- At-Large - lists.icann.org

EC consultation on the Internet of Things
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Oct. 11, 2008

Oct. 11, 2008

Dear all: European RALOs might wish to read through & make suggestions on a public consultation currently in place on the EC Web site, regarding the future "Internet of Things". http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ipm/forms/dispatch?form=IOTconsultation Currently, the EC batches RFID, Internet of Things and creation of an alternative to the DNS root, named ONS, all in one bag. You might wish to add your voice if your organisation agrees or not. Also - EURALO might have a role to play here to provide a consensual voice. Time is of the essence: all responses have to be received by the Commission by 28th November 2008. By the way, you can leave your comments/suggestions in any of the European Langages: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/ Kind regards, -- Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond, Ph.D. E-mail:<ocl(a)gih.com> | http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Registrants’ Rights and Responsibilities (Part 9)
by Danny Younger Oct. 10, 2008

Oct. 10, 2008

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Oct. 10, 2008

Oct. 10, 2008

Total of 20 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 10 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 30.00% | 6 | 28.26% | 41511 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 10.00% | 2 | 10.99% | 16140 | jefsey at jefsey.com 10.00% | 2 | 9.53% | 14001 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 10.00% | 2 | 9.01% | 13234 | ross at tucows.com 5.00% | 1 | 8.62% | 12666 | roberto at icann.org 5.00% | 1 | 6.41% | 9409 | ocl at gih.com 5.00% | 1 | 5.60% | 8220 | brenbe at consumer.org 5.00% | 1 | 5.09% | 7480 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.00% | 1 | 4.67% | 6854 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 5.00% | 1 | 4.00% | 5878 | johnl at iecc.com 5.00% | 1 | 3.93% | 5776 | dogwallah at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 3.88% | 5705 | iza at anr.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 20 |100.00% | 146874 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ga] ICANN's DNSSEC Proposal
by JFC Morfin Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

At 02:45 09/10/2008, Danny Younger wrote: >In an article at wired.com a pointer is provided to ICANN's >unpublished DNSSEC proposal (and if you recall, the DOC put a gag >order on ICANN not to discuss this proposal)... >The pointer is here: >http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/DRAFT-ICANN_DNSSEC_proposal_20080915… > >The wired.com article is >here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/feds-take-step.html >The gag order is >here: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/baker-to-twomey-09sep08.pdf Danny, Please first note that the way some of us see the things from here, is that ICANN tries to use international as a JPA related protection, and that the USG tries to assess the foreign objections to ICANN. For exemple, as you know I am some times noisy about the Staff's continuing attitude against france@large (they still have not sent the French language official answer to our accreditation Feb. request, they promised we would receive before the Paris meeting, so we still cannot appeal). I was very surprised to receive a confirmation request about it. Now, we had a discussion on the Euralo list about DNSSEC technopolitical issues. If there is a chance to establish the necessary trust between the DNS securisation system manager and the users: 1) this systems is to convince Internet lead users that is has more technical pros than cons, the same for political issues. 2) ALAC, as its concerned representative, has the first role to play on behalf of the user community. At 20:09 09/10/2008, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >I was also present at the meeting in Nice. >Several people (some of them are reading this) tried to demonstrate >that having another root might not be a very good idea, by referring >to RFC2826. Milton Mueller had a presentation argueing that multiple >roots could work. At question time, I suggested that ONS should >apply for its own top level domain .ONS and work under the DNS root >rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. I am not sure if >proponents of the alternative ONS root have done their homework & >looked at previous attempts in details (AlterNIC etc.) I am not sure >whether this & the DOC sollicitation are related. Something I am sure is every ALAC member should first become familiar with : it is the ICANN reference document on the issue, and carry as we did for two years the kind of experimentation it suggested to IETF: http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3.htm. >----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto(a)icann.org> >>I was at the meeting, which was indeed hosted by the EU presidency. >>One additional piece of information is that at the same meeting, >>the day before, Eric Besson (French State Secretary for the >>developement of Digital Economy) had announced the "French root" >>for the object naming system, as complementary to the one managed >>by Verisign. Different people might have different opinions on >>whether the two items are related or not. france@large has engaged an effort towards a French @large RFID root some times ago : http://perfida.org (the work is subject to selection and non-disclosure agreement at the time being due to the IP mutually disclosed by members). jfc Note: some @large recent debates show that several systems should be deployed in parallel, at least for testing purposes (intertest). - DNS (as it is today) - DNSSEC - DNSCurve - IPv6 DNS and that possibly the real interest of DNSSEC would be to use the DNS as a bad but secured alternative for missing DDDS. IMHO network security is the missing element and the need is for more work there for secure presentation/session layers. This belongs to the "Internet Plus" concept being under discussion and the presentation location is under discussion with IETF and IAB through my ongoing appeals and work through the ATLARGE structure I had to revive due to the on-going attitude of Staff. PLUS stands for "parallel layers users' systems", where there can be a diversity of interoperable solutions being used at any layer (extended to infrastructure and usage), the Legacy Internet solution being the default, except for Internet missing layers. Presentation and session layers may be implemented along various architectural approaches (hopefully better than the user application layer). Please remember that the ML-DNS (as introduced at the IETF WG-IDNABIS and IPPv6 as discussed with the IPv6 TF and others) are part of this attempt to consolidate a more efficient, stable and secure usage if the as is old internet. Please note that the WG-DNSEXT is the place where to get real serious info on DNSSEC and WG-IDNABIS on IDNA. ICANNDNASSEC is the same kind of technopoliticalegalogy as gTLDs. It only shows that when sales, lawyers, and politics without the users make very poor buyers.

