Where Technical Insight Meets Organizational Dynamics

About The Work here

This page shares an exploratory approach to understanding and modeling complex digital domains—especially in RDAP, identity, and strategic IT roles. While not based on scientific publications, it draws on practical experience and systems thinking to highlight real organizational challenges and opportunities.

For policymakers: This insight supports informed decision-making by clarifying how technical, organizational, and legal factors interact within digital infrastructure, providing a foundation for strategic planning and accountability across government IT domains.

→ understanding people and roles
“Specialists respond best when issues are framed in real-world context — not just technically, but situationally.
They are activated by complex technical ambiguity; challenged by autonomy, technical career paths, and meaningful recognition.”

“Managers add value beyond the technical peak, especially as IT challenges outpace traditional education.
They are activated by organizational complexity; challenged by strategic influence, ownership, and outcome-based incentives.”

→ moving beyond isolated it
“Effective resolution of complex issues requires extending beyond the support sandbox — full organizational accountability is essential.
IT demands a strategic start overseeing collaboration, followed by technical implementation and legal finalization.”

“A strategic IT team can operate above ministerial boundaries, enabling other roles to focus on tactical resource efficiency.”

→ standards and global positioning
“IT standards become clear through targeted, accessible training materials.
A Dutch expert group can play a pivotal role in aligning global IT developments.”

→ identity and digital infrastructure
“WebIDs are still evolving — a common name like ‘Peter Jansen’ can no longer be relied on as a unique identifier.”

→ strategic guidance and domain awareness
“As Klöpping and Blom (2023) emphasize, centralized digital governance is essential for effective transformation.
However, such a ministry may lack the authority of established ones like Finance. Instead, an effective Digital Affairs Team under the Ministry of General Affairs can provide strategic guidance grounded in finance expertise.

This team delivers a coherent, expertise-driven digital strategy that respects ministerial responsibility for calm, coordinated tactical execution.
Treating domains like healthcare and housing as distinct focuses better supports IT progress despite complexity.”

Regarding Web Domain and Hosting Control:

The Dutch website en.internet.nl/ provides essential to-do points for responsible parties, based on the outcome of automated tests.
It is worth noting the following points.

  1. Due to the broad range of test topics, a critical issue may result in only a minor deduction from an otherwise near-perfect score;
  2. A closed server can still achieve a score of 61% for web and 70% for email, based solely on DNS configuration—despite being inaccessible;
  3. Domain naming challenges often require country-specific solutions. While the necessary technical tools nearly exist, political awareness is key.
    This issue could be effectively addressed under the remit of the Ministry of General Affairs, as technical experts alone are unlikely to resolve it;
  4. The current “Hall of Fame” model may need to evolve toward more future-proof methods, including testing with email-based user identification;
  5. As in my tools, I recommend adopting a four-column format that presents IPv4 and IPv6 results separately, rather than combining them;
  6. Email functionality—both sending and receiving—depends on many factors. Unfortunately, a score of 100% misleads.

From Actionable Screenshots to Resolution and Management-Readable Post-Mortem Reviews

  1. Free Domain Lookup, including DNSSEC and Whois (PHP/Python/JSON, since August 15, 2021) — rdap.hostingtool.nl/modeling_domain/
  2. Free Server Header Lookup, to phase out (PHP/XML, since January 14, 2022) — www.hostingtool.nl/server_headers/
  3. Free Domain Control Register ® (PHP/JSON, since November 30, 2024) — www.domaincontrolregister.org/
  4. Free Homepage Route Overview (PHP/Python, since February 26, 2025) — www.workingornot.org/
  5. Free Security Header Overview (PHP/Python, since March 18, 2025) — securityheaders.hostingtool.org/
  6. Free Hosting Lookup (PHP/Python/JSON, since May 6, 2025) — lookup.hostingtool.org/
  7. Free Top-level Domain Lookup (PHP/JSON, since June 21, 2025) — rdap.hostingtool.nl/modeling_tld/

Fragmented ccTLD Systems: The Modeling Barrier ICANN Must Address

  1. ICANN’s limited visibility into the diverse software environments powering ccTLD operations has led to systemic fragmentation — a critical obstacle to achieving unified, globally resilient registry modeling.
  2. PostgreSQL’s JSON and JSONB field types provide robust support for storing semi-structured, TLD-specific identifier properties. These capabilities are essential for integrating heterogeneous data from multiple sources. However, the current RDAP vCard array format for addresses lacks structural consistency. For example, the inconsistent use of country names and country codes in RDAP responses undermines both data reliability and human readability.
  3. Operationally, some ccTLDs (e.g., the Netherlands) have adopted optimized practices such as indexed fields for postal code search. Yet the broader RDAP design — particularly the nesting of entities within other entities — introduces unnecessary complexity, impeding both machine parsing and user-friendly interfaces. RDAP’s physical data structure should enforce role-specific visibility to reduce ambiguity and enhance security.
  4. Data quality is further challenged by an overreliance on registrar input. In many ccTLD environments, registrars remain the primary data source without sufficient authoritative validation. This weakens data integrity and underscores the urgent need for automated, standardized controls across the registry ecosystem.
  5. Moreover, domain lifecycle modeling demands greater precision. Specifically: A domain marked with pendingDelete MUST NOT also be marked with redemptionPeriod, and vice versa.
  6. Finally, aligning the domain deletion phase (pendingDelete) with search engine deindexing elevates it from a technical event to a GDPR-relevant lifecycle boundary. This alignment creates legal, operational, and policy incentives to support data minimization, authoritative lifecycle closure, and responsible information removal.

