> > At http://www.itu.int/net/cctlds/nics.htm is a preliminary survey
> > conducted by ITU of Internet ISO 3166-based top level domains.
>
> This seems to be the whois data frozen in immutable form.
> Though it seems to also have a URL if the form is available online.
>
> Freezing the data in immutable form seems counterproductive
> and somewhat dangerous. Please clarify the benefits/goals here.
Well, it started like this...
The ITU gets a request about once a week along the lines "where is the
NIC for so and so". We had no place to point them to as the whois data
didn't have this. So I asked one of my assistants to collect this
information by contacting the listings in the whois database and we'd
make this information publicly available.
When she started, she discovered that the whois data is often out of
date - she found that about 50% of the whois records are wrong
in some form (listing people who had died, left companies several years
ago, invalid email addresses/telephone/fax numbers, etc...). So I told
her to try to carefully collect this information and then we'd ship it
off the database to IANA and hopefully get things up-to-date (which
we've done).
The web pages are auto-generated from this database. There's more in the
database which we will slowly move out into the html pages (e.g., today,
country names in three languages were added, later we'll add who is
sovereign over various small territories). As soon as the authoritative
data really is, we'll just point to that, and just list the extra info
we've collected.
Robert
--
Robert Shaw <robert.shaw(a)itu.int>
Advisor, Global Information Infrastructure
International Telecommunication Union <http://www.itu.int>
Place des Nations, 1211 Geneva, Switzerland
John,
How do feel about the proposal to allow ALL existing
2-letter TLD managers to select 3 additional generic
TLDs to help increase the number of TLDs ?
Switzerland (.CH) and CORE could team up...
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
1998 - The Year of the C+@
On Friday, June 19, 1998 1:07 PM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom@manta.outremer.com] wrote:
<snip>
@I am however convinced that a mismanaged ccTLD for a country that has a fair
@government will not remain mismanaged indefinitely, but will transform into
@a fairer system basically because of user-presure, so as more of the planet
@becomes internet-aware, more fairer the ccTLD management is going to be. I
@also think that it will generally go along the lines of nominet.
@
Let's get down to specifics. How about something closer to home?
Look at the .VI TLD in the U.S. Virgin Islands.
How do you feel it is being managed ?
Do you think that RFC 1591 rules govern the .VI TLD ?
@@@@ http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/rfc1591.txt
"The key requirement is that for each domain there be a designated manager for
supervising that domain's name space."
...
"The manager must, of course, be on the Internet."
...
"The designated manager must be equitable to all groups in the domain that
request domain names. This means that the same rules are applied to all
requests, all requests must be processed in a non-discriminatory fashion,
and academic and commercial (and other) users are treated on an equal basis.
No bias shall be shown regarding requests that may come from customers
of some other business related to the manager -- e.g., no preferential service
for customers of a particular data network provider. There can be no
requirement that a particular mail system (or other application), protocol,
or product be used."
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
1998 - The Year of the C+@
On Friday, June 19, 1998 1:40 PM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom@manta.outremer.com] wrote:
<snip>
@
@I'm not sure where you live (is it Illinois or USVI), but if you feel that
@*you* have a problem with the USVI, try and get some USVI governmental
@institutions involved if you can't seem to get the current management of the
@TLD to listen to you...
@
John,
I am really shocked that you did NOT recommend that we take
this up with the IANA. What good does it do to talk to the
governments ? As you recently posted, TLDs are given to the
first person that knocks on IANA's door. The government probably
does not have a clue or care what is going on.
The IANA holds all the cards...
Again...I am shocked that you did not point this out...
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
1998 - The Year of the C+@
On Friday, June 19, 1998 10:26 AM, John Charles Broomfield[SMTP:jbroom@manta.outremer.com] wrote:
@
@Hi Jim,
@
@ As far as I'm concerned and WRT TLDs, the "exclusive is bad" applies
@ALWAYS. Having an individual UNILATERALLY and with no consensus decide how
@things are to be done is bad always.
