November 2015 - Accountability-Cross-Community

Work Stream 2 - Board position
by Thomas Rickert Nov. 15, 2015

Nov. 15, 2015

Dear Bruce, with this e-mail, we would like to formally approach you in your capacity as Board liaison to provide some clarity on how the Board wishes to deal with WS2. As you know, the concept of two Work Streams has been introduced by the Board more than a year ago as follows: “Following the community requested 21-day second round of comments, ICANN received 17 comments. Based on the input received from these comments, staff believes that the strong community comments in the second round of comments support integrating the originally proposed structure (CCG/Coordination Group) into establishing a Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) that incorporates some key elements that have arisen in the dialogues. Additionally, given the input over the course of the dialogue on this process, it's suggested that the CCWG has two work steams, one focused on accountability in view of ICANN's changing historical relationship with the USG, and the second, on the broader accountability issues the community would like to bring to the forefront.” (https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/process-next-steps-2014-10-10-en) This concept was confirmed by NTIA on several occasions and our group has structured its work plan accordingly. We do note that the Board has recently suggested to deal with certain items in the framework of reviews and continuous improvements. However, many CCWG colleagues are concerned that this might lead to a situation where the items the CCWG has identified as WS2 items would not be dealt with with the required attention. We are also aware of concerns that ICANN must not leave major changes to a later point in time to avoid uncertainty about ICANN changing e.g. its governance model after the transition. We note that areas of work for WS2 will be published with our report and included in our recommendations. It is a finite list of clearly identified subjects, all of which are important, but none of which would substantially change ICANN other than further enhancing its accountability. May we therefore ask the Board to formally commit to honoring WS2 recommendations? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert

14 19

FW: IRP implementation oversight team
by Brenda Brewer Nov. 15, 2015

Nov. 15, 2015

Hello all, Forwarding this Expression of Interest to the full list for the record. Best, Brenda From: Chris Disspain [ <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> mailto:ceo@auda.org.au] Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2015 9:02 AM To: Theresa Swinehart < <mailto:theresa.swinehart@icann.org> theresa.swinehart(a)icann.org>; Bernard Turcotte < <mailto:turcotte.bernard@gmail.com> turcotte.bernard(a)gmail.com>; Grace Abuhamad < <mailto:grace.abuhamad@icann.org> grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>; Brenda Brewer < <mailto:brenda.brewer@icann.org> brenda.brewer(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] IRP drafting process Hi, I would like to volunteer for the Implementation Oversight Team. I am a corporate lawyer with over 30 years experience. I have been CEO of auDA the manager of .au since 2000 and was responsible for introducing our own dispute resolution process, registry and register arbitration process and independent review process. I have an intimate knowledge of the domain name industry and dispute resolution processes within that. I'm happy to provide further detail if necessary. Cheers, Chris Disspain | Chief Executive Officer .au Domain Administration Ltd T: +61 3 8341 4111 | F: +61 3 8341 4112 E: <mailto:ceo@auda.org.au> ceo(a)auda.org.au | W: <http://www.auda.org.au/> www.auda.org.au auDA – Australia’s Domain Name Administrator Important Notice - This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. Please consider the environment before printing this email.

5 4

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [offlist] Regarding CCWG reaction to your posting
by Ron Baione Nov. 15, 2015

Nov. 15, 2015

If people had a problem with the "subject line" created by someone else "inadvertantly" posted to ccwg, you should have spoken up immediately. No one did, therefore everyone who is feigning objection after the fact lost this argument. I won't apologize for other people's selective revisionism and phony astonishment simply to get rid of an "old foe", disliking me for being a person with an interest in Internet Governance and not over-relying on a neat looking business card. Ron

2 1

Fwd: NYTimes.com: The Exploitation of Paris
by Greg Shatan Nov. 15, 2015

Nov. 15, 2015

---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From The New York Times: The Exploitation of Paris In haste, people twist the bloodshed in France to their own purposes. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/14/opinion/the-exploitation-of-paris.html?mw… Sent from my iPhone

