Why is .gov only for US government agencies?
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains? With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders? Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only. Thanks! Matt
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders?
Do you have reason to believe that governments of other countries would *want* to use the .gov TLD? Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders?
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
In part due to RFC1480. At one point, everything here in the US was set to transition away from the US- and TLD-centric models. It is now only a fuzzy memory, but at one point commercial entities could not just register a random .NET or .ORG domain name ... which would have resulted in a nicer-looking Internet domain system today. But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). [snip]
The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace. So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ government entities regardless of nationality ? In otherwords, rejection of the idea that a registry operating GTLD namespace can be allowed to impose overly exclusive "eligibility criteria"
... JG
-- -JH
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). [snip]
The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace.
So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ government entities regardless of nationality ?
Because the US has historically held control over the whole process. Regardless of what it may seem like, it's not a community process.
In otherwords, rejection of the idea that a registry operating GTLD namespace can be allowed to impose overly exclusive "eligibility criteria"
In the specific case of ".gov", I'd say that there's some danger to having multiple nations operating in that single 2LD space; .gov should probably be retired and federal institutions migrated to .fed.us. There's also namespace available for localities. But given the choice between rationality and insanity, usually the process seems to prefer insanity. ... JG -- Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI - http://www.sol.net "We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and] then I won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail spam(CNN) With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many apples.
On 10/19/2014 at 8:13 AM Jimmy Hess wrote: |[snip] |So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist |but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be |contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ |government entities regardless of nationality ? | |In otherwords, rejection of the idea that a registry operating GTLD |namespace can be allowed to impose overly exclusive "eligibility |criteria" ============= I'd rather see .gov (and by implication, .edu) usage phased out and replaced by country-specific domain names (e.g. fed.us). imo, the better way to fix an anachronism is not to bend the rules so the offenders are not so offensive, but to bring the offenders into compliance with the current rules.
On Oct 19, 2014 9:53 AM, "Mike." <the.lists@mgm51.com> wrote:
I'd rather see .gov (and by implication, .edu) usage phased out and replaced by country-specific domain names (e.g. fed.us).
imo, the better way to fix an anachronism is not to bend the rules so the offenders are not so offensive, but to bring the offenders into compliance with the current rules.
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc). No, if it ain't broke don't fix it.
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said:
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc).
You say that like it's a bad thing....
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:20 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said:
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc).
You say that like it's a bad thing....
Well yeah, there's tons of possible bad here. 1. Some contractor would get millions over a few years for doing this 2. Spending time to maintain old code that no one cares about just to make stuff work is kinda annoying (both for those maintaining the code and #1) 3. I don't want to see the report on how many Allaire ColdFusion with NT 3.5 .gov sites are out there .... any other reasons not to do this? Maybe, but here's the real question - why in the hell would we want to do this?
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:45:44 -0400, shawn wilson said:
3. I don't want to see the report on how many Allaire ColdFusion with NT 3.5 .gov sites are out there
.... any other reasons not to do this? Maybe, but here's the real question - why in the hell would we want to do this?
See your point 3.
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 11:44 AM, <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:45:44 -0400, shawn wilson said:
3. I don't want to see the report on how many Allaire ColdFusion with NT 3.5 .gov sites are out there
.... any other reasons not to do this? Maybe, but here's the real question - why in the hell would we want to do this?
See your point 3.
I think you're assuming that people go back and fix stuff when they do massive changes that are out of scope - they don't. First they aren't being paid to do so, gov contractors always run over budget and work is never delivered on time so why would they want to make it worse, etc. No, if a massive domain move started, stuff would be fixed enough to make it work with a new domain, and stuff would stay at and possibly worse than the current state of "working". I can handle stuff staying at the current state as long as China/Russia doesn't use it to get more of a foothold into our infrastructure, but making this stuff worse might be a really bad thing. Just something to consider - lets say web stuff is ok, email ports, old SOAP (and whatever was/is used on mainframes) stuff doesn't break. I'm betting something accesses relay-4.building-10.not-yet-offline.missile-defense-system.mil someone fails to point to building-10's dns in a dns migration which may be a cooling system that gets changed by some computer and shit hits the fan because we wanted to normalize our gov tld with the rest of the world. No, I think I'll pass on finding out what breaks here. Again - give me a real reason we should do this. And if not, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. PS - MDS is only 10 years old so any part of that still online is likely to have audits (and any installs would be in east-EU and hopefully on classified internet - one hopes - so who knows). It was just an example I pulled. It's more possible that some Blackberry system can't get updated after we stop holding them up and we budget for this and gov email goes down :) Just saying I don't want to find out what gets left behind and breaks here.
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc. No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc.
No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious.
Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. Having country governments use <country code>.GOV would, assuming .GOV was still managed by the USG, give the US government vastly greater and more direct control of the country's government's websites (not to mention a lovely source of metadata associated with lookups of those websites). Moving .GOV away from USG control is both wildly unlikely and pointless, particularly in a world of 400+ (and counting) TLDs. AFAIK, reasons why the FNC decided to assert GOV and MIL were to be US-only were probably because the USG had already been using it, the operational value of switching would be low while the cost would've been high, some other governments were already using sub-domains within their ccTLDs, and/or it was seen as a good thing to encourage more ccTLD delegations and the use of those ccTLDs. The fact that it gives some political folk ammunition to complain about how the Internet is "controlled" by the USG is merely a side benefit (to them). Regards, -drc
On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:08 AM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc.
No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious.
Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch.
I'm thinking there's a "not" missing here. --Sandy
On 10/21/2014 01:33 PM, Sandra Murphy wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 11:08 AM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:18 PM, Barry Shein <bzs@world.std.com> wrote:
Not that anyone is looking for a solution but I suppose one possible solution would be to use the two-letter cctld then gov like parliament.uk.gov or parliament.ca.gov etc.
No doubt there would be some collisions but probably not too serious. Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch. I'm thinking there's a "not" missing here.
--Sandy
Depends on whether we're talking about the nominal or effective role of government... ;) - Peter
On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:
Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch.
I'm thinking there's a "not" missing here.
For the numerous people who have suggested similar, both publicly and privately: yes, I did accidentally leave out a teensy little word. I honestly wasn't making a comment about my current (perhaps until my boss reads the post) employer. Really. No, really. That'll teach me to post pre-coffee. Regards, -drc
Instead of multiple govs trying to use .gov or .mil, the best idea would be to collapse .gov under .gov.us and .mil under .mil.us (Much like how other countries already work). I don't see that happening as long as the US gov has a say in the matter. I think .su will be decommissioned long before .gov or .mil are. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -ITG (ITechGeek) ITG@ITechGeek.Com https://itg.nu/ GPG Keys: https://itg.nu/contact/gpg-key Preferred GPG Key: Fingerprint: AB46B7E363DA7E04ABFA57852AA9910A DCB1191A Google Voice: +1-703-493-0128 / Twitter: ITechGeek / Facebook: http://fb.me/Jbwa.Net On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 2:17 PM, David Conrad <drc@virtualized.org> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:33 AM, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:
Folks outside of the US have issues with the US government having a role in the administration of the root, even if that role is to ensure ICANN does screw the pooch.
I'm thinking there's a "not" missing here.
For the numerous people who have suggested similar, both publicly and privately: yes, I did accidentally leave out a teensy little word. I honestly wasn't making a comment about my current (perhaps until my boss reads the post) employer. Really. No, really.
That'll teach me to post pre-coffee.
Regards, -drc
it was at ietf-9, while jon and i were discussing the {features|flaws} of iso3166-1, that another contributor approached us and ... spoke to the unfairness, as argued by that contributor, of the armed forces of the united kingdom being excluded from the use (as registrants) of the .mil namespace. i suggest the question is asked and answered, and as i offered slightly obliquely earlier, the policy of an agency of government committed to commercial deregulation (since the second clinton administration), in particular use of .us, may not be the policy of the government in general, nor the policy of an agency of government otherwise tasked, e.g., the department of defense. On 10/21/14 10:25 PM, ITechGeek wrote:
Instead of multiple govs trying to use .gov or .mil, the best idea would be to collapse .gov under .gov.us and .mil under .mil.us
could we now put a good night kiss on the forehead of this sleepy child and let him or her dream of candy and ponies? -e
(very unimportant contribution, please ignore) any change to this things, must be done in the benefit of future users, making the internet a less weird place, with less exceptions everyone else have already learned a .edu domain is probably a USA university, and some .mil domain is the usa military. ((unfunny joke follow, you can stop reading here)) http://www.usma.edu => usma.edu.mil.us -- -- ℱin del ℳensaje.
On October 22, 2014 at 01:25 itg@itechgeek.com (ITechGeek) wrote:
Instead of multiple govs trying to use .gov or .mil, the best idea would be to collapse .gov under .gov.us and .mil under .mil.us (Much like how other countries already work).
And of course they'll also keep .GOV and .MIL because it's too much trouble to do whatever it'd take to actually decomission them so not much would be accomplished. I'm not opposed to the idea, sure, why not, but I'm pessimstic that it'd accomplish much in our lifetimes (depending on your age of course.)
I don't see that happening as long as the US gov has a say in the matter. I think .su will be decommissioned long before .gov or .mil are.
We agree. Never attribute to megalomania that which can be adequately explained by inertia. -- -Barry Shein The World | bzs@TheWorld.com | http://www.TheWorld.com Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Dial-Up: US, PR, Canada Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
On 10/20/2014 07:20 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said:
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc).
You say that like it's a bad thing....
