- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Proposed Final Report - Call for comments
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 20, 2011

April 20, 2011

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, ALAC Chairman, please find the draft ALAC Statement on the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Working Group Proposed Final Report drafted by Olivier : URL: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+Statement+on+Post-Exp iration+Domain+Name+Recovery+Working+Group+Proposed+Final+Report+-+April+201 1 Short URL: https://community.icann.org/x/cYLT The public comment announcement for this issue is available at: http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-proposed-final-report. This public comment closes on Friday, 22 April Please add your suggestions or revisions using the comments function on the wiki page above or send At-Large staff an e-mail at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 22 April. An ALAC vote will begin shortly thereafter. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

New draft of the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs is now available for public comment
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 19, 2011

April 19, 2011

Dear All, The new draft of the Applicant Guidebook for New gTLDs is now available for public comment. Guidebook and Public Comment Forum <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm> (see: http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-6-en.htm) On 15 Apri; 2011, ICANN posted for public comment the Discussion Draft of the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook. In keeping with the draft timeline <http://icann.org/en/minutes/draft-timeline-new-gtlds-18mar11-en.pdf> [PDF, 117 KB] approved by the ICANN Board at its meeting in San Francisco, this draft of the Applicant Guidebook will be open for comment for 30 days, through 15 May 2011. This posting includes a "track changes" version of the six modules of the Applicant Guidebook, along with a series of new Explanatory Memos related to changes made as a result of the recent consultations between ICANN's Board and Governmental Advisory Committee: 1. Trademark Protections (Trademark Claims <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/trademark-protection-claims-use-15apr1 1-en.pdf> & Sunrise Services; and The Requirement for Demonstrating Use) [PDF, 284 KB] 2. GAC and Government Objections; Handling of Sensitive Strings; Early Warning <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/gac-objections-sensitive-strings-15apr 11-en.pdf> [PDF, 91 KB] 3. Exemptions to Objection Fees for Governments <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/exemptions-govt-objection-fees-15apr11 -en.pdf> [PDF, 331 KB] 4. Root Zone Scaling <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/root-zone-scaling-15apr11-en.pdf> [PDF, 286 KB] 5. Market and Economic Impacts <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/market-economic-impacts-15apr11-en.pdf > [PDF, 480 KB] 6. Registry-Registrar Separation <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/registy-regsitrar-separation-15apr11-e n.pdf> [PDF, 400 KB] These memos were developed to document the latest position on these topics by taking into account the current thinking, discussions and public comments received. Each memo not only reflects GAC advice but also contains the reasoning and rationale on each of the relevant issues regarding the launch of the New gTLD Program and Applicant Guidebook. Also being posted today is the ICANN Reply <http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/board-notes-gac-scorecard-clean-15apr1 1-en.pdf> [PDF, 275 KB] to the GAC Comments (on the ICANN Board's Notes on the GAC Scorecard). Keeping with the draft timeline, ICANN plans to post a final version of the guidebook by 30 May 2011, in time for consideration of the New gTLD implementation program at an extraordinary meeting of the ICANN Board to be held on Monday, 20 June 2011, at the ICANN meetings in Singapore <http://singapore41.icann.org/> . Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

At-Large Confluence Training Guide available in EN, FR and ES
by ICANN At-Large Staff April 14, 2011

April 14, 2011

*La version française est ci-dessous *La versión española está abajo ** Dear Members of the At-Large community, An At-Large Confluence Wiki Training Guide is now available in English, French and Spanish. The Training Guide in the three languages is available at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At+Large+Wiki+Training+Guides. Regards, ** Chers membres de la communauté At-Large, Un manuel d'instruction At-Large de Wiki de Confluence est maintenant disponible en anglais, le Français et l'Espagnol. Le manuel d'instruction dans les trois langues est disponible à: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At+Large+Wiki+Training+Guides. Cordialement, ** Estimados miembros de la comunidad At-Large, Una guía de entrenamiento At-Large de Wiki de la Confluence está disponible ahora en inglés, francés y español. La guía de entrenamiento en las tres idiomas está disponible en: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At+Large+Wiki+Training+Guides. Respetos, Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 11 April at 19:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon April 11, 2011

