From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #33 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Monday, March 13 2000 Volume 01 : Number 033 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 19:05:15 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 11-Mar-2000 Milton Mueller wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kent Crispin" > >> It would be perfectly >> reasonable for some group headed by, for example, Jamie Love, to propose >> a TLD, and contract with an already established registry (say Nominet, >> or maybe even NSI) to operate the registry for them. This proposal >> precludes such a possibility. > > No, it doesn't. If Jamie Love contracted with Nominet, e.g., then that would > be part of a registry proposal. The fact that Love might be using an > existing registry is certainly something that should be taken into account > in making decisions. Therefore, the proposal MUST come from a registry > capable of operating, and not simply be a floating idea for a TLD string. > >> Of course, one could get out of this difficulty by simply saying that >> anyone who proposes a TLD is a registry, by definition -- that would be >> easy to live with. > > One must do more than "propose" a TLD string. One must be willing to operate > the registry or take responsibility for contracting with an operator, define > registration criteria, etc. But anyone who does that -- as J. Love's CPT is > proposing to do -- is in fact proposing to operate a registry. > > If you think the absence of a definition is a problem, then propose one. Agreed. In this case J. Love's CPT would be the registry, and they would be contracting with a third party to meet the technical specifications and carry out the policies of the registry. This makes the distinction between the actual operator of the technical operations and the administrator. The administrator/registry's proposal should contain the details of how they plan to fulfill the technical operations (i.e. the standards they will require in bids from operators, or the actual party who has already agreed or been contracted to manage the operations). I see nothing in the current consensus to preclude this type of a setup, though I will admit many of us when we talk about a "registry" envision the registry operating the technical end internally as one organization. But nothing in the report mandates that or precludes the situation discussed above. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1c (Mandrake Linux) Comment: Userfriendly Networks http://www.userfriendly.com/ iD8DBQE4ywlr8zLmV94Pz+IRAqJYAKC+3rhkjgB1f52l0BlpnHJ/V0MO4ACeJQl0 eWLfm67uXAWUZJMBiAufCXw= =0CG0 - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 17:55:57 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout On Sat, Mar 11, 2000 at 04:25:55PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Kent Crispin" > > > It would be perfectly > > reasonable for some group headed by, for example, Jamie Love, to propose > > a TLD, and contract with an already established registry (say Nominet, > > or maybe even NSI) to operate the registry for them. This proposal > > precludes such a possibility. > > No, it doesn't. If Jamie Love contracted with Nominet, e.g., then that would > be part of a registry proposal. The fact that Love might be using an > existing registry Note above that you in fact use the word "registry" in two distinct ways. > is certainly something that should be taken into account > in making decisions. Therefore, the proposal MUST come from a registry > capable of operating, and not simply be a floating idea for a TLD string. > > Of course, one could get out of this difficulty by simply saying that > > anyone who proposes a TLD is a registry, by definition -- that would be > > easy to live with. > > One must do more than "propose" a TLD string. Why? It would be perfectly reasonable for ICANN to say "Yes, we think that your idea for the '.foo' TLD is excellent, but we understand quite well why you wouldn't want to run it, and accept your suggestion to put it out for bid. In the extremely unlikely case that there are no acceptable bids, then of course we won't use it." Note that I am not in any way restricting a registry from making a proposal for a TLD -- I am simply saying that there is no good reason to restrict proposers to registries only, and many good reasons not to make such a restriction. And, in any case: > One must be willing to operate > the registry or take responsibility for contracting with an operator, define > registration criteria, etc. "be WILLING to operate or take responsibility for" is, I think, in most people's mind, different than "be a registry". > But anyone who does that -- as J. Love's CPT is > proposing to do -- is in fact proposing to operate a registry. Nope. A perfectly reasonable model is that they are the policy authority for the registry, but don't have anything to do with the day-to-day operation. In fact, I think many groups would *prefer* that model -- the actual nuts and bolts of running a registry is computer operations and help desk stuff, which, I can say from long experience, is not exactly exciting. Which is easier: 1) Given an approved TLD string, find a qualified registry to operate it 2) Given a registry, find an approved TLD string to operate. #1 is trivial -- if there was an approved string, with or without a charter or sponsor, current and prospective registries would be pounding down ICANN's or the sponsor's door to bid on it. #2, on the other hand is completely problematic. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to tie registry approval to TLD approval, and in fact, approval of TLDs should be totally distinct from approval of registries -- approval of a REGISTRY should be based on objective technical and business criteria, regardless of the TLDs being served. The proposal to tie the registry to the TLD is just a nonsensical restriction, and SERVES NO USEFUL PURPOSE. All it does is limit creativity. There is no need to require that the actual registry operator be specified in advance; in the *extremely* unlikely event that a registry can't be found for an approved TLD, then it simply won't go in the root zone -- no big deal. > If you think the absence of a definition is a problem, then propose > one. I did, a long time ago. I would now add "sponsor" to the following list: > Notes on New gTLD Registries > July 7, 1999 > > >Terminology >----------- > >database: (abstract) a formally structured collection of data; >(concrete) a system of computer software/hardware that implements a >database. > >TLD: One of the entries in the IANA-approved root zone. > >gTLD: a TLD that has no enforced criteria for the entities that may >register in it. This departs from the rfc1591 definition. > >Registry: a database associating DNS information with some person, >legal entity, operational entity, or other referrent. Note that we >can speak of a registry in the abstract or in the concrete, as per >the definition of "database" above. To emphasize the abstract >meaning we may use the terms "registry database", or possibly >"registry data". > >gTLD registry: a registry for a particular gTLD ("the .com registry"). > >Registry operator: the organization or business that operates a >registry. This distinction is very important: NSI is the operator >of the .com registry; Emergent was the operator of the prototype >CORE registry. > >Registry administrator: registry operator. > >Registrar: an entity with a direct contractual relationship with, and >special access to, a registry, that inserts records on behalf of >others. > >Registration agent: Registrar > >Shared Registry: a registry that allows access from multiple >distinct registrars. Sponsor: An entity that has policy authority over a TLD registry. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 11 Mar 2000 20:19:29 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: RE: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout Kent, your secret agenda is showing. - -- Christopher Ambler chris@the.web ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 01:05:29 -0800 From: Justin McCarthy Subject: [wg-c] No Specific Recs Jon, In general, I agree with you. I realize that more of the report space should be devoted to arguments in favor, since that's the wg-c recommendation, but I think you've misunderstood me. I was referring to the amount of text space and equity of representation strictly within the section entitled "Arguments Opposing the Consensus Position". In this section I agree that it's important to treat and debunk each of the arguments opposed, as you've done. It's difficult for me to nitpick the text and offer specific suggestions since it's all really a question of degree and tone. I wasn't present during discussions so I assume that this is the extent of the debate that was actually had. Although, in general, I think the first of the three arguments in the "Arguments Opposed..." section is presented more equitably than the other two. (But who are the "Intellectual Property constituency members?" They must be a smaller lobby than the "New Registry constituency members.") As far as your second point goes, you are correct--I should have read closer--there is no contradiction. I guess my confusion on the issue comes from my not being able to find a satisfactory answer to the following question: If the intent of new TLD's is to offer competing business the same SLD string in a different TLD, doesn't this automatically imply trademark issues? There will be a mad dash to trademark all the good SLD strings. Companies like Nameprotect.com and Automark are making it extremely easy and cheap (under $400 total) to trademark a name. On the other hand, I guess even the Patent and Trademark Office's several loose requirements and the $400 will be some sort of a barrier to the majority of cybersquatters. - -Justin ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:04:42 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout On Sun, Mar 05, 2000 at 06:28:52PM -0500, Jonathan Weinberg wrote: > ... suggest the only approach > with a chance of winning rough consensus in the WG for selecting the gTLDs > in the initial rollout is ... Registries would apply describing their proposed TLD, and an ICANN body or process would make selections taking into account the characteristics of both the registry and its proposed TLD. 1. Under the ICANN By-Laws and within the existing Accredited Constituencies of the DNSO, at present, "registries" are the following set of entities: o Network Solutions Inc., Don Telage the contact of record and o some number of ccTLD registries, Dennis Jennings and Patricio Poblete the contacts of record 2. The proposal removes, albeit for the initial cohort of new gTLDs only, the capacity for initiating the procedure for the creation of new gTLD(s) from the ICANN Board or their designates other than "registries". 