It's a dollar thing -- show me a substantial return on the investment and I'll back it all the way. Notice that nowhere in the litany do the terms "LAMP" or "Linux" show up. Adobe and Microsoft would *love* the increased revenue from updates that would have to be applied to all those old servers. And what about those sites that were made using Front Page? Talk about a nightmare. A costly one. "A billion here, a billion there, soon you are talking about real money." -- misattributed to the late Senator Everett Dirkson (1896-1969, R-Illinois 1951-69)
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 10:52 AM, Stephen Satchell <list@satchell.net> wrote:
On 10/20/2014 07:20 AM, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 05:58:01 -0400, shawn wilson said:
Bad idea. I'm betting we'd find half of gov web sites down due to not being able to reboot and issues in old coldfusion and IIS and the like (and needing to fix static links and testing etc).
You say that like it's a bad thing....
It's a dollar thing -- show me a substantial return on the investment
Indeed
Adobe and Microsoft would *love* the increased revenue from updates that would have to be applied to all those old servers. And what about those sites that were made using Front Page? Talk about a nightmare. A costly one.
Oh yeah, I totally forgot about old FrontPage. I was thinking Homesite or Dreamweaver, but idk FrontPage from ~10 years back would port very clean into anything modern. So, if anything there needed changing, you'd have to do a manual cleanup of that code.
you can register .edu if you are a non-us institution as long as you are accredited by a US recognized organization Mehmet
On Oct 19, 2014, at 6:13 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). [snip]
The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace.
So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ government entities regardless of nationality ?
In otherwords, rejection of the idea that a registry operating GTLD namespace can be allowed to impose overly exclusive "eligibility criteria"
... JG
-- -JH
The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace.
Gee, someone should alert NANOG management that the list has fallen through a wormhole into 1996. To answer the original question, many governments use a subdomain of their ccTLD such as gc.ca or gov.uk. Or they just use a name directly in the ccTLD such as bundesregierung.de. R's, John
On Oct 19, 2014, at 9:13 AM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 7:12 AM, Joe Greco <jgreco@ns.sol.net> wrote:
But to make a long story short, and my memory's perhaps a bit rusty now, but my recollection is that shorter URL's looked nicer and there was significant money to be had running the registry, so there was some heavy lobbying against retiring .GOV in favor of .FED.US (and other .US locality domains). [snip]
The same problem exists with .EDU capriciously adopting new criteria that excludes any non-US-based institutions from being eligible. I believe the major issue is that if a TLD is in the global namespace, then it should NOT be allowed to restrict registrations based on country; the internet is global and .GOV and .EDU are in Global Namespace.
So then, why aren't .EDU and .GOV just allowed to continue to exist but a community decision made to require whichever registry will be contracted to manage .GOV to accept registrations from _all_ government entities regardless of nationality ?
You forgot .MIL , this one will be even more fun to change...
Why is the Greek flag always flow at the Olympics as well as the Olympic and host nation flags? Why is Britain the only country allowed, under Universal Postal Union regulations to have no national identification on its stamps used in international mail? Basically, if you are first, you tend to get extra privileges. Same with .gov for the US government. Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders?
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
Thanks!
Matt
On 10/19/14 12:42, Donald Eastlake wrote:
Why is the Greek flag always flow at the Olympics as well as the Olympic and host nation flags? Why is Britain the only country allowed, under Universal Postal Union regulations to have no national identification on its stamps used in international mail? Basically, if you are first, you tend to get extra privileges. Same with .gov for the US government.
Thanks, Donald ============================= Donald E. Eastlake 3rd +1-508-333-2270 (cell) 155 Beaver Street, Milford, MA 01757 USA d3e3e3@gmail.com
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 8:05 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders?
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
Thanks!
Matt Do as we say, not as we do
On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 10:05 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
Note that .mil is also restricted to US DoD, and that although .com is not restricted to US citizens and companies, it is under contract with US DoC. The only legacy gTLDs that are not in US control of some sort are .net and .org. Rubens
On Oct 19, 2014, at 9:35 AM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk@gmail.com> wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies?
RFC 1591.
Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
Under their ccTLDs.
Note that .mil is also restricted to US DoD,
Yes. See RFC 1591.
and that although .com is not restricted to US citizens and companies, it is under contract with US DoC. The only legacy gTLDs that are not in US control of some sort are .net and .org.
No. NET is under essentially the same contractual agreement as .COM (specifically, Cooperative Agreement NCR-9218742). By the terms of Amendment 24 of that CA, ORG was removed from the CA when that registry moved to PIR (in 2002 I believe). Regards, -drc
On 10/19/14 10:32 AM, John Levine wrote: # Gee, someone should alert NANOG management that the list has fallen # through a wormhole into 1996. # On 10/19/14 12:51 PM, David Conrad wrote:
RFC 1591.