Up-to-Date PostgreSQL Registry Table Definition (Since May 31, 2025)

Developed to replace legacy registry systems and support deployment on global RDAP servers, this schema upgrade enhances data clarity, consistency, and maintainability, representing a critical step forward in modernizing the RDAP protocol.

Machine-Readable IANA Root Zone Data:
My IANA root zone data is in a renewed format, to be retrieved from a designated IANA server and relying on user activity logging—including from unidentified internet users—for issue resolution, the tool avoids unnecessary traffic, reduces system overhead, and supports traceable, efficient operations.

Concerning Allowed Legacy Behavior in the .nl Domain (Netherlands)

– External SIDN whistleblowing and also contacting the Netherlands Standardisation Forum;
– SIDN could fulfill the gTLD operational requirements for .amsterdam and .politie if adequately maintained;
– The .frl root zone for the province of Friesland is maintained in England and has been updated;
– Find a final stage ccTLD domain: https://www.catchtiger.com/nl/domeinnaam-veilingen/
or for gTLD: https://www.expireddomains.net/expired-domains/

Concerning Allowed Legacy Behavior in the .fr Domain (France)

Concerning Allowed Legacy Behavior in the .de Domain (Germany)

Recommended Actions for Strengthening Digital Governance in the Netherlands

1. Establish a Governing Board
Create an independent oversight body composed of experts responsible for supervising national digital activities, policies, and strategic direction—including oversight of the .nl domain and broader digital infrastructure management. These areas involve highly complex technical challenges that require specialized expertise beyond the capabilities of most stakeholders. The board would ensure transparency, resilience, and alignment with the public interest.

2. Avoid Appointing a Minister of Digital Affairs
While appointing a dedicated minister may seem like a logical step toward centralization, it risks politicizing a domain that should remain technically focused and multi-stakeholder driven. Effective oversight requires continuity, expertise, and agility—traits often constrained within conventional ministerial structures.

3. Leverage Existing Expertise through a Think Tank
Establish a dedicated think tank—Team Digitale Zaken—to consolidate digital governance expertise, advise government ministries, and ensure a cohesive, forward-looking national digital policy. This team would develop operational routines and institutional memory to respond effectively to digital disturbances or incidents. Embedded expertise would enhance the government’s capacity to manage crises with agility and technical precision. Continuous learning is essential to maintaining the team’s effectiveness.

4. Designate Team Digitale Zaken as ccTLD Manager (Long-Term Vision)
Position Team Digitale Zaken to be considered as a designated manager candidate for the .nl country code top-level domain (ccTLD). This transition would require close cooperation with ICANN, recognizing that any change in management must follow its formal global approval process.

About Dutch ccTLD and geoTLD Control:

  • While the Ministry of Economic Affairs provides a legal framework until November 21, 2029, this control remains primarily a policy objective. In practice, operational responsibility for the .nl domain lies with SIDN and is expected to remain there for the foreseeable future.
  • The update to reflect SIDN B.V. as the Backend Operator—effective January 1, 2023—remains pending in the IANA database. Although still necessary, this is regarded as a technical matter and constitutes a procedural update within the IANA framework, not requiring the development of new ICANN policy.
  • The .frl top-level domain is a sponsored TLD privately managed by FRLregistry B.V.

Ministry of General Affairs:

  • Govern IT under a Cabinet Office. And dismiss unnecessary advisory bodies.
    – UK’s Cabinet Office falls under the Ministry of General Affairs. If realized in NL: “Kabinetsbureau”.
    – UK’s Government Digital Service (GDS) operates hierarchically under the Cabinet Office;
  • Generate training material for further education from the European Cloud, which is in preparation.
    – The AWS GovCloud in the United States, is managed by Amazon.
    – Organizations using GovCloud must verify that all individuals with access to the environment are U.S. citizens.
    – GovCloud cannot be used by foreign nationals or organizations, even if they have legitimate access to other AWS services;
  • Work on a Dutch or EU Digital Service for generic application software related to DNS and registries.
    – Well-considered proposals, RFC and non-RFC, could feed the IANA organization.

Ministry of Economic Affairs:

  • Include automated task costs in just one annual web domain fee;
  • Include a change in a registrar’s own data in its period costs;
  • Eliminate all registry discounts. A volume discount causes unfair competition.

Ministry of the Interior and Ministry of Justice:

  • List areas of expertise, engage specialists, ensure dynamic interaction and make decisions;
  • Make the country of the real domain user leading for country-specific Web Domain Services (WDSs).
    – For the NL, the “Stichting Inlichtingenbureau” in Utrecht could assist for a new “Webdomeindienst”;
    – WDS register data officers are confirmed by his/her director in that country;
  • Maintain IT knowledge with a long-standing EU group of stakeholders;

NL / EU / US and including generic top-level domain zones:

  • Discuss global design and programming of Registration Data Access Protocol software.
    – Introduce in RDAP an emergency entity in order to formally organize backup to get access.
    – Introduce in RDAP a fallback entity in order to respond when registrant information is missing;
  • Generate web IDs that start with the ISO2 country code, for business entities and natural persons;
  • Plan verification of web domain users indexed by web ID, starting with modeling in RDAP like mine;
  • Use the developed Domain Control Register ®, based on the real web domain user.
    – Report regarding expired HTTPS, security.txt or DANE via email. Perhaps a DCR revenue model;
  • Get custom fields approved and listed for standardization in the dynamic RDAP protocol.
    – A simple data structure has been designed for the registry details;