Notes (fwd)

[Michael Dillon <michael@memra.com>]

Because the newdom list was shut down the same day as the meeting, these
minutes never made it to the public list. The ar.com version of the list
didn't start up until Aug 5th and the only reason that list had any 
significant continuity from the previous newdom list is that I had
obtained a copy of the old newdom's subscriber list a few weeks before it
was shut down and I sent a notice to everyone in that list as to where the
new version of the newdom list was to be found.

I should note that even though my email address is listed below, I was not
in attendance at the meeting. Therefore these minutes do not include a
list of the participants.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 1996 07:02:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: john@jlc.net, richard@ns1.vrx.net, cnielsen@vii.com, vgoel@sprint.net,
    wessorh@ar.com, michael@memra.com, gary@lanminds.com, das@netcom.com,
    ted@usa.net, ekashp@alternic.net, karl@mcs.com, kent@songbird.com,
    tomn@internic.net, aw@eunet.ch, stef=newdom@nma.com
Cc: bmanning@ISI.EDU, iana@iana.org
Subject: Notes (fwd)

> Hi,
> 	Thanks for coming by yesterday.  Here are my notes of the
> 	discussions:
> 
> 	There are participants in the room that have set up infrastructure
> 	and turned in requests to the IANA for new top-level domains.
> 	Everyone agrees that working within the system  preserves the
> 	value of a global internet as a resource.  Working at odds with
> 	the current structure dilutes its value, since it becomes a fragmented
> 	entity.
> 
> 	To that end, we discussed a bit of history and looked at a couple of 
> 	points in the current postel draft.
> 
> 	First, it was recommended that a set of criteria be established that
> 	each ad-hoc committee may utilize to evaluate applications.  We think
> 	that these criteria should include, at a minimum, these items:
> 
> 		Prior Use - Has the requestor made good faith efforts
> 			to establish working service?  This is almost
> 			identical to the current requirement to have
> 			working nameservers.
> 
> 		Buisness Viability - The requestor should be willing to
> 			assure the committee that they have sufficent resources
> 			to manage the domain for the delegation period.
> 
> 		Agree to Terms and Conditions - The requestor should be willing
> 			to agree to operational terms and conditions set forth
> 			by the IANA.
> 
> 		Operational Resources - the requestor must have the ability
> 			to ensure reasonable stability for the duration
> 			of the delegation period.
> 
> 	Additional time was spent on discussion of the funding question and
> 	timetables.
> 
> 	It was agreed that a fee of 2% per-registration is acceptable.
> 	The definition of "per-registration" is unique entry in the second
>	level zone files.  
> 
> 	Given that there are already a large number of requests, it was 
> 	suggested that the 60 day window specified in the postel draft
> 	may be waived, allowing for the first ad-hoc committee to be 
> 	formulated as soon as possible after a revised draft comes out
> 	as an RFC.  If the committee can be formed within the next few
> 	weeks, it is possible that new iTLDs may be made visable in the
> 	next quarter.
> 
> --bill
> 


-- 
--bill