- ispcp - lists.icann.org

Fw: [discuss] NomCom results - Brazil and 1net Steering Committees - Internet technical community
by WUKnoben Jan. 17, 2014

Jan. 17, 2014

FYI. Congratulations to Akinori having been elected to the ExCom! Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Constance Bommelaer Sent: Friday, January 17, 2014 10:56 AM To: discuss(a)1net.org Subject: [discuss] NomCom results - Brazil and 1net Steering Committees - Internet technical community Dear Adiel, Dear Colleagues, This is to inform you that the nominating committee, chaired by George Sadowsky, and established to select representatives of the Internet technical community on the Brazil High-Level Committee, the Executive Multistakeholder Committee and the 1net Steering Committee has concluded its work. Selected individuals: Brazil High-Level Committee (n°1): a.. Kathy Brown (USA) b.. Tarek Kamel (Egypt) c.. Mathieu Weill (France) Brazil Executive Committee (n°3): a.. Raul Echeberria (Uruguay) b.. Akinori Maemura (Japan) 1net Steering Committee: a.. Chris Disspain (Australia) b.. Pablo Hinojosa (Mexico) c.. Désirée Miloshevic (Serbia) d.. Theresa Swinehart (USA) e.. Suzanne Woolf (USA) Useful links: ---------------- Call for expressions of interest: http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Call1netBR-ForPublicatio… Principles: http://www.internetsociety.org/effective-ig Best regards, Constance From: Constance Bommelaer <bommelaer(a)isoc.org> Date: Friday, December 20, 2013 6:25 PM Subject: 1net Steering Committees & Brazil Committees - Call for expressions of interest - Internet technical community Dear all, The Internet Society (ISOC) is coordinating the process leading to appointments to represent the Internet technical community in two of the “Brazil Planning Committees” and in the “1net Steering Committee”. The “Brazil Planning Committees” will contribute to the preparation of a "Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance" that will be held on 23 and 24 April 2014, in Sao Paolo, Brazil. The two major tasks of “1net Steering Committee” will be (1) to liaise with stakeholder communities and encourage participation and submission of productive ideas with respect to Internet governance issues; and (2) to steer, manage, and otherwise lead the activities of the 1net platform towards a productive understanding and possibly consensus with respect to these issues. Individuals interested in being suggested by the NomCom set up for this purpose are invited to read more about the process and the timeline here: http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Call1netBR-ForPublicatio… The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is 10 January 2014. Any questions or requests for additional information can be sent to: information.itcg(a)gmail.com. Useful links: 1net: http://1net.org ISOC IG activities: http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/internet-issues/internet-governan… Thank you and best regards, -- Constance Bommelaer Senior Director, Global Policy Partnerships The Internet Society www.isoc.org -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ discuss mailing list discuss(a)1net.org http://1net.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

1 0

Fw: [Soac-infoalert] IANA Functions Satisfaction Survey Yields Overwhelmingly Positive Results
by WUKnoben Jan. 17, 2014