Which is circa 1994. The real answer is that although fed.us is used by some agencies, the overall requirement was stripped out of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. Basically, the DC area incumbent provider of .gov and .com was making so insanely much money per registration, they were able to <s>buy off</s> persuade enough politicians to keep their monopolistic status. Slowly, slowly, technical progress (Google) and cooperative agreements have eroded that "land grab" into an oligopoly instead.
On 19/10/2014 13:05, Matthew Petach wrote:
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
incidentally, why does the .gov SOA list usadotgov.net in its SOA? The web site for the domain looks like it's copied from drjanicepostal.com. Has USGOV decided to open a new executive branch for podiatry? Nick
The name of the game is you create it, you set your own rules. The United States Gov't was involved w/ the Internet before people thought about it being more than just a US gov't system. As far as the SOA, someone probably copied and pasted another SOA not really knowing what they were doing (or copied pasted, saved, modified, forgot to hit save). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -ITG (ITechGeek) ITG@ITechGeek.Com https://itg.nu/ GPG Keys: https://itg.nu/contact/gpg-key Preferred GPG Key: Fingerprint: AB46B7E363DA7E04ABFA57852AA9910A DCB1191A Google Voice: +1-703-493-0128 / Twitter: ITechGeek / Facebook: http://fb.me/Jbwa.Net On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:57 AM, Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> wrote:
On 19/10/2014 13:05, Matthew Petach wrote:
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
incidentally, why does the .gov SOA list usadotgov.net in its SOA? The web site for the domain looks like it's copied from drjanicepostal.com. Has USGOV decided to open a new executive branch for podiatry?
Nick
Nick Hilliard <nick@foobar.org> writes:
On 19/10/2014 13:05, Matthew Petach wrote:
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
incidentally, why does the .gov SOA list usadotgov.net in its SOA? The web site for the domain looks like it's copied from drjanicepostal.com. Has USGOV decided to open a new executive branch for podiatry?
Government's got to keep on its feet. -r
On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders?
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
Thanks!
Matt
The short version is that that names were a process. In the beginning, hosts simply had names. When DNS came into being, names were transformed from “some-name” to “some-name.ARPA”. A few of what we now all gTLDs then came into being - .com, .net, .int, .mil, .gov, .edu - and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse. ccTLDs came later. I’ve been told that the reason God was able to create the earth in seven days was that He had no installed base. We do. The funny thing is that you’ll see a reflection of the gTLDs underneath the ccTLDs of a number of countries - .ac, .ed, and the like.
On Oct 20, 2014, at 10:07 AM, John Orthoefer <jco@direwolf.com> wrote:
On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
[…] and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse.
People don’t use in-addr.arpa anymore? ;)
johno
They do use that, of course. But for example they don’t go to IANA using a .arpa name.
By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said: GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain. No reference as to who, when, or how. That same RFC says: In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created. Gotta love that last sentence, yes? --Sandy On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders?
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
Thanks!
Matt
The short version is that that names were a process. In the beginning, hosts simply had names. When DNS came into being, names were transformed from “some-name” to “some-name.ARPA”. A few of what we now all gTLDs then came into being - .com, .net, .int, .mil, .gov, .edu - and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse.
ccTLDs came later.
I’ve been told that the reason God was able to create the earth in seven days was that He had no installed base. We do. The funny thing is that you’ll see a reflection of the gTLDs underneath the ccTLDs of a number of countries - .ac, .ed, and the like.
FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US. And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically extend/expand the number of TLDs. /bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102 On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:
By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain.
No reference as to who, when, or how.
That same RFC says:
In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created.
Gotta love that last sentence, yes?
--Sandy
On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders?
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
Thanks!
Matt
The short version is that that names were a process. In the beginning, hosts simply had names. When DNS came into being, names were transformed from “some-name” to “some-name.ARPA”. A few of what we now all gTLDs then came into being - .com, .net, .int, .mil, .gov, .edu - and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse.
ccTLDs came later.
I’ve been told that the reason God was able to create the earth in seven days was that He had no installed base. We do. The funny thing is that you’ll see a reflection of the gTLDs underneath the ccTLDs of a number of countries - .ac, .ed, and the like.
On Oct 21, 2014, at 6:09 AM, manning bill <bmanning@isi.edu> wrote:
there was/is near zero reason to technically extend/expand the number of TLDs.
Equally, no reason not to.
On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:
By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain.
No reference as to who, when, or how.
Passive voice considered harmful. -Bill
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of "why not”.
Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage: 1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when their expectations aren’t met, and 2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs for their own purposes. Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth going out of one’s way to break, either, but… And in the latter case, like “alternate roots,” that’s not an argument against creating more TLDs… They’ve already been created. It’s an argument against doing so in an uncoordinated manner, which is the source of the breakage. -Bill
On Oct 20, 2014 9:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of "why not”.
Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage:
1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when their
expectations aren’t met, and
2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs
for their own purposes.
Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth
going out of one’s way to break, either, but…
I'm not defending any practice. Let's just say everything else goes smooth. How many fed employees are there and what's their average salary? Let's assume it takes them 5 minutes to change their email sig. How much would that cost? There's probably also a legal issue 1here. You can't make it so that someone can't communicate with their elected official. No term limits in the House so you'd start this and 50 years later, you'd be able to complete the project (due to the last congressman being replaced).
On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 22:09:11 -0400, shawn wilson said:
There's probably also a legal issue 1here. You can't make it so that someone can't communicate with their elected official.
You might want to actually surf over to house.gov and start looking at how many totally broken pages are there. Enough so that "you can't make it so that someone can't communicate" doesn't hold water, 'cause it happens all the time... And if your email admin can't figure out how to alias *@house.gov to *@house.gov.us, you got bigger problems.
In message <CAH_OBieCQfjVGTkr2P-h8PzrRSEpS7Jv9CZ-6MAQdBpGVpMWcw@mail.gmail.com> , shawn wilson writes:
On Oct 20, 2014 9:33 PM, "Bill Woodcock" <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of "why not”.
Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage:
1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when their expectations aren’t met, and
2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs for their own purposes.
Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth going out of one’s way to break, either, but…
I'm not defending any practice. Let's just say everything else goes smooth. How many fed employees are there and what's their average salary? Let's assume it takes them 5 minutes to change their email sig. How much would that cost?
Over a 10 year transition period, $0. They will almost certainly make lots of other changes in that 10 year period. Change building, change title, change phone number ..... The list goes on and on.
There's probably also a legal issue 1here. You can't make it so that someone can't communicate with their elected official. No term limits in the House so you'd start this and 50 years later, you'd be able to complete the project (due to the last congressman being replaced).
There is postal address, phone number, office address, email address. All of these addresses change over time or were you under some strange illusion that these were immutable? Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 On 10/20/14 6:30 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote: | | On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> | wrote: | |> Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of "why not”. | | Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage: | | 1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when | their expectations aren’t met, and | | 2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical | TLDs for their own purposes. | | Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not | worth going out of one’s way to break, either, but… Agree 100% -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJURdkCAAoJEFzGhvEaGryESOoIALGQRCkydGcbtt8ETfkaSwrp bigHmXH/ljEZVX2DpA2IthtXME7OEOMFlVsm9HAbWuCZaRAbVHlJPWVEaSuunrj7 jeQxir22mO3RX4Yil577u9k+/woa+5m9ymyuLHnSJHNSL7Lnqw4BKjUgPPEm66+r 9D6wACv+s49+MXtd0DDc0dHBcPvF5TyxzLwGMUSzRQCfdsilcB9WwZ5WBvjWdPz7 xAHlToVaYMZSJ1pkjeTm23/UU/re7PcNFaoeMIWkwewTX9GAnjkoacvxqm1ckEGz 3cdRtfzmCCauxY/inogkS0bB3XLMWvGjMWueh7IW/bcaCyzJQOkc9qJWSsOrAgo= =HO3c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Oct 20, 2014, at 9:30 PM, Bill Woodcock <woody@pch.net> wrote:
On Oct 21, 2014, at 9:23 AM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of "why not”.
Eh. Off the top of my head, I see two categories of breakage:
1) things that hard-code a list of “real” TLDs, and break when their expectations aren’t met, and
2) things that went ahead and trumped up their own non-canonical TLDs for their own purposes.
Neither of those seem like practices worth defending, to me. Not worth going out of one’s way to break, either, but…
And in the latter case, like “alternate roots,” that’s not an argument against creating more TLDs… They’ve already been created. It’s an argument against doing so in an uncoordinated manner, which is the source of the breakage.
I’ve had operational issues introduced by *TLD operators and choices they made. I’m not going to document them here, but by using the root zone as a dumping ground for vanity addresses (e.g.: .google) highlights something that can be properly dealt with through normal processes. The number of things which will change from a predictable result to a unpredictable result (similar to when someone decided to wildcard .com) will continue to increase. Thankfully we can now receive email from spammer@example.google as it properly resolves and validates(!). (this is just one example). - Jared
On 10/20/14 10:44 PM, Jared Mauch wrote:
I’ve had operational issues introduced by *TLD operators and choices they made.
When that happens, report them to ICANN's SSAC. They take the "Stability" part of their name seriously. That said, new TLDs are not going away, so operations needs to take that into account. Doug
Jared, On Oct 20, 2014, at 6:23 PM, Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
Breaking tons of things is an interesting opinion of "why not".
