[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

An Unofficial IAHC FAQ

I'm crossposting this to comp.protocols.tco-ip.domains, as that
is an **almost** reasonable place for discussion, and is what
many people are actually using...

--dave
-- 
David Collier-Brown,  | Always do right. This will gratify some people
185 Ellerslie Ave.,   | astonish the rest.        -- Mark Twain
Willowdale, Ontario   | davecb@hobbes.ss.org, canada.sun.com
N2M 1Y3. 416-223-8968 | http://java.science.yorku.ca/~davecb
Title: An Unofficial IAHC FAQ

An Unofficial IAHC Faq

This list of collected questions and putative answrs will be posted weekly to the list, probably on Fridays. It is NOT the official opinion of the committee or its membership, but I will do my best to make it reflect the discussion. In other words, I'll try real hard not to lie (:-))

This commenced with the list of technical subjects that I suggested the IAHC keep and eventually publish. Since I suggested it, looks like I volunteered to do it... --davecb

Questions

  1. What's the current state?
  2. What remains?

    Questions from Before the December 19 Draft

  3. Subjects the ad-hoc committee isn't addressing:
  4. What about current TLDs?
  5. Will IAHC consider whether or not to have new iTLDs?
  6. What about government proceedings?
  7. What about striking a larger committee?
  8. What are the proposed experimental registries and domains?
  9. Is there a structure to all this?

1. What's the Current State?

We have a draft! The press release is at IAHC Makes its Preliminary Conclusions on Internet Top Level Domains Available for Public Comment

The draft itself is Draft Specifications for Administration and Management of gTLDs.

2. What Remains to be Decided?

There are five main areas, and some side discussions in the mailing list:

  1. Thread 1: Sharing
  2. Thread 2: 60-day issue
  3. Thread 3: Selection of registrars
  4. Thread 4: Selection of gTLDs
  5. Thread 5: Defining the Namespace

Questions from Before the December 19 Draft:

Subjects the ad-hoc committee isn't addressing

Each of the following is an area that this committee shouldn't be addressing, and the IETF working group that is or arguably should be addressing it. Working groups may also be found at http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/wg-dir.html.
Registry Identifiers (Rick H. Wesson)
... how a registry manages contact, domain, and name server handles? If so should some one write a proposal on how these identifiers are to be handled?...

davidk@ISI.EDU writes:
The not existing (yet) IRE (or what it is called now) IETF working group that would deal with the *IP* registries future has also already proposed a spin-off working group that would be dealing with database (format) issues and the like. One of the the identified problems is the NIC handle and registry identifier. I am currently writing (together with David Conrad) a proposed charter for a working group that would deal with these kind of issues. It seems that the data availability issues for domain registries are very similar to IP address space registries. I think that it might be a good idea if we join our efforts ;-).

This would be in the Operations area, a possible spinoff of the IRE working group which focusses solely on the future of *IP* registry matters, and would deal with issues like database formats.

Domain name prefix search (Merton Campbell Crockett)
One of the issues raised on the IETF mailing list was the problem of DNS being used as a search engine. Several people suggested that the publishers of Web Browsers include search engines that would query a registry for the desired domain name.

Highly probable contidates are

with some subsequent/collateral work in

Authentication of Domain Names (Tony Rutkowski)
ie, DukeU.com.

No known group yet... Possibly in the Security area?

DNS Requirements (Leonid Egoshin)
IMHO, any attempt of solving .COM problem without technology change of DNS as search engine could be unsuccessfull (it would have problems with legacy of names etc). Also any attempt to shift search fully outside DNS will be failed (partially shift to directory service is today). From this I think would be usefull for IAHC to discuss any ways of DNS technology change.

The current DNS working groups are:

Root nameserver issues (Merton Campbell Crockett)
How will a root nameserver with incomplete knowledge "discover" another root nameserver? A different part of the broad DNS question: working groups as above.

National TLDs (Tristan Palmer)
...from a UK perspective. Secondly I would like to discuss the problems raised by monopoly of the name spaces, and to see if my...

No suitable group at least thus far, and in part a question for each national registry.

4. What About Current TLDs?

Ronald J. Fitzherbert asks (by implication) if...
the current ones should be part of the new process. Ie., we go back to ground 0 and re-evaluate the current iTLDs and registry as part of this process with the possibility of giving the current iTLDs to another registry, or eliminating some or all of them based upon the selection criteria that comes out of the IAHC.
No Official Statement has been made.
Dave Crocker notes
The topic has certainly come up. I don't know what is reasonable or possible with respect to their current agreement.[...] Trying to figure out the right DIRECTION to move, however, does seem like something we can do sooner rather than later.>I>

5. Will IAHC Consider Whether or not to Have New iTLDs?

Vince Wolodkin asks if
the IAHC was going to consider that new iTLD's may not be the answer.
No Official Statement has been made.
Perry E. Metzger notes (pending an official comment) that
We therefore made a principled decision not to assume before the fact that new iTLDs were the only possible solution. They are a very strong possibility, but we prefer to come to that conclusion after doing our work, not before.

6. What About Government Proceedings?

Tony Rutkowski (I think!) asks
Given two governmental official public proceedings in the matter - in both the US and Europe - shouldn't any decisions, much less actions, await the completion of those proceedings?
No Official Statement has been made.
Robert Shaw notes
If you're speaking about the joint USPTO/NTIA hearings, we are in constant liaison with USPTO reps to track what they are doing.

7. What About Striking a Larger Committee?

Ron Fitzherbert asks if
the current IAHC [can be] expanded by 6 members... the World Trade Organization, World Bank, International Court of Justice, InterNIC (ie., NSI) APNIC and RIPE.

No Official Statement has been made.
Perry Metzger said
Speaking purely unofficially, I don't think this is likely.

8. What are the proposed experimental registries and domains?

The ones who sent proposals to the IANA or were publically discussed up to Thu, 5 Dec 1996 are listed in Jon Postel's message.

9. Is there a structure to all this?

Gilles Lerat suggests the following:

Dave Collier-Brown / davecb@canada.sun.com / davecb@hobbes.ss.org