February 2011 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

ICANN Blog : Update on ICANN Board/GAC Consultation on New gTLDS
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Feb. 10, 2011

Feb. 10, 2011

http://blog.icann.org/2011/02/update-on-icann-boardgac-consultation-on-new-…

1 0

DNSSEC and end users
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 9, 2011

Feb. 9, 2011

Good morning to all, This is your SSAC liaison speaking. I am requesting your thoughts on what expected impact DNSSEC will have on end users. My goal is to contribute ideas to the the agenda of the DNSSEC sessions at the San Francisco meeting. Currently, with DNSSEC enabled on the DNS resolver you use (typically, the one assigned to you by your ISP), a domain name failing DNSSEC resolution returns a code to your browser saying the domain does not exist. You would get a blank page displayed in your browser saying the domain is unreachable, similar to what you get when you type an invalid domain name in the browser bar. Some suggest that browsers should return a warning instead, similar to the one you get with an invalid SSL certificate. The counter-argument to this is that most users tend to ignore these warnings anyway and just click OK to go ahead. Further, some say that ISP support desks will get lots of calls from customers complaining about "the Internet is not working" if users are annoyed by pop-up messages, for what appears to be legitimate domain names. Obviously, I do not claim that the Internet is just the web. But is is right now the most visible part and the one which requires direct interaction from the user. I am interested in your thoughts about this. Patrick Vande Walle -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu

6 7

Re: [At-Large] DNSSEC and end users
by Eric Brunner-Williams Feb. 9, 2011

Feb. 9, 2011

Dear <hat="SSAC Liaison"> Patrick, First, TimeWarner, and quite a few other ISPs, do not return NXDOMAIN to stub resolvers (end users of the resolution system), which a browser may render as a blank page. What is returned is a Yahoo synthesized search page. If recursive resolver operator behavior for NXDOMAIN / synthesized results is indicative of recursive resolver operator behavior for "domain name[2] failing DNSSEC resolution", then a third-party synthesized search page is the likely result returned to the stub resolver and application, for applications which use HTTP. While ICANN goes to great pains to make the point that any behavior by infrastructure operators other than contracted parties, from withdrawing all prefixes announcements for a region to substitution of all resolution requests made to a recursive resolver, is outside its scope, this is a situation which could be, to coin the obvious pun, resolved. So, in the first instance, the end-user DNSSEC experience is likely to be a planned increase in presentation of PPC or other monitized synthesized resources, with total control of the end-user DNSSEC experience held by the recursive (eyeball network) resolver operator. Stepping back, the .com string space ICANN created contains "hot spots", the post-UDRP form of original, name-for-sale speculation generally called "cyber-squatting". Modulo Sitefinder, the one attempt by VGRS to capture the value of strings not resolvable, via wildcard matching in the authoritative resolver, the locus of monitized benefit for false matches, e.g., typos, similar strings, etc., lies in the "domainer" sector of the market. Restated, the benefit of interposition upon the .com name space end-user resolution attempt is currently broadly held, mostly by parties other than resolver, authoritative or recursive, operators. The benefit of interposition upon signed .com name space end-user resolution attempt will initially be overwhelmingly narrowly held, mostly by resolver operators. Over time, as the targets of "domainer" interposition and the "domainer" sector sign their respective portfolios, the benefit of interposition upon signed .com name space end-user resolution attempt will relax from this unimodal distribution to the existing semi-uniform distribution. I suggest that a likely outcome will be revenue contraction for the domainer industry, moving millions of low-value domains into non-renewal status and eventual expiry as domainers fail to adapt to revenue loss, with the monitized value, of those domains going to the eyeball network operators, followed by a gradual re-appearance of the now-signed domainer-held portfolios, I think your question can be restated "How will end-users interpret the transformation of the .com interposition industry?" Before trying to suggest answers, it is worth pointing out that there is little interposition industry, other than that operated by eyeball network operators, for the name spaces other than com/net/org/biz/info. Where ad network operators are not paying or paying significantly less for matches, domainers are relatively absent and PPC domain portfolios are significantly smaller. Given the string space that ICANN's created, primarily in the .com name space, but also in the rest of the CNOBI market, the policy question is what changes, if any, will it attempt to make through its contract with Verisign, that will affect the distribution of revenues acquired through the continued capture of end-user attempts to resolve a resource through interposition. You may want to compare and contrast the benefit of making cache poisoning for a specific, recursive resolver held unit of resolution data obsolete, and enabling synthetic return for any signed request for an unsigned resource, or unsigned request for a signed resource, or simply any initial request, and possibly several subsequent requests, whether signed or unsigned. The scenario offered: "some say that ISP support desks will get lots of calls from customers complaining about "the Internet is not working" if users are annoyed by pop-up messages, for what appears to be legitimate domain names" should be restated as a cost-benefit issue for eyeball network operators maximizing ad inventory impressions and minimizing support costs. You may also want to reflect on the utility of ICANN's current program of getting 40 ccTLDs signed, particularly if the following are not signed: .de (14), .uk (9), .cn (7), .tk (5), .nl (4) .ru (3) .ar (2), .bz (2), .it (2), .pl (2), .au (2), .us (2), .ca (1). The (numbers in parenthesis) are the number of registrations in millions. Absent a means to obtain an outcome less undesirable than the end-users interpretation of DNSSEC as simply the transformation of the .com interposition industry from one exploitation business model to another exploitation business model, the likely outcome will be the rational reflection that the network trust model benefits parties other than end-users. FYI, the "DNSSEC Workshop" at the Bruxelles meeting was a complete waste of time. Rather than hand over a valuable hall to a bunch of vendors doing dog-and-pony as a phony "worksho", a sign-a-zone-and-re-sign-a-zone exercise could have been conducted, with real work by the participants. Fake DNSSEC Workshops are something that should not be left unfixed. You may want to register for the OARC event, held contemporaneous with ICANN-40. I have. The link to the OARC 2011 San Francisco Workshop is here: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/workshop/registration. There is a lot of DNSSEC evangelism. You may want to reflect on the value signing the .cat zone had (I wrote the funnel request), or on the value of signing the .museum zone had, not for the techno-gleeful operators or for competitive marketing vis a vis other operators, but for the end-users of resources mapped by the respective chains of resolution. Cheers, Eric P.S. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Antony. I don't know if he has a clue how to solve this problem. I know that I do. > Good morning to all, > > This is your SSAC liaison speaking. I am > requesting your thoughts on what expected impact DNSSEC will have on end > users. My goal is to contribute ideas to the the agenda of the DNSSEC > sessions at the San Francisco meeting. > > Currently, with DNSSEC enabled > on the DNS resolver you use (typically, the one assigned to you by your > ISP), a domain name failing DNSSEC resolution returns a code to your > browser saying the domain does not exist. You would get a blank page > displayed in your browser saying the domain is unreachable, similar to > what you get when you type an invalid domain name in the browser bar. > > > Some suggest that browsers should return a warning instead, similar to > the one you get with an invalid SSL certificate. The counter-argument to > this is that most users tend to ignore these warnings anyway and just > click OK to go ahead. Further, some say that ISP support desks will get > lots of calls from customers complaining about "the Internet is not > working" if users are annoyed by pop-up messages, for what appears to be > legitimate domain names. > > Obviously, I do not claim that the Internet > is just the web. But is is right now the most visible part and the one > which requires direct interaction from the user. > > I am interested in > your thoughts about this.

1 0

Understanding DNSSEC
by Lutz Donnerhacke Feb. 9, 2011

Feb. 9, 2011

I'd like to point you to a (currently German only) website which tries to explain interactivly how DNS (and DNSSEC) works: http://www.denic.de/domains/dnssec/dnssec-vv.html It's far from perfect, but might be helpful. You might report errors and wishes directly to me. Oh, btw: ccTLD de is going to publish the DS entry in the root zone on May, 31.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] U.S. seizure of .ORG domain name
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 8, 2011