Beyond challenges caused by https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/name-collision-2013-12-06-en, is there something new TLDs is breaking? (Serious question) Thanks, -drc
at ietf-9 jon and i discussed the problem solved (scaling of the zone editor function as the price of network interfaces dropped by orders of magnitude) by reliance upon iso3166-1, and the problems created by reliance upon iso3166-1. the economic success of .cat (unique among the icann 1st and 2nd round gtld projects) and the orders of magnitude growth of catalan (as measured by google) as the detected or announced language of network accessible content are facts. [note, as cto of the .cat project i'd no way of knowing either outcome would arise.] i remain of the view that language and culture, and fate independence from the vgrs business model are sufficient to expand on the 1591 set of namespaces. -e On 10/20/14 3:09 PM, manning bill wrote:
FNC “reserved” .gov and .mil for the US.
And Postel was right… there was/is near zero reason to technically extend/expand the number of TLDs.
/bill PO Box 12317 Marina del Rey, CA 90295 310.322.8102
On 20October2014Monday, at 12:19, Sandra Murphy <sandy@tislabs.com> wrote:
By the time of RFC1591, March 1994, authored by Jon Postel, said:
GOV - This domain was originally intended for any kind of government office or agency. More recently a decision was taken to register only agencies of the US Federal government in this domain.
No reference as to who, when, or how.
That same RFC says:
In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created.
Gotta love that last sentence, yes?
--Sandy
On Oct 20, 2014, at 12:50 PM, Fred Baker (fred) <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
On Oct 19, 2014, at 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach <mpetach@netflight.com> wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
With the exception of the cctlds, shouldn't the top-level gtlds be generically open to anyone regardless of borders?
Would love to get any info about the history of the decision to make it US-only.
Thanks!
Matt The short version is that that names were a process. In the beginning, hosts simply had names. When DNS came into being, names were transformed from “some-name” to “some-name.ARPA”. A few of what we now all gTLDs then came into being - .com, .net, .int, .mil, .gov, .edu - and the older .arpa names quickly fell into disuse.
ccTLDs came later.
I’ve been told that the reason God was able to create the earth in seven days was that He had no installed base. We do. The funny thing is that you’ll see a reflection of the gTLDs underneath the ccTLDs of a number of countries - .ac, .ed, and the like.
On 10/19/14 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
... I think these questions have been adequately answered. In regards to the question of "Ok, so what do we do about it?" a simple plan was floated oh, about a decade ago: 1. Create edu.us, gov.us, and mil.us 2. Lock out all new registrations in EDU, GOV, and MIL 3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list. Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have taken longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*. Obviously no serious consideration was given to that plan 10 years ago, or we wouldn't still be having the conversation today. :) Meanwhile what most perceive as the USG's privileged position in the operation of the root zone is still being reinforced by those TLDs, in spite of the current IANA stewardship transition talks. Doug
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list.
In this case, it's all about the "application-layer stuff" - that'd be the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems, Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would (should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov.
Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have taken longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*.
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public, contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
In message <CAH_OBie1Xzzc_9Xo7wPwgQBgeT=F+0bbEGOw4c5dnjBfZTEJzw@mail.gmail.com> , shawn wilson writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Well there wasn't a target date set for the change to IPv6 and it is starting to happen pretty fast now. These are nameserver by IP type (IPv4 then IPv6). For Alexa top 1000, Alexa AU zones, Alexa bottom 1000 of top 1M, Alexa GOV zones and TLD/Root zone. % foreach f ( tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* ) foreach? echo $f foreach? awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc foreach? awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc foreach? end tld-report/reports/alexa.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z 2178 2178 33180 513 513 11131 tld-report/reports/au.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z 6343 6343 97529 726 726 16441 tld-report/reports/bottom.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z 1788 1788 26945 416 416 9660 tld-report/reports/gov.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z 1263 1263 18821 301 301 6765 tld-report/reports/tld.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z 1602 1602 23035 1065 1065 20276 % Or over all the servers % awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc 11805 11805 178630 % awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc 2554 2554 53979 % Now who says IPv6 hasn't taken off? Setting target dates helps. Having a administator willing to pull the plug on the set date helps even more. .ARPA was cleared of hosts because there was a date set and the last entries were removed even if the operators of the hosts weren't ready. There was never any intention to remove in-addr.arpa.
Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list.
In this case, it's all about the "application-layer stuff" - that'd be the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems, Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would (should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov.
Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have take n longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*.
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public, contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
Government departments get re-named all the time. Many departments have already gone through name changes since coming onto the net. This would just be another one. Size really isn't a issue, there are more than enough staff to do this. Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
Spanish speaking countries .gob.$2lettercodecountry. No problem so far. On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> wrote:
In message <CAH_OBie1Xzzc_9Xo7wPwgQBgeT=F+0bbEGOw4c5dnjBfZTEJzw@mail.gmail.com> , shawn wilson writes:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Well there wasn't a target date set for the change to IPv6 and it is starting to happen pretty fast now.
