Introduction
Almost three years ago the first non-IANA TLD was deployed (.DOT)
and the first non IANA root server network was deployed by
Alternic. In the years since then, portions of the Internet
community have wrestled with the issues surrounding new top
level domain names and additional root servers
RFC1591 makes reference to a "Domain Names Board"; sadly, this
entity was never created, and after years of proposals and counter
proposals, the DNS mess seems to be coalescing and one of the
components of an entity to replace IANA/NSF seems to be a "Names Council". This document describes on possible initial value for a set of successive approximations that could become that Names Council, and here we describe the structure and reasoning behind it.
This did not start out as a design for a names council. Originally
it was an attempt merge the two dominant Root Server Confederations -
ORSC and AURSC. As more cocktail napkins got scribbled on however, it soon took on a life of it's own and became general purpose enough to
represent, at least to out minds, a model upon which the names council could be based.
It was felt the Names Council must reflect bottom up aggregation
and decentralized authority and the organization below reflects that. This was presented at IFWP meeting in Singapore.
First cut
Starting with what components currently exist
and identifying DNS-operations organizations
that have self organized (or should!) the plan was fleshed
out to include representation for all relevant
organizations, and a way for Internet users to have a voice.
This document outlines the evolution of that model, explains
why it is the way it is, and explains how it might work.
Currently there are two major factions operating root server
networks. The first is iRSC, which is an outgrowth of Adam Todd's
AURSC:
Fig 1.0
Adam Todd is the coordinator for iRSC
The other is the ORSC, which is an outgrowth of Alternic, eDNS and uDNS:
Fig 1.1
Einar Stefferud is the acting coordinator for ORSC
An agreement was reached to coordinate these two networks: to revolve
collisions and support each others TLDs. The resultant coalition would
be names CRSC ("Comprehensive Rot Server Coalition).
The remaining players include TINC (The Internet Name space consortium,
the CORE server network (little is known about this) and the NSI/USG/IANA
root server network.
The next iteration included the TLD server operators, plus other name server
operators, and at this point we wern't sure what to do about Registrars
(the lack of a good definition of a Registrar hurts), ISP's and Users:
Fig 1.3
Next Rev
The next iteration had a place for these three, but was
rather disjoint:
Fig 1.4
At this point it wasn't clear why ISPs deserved
special attention, and wondered how to get special
interest groups such as the DNRC and trademark groups
into the process.
A this point the entire diagram we redrawn and the notion
of a "Fair Hearing Process" was introduced to provide
accountability from users at large, which was felt to be
sufficient to allow for removal of ISPs as a special interest group.
Trademark interests as a special interest group may or may not
be appropriate here. They may be adequately represented
via the fair hearing process just as users and government
are; all are treated alike; thus they are notated with question
marks.
Final model
Fig 1.5
Some Notes
1) Each are of interest (councils) appoints one person from it's
constituency to the NAMES COUNCIL BOARD.
2) Board representation is given to all interests identified
(so far !)
3) Users (and others) have open access to the councils through
open Fair Hearing Panels process:
a) E-Mail contributions
b) WWW contributions
c) Formal hearings (face to face)
d) Ex parte rules for panels
4) Note: a vote is not a voice ! A vote does you no good
if once elected your questions and concerns are not
addressed.
5) The Names Council Board may recognize new interests groups
upon completion with new process.
6) Council interest groups may establish new fair hearing boards as needed
including in response to petitions.
More Notes
To: "Richard J. Sexton"
Subject: Comprehensive Root Service Confederation (CRSC proposal)
Re: Towards the Creation of a Names Council
Reply-to: Stef@nma.com
From: Einar Stefferud
This is augmented from my notes. I think it is fair to note on the
web page that the initial Names Council Formation Proposal submitted
in Singapore included the main ideas of this CRSC formation proposal,
but that this version here includes some improvements suggested by
participants of the IFWP Singapore meeting.
It might also be reasonable to note that for some unknown reason, the
ORSC proposals were not included in the proceedings of the IFWP
Singapore meeting. You will recall that we complained, and that our
complaint never received any acknowledgment or other response. I do
not wish us to make a big issue of it, but we do need to make it
clear that it is not our fault that our proposal does not show up in
the IFWP proceedings.
Cheers...\Stef
+++++++++++++
The CRSC is to be:
1. An incorporated non-profit Confederation of Root Service Providers
who agree to a set of common policies for inclusion in the CRSC
Root Zone and to secondarying of their collective set of TLDs.
2. Initially, these policies will be developed and fleshed out during
the process of CRSC Incorporation.
3. Confederation Members will also include non-member ROOT ZONE
information, but non-members will not have a vote.
Members ar required to carry all CRSC qualified TLDs.
4. The CRSC INTENTION is to form and operate a fully Comprehensive,
Coherent, Robust, Secure, Open, Distributed Global DNS Root
Service. There is no intention to fracture the DNS ROOT.
5. CRSC will be dedicated to cooperation with the DNS Names Council
and other Councils (for ADDRESSES and PROTOCOLS) that are involved
in the administration of the necessary central coordination
functions of the Internet.
6. The CRSC will only admit TLDs for which there is no conflict over
any Intellectual Property Rights in the TLD name, and will assist
any parties who are in conflict to resolve there differences among
themselves, but will not serve as an arbitrator or court of appeal.
7. The CRSC will not engage in the setting of prices or discussion of
any form of price fixing, though it will set policies on
requirements for open publication of price schedules and price
increase policies for TLD registry operators.
Special thanks to Randy Bush, Dave Farber and Bernie Turcott for their
input and constructive criticism.
Inc.