- gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Almost Final Draft Agenda for TechDay Singapore
by Dr Eberhard Lisse March 15, 2014

March 15, 2014

Hi, we seem to have got us a draft agenda, which looks pretty close to the real thing, but times may change, or not. There is quite some stuff not just only for ccTLDs alone :-)-O so please spread the word. greetings, el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

2 1

Interfacing into ICANN's monitoring service provider?
by Alexander Mayrhofer Feb. 28, 2014

Feb. 28, 2014

Hi, back during the Prague ICANN meeting, i asked whether it will be possible for new gTLD registries (or their technical backend operators) to get data out from ICANN's own SLA monitoring service. In addition to a Registry's own monitoring system, this would provide a valuable additional "outside view" to the operations team. In discussion with other backend operators, i got the impression that this was something many of the community were interested in. The answer back then (from Francisco, if i remember correctly) was that "this was something that ICANN will look into". Was there any outcome regarding this? thanks, Alex

1 0

TMCH downtime
by Gavin Brown Feb. 17, 2014

Feb. 17, 2014

marksdb.org was down for a short period a little while ago - it's up now. The domain is delegated to ns1.sbp-isp.net and ns2.sbp-isp.net, with IPs 91.198.126.5 and 91.198.126.5 (why no IPv6?). Neither of these responded to DNS queries or pings. Given that those IPs are within the same /24 (hosted by EuroDNS, it seems) what's the betting that they're on the same box, which has crashed. G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.

3 2

Re: [gtld-tech] URS concerns
by Michele Neylon - Blacknight Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

Wasn't wildcarding expressly forbidden in the contract? I know it referred in that context to the TLD and not a domain name, but surely the same logic applies .. -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Domains http://www.blacknight.co/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://www.technology.ie Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 -----Original Message----- From: gtld-tech-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:gtld-tech-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Gavin Brown Sent: Friday, February 14, 2014 12:07 PM To: Kal Feher; gtld-tech(a)icann.org Subject: Re: [gtld-tech] URS concerns +1 on this. On 14/02/2014 05:21, Kal Feher wrote: > 3. I'd also suggest that the DNS server should not just wildcard all domain responses: > > dig @207.250.29.220 a icann.org +norec ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, > ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: > ;icann.org. IN A > ;; ANSWER SECTION: > icann.org. 86400 IN A 207.250.29.220 > ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: > . 86400 IN NS ns. > ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: > ns. 86400 IN A 207.250.29.220 Also, using an IP address in an NS record. Very poor. G. -- Gavin Brown Chief Technology Officer CentralNic Group plc (LSE:CNIC) Innovative, Reliable and Flexible Registry Services for ccTLD, gTLD and private domain name registries https://www.centralnic.com/ CentralNic Group plc is a company registered in England and Wales with company number 8576358. Registered Offices: 35-39 Moorgate, London, EC2R 6AR.

1 0

URS concerns
by Kal Feher Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

After the discussions we had on this list last year regarding URS procedures, I was curious to see what had been communicated to the URS provider and how they would implement their procedures. After looking at the implementation of the process (only from the outside so far), there appears to be a significant skills and awareness gap on the part of the URS provider. 1. Firstly, can someone please explain why they are providing IP addresses instead of nameservers? We _are_ in the domain name industry. It is also part of the technical procedures and just plain makes sense. 2. The zone configuration used by the URS provider appears to be a touch sloppy: dig ns facebok.pw @207.250.29.220 +norec ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 0, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;facebok.pw. IN NS ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN SOA ns.yourhost.com. hostmaster.yourhost.com. 2008032701 28800 7200 604800 86400 It doesn't appear that the hosting provider "yourhost.com" has anything to do with this service. A quick google for "yourhost.com" does return a hit from "Starting and Building an Online Business for Dummies". I'd recommend a more appropriate configuration be used. 3. I'd also suggest that the DNS server should not just wildcard all domain responses: dig @207.250.29.220 a icann.org +norec ;; flags: qr aa; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;icann.org. IN A ;; ANSWER SECTION: icann.org. 86400 IN A 207.250.29.220 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: . 86400 IN NS ns. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns. 86400 IN A 207.250.29.220 4. The DNS version appears to be creatively named: dig chaos txt version.bind @207.250.29.220 +short "get lost" 5. The website (and webserver), despite supporting ASP, appears to not do any programmatic evaluation of incoming requests: curl -H 'Host: icann.org' http://207.250.29.220/ <html> <head> <title>Suspended Site</title> </head> <body> <div style="text-align:center; background-color:#005FAD; color:white; font-size:40px;"> <p></p>This Site is Suspended </div> <br style="color:white;" /> <div style="background-color:#9AB3E5; font-size:30px;"> The Domain Name you've entered is not available. It has been taken down as a result of dispute resolution proceedings pursuant to the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (URS) Procedure and Rules. </div> <br style="color:white;" /> <div style="background-color:#D7E1F4; font-size:25px;"> For more information relating to the URS, please visit: <a href="http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs">http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/urs</a> </div> </body> </html> Kal Feher