These are nameserver by IP type (IPv4 then IPv6). For Alexa top 1000, Alexa AU zones, Alexa bottom 1000 of top 1M, Alexa GOV zones and TLD/Root zone.
% foreach f ( tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* ) foreach? echo $f foreach? awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc foreach? awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' $f | sort -u | wc foreach? end tld-report/reports/alexa.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z 2178 2178 33180 513 513 11131 tld-report/reports/au.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z 6343 6343 97529 726 726 16441 tld-report/reports/bottom.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z 1788 1788 26945 416 416 9660 tld-report/reports/gov.2014-10-20T00:00:12Z 1263 1263 18821 301 301 6765 tld-report/reports/tld.2014-10-20T00:00:00Z 1602 1602 23035 1065 1065 20276 %
Or over all the servers
% awk '$2 !~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc 11805 11805 178630 % awk '$2 ~ /:/ { print $2}' tld-report/reports/*2014-10-20* | sort -u | wc 2554 2554 53979 %
Now who says IPv6 hasn't taken off?
Setting target dates helps. Having a administator willing to pull the plug on the set date helps even more. .ARPA was cleared of hosts because there was a date set and the last entries were removed even if the operators of the hosts weren't ready. There was never any intention to remove in-addr.arpa.
Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list.
In this case, it's all about the "application-layer stuff" - that'd be the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems, Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would (should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov.
Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have take n longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*.
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public, contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
Government departments get re-named all the time. Many departments have already gone through name changes since coming onto the net. This would just be another one.
Size really isn't a issue, there are more than enough staff to do this.
Mark -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
On 10/20/14 4:07 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 6:26 PM, Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future
Because this worked for IPv6?
Actually it worked really well for IPv6 in USG-space. It also mostly worked for DNSSEC. Orgs that didn't make the deadline got spanked, and remediated. Of course DNSSEC in GOV has been a mixed bag, but to be fair, that's true of all the early adopters.
Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list.
In this case, it's all about the "application-layer stuff" - that'd be the stuff to fail hard - mainframe IP gateways, control systems, Lotus, Domino, etc. BIND is fine. Even most of the PHP apps would (should, maybe) be fine. But that's not runs most of the gov.
No argument, which is why the long tail. A non-trivial amount of that stuff will go away by attrition over a decade, and the rest will just have to be moved carefully.
Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have taken longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*.
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public, contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
Actually I think I could make a very convincing argument that GOV would not be the most challenging problem of the 3 I mentioned, but I won't. :) The question here is not, "Is it easy?" The questions are, "Is it the right thing to do?" and "Will it get easier to do tomorrow than it would have been to do today?" I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would have been easier to do a decade ago, and 10 years from now it will be harder still. Doug
On Oct 20, 2014 11:54 PM, "Doug Barton" <dougb@dougbarton.us> wrote:
On 10/20/14 4:07 PM, shawn wilson wrote:
Do we really have any prior examples that are even .1 the size of the usgov public system? Again, I'm not just referring to BIND and Windows DNS (and probably some Netware 4 etc stuff) - this would be web, soap parsers, email systems, vpn, and all of their clients (public, contractor, and gov). Anything close to what y'all are talking about?
Actually I think I could make a very convincing argument that GOV would not be the most challenging problem of the 3 I mentioned, but I won't. :)
You're right. But, edu and gov might be a tie with some obsolete tech they maintain that won't conform. But maybe not. As far as mil, I hold no clearance and if I did, I couldn't discuss even their public infrastructure (which AFAIK requires at least a public trust to work on). So I think leading this discussion to just the issues with gov (and maybe edu - but for some strange reason I have faith in them here) vs mil and edu as well...?
The question here is not, "Is it easy?" The questions are, "Is it the right thing to do?" and "Will it get easier to do tomorrow than it would have been to do today?"
No, the first question should be "is it possible" - we all seem to think its possible in some timeframe (though I wonder about the legality of changing active congressman's email). Next, is it the right thing - I'm going to go with yes, it probably is. But the later question is basically the cost benefit analysis - I'm just not sure if its worth it. And finally your question about time:
I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that it would have been easier to do a decade ago, and 10 years from now it will be harder still.
Will it get easier/harder if we wait - I agree, it would've been easier 10 years ago and with the cheap IoT crap starting to come out (none that uses DNS yet, but) its not going to get any easier. If y'all disagree with me and feel there'd be a real benefit to doing this, the process should be started now.
I remember asking this same question when I first started managing DNS records in the early 1990s. Being young and unencumbered by "it's always been done this way" thinking I believed that it would only be a few years of transition and .mil/.gov would be pushed to the history books. Now I'm older and crankier and a grandfather. Along with asking the "who cares?" question the image of Grandpa Simpson also comes to mind: "GET OFF MY LAWN!" Marc -----Original Message----- From: NANOG [mailto:nanog-bounces@nanog.org] On Behalf Of Doug Barton Sent: Monday, October 20, 2014 6:26 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: Why is .gov only for US government agencies? On 10/19/14 5:05 AM, Matthew Petach wrote:
Wondering if some of the long-time list members can shed some light on the question--why is the .gov top level domain only for use by US government agencies? Where do other world powers put their government agency domains?
