<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:08 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs
Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:
> IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
> 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?
For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
"legitimate."
--
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/03_23_98-10.htm
###
From: "William X. Walsh" <william@walsh.tj>
To: NTIADC40.NTIAHQ40(dns)
Date: 3/23/98 10:28pm
Subject: Comments on Discussion Draft on Technical Management of Internet
Domain Names
Enclosed are the official comments of myself to the US Green Paper
Proposal on Internet Domain Names.
--
William X. Walsh william@tjns.tj
Director, Network Operations and Technical Services
TJ Network Services http://www.tjns.tj
Domain Name Services, Web Hosting, and Email Services
Comments on the US Green Paper on :
Improvement of Technical Management of Internet Names and Addresses
Comments are made by :
William Walsh
Director, Network Operations and Technical Services
TJ Network Services
william@tjns.tj
I. Introduction
TJ Network Services is a relatively new Domain Name Registrar, currently
providing management of the National Top Level Domain for the country of
Tajikistan under contract. We provide a wealth of value added domain name
services, as well as direct registration under the .TJ nTLD, including
World Wide Domain Name Registration under the existing Generic TLD's, and
other national TLD's. Our main source of business is derived in the value
added services which we package with these domain registration services.
TJ Network Services was formed as a result of a long standing goal to
provide low cost Internet Identity services that were easy to use, and
within the budget of the many people starting up small, home based
businesses on the Internet, and those who just wanted to have a permanent
identity to use in conjunction with their on-line hobby presence, or other
type of presence they are cultivating.
The very premise of our service is that we feel the establishment of a
permanent identity should be within reach of ANYONE on the internet who as
the motivation to seek one.
In light of the affects on this premise of the current proposal, we feel
compelled to provide our own comments, and to advocate changes which would
be in the best interest of the Internet as a whole.
We have waited till today to issue our formal comments in an effort to
review the comments and opinions of others, both formal and to various
internet based discussion lists of which we monitor.
We urge everyone on the Internet to read the document at
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/domainname130.htm
II. Summary of Comments
TJ Network Services feels the goals outlined by the US Green Paper,
Section V - Principles for a New System, are an extremely positive step
in the right direction. We do, however, feel that there is room for
improvement in the methodology used to implement these goals. We comment
on these in this document.
III. Time Frame for US Government Withdrawal
TJ Network Services applauds the Green Papers statement regarding the
need to balance stability issues with concerns that the US Government
would never withdraw from oversight. We feel that the time frames listed
should, however, be shorter, or at the very least mandated by statute, to
insure that there be no extension of this oversight past the maximum date
listed, September 30th, 2000.
We would like to see the oversight areas spelled out more clearly, with
time frames for the relinquishment of specific areas of oversight
included.
IV. Representation on the New Corporation's Board of Directors
TJ Network Services feels the outline for the Board of Directors is
positive, but we would like to see it broadened to include representative
of the non-affiliated National TLD registrars who are not represented by
the Regional Number Registries.
Except for the comment noted above, we feel the representation is fair and
international in scope.
V. Minimum Requirements for Registries and Registrars
TJ Network Services operates on what we affectionately call a "shoestring
budget." Using Co-operative agreements we have in place with both
domestic and foreign entities, we provide an extremely stable and broad
base for our services. We do this on what is a VERY small budget. We are
also aware of another organization, Monolith Internet Services, which has
provided third and forth level domain name services with a variety of
add-on type services, to an international community of users numbering in
the tens of thousands. And this was done on a budget of practically
nothing, depending on small donations from users, and from small
sponsorship agreements. Monolith Internet Services has provided an
excellent level of service Internationally and under incredibly high
loads, with a VERY limited amount of resources.
We see many of these requirements as a means to keep the "little guys" out
of the market, and this is damaging to the very competitive process this
proposal is supposed to be seeking. By placing unnecessary restrictions,
you drive the costs of getting into the Domain Name Business up, and drive
up the prices of services, making it hard for services to offer free, or
low cost, alternatives to the higher priced, more commercial gTLDs.
A provision should be made to give people the choice of what service they
chose to us. There will be those Registries who will meet these
requirements, and well exceed them. They will be able to advertise this,
and use it as a means to promote the stability and security of their
services. But it should not exclude an individual from selecting to do
business with a Registry who does not meet those requirements, but can
still provide service.