3. The proposal simply restates without clarification the charter of WG-C when reference is made to a "body or process" and "characteristics" of the registry operator and the registry charter. For these three reasons I oppose the proposal. i. NSI has not indicated an interest in creating a SLD consistent with Position Paper E, nor any SLD organized or conceived as a human or civil right rather than as a right to market. There is little or nothing to suggest that NSI would operate differently if given the delegation(s) to operate new TLDs. ii. The ICANN Board, through the agency of its subordinate body, the DNSO Names Council, may consider directly the specific proposition expressed in Position Paper E, and the general proposition that it may act in opposition to the interests of current holders of ICANN TLD delegations. iii. The difficult issues were identified in 1997, in the IAHC process. A short reminder: access model (shared vs not), cost recovery model (non-profit or for-profit), just to name two. WG-C could be re-chartered excluding the substantive questions of policy, or the chartering authority can conclude that on its own based upon the choice by WG-C to offer no specific recommendations except vague excerpts from the DoC White Paper. I join with Kent Crispin and urge the participants in WG-C to reject this proposition. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:08:02 -0800 From: Dave Crocker Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs At 08:08 AM 3/12/00 -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: >I would say that a proper vetting process is a better answer than simply >adding them slowly. Reduced rate of new TLD additions is no assurance of By itself, reduced rate does not guarantee the outcome. You are quite right. What reduced rate does afford is the time to consider, review and modify structures and processes intended to guarantee the outcome. For example, simply deciding that a proper vetting process is the key is not enough. It must be specified and consensus on the design must be developed. Design of a such a process is far from straightforward and the first version will not be sufficiently correct. Only through incremental review and modification can it be refined. If there is a flood of new TLDs, then there will be no time or basis for changing the process, since too many new TLDs will have been brought in under the early and unrefined version of the process. Hence, staged introduction of new TLDs permits a learning curve on the vetting process. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:10:20 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs - ---- Roeland M.J. Meyer, Sunday, March 12, 2000 0900 hrs. Gawd, I hate to agree with Dave on anything these days, but; - ---- Dave Crocker, Monday, March 06, 2000 8:45 AM The concern for stability has been present from the start of discussions about gTLD expansion, roughly five years ago. It has covered: 1. Technical and operational impact on the root 2. Administrative and operational capabilities of registries 3. Disruption due to legal distraction from the trademark community. A significant problem coming from any one of these 3 different directions will render the DNS unstable. The record of listing and discussing these 3 categories of concern is massive and public. - ---- Roeland M.J. Meyer, Sunday, March 12, 2000 0900 hrs. What Dave fails to mention here is that most of the triggers for those discussions were Dave Crocker and Kent Crispin repeatedly raising the same issues over and over again, just as they have done here, although number three is recent, since ICANN, and a valid concern. The result is as Dave says, items 1 and 2 are massively covered. Item 1, particulary has been pounded to the point that the dead horse is only a memory. Item 2 is an issue with a vetting process, and is not effected by item 1. Item 3 is a policy jurisdictional issue which we have no power to effect (nor do the folks in WG-B). - ---- Dave Crocker, Monday, March 06, 2000 8:45 AM The portion of Paul Vixie's opinion about the first concern, technical issues, attends to an entirely reasonable basis for believing that the purely technical limit to the right is quite high. Other senior technical commentators focus quite heavily on conservative operations practise when scaling a service. They conclude that one, or a few, hundred names is a reasonable near-term limit. - ---- Roeland M.J. Meyer, Sunday, March 12, 2000 0900 hrs. The only point Dave leaves off here, and rightly, from his perspective, is the natural limit of the marketplace. The most optimistic view is that there appears to be a maximum market size of 3000-4000 TLDs, depending on how they are defined. This appears well within the technical limits of the current DNS system, where the technical limits appear to be in the region of "millions". This is indeed conservative. - ---- Dave Crocker, Monday, March 06, 2000 8:45 AM >currently over 240 registries operating, and with various types of management >models and with a lot of variance in their operating structure. There have >been problems that have resulted in entire TLDs not being able to be resolved >for several hours. But the net has not destabilized. Indeed, they were minor Service outages of "several hours" for end-users does not constitute an instability? - ---- Roeland M.J. Meyer, Sunday, March 12, 2000 0900 hrs. Actually, my records show outages of several days duration, going back to 1997. This goes back to when NSI had trouble telling the difference between root servers and gtld root servers . However, arguments of the self-healing nature of the DNS is that the Internet, at large seems to be able to ignore these outages more successfully, since then. - --- R O E L A N D M . J . M E Y E R CEO, Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc. An eCommerce and eBusiness practice providing products and services for the Internet. Tel: (925)373-3954 Fax: (925)373-9781 ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:23:21 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs Actually, there is an extant limit of 64 characters for a FQDN, in Win2K DNS resolvers. I just ran into it. If anything, this makes it more imperative to have TLDs, so that we can have four more variable characters (there are times that I *really* hate Microsoft incompetence). - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach Sent: Monday, March 06, 2000 1:30 PM To: wg-c Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs > >I might note that I've been associated with an actual test in which we > >established a root with several million TLDs. The world did not end, the > >seas did not boil, the sun still rose in the east, and DNS still worked. > > Karl, my recollection of that test was that it was quite limited It was a fully functional server with several million TLDs. You can call it limited, but I call it a very pragmatic test. As for the access paths and query rates, we can derive an existance proof from the access paths and query rates on the .com zone. The .com servers handle a zone that is several million entries wide and, by removing the impact of the ccTLDs and other TLDs, that gives us a direct correlation to root zone behaviour. An easy formulation is to say that if the number of queries that pass through .com represents X% of the entire number of queries passing through all TLDs, then we can use the .com experience as reflective of a root zone with a number of TLDs equivalent to X% of the TLDs in .com. Given that X% is probably 50% or above, we can make an extremely safe extrapolation (using the far more conservative number of 10%) that a root with 10% of .com's 10 million+ SLDs, i.e. a root with 1,000,000 TLDs will behave with the same degree of sucess as todays .com servers. I note that several of the .com servers still are occupying the same computers as the root servers, hence putting those computers under a traffic and query load equivalent to a root size far in excess of 1 million TLDs. I note further that 1,000,000 TLDs is a number vastly larger than 6 or 10. So to build in a multi-thousand-fold safety margin, we can readily accomodate 1000 new TLDs, not the mere 6 to 10. I also point you to the research on DNS network loading being done by CAIDA. And one more thing - if the 512 byte limit on DNS UDP packets were modernized we could significantly increase the span of DNS servers per zone from the current bottleneck of 13. > > 2) If crashes can be casued by erros at the TLD level then it can > > just as well happen from the same cause at deeper levels. > > Deeper levels affect fewer nodes. That's why United Airlines works so hard > to make sure that each first flight of the day gets out on-time. But as we see, with millions of badly run deeper zones, we do not have failures occuring. You are just imagining a problem that, simply stated, does not exist in real life. I challange you to find me a DNS name that will cause my Windows, Macintosh, Unix, or Linux machines to crash when I resolve it. And I note, you were the one who said that the machines would "crash". --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 09:29:57 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs In case that you may have missed it, I have already agreed to the consensus for adding a limited number of initial TLDs, for exactly this reason. In fact my WG-C submission of last October was exactly a start on such a vetting requirements process. IMHO, if we'd have spent time on that, rather than argueing whether or not to do it, we'd be much firther along. Since then, the Sheppard document has also been presented. It is also a good effort. we need to spend more time on it, rather than this argument. - -----Original Message----- From: Dave Crocker [mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com] Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 9:08 AM To: rmeyer@mhsc.com Cc: 'Karl Auerbach'; 'wg-c' Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs At 08:08 AM 3/12/00 -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: >I would say that a proper vetting process is a better answer than simply >adding them slowly. Reduced rate of new TLD additions is no assurance of By itself, reduced rate does not guarantee the outcome. You are quite right. What reduced rate does afford is the time to consider, review and modify structures and processes intended to guarantee the outcome. For example, simply deciding that a proper vetting process is the key is not enough. It must be specified and consensus on the design must be developed. Design of a such a process is far from straightforward and the first version will not be sufficiently correct. Only through incremental review and modification can it be refined. If there is a flood of new TLDs, then there will be no time or basis for changing the process, since too many new TLDs will have been brought in under the early and unrefined version of the process. Hence, staged introduction of new TLDs permits a learning curve on the vetting process. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:08:18 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs I would say that a proper vetting process is a better answer than simply adding them slowly. Reduced rate of new TLD additions is no assurance of quality, only a proper vetting process can give you that. For that to happen, one must have requirements and standards. IMHO, that is where we should be spending most of our thoughts. Not absurdities ... like voting on TLD labels ! Sheppard's nine points brief is interesting and I an analysing it now (detailed commentary to follow, shortly after 15Mar, it's corporate tax season in the "States" and MHSC is not that big ). - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave Crocker Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 4:15 PM To: Karl Auerbach Cc: wg-c Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs At 03:27 PM 3/5/2000 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >I have yet to see any technical or policy basis to have any belief >whatsoever that additional TLDs, even thousands of them, will have any >impact on the "stability of the Internet". Karl, You might not like the analyses or concerns that have been raised, but they have been raised repeatedly. You have seen them and you have responded to them. Administrative instability is just as bad -- actually much worse -- as crashing machines. We have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced registry administrators will provide stable service. Quite the opposite. That does not mean refraining from adding TLD (registries). It means adding them judiciously. d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker Brandenburg Consulting Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 14:04:41 -0500 From: "Milton Mueller" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kent Crispin" > Why? It would be perfectly reasonable for ICANN to say "Yes, we think > that your idea for the '.foo' TLD is excellent, but we understand quite > well why you wouldn't want to run it, and accept your suggestion to put > it out for bid. In the extremely unlikely case that there are no > acceptable bids, then of course we won't use it." Kent is saying that groups could propose, and ICANN accept, TLDs WITHOUT the proposer having arranged for specific contracts or operational arrangements to actually register names. That position seems unworkable, and antithetical to the emerging consensus. Under Kent's alternative, some group could be designated "policy authority" over a TLD without having any demonstrated ability to actually provide a service on the Internet. The relationship between its policy authority and the implementation of the policy via the registry operation would not be specified. On what basis, then would the delegation of a TLD be made? On the grounds that ICANN "liked the idea"? Not good enough. On what basis would ICANN give a "good idea" to one proposer rather than another proposer with a similar idea wanting the same TLD string? All business firms involved in complex operations "put things out to bid" as part of the process of assembling their service. If I win a contract to run a restaurant concession on the NY Thruway, I may contract with another firm to supply the food, the labor, etc. But I am still the concessionaire and I take responsibility for assembling the package. > Note that I am not in any way restricting a registry from making a > proposal for a TLD -- I am simply saying that there is no good reason to > restrict proposers to registries only, and many good reasons not to make > such a restriction. Both you and Brunner seemed to be equating "registry" with "existing registries." This is a logically unnecessary equation. Anyone who proposes to run a tld is a registry. Thus, any group that wants "policy authority" has to team up with a viable operations entity when making its proposal, or do the job itself. Whether the actual "nuts and bolts" are outsourced or not, is not relevant to our task. What is relevant is that the proposal be complete. ICANN is delegating the right to run a registry, to maintain a zone file under a TLD. If a group hasn't figured out how to do that yet, it shouldn't get a delegation. > "be WILLING to operate or take responsibility for" [a registry] is, I think, in most > people's mind, different than "be a registry". This is where we part ways. There is no difference. For ICANN's purposes, an organization that gets a TLD delegation is a registry. This is true regardless of whether they outsource the computer operations part of it or not. Really, your point seems to be purely semantic at this point. You are choosing to call a company a "registry" only if they do the computer operations and help desk stuff. I find this distinction to be idiosyncratic to Kent Crispin -- all extant models of things that we call "registries" involve "policy authority," whether it is NSI or your typical ccTLD. > Nope. A perfectly reasonable model is that they are the policy > authority for the registry, but don't have anything to do with the > day-to-day operation. "Don't have anything to do with" are strong words. Do you mean that ICANN would select an operational partner for them? They could not change the operational contract when they wanted? Give me one real-world, actually existing example of such a thing. Certainly Jamie Love's CPT would manage and select the operational partner, and impose conditions and procedures regulating who could or could not register in .union or .sucks. The nuts and bolts operations are simply managerial responsibilities of the delegatee. Love's organization is the "registry." > Which is easier: > 1) Given an approved TLD string, find a qualified registry to operate it > 2) Given a registry, find an approved TLD string to operate. You don't seem to have thought this through carefully. If registries are willing to "pound down the door" to operate a TLD string AFTER it has been approved, they would also be willing to make arrangements with proposers BEFOREHAND, in the hope that it will be approved. The only difference is that in the second case, the policy authority and the operator have to work together BEFORE they get a delegation. Which is, I think, better. What you don't explain is on what basis ICANN would make a delegation (approve a TLD string) in the absence of any specifics about operational details. Also, Your thinking about this is limited by the fact that you think of a "registry" as a generic function with no differentiation. But in fact many of the most interesting new TLD proposals are precisely those which use DNS to create some new functionality, such as a privacy-enhanced name space, or a voice over IP number mapping space, etc. In these cases the operator and the service/policy authority must be tightly integrated. