DNS Policy Revision Queries

PETER MOTT - 16

Can you explain why .govt and .mil are the only likely contenders? Surely there are other 2nd level domains which could be delegated.

What policy and process will be used to decide who these 2nd level managers will be? What criteria will they need to meet? Who decides?

Will these managers be paid by ISOCNZ to manage the 2nd level concerned?
Do 3rd level domain holders in .mil and .govt pay the same fees as .co and others, or are the subsidised by private enterprise?

I think ISOCNZ needs to have a policy in place for how the domain space will be managed before attempting to delegate 2nd level domains. "Managers representing a well defined set of organisations" sounds a little loose to me.

As always, we welcome debate on this and related topics ----------------------------------

At a stretch I could imagine the NZ govt and its agencies as being

* static * homogenous * non-competitive

But I would need quite a few drinks...

I would be interested to know if ISOCNZ has been approached by domain holders in .mil and .govt requesting delegation or whether a manager (not being an existing domain holders in .mil and .govt) is being considered. ------------------------

From: Martin D Kealey martin@kcbbs.gen.nz

As a holder

Does this mean if a "manager" representing a reasonable majority of .gen.nz holders asked ISOCNZ to delegate the 2nd level domain they could get it for $50 per year (plus $16 admin fee), and then allocate 3rd level domains free of charge to the group they represent?

ISOCNZ revenues would fall in a hurry if they start delegating 2nd level domains under the same fee structure for 3rd level domains.

Maybe .gen.nz will be ok, as not a great loss of dollars. I suspect .co.nz may be a different picture though! ------------------------

17

Does other *good reasons* include an approach from managers who could demonstrate they represented a majority view held by 3rd level holders in .gen.nz?

Obviously, it would need to be clearly stated that existing domains would have to be preserved, and some level of service "grandfathered", and of course the domain name policy would stull be under ISOCNZ's control.

This raises an interesting point. It makes sense (on the face of it) that subdomains should be managed consistant with parent domain holders policy. Perhaps a 2nd level manager could make additional policy, providing they were not in conflict with those of the top level holder (ISOCNZ in this case)

On the other hand, another view is that 2nd level managers should be free to create their own policy (provided it was not inconsistant with Internet RFC's) This view may be supported by those who feel the .nz domain policies dont meet their needs at this time.

Either way, the top level domain policy needs to be one which everybody supports for things to work well for the future.

Peter *********************************************************

HAMISH MCEWAN - 16

Once, Peter Mott wrote:

Can you explain why .govt and .mil are the only likely contenders? Surely there are other 2nd level domains which could be delegated.

For example?

What policy and process will be used to decide who these 2nd level managers will be? What criteria will they need to meet? Who decides?

From RFC1591, which I thought I'd look at since it was mentioned:

"The major concern in selecting a designated manager for a domain is that it be able to carry out the necessary responsibilities, and have the ability to do a equitable, just, honest, and competent job."

Will these managers be paid by ISOCNZ to manage the 2nd level concerned?

If they did, why bother, why not leave the domain where it is? It would appear to me, the motive for delegation is that some groups with existing SLDs devoted to them, want to manage them.

Do 3rd level domain holders in .mil and .govt pay the same fees as .co and others, or are the subsidised by private enterprise?

How so subsidised? Are you presuming that the "manager" would be paid?

It's just possible within a a co-operative of peers, particularly in a relatively static names environment like govt.nz that someone would do it without wasting resources charging. And before anyone suggests this is a tax-payer subsidy, consider what government departments are already paying to ISOCNZ for name services.

No, I see no reason, cost or ethically based why different SLD's shouldn't have different cost structures.

I think ISOCNZ needs to have a policy in place for how the domain space will be managed before attempting to delegate 2nd level domains.

Delegating is part of the policy for managing the DNS isn't it?

"Managers representing a well defined set of organisations" sounds a little loose to me.

With the reference to "existing" and "RFC1591" it's not quite as vague as your concern suggests, and the pragmatic explanation that govt.nz and mil.nz were the actual domains under consideration, it seems merely sensible. Why shouldn't government manage govt.nz? Why shouldn't DoD manage mil.nz?

As always, we welcome debate on this and related topics

Welcome, or generate?

Perhaps some other comments from RFC1591 are germane, particularly with the larger issues surrounding the DNS at present:

Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community.

Hamish.

For the record, this is not for the record. --------------------

ac, iwi, co, gen....

My apologies, my question was based on the unwritten guess that the reason for .govt and .mil being isolated as contenders was that they are generally static, homogenous, non-competitive (duck), and have a single agency which rule them, thus I was seeking other "like" 2nd level domains...

I can't see any reason why these shouldn't be delegated to a suitable manager who meets the requirements of RFC 1591.

Well, yes, that's what RFC1591 says... ---------------------------

How quickly it turns from ISOCNZ paying a "manager," to a "manager" paying ISOCNZ. And giving 3rd level names away for free. What a manager of gen.nz would do, depends on which manager gen.nz holders/parties and ISOCNZ selected.

ISOCNZ revenues would fall in a hurry if they start delegating 2nd level domains under the same fee structure for 3rd level domains.

But the revenues are to cover costs, and since the costs would leave with the delegation... or will this, too require drinks to be credible?

I didn't think ISOCNZ was in it for the money.

