- At-Large - lists.icann.org

ICANN publishes DNS Attack Factsheet
by Adam Peake March 9, 2007

March 9, 2007

ICANN's published a very good summary of the February 6 attack on the root server system. <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-08mar07.htm> "ICANN has today released a factsheet concerning the recent attack on the root server system on 6 February 2007. The factsheet is intended to provide an explanation of the attack for a non-technical audience in the hope of enlarging public understanding surrounding this and related issues. Aside from covering the attack itself and the engineers' response to it, the factsheet also briefly reviews the root server system, the domain name system, Anycast technology, and what can be done in order to deal with such attacks in future. It is hoped that the factsheet will be the first in a series, with ICANN's general manager of public participation, Kieren McCarthy, acting as series editor. Future factsheets hope to follow a similar approach of providing clear and topical non-technical information about various aspects of the Internet in which ICANN is involved. We welcome whatever feedback the community may have, plus suggestions for future factsheets. Please post any comments you have on the related blog post. This factsheet is released under a Creative Commons licence." Good to see creative commons license being used, help spread the word. Blog post here <http://blog.icann.org/?p=37 > Factsheet in PDF <http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-dns-attack-08mar07.pdf> I imagine Kieren McCarthy would like to hear from people what he should be covering next. And any comments on the factsheet itself. Adam

1 0

ICANN-related News Items
by ICANN At Large Staff March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

I thought many of you would be interested in one or more of these news snippets: 1. ICANN locks down at-risk Registerfly domains ICANN planned to sue Registerfly.com on 6 March according to Computer Business Review Online, “saying the company is putting its customers' estimated 2 million domain names at risk.” The article notes “in an unprecedented move, ICANN has persuaded the four major generic top- level domain registries to lock down all Registerfly's customers' domains for a month, so they cannot expire and then be hijacked by speculators or domain traffic monetization firms.” With a letter to Registerfly last Friday from ICANN noting “Registerfly is refusing to hand over data about its customers' domains, as required by its registrar accreditation agreement, and that it will enforce the contract in court by filing suit on Tuesday.” The article also notes that as ICANN has not been able to get its hands on the registration data, they have got VeriSign, NeuStar and Afilias “to lock all pending-expiration Registerfly domains into a ‘Server-Delete- Prohibited’ status.” http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=80D83445-B5D5-47BC- B74D-D70EA124D72B 2. When Domain Names Bite Back This story on The Motley Fool gives a background on the RegisterFly “debacle” from an investor’s point of view, looking back as far as the dot-com crash where VeriSign's Network Solutions and Register.com were Wall Street darlings”. The article claims “Before the debacle at Registerfly, the industry was coming back into favour” with investors with GoDaddy looking at going public this year. The article concludes “The Registerfly story may still have a happy ending, but the clock on existing annual registrations keeps ticking. Whether the site cleans up its act, is sold off to a rival registrar, or finds ICANN in a more hands-on role, the industry's reputation is at stake. And consumer faith is on the line. In the name of domains, let's hope this nascent industry gets it right.” http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/03/07/when-domain-names- bite-back.aspx 3. Porn Industry Against New XXX Domain The Free Speech Coalition released a news release petitioning for help in opposing the .xxx TLD proposal. The Free Speech Coalition is the adult entertainment industry’s professional organisation. Genelle Belmas, professor of communications law, who argued in her dissertation in favour of a xxx TLD says, “The side that does not like pornography argues that if you give it its own domain you're legitimizing the porn. And the pornographers don't like it because they say it 'ghettoizes' the porn." The Executive Director of the FSC is quoted as saying what the adult industry refers to as "ghettoizing," is "making adult entertainment an easy target for anti- industry extremists and government intrusion." Other concerns are the cost of registering domain names ($60/year/domain) and that the TLD could be made “mandatory and subject to trans-Internet filtering that could effectively eliminate much of the adult content currently available on the Web." http://media.www.dailytitan.com/media/storage/paper861/news/ 2007/03/06/News/Porn-Industry.Against.New.Xxx.Domain-2759677.shtml

