____________________________________________________
TLD-WG Proposal
for RIPE area n-TLD
interaction with IANA
Jim Dixon
Lars-Johan Liman
Niall O'Reilly
Paul Ridley
Marcel Schneider
Bernhard Stockman
Document: ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1
____________________________________________________
ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1.txt Page 1
RIPE area nTLD/IANA interaction
Dixon, Liman, O'Reilly, Ridley, Schneider, Stockman
____________________________________________________
Version
This document is version 1.1 of the task force pro-
posal, dated 14 January 1998.
Status
This document is still in draft form and is open to
discussion from all parties
Scope
The intended audience for this document is the TLD-
WG. Once consensus has been reached then the
intended audience should be expanded to IANA, and
any other interested parties. Comments to the
authors are encouraged.
1. Introduction
At the RIPE 27 meeting (Dublin, May 1997), a TLD
working group was set up within RIPE. An outcome of
this meeting was that the working group agree to
define "Terms of Reference"(ToR) and a "Working
Plan"(WP). At the RIPE 28 meeting (Amsterdam,
September 1997) the working group agreed upon the
ToR and WP proposed. These can be found at
http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/index.html. Simultane-
ously the WP was also prioritised, with the vast
majority of people agreeing to the single most
important issue. That issue was the stability of
IANA with regard to the "dot" root zone and the
interaction that the RIPE area national TLD reg-
istries should have with IANA. Since events sur-
rounding IANA and in particular the DNS side of its
activities are moving very quickly it was felt that
the tld-wg should make it's viewpoint known in the
very near future. It was decided to set up a task
force to look into the issue and take account of the
views expressed.
This document is the preliminary outcome of that
task force and outlines a proposal for a future
structure and relationship between IANA and European
(RIPE area) national TLD registries. Initially the
present hierarchical relationship with IANA will be
described. Following this the RIPE area national TLD
requirements from IANA are discussed and finally a
model is detailed by which the RIPE area national
TLD can support IANA.
For information eight RIPE area n-TLD registries
were represented at RIPE 28 and close contacts of
____________________________________________________
ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1.txt Page 2
RIPE area nTLD/IANA interaction
Dixon, Liman, O'Reilly, Ridley, Schneider, Stockman
____________________________________________________
four others were present. This proposal represents
the perceived view of those present at the tld-wg
and, as yet does not speak for the RIPE area
national TLD registries as a whole. It is hoped that
the discussion prompted by this proposal will alter
this position and far more support will be made pub-
lic. The task-force writing this proposal comprises
of a cross-section of interested parties:
Jim Dixon: VBCnet GB Ltd and EuroISPA
Lars-Johan Liman: .SE Swedish Top Level
Domain Registry
Niall O'Reilly: .IE Irish Top Level
Domain Registry
Paul Ridley: RIPE NCC
Marcel Schneider: .CH and .LI(Switzerland and
Principality of Liechtenstein) Top Level Domain
Registries
Bernhard Stockman: TELIA
2. Present hierarchical structure of IANA
IANA performs a central role in the Internet gover-
nance. The two main governance activities that it
undertakes are:
* -the allocation of IP addresses to the Regional
Internet Registries (presently RIPE NCC, AP-
NIC, and ARIN), for further allocation
* -maintenance of the "dot" root zone
In addition IANA also performs such activities as
editing RFCs and assigning protocol parameters (see
RFC 1602 for more details). IANA has publically
stated on numerous occasions that it sees its func-
tion as that of establishing and interpreting commu-
nity consensus as opposed to actively defining gov-
ernance policy. The discussion of how IANA derives
its authority has been the subject of many interest-
ing discussions but it is not pertinent to this pro-
posal; IANA has the authority and we are looking to
the future and not the past.
At present IANA is not a separate legal entity but
is an activity of the Information Sciences Institute
(ISI) at the University of Southern California
____________________________________________________
ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1.txt Page 3
RIPE area nTLD/IANA interaction
Dixon, Liman, O'Reilly, Ridley, Schneider, Stockman
____________________________________________________
(USC). Since IANA has no legal framework it is
unable to make contracts in a legal sense, and there
is no formal mechanism in place whereby stake-hold-
ers of IANA activities can share the financial
responsibility for the work undertaken or partici-
pate in the direction of IANA. This informal struc-
ture of IANA has in the past served the Internet
community exceptionally well, mainly due to the
exemplary commitment and professionalism of IANA to
date. Due to the IANA staff and in particularly Jon
Postel IANA has been able to maintain the essential
position of recognised neutrality.
