- gtld-tech - lists.icann.org

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

Specification 5 - Invalid names
by Colosi, John Jan. 16, 2014

Jan. 16, 2014

These two names are in the S5.4.2.txt file: المملكة-المتحدة-لبريطانيا-العظمى-وآيرلندا-الشمالية соединенное-королевство-великобритании-и-северной-ирландии The resulting A-labels for these names are not valid in the DNS: xn--------lch4abbabcbafmcmf4d0bj3bg3f4c5a1a8y3aaefhfeceagqkzl0gzbxbdlm xn--------5veddhabeqmbbabeeb4cjbbabfcaznh0agq9bbaqifehdaegn7eolfhst1bm The A-labels are 70 characters long, and DNS requires a label to be no longer than 63 characters in length. I suggest these two string be removed from the file. -- John John Colosi Senior Manager of Product Development JColosi(a)Verisign.com m: 703-967-4062 t: 703-948-3211 12061 Bluemont Way, Reston VA 20190 VerisignInc.com “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 1

CA's accepting CSR's for nic.<new gTLDs> yet?
by Alexander Mayrhofer Jan. 14, 2014

Jan. 14, 2014

Hi, has anybody had success with convincing one of the well-know Certification Authorities to issue a certificate for names under nic.<newgTLD> yet? I understand that most CA's have either not whitelisted the TLDs - another factor is that in the light of the name collision discussions, they would probably confuse such requests with (now banned) "internal certificates".. Pointers and anecdotal experience appreciated :) thanks, Alex

2 2

Specification 5 - Country names... again..
by Alexander Mayrhofer Jan. 13, 2014

Jan. 13, 2014

I've started looking at the two PDFs of country names that ICANN mandates us to reserve in Section 4.2 and 4.3 of Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement. I have a couple of comments on this: a) I can only guess whether or not the PDFs that i use (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/ungegn-tech-ref-manual_M87_c… and http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG…) are the correct ones, since ICANN failed to include a reference to the documents in the Agreement. b) Extracting names from those documents (particularly in scripts that i'm not familiar with) is absolutely horrible, and will likely lead to interopability problems between registries. c) The mapping of the strings required to be reserved to the actual A-Label is undefined. Therefore, could ICANN please look into creating an reservation list covering these two requirements, and publish that list as a recommended way to implement the two requirements? ICANN could use a tiny tiny fraction of the application fees to contract someone to create an authoritative list of names to be reserved - Or, maybe as a secondary option in case there should be insufficient budget, allocate resources from their "Languages Services Department" http://blog.icann.org/2013/10/introducing-the-language-services-team/ to create this list? I'm sure that many members of the community would welcome this as a useful contribution to ensure a unified approach to those requirements. thanks, Alex Mayrhofer Head of R&D nic.at

8 19

Re: [gtld-tech] Specification 5 - Country names... again..
by Alexander Mayrhofer Dec. 5, 2013

Dec. 5, 2013

John, James, I have a few more comments on the lists that we have been collecting on the Github site. Specifically: > 2. I've attached Verisign's spreadsheet for section 5.4.3 (UN Member States > and translations). There are 7 languages (including both traditional and > simplified Chinese). Spaces and hyphens are tricky. The issue is that > translation engines (here I mostly use Google's service) will often handle > spaces intelligently. For instance, "Central African Republic" translated to > Russian becomes "Центрально-Африканская Республика". That is, a > hyphen is introduced for the first space. I presume this is a standard for the > "Central" modifier. You could choose to create a variant without any > hyphens or spaces, or you could try all the permutations of hyphens and > spaces. Instead of heading down that rabbit hole, we elected to yield to the > translation wherever possible. But we'll respect the group decision and > update our implementation accordingly. On Specification 5.4.3: --------------------------- The agreement says "the list of United Nations member states in 6 official United Nations languages prepared by the Working Group on Country Names of the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names;" I do understand that there is an offical document from the UN that provides translations for those country names. The URL (at least the one i've been using) is: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/UNGEGN/docs/26th-gegn-docs/WP/WP54_UNGEG… I do understand that the above document already contains readily translated / agreed country names for the six UN languages, as required in 5.4.2. However, i do also understand that the list that's now in the Github repository was actually produced using automated translation, which potentially could yield different results compared to extracting the list of country names from the document (or the respective source file)? Therefore, could you please clarify whether the file that's now on the Github was produced by translation engines, or taken from said document? I think that's a significant impact on whether or not that file is usable to cover ICANN's requirement. On Specification 5.4.2: --------------------------- The agreement requires "the United Nations Group of Experts on Geographical Names, Technical Reference Manual for the Standardization of Geographical Names, Part III Names of Countries of the World". Looking at the respective document (http://unstats.un.org/unsd/geoinfo/ungegn/docs/pubs/UNGEGN%20tech%20ref%20m…) the actual list (starting on page 185) contains several columns: - ISO3166 code - COUNTRY- English (UN) - ISO Code; language - Short Name - Formal Name It is unclear to me which of the various columns is to be considered for the reserved names list. Candidates would be the "Country-ENGLISH" (although that is likely already covered by the UN list described in 5.4.3?), the "Short Name", and the "Formal Name". However, looking at the file that is now uploaded on the github for the respective Specification (https://github.com/centralnic/spec5-reserved-names/blob/master/S5.4.2.txt) it doesn't seem to correspond to *any* of these columns. for example, the Entry for "AF" (assumed) in the file lists "afganistán" does not exist in the PDF - in neither of the respective columns. I'm slightly worried that therefore the list that is currently uploaded does not fulfill the respective requirement (besides that i think the original requirement is highly inprecise and hence disputable).. Do i look at the wrong files? Do people interpret the requirements in a different form? Any comments appreciated... thanks, Alex

4 6