January 2009 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Still more folk complaining about GoDaddy Transfer Policy Violations
by Danny Younger Feb. 8, 2009

Feb. 8, 2009

http://www.oxadox.com/article/healthfood/2009-01-29/51115.html The issue of GoDaddy's ongoing violation of Inter-Registrar Transfer Consensus Policy has been brought to the attention of the ICANN Compliance Department -- but what action has been taken? ICANN Senior Management is aware of the issue -- but what action has been taken? The ALAC has been notified of the issue -- but what action have they taken? Question: What's the point in working hard to come up with appropriate consensus-based policies if ICANN routinely turns a blind eye to policy violations? ... and what's the point in working with the ALAC if they fail to bring these oft-repeated user concerns to the attention of the Board?

7 11

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 30, 2009

Jan. 30, 2009

Total of 23 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 30 00:53:03 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 30.43% | 7 | 35.55% | 52144 | baptista at publicroot.org 17.39% | 4 | 13.18% | 19327 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 8.70% | 2 | 7.31% | 10718 | johnl at iecc.com 4.35% | 1 | 6.98% | 10239 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 4.35% | 1 | 5.29% | 7764 | langdonorr at gmail.com 4.35% | 1 | 5.16% | 7565 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 4.35% | 1 | 5.09% | 7466 | franck.martin at gmail.com 4.35% | 1 | 4.39% | 6434 | roberto at icann.org 4.35% | 1 | 3.68% | 5396 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.35% | 1 | 3.59% | 5269 | sylvia at prontocl.com.br 4.35% | 1 | 3.50% | 5139 | lists at privaterra.info 4.35% | 1 | 3.20% | 4695 | aislan at uol.com.br 4.35% | 1 | 3.09% | 4529 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 23 |100.00% | 146685 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Parting words - So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
by Rudi Vansnick Jan. 28, 2009

Jan. 28, 2009

I support the proposal of Adam. Rudi Vansnick Adam Peake schreef: > One of the roles Robert undertook for ALAC was as liaison to the > Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC). > > We now need to fill this liaison position. I propose Patrick Vande > Walle take over the position until such time as we can hold an > election. Patrick has the necessary skills (as it's an expert > committee SSAC chair has asked to have a right of refusal on the > liaison appointment) and has shown interest in volunteering. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > At 9:14 AM -0500 1/14/09, Robert Guerra wrote: >> A review of my engagement of late has made me realize that due to work >> committments it will be challenge for me to focus the time, attention >> and >> energy required to actively participate in discussions on the ALAC. >> As such, >> I would like to put forward my notice of resignation as the North >> American >> RALO rep on the ALAC. >> >> While a short notice might be the most preferred option, I thought it >> appropiate to share my reasons with all of you so you can understand the >> context as well as the reasons behind my departure. >> >> The fact that issues related to freedom of expression, censorship and >> bottom-up user engagement are being ignored at both regional and global >> levels at both ALAC and ICANN is greatly disappointing. This >> disspointment >> - and great fustration at times - has made led me to shift my >> activity >> from an active role to a more passive one. While active at the physical >> meetings, my engagement of late in the conference calls has been >> minimal and >> quite passive. >> >> My silience on the lists has led some to believe that I'm not engaged at >> all. Well, I would beg to differ as my full-time position does focus on >> issues of user engagement, internet freedom and internet governance. >> Engagement is many different thing to different people. But, one >> thing is >> clear, my change in level of engagement, divergent views and different >> style has lead to an ongoing private agenda by some to attempt to >> force me >> out . Since the Cairo meeting, efforts have entensified. The choice >> of words >> in private email exchanges, have been surprising. >> >> So, I prefer to recognize that there is a significant difference of >> opinion >> and pass on the opportunity to others .There are far too many other >> issues >> of importance that the group should - and must - focus on. >> >> I wish you all luck, success - and that we can stay in touch. >> >> >> Yours sincerely, >> >> Robert Guerra >> Managing Director, Privaterra >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.15/1921 - Release Date: 28/01/2009 6:37 > >

1 0

Network Solutions Under Large Scale DDoS Attack
by Danny Younger Jan. 26, 2009

Jan. 26, 2009

http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090123_network_solutions_down_ddos_attack/

5 7

Summit participation - Possible regrets
by Robert Guerra Jan. 26, 2009

Jan. 26, 2009

At this moment I don't know if I will be able to attend the upcoming Mexico meeting make it due to work commitments. I hope I can make it, but in the case I can not attend - let me make at least take this opportunity to wish you all success for a engaging meeting - one where I hope constructive discussion, dialogue, agenda setting and strategic planning can take place. May bottom-up issues be the main focus. En estos moments no estoy seguro si podré asistir a la reunion de Mexico el mes que viene. Por tanto, quisiera compartir lo siguiente con vosotros - Ojala salga exitosa, donde se pueda avanzar temas de agenda, metas, estrategia . Que temas de la base lleguen a ser el enfoque principal. suerte a todos / luck to all. Robert

