- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Request: Re-schedule NA RALO conference call
by allan＠avpbc.com Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

Next week should work for me. ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Request: Re-schedule NA RALO conference call Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2011 22:34:27 -0500 > I'm fine with a week later. > ------ > 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

A contribution to a NARALO comment on the ICANN Draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan
by Eric Brunner-Williams Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

A contribution to the NARALO comment on the ICANN Draft 2011-2014 Strategic Plan, organized as four sections, addressing the Plan Areas of: I. DNS stability and security, II Core operations including IANA, III. Consumer choice, competition and innovation, and IV. A health internet eco-system. As ICANN is known to lack strategic purpose this comment attempts to remove what can't usefully be strategic. An afterward states the author's recommendations for the organization's current strategic plan elements. I. DNS stability and security This section contains four strategic objectives: (i) Maintain and drive DNS uptime, (ii) Increase security of the overall systems of unique identifiers, (iii) Increase international participation, and (iv) Coordinate DNS global risk management. (i) The first strategic objective is unclear whether the 100% DNS uptime refers to the A-M rootservers, or to the {.arpa,.mil,.edu,.gov,.int, .com,.net,.org} authoritative gTLD servers which pre-exist ICANN, or to the authoritative gTLD servers created by ICANN, or to authoritative ccTLD servers, or to AS112, or to the recursive servers operated by content and access network operators, or ... nor where any measurement of "uptime" might be conducted. A strategic objective which is incomprehensible is usually the sign that the entity lacks internal clarity on the subject matter and is unable to prioritize and select achievable objectives. The A-M rootservers are fine, there is no urgent issue there. The {.arpa,.mil,.edu,.gov,.int, and .com,.net,.org} authoritative gTLD servers are fine too, though the .mil operations could be improved, and the .gov operator is scheduled to transition. The {.biz,.info,.name,.pro and .aero,.coop,.museum} authoritative gTLD servers are acceptable, problems exist but not at the level of some strategic effort that has to put "change" before "stability". The {.asia,.cat,.jobs,.mobi,.travel} authoritative gTLD servers are also acceptable, problems exist but not at the level of some strategic effort that has to put "change" before "stability". That leaves the ccTLDs, for which no "strategic goal" is possible now that the botched attempt to force ccTLD operators to enter into contracts or be unable to update their entries in the IANA root zone is an unpleasant memory, AS112, and recursive resolvers widely known to be providing synthetic (monitized) returns for most broadband users in North America -- a situation that does call for a strategic object, following through on the Board's Sydney Resolution on NXDOMAIN Substitution (DNS Wildcard and Similar Technologies). A strategic goal of reducing incorrect synthesized DNS responses by some measurable amount would be credible, and useful. Absent that, this is just a bag holding secondary objectives -- continuity and v6. (ii) The second strategic objective errs significantly. First, if 30 ccTLD operators in developing countries sign their zone, that is a poor predictor of whether when the key's for those signed zones expire that the 30 ccTLD operators in developing countries, who are generally technical assistance recipients through the Network Resource Startup Center, that key rollover will be conducted successfully. Second, developing countries have autonomous agendas, and if ICANN is flirting with returning to the unhappy model of "enter into contracts or else" by placing the Marina del Rey agenda for zone signing ahead of the autonomous agendas of developing countries, there will be issues. ICANN pushed cost on ccTLD operators in developing countries by declining to pick up the rather small costs of their participation in the Conficker .C response. There was some real bitterness about John Crain's communicating, and the color of an ICANN endorsed urgent communication to burn local time and money preventing bad things from happening to North American and European end users through spam and/or maleware targeting by the .C enabled users of the Conficker platform. Third, fixing .com comes a bazillion years ahead of fixing .name, which is larger than all 22 ccTLD operations where Arabic is the primary spoken language, or all of Africa, less South Africa, or ... If this were a proposal to improve the performance of some system by working on code paths visited less than 1% of the time, the eager to optimize coders without a clue would be given other responsibilities. The real item to work on here is the routing (not "resource") public key infrastructure, securing BGP and detecting AS Prepending attacks, which mercifully appear at present to be fatfinger events, not information operations by motivated and competent parties pursuing rational economic or other policy goals. The buried lede is the most important and overlooked task, and this, not