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 17:41:28 -0500 From: Jonathan Weinberg Subject: [wg-c] forwarded for Mark Measday >From: "Mark Measday" >To: wg-c@dnso.org >Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs >Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 18:29:16 GMT > >Did anyone ever write a marketing plan for other planned increases in TLDs? >There would appear to be some interestingly differential outcomes at the >commercial level from the different approaches, advantaging one view over >the other. I know there was a draft one for the IAHC proposal, but not if >there were others. > >>From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" >>Reply-To: >>To: "'Dave Crocker'" , "'Karl Auerbach'" >> >>CC: "'wg-c'" >>Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs >>Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 08:08:18 -0800 >> >>I would say that a proper vetting process is a better answer than simply >>adding them slowly. Reduced rate of new TLD additions is no assurance of >>quality, only a proper vetting process can give you that. For that to >>happen, one must have requirements and standards. IMHO, that is where we >>should be spending most of our thoughts. Not absurdities ... like voting on >>TLD labels ! Sheppard's nine points brief is interesting and I an >>analysing it now (detailed commentary to follow, shortly after 15Mar, it's >>corporate tax season in the "States" and MHSC is not that big ). >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Dave >>Crocker >>Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 4:15 PM >>To: Karl Auerbach >>Cc: wg-c >>Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs >> >> >>At 03:27 PM 3/5/2000 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote: >> >> >I have yet to see any technical or policy basis to have any belief >> >whatsoever that additional TLDs, even thousands of them, will have any >> >impact on the "stability of the Internet". >> >>Karl, >> >>You might not like the analyses or concerns that have been raised, but they >>have been raised repeatedly. You have seen them and you have responded to >>them. >> >>Administrative instability is just as bad -- actually much worse -- as >>crashing machines. We have no evidence that a flood of new, inexperienced >>registry administrators will provide stable service. Quite the opposite. >> >>That does not mean refraining from adding TLD (registries). It means >>adding them judiciously. >> >>d/ >> >>=-=-=-=-= >>Dave Crocker >>Brandenburg Consulting >>Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 >>675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA >> > >______________________________________________________ >Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com > > > ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2000 07:59:14 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] CONSENSUS CALL -- selecting the gTLDs in the initial rollout At 14:04 12-03-2000 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >All business firms involved in complex operations "put things out to bid" as >part of the process of assembling their service. If I win a contract to run >a restaurant concession on the NY Thruway, I may contract with another firm >to supply the food, the labor, etc. But I am still the concessionaire and I >take responsibility for assembling the package. Dear Milt: There you go with those unrelated analogies again;-{ BobC ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Advice to Chairpersons: If a consensus nibbles... *Set the hook!!!* You may be consigned to telling your grandchildren about the big one that got away:-( ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 17:48:38 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 09:10:20AM -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > The only point Dave leaves off here, and rightly, from his perspective, is > the natural limit of the marketplace. The most optimistic view is that there > appears to be a maximum market size of 3000-4000 TLDs, depending on how they > are defined. I don't know where you got your "most optimistic view", but it is clearly bogus -- from several perspectives. Most important, it makes the fatal assumption that the only reason to run a TLD registry is to *sell* registrations. In fact, of course, there are a great many different possible reasons to run a TLD registry, both commercial and non commercial, that do not involve directly selling registrations. Moreover, this projection suffers from the common flaw of assuming that each TLD has its own technical/business infrastructure. This is a huge error, and vastly distorts the economics. In fact, of course, the incremental cost for adding a new gTLD is close to zero. Any technical/business infrastructure that can provide a registry service for a single gTLD can provide registry service for a hundred gTLDs. The only issue is *total* registrations