The present key stake-holders in the activities of
IANA are split into three categories; the Regional
Internet Registries; generic top level domain reg-
istries; and national top level domain registries.
This proposal is concerned with the last group of
stake-holders and in particular the European (RIPE
area) national TLD registries. However in order the
be able to put the relationship of this stake-holder
group with IANA in perspective an overview of the
relationship between IANA and the other stake-hold-
ers in necessary.
2.1. Regional Internet Registries (RIR)
At present there are three RIRs in the world, RIPE
NCC which covers Europe and surrounding areas, AP-
NIC which covers the Asian-pacific, and ARIN which
covers the Americas. All three RIRs are neutral
organisations that have their own legal structures.
They are all run in a bottom-up fashion by which the
Local Internet Registries (LIR), which are mainly
ISPs, below them directly fund, influence and
approve all activities of the RIR. Since IANA has no
legal structure there is no formal service contract
between IANA and the RIRs. Services are given by
IANA to the RIRs by consensus agreement of the com-
munity as a whole, and by the regional LIRs in par-
ticular.
The RIRs have frequent contact with IANA and each
other and de-facto have a great influence on IP
address related policy through this contact. Until
April 1997 the RIRs have given no funding to IANA
since it was fully funded by the US government. At
the end of March 1997 it appeared that US government
funding of IANA had stopped and thus the RIRs imme-
diately gave funds to IANA for the continuation of
their services. At present IANA is still holding the
funds given by the RIRs. The RIRs plan to continue
this funding and see it as a first step towards a
____________________________________________________
ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1.txt Page 4
RIPE area nTLD/IANA interaction
Dixon, Liman, O'Reilly, Ridley, Schneider, Stockman
____________________________________________________
broader bottom-up structure between IANA and its
stake-holders. discussions are presently under way
between IANA and the RIRs as to how and what form
the best bottom-up structure could take. A position
paper by Rob Blokzijl, Daniel Karrenberg, and Paul
Ridley, describes in more detail the present and
future relationship between IANA and the RIRs, and
proposes a future structure for IANA.
2.2. Generic Top Level Domain Registries
At present it is unclear exactly what the roles of
the future g-tld registries and g-tld bodies will be
in the future. No matter what the final outcome of
those on-going discussions are the g-tlds will be
important stakeholders in IANA, and should be
included in the discussions. Besides recognising
the g-tlds as stakeholders these document will not
discuss the g-tld situation.
2.3. Individual national TLD Registries
This group of stake-holders consists exclusively of
ISO 3166 two letter country code n-tld registries.
Unlike g-tlds and ISPs there is no coordinating
organisation for these top level domain registries
be that on a global or regional level. IANA dele-
gates authority of administering an ISO 3166 n-tld
to an individual organisation based upon IANAs judg-
ment as to their ability and the consensus within
that local community as the the suitability of that
individual organisation being delegated this admin-
istration authority. No official contracts are drawn
up to declare this agreement. IANA is the deciding
authority if any n-TLD domain name issues arise (see
RFC-1591). The n-tlds do not fund IANA in any man-
ner, and presently have no mechanism whereby they
can let their collective opinion be formed or heard.
3. European (RIPE area) national TLD registry requirements from
IANA
In any future relationship that European national
TLDs registries have with IANA it is desirable that
the following requirements are met by IANA:
* -that IANA becomes a separate legal entity that
has the ability to make contracts and who can
be referred to by third parties.
* -that IANA be legally set up and make contracts
in such a manner as to minimise the financial
risk of possible legal disputes.
____________________________________________________
ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1.txt Page 5
RIPE area nTLD/IANA interaction
Dixon, Liman, O'Reilly, Ridley, Schneider, Stockman
____________________________________________________
* -that the neutral and high quality of service
now given by IANA in the management of the
"dot" root zone be continued.
* -that the stability of the "dot" root zone be
ensured.