2 1

Multi-TLD Registry Activity Report Counts
by Ben Levac Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

I have a question about the expected content of the following fields of the Registry Functions Activity Report, but it probably applies to other fields in the report: 05 - whois-43-queries 06 - web-whois-queries We are currently operating a shared registry system which hosts multiple TLDs. The WHOIS service is also shared and answers queries for all of the TLDs supported by the system. In a system with only one TLD, I assume that these counters would include all WHOIS requests including invalid ones. In a shared registry system however, what should these counters contain? 1 - Only successful domain and host queries where we could determine the TLD. 2 - A sum of all queries (all TLDs would be reported with the same count). 3 - Some other formula. I'm not sure if this was ever discussed when creating these report definitions. I can't find any documentation of this scenario. Your help would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ben ________________________________ Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Demand Media, Inc. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

1 0

Multi-TLD Registry Activity Report Counts
by Benoit Levac Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

I have a question about the expected content of the following fields of the Registry Functions Activity Report, but it probably applies to other fields in the report: 05 - whois-43-queries 06 - web-whois-queries We are currently operating a shared registry system which hosts multiple TLDs. The WHOIS service is also shared and answers queries for all of the TLDs supported by the system. In a system with only one TLD, I assume that these counters would include all WHOIS requests including invalid ones. In a shared registry system however, what should these counters contain? 1 - Only successful domain and host queries where we could determine the TLD. 2 - A sum of all queries (all TLDs would be reported with the same count). 3 - Some other formula. I'm not sure if this was ever discussed when creating these report definitions. I can't find any documentation of this scenario. Your help would be much appreciated. Cheers, Ben -- Please NOTE: This electronic message, including any attachments, may include privileged, confidential and/or inside information owned by Rightside Group, Ltd. Any distribution or use of this communication by anyone other than the intended recipient(s) is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete it from your system. Thank you.

1 0

How to complain about http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings
by Chris Thompson Jan. 30, 2014

Jan. 30, 2014

Apologies for using this mailing list, but ICANN's feedback form proves useless for this purpose. The web page http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings is almost a week out of date (the latest 12 gTLDs are missing). Is anyone listening here capable of getting it unwedged again? -- Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1(a)ucs.cam.ac.uk Roger Needham Building, 7 JJ Thomson Avenue, Phone: +44 1223 334715 Cambridge CB3 0RB, United Kingdom.

3 2

DNS-OARC Call for Presentations
by Mehmet Akcin Jan. 30, 2014

Jan. 30, 2014

Call for Presentations - DNS-OARC Spring Workshop, May 2014 Next OARC Spring Workshop will take place in Warsaw, Poland on May 10th and 11th, the weekend before RIPE68. OARC is requesting proposals for presentations, with a preference for DNS privacy and confidentiality work and ideas, and DNS over alternative (non UDP) transports. This workshop continues OARC's tradition of having meetings include a strong operational component. Presentations from DNS operators are particularly welcome. We'll also gladly accept talks from DNS researchers, as well as any other DNS-related subjects such as tools, visualizations and data analysis. If you are an OARC member, and have a sensitive topic you would like to present for members-only, we will accommodate those talks too. Adopting practice from other conferences, a section of lightning talks will be added for short presentations. Workshop Milestones * 20 December 2013, Call for Presentations posted * 6 January 2014, Open for submissions * 1 March 2014, Deadline for submission * 28 March 2014, Final Program published * May 9 2014, Final deadline for slideset submission Details for abstract submission will be published here: https://indico.dns-oarc.net/event/workshop-2014-05 at the beginning of January 2014. If you consider submitting a presentation, please let the Programme Committee know in advance to help us organize the presentations tracks. You can contact the Programme Committee: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/programme via submissions at dns-oarc.net if you have questions or concerns. Mehmet Akcin, for the OARC Programme Committee (Please note that OARC is run on a non-profit basis, and is not in a position to reimburse expenses or time for speakers at its meetings.)

1 0

Call for Presentations for TechDay at ICANN Buenos Aires
by Dr Eberhard Lisse Jan. 28, 2014

Jan. 28, 2014

As usual we shall be organizing TechDay on Monday of the coming ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires. Please submit ideas for presentations to the list addresses where this message appears or to any of the following email addresses: el(a)lisse.na ondrej.filip(a)nic.cz This time we would like to have an Latin American focus, if possible, hence Latin American presenters are strongly encouraged to come forward. As we have no budget presenters are responsible for their own transport and room and board. As the name suggests, talks must be of a technical (or operational, perhaps even administrative) nature, and should revolve around TLDs, but otherwise we are quite open. Please forward this to gNSO and other lists as well :-)-O el -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse \ / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) el(a)lisse.NA / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 \ / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/

3 6