January 2014 - ispcp - lists.icann.org

hey! check out what this Christian Dawson guy is saying about name collisions
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 14, 2014

Jan. 14, 2014

hi all, our very own Christian Dawson on name-collisions. way to go! Registrar SG Chair Michele Neylon is featured as well. mikey http://www.thewhir.com/web-hosting-news/name-collision-new-gtlds Name Collisions Could Pose Potential Problem for Web Hosts by Nicole Henderson on January 13, 2014 Much of the coverage on new gTLDs in the hosting industry has focused on the scope of opportunity it presents for web hosting providers looking to grow their business. From extensive marketing campaigns to new tools and platforms to help customers reserve their top choices, web hosts have been busy over the past few years preparing for this growth phase of the Internet. But one issue that perhaps hasn’t seen as much coverage when it comes to new gTLDs is the concern around name collisions. According to an ICANN report released at the beginning of December, called Name Collision Identification and Mitigation for IT Professionals, “a name collision occurs when users unknowingly access a name that has been delegated in the public DNS when the user’s intent was to access a resource identified by the same name in a private network.” In the document, ICANN explains that the “collision occurrences themselves are not the concern, but whether collisions cause unexpected behavior or harm, the nature of the unexpected behavior or harm and the severity of the consequence.” Christian Dawson, COO of web hosting company ServInt and co-chair of the Internet Infrastructure Coalition, said that the collisions have the potential to not only break internal systems, but also create security issues since internal information could unexpectedly be external. “Let’s say you were a mid-nineties systems designer and you decided you were going to build a system where on your internal network you were going to call something, let’s say your company was a folders company, you would call something folders.mail. Well, now there is a .mail. You may have had a system that for 10 years went to your internal system, but now it’s going to go out into the world with somebody else’s folders.mail,” Dawson said. “There are implications there. It’s breaking internal systems, but also, what are you sending there? Is it something that should remain private? There are security issues. There could be financial institutions or medical institutions that are doing things with internal name designation that are now going to be out in the public. Those things are going to stop resolving to the internal places and start resolving to external places, and all of the sudden some guy who owns that domain is getting everybody’s mail.” ICANN released the report to offer recommendations on how to mitigate name collisions, but it is a complex issue that doesn’t have a quick fix. “There’s not an easy solution because the standard practice has been, when you’re coding a system, that either you use a domain you own or use local host,” Dawson said. “We know things are still being written that could break,” he said. “ICANN is trying to fight that but it’s going to take a lot of visibility. It’s great that ICANN is working on it but there is a significant part of our industry that doesn’t even know who ICANN is. I would say about 70 percent of the industry, and we’re in this space, doesn’t have any idea that the new gTLD process is happening much less that there could be ramifications of gTLD issuing that needs to be learned how to be resolved.” While ICANN has released information on how to deal with the potential issues of name collisions, the document is dense and uses acronyms and jargon that may not be familiar to a less technical audience. Dawson said that the big deal for hosting providers is that clients are going to call their web host when things break, and if hosts don’t know what is happening, they won’t have the ability to troubleshoot. “The successful hosting providers out there, they focus on being two-steps ahead of any issues with their clients so they can build trusting relationships with them. I feel as though this particular issue is one that has flown too far under the radar and that in order to focus on awareness,” Dawson said. “What I want to do is get the word out that this could be a potential problem, not to say new gTLDs are a bad thing.” Michele Neylon, CEO of Blacknight Solutions, a web host and domain registrar in Ireland, has been vocal on the issue of name collisions, and in a press release last month he urged IT professionals to correct potential name collision issues sooner rather than later. “It’s that kind of weird scenario where it’s not really clear what could happen,” Neylon said. “What ICANN has been trying to do is trying to get the word out and get people to think about it, look at it, and check how things are set up. From our perspective it’s the right thing to do.” For larger web hosts, name collisions likely won’t pose a problem because they have the resources and in-house knowledge to be aware of what is going on and impact of new gTLDs, he said. “The reality is if you look at all of the smaller web hosts out there, they’re one or two man bands, and probably have enough clients to pay their bills but wouldn’t have the technical know-how,” he said. According to Blacknight’s suggestions, IT professionals should monitor name services and compile a list of private TLDs used internally, and compare the list against the list of new TLD strings. From there they should create a plan to mitigate causes of leakage and prepare users for the impending change in name usage by notifying them in advance. “The thing is that the new gTLDs are going ahead, that’s happening, but you could end up with the kind of situation where somebody’s office could just stop working,” Neylon said. “We don’t really know what could happen and that’s part of the issue.” PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: [council] Draft charter for the Metrics and Reporting non-PDP working group
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 11, 2014