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Re: Network Solutions Under Large Scale DDoS Attack
by Joe Baptista Jan. 26, 2009

Jan. 26, 2009

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:27 PM, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com>wrote: > Sorry Joe, > > I guess I was unclear. My question is this: When this inevitable failure > occurs where will we go to get what we want? > You don't get what you want - most likely. A failure in the resolution of the .com zone would result in failures in every other zone where all the name servers use .com host names. I've tested this before and it could be up to 60% of the Internet would be difficult to resolve. cnn.com would go poof - because it exclusively uses aol.com name servers. a lot of sites out side .com would also disappear. So there is really nothing you can do. Maybe Jeffs suggestion to visit the ICANN mens room is not so bad an option worth considering after all. Now the way to prevent it is to simply distribute domain name server across many hosts using different TLDs. This would make the domain less vulnerable but only if the domain was not .com. If it is in the .com zone there is nothing you can do - under this sort of attack it simply won't resolve. regards joe baptista > > --- On *Sun, 1/25/09, Joe Baptista <baptista(a)publicroot.org>* wrote: > > From: Joe Baptista <baptista(a)publicroot.org> > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [At-Large] Network Solutions Under Large Scale DDoS > Attack > To: hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com > Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Ga" < > ga(a)gnso.icann.org> > Date: Sunday, January 25, 2009, 6:43 AM > > > > > On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com>wrote: > >> So then following out your so wisened scenario; What would we migrate >> to then? >> Or would we just go for walks, read books and watch Network TV shows? >> > > To prevent resolution failure you need name servers having host names from > zones NOT .com. And this only works for NON .com domains. If the .com > servers are successfully attacked then all of .com is effected. > > The problem is .com is so pervasive in its popularity and so many name > server hosts use .com in their host names that this sort of attack is > inevitable. > > regards > joe baptista > > > >> >> >> --- On *Sat, 1/24/09, Joe Baptista <baptista(a)publicroot.org>* wrote: >> >> From: Joe Baptista <baptista(a)publicroot.org> >> Subject: [ga] Re: [At-Large] Network Solutions Under Large Scale DDoS >> Attack >> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Cc: "Ga" <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> >> Date: Saturday, January 24, 2009, 6:39 PM >> >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 1:56 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >> >>> Hate to say it folks - but I told you so a long time ago this was going >>>> to >>>> happen. If you want to attack the Internet - you don't attack the root >>>> servers - you attack .com name space. Once .com name space is offline a >>>> lot >>>> of the net just twinkles out of existence. >>>> >>> >>> Network Solutions is not Verisign, and hasn't been for about a decade. >>> >>> Perhaps you might want to update your bookmarks or something. >> >> >> Don't bother telling me that - email the journalist who wrote the article. >> >> The issue here is that a successful attack against the .com servers would >> take out most of the internet since the technical infrastructure is so >> heavily dependent on the the .com zone. Any dummy should understand that. >> >> It's irrelevant who runs the .com zone - the problem here is its >> popularity as a tld label also makes it vulnerable to attack because so many >> name space objects - ns hosts - are technically dependent on the zone. >> >> The day .com goes off line - and this day is inevitable - most of the >> internet will simply disappear for so many folks. I look forward to that >> day - will give me an excuse to take the day off and enjoy an Internet free >> day.. >> >> regards >> joe baptista >> >> -- >> Joe Baptista >> www.publicroot.org >> PublicRoot Consortium >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative >> & Accountable to e Internet community @large. >> ---------------------------------------------------------------- >> Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) >> Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 >> >> >> > > > -- > Joe Baptista > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Re: Network Solutions Under Large Scale DDoS Attack
by Joe Baptista Jan. 25, 2009

Jan. 25, 2009

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 9:03 AM, Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com>wrote: > So then following out your so wisened scenario; What would we migrate to > then? > Or would we just go for walks, read books and watch Network TV shows? > To prevent resolution failure you need name servers having host names from zones NOT .com. And this only works for NON .com domains. If the .com servers are successfully attacked then all of .com is effected. The problem is .com is so pervasive in its popularity and so many name server hosts use .com in their host names that this sort of attack is inevitable. regards joe baptista > > > --- On *Sat, 1/24/09, Joe Baptista <baptista(a)publicroot.org>* wrote: > > From: Joe Baptista <baptista(a)publicroot.org> > Subject: [ga] Re: [At-Large] Network Solutions Under Large Scale DDoS > Attack > To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: "Ga" <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> > Date: Saturday, January 24, 2009, 6:39 PM > > > > > On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 1:56 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > >> Hate to say it folks - but I told you so a long time ago this was going >>> to >>> happen. If you want to attack the Internet - you don't attack the root >>> servers - you attack .com name space. Once .com name space is offline a >>> lot >>> of the net just twinkles out of existence. >>> >> >> Network Solutions is not Verisign, and hasn't been for about a decade. >> >> Perhaps you might want to update your bookmarks or something. > > > Don't bother telling me that - email the journalist who wrote the article. > > The issue here is that a successful attack against the .com servers would > take out most of the internet since the technical infrastructure is so > heavily dependent on the the .com zone. Any dummy should understand that. > > It's irrelevant who runs the .com zone - the problem here is its popularity > as a tld label also makes it vulnerable to attack because so many name space > objects - ns hosts - are technically dependent on the zone. > > The day .com goes off line - and this day is inevitable - most of the > internet will simply disappear for so many folks. I look forward to that > day - will give me an excuse to take the day off and enjoy an Internet free > day.. > > regards > joe baptista > > -- > Joe Baptista > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative > & Accountable to e Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

