- council - lists.icann.org

ICANN and U.S. Department of Commerce Announce New Three-Year Agreement
by Ken Stubbs 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

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 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

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 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

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 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

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 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

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 17 Sep '03

17 Sep '03

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 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

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 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

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

ALAC statement on resolution of non-existing domain names
by Thomas Roessler 16 Sep '03

16 Sep '03

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/

1 0

ICANN GNSO Policy officer position
by Bruce Tonkin 15 Sep '03

15 Sep '03

Hello All, Just a note in case others haven't seen this, that ICANN has a job opening for a GNSO Policy officer. I understand that applications will close shortly. Please pass onto to interested members in your constituencies. Regards, Bruce From: http://www.icann.org/general/jobs.htm#GNSOPolicyOfficer GNSO Policy Officer The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has an immediate job opening for a GNSO policy officer at its offices in Marina del Rey, California USA. The primary responsibility of the position is to support the GNSO Council in the smooth running of the GNSO policy process. Job duties include: Liaise with the chair and members of the Council to understand current issues of importance to the GNSO Council Assist the GNSO Council with the development of a charter or terms of reference for policy Task Forces Convene meetings of the Task Forces with the assistance of the GNSO Secretariat Prepare reports as required in the policy process, including gathering and synthesising public feedback during the policy process Assist as needed with the finalisation and implementation of policy Qualifications Bachelors degree (with postgraduate qualifications desirable); at least five years experience in developing policy in an environment with conflicting stakeholder views; understanding of technical issues involving the Internet. Candidate must have excellent verbal and writing skills and be fluent in English in a policy environment; fluency in another language an advantage. Candidate must be able to work as a member of a team. Demonstrated success in working with the cultural and language issues that arise in an international business environment would be an advantage. Compensation Salary commensurate with experience and qualifications. ICANN offers a competitive benefits package, including retirement savings plan; employer paid medical, dental, vision, disability and life insurance; and paid vacation initially three weeks each year. ICANN's office environment is friendly and casual. Work hours are flexible. For further details about the position, click here. http://www.icann.org/general/gnso-policy-support-description-15aug03.pdf Please submit your resume and cover letter via e-mail to our staff at opportunities(a)icann.org.

1 0