Maybe .gen.nz will be ok, as not a great loss of dollars. I suspect .co.nz may be a different picture though!

gen.nz is probably no great loss of dollars, but it was no great cost of dollars either. co.nz, is, and probably always will be, the subject of considerable risk, and with it's commercial urgency, greater service levels and thus cost...

ANDY LINTON

ac, iwi, co, gen....

I can't see any reason why these shouldn't be delegated to a suitable manager who meets the requirements of RFC 1591. The delegating authority would have to convince itself that this was indeed the case but there is no fundamental principle that precludes this. (Please note: My opinion - NOT ISOCNZ policy) -- Mail : Andy Linton --------------------- PLEASE!!! Why does this list need to be set up this way?

Anyway, I'd like to support Martin's suggestion. There is no reason why this shouldn't happen. Read the RFC, get your act together and make a proposal to run the domain. The holders of gen.nz domain names have as much right (possible more right) to run the domain as anyone else. The criteria are in the RFC but the delegating authority will need to be convinced that those requesting the stewardship of the domain are responsible. -- Mail : Andy Linton asjl@xtra.co.nz

MARTIN KEALEY

As a holder of a .gen.nz domain, I would like to float an idea, to see if it generally has support from other .gen.nz holders.

Many .gen.nz domains are run entirely by volunteer effort, and I suspect they would probably prefer to have a DNS service geared to a (low) price, rather than a price geared to a (high) service level.

In particular, the response time for change requests, and the system availability could be loosened from what would be expected by a commercial entity.

(For instance, a week's turn-around on changes would probably be acceptable if the registration cost could be held to a substantially lower level. I don't know what the availability specifications are for ns1.waikato.ac.nz, but the general expectation from industry is going to be pretty high -- 99.75% wouldn't be understating it. Private BBS operators and other volunteers obviously would *like* to have it that high, but maybe 99.5% would be enough if we could get it for half the price?)

On the whole .gen.nz seems (to me) to be populated by "techie" types running bulletin boards, home computer networks, and such-like. I think that qualifies us as reasonably "homogeneous" in some sense.

I haven't noticed an awful lot of new .gen.nz registrations lately, so I think that qualifies us as "stable".

Now for "well defined set of organizations". Hmmm, a collection of anarchists is a little difficult to orgainize. :-)

Now, this is probably going to be the wrong forum to ask about this since most of the participants here are going to be folk with a large financial in the DNS, but I'm going to ask anyway: how do current holders of .gen.nz domains feel about this idea? If this would be too disruptive to some existing holders, is there support for creating a new "cheap service" domain?

I suggest that everyone replies to me directly, and I'll give a summary report in a week or so. It might also be useful to include a general categorization of yourself such as public/private, and bbs/home/business/whatever.

(Be careful if replying to me, as the default followup is to this list.)

-Martin.

DONALD NEAL

I don't see any lack of clarity in the society's published policy, which states:

Second Level Domain Names The current list of 'domains' available are:- list of 9 on them

If that's the list of second-level domains available, it seems to me clear that domains not on that list are not available. The policy does not permit the creation of new second-level domains. If the DNS policy committee's consultation exercise now under way results in a decision that more second-level domains are to be created, the policy will need to be changed accordingly.

JOHN VORSTEMANS

Speaking personally here I would have to disagree. I run Actrix Networks in Wellington (actrix.gen.nz) and I would be most destressed if because we use the "gen" domain we were treated any different from anyone else.

Actrix was around before the "co.nz" domain was formed (as was kcbbs from where you are posting).

Perhaps we could move ourselves to the co.nz domain which we have thought of often but who pays for all our users to change business cards etc?

My 2 cents worth.

Perhaps we could establish a "bbs.nz" domain one day which can be administered as you suggested?

John

-- John Vorstermans

DON STOKES - 17

Actrix was around before the "co.nz" domain was formed (as was kcbbs from where you are posting).

I don't think it was -- I remember .co.nz addresses dating back to before Actrix was even a twinkle in yours and Paul G's eyes. 8-) If I recall, .gen.nz actually came *after* .co.nz -- .co.nz, .govt.nz and .ac.nz were all taken from the UK naming scheme back in the JANET/Coloured Book days (early-mid 80s), with .mil.nz, .gen.nz, .cri.nz & .iwi.nz added subsequently.

What is true is that "BBS"s at the time were all in .gen.nz; .co.nz was for "businesses". Actrix has grown rather a lot since it acquired its current domain name -- arguably it (and others in the same boat) should have moved to .co.nz as they moved toward a more commercial focus, but we all know what a big pain that would be.

However, I would suggest that the fact that a few ISPs are lurking in .gen.nz for purely historical reasons is *not* sufficient reason to prevent delegation of that domain to another party (assuming there are other good reasons to delegate it). Obviously, it would need to be clearly stated that existing domains would have to be preserved, and some level of service "grandfathered", and of course the domain name policy would stull be under ISOCNZ's control.

Perhaps we could establish a "bbs.nz" domain one day which can be administered as you suggested?

Experience suggests that getting BBS operators to agree on something like that is too much like trying to muster cats, but maybe I'm just cynical. 8-)

-- Don Stokes, Network Manager, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
don@vuw.ac.nz(work) don@zl2tnm.gen.nz(home) Actrix Networks Limited Internet Service Providers.