We make the following proposal :
Prospective Domain Registries should meet the following minimum
requirements :
1) A Primary Domain Name Server, under the direct control of the domain
registry, hosted on a network with at least T1 connectivity, and backup
power supply. The level of connectivity, and other pertinent information
should be noted on the registries publicly available website.
2) At least 2 geographically and network diverse Secondary Domain Name
Servers, also on networks of at least T1 connectivity. This information
should also be published as noted in #1 above.
3) A complete published set of policies and procedures as outlined in the
Green Paper, published as noted in #1.
4) A robust Database Management System, that will maintain records of all
transactions, and full information regarding each domain name
registration, and it's registrants. This information should be publicly
accessible in an easy to use and understand interface. A simplified, easy
to use automated system should also be in place to provide for simplified
domain name registrations, by Registrars if using the distributed
registrar model, or for use by users if a single Registrar model is being
used.. The level of current technology is sufficiently advanced enough to
allow for new and update transactions to occur over a secure web
interface, rather than the relatively insecure, and lengthy procedures
involved in using email form based solutions.
5) Registrars should set simple requirements for Registries. Frankly,
Registrars should be required to be little more than customer service
stations, and provide easy and fast access to registration services
provided to the Registrar by the Registries. Of importance to the
Registry, is to make sure the Prospective Registrar is capable of
providing the level of customer service which they deem appropriate for
their TLD. Again, this is the image that will be created for the TLD, and
it is the responsibility of the Registry to make the decision of the
overall image they seek to present, and make the policies under this
section and all the other sections with this premise in mind.
Requirements for Registries, if any, should be uniform and published in
accordance with the publication of information in the other sections.
6) Domain Name Registries should remove themselves from the Trademark
Protection Process, and registrants should be subject to the same
Trademark Laws as everyday citizens. Domain Name Registries should honor
judgments and ruling made regarding trademark disputes by courts of
"competent jurisdiction." Any further restrictions would be
anti-competitive in nature, and place undo responsibility on the Registry
to act as a "Policing" agency. This information should be made available
on the Registries website, published as noted above in #1.
7) A plan to allow for continued management of their Top Level Domain
should the registry become insolvent. This could involve a bond in an
amount sufficient to insure that minimum services can be provided for a
reasonable period of time, till the Registry can make permanent
arrangements for a new management contract by a solvent registry. This is
again just a suggestion, some TLD's may make no such provision.
Regardless, the Registry should be mandated to make this information
publicly available on their website in a prominent manner, published in
accordance with #1 above.
Other than as noted, no further requirements should be made for Registrars
or Registries. This would of course be subject to review by the board
after a reasonable period of time has elapsed and the results of such an
open set of requirements can be evaluated more fully.
VI. Summary and Conclusion
As can be noted above, TJ Network Services finds itself in agreement with
most of the points of the Green Paper, with the exception of the comments
made in Sections II through V.
We feel the market should be broaden to allow for various levels of domain
name registration services, from the free services who cannot provide any
service guarantees and minimal if any customer service, to the high end
commercial registries who provide absolute security in service guarantees
and customer services. The market in the International Internet Community
is broad and diverse enough to provide a robust market for Registrars at
both these levels and at all levels in between.
TJ Network Services welcomes comments on our position paper, which can be
made via email to directors@tjns.tj
William Xavier Walsh william@tjns.tj
Director, Network Operations and Technical Services (NOTS)
TJ Network Services http://www.tjns.tj
Registry/Registrar for the .TJ (Tajikistan) Top Level Domain
For information about TJ Network Services, please contact staff@tjns.tj
For comments on this Position Paper, please email them to
directors@tjns.tj
TJ Network Services ==> Putting You in Front!
###
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of William
X. Walsh
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2001 6:08 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] IPv8 FAQ on Proof of Concept TLDs
Monday, June 11, 2001, 2:54:54 PM, JIM FLEMING wrote:
> IPv8 FAQ on Proof-of-Concept TLDs
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg12215.html
> 1. Q. Is the ICANN Board Qualified to "mess with DNS" ?
For those who are not familiar with his tactics, Jim Fleming posts
things to mailing lists or comments boards that archive them like the
IETF and NTIA, and then uses references to his own messages and
comments at those URLs to make it look somehow more "official" and
"legitimate."
--
Best regards,
William X Walsh
mailto:william@userfriendly.com
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|