1 0

para la lista del LAC-RALO
by carlos aguirre March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Proposed research on registrar transfer-away fees
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

We do have a polling option in the new voting system; we could set one up there and point everyone to it if you like? On 08/03/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > > I think it's good idea to organize this survey. If possible, could we > also do some user survey on the same subject? Ideally, I like to > make an online survey which costs minimum with some automatic > tally feature. > > The challenge may be how to avoid spam or > non-serious responses, etc. > > izumi > > 2007/3/8, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>: > > Thanks to Danny Younger for starting this conversation. > > > > Danny has proposed that the ALAC initiate research on a specific, > > registrant-affecting question: What are the scope and magnitude of > > transfer-away fees among the various registrars? These fees, charged to > > domain-name registrants when they seek to leave one registrar for > > another, can lock registrants in to a registrar who no longer serves > > their needs (as has happened in droves with former Registerfly > > customers). High fees can also contravene the intent of the uniform > > transfers policy. We have seen little public information about these > fees. > > > > So, here is a focused research task: > > For each registrar, ask > > Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names > > to another registrar? > > If so, what is the fee? > > Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of > > registration? > > Where and how is such disclosure made? > > Is the fee subject to change? > > > > After we decide whether these are the relevant questions, we should ask > > staff to contact all registrars for their responses, and/or review > > public information on the registrars' websites. > > > > If you're interested in this research, please respond to this message > > with your thoughts. > > > > --Wendy > > > > -- > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School > > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > www.alac.icann.org > > www.icannalac.org > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

ICANN Successfully Conducts Laboratory Tests of Internationalised Domain Names
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

In October, 2006, ICANN engaged Autonomica AB of Stockholm, Sweden, to develop, conduct, and report on the results of laboratory testing of internationalized top-level domains in a setting corresponding to the public root. Quoting from their report, Just Posted this morning: Autonomica AB has, under a contract with ICANN, investigated whether the addition of top level domains containing encoded internationalized characters (so called IDNs) would have any impact on the operations of the root name servers providing delegations, or the iterative mode resolvers used to look up the information. No impact at all could be detected. All involved systems behaved exactly as expected. Internationalized domain names (IDNs) are domain names containing characters other than those based on the ASCII character sets. Such non-ASCII characters include those available in right-to-left scripts (e.g., Arabic) and non-alphabetic scripts (e.g., Mandarin Chinese). ICANN is actively involved in the efforts to make these available at the top level—that is, so that an entire domain name can be rendered in local characters. The global deployment of IDNs will enhance the local Internet experience in large regions of the world by enabling people to share and access information or use services offered in their own languages. The laboratory technical test is one of the prerequisites to eventual insert internationalized top level labels in the root zone. This test is intended to determine the viability of internationalized top-level names and the effect they may have on the DNS. The work was done by replicating the root server environment. The test intentionally did not incorporate the end-user perspective or a live root test. Autonomica reported successful insertion using two major server implementations used by most root server operators: BIND and NSD. The test design was finalized in December of 2006 following a public comment period. The test procedure was published so that others can replicate the test. Details of the test setup and design can be found here. Details of the test result can be found here. [PDF, 73K] For any questions or request for additional details of the test design and result please contact Tina Dam at tina.dam(a)icann.org For further information around ICANN’s IDN Program please visit http://www.icann.org/topics/idn/ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Proposed research on registrar transfer-away fees
by Danny Younger March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

