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
serving 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.
Whatever 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: +46-8-5195-4000
Fax: +46-70-384-3246
email: ck@nrm.se
This document expires May 31, 1997