I agree...in the IPv8 Plan there are 8 people that "govern" a TLD in a 2+2+4 Trusteeship.
I will be submitting more details on the IPv8 Plan to the <comments(a)iana.org> list.
@ In the case of country code TLDs, the population that is going to
@get the service is pretty obvious; in general it will be those
@companies/organisations/individuals located in that specific geographical
@area, and what is important is to try and make sure that it is that
@population that is -in general- happy at the way things are run in that TLD.
@All lovely words of course, but lets see where the problems are...
@It is generally accepted that how a certain ccTLD is governed is a question
@to be answered by the government in place in that place. And whether you
@like it or not, it is ALWAYS the local government that is allowing that TLD
@to be governed in that way. They do it by either actively participating, by
@just letting things happen, or simply by not bothering to intervene. They
@ARE responsible for it though (another thing is arguing about dereliction
@(sp?) of duty... and personally I think ".us" would be a prime candidate).
I am not sure it is fair to create something and then assume
that a country has to step forward to manage it and if they
do not that it is "OK" for someone else to exploit it. Also,
what about 2-letter TLDs that do not seem to have a country ?
.IO comes to mind. Are all of the fish in the Indian Ocean
responsible ?...even if they do not use the Internet...
@Nominet (for ".uk") is generally taken as an example of how to do things.
@However, much as you dislike the way a certain ccTLD is run, if it is not
@for your government, the only way to change it is to get THAT government to
@change it. It's not a question of "can they or can't they?" but rather "will
@they or won't they?"
What percentage of 2-letter TLDs actually have active government involvement ?
Do you consider the .US TLD under U.S. Government control ?
@The fact that countries with flawed corrupt and non-democratic governments
@are part of the U.N. doesn't mean that the U.N. is flawed, corrupt and
@non-democratic. Those countries are not shaming the U.N. in any case, they
@are shaming themselves.
@However, trying to enter into how a foreign government applies its laws (or
@lack of them) and/or how it runs its ccTLD is naive at least.
It sounds to me like you are saying that there will never be any consistency
in the 2-letter TLDs. If this is the case, then I suspect that we will have more
people flocking to the new generic TLDs because it will be likely they can
not trust their local government. In some cases, some of the 2-letter TLDs
may disappear from lack of support or usage.
@Yours, John Broomfield.
@
@P.S. Before you attack me for "exclusive control of ccTLDs", you know very
@well that we operate with full consensus of the local ISPs, and we are
@forming a (very small) non-profit which will operate (albeit in a much
@reduced fashion) to some extent a-la-Nominet.
Sounds like a winner...keep up the good work...
@ In any case, glad you can get some good discussions going every now
@and then. You had me worried... Even so, I'm sure you knew the answers already.
@
I asked Robert Shaw...and you answered...
...so I still do not know Robert Shaw's answers...
@> On Friday, June 19, 1998 10:55 AM, Robert Shaw[SMTP:robert.shaw@itu.int] wrote:
@> @Hi,
@> @
@> @At http://www.itu.int/net/cctlds/nics.htm is a preliminary survey
@>
@> Robert,
@>
@> With so many 2-letter TLDs being operated by people with an exclusive
@> personal interest and little or no association to a country, how do you
@> see the future position of the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/PAB/POC/CORE evolving
@> with respect to those TLDs ?
@>
@> In other words, why are those TLDs exempt from the "exclusive is bad"
@> model that you promote ?
@>
@> Do you think the new IANA will bring all of the 2-letter TLDs into conformance
@> with the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/PAB/POC/CORE model ?
@>
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
1998 - The Year of the C+@
On Friday, June 19, 1998 10:55 AM, Robert Shaw[SMTP:robert.shaw@itu.int] wrote:
@Hi,
@
@At http://www.itu.int/net/cctlds/nics.htm is a preliminary survey
Robert,
With so many 2-letter TLDs being operated by people with an exclusive
personal interest and little or no association to a country, how do you
see the future position of the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/PAB/POC/CORE evolving
with respect to those TLDs ?
In other words, why are those TLDs exempt from the "exclusive is bad"
model that you promote ?
