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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Does ICANN need to evolve its code of conduct?
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 22, 2011

Aug. 22, 2011

Colleagues, Eric (no relation) Engleman, writing for the Washington Post and/or Bloomberg, has a piece on the post-ICANN affairs of former Chairman Peter Dengate Thrush, which was published over the weekend. The URL is: http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/icann-departures-draw-criticism/2011… I remain of the view I held when writing on this subject on 7/29, that there are other issues which a "code of conduct" could not address, and which go to the persistent failure, with the exceptions of the creation of a competitive registrar regime eleven years ago, abandoned this year, and the competitive redelegation of the .org contract nine years ago, of the corporation to achieve its competition policy raison d'etre. Eric

1 0

Fwd: A comparison of RIR and ICANN budgets
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 21, 2011

Aug. 21, 2011

Colleagues, The following was written by David Conrad, who I respect greatly, and was posted to NANOG today as part of a conversation on the policy for and implementation choices of prefix recovery, announced by a party other than the allocatee. The answer to the prefix question lies in the RPKI project, but the most proximal question was what do RIRs do and how much does it cost to do whatever it is RIRs do. As the ICANN budget is so frequently a subject of discussion, I've copied David's mail to NANOG below: > Jimmy, > > On Aug 21, 2011, at 8:15 AM, Jimmy Hess wrote: > > The system is this way BY DESIGN, and any other method would concentrate power > > which would be detrimental to the internet and counter to its > > open/consensus driven nature. > > See recent discussions in RIPEland regarding BGPSEC+RPKI regarding policy 2008-08. > > > The RIRs' job is to provide unique registrations, nothing else. > > And registry fees are for recovering costs necessary to provide the > > service and to maintain addressing policy. > > Googling "<RIR> budget 2011" gives (all in US$, using today's Euro and Aus$ conversion rates): > > AfriNIC: 2011 Expenses: $2,832,614 (http://www.afrinic.org/corporate/Budget2011.pdf) > APNIC: 2011 Expenses: $14,815,906 (http://meetings.apnic.net/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/31478/treasurers_repo…) > ARIN: 2011 Expenses: $16,412,160 (https://www.arin.net/about_us/corp_docs/budget.html) > RIPE: 2011 Expenses: $26,313,894 (http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-507, using today's exchange rate) > > Can't seem to find a 2011 (or anything more recent than 2005) budget for LACNIC. > > BTW, since you made passing reference to them and just FYA: > > ICANN: Expenses: $61,164,000 (http://www.icann.org/en/financials/adopted-opplan-budget-fy12-09aug11-en.pdf) > > So if LACNIC's budget is more than $790K, the RIRs combined budget for "providing unique registrations, nothing else" for IP addresses will be more than ICANN's budget for coordinating all unique Internet identifiers including addresses, IETF protocol parameters, and domains (and "promoting competition" in the latter) and dealing with a much larger community (at least as measured by meeting attendance). > > > _Enforcement_ of RIR allocations is by network operators refusing to > > originate or propagate announcements by organizations unauthorized by > > the registered resource holder. > > Very true. Of course, defining "registered resource holder" and finding that information will likely get a bit more complicated in the future... > > Regards, > -drc > > The ICANN Financials page is: http://www.icann.org/en/general/financial.html Eric

1 0

ALAC election
by Gareth Shearman Aug. 18, 2011

Aug. 18, 2011

I wish to thank Darlene for nominating me and Gordon for seconding my nomination, but I have decided *not* to let my name stand for the election. Gareth

1 0

New gTLD conference next week
by Kieren McCarthy Aug. 18, 2011

Aug. 18, 2011

Just in case you're not aware, I'm running a second .Nxt conference on new gTLDs next week in San Francisco (24-26 August). It's pretty comprehensive, covering all the different aspects of the program, as well as some sessions on Internet policy and governance. And we have alot of names you'll instantly recognise coming: Peter Dengate Thrush, Chris Disspain, Elliot Noss, Markus Kummer, Tina Dam, Avri Doria and so on and so on. The schedule is here: http://dot-nxt.com/program/session-schedule If you have any questions, do just ask. Hopefully I'll see you some of you there. Kieren -- Kieren McCarthy CEO | .Nxt, Inc. +1 415 937 1451 kieren(a)dot-nxt.com | http://dot-nxt.com Find us on: Twitter <http://twitter.com/dotnxtcon> | LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/company/2010841>| Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/dotnxt>

