[ga] An agenda for the SIG "WG-Inclusive Name Space Management Proposition"

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Milton,
As documented in my seconded motion and in my call to the Chair
the agenda for the WG-Inclusive Name Space is quite larger than the
relations with the non-legacy TLDs. Among others they include - non
limitative list - :

- understanding the Inclusive Name Space within the Name Space:
   - the current DNS and its current and coming evolutions
   - the current character set and DN string size
   - the alternative ways of entering data into the DNS
   - the multinational character sets and relations with the ASCII base
   - the various propositions and their long term impact on the DNS
     stability
   - the legal structure of the Inclusive Name Space from the DNS
     code, history, real relations, public acceptance/demand

- understanding the Inclusive Name Space relations with other types
   of segmentation of the Name Space:
    - the language name spaces
    - the national name spaces
    - the private naming space
    - the geographical name space
    - the UN treaties name space (air traffic, EDI, etc...)
    - the TM Space
    - the telephone numbering name space
    - the different industries Name Space: banking, EFT, healthcare,...
    - ethical impact : adult, insults, blasphemes, ....
    - level of priorities

- understanding the organization of the Inclusive Name Space
   - the different levels and their nature/holders
   - the first level management: nature, de facto rules, existing
     partners, relations, management programs, evolution, laws
     and rules, IP, managing structures (non profit, commercial,
     cooperative, ...), roots : management, multiroot, sub-roots,
     viruscoms
   - the second level management: nature of the strings (Domain
     Names, Member Names, patterns, rules, dynamic entries),
     role (assignation, designation, ...), IP (ownership, holdership,
     mandate, ...) , the lower level roots (Second level services,
     multilevel roots like New.net, ...)
   - the next levels: nature, role, ownership, interaction with
     other Name Space, plus same question as above
   - technico/legal definition and nature of the Inclusive Name
     Space items

- understanding the mission of the iCANN in this:
   - legitimate ownership of the various sub-spaces of the
     Inclusive Name Space. Methods of appropriation.
   - an RSC for the legacy TLD? Nature of the Legacy and of
     its extensions: a right? a duty? a label?
   - a leadership or a partnership for the iCANN. Resulting nature
     of the iCANN.
   - priorities : stability and development of the DNS or of the TM
   - relations with ccTLDs and survival of ccTLDs.
   - relations with the other segmentations of the Name Space
     (WIPO, Govs, ...)
   - relations with major actors as DoC, VRSN, national NICs,
     different RSCs, operators and ISPs, @large and users.
   etc... etc...

I do not pretend I am covering all the themes to address, nor I
propose them in the proper way and proper order. I say that this
is the kind of things we have to address if we want to understand,
document and organize a WG-Inclusive Name Space Management
of real use.

I also want to show that these matters are common to all the
RSC/TLD and that everyone should be interested in understanding
their business area and model. The question of knowing how
they relate together will come afterward and should be IMHO easy
to address after having studied the basis in common.

IMHO all the current discussions are quite of no use and only
show that on a religious basis people are afraid of what can be
the final consensus once everyone has been mutually educated
and has learned from a common analysis of the real nature of
the debated issues. This is unprofessionnal. When you think
that this Name Space is not structural and is probably simple
when compared with the IP adressing scheme ....

Jefsey








On 03:03 16/04/01, Milton Mueller said:
>Some more items of guidance: we could also specify things the WG should 
>NOT do.
>
>Such as:
>The WG is NOT intended to rule on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of any 
>particular claim to TLD strings.
>(That's a rathole we don't need to go down.)
>
> >>> "Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com> 04/13/01 20:46 PM >>>
>Hi Milton,
>Following th election of Patrick Corliss to the GA Alt Chair, the relevance
>of this topic is clear.  However, while I tend to agree with your comment
>that:
>,given enough time and some clear guidance, such a group might achieve some
>consensus points that could bring about a temporary ceasefire .....
>the key issue is the guidance that should be provided to such a TF.
>Do you have any thoughts on this?
>
>
>--
>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@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