Aloha Randi, Re: I have never used a registrar that charged a fee for transferring away domains... Consider this article in Slashdot: saikou writes "There were previous reports of GoDaddy, one of the biggest domain name registrars, attacking Bittorrent sites with frivolous interpretation of their own Terms of Service (that story was resolved), and now similar events unfold with clients of one of Russian domain registrars Majordomo.ru -- GoDaddy has informed them that all 1399 client domains are now blocked (story in Russian) due to 'many of your domain names were listed in the Spamhaus.org blacklist or were resolving to a name server or IP address listed in the Spamhaus.org blacklist' with a demand of a neat '$199 non-refundable administration fee to the credit card on file for your account for each domain name you wish to reactivate' or $50 for each domain to be transferred out into another registrar." http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/17/1319233 We know that some registrars are engaged in this practice and that others are contemplating charging such fees: >From the registrars list (comment from Rob Hall) "But on the broader note, I wonder aloud at which point a Registrar can impose it's own contractual provisions that override policies like the transfer policy. It would not be hard for a Registrar to put into place a non-transfer provision that lasts lets say 180 days, or a year after a renewal or other domain event. Or how about we just start charging a $50 admin fee to handle the transfer away. This fee would become due the second the transfer was applied for, so it would be a case of money owing on the existing domain registration which would allow for the transfer to be denied. hmmm." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg04255.html This type of research project will take us out of the anecdotal arena (where we need to rely on third-party allegations that are prevalent on many webmaster forums) and into empirical research. We may be looking at the start of a trend or at a trend that might already be in full blossom or we might find that such fees are in reality somewhat rare. Whatever the case, the domain name registrant can only be helped by such an initiative that might ultimately lead to a policy recommendation along the lines of that which is already in place at auDA: "Neither the losing registrar nor the gaining registrar is permitted to charge a transfer fee." http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-transfers-response.pdf --- RJGlass <jipshida(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I have never used a registrar that charged a fee for > transferring away domains. Nor would I use that > registrar if i had a choice, even if their annual > registration fees were cheaper. I would think > something like this would fall into monopolistic > practices by registrars. I find that the most > irritating issues with registrars are 1) lack of any > customer service - except Godaddy (I have been > trying to contact a human from enom for 3 days), and > 2) tranferring domains. > > On one hand, the barriers to transferring domains > between registrars enhances security, on the other > hand there seems to be little standardization and > consistency. > > -RJGlass > A@L > > ____________________ > > Domain name services > http://www.Psyberdomain.com > > Help the needy > http://www.DDMF.org > > Help yourself > http://www.AmericaAtLarge.org > ------------------------- > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>; At-Large > Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:25:42 PM > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Proposed research on registrar > transfer-away fees > > Thanks to Danny Younger for starting this > conversation. > > Danny has proposed that the ALAC initiate research > on a specific, > registrant-affecting question: What are the scope > and magnitude of > transfer-away fees among the various registrars? > These fees, charged to > domain-name registrants when they seek to leave one > registrar for > another, can lock registrants in to a registrar who > no longer serves > their needs (as has happened in droves with former > Registerfly > customers). High fees can also contravene the intent > of the uniform > transfers policy. We have seen little public > information about these fees. > > So, here is a focused research task: > For each registrar, ask > Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take > their domain names > to another registrar? > If so, what is the fee? > Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant > at the time of > registration? > Where and how is such disclosure made? > Is the fee subject to change? > > After we decide whether these are the relevant > questions, we should ask > staff to contact all registrars for their responses, > and/or review > public information on the registrars' websites. > > If you're interested in this research, please > respond to this message > with your thoughts. > > --Wendy > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law > School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [AFRI-Discuss] RE : Re: Question
by Pierre Dandjinou March 7, 2007

March 7, 2007

Dear Vittorio and all, I wish to concur with Mohammed and I guess this one is a hot topic at the Board level for the time being. One issue is how we do separate politics from territories. The other one is which principles Icann should adopt to guarantee neutrality in such cases. Regards Pierre

1 0

RegisterFly situation
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 7, 2007

