Subject: RIPE CNTR purposal comments

From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 1998 12:34:25 +0000

Jim and all,

  Below is some observations/comments/questions that we had with respect
to
the RIPE CENTR/RIPE NCC purpose.  Part one of two.

   RIPE CENTR Proposal

                                    Paul Ridley

    Scope

                The intended audience for this document is the the
                RIPE area National (ISO 3166) Top Level Domain
                administrators and any other interested parties.
                Comments to the author are welcome.

    1.  Introduction

                This document aims to propose goals of and a struc-
                ture for the RIPE Council of European National Top
                level domain Registries (RIPE CENTR), if such an
                organization should be started. The reasoning behind
                starting RIPE CENTR was outlined in the tld-wg task
                force proposal (http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/task-
                force/ripe-centr-1.1.html) and is not the subject of
                this document.

                This document will firstly explore the goals of RIPE
                CENTR and following this a proposed structure for
                the organization will be detailed. Finally a transi-
                tion path from the present situation to the final
                organizational structure will be described. This
                transition path will describe the initial setting up
                of RIPE CENTR as a project, with the full step to a
                separate independent organization taking place after
                a period of approximately eighteen months.

    2.  Goals of RIPE CENTR

                The goals of an organization although being its
                guiding light are not fixed in stone. The future
                membership of RIPE CENTR would follow, amend or dis-
                card and initial goals set. The initial goals of the
                organization will be taken from the discussions of
                the tld-wg. The individual goals are listed below
                but they all fit into the general framework of act-
                ing as a link between IANA and the individual RIPE
                area n-tlds in the bottom-up structure of top level
                domain hierarchy, and improving coordination and
                cooperation between individual RIPE area n-tlds.

                The proposed goals are:

                *    Fund and be involved in IANA governance as part
                     of the global Internet hierarchy
* My Notes and comments/quetions*

  Is it wise to involve the IANA in light of recent events?  Shouldn't
there be a independent body set up to fill this function?
It seems to us, that there is a more far reaching goal for true
globalization of the internet.  This is something that the IANA
seems to have gotten away from in recent months, due the their
support for the MoU proposal.

                *    Act as a channel for nTLD liaison with other
                     external parties

  *My notes/comments/questions*

   What is the specifics of the liaison role?  Would this include the EU
and
the EC?  Have any of these parties been contacted?  What is their
possition's currently?

                *    Give regular reports to members of developments
                     in TLD area

*My notes/comments/questions*

  Has any thought or decisions been made on what type of reports
are to be made?  Will these reports be posted and available for comment?

Has the structure of the organization for answering questions on these
reports been outlined?

                *    Carry out activities as approved by the mem-
                     bers. It is proposed that the initial activi-
                     ties are those defined by the tld-wg. These
                     activities are listed and prioritized in the
                     tld-wg Workplan
                     (http://www.ripe.net/wg/tld/workplan.html). At
                     present the workplan item with the highest pri-
                     ority is the documentation of individual nTLD
                     policies and pricing models.  Once documented
                     this data, in addition to being a useful public
                     information source, could be used to recommend
                     best practices and pricing models.

*My notes/comments/questions*

  This is an excellent idea here.

    3.  Proposed organizational structure

                Two guiding principles determine the organizational
                structure of RIPE CENTR. One principle is that the
                structure should support bottom-up governance, i.e.
                that the members are the ones who govern the organi-
                sation and determine the policies. The second prin-
                ciple is the scope of the membership. All national
                (ISO 3166) top level domain registries that fall
                within the RIPE area should be members of the RIPE
                CENTR.

*My Notes/Comments/Questions*

  Is there to be a membership fee for becoming a RIPE CENTR member?
Is this idea restricted to only ISO3166 TLD's or all TLD's?

                The principles behind RIPE CENTR and its role are
                very similar to those of the RIPE NCC, the only main
                difference being that the members of the RIPE NCC
                have a common interest in IP numbers, whereas the
                members of RIPE CENTR have a common interest in
                domain names. Since its inception in 1992 the RIPE
                NCC has evolved into a structure that successfully
                supports a bottom-up hierarchy. Thus due to the sim-
                ilarities and to avoid reinventing a well working
                wheel it would seem sensible to base the structure
                of RIPE CENTR on that of RIPE NCC. Following this
                course of action would mean that RIPE CENTR would
                have the following key organizational elements:

                *    It should be a not for profit association with
                     three organizational bodies; the general assem-
                     bly; and the executive board; and the manage-
                     ment.

*My notes/COmments/Questions*

                    How are the excessive board members selected?
                    How are the general assembly members selected?
                    How are management members selected?

                *    All members are in the general assembly and it
                     is this body that has the final say in all mat-
                     ters.

     Excellent idea.

                *    The executive board is chosen by the general
                     assembly. It is responsible for day-to-day gov-
                     ernence of RIPE CENTR.

  Are they elected, or just chosen?

                *    The management reports directly to the execu-
                     tive board and ultimately to the general assem-
                     bly. It is responsible for all day-to-day oper-
                     ational matters.

  Will there be a set of management procedures established as a
backstop for the beginning of these functions?  Who determines this?

                *    Policy of RIPE CENTR is ultimately decided by
                     the general assembly, who meet at least once a
                     year, and continuously discuss via e-mail.

  Once a year for a meeting is really not sufficient.  I would
purpose at least once a quarter.

                *    All funding for RIPE CENTR comes from the mem-
                     bers, and not from other external parties.

  This certainly has merit.  It might also be wise to purpose allowing
for donations form interested non-involved parties.

  4.  Transition path

                It is essential that the final RIPE CENTR structure
                be stable and have overwhelming consensus. This pro-
                cess will not happen overnight and many areas are
                still open. There may even be individual n-tld reg-
                istries who do not yet see then need for RIPE CENTR.
                However this does not mean that a voluntary interim
                activity cannot be set up. There are many potential
                activities of RIPE CENTR that would be better served
                if work started on them in the short term as opposed
                to waiting until full consensus and preparation work
                is completed.

                With the above in mind, it is proposed that an
                interim RIPE CENTR project be started. This project
                could start on various identified activities. As
                well as the benefit of having these activites
                started earlier without rushing the formal set up of
                RIPE CENTR, an interim project would give more
                insight as to the needs of the future formal organi-
                sation, and may well convince the undecided people
                of the benefit gained from such an organisation.

                Various aspects of starting such a project need
                attention. The most critical aspects are detailed
                below with a proposal of how they should be tackled.

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]