.mil and .gov (and maybe .edu)
In yesterday's Congressional hearings, the issue of .mil and .gov was brought up, due at least in part to the Defending Internet Freedom Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737, and an opinion piece in US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/13/congress-should-as... The Defending Internet Freedom Act says (from the summary): - the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States; A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed. We have not really discussed this issue. I think it behooves us to deal with it. Given the historical and current use of these two domains< I would not expect too much controversy. Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category. We should consider if we should accord it similar treatment. Greg
Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category.
Well, very roughly. Over the years, .edu has 'wobbled' between a strictly US University Domain and something else (ill defined) including lower levels of education in the US and an international dimension. Before CWG goes further, someone should ask the Registry (¿Educause?) for a list of the current Registrants. My personal expectation would be that we shall finish up classifying .edu as a normal gTLD with a registration policy. However, it is NOT an 'open' gTLD. In the era of on-line courses, what is 'education' needs to be clearly and narrowly defined. Meanwhile, many countries use an .sld in their ccTLD for their Universities. e.g. <http://www.soas.ac.uk/> Regards CW On 14 May 2015, at 21:49, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
In yesterday's Congressional hearings, the issue of .mil and .gov was brought up, due at least in part to the Defending Internet Freedom Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737, and an opinion piece in US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/13/congress-should-as...
The Defending Internet Freedom Act says (from the summary): the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States; A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed.
We have not really discussed this issue. I think it behooves us to deal with it. Given the historical and current use of these two domains< I would not expect too much controversy.
Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category. We should consider if we should accord it similar treatment.
Greg _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
I think Steve DelBianco suggested during one of the hearings that .mil and .gov could enter into a contract with ICANN. That would make them contracted parties and perhaps could be considered gTLD registries, but I expect that is some way off and considering them to be gTLDs would potentially be controversial. From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: Thursday, 14 May 2015 2:58 PM To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] .mil and .gov (and maybe .edu)
Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category.
Well, very roughly. Over the years, .edu has 'wobbled' between a strictly US University Domain and something else (ill defined) including lower levels of education in the US and an international dimension. Before CWG goes further, someone should ask the Registry (¿Educause?) for a list of the current Registrants. My personal expectation would be that we shall finish up classifying .edu as a normal gTLD with a registration policy. However, it is NOT an 'open' gTLD. In the era of on-line courses, what is 'education' needs to be clearly and narrowly defined. Meanwhile, many countries use an .sld in their ccTLD for their Universities. e.g. <http://www.soas.ac.uk/> Regards CW On 14 May 2015, at 21:49, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: In yesterday's Congressional hearings, the issue of .mil and .gov was brought up, due at least in part to the Defending Internet Freedom Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737, and an opinion piece in US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/13/congress-should-as... The Defending Internet Freedom Act says (from the summary): · the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States; A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed. We have not really discussed this issue. I think it behooves us to deal with it. Given the historical and current use of these two domains< I would not expect too much controversy. Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category. We should consider if we should accord it similar treatment. Greg _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Currently its policy on eligibility is “Only U.S. postsecondary institutions that are institutionally accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies (see recognized accrediting bodies) may obtain an Internet name in the .edu domain. These include both "Regional Institutional Accrediting Agencies" and "National Institutional and Specialized Accrediting Bodies" recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.” That seems to me to put it in the same group as the others. As Christopher says, .gov, .edu and .mil are really quite similar to US specialist ccTLDs – often dealt with at the second level for ccTLDs. In that light, I think it is irrelevant who their registrants are (that is a national issue). But I do not agree that it “belongs in” (by which I mean eligible to be a member of) the GNSO (and neither does it fit in the ccNSO). And I really do think we would be wasting our time to “clearly and narrowly” define education. In .edu’s case, that is for Educause to work out. MB From: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto:cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of CW Lists Sent: 14 May 2015 22:58 To: cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA Subject: Re: [CWG-Stewardship] .mil and .gov (and maybe .edu)
Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category.
Well, very roughly. Over the years, .edu has 'wobbled' between a strictly US University Domain and something else (ill defined) including lower levels of education in the US and an international dimension. Before CWG goes further, someone should ask the Registry (¿Educause?) for a list of the current Registrants. My personal expectation would be that we shall finish up classifying .edu as a normal gTLD with a registration policy. However, it is NOT an 'open' gTLD. In the era of on-line courses, what is 'education' needs to be clearly and narrowly defined. Meanwhile, many countries use an .sld in their ccTLD for their Universities. e.g. <http://www.soas.ac.uk/> Regards CW On 14 May 2015, at 21:49, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: In yesterday's Congressional hearings, the issue of .mil and .gov was brought up, due at least in part to the Defending Internet Freedom Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737, and an opinion piece in US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/13/congress-should-as... The Defending Internet Freedom Act says (from the summary): · the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States; A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed. We have not really discussed this issue. I think it behooves us to deal with it. Given the historical and current use of these two domains< I would not expect too much controversy. Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category. We should consider if we should accord it similar treatment. Greg _______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org<mailto:CWG-Stewardship@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
+1. The University of the West Indies is registered as uwi.edu. We are a regional institution with four campuses and 20 or so centres across the English-speaking Caribbean that began life with a royal [meaning British] charter as a university college of the University of London. We also manage the .bb and .jm ccTLDs. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Martin Boyle <Martin.Boyle@nominet.org.uk> wrote:
Currently its policy on eligibility is “Only U.S. postsecondary institutions that are institutionally accredited by an agency on the U.S. Department of Education's list of Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies (see recognized accrediting bodies) may obtain an Internet name in the .edu domain. These include both "Regional Institutional Accrediting Agencies" and "National Institutional and Specialized Accrediting Bodies" recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.” That seems to me to put it in the same group as the others.