1 0

DOC Notice of Inquiry: DNSSEC
by Danny Younger Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

Press Release: NTIA Seeks Public Comments for the Deployment of Security Technology Within the Internet Domain Name System For Immediate Release: October 9, 2008 Media Contact: Todd Sedmak, (202) 482-7002 or press(a)ntia.doc.gov WASHINGTON--Commerce’s National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) today issued a Notice of Inquiry seeking public comments regarding the deployment of Domain Name and Addressing System Security Extensions (DNSSEC) into the Internet’s DNS infrastructure, including the authoritative root zone. Comments are due by November 24, 2008. The Notice of Inquiry is available online at www.ntia.doc.gov. "NTIA is committed to preserving the security and stability of the DNS," Acting NTIA Administrator Meredith Attwell Baker said. "In light of existing and emerging threats to the Internet DNS, the time is ripe to consider solutions such as DNSSEC. As we consider deploying this technology in the root zone, it is critical that we get feedback from all the interested stakeholders." Background The DNS is a critical component of the Internet infrastructure, which is used by almost every application to associate domain names with the Web addresses required to deliver information on the Internet. The accuracy, integrity, and availability of the information supplied by the DNS are essential to the operation of any system or service that uses the Internet. Over the years, a number of vulnerabilities have been identified in the DNS protocol that threaten the accuracy and integrity of the DNS data and undermine the trustworthiness of the system. In particular, due to technical advances, vulnerabilities in the existing DNS have recently become easier to exploit. Malicious parties may use these vulnerabilities to distribute false DNS information, and to improperly re-direct Internet users. DNSSEC was developed to mitigate these vulnerabilities. Accordingly, the Department is exploring the deployment of DNSSEC at the top level of the DNS hierarchy, known as the root zone. NTIA is responsible for the development of the domestic and international telecommunications policy of the Executive Branch. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press/2008/DNSSEC_081009.html

1 0

Board Minutes: GNSO Restructuring
by Danny Younger Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