3 2

Mr. Baione
by Roelof Meijer Nov. 15, 2015

Nov. 15, 2015

Dear co-chairs, After having looked at both the subject and the content, I strongly suggest that Mr. Baione’s “come-back” is followed by a second but now definite expulsion from the list. He has obviously no intention at all to behave differently. Best, Roelof Meijer From: <accountability-cross-community-bounces(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Reply-To: Ron Baione <ron.baione(a)yahoo.com<mailto:ron.baione@yahoo.com>> Date: zaterdag 14 november 2015 15:59 To: Contact - Https Card - Internet Identity Card <contact(a)httpscard.com<mailto:contact@httpscard.com>>, "accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>" <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] Paris Terrorist Attack Michael, I have been asking for the creation of an external whistleblower process to be added to workstream 2 discussions. The hopeful addition of an external whistleblower process in WorkStream 2 can be an additional and useful support line for the providing of important information from ICANN members to legally designated human rights organizations, so that if ICANN members feel pressured or intimidated in any way after the transition process is completed, multiple support mechanisms can be available, included into ICANN's transition proposal, and acting as a deterrance to all nefarious activity. For example: I am a hypothetical board member and in the post transition process someone tries to influence my ICANN votes and decisions with various intimidation tactics such as blackmail, instead of calling the current ICANN whisleblower "phone-line" or one of the entities listed above, I could instead call one of five randomly selected human rights organizations to get the word out to the greater internet community, a legally sanctioned process which would prevent an over-reliance on websites like "wikileaks". Such a deterrant to nefarious activity could last for as many decades as it takes to achieve world peace. Here is a link to the speeches and agenda from the recent 2nd Annual Ethos and Profession of Intelligence Conference, co-hosted by the Central Intelligence Agency on October 27, 2015. These speeches are given by relevant and supporting experts who make up one prominent line of support against nefarious activity, experts speak from the United States and elsewhere, speeches which I believe lend indirect support for additional legal whistleblower support mechanisms, as I have proposed: https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-bQ6_vfcE0793TlEHtB-5UAGltlwJrRu "Conference Agenda Opening Remarks [9:00am - 9:20am] John Brennan, Director, Central Intelligence Agency 21st Century Challenges: Denied Areas, Digital Domains, and Determined Adversaries [9:20am-10:20am] Gwen Ifill (moderator) - Moderator and Managing editor of Washington Week; Co-Anchor and Managing Editor, PBS NewsHour John Brennan - Director, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) Adm. Mike Rogers - Commander, US Cyber Command; Director, National Security Agency (NSA), Chief, Central Security Service Robert Cardillo - Director, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) Doug Wise - Deputy Director, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) 21st Century Warning: What Should Policymakers Reasonably Expect? [10:20am-11:20am] David Cohen (Moderator) - Deputy Director, CIA Michèle Flournoy - Co-Founder and CEO, Center for a New American Security; Under Secretary of Defense for Policy (former) Chris Kojm - Visiting Professor, Practice of International Affairs, The George Washington University Gregory Treverton - Chairman, National Intelligence Council (NIC) Remarks [1:00pm - 1:05pm] Dr. Steven Knapp - President, The George Washington University Keynote Address [1:05pm - 1:30pm] James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence Bridging 20th Century Law and 21st Century Intelligence [1:30pm - 2:30pm] Ken Wainstein (Moderator) - Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP; Homeland Security Advisor, White House (former) Orin Kerr - Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, The George Washington University Caroline Krass - General Counsel, CIA David Kris - General Counsel, Intellectual Ventures; Assistant Attorney General for National Security (former) Benjamin Wittes - Senior Fellow in Governance Studies, Brookings Institution 21st Century Intelligence Officers: What Capabilities Do They Need to Fulfill the Mission? [2:30pm - 3:30pm] Dr. Mike Vickers (Moderator) - Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence (former) Glenn Gaffney - Associate Director for Talent, CIA Evan Burfield - Co-Founder and Co-CEO, 1776 Diana Burley - Executive Director and Chair, Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection (I3P); Professor, Human and Organizational Learning, The George Washington University Andrew Hallman - Deputy Director, Digital Innovation, CIA The Shared 21st Century International Mission - Partners in Security [4:00pm - 5:00pm] David Ignatius (Moderator) - Associate Editor and Columnist, The Washington Post Yaakov Amirdror - Anne and Greg Rosshandler Senior Fellow, Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies; Distinguished Fellow, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, Israeli National Security Advisor (former) Bernard Bajolet - Director, French Directorate General for External Security (DGSE) John Brennan - Director, CIA John Sawers - Partner and Chairman, Macro Advisory Partners; Chief, Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) (former) Closing Remarks [5:00pm - 5:20pm] Judge William Webster, Director CIA (former), Director Federal Bureau of Investigation (former)" Ron ________________________________ From: Contact - Https Card - Internet Identity Card <contact(a)httpscard.com<mailto:contact@httpscard.com>>; To: <accountability-cross-community(a)icann.org<mailto:accountability-cross-community@icann.org>>; Subject: [CCWG-ACCT] Paris Terrorist Attack Sent: Sat, Nov 14, 2015 2:18:06 PM As I 'm french and I live in Paris, I would like to thank all the people who support us after the terrorist attacks yesterday... My heart and my thoughts are with all the victims and their families. We will never forget and never forgive! Michael Benaudis President Https Card - Internet Identity Card https://www.internetidentitycard.com Official IIC: https://www.httpscard.com/michaelbenaudis/ _______________________________________________ Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org<javascript:return> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

