September 2003 - council - lists.icann.org

Background memo to council re: Verisign Registry Site Finder
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Sept. 19, 2003

Sept. 19, 2003

Background On Monday and Tuesday 15 and 16 September , I became aware of rapidly growing expressions of concern regarding the impact of a new registry service on spam filtering, DNS servers, ISP services and IP implications. Newsgroups and lists related to communications among ISPs and network operators were flooded with questions and expressions of concern. I reviewed these concerns and questions to determine the impact on the global Internet, and therefore of concern to ICANN. ICANN's primary and most fundamental responsibility is the stability, reliability and interoperability of the Internet. It has other responsibilities as well, but this is an overriding, and critical responsibility First and foremost, the DNS is simple, reliable, and predictable. Many applications rely upon its predictability and the integrity and reliability of the Internet is build upon its simplicity. Internet standards of operation have been developed, since the early days of the Internet, by engineers working together in a collaborative and collegial approach. They have understood that the good of the Internet has overriding precedent to the interests of an individual provider. RFCs are the standards by which the Internet functions. When RFCs aren't clear enough, the IETF can undertake to refine or modify an RFC. In the Internet, good will, and cooperation are the "rule". The private sector leadership of the Internet depends, and is dependent upon these concepts of collegiality, mutual respect, adherence to the letter AND the spirit of the RFCs, and an understanding of the interdependency we all bring to the successful operation of the Internet. Today, over 100,000 networks interoperate, interconnect, and ensure that any email reaches any other email address. Billions of dollars of e-commerce rely upon the successful operation of the Internet. It is a critical infrastructure. We must protect its integrity. That is "our" responsibility. Not governments. Not someone else's. We, as elected gNSO councilors, bear a significant role in ensuring the success of this global critical infrastructure. We share that with other entities of ICANN, including the Board and President of ICANN. The registry new service, introduced without notice or consultation with affected parties, is alleged to be interfering with existing applications and with valid, practical assumptions which underpin the reliability and integrity, and therefore the stability of the Internet. Some may question whether the gNSO Council is out of "scope" in raising this issue in an advisory resolution to the ICANN board. Business users believe that the Council, like all ICANN entities, has a first and primary accountability to examine and ensure the stability of the Internet. Failure to advise the Board would be a dereliction of responsibility by the elected Councilors. However, it is clear that the gNSO alone cannot address the questions being raised. It is undoubtedly and obviously, a cross ICANN entity concern, involving the ASO, the ccNSO, the GAC, the IAB, and Security and Stability Advisory Committee. The primary issue is whether it is acceptable to permit a new service to harm the Internet. The answer has to be "no". However, the question of whether the Internet is harmed is the first question to examine. That question deserves a fair hearing, and a process which enables examination by knowledgeable experts, and by those who are affected. Other questions, such as competition are valid, but I suggest these can be addressed on a different time frame than the "harm to the Internet" which is imperative. Conclusion >From my assessment, it is my view that there are sufficient questions demanding explanation, and with urgency, that I recommend that Council provide an advisory resolution to the ICANN Board and request specific action by the Board in relation to the new registry level service. My resolution will be posted separately to Council. I ask that the Chair place the resolution on the agenda of the next Council meeting of 26 September 2003. I urge fellow councilors to support this resolution. Because all are mentioned in the resolution, I will copy the ASO leadership, the ccNSO launching Committee, and the Stability and Stability Advisory Committee on the forthcoming resolution. Marilyn Cade, gNSO Representative of the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (CBUC)

1 0

ICANN and U.S. Dept. of Commerce MOU
by GNSO SECRETARIAT Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

[To: Council(a)dnso.org] ICANN and U.S. Department of Commerce announce new three-year agreement. http://www.icann.org/general/amend6-jpamou-17sep03.htm http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17sep03.htm GNSO Secretariat

1 0

ICANN and U.S. Department of Commerce Announce New Three-Year Agreement
by Ken Stubbs Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