* -that all stake-holders of the IANA activities
and in particular the European national TLD
registries have a mechanism whereby they can
give collective input to IANA.
* -that IANA manages the needs of all of its
stake-holders for the common good of the world-
wide Internet community.
The requirements stated in this proposal mirror the
requirements of one of the major stake-holders, the
RIRs. It is felt that the common requirements needed
simplify the matter slightly since IANA could create
one structure, whereby these two stake-holders (at
present these are the only stake-holder opinions
known) and possibly more could be simultaneously
served. A possible solution would be the creation of
a new legal entity for IANA whereby the various
stake-holders were represented on either a board of
directors or a similar body. In creating such a
structure not only would the needed requirements of
the stake-holders be met, but it would give a true
bottom-up hierarchical governance system for both
DNS and IP numbers. This bottom-up system works well
in the IP numbers area and is seen by the RIPE com-
munity in general as being the 'right thing' to form
for IANA as a whole.
4. European national TLD registry support of IANA
The creation of a new structure for IANA so that the
requirements detailed in section 3 can be met is
only half of the bottom-up structure. The European
national TLD registries will, in this new IANA
structure, get more chance to have input and influ-
ence decisions but correspondingly the European
national TLD registries should help fund IANA and
organise themselves in such a way so as to be able
to do so. The funding by this group of stake-holders
would be complementary to that of the other stake-
holders and at the appropriate time details of how
much that funding should be can be worked out.
This proposal suggests that the most efficient way
for the European national TLD registries to organise
themselves is to copy a working bottom-up model. The
____________________________________________________
ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1.txt Page 6
RIPE area nTLD/IANA interaction
Dixon, Liman, O'Reilly, Ridley, Schneider, Stockman
____________________________________________________
model that could be followed is that of the RIRs,
who although having slight differences all employ
the same principles. It is proposed that an associa-
tion be formed analogous to the RIPE NCC. So as to
aid clarity let us give this association the working
name of the RIPE Council of European National Tld
Registries (RIPE CENTR). All national domains within
the RIPE geographic area would be members of RIPE
CENTR, just as all RIPE area LIRs are members of
RIPE NCC. As with the RIPE NCC the members of RIPE
CENTR would have the power within the organisation
and would elect an executive board for day-to-day
governance. In true bottom-up fashion representation
to and funding of IANA by the RIPE CENTR members
would be focussed through RIPE CENTR itself. A more
definite proposal for the structure of RIPE CENTR
and the possible activities and liaison roles that
it could undertake as well as the phases the setting
up will undergo is outside the scope of this pro-
posal. Such a proposal will be shortly forthcoming
from the TLD-WG.
5. Summary
The European national TLDs appreciate the fine work
that has been and is being done by IANA, and of spe-
cial concern to them management of the "dot" zone.
This proposal suggests two structural changes that
would benefit the future relationship between IANA
and the RIPE area national top level domains and
increase the stability of both. The changes would
also be in line with those wishes of other IANA
activity stakeholders
Firstly it is proposed that IANA becomes a separate
legal entity. this is in line with the discussions
already happening between IANA and the RIRs. The
structure of this legal entity should ensure the
stability of IANA in legal and financial terms. This
legal entity should also provide a mechanism e.g. a
board of directors or a policy oversight committee
whereby all stakeholders of IANA activities can be
represented. The aim of IANA would be to best com-
bine the needs of all the various stakeholders for
the common good of the Internet community.
Secondly it is proposed that an association be set
up to represent the European national TLDs. The
working title for this association is the RIPE Coun-
cil of European National Tld Registries (RIPE
CENTR). RIPE CENTR analogous in structure to the
RIPE NCC would be funded and governed by the Euro-
pean national tlds, all of which should be members.
____________________________________________________
ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1.txt Page 7
RIPE area nTLD/IANA interaction
Dixon, Liman, O'Reilly, Ridley, Schneider, Stockman
____________________________________________________
The exact role of RIPE CENTR is still very open but
definite tasks would be funding of IANA and repre-
sentation to IANA and other bodies. A more detailed
proposal for the set up of RIPE CENTR will be
shortly forthcoming from the TLD-WG.
____________________________________________________
ripe-ntld/IANA-ver1.1.txt Page 8