1995/11/21
								  資料2-5
			INTL-WG報告


InterNIC (Network Solutions)のドメイン名に対する課金が契機となって、次
のような議論が喚起されているので、報告します。

ここで紹介するドキュメントはInternet Draftとして発行されておりますので、
ftp://ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-isoc-dns-role-00.txt
として入手可能です。(タイトルは Proposal for an ISOC Role in DNS Name 
Space Management, 発行日は11/06/95, 著者はB. Carpenter,  L. Landweber,
J. Postel and N. Trio)

まずアブストラクトには次のように Internet Society が役割を果すべきだと
あります。

   This draft proposes that the Internet Society should take a formal
   role in the oversight and licensing of competitive registries for the
   international Internet name space, in support of the IANA and with
   the assistance of the IAB.

ただし、まだdraftとしても最終版ではない。

   Although this draft has been discussed in various bodies, it is not
   final, it should not be regarded as a consensus document, and it is
   presented for open debate in the Internet community.

今後は下記のような手順で議論を進めて行きたい。(draftはステップ2に対応)

   1. Distribute early drafts to solicit comments from ISOC Trustees and
   Advisory Council Officers, IAB, IESG.

   2. Based on comments on early drafts, prepare an Internet Draft for
   comment by the wider Internet community.

   3. In parallel, organize a meeting to present the preliminary ISOC
   plan and obtain further feedback. All stakeholders will be invited to
   this meeting.

   4. Also, in parallel, hold focused discussions with U.S. government
   officials and other key individuals regarding the transition from the
   current system.

   5. Present the current details of the DNS plan at the Dallas IETF and
   solicit further input. It is expected that there will be time for
   IETF participants to review the Internet Draft prior to this meeting.

   6. Based on all input received, describe final details in an
   Informational RFC and present to ISOC BOT and the IAB for
   ratification.

以上がdraftの意味です。以下に本論があり、まず背景の説明です。ドメイン
への課金が契機になったという事情の説明(原文は略)。さらに、ここでの議論
はnon-national top level domain であるとしていますが、ISOCは operation
には踏み込まない。

   The ISOC role would include setting policy, providing administrative
   oversight, and directly managing the selection of domain name
   providers for non-national top level domains. It would not include
   managing operational infrastructure or engaging in other activities
   that are commonly included under the umbrella of "operations." These
   will continue to be the responsibility of Internet Service Providers
   and their representative organizations (e.g., the CIX).  Examples of
   operational activities in this context include, among others,
   operation of routers and domain name servers, allocation of leaf
   domain names subject to global policy, and the servicing of
   customers.

具体的な役割(分担)の提案が下記です。
1 (a)にはnational domainsの例として jp も出てきます。
用語として INP (Internet Name Provider)という言葉があります。

   1. The Internet Society will assume responsibility for the DNS name
   space. This will include:

   (a) determination of policies, procedures, processes, and standards
   for the allocation of domain names in non-country-specific top level
   domains such as "com," and other similar top level domains (e.g.,
   corp, ltd or bus) that might be introduced by the IANA in the future.
   Policies for the assignment of domain names within national domains
   such as fr, us, or jp, will remain the responsibility of a party
   designated by the IANA in agreement with national authorities.

   (b) the selection, licensing, and oversight of Internet Name
   Providers (INPs) who are delegated to assign names within a
   designated portion of the DNS name space;

   (c) dispute resolution;

   (d) provision of a legal umbrella for the activity; and

   (e) financial oversight and accountability for funds received and
   disbursed by the IANA, the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), and
   ISOC for this activity.

   It should be emphasized that ISOC is not proposing to provide direct
   operational services. It is merely offering to serve as a neutral
   body which can help to foster competition by providing support in the
   enumerated areas.

   2. The IAB, acting through the IANA, will be designated as the ISOC
   entity that will be responsible to act on behalf of ISOC in matters
   relating to (a) and (b) above.

   Determination of policies, procedures, processes, standards will be
   done by an open process (such as normal IETF procedures), permitting
   input and discussion by the full range of Internet stakeholders. Such
   openness is an important pre-requisite to the universal acceptance of
   IAB recommendations. When full developed, IAB recommendations will be
   presented to the ISOC Board of Trustees for final ratification.

   The IAB has been designated to be responsible for this task because
   it is the oversight body for the IANA, the organization that
   currently has responsibility for the Internet domain name space and
   because of its role in the Internet standards process. It is a
   constituent body of the Internet Society whose members are selected
   by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) and approved by the
   ISOC Board of Trustees. Because of this, references to
   responsibilities of the IAB should not be construed as limiting the
   ultimate responsibility of the Internet Society for this activity.

