January 2011 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

On one aspect of the ALAC restatement of a NARALO contribution to public comments on the StratPlan for 2011-2014
by Eric Brunner-Williams Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

Colleagues, I write this note provide one view on an issue discussed in Monday's NARALO monthly call. As a policy making body, ICANN shares a general characteristic of all policy making bodies engaged, for whatever reason, and where ever located, in making policy that pertains to the behavior of the vast collection of networks we call "The Internet". Its policy making is pre-scientific. Lots of policy is considered, some policy is made, but it is made without data, at least data sufficient in general to discern if the policy goal is implemented. The ability to correlate effect and cause is quite limited. Significant rhetorical resources are expended to maintain various claims of causation or necessity, but in the peer reviewed scientific literature on measurement and operations of networks, these claims are without foundation. I recommend reading kc claffy's two highly accessible works in this area: http://blog.caida.org/best_available_data/2008/04/16/top-ten-things-lawyers… http://www.caida.org/publications/presentations/2009/top_ten_fcc/top_ten_fc… ICANN's proposed registry agreement does not require new registry operators to provide access to operational data. ICANN's current registry agreements, all 17 of them, also lack provisions to require the operator to provide access to operational data. That's about 3/4ths of the DNS, higher if the root constellation operated by CNNIC and its data is excluded, for which the only data ICANN desires is contained in the registry operator monthly reports. Additionally, ICANN has never requested recursive resolver operators such as (US): SBC (AT&T), Comcast, RoadRunner, Verizon, AOL, EarthLink, Charter, ... and (CA) Bell, Shaw, Rogers, Telus, Videotron, ... to provide data to researchers. Further, ICANN has never requested browswer (stub resolver) vendors to provide data to researchers. A vast amount of data gathering is being conducted, but for user profiling purposes, to sell shoes, but not to ensure that we know the shape of things to come, and can distinguish policy successes from policy failures. Why is data necessary? In October 1986 the NSFnet phase-I backbone dropped three orders of magnitude from its capacity of 32 kbit/s to 40 bit/s. The cause was not predicted. More is possible. We have no means to associate probabilities to continued operation, or failure. The proposal I made was simple and clear (I thought). Most of the data is in North America, and subject to the particularly legal culture of the United States and Canada. To improve research access to data, and therefore the ability to conduct network policy informed by data, rather than pre-existing beliefs, which may as well be religious articles of faith, ICANN's StratPlan for 2011-2014 could be changed to make reducing the legal barriers to data a goal. The ALAC comment on the StratPlan started with the text I suggested, to the effect that most of the crucial data is "in North America", but concluded that the plan should have increased regional diversity as a goal. Rephrased as an either/or, either a goal of a global decrease of legal restraint on critical data, or a goal of regional replication of legal restraints on critical data, are the choices. I proposed the former, and as was mentioned in Monday's NARALO call, ALAC chose to substitute the latter. I hope this makes clear one view of the issue discussed on Mondays' call. I appreciate that there are other views. Eric

1 0

ALS input requested
by Gareth Shearman Jan. 19, 2011

Jan. 19, 2011

Further to my message of yesterday - a clarification Please forward any reaction to me and I will add it to the analysis. Thank you, Gareth To all NARALO ALS representatives: As discussed in our conference call earlier to-day, you are encouraged to input reaction from your ALS to the "Work Team C SWOT analysis" See the following line for instructions and background https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/NARALO+input+into+WT+C+SWOT+ana… Thank you, Gareth Shearman NARALO Budget and Finance Subcommittee and Work Team C member

1 0

Summary Minutes NARALO Call 17 January 2011
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 18, 2011