April 11, 2011

Dear All, The next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 11 April 2011 at 19:00 UTC. The draft agenda and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/KIHT If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Gisella Gruber-White, Seth Greene, Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 11 April at 19:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon April 8, 2011

April 8, 2011

Dear All, The next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 11 April 2011 at 19:00 UTC. The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/KIHT If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Gisella Gruber-White, Seth Greene, Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Stability, Security, and Resilience of the DNS Review Team
by Evan Leibovitch April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

Hello NARALOers, There is currently an open vote for ALAC members on whether to endorse the current statement on the SSR-Team. https://community.icann.org/display/alacdocs/ALAC+Statement+on+the+Stabilit… As there was recently some discussion of this on the na-discuss list, I would like to find out whether the current version incorporates the views that were expressed. I note that this statement calls for the new gTLD program to make DNSSEC optional rather than mandatory. (There are specific kinds of TLDs for which DNSSEC should be mandatory IMO, but that's outside the scope of this document) I will need to vote soon and would like to know if there are any substantial problems with the document in its current form according to NARALO members. Thanks, - Evan

3 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] Stability, Security, and Resilience of the DNS Review Team
by Beau Brendler April 7, 2011

April 7, 2011

I support universal DNSSEC. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 7, 2011 4:56 PM >To: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Stability, Security, and Resilience of the DNS Review Team > >On 7 April 2011 16:45, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > >> For those community-based TLD proposals from poorer economies -- the ones >>> for whom the JAS group has been formed to try to lower costs -- the use of >>> one of the big registry operators is *not* a given, and in these cases the >>> cost of implementing DNSSEC could be significant. >>> >> >> I see your point, but I don't think it's a problem. If you have a small >> zone, you can do everything with BIND or NSD or unbound. You need competent >> staff to manage it, but it's all industry standard free software, most >> likely the same software you'd be using anyway. If .MUSEUM can sign and >> publish, which it does using that freeware, I think it's fair to expect >> other small TLDs to do the same thing. > > >Just to be clear... you're saying the benefits of universal DNSSEC outweigh >the costs, even for smaller (and less financially capable) TLDs. (And there >will certainly be costs to implement, even if the software itself is >free...) > >This, combined with Eduardo's agreement that DNSSEC should be mandatory >everywhere, seems to indicate a lack of agreement with an ALAC statement >that suggests otherwise. > >What do other think? If there is even partial agreement with the stances >taken by Eduardo and John, I can't really vote in favour of the statement. > >- Evan >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

Nominating Committee application period ended yesterday (April 4, 2011).
by Eduardo Diaz April 6, 2011

April 6, 2011

All: Just to let you know that the 2011 Nominating Committee application period ended yesterday (April 4, 2011). This year we received 77 Statements of Interest. 12 candidates are from Europe, 22 are from Asia/Pacific, 11 are from Latin America, 14 are from North America, and 18 are from Africa. 18 candidates are female, 59 are male. Candidates primary interest in serving is as follows: 37 on the ICANN Board, 11 on the GNSO Council, nine on the ccNSO Council, and 20 on the ALAC. Many candidates have asked to be considered for more than one position. Thanks to those of you that applied. More information here: http://nomcom.icann.org/. -ed -- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

8 13

Re: [NA-Discuss] On the cost of application, and Joint Application Support related
by Eric Brunner-Williams April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