Jan. 17, 2014

ICANN News AlertFYI Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: David Olive Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2014 7:33 AM To: soac-infoalert(a)icann.org Subject: [Soac-infoalert] IANA Functions Satisfaction Survey Yields Overwhelmingly Positive Results L News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-15jan14-en.htm ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ IANA Functions Satisfaction Survey Yields Overwhelmingly Positive Results 15 January 2014 Read the report » [PDF, 1.19 MB] ICANN is reporting extremely high levels of customer satisfaction according to the results of the 2013 Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions Customer Satisfaction Survey. "We are pleased with the high level of satisfaction reported by our customers," said Elise Gerich. ICANN's Vice President of IANA and Technical Operations. "We continue to explore ways to improve the service of administering the protocol parameter registries, the allocation of Internet numbers, and changes to the root zone." The survey, conducted by Ebiquity, investigated seven critical areas of the IANA functions, including: a.. Documentation quality (100% satisfaction) b.. Process quality (100% satisfaction) c.. Accuracy (99% satisfaction) d.. Courtesy (99% satisfaction) e.. Transparency (95% satisfaction) Unlike the previous year's survey, the 2013 survey targeted specific customer groups to better understand how each group perceives ICANN's handling of the IANA functions. Of the eight groups surveyed, 5 reported over 90% satisfaction. "It's good to see that the people who request protocol assignments or routine root management changes and use our registries report such high levels of satisfaction," said Michelle Cotton, Manager of IANA Services. "We will be following up with small groups over the next few months to discuss how to further improve customer satisfaction." With the results of the 2013 survey finalized, ICANN will investigate ways to increase participation in next year's survey. "In 2013 we gathered input from each customer group, while maintaining anonymity, improving on the more general survey conducted in 2012," said Leo Vegoda, Operational Excellence Manager, "In 2014 we plan to improve participation in the survey." ### To learn more about IANA, go to http://www.iana.org/ Ebiquity is a global media, marketing and reputation consultancy, with over 20 years of experience in customer and stakeholder research. For more information, go to http://www.ebiquity.com/en. Media Contacts: James Cole ICANN Global Media Coordinator Washington, D.C. Tel. +1 (202) 570 7139 james.cole(a)icann.org This message was sent to barbara.roseman(a)icann.org from: ICANN | 12025 Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by Manage Your Subscription _______________________________________________ rssac-exec mailing list rssac-exec(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/rssac-exec -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

Fw: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group
by WUKnoben Jan. 16, 2014