As Christopher says, .gov, .edu and .mil are really quite similar to US specialist ccTLDs – often dealt with at the second level for ccTLDs. In that light, I think it is irrelevant who their registrants are (that is a national issue). But I do not agree that it “belongs in” (by which I mean eligible to be a member of) the GNSO (and neither does it fit in the ccNSO).
And I really do think we would be wasting our time to “clearly and narrowly” define education. In .edu’s case, that is for Educause to work out.
MB
*From:* cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org [mailto: cwg-stewardship-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *CW Lists *Sent:* 14 May 2015 22:58 *To:* cwg-stewardship@icann.org IANA *Subject:* Re: [CWG-Stewardship] .mil and .gov (and maybe .edu)
Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category.
Well, very roughly. Over the years, .edu has 'wobbled' between a strictly US University Domain and something else (ill defined) including lower levels of education in the US and an international dimension.
Before CWG goes further, someone should ask the Registry (¿Educause?) for a list of the current Registrants.
My personal expectation would be that we shall finish up classifying .edu as a normal gTLD with a registration policy. However, it is NOT an 'open' gTLD. In the era of on-line courses, what is 'education' needs to be clearly and narrowly defined. Meanwhile, many countries use an .sld in their ccTLD for their Universities. e.g. <http://www.soas.ac.uk/>
Regards
CW
On 14 May 2015, at 21:49, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
In yesterday's Congressional hearings, the issue of .mil and .gov was brought up, due at least in part to the Defending Internet Freedom Act https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/5737, and an opinion piece in US News & World Report. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2015/05/13/congress-should-as...
The Defending Internet Freedom Act says (from the summary):
· the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States;
A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed.
We have not really discussed this issue. I think it behooves us to deal with it. Given the historical and current use of these two domains< I would not expect too much controversy.
Although not mentioned, .edu falls into roughly the same category. We should consider if we should accord it similar treatment.
Greg
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
_______________________________________________ CWG-Stewardship mailing list CWG-Stewardship@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cwg-stewardship
Before CWG goes further, someone should ask the Registry (¿Educause?) for a list of the current Registrants.
You know, honestly, the number of organizations that could be hurt (international universities, primarily) by any formalization of policy in this area is very great, while I’m not sure I see any pressing need to stir this issue up. It looks to me like a closed-community gTLD, and I think that’s okay, and they don’t need to be dragged into a fight they haven’t asked to be part of. -Bill
Hi, On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
- the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States;
A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed.
We have not really discussed this issue. I think it behooves us to deal with it.
I don't understand what there is to deal with. The domains are _below_ the root. They're already delegated. Nobody seems to think that the delegations of any other TLDs are going to change during this transition. Why should these? I am not even a little surprised that members of the US Congress don't understand that the root zone is the invisible zone _beyond_ the TLD in every domain name. But it frustrates me enormously that supposed experts who go and testify about this topic either don't know that either, or else won't say so because it's tricky to explain and they have some other axe to grind. There is no more risk to mil or gov or edu in this transition than there is to com or ca or cn. Indeed, given that the US military controls at least two and arguably three of the root servers, there is no risk whatever to the USG here. (There's substantial reason to believe that USG "golden disc" images have their own DNSSEC trust anchor, too, so even the DNSSEC arguments don't apply. I've never seen such a golden disc, so I don't know this for sure.) If there's anything to say about this, it's that there's nothing to say. Best regards, A
On May 15, 2015, at 2:44 PM, Andrew Sullivan <ajs@anvilwalrusden.com> wrote: On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 03:49:25PM -0400, Greg Shatan wrote:
- the U.S. government will be granted ownership of the ".gov" and ".mil" top-level domains and specified servers will be maintained in the United States; A couple of the Representatives raised concerns that .gov and .mil would be vulnerable to a transfer away from the USG, and asked the witnesses if ownership (or perpetual control) of .gov and .mil by the US should be ensured in the transition. Several panelists answered in the affirmative and I don't believe any opposed. We have not really discussed this issue. I think it behooves us to deal with it.
I don't understand what there is to deal with. The domains are _below_ the root. They're already delegated. Nobody seems to think that the delegations of any other TLDs are going to change during this transition. Why should these? I am not even a little surprised that members of the US Congress don't understand that the root zone is the invisible zone _beyond_ the TLD in every domain name. But it frustrates me enormously that supposed experts who go and testify about this topic either don't know that either, or else won't say so because it's tricky to explain and they have some other axe to grind. … If there's anything to say about this, it's that there's nothing to say.
As one of the supposed experts, I’m not sure what message I’m supposed to be taking from your posting. One guy asked if there was a problem, a couple of people of the other witnesses said “no,” and since they were right, I didn’t see any reason to waste any further time on the issue. What would you have preferred? -Bill
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 04:59:22PM +0200, Bill Woodcock wrote:
As one of the supposed experts, I’m not sure what message I’m supposed to be taking from your posting.
One guy asked if there was a problem, a couple of people of the other witnesses said “no,” and since they were right, I didn’t see any reason to waste any further time on the issue. What would you have preferred?
Sorry, I don't mean that you should have said something when you didn't. I'm instead frustrated by those who were willing to agree that there _is_ an issue there. You're not one of the "supposed" experts, you're an actual one. I'm instead annoyed about people who are touting their expertise and getting the technical facts wrong. Best regards, A -- -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@anvilwalrusden.com Awkward access to mail. Please forgive formatting problems.
participants (7)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Bill Woodcock -
Carlton Samuels -
CW Lists -
Donna Austin -
Greg Shatan -
Martin Boyle