2 3

Items to be announced to RALOs: Re registrar collaboration & open meetings
by Seth Greene Aug. 16, 2011

Aug. 16, 2011

Hello, all, During the ExCom meeting on 16 August, the ALAC Chair, Olivier Crepin-Leblond, requested that staff remind members of the RALOs about the following two action items: 1) At-Large members to add input to the following two wiki pages regarding ongoing collaboration between At-Large and Registrars: - Ideas for future ALAC-Registrar meetings<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Future+ALAC-Registrar+meetings+…> (what questions would ALAC members like asked of the Registrars?) - Ideas for the content of educational materials to be developed by At-Large & Registrars<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=15630722> 2) RALO members to be reminded that all At-Large calls (including ALAC, ExCom, and At-Large WG calls) are, unless otherwise noted, open to all At-Large members as observers (and, based on the discretion of the meeting chair, perhaps also as speakers/participants). Please join any meetings that are of interest to you. Furthermore, would the RALO Secretariats kindly announce these two items on the RALO calls? And staff will add them to the RALO agendas. Many thanks, Seth ______ Seth Greene Interim Manager, At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (212) 662-7723 E-mail: seth.greene(a)icann.org<mailto:seth.greene@icann.org>

1 0

Fw: Ban Use of Social Media - British PM
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 16, 2011

Aug. 16, 2011

Hello fellow NARALOites. It was not that long ago that some in NARALO led the charge to push for ICANN to very publicly decry the activities of the Egyptian government, in halting use of the Internet because of its ability to allow protesters to collaborate. I'll be the first to recognize the recent riots in Britain as being the works of cowards and punks rather than legitimate protest. However. the resulting scapegoating of social media -- and the calls to allow for its ban based on government whim -- are no longer seen as merely in the realm of despots and dictators. Should this trend in democratic countries not be at least as alarming as the events in Egypt? Do you trust governments to always recognize and respect the differences between legitimate protest and mindlessly-destructive anarchism? (As a resident of Toronto, I saw these boundaries routinely obliterated on my streets during last year's G7 conference...) If the UK can ask for it publicly, can we be sure that others have not contemplated it privately? Most importantly here -- does ICANN have a role -- in the name of preserving Internet access and stability -- on this topic? Just askin'... - Evan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Date: 15 August 2011 14:55 Subject: [At-Large] Fw: Ban Use of Social Media - British PM To: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, At-Large Worldwide < at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> ...Noooo, this is NOT about China. Nor, for that matter, Iran or North Korea. Nope, wrong again......it's NOT a pronouncement from Hugo Chavez...or Fidel...or, put your favourite bogeyman here. What a climb down since Egypt..and Tunisia....... ..depart from me, you hypocrites.... http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/british-pm-david-cameron-considers-ban-… ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fw: Ban Use of Social Media - British PM
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 15, 2011

Aug. 15, 2011

> ... the recent riots in Britain as being the > works of cowards and punks rather than legitimate protest. While it may not be necessary to hold an opinion on the nature of these recent civil disturbances, the nature of the state response to more than the guarantee of a functioning social communications fabric is also quite surprising. The site formerly known as afterdowningstreet.org, now warisacrime.org, reports that a mother of two, who was asleep at home during the riots, has been given a five-month jail sentence for accepting running shorts stolen by someone else. The sentencing pattern appears to be inconsistent with anything I recall during the miners strike of 1984-1985, when I lived in London. Eric

1 0

(no subject)
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 15, 2011

Aug. 15, 2011

> Only if it's effecting DNS. Myles, If ICANN were just the DNSO, now the GNSO, and the CCNSO, I wouldn't offer a correction. However, as the IANA function clearly goes beyond the protocol using port 53, a "only if it's effecting DNS" answer to any question is not useful answer for any ICANN bylaws entity, ALAC and its constitutent regional organizations included. Eric