Jan. 11, 2014

hi all, just a quick heads up that the Metrics and Reporting charter drafting team (ably co-chaired by Jonathan Zuck, and haplessly co-chaired by me) just pushed their draft charter to the Council for consideration at the upcoming meeting. mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: "Mike O'Connor" <mike(a)haven2.com> > Subject: [council] Draft charter for the Metrics and Reporting non-PDP working group > Date: January 10, 2014 at 6:37:34 AM CST > To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Cc: Council <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, GNSO Metrics and Reporting <gnso-metrep-wg(a)icann.org> > > dear all > > i am happy to submit a draft charter for a non-PDP working group to take a look at metrics and reporting. we’ve also included a motion seeking the Council’s approval. > > i’m on the hunt for a seconder to this motion and hope that our draft charter meets with broad approval across the Council. i stand ready to answer questions up to and during our 23-Jan meeting. > > do note that this is the work of a drafting team, but that we the Council have the final say over what this charter says. so if there’s something that drives you crazy in this charter, i’d like to work out a solution before we take the charter to a vote. since we’ll undoubtedly only have a few minutes for this item during our call, it would be nice to sort things out on the list in advance. > > a heartfelt thanks to the very diligent and energetic drafting team that developed this draft, and to Berry Cobb who did the heavy lifting. > > mikey > > > > > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

[gTLD-delegations] string delegations
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 11, 2014

Jan. 11, 2014

hi all only one string delegated this week — .BERLIN. it makes me smile to see that name go into the root — the organizers have been waiting for this for a very long time. here are the strings delegated last week. mikey DATE STRING REGISTRY 8 January 2014 .BERLIN dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG Description of the name-collision problem and link to mitigation research project -- http://www.haven2.com/index.php/archives/name-collision-research ICANN's "Name Collision Resources and Information" page - http://www.icann.org/en/help/name-collision ICANN's list of all delegated new gTLDs - http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings ICANN’s list of scheduled “sunrise” and “trademark claims” periods for new gTLDs - http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/sunrise-claims-periods Follow this link if you would like to subscribe to this weekly bulletin — http://ispcp.info/mailman/listinfo/gtld-delegations Follow this link if you would like to learn more about the Internet Service Provider and Connectivity Provider (ISPCP) constituency of ICANN’s Generic Name Supporting Organization (GNSO) — www.ispcp.info _______________________________________________ gTLD-delegations mailing list - sponsored by ICANN's ISP and Connectivity Provider constituency (www.ISPCP.info) gTLD-delegations(a)ispcp.info http://ispcp.info/mailman/listinfo/gtld-delegations - click this link to subscribe, or review list information and prior posts

1 0

Fwd: [council] New Year, New Momentum by Fadi Chehadé
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 11, 2014