8 19

Attempt to summarize discussion regarding Mission and Contract
by Burr, Becky Nov. 15, 2015

Nov. 15, 2015

Please read all the way through to the bottom for a question and proposal. Based on our discussion this morning, I believe that the following statements reflect the consensus of the CCWG (lack of “full consensus” on 1 point noted in text): · ICANN’s Mission with respect to names is described in the Mission Statement as follows: With respect to NAMES, ICANN’s Mission is to coordinate the allocation and assignment of names in the root zone of the Domain Name System ("DNS"). In this role, ICANN’s Mission is to coordinate the development and implementation of policies: (I)For which uniform or coordinated resolution is reasonably necessary to facilitate the openness, interoperability, resilience, security and/or stability of the DNS; and (ii) That are developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based multi- stakeholder process and designed to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet’s unique names systems. · ICANN’s Mission is limited and enumerated. · ICANN’s should act in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission. · Coordinating development, implementation, and enforcement of Consensus Policy, as defined by Specification 1 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement and Specification 4 of the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement, is within ICANN’s Mission. · ICANN should have the authority to enforce agreements with contracted parties, subject to established means of community input on those agreements and reasonable checks and balances on its ability to impose obligations exceeding ICANN’s Mission on such parties. o To the extent that registry operators voluntarily assume obligations with respect to registry operations as part of the application process, ICANN should have the authority to enforce those commitments. NOTE: There is not “full consensus” on this position. o In general, consistent with ordinary contract concepts, registries and registrars should be presumed to have agreed to the terms and conditions of any contract with ICANN. That said, there should be some mechanism whereby contracted parties can enter into such agreements without waiving their rights to challenge specified provisions of such an agreement on the grounds that they exceed the scope of ICANN’s Mission. Any such mechanism would have to provide adequate notice, needs to be developed, etc. We do not appear to have consensus on the following concept: Without in any way limiting the foregoing absolute prohibition, ICANN shall not regulate services that use the Internet's unique identifiers, or the content that such services carry or provide. Question: Does the following formulation thread the needle between those who say that ICANN should not use its contracting authority to regulate registrant behavior and those who point out that the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, for example, requires registrants to provide accurate and up-to-date WHOIS data: ICANN should not use its authority to enter into contracts with registries and registrars to impose obligations and limitations on registrants with respect to issues that are not properly the subject of Consensus Policy. PROPOSAL: If so, I propose that the CCWG provide the text above as guidance for the final bylaws drafters in interpreting the admonition that "ICANN shall act strictly in accordance with, and only as reasonably appropriate to achieve its Mission.” I believe this would (1) eliminate concerns and ambiguity regarding use of the word “regulation,”; (2) reflect consensus on the principles; and (3) address the late change/legislative history/statutory construction concern raised by Paul R. and others. J. Beckwith Burr Neustar, Inc. / Deputy General Counsel & Chief Privacy Officer 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington D.C. 20006 Office: +1.202.533.2932 Mobile: +1.202.352.6367 / neustar.biz<http://www.neustar.biz>