Jan. 16, 2014

This is a repeated request from the chairs of the Policy&Implementation WG for responding to questions re the work of this WG (see attached). As the WG has already started working with some subteams it is essential to get input soon (until end of January). Is anybody willing to draft a first skeleton of responses? I’ll join this effort in drafting some ideas. Best regards Wolf-Ulrich From: Gomes, Chuck Sent: Friday, January 10, 2014 10:00 PM To: gnso-policyimpl-wg(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-wg] FW: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group I would like to request assistance from all WG members who represent a GNSO SG or Constituency to do what you can to encourage your respective groups to responds to the request for input that J. Scott and I requested several months ago. The attached letter was originally sent to Jonathan Robinson as GNSO Council Chair and to other SO/AC leaders on September 20, 2013 but the P&I WG has not yet received any response except from the ALAC. We originally asked for responses by 31 October 2013 but later extended it to 31 January 2014. Anything you can do to facilitate responses by the end of this month would be greatly appreciated. I plan to do what I can in the case of the RySG. Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Thursday, December 05, 2013 3:23 AM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org) Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Attached is the letter we sent to the other SO/ACs. These went out on 20 September. I double checked and the letter did go to Jonathan as the GNSO Council Chair, but from the comments received from WG members, it looks like it was not forwarded to the SG/C Chairs. If you agree, we can send it to them today. Would 17 January be a reasonable deadline for input? Thanks for confirming. Best regards, Marika From: <Gomes>, Chuck Gomes <cgomes(a)verisign.com> Date: Wednesday 4 December 2013 23:20 To: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> Cc: "gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org)" <gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org> Subject: RE: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Thanks Marika. I missed that. I can’t seem to find the letter we sent to the other SOs and ACs. Would you please send it to this list? Chuck From: Marika Konings [mailto:marika.konings@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 5:17 PM To: Gomes, Chuck Cc: gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org) Subject: Re: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] FW: Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group It says 'In this regard, we would ask for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in the WG’s Charter and provide us with any input the GAC may have on any or all of these issues by 30 November'. But to fair, in the letter to the ALAC we said 31 October ;-) Marika On 4 dec. 2013, at 23:13, "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: Here’s the letter to the GAC that was sent on 18 Oct. It doesn’t look like we gave a requested reply date. Chuck From:owner-gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-policyimpl-chairs@icann.org] On Behalf Of Glen de Saint Géry Sent: Friday, October 18, 2013 1:09 PM To: heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca Cc: Olof Nordling; gnso-policyimpl-chairs (gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org) (gnso-policyimpl-chairs(a)icann.org) Subject: [gnso-policyimpl-chairs] Request for input from the GNSO Policy & Implementation Working Group Dear Heather: We are the Chairs of the newly constituted Policy & Implementation Working Group. This Working Group (P&I WG) has been tasked with providing the GNSO Council with a set of recommendations on the following issues: - A set of principles that would underpin any GNSO policy implementation related discussions, taking into account existing GNSO procedures; - A process for developing gTLD policy, perhaps in the form of “Policy Guidance,” including criteria for when it would be appropriate to use such a process (for a process developing something other than “Consensus Policy”) instead of the GNSO Policy Development Process; - A framework for implementation related discussions associated with GNSO Policy recommendations; - Criteria to be used to determine when an action should be addressed by a policy process and when it should be considered implementation; and - Further guidance on how GNSO Implementation Review Teams, as defined in the PDP Manual, are expected to function and operate. From the onset of this process, the WG would like to gain input from the GAC to support us in our efforts. In this regard, we would ask for your organization to consider the following questions which are set out in the WG’s Charter and provide us with any input the GAC may have on any or all of these issues by 30 November. 1.. What guidance do the ICANN core values (Bylaws Article 1, Sec. 2) directly provide with regard to policy development work and policy implementation efforts? 2.. What guidance do other ICANN core values provide that relate indirectly to policy development and policy implementation? 3.. “Questions for Discussion” contained in the Policy and Implementation Draft Framework prepared by ICANN staff. (See, http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/policy-implementation-31jan13-e…) 4.. What lessons can be learned from past experience? 1.. What are the consequences of action being considered “policy” or “implementation”? 2.. Does it matter if something is “policy” or “implementation”? If so, why? 3.. Under what circumstances, if any, should the GNSO Council make recommendations or state positions to the Board on matters of policy and implementation as a representative of the GNSO as a whole? 4.. How do we avoid the current morass of outcome-derived labeling (i.e., I will call this “policy” because I want certain consequences or “handling instructions” to be attached to it?) 5.. Can we answer these questions so the definitions of “policy” and “implementation” matter less, if at all? 5.. What options are available for policy (“Consensus Policy” or other) and implementation efforts and what are the criteria for determining which should be used? 1.. Are “policy” and “implementation” on a spectrum rather than binary? 2.. What are the variations of policy and what consequences should attach to each variation? 3.. What happens if you change those consequences? 6.. Who determines the choice of whether something is “policy” or “implementation”? 1.. How is policy set/recommended/adopted and do different paths lead to different variations? 2.. How is the “policy” and “implementation” issue reviewed and approved? 3.. What happens if reviewing bodies come to a deadlock? 7.. What is the process by which this identification, analysis, review and approval work is done? 1.. How are “policy and implementation” issues first identified (before, during and after implementation)? 2.. What is the role of the GNSO in implementation? 3.. In order to maintain the multi-stakeholder process, once policy moves to implementation, how should the community be involved in a way that is meaningful and effective? 4.. Should policy staff be involved through the implementation process to facilitate continuity of the multi-stakeholder process that already occurred? Alternatively or in support of your efforts to respond to the above, if you would like to set up a teleconference in advance of the ICANN meeting in Buenos Aires or an in-person meeting in Buenos Aires, the Working Group would welcome such an approach as well. We are very happy to report that two GAC participants have joined the WG in their personal capacities: Olga Cavalli and Carlos Raul Guttierez. To the extent that these WG members might be willing to do so, we are open to the possibility of exploring whether it might be possible for either or both of them to serve in an informal and unofficial liaison capacity to facilitate communications between the GAC and WG. If you would like to discuss this further, please let us know. We would like to remind you that the WG is open to the full community and we welcome any additional members from the GAC that my wish to participate in this work in their personal capacities. To review the current membership, please see https://community.icann.org/x/81V-Ag. Finally, we want to acknowledge receipt of a suggestion from Suzanne Radell that this WG might be an opportunity to experiment with a new approach for GAC/GNSO collaboration. As chairs of the P&I WG, we are very open to this idea and we have referred it to the GNSO Council chair for further consideration. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Please do not hesitate to reach out to either of us if you have any questions or if you require any additional information. Kind regards. Chuck Gomes (cgomes(a)verisign.com) J. Scott Evans (jscottevans(a)outlook.com)

1 0

see anybody you recognize in this photo?
by Mike O'Connor Jan. 14, 2014

Jan. 14, 2014

PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

1 0

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