Jan. 11, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> > Subject: [council] New Year, New Momentum by Fadi Chehadé > Date: January 10, 2014 at 5:50:22 PM CST > To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > http://blog.icann.org/2014/01/new-year-new-momentum/ > New Year, New Momentum > by Fadi Chehadé on January 10, 2014 > At ICANN, we begin 2014 with a management “base camp” for executive staff to gather, take stock and get ready for the next phase of intense activities. It follows ICANN’s December holiday, during which the staff and I took time to step back from the frenzy of daily work and spend time with family and friends. > > Holding this base camp so close to our return from the holiday was intentional. The time to recharge and reflect is an important part of ensuring forward progress. As the poet Kahlil Gibran wrote, “the mountain to the climber is clearer from the plain.” > > This trimester, of all the areas I’ll focus on, I will personally zero in on four. First and foremost, I am focused on management and human resources development, an important facet for a growing organization. We recently created our first HR development program to foster staff’s professional growth. This will also be a personal goal for me, to coach and work closely with the executive team and other managers to encourage continued professional development. > > Second, we are working diligently to design and operationalize the first ICANN Executive Management Dashboard. At base camp, we will finalize the dashboard’s list of key performance indicators for each ICANN objective/goal. The dashboard will provide our managers the ability to gain real-time insights into our performance, thus enhancing decision-making and optimizing operational performance. > > The third area I will focus on is strengthening the ICANN technical and technology staff profile and resources. Among my objectives is to complete the search for a new head of technical operations. > > And lastly, I will stay engaged in the global discussions of Internet governance and what ICANN’s role should be in this evolving ecosystem. > > As you may have heard, I plan to split my residence this year among the cities in which ICANN has operational hubs. From mid-February through April, I will be based in the Singapore hub. Later this year, I will also relocate to Istanbul. I am excited to join our staff in bringing ICANN to the world. > > Happy new year! > > > > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.icann.org > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

hi all, the final ATRT2 report is out — and a public-comment period is open. mikey Begin forwarded message: > From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations > Date: January 9, 2014 at 4:47:40 PM CST > To: <mike(a)haven2.com> > > ICANN News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-09jan14-en.htm > > ____________________________________ > > > Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT 2) Final Report & Recommendations > > 9 January 2014 > > Comment Period Opens on 9 January 2014 > > Categories/Tags: > > * AoC > > * ATRT 2 > > * Policy Processes > > * Reviews/Improvements > > * Transparency/Accountability > > Purpose (Brief): > > As prescribed by the Affirmation of Commitments, the Second Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT2 https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40176025) submitted its Final Report and Recommendations (http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/atrt/final-recommendations-31dec13…) [PDF, 3.46 MB] to the ICANN Board of Directors and this document is now posted for public comment. Comments received will inform Board action. > > Public Comment Box Link: > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/atrt2-recommendations-09jan14-e… > > ____________________________________ > > This message was sent to mike(a)haven2.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive > Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > > Manage Your Subscription: > http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=14994551&l=6333&s=WBF0&m=92… > > > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Jeff Schmidt's got a cool idea about name-collision -- what do you think?
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 8, 2014