GNSO Council Restructuring Whereas, during its 28 August 2008 meeting the Board made several important decisions regarding the new GNSO Council's structure, composition, and implementation timing. These decisions included the formation of four new Stakeholder Groups that comprise a new bicameral (two-house) voting structure that was recommended by the Working Group on GNSO Council Restructuring – the WG-GCR. Whereas, during its 30 September meeting the Board concluded consideration of the WG-GCR Report including its recommendations on Nominating Committee Appointees, election of Council leadership, election of Board seats #13 and #14, voting thresholds for various Council decisions, the role of individual Internet users and their representation within the GNSO, as well as the timing for the implementation of these elements and other key implementation issues. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Membership and Leadership Selection:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.06), as recommended by the WG-GCR, the Board authorizes a third Council-level non-voting Nominating Committee Appointee to serve on the Council whose presence could preserve an independent aspect on the Council and could provide useful management support as the Council moves toward a working group management function. It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.07), the Board authorizes the GNSO Council to elect a Chair consistent with the recommendation of the WG-GCR – that the GNSO Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting its own Vice Chair. The Board directs the Council to develop a process for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair election of the newly structured Council. It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.08), the Board and General Counsel have outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board seat elections and directs Staff to share these with the community and seek additional input. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Operational/Voting Considerations:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.09), the Board adopts all voting thresholds proposed in the WG-GCR Report. The Board requests that the GNSO develop any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as part of its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be submitted to the Board for approval. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Stakeholder and Constituency Organizational Concerns:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10), the Board acknowledges Staff's development of the “Notice of Intent” documentation for potential new constituencies and directs Staff to develop a formal petition and charter template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing constituencies. It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.11), the Board reinforces its support for the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups, and requests that all constituency members and other relevant parties comply with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board in establishing the newly formed structures, including: The need to better represent the wide variety of groups and individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that can change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders. The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable. It is, further Resolved (2008.10.01.12), that the Board further directs Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of those structures. It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.13), the Board directs that plans for each of the four new Stakeholder Groups, that are consistent with the above principles, be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting. The plans must be reviewed and approved by the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be deficient or delayed. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (The Role of Individual Internet Users in the GNSO:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.14), The Board requests additional community dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of individual Internet users, including individual commercial and non-commercial Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the ALAC and At-Large community, and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly helpful and should address the inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures, and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO. -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Implementation Timing:) It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be as follows: Phase 1 – GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; Phase 2 – Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; Phase 3 – Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and Phase 4 – Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting.

1 0

ICANN's DNSSEC Proposal
by Danny Younger Oct. 9, 2008

Oct. 9, 2008

In an article at wired.com a pointer is provided to ICANN's unpublished DNSSEC proposal (and if you recall, the DOC put a gag order on ICANN not to discuss this proposal)... The pointer is here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/DRAFT-ICANN_DNSSEC_proposal_20080915… The wired.com article is here: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/feds-take-step.html The gag order is here: http://www.icann.org/correspondence/baker-to-twomey-09sep08.pdf

1 0

ALAC Public Comment Time Frames
by Danny Younger Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Perhaps a little more honesty on the part of ICANN Staff might be in order... Chuck Gomes put forth the motion calling for constituent input on the topic in his note to Council dated 27 August. That motion was adopted by the GNSO Council at their session on 4 September. A month later the ALAC finally brings this matter to the attention of the at-large community... You can't blame this one on an aggressive Council schedule.

2 1

ALAC Public Comment Time Frames
by Danny Younger Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Cheryl and members of the ALAC: For years I have heard members of the community complaining about the short length of public comment periods. After considerable lobbying, ICANN finally agreed (via the Transparency and Accountability Frameworks document) that "the minimum time for a comment period will be 21 days". Today the ALAC has posted for comment a Statement on WHOIS Hypothesis Studies with only ONE WEEK allowed for public comments -- see https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_whois_hypothesis_work… Is there any particular reason why the ALAC can't adopt a public comment time frame at least as long as ICANN's?

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Result of Voting for ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN, 2008-2009
by Brendler, Beau Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Congratulations, Wendy! I'm sure you will continue to do a splendid job. Beau Brendler ________________________________ From: At-Large Staff [mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org] Sent: Friday, October 03, 2008 6:04 AM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: john.jeffrey(a)icann.org; Wendy Seltzer; Brendler, Beau Subject: Result of Voting for ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN, 2008-2009 Dear Community: With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the balloting to appoint the ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN, we can confirm that the vote is quorate. The results are as follows: Question: Who shall serve as ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN for the 2008-2009 period? As at poll close: Thu 02 Oct 2008 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 14 * Group size: 15 * Percentage voted: 93.33 Ranked by votes Rank Candidate Votes % 1 Wendy Seltzer 9 64.29 2 Beau Brendler 5 35.71 3 Abstain 0 0.00 We can therefore declare that the incumbent, Wendy Seltzer, shall be returned as the Liaison with a term from the end of the ICANN AGM in 2008 (the Cairo meeting) until the close of the AGM in 2009. The Secretary of the Board of ICANN, John Jeffrey Esq., has been copied on this message. The results of the balloting may be independently verified at: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=RRkRDL39WVSXbgX9AXFL When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: 1 Carlos Aguirre -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

2 1