RIPE 28 TLD-WG: Suggestions for Agenda

  > Marcel Schneider <schneider at switch.ch> writes:
  > 
  > Hope we will be able to have a first review of Daniel
  > Karrenberg's proposal in this context. Ahem :).


Marcel and other colleagues,

I was waiting for new developments from Jon's side before proposing a
formal document.  But you are right, time is pressing now with the RIPE
eeting coming up.  So here is a draft paper summarising our position.  
I realise that it lacks an introductory part describing the environment. 
I have simply no time to write another tutorial, sorry.  Thanks to
Mike Norris for some feedback received earlier which I hope he'll see
properly reflected in this version.  Comments welcome and not only from
Marcel!  Question for the meeting: Should we publish such a document in
the RIPE series after discussion at the meeting?

Daniel


Scope

This memorandum serves to summarise the RIPE community's position on the
development of IANA.  This position has been formed during numerous
discussions over the course of the past few months.  The summary is
intended to act as an aide memoire to those involved in the discussions
and to prevent misunderstandings. 


Principles

As an Regional Internet Registry the RIPE NCC has the following goals
regarding the development of IANA. 


	Continuity and Stability of the registry system.

	Bottom up representation from the regions in all aspects.

	Bottom up funding of the global activities from the regions.
	
	Recognition of the registry system.


In pursuit of these goals we are prepared to make reasonable compromises
wherever necessary. 


Activities

IANA should be the body defining and executing the procedures for the
development of global number registration policies in a bottom up
fashion.  We would like to see IANA take a pro-active role in global
policy forming, soliciting input from the regional communities. 

IANA should also define and execute a global appeals/mediation
procedure.  The scope of this procedure needs to be developed.  We can
envision this to be of widely varying scope.  Most broadly it could deal
with all conflicts arising from number registration which cannot be
resolved on the regional level.  Most narrowly it could be be restricted
to appeals about the procedure used to arrive at global policies.  We
are open to discussion. 

IANA should actively pursue recognition of the registry system as a
whole, especially by the Internet community, governments and as far as
possible judiciary bodies worldwide.  It is the task of the regional
registries to pursue recognition by their communities. 


IANA should manage the "IN-ADDR.ARPA." domain. 

We think it is necessary that IANA plays a significant role 
in maintaining the DNS "." zone and its name servers. 

Given the distributed nature of the DNS and the manner in which
TLDs administer and regulate themselves, we see no need for IANA
to become involved in the management of DNS TLDs.


Structure

In the interest of continuity we invite those more directly involved in
IANA to make concrete proposals for the future structure of IANA.  We
are prepared to work with them to refine these proposals but we will not
take the initiative at this point. 

We would like to see implementation of a new structure quickly and with
a maximum of continuity from the present structure.  We therefore favour
pragmatic souloutions and refrain from taking positions of principle
which, while possibly desirable, are likely to cause too much delay. 
If proposed structures do not show the desired continuity and expediency
we will reconsider our position and may propose structurally different
options which may take longer to implement. 

As we feel that continuity is important we will acommodate any
reasonable legal body for the next few years.  We have no objection to
proposed solutions to be called "interim" or similar if this helps in
any way.  We are interested to see concrete proposals concerning such
legal foundations. 

We have no preference as to whether the global number registration
entity should have a new name different from IANA. 

We have no objection to the legal entity being located outside Europe. 

We require authoritative representation (not just advisory) of the
regions in the new legal structure. 

Equal representation on a regional basis is acceptable.  We feel that
nitially two representatives from each region plus Jon Postel would form
a workable group.  Selection of the regional representatives must be a
regional matter. 

If IANA does also play a role in maintaining ".", representation of its
stake holders is currently difficult to design.  We agree that there
should be representation and would like to define this at a later stage
rather than having this issue cause delay. 




-------- Logged at  Mon Sep 15 15:27:01 MET DST 1997  ---------