Jan. 8, 2014

hi all, this is part of a continuing series of articles that Jeff is posting at DomainIncite. he’s looking for comments from people like us, and the organizations we represent. so circulate this to your organizations and encourage them to comment on the post over at DomainIncite. my immediate reaction is…. cool idea. let’s think more on this one and figure out other similarly-cool ones. mikey Controlled interruption as a means to prevent name collisions [Guest Post] Jeff Schmidt, January 8, 2014, Domain Tech This is a guest post written by Jeff Schmidt, CEO of JAS Global Advisors LLC. JAS is currently authoring a “Name Collision Occurrence Management Framework” for the new gTLD program under contract with ICANN. One of JAS’ commitments during this process was to “float” ideas and solicit feedback. This set of thoughts poses an alternative to the “trial delegation” proposals in SAC062. The idea springs from past DNS-related experiences and has an effect we have named “controlled interruption.” Learning from the Expired Registration Recovery Policy Many are familiar with the infamous Microsoft Hotmail domain expiration in 1999. In short, a Microsoft registration for passport.com (Microsoft’s then-unified identity service) expired Christmas Eve 1999, denying millions of users access to the Hotmail email service (and several other Microsoft services) for roughly 20 hours. Fortunately, a well-intended technology consultant recognized the problem and renewed the registration on Microsoft’s behalf, yielding a nice “thank you” from Microsoft and Network Solutions. Had a bad actor realized the situation, the outcome could have been far different. The Microsoft Hotmail case and others like it lead to the current Expired Registration Recovery Policy. More recently, Regions Bank made news when its domains expired, and countless others go unreported. In the case of Regions Bank, the Expired Registration Recovery Policy seemed to work exactly as intended – the interruption inspired immediate action and the problem was solved, resulting in only a bit of embarrassment. Importantly, there was no opportunity for malicious activity. For the most part, the Expired Registration Recovery Policy is effective at preventing unintended expirations. Why? We call it the application of “controlled interruption.” The Expired Registration Recovery Policy calls for extensive notification before the expiration, then a period when “the existing DNS resolution path specified by the Registrant at Expiration (“RAE”) must be interrupted” – as a last-ditch effort to inspire the registrant to take action. Nothing inspires urgent action more effectively than service interruption. But critically, in the case of the Expired Registration Recovery Policy, the interruption is immediately corrected if the registrant takes the required action — renewing the registration. It’s nothing more than another notification attempt – just a more aggressive round after all of the passive notifications failed. In the case of a registration in active use, the interruption will be recognized immediately, inspiring urgent action. Problem solved. What does this have to do with collisions? A Trial Delegation Implementing Controlled Interruption There has been a lot of talk about various “trial delegations” as a technical mechanism to gather additional data regarding collisions and/or attempt to notify offending parties and provide self-help information. SAC062 touched on the technical models for trial delegations and the related issues. Ideally, the approach should achieve these objectives: Notifies systems administrators of possible improper use of the global DNS; Protects these systems from malicious actors during a “cure period”; Doesn’t direct potentially sensitive traffic to Registries, Registrars, or other third parties; Inspires urgent remediation action; and Is easy to implement and deterministic for all parties. Like unintended expirations, collisions are largely a notification problem. The offending system administrator must be notified and take action to preserve the security and stability of their system. One approach to consider as an alternative trial delegation concept would be an application of controlled interruption to help solve this notification problem. The approach draws on the effectiveness of the Expired Registration Recovery Policy with the implementation looking like a modified “Application and Service Testing and Notification (Type II)” trial delegation as proposed in SAC62. But instead of responding with pointers to application layer listeners, the authoritative nameserver would respond with an address inside 127/8 — the range reserved for localhost. This approach could be applied to A queries directly and MX queries via an intermediary A record (the vast majority of collision behavior observed in DITL data stems from A and MX queries). Responding with an address inside 127/8 will likely break any application depending on a NXDOMAIN or some other response, but importantly also prevents traffic from leaving the requestor’s network and blocks a malicious actor’s ability to intercede. In the same way as the Expired Registration Recovery Policy calls for “the existing DNS resolution path specified by the RAE [to] be interrupted”, responding with localhost will hopefully inspire immediate action by the offending party while not exposing them to new malicious activity. If legacy/unintended use of a DNS name is present, one could think of controlled interruption as a “buffer” prior to use by a legitimate new registrant. This is similar to the CA Revocation Period as proposed in the New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management Plan which “buffers” the legacy use of certificates in internal namespaces from new use in the global DNS. Like the CA Revocation Period approach, a set period of controlled interruption is deterministic for all parties. Moreover, instead of using the typical 127.0.0.1 address for localhost, we could use a “flag” IP like 127.0.53.53. Why? While troubleshooting the problem, the administrator will likely at some point notice the strange IP address and search the Internet for assistance. Making it known that new TLDs may behave in this fashion and publicizing the “flag” IP (along with self-help materials) may help administrators isolate the problem more quickly than just using the common 127.0.0.1. We could also suggest that systems administrators proactively search their logs for this flag IP as a possible indicator of problems. Why the repeated 53? Preserving the 127.0/16 seems prudent to make sure the IP is treated as localhost by a wide range of systems; the repeated 53 will hopefully draw attention to the IP and provide another hint that the issue is DNS related. Two controlled interruption periods could even be used — one phase returning 127.0.53.53 for some period of time, and a second slightly more aggressive phase returning 127.0.0.1. Such an approach may cover more failure modes of a wide variety of requestors while still providing helpful hints for troubleshooting. A period of controlled interruption could be implemented before individual registrations are activated, or for an entire TLD zone using a wildcard. In the case of the latter, this could occur simultaneously with the CA Revocation Period as described in the New gTLD Collision Occurrence Management Plan. The ability to “schedule” the controlled interruption would further mitigate possible effects. One concern in dealing with collisions is the reality that a potentially harmful collision may not be identified until months or years after a TLD goes live — when a particular second level string is registered. A key advantage to applying controlled interruption to all second level strings in a given TLD in advance and at once via wildcard is that most failure modes will be identified during a scheduled time and before a registration takes place. This has many positive features, including easier troubleshooting and the ability to execute a far less intrusive rollback if a problem does occur. From a practical perspective, avoiding a complex string-by-string approach is also valuable. If there were to be a catastrophic impact, a rollback could be implemented relatively quickly, easily, and with low risk while the impacted parties worked on a long-term solution. A new registrant and associated new dependencies would likely not be adding complexity at this point. Request for Feedback As stated above, one of JAS’ commitments during this process was to “float” ideas and solicit feedback early in the process. Please consider these questions: What unintended consequences may surface if localhost IPs are served in this fashion? Will serving localhost IPs cause the kind of visibility required to inspire action? What are the pros and cons of a “TLD-at-once” wildcard approach running simultaneously with the CA Revocation Period? Is there a better IP (or set of IPs) to use? Should the controlled interruption plan described here be included as part of the mitigation plan? Why or why not? To what extent would this methodology effectively address the perceived problem? Other feedback? We anxiously await your feedback — in comments to this blog, on the DNS-OARC Collisions list, or directly. Thank you and Happy New Year! PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

