Internet-Draft Cary Karp Category: Informational Swedish Museum of Natural History Expires May 31, 1997 November 1996 Museum and Heritage Sector Interests in the iTLD Delegation Process Status of this Memo This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute working documents as Internet-Drafts. Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months and may be updated, replaced, or made obsolete by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the "1id-abstracts.txt" listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). Abstract This document describes some concerns of the museum and other heritage sectors in light of the possible establishment of new international top level domains. It has been drafted in response to the Postel Proposal on that subject, the subsequent Heath commentary, "Adding New Registries and International Top Level Domain Names", and the Crocker, "Framework for Modifications to DNS iTLD Management." It is argued that the heritage sectors function as significant providers of network content. Any potential that a modification of the current iTLD structure might have to increase the coherency of these sectors in terms of their domain identities should be used to full advantage. Table of Contents 1. Introduction 2. Organizational background 3. Internationalization 4. Operative proposal 5. Security Considerations 6. Author's Address 1. Introduction A primary organizational focus for the museum sector is provided by the International Council of Museums. ICOM is a non-governmental organization (NGO) associated with UNESCO and is unique within the museum community in the nature and scope of its mandate. ICOM is currently cultivating its network presence to serve as a primary point of entry into the distributed resources provided by, or relating to, the museum community. Components of this include registries of museum URL's (the museum facet of the Virtual Library) and directories of e-mail addresses of museum workers sharing common disciplinary interests. A proposal is being developed for eliciting EU support in the establishment of a broad-spectrum Registry of Museum Network Resources (REMUNERE) which is to include a WHOIS database of both corporate and individual network identities. ICOM provides DNS support for its committees and other organizations within the museum community. It has considered providing general third level registration services within its domain. This has not been pursued, however, since the designation icom.org is too strongly linked to its parent organization to be able to serve as a neutral home for any member of the community that does not wish to, or cannot, appear as a sub-body of ICOM. It is unfortunate that neither ICOM nor any other body has as yet been able to provide a basis for the intuitive derivation of easily remembered museum domain identities. Museums have the dubious status in the iTLD context of being explicitly excluded from registration in the three-letter domains. Quoting from the InterNIC registration form, "museums register under country domains." Unfortunately, rules differ within the two-letter national domains. There is no realistic possibility of having a second level .museum.xx in each such domain under which individual museums could establish third-level identities. The Postel Proposal and the initiation of the IAHC's activity gave rise to clear hope for a positive turn in these developments. If the museum sector were to end up among those that had its own iTLD, notions of guessable and memorable domain designations might finally be realized. However, since the proposal states that new iTLD authorities will be expected to operate several domains, there is reason to expect that a new museum TLD would need to be administered together with other domains. 2. Organizational background ICOM functions as an advocate for the museum community when common interests need to be articulated. This contribution to the IAHC process is a case in point. In matters of broader concern to the heritage sectors ICOM may act jointly with other NGO's. Most notable among these are the International Council on Archives (ICA), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), and the International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA). Since several of these are currently developing network resources comparable to ICOM's, joint action on the domain issue seems appropriate. The ICOM Executive Council has discussed this matter in the presence of representatives of most, but not all, of these other NGO's. The present statement is therefore to be seen as a "snapshot" of work in progress. The author, as the coordinator of ICOM's central Internet activities, has been authorized to speak informally on behalf of that organization. For this reason, the majority of references made here are specifically to the museum sector. Many, if not all, of the arguments presented could as easily be in reference to any of the other heritage sectors. The heritage NGO's are increasingly often obligated to take action to protect their sectors from commercial exploitation. Museum, archive and library holdings are particularly attractive as massive content repositories upon which multimedia productions can be based. The marginalization of the these sectors in networking contexts eases the targetting of individual institutions in less laudable regards. The establishment of strong sectorial identities encourages more equitable arrangements. 3. Internationalization Initiatives are currently underway both within the G7 and EU to provide the heritage sectors with a unified front in their dealings with the commercial sector. Notable among these initiatives are the G7, "Multimedia Access to World Cultural Heritage" and the EU's joint DG X and DG XIII, "Memorandum of Understanding on Multimedia Access to Europe's Cultural Heritage." Similar initiatives are being conducted in technologically less-developed regions. ICOM's AFRICOM initiative has among its objectives to assist museums throughout the African continent in gaining access to on-line services. This goal is being realized both by establishing subventioned contact with ISP's, and the contribution of telecommunications equipment and assistance in its installation. The need for establishing a clear sense of domain-level commonality is of particular urgency in this context. In areas where bandwidth is not ubiquitous, significant political and administrative barriers may confront organizations wishing to make their resources available on-line. In the museum context, the possibility of being able to participate in a global disciplinary collective is often a powerful enabling argument. The IAHC should be aware of the potential that it has for abetting the value of these internationalization initiatives. Many of the higher level organizations in this arena have found reason to provide a substantial degree of prominence to the heritage sector. If a purpose of the present exercise is to internationalize the administrative basis of the TLD structure the other initiatives might be able to provide useful assistance, at the very least, by servings as models for relevant aspects of the IAHC's action. Without in any way disregarding the need for exercising limits on the numbers of possible new iTLDs, the IAHC is urged to consider providing the heritage sectors with TLD status. 4. Operative proposal Tentative suggestions for individual domain designations, one within the sphere of concern of each of the NGO's mentioned above, are: .MUSEA for museums .LIBER for libraries .ARKIV for archives .SITES for monuments and sites The NGO's themselves could provide the technical and administrative resources necessary for their joint operation. The alternative of setting up a .HERIT TLD, and leaving it to the individual sectors to resolve administrative detail and domain subdivision, may appear to be arguable in either direction. It is, in any case, clear that each of the NGO's has significant interests which it does not share with the others. The value of providing a sense of domain identity would be most tangible within each of these of the individual areas. A next level of concern (and certainly not unique to the heritage sectors) involves devising strategies for gaining acceptance within the community. A museum that already has a second level domain in a national TLD is quite likely to be willing to accept a third level designation in a new TLD which provides instant recognition as a museum. The third level within a general heritage domain would not have any such advantage. It is probably unrealistic to expect anyone to move voluntarily from a second level domain to a fourth level domain, which would be the remaining alternative. The fractal aspect of domain construction is not exclusively a root level concern! It should be noted that the NGO's do not necessarily see themselves as the operators of a new TLD authority, should one be created. Their primary interest is to ensure that the heritage sectors' needs are heeded during the entire process. Several initiatives geared at providing domain service either on the third level in existing domains or within possible new heritage TLDs are underway within the heritage sectors, the commercial sector and various facets of alternative NIC activity. The potential for any of these initiatives providing genuine benefit to the heritage community is welcomed. What ever else it may decide, it is hoped that the IAHC will base any action that it may take towards formalizing domain identities within the heritage sectors on a careful evaluation both of the sectors' needs and of the potential that the IAHC has for integrating the Network into other large scale internationalization efforts. It would be unfortunate, indeed, if the outcome of this matter were decided by "lottery, auction, etc." 5. Security Considerations There are no known security considerations beyond those already existent in the DNS. 6. Author's Address Cary Karp Swedish Museum of Natural History P.O. Box 50007 104 05 Stockholm, Sweden Phone: +46-8-666-4055 Fax: +46-8-666-4235 email: ck@nrm.se This document expires May 31, 1997