost
> as much as .com does.
>
> Of course, it does reduce the high level visibility of the project.
>
> Harald A
That's a good point. On the face of it, the technology should work at
any level. The high visibility factor has pluses and minuses, as
well. However, from the point of view of an operational test
(including the real root nameservers, potential IANA procedures and
policies and so on) a real TLD would test more -- you don't really know
if the plane will fly until the test pilot returns. But we would
learn a great deal from a lower level test. I could go either way
with this.
Who knows -- there is a danger that .shared might become very popular.
Hmm. songbird.shared -- maybe not. :-)
- --
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: 15 Aug 1996 08:17:24 -0700
From: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: new draft WG charter
Kent Crispin writes:
> Internet Area Director(s)
>
> o Frank Kastenholz
> o Jeffrey Burgan
Working groups can be jointly part of two areas. I would suggest that
we belong either under Operations, or jointly under Operations and the
area that handles DNS (and I can't remember what that is right now --
possibly Internet).
The goals are too far off -- I think we could submit a first draft in
a month if we got our asses in gear, and have a test TLD about the
same time.
> 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1996 08:21:55 -0700
From: perry@piermont.com
Subject: Re: revised draft WG charter
John R Levine writes:
> >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.
I don't think its true -- I think the main motivation is to have
competitive registry -- and I'd agree it shouldn't be in the draft.
> 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.
Agreed as well.
Perry
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1996 09:31:33 -0700
From: Kent Crispin
Subject: Re: revised draft WG charter
Perry E. Metzger allegedly said:
>
>
> John R Levine writes:
> > >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.
>
> I don't think its true -- I think the main motivation is to have
> competitive registry
I agree -- that's certainly my primary motive.
> -- and I'd agree it shouldn't be in the draft.
I put it there because Fred Baker indicated something should be in the
draft to address trademark issues. Scott Bradner apparently had some
concerns hanging over from the newdom charter. I have emailed Scott,
and I think it is probable he will agree once he has a chance to look
at what we have in mind.
In the meantime, I will try to reword this to address your point.
> > 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.
>
> Agreed as well.
Yep, me too. I think have made some changes to address this. I
should get another draft around this morning sometime. I have to
brush my teeth before I go to work...
- --
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: 15 Aug 1996 09:40:49 -0700
From: Dan Busarow
Subject: Re: new draft WG charter
On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Kent Crispin wrote:
I think Michael's notes are on the money. I would also like to see the
milestones moved forward. I think that November 96 would be a
conservative target for the first draft and implementation. Sometime in
1Q 97 for the RFC.
Dan
- --
Dan Busarow 714 443 4172
DPC Systems dan@dpcsys.com
Dana Point, California 83 09 EF 59 E0 11 89 B4 8D 09 DB FD E1 DD 0C 82
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1996 09:48:43 -0700
From: chris@kosh.punk.net (Christopher Ambler)
Subject: Re: The World Verses NSI/NSA/USA
> 99.999% of human beings do
> not own computers or know
> anything about this medium.
Not to pick nits, but I think this figure is rather erroneous. I would
roughly estimate it at 99.822% (which, when we're talking about 5
billion people, is quite off from 99.999%)
Damn, I'm a nerd! Someone stop me! :-)
Christopher Ambler
President, Image Online Design, Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 15 Aug 1996 09:52:11 -0700
From: Kent Crispin
Subject: Re: new draft WG charter
Perry E. Metzger allegedly said:
>
>
> Kent Crispin writes:
> > Internet Area Director(s)
> >
> > o Frank Kastenholz
> > o Jeffrey Burgan
>
> Working groups can be jointly part of two areas. I would suggest that
> we belong either under Operations, or jointly under Operations and the
> area that handles DNS (and I can't remember what that is right now --
> possibly Internet).
I changed this already, as you know.
> The goals are too far off -- I think we could submit a first draft in
> a month if we got our asses in gear, and have a test TLD about the
^^
> same time.
There's an "if" in your sentence, Perry :-) There are several other
"if"s in this process, as well, that could lead to significant delays.
Plus, we are still in "vacation" season, and "holiday" season is
approaching.
It is my tendency to try to set realistic, or slightly pessimistic
timelines, because I like to have some assurance that they can be met.
I think the odds are very slim that we will actually have a draft and
a test within a month. I think the odds are pretty damn good we could
have it by January. Splitting the difference would make it -- lets
see -- Nov 1, or thereabouts. How about that? But I bet you a nickel
that it will actually take somewhat longer.
> > 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
>
- --
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: 15 Aug 1996 09:53:22 -0700
From: Kent Crispin
Subject: Re: new draft WG charter
Dan Busarow allegedly said:
>
> On Wed, 14 Aug 1996, Michael Dillon wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Aug 1996, Kent Crispin wrote:
>
> I think Michael's notes are on the money. I would also like to see the
> milestones moved forward. I think that November 96 would be a
> conservative target for the first draft and implementation. Sometime in
> 1Q 97 for the RFC.
I'm going to change that to Nov. You owe me a nickel if it takes longer.
- --
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: 15 Aug 1996 11:30:25 -0700
From: Kent Crispin
Subject: Yet another draft WG charter
Here's another draft, incorporating various peoples concerns. Note
that those who suggested we move the first milestone date up each owe
me a nickel ($0.05 US) if the milestone is not met.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 access to
domain name registration databases, and the administration of
delegated top level domains by multiple registration agents. The
motivation for this concern is to minimize centralized management of
all components of the name space, and increase competition among
domain name registries.
It should be noted that the issue of shared TLDs is quite distinct
from the issue of new TLDs. It is possible, for example, that some of
the current TLDs could convert to shared TLDs, and no new TLDs be
created. However, it is also possible that shared TLDs be implemented
through the creation of new TLDs. Creation of too many TLDs would
have potentially enormous negative impact on DNS performance, and thus
on the Internet itself. Any RFC's from this WG must address this
issue.
Since one motivation for change in the TLD structure has been
resolution of trademark conflicts in domain names, any RFC's from this
WG will explicitly indicate what effect, if any, they might have on
those concerns.
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; a STLD IETF
draft; second, a test implementation of the proposals in the draft;
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 administrative procedures required to coordinate
registries which share the same database