FYI ICANN and U.S. Department of Commerce Announce New Three-Year Agreement > > > > Marina del Rey, California USA (17 September 2003) - The Internet > > Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the United States > > Department of Commerce (DoC) today announced that they agreed to extend > > their joint Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) for three additional years > > until September 30, 2006. > > > > "This new agreement clearly indicates the DoC's recognition that ICANN > > is > > the right organization to manage the Internet's naming and numbering > > systems," noted ICANN President and CEO, Dr. Paul Twomey. "We look > > forward > > to working with the DoC to complete, within this term, the transition > > toward > > privatization that began with the first MoU five years ago. We are > > pleased > > that we were able to reach agreement with the DoC on a term giving us > > three > > years to get the job done." > > > > ICANN Chairman, Vint Cerf, added, "This agreement between ICANN and the > > Department of Commerce marks a major milestone in ICANN's history and > > the > > process of transition from the historical purely governmental oversight > > of > > the Internet to a public/private partnership. I am very grateful for the > > efforts of ICANN's CEO, Paul Twomey and his staff, working with the > > Department of Commerce, to complete this critical step on behalf of the > > ICANN and Internet communities." > > > > The MoU highlights ICANN's responsibility to ensure the stability of the > > Internet and foster its globalization. Toward those ends, ICANN will: > > implement an objective process for selecting new Top Level Domains; > > implement an effective strategy for multi-lingual communications and > > international outreach; and develop a contingency plan, consistent with > > the > > international nature of the internet, to ensure continuity of operations > > in > > the event of a severe disruption of operations. > > > > In November 1998, the U.S. Department of Commerce entered into the first > > MoU > > with ICANN, recognizing it as the private sector, not-for-profit > > corporation > > that should assume a set of technical coordination and related policy > > development responsibilities for the Internet. Subsequently, there have > > been three additional one-year extensions of the MoU, recognizing > > ICANN's > > significant progress towards achieving the tasks necessary to transition > > oversight of the naming and numbering system to a public/private > > partnership. > > > > Additional details concerning ICANN and the MoU are available at > > <www.icann.org>. > > Please direct inquiries to <hewitt(a)icann.org> or 310-301-5801. > > > > Mary Hewitt > > ICANN > > Director of Communications > > 4676 Admiralty Way, #330 > > Marina del Rey, CA. 90292 > > 310-301-5801 (direct) > > 310-823-8649 (fax) > > 323-304-3310 (mobile) > > > > > >

1 0

RE: [council] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domain names
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

Thomas, I believe you have characterizations in this note without any back-up. To state there are "grave technical concerns" is probably one of the greatest overstatements that I have heard in a long time. Before coming to any conclusions in your study, I would first submit a list of questions to VeriSign to answer and then gather input from the community (if you so desire). For example, it is my understanding that VeriSign has devised a method, as we have as well (in our test several months ago), of only redirecting websites and not MX records. Therefore, e-mail is unaffected. Also, when stating that "users are deprived the opportunity of choosing....". Please provide examples of this? What users do you know that "choose" how they get an error message back. For example, do those who use MSN browser "choose" to get an MSN search redirect rather than an error message? And what is to stop other browsers from doing the same thing. In addition, please provide concrete examples as to how software makers are being deprived. Thomas, I am a little disappointed in your analysis as it provides broad generalizations and no proof. Lets get past emotion and get the true real concrete facts out on the table. Yes, there are applications out there that depend on the error message. However, these applications can easily be updated to accomplish the same functionality. In fact, I noticed a patch on the OpenSRS list that someone devised (in less than 24 hours) which updates many DNS programs. Rather than giving the "technical purist" argument (i.e., the Internet is a sacred animal and anything that alters some of the functionally of the past is "grave"), please provide us with concrete examples, which you have tested, in which the technical parameters of the internet are violated and explain in detail exactly how the every day common user of the Internet is affected. There are two sides to every coin. Are you also examining the benefit to the common Internet user that may be looking for a place to go on the Internet and cannot find his or her way? What about the benefits of a search engine to make the Web more easily navigable? Or has the ALAC already reached the same conclusion you have (in less than 24 hours). The VeriSign service has been alive and well for 24 hours? Did the Internet break? One last note.....to show that the MX records are still returning errors, I have attached an error e-mail message which took less than 4.5 seconds to get returned to my inbox (yes, I did time it). I would say the Internet as we know it is alive and well. Thomas, I would urge that if you truly intend to study this, that you create a MUCH more objective Issue Statement. I am not saying you shouldn't continue to study, but I, like the rest of this council, should start with an open mind. Thanks. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Thomas Roessler [mailto:roessler@does-not-exist.org] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 2:22 PM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: [council] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domain names For your information. The At-Large Advisory Committee would like to bring to ICANN's attention concerns about Verisign's surprising roll-out of the "SiteFinder" service for .com and .net. SiteFinder works by re-directing queries for non-existing domain names to the IP address of a search service that is being run by Verisign. This practice raises grave technical concerns, as it de facto removes error diagnostics from the DNS protocol, and replaces them by an error handling method that is tailored for HTTP, which is just one of the many Internet protocols that make use of the DNS. We will leave it for others to explain the details of these concerns, but note that returning resource records in a way which is countrary to the very design of the DNS certainly does not promote the stability of the Internet. These concerns are not mitigated by Verisign's efforts to work around the consequences of breaking the Internet's design on a service-by-service basis: These workarounds make specific assumptions on the conclusions that Internet software would be drawing from nonexisting domain names; these assumptions are not always appropriate. When working as intended, the service centralizes error handling decisions at the registry that are rightly made in application software run on users' computers. Users are deprived of the opportunity to chose those error handling strategies best suited for their needs, by chosing appropriate products available on a competitive marketplace. Software makers are deprived of the opportunity to compete by developing innovative tools that best match the user's needs. We urge ICANN to take whatever steps are necessary to stop this "service." -- Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