New gTLD launches: registrar coverage at less than 40% of the market
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 8, 2014

Jan. 8, 2014

hi all, here’s the article where i found the link to the ECO study. here’s the link http://domainincite.com/15499-new-gtld-launches-registrar-coverage-at-less-… here’s the lede: Registrars representing less than 40% of the gTLD market are ready to offer new gTLDs during their launch phases, according to the latest stats from ICANN. ICANN released yesterday a list (pdf) of the just 21 registrars that have signed the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement and have been certified by IBM to use the Trademark Clearinghouse database. and here’s my observation… the “uptake” of the 2013 RAA seems pretty slow to me — Godaddy is really the only major registrar in that group right now. this may have interesting implications for those of us who are dealing with the downstream/knock-on effects of the new gTLD program. i’m not sure what those effects will be — but my naive observation is that this is a lot like introducing 1400 new kinds of snack food and only having a few stores sign up to sell them. the ECO study supports this trend, and notes that a large percentage of those registrars surveyed are planning to increase their coverage of *existing* TLDs. mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

i missed this excellent ECO survey of the European registrar market - really interesting
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 8, 2014

Jan. 8, 2014

hi all, came across this really neat study by ECO whilst trawling the interwebs this morning. here’s the link http://numbers.eco.de/wp-content/blogs.dir/55/files/2013/06/20130611-Regist… and here’s the management summary: eco – the Association of the German Internet Industry is presenting the Registrar Atlas for the third time. It examines eight markets: Bulgaria, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland and Russia. Nearly 300 representatives participated in the online survey, which supplied data material for the study. We elicited information in four questionnaires about the companies, their domain name business, their service and marketing, as well as trends. Common characteristics - By far the majority of companies also deliver services other than domain name registrations, specifically hosting and email. - In most companies the domain name business is handled by no more than three people. Only in Russia are domain names always handled by more people. - Most of the companies have nationwide operations. Only in Austria is there plenty of regional business. - In seven out of eight countries, at least 39% of the providers o ff er their customers a maximum of 25 TLDs . - The companies are, for the most part, satisfied with the service of the “domain name suppliers”, that is to say the wholesalers and registries. Marketing The companies are typically not very, to not at all, active in the marketing of domain names. The number of companies that do not market the domain names rose from 20% to 24% in Germany, and in Austria from 21% to 26%. On the other hand, in Germany the share of those companies that show high marketing activities climbed from 9% to 16%. However, the majority of the companies do not want to run special promotions for new gTLDs . Therefore, the new registries cannot really expect to receive additional sales support from the registrars. New gTLDs - Few providers will try to get accreditations for as many new TLDs as possible. - Hardly any providers reject the new gTLDs categorically. - Many providers want to o ff er new gTLDs only once they are generally available. - Many providers are planning to o ff er new gTLDs only as resellers. - An astonishingly large number of providers are planning further accreditations of existing TLDs . New services We once again asked the participants about the services their companies are already o ff ering and those services they are planning to introduce over the course of the next twelve months. It again turned out that, with few exceptions, the plans were not carried out. A positive example is the employment of tools which suggest similar domain names if the customer’s desired domain name is not available. Here, the figure climbed from 24% to 33% in Austria. The plans were in fact implemented there. On the other hand, the portfolio shrank for a few services. Take domain names in the secondary market in Austria for example. Here, the number of those providers who o ff er the pertinent services declined from 22% to 14%. A total of 67% of participants, compared to 45% last year, are not planning on including a service of this kind in their portfolio to begin with. DNSSEC Despite the hype about the security extensions for the DNS to prevent so-called DNS cache poisoning, significant use can only be detected in the Netherlands. There incentives were o ff ered for employing DNSSEC, which led to relatively high demand last year. In all countries under investigation, demand is low again or non-existent. If the companies who stated they were already o ff ering DNSSEC, or were going to use it within the next year, had implemented their plans, we would have noticed a market penetration of 62% in Germany in the past year. In fact, it was 19% last year. If we add the 37% of companies that planned its introduction in the past year, 56% should now be actively using DNSSEC. The actual figure for this year, however, is only 18%. Threats to the domain name sector In the opinion of the domain name providers, the greatest threat to the domain name industry comes from the use of apps and search engines on mobile devices. In Austria the fear of search engines grew compared to last year. This was di ff erent in Germany, where the percentage of those who assume that there is a threat or great threat due to vanity URLS, declined from 37% to 21%. Forecast All in all, the providers are optimistic about the future, expecting business to grow. In Austria, the percentage of those who expect strong growth climbed from 2% to 10%. However, the general mood is more reserved than in previous years. In Germany, only 7% of companies expect strong growth, compared to 18% previously. PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 7, 2014