Jan. 18, 2011

Dear All, The summary minutes, action items and audio recording from yesterday¹s NARALO conference call have been posted on the agenda page at: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+17.01.2011+Teleconference The summary minutes are also attached below. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org Participants: Beau Brendler, Alan Greenberg, Darlene Thompson, Marc Rotenberg, Annalisa Roger, Evan Leibovitch, Allan Skuce, Chris Grundemann, Eric Brunner-Williams, Eduardo Diaz, Glenn McKnight, Joly McFie, Gareth Shearman, Gordon Chillcott Apologies: Monique Chatrand Guests: Olivier Crepin-Leblond Staff: Matthias Langenegger Review of Action Items from last meeting AI: Annalisa will send a list with affordable hotels in the meeting venue area to the NARALO list. ONGOING AI: Staff will send out a call for volunteer for the NARALO Showcase WG will be sent out. DONE AI: Alan will draft suggested modifications to the NARALO Rules of Procedure for Meetings and the Operating Principles (to fix an omission with regards to the votes of the unaffiliated user representative). ONGOING - Alan: this is more time-consuming than expected. There are additional areas that need fixing. AI: Beau will draft a document in response to the DOC letter CANCELED Alan: In my view it is no longer necessary to redact a document, the time has passed. Beau moved, seconded by Alan, to cancel the action item on drafting a response to the DOC letter. The motion passed unanimously. Open Public Consultations AI: Eric will draft a note on the ownership, trust, and economic (legal) barriers to operational data and the importance of data to informed policy making. Evan: We put out a statement, which basically says that the current course of action on new gTLDs is unacceptable. We also created two WGs to draft detailed recommendations. Evan: At the moment, there is only a tentative location and a tentative date for the GAC - Board meeting on new gTLDS. The location does no longer seem to be Geneva. Olivier: We have been in contact with the Board and the GAC urging them to have the meeting as soon as possible. Late February is too close to San Francisco. We are still waiting for a joint statement to announce the exact date and location. Alan gave a synopsis of the ALAC statement on Uniform Rapid Suspension. Review of Cartagena Meeting Update on ALAC Officer and Liaison Positions Beau gave a short summary of the ALAC leadership elections in Cartagena. You can find the complete list of the current ALAC members and officers at:http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/ Update on ALAC Policy Discussions A review of ALAC¹s policy discussions in Cartagena can be found in the Chair's report from Cartagena <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10dec10-en.htm> . Update on ICANN developments and important Board decisions Evan: The big news was the approval of .XXX. There are still wrestling over some details but they decided to go ahead. However, there was no vote to launch the new gTLD process. Eric: The fact that the Board did not adopt the GAC recommendation was remarkable. Alan: There are about 6 sections that talk about GAC advice in the ICANN Bylaws and not a single section on ALAC advice. However, the Board has largely ignored those sections, a fact that was highlighted by the GAC recently. This will have to change in the future. Secondly, the Board revised its decision on the morality and public order (MAPO) issue and referred back to the group drafting the recommendations. That's encouraging to see. Eduardo: The first letter of the DOC was on MAPO. They said ICANN should not get involved in this. Evan: The GNSO resolved that ICANN needs to install a mechanism to deal with objectionable strings. This obviously puts ICANN in a difficult position with regards to the DOC letter. The ICANN Board will eventually have to deal with it. The GAC and the ALAC are both involved in the MAPO issue. At-Large improvements work team A has started drafting possible Bylaw changes to help strengthen ALAC¹s institutional role, although the draft modifications are not as detailed as those pertaining to the GAC. Lastly, there is also a small WG drafting alternative Applicant Guidebook text for certain areas. The alternative Guidebook is more user-centric than the actual Applicant Guidebook. NARALO Input to Work Team C SWOT Analysis Olivier: Work team C looked at recommendations 5 and 6 of the At-Large improvement recommendations. We were trying to identify specific strengths and weaknesses and hope that each region can provide input on this SWOT analysis from their regional perspective. See: https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/NARALO+input+into+WT+C+SWOT+anal yses Gareth: I would like to volunteer to be the conduit for the NARALO AI: Garteh will collect the input from NARALO to the WT C SWOT analysis. Update on San Francisco Showcase Working Group Eduardo: Staff will shortly send out a doodle for the first WG call. There is also a wiki workspace to plan the SF showcase available under: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+San+Francisco+Showcase+Wor king+Group Update from the At-Large Improvements WTs Annalisa summarized the recent WT B developments <https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/At-Large+Improvements+Work+Team +B> . Annalisa: While it is possible to get an Adobe Connect meeting room from ICANN for your ALS meetings, we at ISCO SF did not find it particularly useful. However, it could help draw in some members in other ALSes perhaps. Alan: It would be helpful to have one standardized page per ALS on our wiki to provide information and contact details. Beau and Annalisa agreed to that. Darlene: If we do factsheets for our ALSes for SF as LACRALO did for the Cartagena showcase we would already have what Alan is suggesting. There was general agreement to this proposal. Marc: I made a proposal to do a town hall meeting in San Francisco perhaps at Stanford University. This would be a great opportunity to draw in the interested public. Beau liked the suggestion. Annalisa: I would like to note, however, that Stanford is 60 miles away from Union Square. I could certainly help but logistics are challenging. If there are other ICANN events taking place in Silicon Valley there might be shuttles. Otherwise it could prove difficult to get bring the attendees from SF to Stanford university. Recent and Upcoming Activities of NARALO members Beau: I am happy to announce that we will produce a document on the consumer constituency in San Francisco. Alan: Beau, there seem to be two different definitions of consumers: 1) people buying stuff online, and 2) consumers of the Internet itself. Beau: My definitions is the latter Alan: Okay because the draft charters, I have seen seem to focus on the financial transaction aspect. Beau: That must be an older version. Eduardo: I would like to remind you that the NomCom is looking for applicants for the coming year. I would like to encourage you to put forward candidates. The deadline is April 4th. Beau: Thanks to all. The meeting was then adjourned.