across all the gTLDs, not registrations in a single TLD. A registry that is profitably run with 1 TLD with "n" registrations per day will be, for all practical purposes, just as profitable with 100 TLDs, with "n" total registrations per day. Moreover, the scaling problem caused by adding a new gTLD is indistinguishable from the scaling problem of the growth of registrations in an already existing gTLD. (*) Example: .ibm IBM corp of course has the technical and financial capability to run a TLD registry for it's own purposes. What policy does ICANN adopt that prevents this from happening? If, on the other hand, ICANN allows this, what is to prevent the hundreds of thousands of other companies that already have sufficient resources to run a TLD registry from getting their own? In fact, given the existence of production-grade approved registries, even small companies could afford their own TLDs. If one claims that this can't be allowed, then one *agrees* that ICANN must be using some evaluation process on TLDs, allowing some, and not allowing others... Example: .museum The .museum TLD was proposed as a sponsored TLD, run by the non-profit NGO "The International Council Of Museums". There is no intent at all that the registrations in that TLD be for the purpose of making money. Example: TLD to support IP telephony Here we have a proposed TLD that would be run by a non-profit member organization of telephony providers that would support the telephone number - IP address mapping. In a sense it is a commercial TLD, but it really only provides a fundamental technical purpose. (*) In the case of chartered TLDS *where the charter is enforced by the registry*, this would not necessarily be the case, of course. However, in a shared registry context the enforcement cost would be born by the registrants and registrars; and in a "sponsored" TLD the cost would be born by the sponsor. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000 18:26:02 -0800 From: "Roeland M. J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] voting on TLDs Whoa Son! You got an awful lot of speculation out of a single statement, whose scope was strictly market demand estimates. There were also a LOT of conditionals, like "appears" and "depending". Get the bit out of your teeth and get back to reality. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kent Crispin Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2000 5:49 PM To: 'wg-c' Subject: Re: [wg-c] voting on TLDs On Sun, Mar 12, 2000 at 09:10:20AM -0800, Roeland M. J. Meyer wrote: > The only point Dave leaves off here, and rightly, from his perspective, is > the natural limit of the marketplace. The most optimistic view is that there > appears to be a maximum market size of 3000-4000 TLDs, depending on how they > are defined. I don't know where you got your "most optimistic view", but it is clearly bogus -- from several perspectives. Most important, it makes the fatal assumption that the only reason to run a TLD registry is to *sell* registrations. In fact, of course, there are a great many different possible reasons to run a TLD registry, both commercial and non commercial, that do not involve directly selling registrations. Moreover, this projection suffers from the common flaw of assuming that each TLD has its own technical/business infrastructure. This is a huge error, and vastly distorts the economics. In fact, of course, the incremental cost for adding a new gTLD is close to zero. Any technical/business infrastructure that can provide a registry service for a single gTLD can provide registry service for a hundred gTLDs. The only issue is *total* registrations across all the gTLDs, not registrations in a single TLD. A registry that is profitably run with 1 TLD with "n" registrations per day will be, for all practical purposes, just as profitable with 100 TLDs, with "n" total registrations per day. Moreover, the scaling problem caused by adding a new gTLD is indistinguishable from the scaling problem of the growth of registrations in an already existing gTLD. (*) Example: .ibm IBM corp of course has the technical and financial capability to run a TLD registry for it's own purposes. What policy does ICANN adopt that prevents this from happening? If, on the other hand, ICANN allows this, what is to prevent the hundreds of thousands of other companies that already have sufficient resources to run a TLD registry from getting their own? In fact, given the existence of production-grade approved registries, even small companies could afford their own TLDs. If one claims that this can't be allowed, then one *agrees* that ICANN must be using some evaluation process on TLDs, allowing some, and not allowing others... Example: .museum The .museum TLD was proposed as a sponsored TLD, run by the non-profit NGO "The International Council Of Museums". There is no intent at all that the registrations in that TLD be for the purpose of making money. Example: TLD to support IP telephony Here we have a proposed TLD that would be run by a non-profit member organization of telephony providers that would support the telephone number - IP address mapping. In a sense it is a commercial TLD, but it really only provides a fundamental technical purpose. (*) In the case of chartered TLDS *where the charter is enforced by the registry*, this would not necessarily be the case, of course. However, in a shared registry context the enforcement cost would be born by the registrants and registrars; and in a "sponsored" TLD the cost would be born by the sponsor. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #33 *************************