Feb. 8, 2011

I would support this. Btw, the USG has used similar tactics to take down domains that are used for online gaming centred on Antigua in the Caribbean . Online gaming is legal in Antigua but it matters not to US interests. Antigua has sought relief at the WTO on areas of WTO jurisdiction and she has repeatedly prevailed. Still has not mattered to our Uncle Sam. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > I propose the At Large/ALAC protest the U.S. government's seizure of > domain name Rojadirecta.org. > > Rojadirecta is a popular sports streaming and P2P download site. > Rojadirecta is a legitimate Spanish business. Two Spanish courts have > ruled the site operates legally. > > It seems the U.S. Government Homeland Security's Immigration and > Customs Enforcement (ICE) division used the TLD as the means of > seizure in an attempt to take down the site. If the action was > against the registrar then a registrant would at least have a choice > of jurisdiction. But this action on ORG, and the actions on .COM > names last November essentially means the U.S. government considers > COM, NET and ORG to be nothing more than ccTLDs subject to U.S. whim > (this isn't a legal action, there has been no court case, no due > process.) > > Rojadirecta is now available under other TLDs > <http://www.rojadirecta.me> <http://www.rojadirecta.es> > <http://www.rojadirecta.in> as well its original IP address > <http://109.235.53.189/>. > > Expect there will be a lot written about this, this article's ok as a > starting point: > < > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-sei… > > > > I hope At Large will issue a statement protesting the use of the TLD > registry as a means of takedown. That it recommends when the NET, ORG > and COM contracts are renegotiated they should move to a jurisdiction > where such unilateral action by a government is not possible. That > the new applicant guidebook require applicants to only locate in > jurisdictions where such unilateral action by a government is not > possible. > > Legitimate businesses should not be subject to the whim of a U.S. agency. > > Adam > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

14 30

ICANN Press Release "Available Pool of Unallocated IPv4 Internet Addresses Now Completely Emptied"
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Feb. 7, 2011

Feb. 7, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-03feb11-en.pdf Good to see that the At-Large IPv6 FAQ produced by the At-Large Community for the At-Large Summit in March 2009 is used as ICANN's reference for IPv6 Dev T

2 1

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 4, 2011

Feb. 4, 2011

Total of 121 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 4 00:53:03 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.74% | 13 | 9.59% | 77503 | karl at cavebear.com 9.92% | 12 | 8.13% | 65713 | lutz at iks-jena.de 8.26% | 10 | 7.88% | 63684 | avri at acm.org 7.44% | 9 | 5.46% | 44140 | johnl at iecc.com 4.96% | 6 | 7.76% | 62691 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 5.79% | 7 | 5.89% | 47581 | evan at telly.org 4.96% | 6 | 6.28% | 50794 | admin at ttcsweb.org 4.13% | 5 | 4.21% | 33987 | derek at aa419.org 3.31% | 4 | 3.71% | 29990 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 3.31% | 4 | 3.31% | 26772 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 2.48% | 3 | 3.56% | 28772 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 3.31% | 4 | 2.69% | 21704 | omar at kaminski.adv.br 2.48% | 3 | 2.59% | 20944 | cveraq at gmail.com 2.48% | 3 | 2.43% | 19617 | icann-list at sorehands.com 2.48% | 3 | 2.23% | 18049 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 2.48% | 3 | 2.20% | 17804 | neil at cauce.org 2.48% | 3 | 2.10% | 16989 | franck.martin at gmail.com 1.65% | 2 | 1.83% | 14817 | joly at punkcast.com 1.65% | 2 | 1.77% | 14330 | parminder at itforchange.net 1.65% | 2 | 1.77% | 14317 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 1.65% | 2 | 1.55% | 12505 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 1.65% | 2 | 1.40% | 11317 | dogwallah at gmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 1.26% | 10224 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 1.14% | 9243 | info at internautabrasil.org 0.83% | 1 | 1.14% | 9196 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 0.83% | 1 | 1.07% | 8642 | fatimacambronero at gmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 1.03% | 8336 | vanda at uol.com.br 0.83% | 1 | 1.00% | 8059 | siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.93% | 7511 | avc at namesatwork.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.90% | 7244 | ocl at gih.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.73% | 5913 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.73% | 5896 | email at hakik.org 0.83% | 1 | 0.63% | 5117 | andrespiazza at gmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.55% | 4474 | manuel.schneider at wikimedia.ch 0.83% | 1 | 0.54% | 4370 | jmamodio at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 121 |100.00% | 808245 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs on 28 February and 1 March 2011 (must RSVP by February 8 2011)
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Feb. 4, 2011