On 4/4/11 4:10 AM, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > imposing DNSSEC from day one on new gTLDs is *also* a competition issue Of course it is a competition policy issue. Synchronous mass creation can only be accomplished where one or more critical resources have limited allocation regimes, but significant reserve capacity in one or a few actors, through monopoly, or oligopoly. Employer independent DNSSEC experience is limited. Verisign, Afilias, NeuStar and CORE have DNSSEC experience and excess capacity. In the 2000 round, all but one of .aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name and .pro arose from separate capitalizations, separate technical capacities, and separate staffs. Only .name has been acquired by the incumbent monopoly operator, a competition policy error on ICANN's part. Each requirement in excess of the 2000 and 2004 requirements has the effect, individually in the case of the empty zone signing requirement with key management cost prior to first production resolution, and in the aggregate in other cases, of restricting the structural choices of applicants. The imposition of synchronous mass requirements can only result in significantly distinct outcome, much more likely to favor incumbents with reserve capacity over new entrants lacking that capacity, than the iterative imposition of the same requirements, where capacity is not some neutral condition or consequence of merit, but the likely consequence of mere possession of a prior grant of franchise. The impossibility of the ALAC advancing a coherent position which advances the public interest is demonstrated by individuals who are overtly destructive to applicants those individuals deem lacking the capacity to meet a requirement which they advocate and cannot justify except through appeal to externalities, and by individuals who are covertly destructive to applicants through the advocacy of regimes of resources starvation. > I hope this answers your concerns. Only in part. The indifference to applicant cost, and to operational utility, of a At Large RO contributor, and the non-responsiveness of that contributor, as a contributor to an At Large consensus based activity, raise both substance and process issues. Make no mistake, when I observed cache poisoning demonstrated in a small meeting of DNS people at the Dublin IETF meeting in under 3 seconds, I fully understood that the economics of attack had changed. However, attack has not become "free" and therefore not pervasive, and rational attackers rationally target, and zones for which less financial, or political benefit exists have less risk. Zones which exist for the purposes of sustained financial transaction are worth signing. Zones which exist for the purposes of Pay Per Click advertizing inventory disposal are not worth signing. Signing .mil may have some operational utility. The operational utility of signing .museum, other than the benefit to the community of a first gTLD implementer experience(*) is far more conjectural. It is less than sufficient to comment, when the DAG has "DNSSEC is mandatory to implement", that "operators are encouraged to deploy DNSSEC from day one". The correct comment is "advised only when the utility of zone signing and key management justifies the cost, as with all other engineering choices". The star above is intended to draw attention to another inherent failure of synchronous mass requirements. The operational experience of each registry informs not only its participants, but informs any successors. As one wag put it, "time is nature's way of ensuring that everything doesn't happen at once". The model Staff has chosen, and several At Large participants advocate as well, a large cohort of simultaneous events, to prevent a "first in market" effect, ensures that no experience, including experience resulting in failure, can be known to any members of the cohort. Finding "no first in market" to be a greater public interest than the public interest in empirical decision making is peculiar. Eric

7 8

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard
by Beau Brendler April 5, 2011

April 5, 2011

My caution has nothing to do with your opinion -- Richard Tindal is expressing very similar opinions to yours, and there's quite a good discussion ensuing. Opinions are welcome. Personal attacks (as one list member complained about when he said he would add you to his troll list) and threats (as I read your comment below, in the context of the e-mails before and after it, to be) aren't. If you need further specifics e-mail me offline or call me on the phone, I'm in the book in the New York area. -----Original Message----- >From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >Sent: Apr 1, 2011 3:56 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard > >Beau Brendler, > >I see that Jeff Williams and I have something in common at last.... > >Could you be more specific as to how these words imply a threat? I am excited to know that I have a home in ICANN at last and I want to make sure that I don't do it again. > >Antony Van Couvering > > >On Apr 1, 2011, at 12:28 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> Antony Van Couvering, >> >> As chairman of NARALO, I believe it's my duty to inform you this e-mail communication, specifically the part that says "I've done pretty well ignoring all the baiting up until now though, don't you think? You have no idea of the steely discipline I have imposed on myself," constitutes an implied threat, and therefore violates participation guidelines for ICANN mailing lists. >> >> If another such infraction occurs you will be barred from this list. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> >>> Sent: Apr 1, 2011 12:05 AM >>> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>> Cc: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Edits and comments to NARALO/ALAC position statement on GAC scorecard >>> >>> I agree that this is somewhat unkind, but it is rather on point to the discussion. >>> >>> I've done pretty well ignoring all the baiting up until now though, don't you think? You have no idea of the steely discipline I have imposed on myself. >>> >>> Antony >>> >>> On Mar 31, 2011, at 11:41 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 31 March 2011 23:25, Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> wrote: >>>> >>>> P.S. Is that jl.ly in your signature one of those "vanity" domain names you're always going on about? >>>> >>>> >>>> So much for the claim of good faith attempt to engage without personal attack. >>>> Welcome to my troll filter. >>>> >>>> - Evan >>>> >>> >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>> >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>> ------ >> >

4 3