2 1

RE: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

Jeff, it's actually very proper for the GC and Tina, as the Registrar liaison to be invited to Council. This is long standing practice when we might discuss the contracts, and need an interpretation. The Security and Stability Advisory committee is intended to advise the Council, and other entities of ICANN. I think you are missing the point about having Steve on in that role. :-) 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@neustar.us] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:49 AM To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003 In the interest of fairness, if we invite any non-GNSO Council member to this meeting to address VeriSign's service, I am sure that we would all benefit from requesting VeriSign's presence to describe their service, the reasons for its launch, along with possible benefits to the Internet community. Marilyn, I understand the purpose of inviting Steve, but can you please articulate why precisely you would like to invite the GC and Tina Dam. In addition, if we do invite them, perhaps we should provide them with a list of questions in advance of the meeting to prevent them feeling blindsided. Just my recommendation. Thanks. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:17 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003 Bruce, can we invite Steve Crocker, the Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee to the call for this segment? And, the GC and Tina Dam? 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:01 AM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Summary of last meetings - approval of minutes 3. Actions arising from last meeting [30 mins] - Each constituency to appoint one member to the President's committee on WIPO -II - Each constituency to supply list of top 5 UDRP issues - Request Discussion with the Board on extension of 3 representatives per constituency until annual meeting in 2004 - Issues with introducing new tlds 4. Issues associated with Verisign's introduction of wild card entries (*.com and *.net in the .com and .net zonefile) [30 mins] 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy Steering Group [30 mins] 6.Discussion of top 5 UDRP issues [30 mins] - Receive input from each constiteuncy and see if there is common interest in taking some issues forward into policy development 7. Any other business

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

In the interest of fairness, if we invite any non-GNSO Council member to this meeting to address VeriSign's service, I am sure that we would all benefit from requesting VeriSign's presence to describe their service, the reasons for its launch, along with possible benefits to the Internet community. Marilyn, I understand the purpose of inviting Steve, but can you please articulate why precisely you would like to invite the GC and Tina Dam. In addition, if we do invite them, perhaps we should provide them with a list of questions in advance of the meeting to prevent them feeling blindsided. Just my recommendation. Thanks. Jeff -----Original Message----- From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade@att.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:17 AM To: Bruce Tonkin; council(a)dnso.org Subject: RE: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003 Bruce, can we invite Steve Crocker, the Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee to the call for this segment? And, the GC and Tina Dam? 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:01 AM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Summary of last meetings - approval of minutes 3. Actions arising from last meeting [30 mins] - Each constituency to appoint one member to the President's committee on WIPO -II - Each constituency to supply list of top 5 UDRP issues - Request Discussion with the Board on extension of 3 representatives per constituency until annual meeting in 2004 - Issues with introducing new tlds 4. Issues associated with Verisign's introduction of wild card entries (*.com and *.net in the .com and .net zonefile) [30 mins] 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy Steering Group [30 mins] 6.Discussion of top 5 UDRP issues [30 mins] - Receive input from each constiteuncy and see if there is common interest in taking some issues forward into policy development 7. Any other business