Feb. 4, 2011

The notice at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm has been updated with this notice : "A message to those who wish to attend the ICANN Board-GAC Meeting in Brussels on 28 Feb-1 Mar. If you wish to attend as an observer the upcoming meeting of the ICANN's Board and the GAC to discuss new gTLDs [see below], please RSVP by sending an email to GAC-BoardRSVP(a)icann.org no later than 8 February 2011. Space in the room is limited and we don't wish to have people traveling and find there is no space for them to attend. Therefore it was necessary to come up with a limited procedure for seat allocation. If the number of RSVPs exceeds the amount of available seating, ICANN staff will allocate the seating in an equitable manner. To ensure maximum attendance, those whose RSVPs are confirmed will need to submit a copy of an airline ticket, hotel reservation or other indication of their intent to attend in person. As previously announced, the meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the meeting. Please note that in addition to the open plenary sessions, smaller meetings focused on specific issues may also take place and may be closed to non-participants. If they occur, those in these smaller meetings will report on their work during the open plenary sessions." On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <admin(a)ttcsweb.org> wrote: > Via : http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm : > > "During the recent ICANN meeting in Cartagena, the ICANN Board of > Directors and Governmental Advisory Committee agreed to meet at some > time prior to the upcoming Silicon Valley/San Francisco meeting in > order to devote significant time in the interest of resolving the > outstanding issues the GAC has identified with the new gTLD process. > > Planning for that meeting has occurred and the Board and the GAC have > agreed to meet on 28 February and 1 March 2011, in Brussels, at the > Square Brussels Meeting Centre, Mont des Arts – Kunstberg, Brussels. > The purpose of the meeting is to: > > 1. Identify the specific differences between Governmental Advisory > Committee ("GAC") advice and the current implementation of the GNSO > New gTLD Policy recommendations embodied in the Applicant Guidebook. > > 2. Through discussion among Board and GAC members, either: > arrive at an agreed upon resolution of those differences, or > > for those issues not resolved, identify what differences remain. This > meeting is not intended to address the requirements/steps outlined in > the Bylaws mandated Board-GAC consultation process. > The meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. > Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and > subject matter experts will participate in the discussion, whether in > person or remotely. It will be possible for interested parties to > attend and observe proceedings. Remote participation facilities will > also be made available. > > The meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. > Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and > subject matter experts will participate in the discussion, whether in > person or remotely. It will be possible for interested parties to > attend and observe proceedings. Remote participation facilities will > also be made available. >

1 0

Impressions from the Whois-Review
by Lutz Donnerhacke Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

As an AtLarge delegate to the whois review team, I'd like to keep you informed. Of course I'll not talk about interna, but give you background about my activities. http://wwwneu.iks-jena.de/eng/Blog/That-s-the-way-it-always-have-been or http://wwwneu.iks-jena.de/Blog/Das-war-schon-immer-so Please note that "wwwneu.iks-jena.de" is a staging system, so please do blame me for errors and inconstencies.

12 58

Your help is needed -- candidate consumer constituency charter
by Beau Brendler Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

Hello, all. After discussing the issue with Alex Gakuru, we thought it a good idea to make this document available to a wide audience. It's an attachment, meant to be read in conjunction with the old consumer constituency charter (background and old charter here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco) The attached document points out sections of the old charter that need to be rewritten and separates them from the boilerplate legal language all the new constituency proposals have. We seek new wording that's appropriately inclusive. Some members of the community have asked for the opportunity to assist in the rewrite -- here is that opportunity. One way to proceed would be to respond to this list with proposed edits/rewrites, and Alex and I can incorporate them. Or perhaps staff could give us a workspace (or remind us of a suitable existing workspace) where edits can be suggested. We need to hear back as soon as possible, in the next week or so. Thanks in advance for your time. Beau Brendler Alex Gakuru

2 1