2 2

ALS input requested
by Gareth Shearman Jan. 18, 2011

Jan. 18, 2011

To all NARALO ALS representatives: As discussed in our conference call earlier to-day, you are encouraged to input reaction from your ALS to the "Work Team C SWOT analysis" See the following line for instructions and background https://community.icann.org/display/Improve/NARALO+input+into+WT+C+SWOT+ana… Thank you, Gareth Shearman NARALO Budget and Finance Subcommittee and Work Team C member

1 0

consumer constituency charter rewrite doc
by Beau Brendler Jan. 17, 2011

Jan. 17, 2011

Technically I think it's actually up to Avri to send this out to the NCSG, but it's not particularly controversial and I see no reason not to share it. Not to mention that there are several members of NA RALO who were integral to the formation of the consituency in the first place (Attached). Any and all comments welcome. If you don't like attachments, I just posted after the call the full text in the comments section of the agenda page where Marc asked about it. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Marc Rotenberg <rotenberg(a)epic.org> >Sent: Jan 17, 2011 2:53 PM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 17 January 2011 @ 20:00 UTC > >It is a "ICANN Page Not Found" image. > >Eventually, I found this at a different link > >Sorry to keep raising these issues. But as a new member >to this organization, one of my first (and ongoing) >impressions is that there are more technical glitches >than there should be. > >Marc. > > >

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 17 January 2011 @ 20:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon Jan. 17, 2011

Jan. 17, 2011

Dear All, The NARALO Teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 17 January 2011 at 20:00 UTC. The agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+17.01.2011+Teleconference If you are unable to attend the call please send an email indicating your absence and we will note this information on the agenda. If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff

4 5

Fw: Qaddafi Blames Wikileaks for Tunisia
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 17, 2011

Jan. 17, 2011

If you believe things published in the NYT, it makes for interesting times...and for interesting bedfellows...... This fella is slicker'n otter snot, too :-)........look how neatly he inters the US and Russia as part of a violent tradition... Can't say the fella don't learn quickly from his 'betters' though...funny, really funny... http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/17/qaddafi-sees-wikileaks-plot-in-… Carlton ==============================