1 0

RE: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003
by Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

Bruce, can we invite Steve Crocker, the Chair of the Security and Stability Advisory Committee to the call for this segment? And, the GC and Tina Dam? 202-255-7348c mcade(a)att.com -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Tonkin [mailto:Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 7:01 AM To: council(a)dnso.org Subject: [council] Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003 1. Approval of Agenda 2. Summary of last meetings - approval of minutes 3. Actions arising from last meeting [30 mins] - Each constituency to appoint one member to the President's committee on WIPO -II - Each constituency to supply list of top 5 UDRP issues - Request Discussion with the Board on extension of 3 representatives per constituency until annual meeting in 2004 - Issues with introducing new tlds 4. Issues associated with Verisign's introduction of wild card entries (*.com and *.net in the .com and .net zonefile) [30 mins] 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy Steering Group [30 mins] 6.Discussion of top 5 UDRP issues [30 mins] - Receive input from each constiteuncy and see if there is common interest in taking some issues forward into policy development 7. Any other business

1 0

Proposed agenda for GNSO Council meeting - Thursday 25 September 2003
by Bruce Tonkin Sept. 17, 2003

Sept. 17, 2003

1. Approval of Agenda 2. Summary of last meetings - approval of minutes 3. Actions arising from last meeting [30 mins] - Each constituency to appoint one member to the President's committee on WIPO -II - Each constituency to supply list of top 5 UDRP issues - Request Discussion with the Board on extension of 3 representatives per constituency until annual meeting in 2004 - Issues with introducing new tlds 4. Issues associated with Verisign's introduction of wild card entries (*.com and *.net in the .com and .net zonefile) [30 mins] 5. Update on WHOIS Privacy Steering Group [30 mins] 6.Discussion of top 5 UDRP issues [30 mins] - Receive input from each constiteuncy and see if there is common interest in taking some issues forward into policy development 7. Any other business

1 0

RE: [council] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domain names
by Neuman, Jeff Sept. 16, 2003

Sept. 16, 2003

At any time, the browsers could in theory eliminate that choice at any time by placing in their redirects. ISPs can also redirect responses back from the registry. In addition, the feasibility of using other browsers (especially in businesses), is not as easy as your statement makes it sound. Many intranets within businesses are dependent either on Microsoft or Netscape. But lets play along with the argument that a consumer looses the choice of how to see his or her error message. Help answer the next question....what is the negative consequences? -----Original Message----- From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 3:36 PM To: council(a)dnso.org; roessler(a)does-not-exist.org; Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us Subject: RE: [council] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domainnames While I am sympathetic to Jeff's argument on this: >>> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us> 09/16/03 03:05PM >>> >Rather than giving the "technical purist" argument (i.e., the Internet is a >sacred animal and anything that alters some of the functionally of the past >is "grave"), please provide us with concrete examples, which you have Let me note in respect of this: >What users do you know >that "choose" how they get an error message back. >For example, do those who use MSN browser "choose" to get an MSN >search redirect rather than an error message? In effect, yes. A user can install another browser relatively easily if they don't like the services or destinations associated wtih error messages in a particular browser. However, no such user choice is available when querying the .com zone file. --MM

1 0

RE: [council] ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domainnames
by Milton Mueller Sept. 16, 2003

Sept. 16, 2003

While I am sympathetic to Jeff's argument on this: >>> "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us> 09/16/03 03:05PM >>> >Rather than giving the "technical purist" argument (i.e., the Internet is a >sacred animal and anything that alters some of the functionally of the past >is "grave"), please provide us with concrete examples, which you have Let me note in respect of this: >What users do you know >that "choose" how they get an error message back. >For example, do those who use MSN browser "choose" to get an MSN >search redirect rather than an error message? In effect, yes. A user can install another browser relatively easily if they don't like the services or destinations associated wtih error messages in a particular browser. However, no such user choice is available when querying the .com zone file. --MM

2 1