Do you think the new IANA will bring all of the 2-letter TLDs into conformance
with the ITU/ISOC/IAHC/PAB/POC/CORE model ?
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
1998 - The Year of the C+@
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Fri, 19 Jun 1998 12:02:56 -0400
>Reply-To: "Phillip C. Reed" <reedpc(a)LIBBEY.COM>
>Sender: Owner-Domain-Policy <owner-domain-policy(a)internic.net>
>From: "Phillip C. Reed" <reedpc(a)LIBBEY.COM>
>Subject: .US domain managed by the Post office?
>To: DOMAIN-POLICY(a)LISTS.INTERNIC.NET
>
>Some people may recall that a few days ago, Robert Shaw dropped a comment
>about the USG revamping the .US domain. However, details were lacking.
>
>Interested parties should take a look at
>http://frisket.cstone.net/~jamie/usps.html, a recent Cook Report. The
>bottom half purports to be the proposal.
>
>I'm posting this without comment (the first half of this page have quite a
>bit of commentary, however).
>
>phil reed
>libbey inc.
>reedpc(a)libbey.com
>
Bob Allisat
Director, World TeleVirtual Network
bob(a)wtv.net - (416) 534-1999 - http://www.wtv.net
Free Community Network - .FCN free TLD Registry - http://fcn.net
Every Active Member Deserves A Paycheck!
No Sponsoring Required To Get A Paycheck!
***The True Network Marketers Dream.***
Simple And Unbelievably Lucrative!
Click Here For More Information>
http://www.gwc1.com/members/ch76/gwc1.htm
To be removed - remove58(a)hotmail.com or call 904-282-0945
On Thursday, June 11, 1998 7:14 PM, Craig Simon[SMTP:cls@flywheel.com] wrote:
@I'm not sure I'll be able to afford to attend, but I was able to get
@myself added to the participant list pretty easily, which I take as a
@reasonably good indication that the GIAW is open. If I can get in then
@I'm sure you others can.
@
The number of casual observers to the domain name debates
is clearly growing. There are now at least three directions that
these people can head, plus several other forums and lists that
have been around for years.
1. IANA (New) - http://www.iana.org
2. ITU/ISOC/IAHC/PAB/POC/CORE - http://www.gtld-mou.org
3. Network Solutions, Inc. - http://www.giaw.org
I suggest that people get behind the people forming the new IANA (#1 above)
and take the following steps:
A. Join the recently re-opened "newdom" mailing list for an open
discussion on how to bring the serious stakeholders together
ONLINE, via the Internet.
Send a "subscribe" message body to majordomo(a)ar.com.
B. Help the current IANA "staff" incorporate as a non-profit company.
C. Launch the new IANA with a 15 person board appointed as follows:
3 - http://www.iana.org and "newdom" discussions
3 - http://www.gtld-mou.org and mail lists
3 - http://www.giaw.org meeting in July and open-rsc lists
3 - http://www.ripe.net dns & tld working groups
3 - APNIC & Australian DNS discussions dns(a)iia.net.au
D. Deploy a NEW robust collection of RFC 2010 Root Name Servers
E. Delegate .US, .COM, .NET and .ORG to the legacy NSI servers
F. Deploy THREE new TLDs from the CORE choices for Switzerland (.CH)
G. Allow ALL other existing country code TLD registries to select 3 more TLDs
H. Select a 16 person IANA Inc. Advisory Committee by Choosing 2
people from each of the IPv8 regions shown here:
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt
This proposal should be easy for people following #2 to adopt. In
my opinion, it will be the shortest path to introducing new TLDs
to the general public. The 80+ CORE Registrars should be able
to compete in the OPEN market place against the people that are
trying to organize #3 above, behind closed doors in Washington, D.C.
In my opinion, those people should be asked to supply 3 board
members to the new IANA Inc. which should be well on its way to
incorporation by July 4, 1998.
Jim Fleming
Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com
1998 - The Year of the C+@
IS Coordinator for the AM Radio Station Registry - http://www.DOT.AM