2 1

Fwd: [dnsext] Fwd: SATIN 2011
by Eric Brunner-Williams Jan. 12, 2011

Jan. 12, 2011

Colleagues, This was just posted to the IETF DNSEXT WG mailing list (formerly known as "namedroppers"). It is of relevance to the subject area, and perhaps the At-Large volunteers to, the Joint DNS Security and Stability Analysis Working Group (DSSA Working Group). The overview alone, ending with "All of this makes DNS, once amongst the most boring of topics, into one of the more exciting, and this workshop into a timely event." is worth a moment's attention. Eric -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [dnsext] Fwd: SATIN 2011 Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 07:18:02 -0800 From: Nicholas Weaver <nweaver(a)ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> To: IETF DNSEXT WG <namedroppers(a)ops.ietf.org> CC: Nicholas Weaver <nweaver(a)ICSI.Berkeley.EDU> Others have attempted to post this, but not succeeded due to spam filtering. So if you haven't seen it yet... ================================================================== Call for Papers: Securing and Trusting Internet Names, SATIN 2011 ================================================================== When: Monday 4 & Tuesday 5 April 2011 Note that IETF 80 is in Prague, Czech Republic, the previous week Where: National Physical Laboratory (NPL) Teddington, London, UK Timetable: Submissions due: Sun 23 Jan 2011, 11:59 PST Notification of Acceptance: Wed 23 Feb 2011 Final Papers Due: Mon 15 Mar 2011 Overview ======== The domain name system, on which the Internet entirely relies, has always been inherently insecure. Spoofing of IP source addresses means that any wide area UDP protocol (such as DNS) can be forged. Cache poisoning attacks can be made less likely but not prevented altogether. ISPs, or others who can intercept traffic, can redirect end users to sites of their choosing. Users can choose (or have forced upon them) DNS services that suppress access to sites for policy reasons. DNSSEC, which addresses some of these issues, has been under development since late last century, but the July 2010 signing of the root (and the commitment of many top level domains to timetables for deployment) signal that widespread deployment may finally be coming to pass. However, even at the current scale of deployment, implementation issues are creating unexpected levels of traffic, and that's without the bad guys making any contribution. Meanwhile DNSCURVE is being promoted as a lightweight method of securing the links to and between name servers, which addresses some, but by no means all, of the security issues. DNSSEC is also being seen by some as a distributed, secure, key distribution system, which could support new applications, or replace existing mechanisms for establishing trust in the identity of endpoints. Others merely see it as a way of defeating marketers who want to inject targeted advertising into browser sessions. But how effective will these ideas be if we continue with our existing APIs and stub resolvers? There are significant issues with DNS besides just its integrity. DNS services can be used to amplify denial-of-service attacks to create very substantial traffic flows. Malware has also been using the DNS for rendezvous arrangements, and has avoided countermeasures by exploiting the DNS system through ``fluxing'' and other techniques. There are also signs of a ``tragedy of the commons'' as legitimate companies fill the DNS with large numbers of names, or set low TTLs, to give a performance ``edge''. Meanwhile, some applications pre-fetch DNS answers, with little heed to the impact on the infrastructure. This latter technique raises privacy issues, as indeed does the proposal to ``leak'' partial identities of requestors who contact recursive resolvers, with the aim of providing different answers to machines in different blocks of address space. All of this makes DNS, once amongst the most boring of topics, into one of the more exciting, and this workshop into a timely event. Topics ====== SATIN aims to provide a forum for academic work on the security of the DNS alongside industry presentations on practical experiences in providing name services. The intent is to make this a workshop that will expose the academics to the real problems that industry is encountering, and to show industry what academia has to offer them. To improve the flow of information, presentations will be restricted to 15 minutes with 15 minutes of general discussion to follow. Submissions must be made under either an ``academic'' or ``industry'' label (relating entirely to the content rather than the affiliations of any author), because the two types will be judged by different standards. Academic work will be viewed as an ``extended abstract'' and should aim to meet the general standard for acceptance into normal conferences in the field. However, since this is a workshop, early results and initial ideas are welcomed. Industry submissions should be relevant, insightful, and technical, and should provide information that cannot be gleaned from reading sales brochures or manuals. In all cases, real-world operational, implementation, and experimental results will be preferred, and these results should inform the DNS protocol development process wherever relevant or possible. Topics of interest include but are not limited to: Attacks on naming services DNSSEC DNSCURVE Alternative methods of securing name services APIs for DNS resolvers Using DNS as a platform for other applications Denial of service and the DNS Malware and the DNS DNS caching on the modern Internet Privacy and the DNS Application behaviour and the DNS Security economics of naming services Passive DNS Operational experience Measurement studies New threats and challenges Questions regarding whether a topic would be suitable are welcome and should be sent to the programme chair, richard.clayton AT npl.co.uk Workshop Organizers =================== Programme Chair: Richard Clayton NPL and University of Cambridge Programme Committee: David Dagon Georgia Tech Ben Laurie Google Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder .SE (The Internet Infrastructure Foundation) Dan Massey Colorado State University Douglas Maughan Department of Homeland Security Andrew Moore University of Cambridge Jose Nazario Arbor Networks Roberto Perdisci University of Georgia Dave Piscitello ICANN Paul Vixie ISC Nicholas Weaver ICSI & UC Berkeley Jonathan Williams NPL Submissions =========== All submissions must be in IEEE two column format and no longer than eight (8) 8.5'' x 11'' pages, including figures, tables, and references. That means that the text must be set in two columns in 10 point type on 12 point (single-spaced) leading, with the text block being no more than 7.2'' wide by 9.6'' deep. Author names and affiliations should appear on the title page. The use of LaTeX and the IEEEtrans.cls file to create submissions is very strongly encouraged: http://conferences.npl.co.uk/satin/format.html Submissions must be submitted in PDF format via the SATIN 2011 website: http://www.easychair.org/conferences/?conf=satin2011 Simultaneous submission of the same work to multiple venues, submission of previously published work, or plagiarism, is dishonest and/or fraudulent and action may be taken if this occurs. Note, however, that we expect that many papers accepted for SATIN will eventually be extended as full papers suitable for presentation at other conferences. About the National Physical Laboratory ====================================== The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) is one of the UK's leading science and research facilities. It is a world-leading centre of excellence in developing and applying the most accurate standards, science and technology available. NPL occupies a unique position as the UK's National Measurement Institute and sits at the intersection between scientific discovery and real world application. Its expertise and original research have underpinned quality of life, innovation and competitiveness for UK citizens and business for more than a century. NPL is collaborating with the University of Cambridge in a three year programme to develop robust and accurate measurements of Internet security mechanisms. Measuring and understanding the deployment of DNSSEC and other trust mechanisms for Internet names is a key part of this ongoing programme. More at: http://conferences.npl.co.uk/satin/