22 61

Update document and next steps
by Thomas Rickert Nov. 14, 2015

Nov. 14, 2015

All, let us remember that we are committed to publishing a complete third proposal for consideration by chartering organizations and further public comment on November 30th which is now only 16 days away. As such we need to turn our energy to completing the full proposal which is the critical element for us and which still require the resolution of several key issues. All the elements in the update document will be included in the full proposal and will be made available to the community for comments before it is published. In fact one of the main reasons for not extending the consultation on the update document is to ensure we provide the CCWG with adequate time to review the complete proposal. Additionally, please remember we promised to the community to offer a document that describes in plain language what we are doing. Let us deliver on that promise and give the community as much time as possible to understand what we are working on. In order to avoid confusion, we will mark the document clearly as being subject to change based on the final report. We will then offer further information on all changes made with respect to the outstanding issues. This will help the community to follow the process and chime in with comments. We would therefore ask for your understanding regarding not extending the comment period of the update document and would like to confirm that all the comments that have been made on the update document have been considered. The update document is presently being finalized and will be published on Sunday the 15th of November. Thank you and kind regards, León Sanchez Mathieu Weill Thomas Rickert --- rickert.net

4 6

CCWG - Draft Update document for CCWG call
by Bernard Turcotte Nov. 14, 2015

Nov. 14, 2015

All, As per Mathieu's email of earlier today please find the draft Proposal Update document which will be discussed at the next CCWG meeting. The document is going to professional formatting as we speak - so any issues of layout, fonts etc. will be addressed by a specialist. This document also represents a consideration of all the comments received with respect to the previous version - not that all of these were accepted, but a majority were taken on. We apologize for the lateness of the document, but as you will notice we have put significant efforts into recasting this per the comments. Bernard Turcotte ICANN Staff Support for the CCWG for the CCWG Co-chairs.