March 7, 2007

Dear Community: I thought you would be interested in seeing the text of emails which ICANN staff are sending to the large numbers of RegisterFly customers who are contacting ICANN directly for help with their domains, as it also provides some information on what actions ICANN is taking to deal with the situation. --- Thank you for your email. ICANN is taking action in relation to RegisterFly. We have found them to be in breach of their Accreditation Agreement and we have demanded that they address these breaches. In addition to this legal action, ICANN convened a telephone conference among those needed to implement a plan that will help cease unintended deletions. The participants were Registries holding RegisterFly names. The Registries involved have agreed to move any RegisterFly names in Redemption Grace Period status into Server-Delete-Prohibited status. This will prevent them from being deleted from the registry and becoming available for re-registration by others. ICANN is also working to copy and protect data regarding registration applications and registered name holders. Our website http://www.icann.org and our blog http://blog.icann.org/ are updated regularly with information about what ICANN is doing to assist people affected and this is the best source for you to get information you need in the future. Information on transfer policy can also be found at http:// www.icann.org/transfers/ I do appreciate how stressful this situation must be for you and hope the information above is of assistance. --- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Policy matters for conference call agenda
by Wendy Seltzer March 6, 2007

March 6, 2007

I added some of the policy issues to our Mar 6 agenda. <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?6_march_2007> (It's a wiki, so feel free to add, subtract, or rearrange.) I propose that we run through these with no more than a couple minutes each, to see where we want to generate input and of what sort. Policy Matters for Discussion 1. Domain Tasting: Update from Nick on Issues Report, start a PDP already (ws suggests) 2. Registerfly situation: ICANN's non-enforcement of its contracts and what that means to the public as third-party beneficiary (even if such status is disclaimed in the contracts) 3. gTLDs. Yes, .xxx is up for discussion again; does the GAC want veto rights over new TLD strings? 4. IDNs. Why can't domain re-sellers participate in the IDN process? 5. LSE's GNSO review and upcoming ALAC review. Yet Another ICANN Reform Process? --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

4 4

Preparing for Lisbon: Resolutions from At-Large to the larger community?
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 6, 2007

March 6, 2007

Dear All: May I suggest to you that the At-Large community has a unique opportunity at the upcoming Lisbon meeting to agree a few resolutions on key issues which are in the public and icann policy 'Eye' at the moment. With at least two RALO MoUs being concluded, and likely the European one too, the conference will have a big spotlight on the community. I submit for you all to consider that this spotlight could be used by the community to focus attention on the issues which you care about. There could for example be resolutions on: 1) Domain Tasting - the negative consequences to end-users which many in the community have highlighted and a call for the GNSO and ICANN Board to begin a PDP as an urgent matter; 2) Registry and Registrar performance - the issue of Registerfly has brought to the fore issues of enforcement and the role of ICANN in enforcing these contracts. A resolution could highlight these and call for action; a number of proposed actions have been mooted on community lists. There's also the issue of switching registrars and the difficulty that poses for people which has been brought up in the African discussion lists By resolution, I mean something brief - one page per issue - in the style of a UN resolution with adjectives leading each paragraph of a preamble section, and then a section with specific recommendations for action (not in great detail necessarily but the high-level principles or actions which should be made). At the ALAC monthly teleconference on 6th March, could the committee perhaps propose to discuss this? If one member of the committee could draft a one-page document on the above structure to be completed within a week, then there would be time to send it out to all the regions for their review and comment, and then at Lisbon the two regions present and the ALAC could agree a final text and release it to the rest of ICANN. If nobody on the ALAC is able to do the drafting, I'm happy to do a draft as a "backup drafter" and then forward it to be reviewed. I hope this will not be thought presumptuous. I don't wish to 'take over' the policy work of the community, but I do see a real opportunity for the community to make a big splash of substance at the next meeting and wouldn't like to see that opportunity lost or wasted. At the same time I do understand that people are all volunteers and I'm happy to help in any way I can. There are those - even in the community - who do not believe the At- Large community has the ability to influence ICANN's work. I do not believe they're right, but it seems to me one of the best ways to find out is to take a strong stand and suggest proactive steps to improve things. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

6 6