1 0

TR: [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A)
by Sébastien Bachollet Jan. 25, 2009

Jan. 25, 2009

For information Sébastien Bachollet Président Isoc France sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr -----Message d'origine----- De : owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08@icann.org] De la part de Glen de Saint Géry Envoyé : samedi 24 janvier 2009 15:55 À : Gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08(a)icann.org Objet : [gnso-irtp-pdp-jun08] Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] Dear All, REMINDER: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-09jan09-en.htm Public Comment: Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) You are encouraged to submit comments on the Initial Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Part A) from 9 to 30 January 2009. Please note a summary report has been published in Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian and Spanish on pages: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/ and can be accessed from the public comment section http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#irtp-report A public comment period opened on Friday 9 January 2009 for 21 days on an Initial Report into the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP). The IRTP Part A Policy Development Process is the first in a series of five planned PDPs to address areas for improvements in the existing Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm The IRTP Part A PDP concerns three 'new' issues: (1) the potential need for exchange of registrant email information between registrars, (2) the potential need for including new forms of electronic authentication to verify transfer requests and avoid 'spoofing', and (3) to consider whether the IRTP should include provisions for 'partial bulk transfers' between registrars. A Working Group, launched by the GNSO Council for this PDP, started its deliberations on 5 August 2008 and has now published an Initial Report. PLEASE NOTE: The Working Group will not make a final decision on which solution(s), if any, to propose to the GNSO Council before a thorough review of the comments received during the public comment period and in the final constituency statements has taken place. Following its deliberations, the Working Group has made some preliminary conclusions for each issue, which it hopes will inspire further comments from the public as well as the constituencies. These preliminary conclusions are as follows: Issue I - Is there a way for registrars to make Registrant E-mail Address data available to one another? The WG noted that WHOIS was not designed to support many of the ways in which it is currently used to facilitate transfers. Some members suggested that finding a way to make the Registrant e-mail address more readily available could be addressed as part of an overall technical modernization of the WHOIS protocol. This could be through updates to the existing protocol, modification of the Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) or adoption of the Internet Registry Information Service (IRIS) protocol. However, after review and discussion none of these options received broad agreement. The WG did note that, in the absence of a simple and secure solution for providing the gaining registrar access to the registrant email address, future IRTP working groups should consider the appropriateness of a policy change that would prevent a registrant from reversing a transfer after it has been completed and authorized by the admin contact. This option would not change the current situation whereby a losing registrar can choose to notify the registrant and provide an opportunity to cancel a transfer before the process is completed. Issue II - Whether there is need for other options for electronic authentication? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is a need for other options for electronic authentication. However, opinions in the Working Group differ as to whether these options should be developed by means of GNSO policymaking or should be left to market solutions. Issue III - Whether the policy should incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars? Based on the discussion in the Working Group, there appears to be broad agreement that there is no need to incorporate provisions for handling partial bulk transfers between registrars at this stage. The Working Group believes that these scenarios can be addressed either through the existing Bulk Transfer provisions, or through existing market solutions. As stated in the ICANN Bylaws, the Initial Report is posted for public comment for 20 days. The comments received will be analyzed and used for redrafting of the Initial Report into a Final Report to be considered by the GNSO Council for further action. The Working Group would like to encourage everyone to review the complete Initial Report http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] before submitting comments. Comments on the Initial Report should be sent to irtp-initial-report@xxxxxxxxxx Public comments received can be accessed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-initial-report/. The deadline for submission of comments is 30 January 2009. Related links: Part A Initial Report: http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/irtp-a-initial-report-08jan09.pdf [PDF, 383K] Existing Transfer Policy: http://www.icann.org/en/transfers/policy-12jul04.htm Thank you for your cooperation. kind regards, Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Network Solutions Under Large Scale DDoS Attack
by Bill Silverstein Jan. 25, 2009

Jan. 25, 2009

> On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 1:56 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > Don't bother telling me that - email the journalist who wrote the article. > > The issue here is that a successful attack against the .com servers would take out most of the internet since the technical infrastructure is so heavily dependent on the the .com zone. Any dummy should understand that. He needs to tell you! It is the network solution name servers under attack, not the TLD servers for Verisign. This only effects the .com domains that are using Network Solutions' DNS. Or at least that is my read from the articles.

2 1

New gTLD Delays Purportedly Announced at ICANN Rome Gathering
by Danny Younger Jan. 24, 2009

Jan. 24, 2009

http://www.mailclub.info/article.php3?id_article=969

2 1