13 18

Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 14, 2015

Nov. 14, 2015

No misunderstanding. I was replying to Seun who raised the case of some AC/SOs choosing not to participate in a particular issue. Alan At 10/11/2015 07:29 AM, Schaefer, Brett wrote: >Alan, > >I think there is a bit of misunderstanding. >Iâm not talking about a participating SO or AC >choosing to abstain or make no decision. That is >anticipated in the model. Abstention, as far as >I understand it, is not considered either >opposition or support for the purposes of >exercising the community powers in other words >iit does not count for the thresholds either in support or against. > >Iâm talking about situations like SSAC, where >a AC decides not to participate at all. Most >seem to believe that RSSAC will likewise decide not to participate. > >But the assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, >ALAC, and GAC will. This is why everyone is >assuming that we will have 5 participating >entities in the community mechanism. > >But if GAC or one of the others decides >otherwise or simple cannot reach consensus on >participating for some length of time, we would >only have 4 or even fewer participating >entities. In the first situation, using those >four community powers would require community >unanimity. In the second, the community would >not be able to exercise those powers at all. > >That is why I suggested getting confirmation of >intent to participate acknowledging that this >would not be an endorsement of the CCWG proposal > from the ACss and SOs so that we can accurately project for the model. > >I also think that we need to explore thresholds >for various levels of participation for that reason. > >Best, > >Brett > > > > > >---------- >Brett Schaefer >Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis >Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >The Heritage Foundation >214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >202-608-6097 ><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org > >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2015 5:51 AM >To: Seun Ojedeji; Schaefer, Brett >Cc: <wp1(a)icann.org>; Accountability Cross Community >Subject: Re: [CCWG-ACCT] [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator > >There is a huge difference between an AC/SO that >has explicitly said it will not participate at >all and one that decides to not state a position >on exercising a power in a particular instance. >The latter IS participating by neither >supporting nor opposing the action. Without >sufficient ACTIVE support, the action dies. > >In the extreme, option 2 will allow one AC/SO to >exercise a power on its own, since 1 is greater than 75% of 1. > >Alan >-- >Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. >On November 10, 2015 1:54:23 AM GMT-03:00, Seun >Ojedeji <<mailto:seun.ojedeji@gmail.com>seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >Hi, > >I think lowering the threshold may still bring >us to a deadlock since we are not always certain >whether all will participate at any point in >time. Allowing splitting votes is out of >discussion as we have agreed to go by consensus. > >Option 2 IMO seem to be a good thing to explore >further and in order to ensure that is not >abused, an overall minimum total number of >participating SO/AC should be set. So if that >minimum is not achieved then there is no need to >check those in support or against. I think a >minimum number of 4 may be in order. >That will ensure that percentage is not used on >say 3 participating SO/AC or less. > >Regards >Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos. >On 9 Nov 2015 22:57, "Schaefer, Brett" ><<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> wrote: >Jordan, > >If the model that we are discussing is >unworkable under a fairly realistic eventuality >that seems to be a critical problem. > >In my opinion, it requires consideration of: (1) >lowering the thresholds to three if there are >only four participating entities; (2) shifting >minimum thresholds from 4 entities in support >to, instead, at least 75 percent of the >participating entities in support; or (3) >allowing the splitting of votes to surmount existing thresholds. > >Best, > >Brett > >From: Jordan Carter [mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz] >Sent: Monday, November 09, 2015 4:46 PM >To: Schaefer, Brett >Cc: Accountability Cross Community; <mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator > >hi Brett, > >Such matrices of decision are not being drafted. >If you are able to attend the call in around ~15 >hours, I think it would be useful to talk this >through. As I've said before, if we are down to >four SO/ACs participating, to my mind that's too >small an orbit to use the current model. > >Jordan > >On 10 November 2015 at 08:34, Schaefer, Brett ><<mailto:Brett.Schaefer@heritage.org>Brett.Schaefer(a)heritage.org> wrote: >Jordan, > >I appreciate the explanation provided in the memo. > >However, I note that the decision matrix remains >unchanged in that it requires support from 4 >SOs/ACs to exercise powers 1, 2, 5, and 7. The >operating assumption is that GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, >and ALAC will participate. I believe that they >will, but it would be good to get confirmation >even with the knowledge that such a statement >should not be considered an endorsement of the CCWG proposal. > >Also, as we discussed in the previous CCWG WP1 >call, there is a possible complication if RSSAC, >as expected, decides not to participate and GAC >either (1) decides not to participate, (2) >decides not to participate immediately, but >announces its desire to be allowed participate >at some future date, or (3) cannot reach a consensus position. > >In that case, unanimous support by the 4 SOs/ACs >assumed above to participate would be required >in order to exercise powers 1,2, 5, and 7. I >donât think that unanimous support was >supposed to be required for exercise of the community powers. > >Until we have confirmation of which SOs and ACs >(other than SSAC which has explicitly stated its >intention not to participate) will be >participating in the mechanism, we need to plan >out possible scenarios. For this reason, I think >we need to provide decision matrices based on >varying levels of participation. Is this being drafted? > >Thanks, > >Brett > >From: ><mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org>wp1-bounces(a)icann.org >[mailto:wp1-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jordan Carter >Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2015 5:51 PM >To: Accountability Cross Community; <mailto:wp1@icann.org>wp1(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [WP1] Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator > >... and in PDF >J > >On 9 November 2015 at 11:50, Jordan Carter ><<mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz> wrote: >Dear all - for your reading pleasure and for the lists record. > >Jordan > > >Brett Schaefer >Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis >Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >The Heritage Foundation >214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >202-608-6097 ><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org > >Brett Schaefer >Jay Kingham Senior Research Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs >Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom Davis >Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy >The Heritage Foundation >214 Massachusetts Avenue, NE >Washington, DC 20002 >202-608-6097 ><http://heritage.org/>heritage.org >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Gregory, Holly ><<mailto:holly.gregory@sidley.com>holly.gregory(a)sidley.com> >Date: 7 November 2015 at 13:48 >Subject: Updated Memo on Request on Sole Designator >Dear Co-Chairs, Jordan and Staff, > >Attached please find a substantially reorganized >and revised memo on how the Sole Designator >would be made operational, to replace the memo >that was sent to you last week. The changes are >largely in the nature of clarifications and we >have addressed the point requested below as >well. We request that this memo be posted to replace the prior memo. > >Please let us know if you have any questions. > >Kind regards, >Holly and Rosemary > > > > > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > ><tel:%2B64-4-495-2118>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter >Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz > >A better world through a better Internet > > > > >-- >Jordan Carter > >Chief Executive >InternetNZ > ><tel:%2B64-4-495-2118>+64-4-495-2118 (office) | ><tel:%2B64-21-442-649>+64-21-442-649 (mob) >Email: <mailto:jordan@internetnz.net.nz>jordan(a)internetnz.net.nz >Skype: jordancarter >Web: <http://www.internetnz.nz>www.internetnz.nz > >A better world through a better Internet > > >_______________________________________________ >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community > > >---------- > > > >Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list ><mailto:Accountability-Cross-Community@icann.org>Accountability-Cross-Community(a)icann.org >https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/accountability-cross-community