   3. The IANA will be delegated as the organization responsible for
   implementing the policies, procedures, processes, and standards
   specified by the IAB.

   4. A goal of the DNS management activity will be to provide for an
   efficient, flexible, stable, and low cost environment in which a
   choice of different INPs will be available to customers. To
   accomplish this, the IANA will license INPs who will be responsible
   for allocating portions of the name space. To provide for
   competition, new top level domains may be established or mechanisms
   may be developed to share a single top level domain among multiple
   INPs.

   5. Each INP will be required to adhere to the policies, processes,
   procedures, and standards as determined by the IAB and ratified by
   the ISOC Board of Trustees.  A failure to adhere to these policies,
   processes, procedures, and standards may result in the revocation of
   the license or other action.  In this regard, it will be necessary to
   architect the system in such a way as to allow for graceful
   changeover between INPs in the event of a revocation as well as to
   provide legal protection for the IANA/IAB/ISOC in the event of a
   legal action.

   6. INP licensees will pay an annual fee to ISOC. Funds raised will be
   used to support the DNS name space management activity described in
   this document.  Fee structures will be set to generate only
   sufficient funds to cover DNS-related activities of IANA, IAB, ISOC
   and will not fund programs or activities not connected with DNS name
   space management.  Examples of anticipated expense categories include
   support staff, liability insurance for the IANA, IAB, and ISOC,
   overhead items such as space and computing support, and travel.  It
   is an open issue whether support of root nameservers would be
   included.  An estimate of required license fees will be developed as
   part of the continuing process of refining this proposal.

   7. INPs will be allowed to determine their fees.

   8. INPs will be required, where possible, to obtain liability
   insurance and to, in their contract with ISOC, hold ISOC and its
   designated representatives harmless for their actions.  It will be
   important for INPs to have an awareness of the legal issues related
   to this activity and for them to have the infrastructure and
   financial resources to both participate in the dispute resolution
   process described below (see 9) and to defend themselves in cases
   where legal action is initiated.

   ISOC will also obtain liability insurance to cover its designated
   representatives and will also endeavor, through the specification and
   establishment of fair and open processes and dispute resolution
   mechanisms, to minimize the likelihood of legal action.

   One area to be addressed concerns how to deal with issues that arise
   when an INP is either unable or unwilling to continue to provide
   DNS-related services.  Among the questions to be resolved are the
   maintenance and transfer of data and the transfer of responsibility
   to a new INP.

   9. The purpose of this section is to propose a mechanism to resolve
   disputes in managing the DNS. The aim is to, as much as possible,
   solve conflicts outside the formal legal process. The mechanism is
   similar to those of many organizations and is based on an arbitration
   mechanism.

   (a) all "owners" of DNS names agree to place disputes before an
   arbitration panel, a DNSAP, and to accept its decisions as binding.

   (b) all parties agree that the DNSAP and its members will be held non
   liable for any of its lawful activities under this mechanism and will
   waive access to internal DNSAP communications.

   (c) members of a specific DNSAP will be drawn from a panel of senior
   people from a variety of fields including technology, law and
   business who agree to serve without pay. The specific members will
   need to assure themselves and the DNSAP Administrator that they have
   no conflict of interest in the case being considered.

   (d) all pleadings will be done via electronic communications: email,
   web presentation etc.

   (e) except in extremely complex cases as decided by the DNSAP
   Administrator, the panel will only meet electronically.

   (f) decisions of the panel will be made as promptly as possible and
   the report will be issued to the parties involved as well as the
   DNSAP Administrator.

   (g) decisions will be made available to a court with jurisdiction in
   the event of any further action on the part of the complaining party.

   10. The IAB will provide liaison, as appropriate, in this area with
   national governments, international organizations, Internet Service
   Providers, and industry and educational organizations and
   associations.

   11. ISOC recognizes that while the DNS name space is international,
   the U.S.  government has played an important role in the development
   of the Internet.  ISOC will work closely with U.S. government
   officials to effect a smooth transition, free of financial risks,
   from the current administrative structure to the one described above.

   12. This proposal does not initially deal with other categories of
   central support such as Internet addresses assignment, IPv6 address
   assignment, MIME-type registration, or RFC support.  All of these are
   areas for further study.

   13 It is recognized that this proposal extends the scope of
   activities of the ISOC and of the IAB and the IANA in particular.
   Dedicated staff support for these new activities is known to be
   essential and indeed will be the main cost leading to the need for
   license fees.