Jan. 7, 2014

Begin forwarded message: > From: "ICANN News Alert" <communications(a)icann.org> > Subject: ICANN News Alert -- WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem > Date: January 6, 2014 at 2:38:04 PM CST > To: <mike(a)haven2.com> > > > News Alert > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jan14-en.htm > > WEBINAR: ICANN Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem > 6 January 2014 > Join the Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem for an update and interactive discussion. > > Date: Monday, 13 January 2014 > Time: 19:00-20:30 UTC (Time converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Strategy+Panel+on+…) > > Date: Wednesday, 15 January 2014 > Time: 12:00-13:30 UTC (Time converter: http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Strategy+Panel+on+…) > > > You are invited to an update on the activities of the Strategy Panel on ICANN's Role in the Internet Governance Ecosystem. ICANN Strategy Panels' work will inform ICANN's new, overarching vision and five-year strategic plan. > > As it prepares to offer its advice to the ICANN President and CEO, the Strategy Panel wishes to walk you through the work it has undertaken and to seek your input on the preliminary set of conclusions it has reached. This webinar will also be the opportunity for you to ask questions. ICANN Strategy Panels serve as an integral part of a framework for cross-community dialogue: your feedback and contributions are key to this project and will be carefully considered. > > Webinar Details > > Please join the webinar either on Monday, 13 January 2014 at 19:00-20:30 UTC (duration: 90 minutes) or on Wednesday, 15 January 2014 at 12:00-13:30 UTC (duration: 90 minutes). The two sessions are duplicates, scheduled to accommodate different time zones. The meetings will be run in an Adobe Connect room with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. The sessions will be conducted in English. > > Participants will be given the opportunity to offer comments and to ask questions during the Q&A section. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect. If you cannot join the live session, the recording of the session will be made available shortly after the meeting. > > Please register via email to alice.jansen(a)icann.org by Sunday, 12 January 2014 – 23:59 UTC to receive the dial-in details. Please indicate which call you wish to join. A reminder with log-in and dial-in details will be sent to you prior to the call. > > > > This message was sent to mike(a)haven2.com from: > ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 > Email Marketing by > > Manage Your Subscription > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

CENTR-Paper-IG_landscape_this_year_and_next-20131219 | CENTR
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 4, 2014

Jan. 4, 2014

hi all, this is a very good summary of the current status of internet governance meetings — a summary of the meetings last year, and a preview of what is to come. there is a detailed flowchart of the 2014 meeting schedule at the end of this short paper. it amazed me. https://www.centr.org/CENTR-Paper-IG_landscape_this_year_and_next mikey PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 2