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fw: Ban Use of Social Media - British PM
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 15, 2011

Aug. 15, 2011

Evan, As I pointed out in my note to Peter and Rod during the period in which prefix withdrawal announcements had been made, removing routes "to" but not "through" Egypt from the global routing table, the rate of prefix annoucement affects the Default Free Zone (DFZ), and therefore has global effect. Thus, the existence of prefix withdrawal and availability announcements, at least in their rate of annoucement, and therefore the convergence time within the DFZ, is properly within the scope of the entity assumed by some to have a technical coordination purpose. Peter and Rod didn't think so, and confined their concern to the TTL value for secondary DNS servers who's primaries were not reachable due to a logical partition of the net. In case you missed it, the Bay Area Rapid Transit system administratively failed its cellular phone antenna infrastructure in anticipation of some rider protest of a fatal act of gun violence upon a passenger perpetrated by a system employee. I suspect a public interest issue is whether a name space should be persistent, independent of the administrative failure of all services other than name to address resolution. Restated, were the acts of Peter and Rod well considered when, upon the notice that the Egyptian State had withdrawn all prefixes, they acted to determin if resource record sets were at risk of expiry, and had they been, as they stated, to have committed to act to prevent the expiry of those resource records? More generally, is the persistent resolution of a resource misleading when the resource has been made unavailable by a third party? At what point does "answereing for the dead" become synthetic return? Is the stability and security of the root and critical subordinate DNS infrastructure advanced by indifference to administrative failure for state policy ends? I'm unchanged in my prior view that there is a technical coordination issue, minimally in informing prefix withdrawing entities that effect on the DFZ is not without liability, and that if synthetic return and other forms of forgery are within scope, that the representation that resources exist when in fact they do not, or "synthetic persistence", is also within scope. Eric

1 0

Comments on the IRTP-B
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 13, 2011

Aug. 13, 2011

Alan, In your comments on the recent IRTP-B draft you wrote: > How does standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages relate to > bulk transfers? Here is the relation I derived. The utility for standard output from WHOIS, a subject I've been involved in in one form or another since Dave Crocker and I proposed a WHOIS-FIX BoF at IETF-53, is negligible to any consumer of WHOIS output who is not attempting to automatically parse the output. For a consumer of WHOIS data who does rely upon automated processing of WHOIS data, standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages is critical to the consumer's business model, in so far as that business model has a critical dependence upon correct process of WHOIS data. The universe of such actors who have a persistent, not occasional or intermittant consumption of WHOIS data, for critical business processes, is limited. It starts with WHOIS data scrappers who harvest contact information, and continues throught the universe of slightly unsavory characters to the registrars, and resellers of registrars, which attempt to trigger domain transfer in numbers sufficient to sustain their operations. The Domain Registry of America is one such market actor with a critical reliance on WHOIS data, including status messages. Had you experience as a registrar over the past decade, you would have known that registrars have engaged in a number of techniques intended to impede data scrapers -- rate limiting hold down timers, rate triggered address blocking, with and without hold down timers, ... and non-standard data formats. Now IF there were a useful consumer protection organization, and IF that consumer protection organization identified inter-registrar transfer as a consumer protection interest, and IF the means of monitoring registrar WHOIS data by the consumer protection organization were not also available to data scraping registrar-and consumer abusing organizations, then the policy recommendation could have benefits that outweigh costs. Similarly, If there were a useful law enforcement organization, and IF that law enforcement organization identified inter-registrar transfer as a law enforcement interest, and IF the means of monitoring registrar WHOIS data by the law enforcement organization were not also available to data scraping registrar-and consumer abusing organizations, then the policy recommendation could have benefits that outweigh costs. However, neither of these two premises appears to be true, so their conclusions are unsupported. Which leaves bulk transfer -- the business model based upon sustained consumption of WHOIS data -- as the primary beneficiary of standardizing and clarifying WHOIS status messages. I hope this clarifies the fog you mentioned. Eric

1 0