16 31

What do we mean by "service"?
by Eric Brunner-Williams Nov. 14, 2015

Nov. 14, 2015

Colleagues, What distinguishes our area of work from all others (that I can think of off the top of my head, and some five decades of programming, mostly distributed systems), is that the uniqueness of the identifiers (and we can ignore protocol parameters, which need not necessarily be "numbers", btw), both "names" and "numbers", doesn't take on any particular "uniqueness" meaning until the prefix for any particular name-to-address mappings are announced and can be referenced from "elsewhere". So the instances of communication that concern us are those which the address (actually its prefix) of some device is "announced" (modernly an ASN published via BGP4) and is known, or knowable, to a device at some other address (actually some other prefix), similarly "announced". Where these "announcements" of ASNs and the associated prefixes (via BGP4) are both known is in a table in some intermediate device, which knowing both ASNs is capable of forwarding packets from one ASN to another, with each ASN undertaking the "last hop" or "default" local routing to each of the two devices conducting some instance of communication. We refer to these intermediate ASN-knowing devices as "routers", and those which "take a full (routing) table" (a) have a _lot_ of memory (see Note infra) and (b) form a system which, because announcements and withdrawals of prior announcements occur (mostly) asynchronously, is modernly best thought of as forming the "skitter core" (kudus to kc claffy and CAIDA for the original research and the circular diagrams (some found on the halls of ICANN during its Admiralty Way days)). Back in the EGP period we could think of an "internet core" as existing in some deterministic sense. Modernly, what the global routing table looks like depends on where we are looking from, and our notions of "global routing tables" are statistical in nature. Those of you coming from all important names side of the business may be slightly discomforted by the notion that names don't matter until they are routed, and routed through the Default Free Zone (DFZ), but that's what we really mean when we speak about "globally unique identifiers" -- not the maximal string spaces that can be formed by 63 bytes, nor all the IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, nor all possible parameters the IANA has been tasked to publish, but only those addresses who's prefixes are announced to the DFZ, and those strings associated with those addresses by some names registry. So just as Signaling System 7 (defined by the ITU-T's Q.700-series recommendations) is what we really mean when we say "telephone", that is, a device capable of using the Public Switched Telecommunications Network allowing us to dial-in to a CCWG call and communicate with one another, resolution of a name across the DFZ by two (or more) devices is what we really mean when we, wearing our {ICANN|*NSO|ASO|*AC|DNSOP} policy hats, say "service" (smile optional). This multiply interrupted modest tutorial for some of the people I know can be battered into a para, perhaps even a sentence, with clear meaning, as an alternative to the existing "service" and the alternate "e.g., email, ..." language of the current drafts, and it can be discarded as correct but not useful, or incorrect _and_ not useful. It may assist the final word smiths. Eric Brunner-Wiliams Eugene, Oregon Note: As of 10/09/15 179,957 ASNs were announced in the ARIN region, another 143,717 ASNs were announced in the APNIC region, and another 136,435 ASNs were announced in the RIPE region, another 60,747 ASNs were announced in the LACNIC region, and another 11,914 ASNs were announced in the AfriNIC region.

5 4