... I think these questions have been adequately answered. In regards to the question of "Ok, so what do we do about it?" a simple plan was floated oh, about a decade ago: 1. Create edu.us, gov.us, and mil.us 2. Lock out all new registrations in EDU, GOV, and MIL 3. Set a target date for the removal of those TLDs for 10 years in the future Obviously there are various implementation details for effecting the move, but application-layer stuff will be as obvious to most readers as it is off-topic for this list. Regarding the time period in #3, decommissioning a TLD is harder than you might think, and we have plenty of extant examples of others that have taken longer, and/or haven't finished yet *cough*su*cough*. Obviously no serious consideration was given to that plan 10 years ago, or we wouldn't still be having the conversation today. :) Meanwhile what most perceive as the USG's privileged position in the operation of the root zone is still being reinforced by those TLDs, in spite of the current IANA stewardship transition talks. Doug
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the .us zone, i differ. as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a "orange-black" model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical registration model for a flat registration model. the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the government. -e On 10/20/14 3:26 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
Obviously no serious consideration was given to that plan 10 years ago, or we wouldn't still be having the conversation today.
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the .us zone, i differ.
The plan I outlined was discussed about 2 years after Neustar took over management, and TMK was never actually discussed with Neustar.
as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a "orange-black" model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical registration model for a flat registration model.
Yes, but the locality-based name space still exists. I used to hold some names under it, but gave them up when I moved out of state. Meanwhile, several states actively use their name space. But ...
the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the government.
... none of this is relevant to the proposal at hand. Neustar manages the domain on behalf of the USG. There is nothing preventing them from changing the way it is used, and the 10 year period I proposed takes runout of existing contracts into account (since EDU, GOV, and MIL would need continued operation during that period anyway). Doug
i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you comment on mine is uninteresting. -e On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the .us zone, i differ.
The plan I outlined was discussed about 2 years after Neustar took over management, and TMK was never actually discussed with Neustar.
as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a "orange-black" model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical registration model for a flat registration model.
Yes, but the locality-based name space still exists. I used to hold some names under it, but gave them up when I moved out of state. Meanwhile, several states actively use their name space. But ...
the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the government.
... none of this is relevant to the proposal at hand. Neustar manages the domain on behalf of the USG. There is nothing preventing them from changing the way it is used, and the 10 year period I proposed takes runout of existing contracts into account (since EDU, GOV, and MIL would need continued operation during that period anyway).
Doug
The fact that you think I'm commenting about you at all is illuminating :) On 10/20/14 9:52 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
i won't comment on your experience, having no direct knowledge. why you comment on mine is uninteresting.
-e
On 10/20/14 9:03 PM, Doug Barton wrote:
On 10/20/14 7:47 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
having written the technical portion of winning proposal to ntia for the .us zone, i differ.
The plan I outlined was discussed about 2 years after Neustar took over management, and TMK was never actually discussed with Neustar.
as i recall, having done the research, in the year prior to the ntia's tender some six people held some 40% of the major metro area subordinate namespaces. to my chagrin, relieved by a notice of termination days before my stock in the company vested, the winner adopted a "orange-black" model, deprecating the namespace's existing hierarchical registration model for a flat registration model.
Yes, but the locality-based name space still exists. I used to hold some names under it, but gave them up when I moved out of state. Meanwhile, several states actively use their name space. But ...
the registration process model for .us is dissimilar to the registration process models of .edu, .mil and .gov, as are the contractors to the government.
... none of this is relevant to the proposal at hand. Neustar manages the domain on behalf of the USG. There is nothing preventing them from changing the way it is used, and the 10 year period I proposed takes runout of existing contracts into account (since EDU, GOV, and MIL would need continued operation during that period anyway).
Doug
participants (35)
-
Andrew Sullivan -
Barry Shein -
Bill Woodcock -
David Conrad -
Donald Eastlake -
Doug Barton -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Franck Martin -
Fred Baker (fred) -
ITechGeek -
Jared Mauch -
Jim Popovitch -
Jimmy Hess -
Joe Greco -
John Levine -
John Orthoefer -
manning bill -
Mark Andrews -
Matthew Petach -
Mehmet Akcin -
Mike. -
Nick Hilliard -
Paige Thompson -
Peter Kristolaitis -
Rob Seastrom -
Rubens Kuhl -
Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) -
Sandra Murphy -
shawn wilson -
Stephen Satchell -
sthaug＠nethelp.no -
Tei -
Tomas Lynch -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu -
William Allen Simpson