1 0

Statement on 2011-2014 Strategic Plan / thanks for your input
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 12, 2011

Jan. 12, 2011

Dear North American RALO and RALO members, as you have read in a separate note, I have recently filed an At-Large Statement on behalf of the At-Large constituency about the 2011-2014 Strategic Plan. On behalf of the ALAC Executive Committee, I wanted to thank you very much for feeding your regional input into the process. This year, the scheduling of comment period and all its process was changed by ICANN in order to give the At-Large community an earlier opportunity to be directly involved with the ICANN process. Unfortunately, this ended up running during the holiday period and we therefore had to work under pressure. Even with such a time pressure, the response we have had was very good. A lesson learned for next year is that we will leave more time for RALOs to bring their input and discuss it. In fact, you will notice that we have made a comment about this in our statement too. In the meantime, I wanted to congratulate North American RALO Leaders for their fast turn-around and At-Large Structures in the region for their response. It doesn't stop here. The information that the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) uses to draft those Statements comes from you. Your involvement will therefore always be much appreciated and we therefore hope that you will continue being an active part in the process. If you have missed the chance to comment this time, we look forward to hearing from you the next time round. Warm regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1

Request: Re-schedule NA RALO conference call
by Beau Brendler Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

Greetings. I realize this is late notice, but I would like to suggest re-scheduling the NA-RALO call tomorrow. I now have surgery scheduled for tomorrow morning and may be in the hospital at the time of the call. I will be out of commission for about three days, so we could reschedule after that. The alternative being, if someone else wants to lead the meeting...however, I have not worked on the agenda as I have had other issues to deal with. Apologies for the late notice. Beau

5 4