uptime, is what is important. Fortunately, the RPKI infrastructure is being rolled-out in the ARIN region, and has been rolled-out in other regions. (iii) The third strategic objective makes reference to the "DNS-CERT". Please see my public comments archived in the stratplan-2010(a)icann.org mailbox at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/stratplan-2010/msg00027.html The addition of the IDN version of the perenial WHOIS foodfight is a mistake. Whatever the value of adding UTF-8 or local encoded data into WHOIS output may be, it isn't DNS stability and security. This kind of junk detracts from the real issues. (iv) The fourth strategic objective fails to mention the Conficker .C facts, so the most recent "global risk management" event of import is overlooked. This is unfortunate as there really is a lot to be learned from the response, even to a non-event, about cost, timeliness, and accounting. Over all, there really is no reason why most of the ccTLD operators outside of North America and Europe should pay any attention to ICANN's DNS stability and security StratPlan component, and that is not in the public interest of North American internet users, who do not need ICANN to be ignoring development goals for false objectives and bandaids. II. Core operations including IANA This section contains four strategic objectives: (i) Continued flawless IANA operations, (ii) L-Root operational excellence, (iii) Efficiency and effectiveness of operations and (iv) Strengthen international operations and presences. (i) The first object posits the utility of the EFQM model to IANA operations, and this simply doesn't jib with my experience consulting on the IANA function reporting project in 2007. Further, the SLAs to which the EFQM might, or might not be relevant to originate from the IETF for protocol assignments. While the epoch in which the IANA function was administratively restrained from timely responses to requests for zone file updates from ccTLD operators until those ccTLD operators entered into a contract is now an unhappy memory, this too is an unlikely source of SLA commitments which could benefit significantly by the application of the EFQM model. If ICANN is to secure a renewal of the IANA contract, it is at least as likely that the merits of ICANN's renewal bid are the qualitative services necessary to manage a mixed signed-and-unsigned zones, and the qualitative services necessary to introduce RPKI, as the quantitative execution of a formal quality model indifferent to the current, and future services performed by the IANA function. (ii) The second objective pursues a mission outside of ICANN's core purpose. Running the L-Root is about as peripheral to ICANN's purpose as being an ICANN Accredited Registrar is to AOL or France Telecom or British Telecom. It simply isn't important. Next, the other root servers are run by Verisign-A, USC-ISI, Cogent, UMaryland, NASA, ISC, DISA, BRL, Autonomica, Verisign-J, RIPE NCC, and WIDE. How on earth is ICANN going to "lead by example" or "be recognized as a top-tier root zone manager"? What motivates ICANN to embark on a (probably futile) pecking order mission to provide clue to any of, let alone all of, the other root server operators? A reasonable strategic objective would be to find a qualified operator for the L-Root that would meet some unmet policy goal such as geographic diversity and schedule the transition so that ICANN could get out of registry operations and focus on its core mission. (iii) The third objective I still don't believe. What on earth does the IANA function have to do with the Policy Development Process the Names Council has adopted? The suggestion that the execution of the IANA functions services deliverables to the GNSO's PDP, pre- or post-reform, requires strategic attention indicates that either due to errors in wordsmithing, or leadership (of ICANN and the IANA) changes, that the relationship, never very significant, between the original DNSO, now GNSO, and the IANA, is not understood. (iv) The fourth objective mentions, inter alia, engagement with the IETF and the root server operators. Please add the RPKI communities of each of the RIRs. (v) The fifth objective is without quantifiers. What are the strategic goals for financial controls, capacity, etc.? III. Consumer choice, competition and innovation This section contains five strategic objectives: (i) More IDN TLDs, (ii) Increase Regional participation in the industry, (iii) Mitigate malicious conduct, (iv) Foster industry innovation, and (v) Promote fair opportunities. (i) When CNNIC turned on its name server constellation the ground work for the .中国, .公司, .网络 and .政务 and .公益 IDNs was laid. That the ground work lagged behind elsewhere is water under the bridge. If the principle of "consumer choice" is to be meaningful, it is consumers who's choices inform policy makers, not producer choices. At present more than a million users use these IDNs. The strategic plan should place their interests ahead of the legacy operator interest in capturing lucrative markets. It is impossible not to observe in passing that the strategic goal of "more languages and cultures" is subordinate to the strategic goal of a single application process, which as has been observed elsewhere, benefits “a group of participants that engage in ICANN's processes to a greater extent than Internet users generally”. (ii) Continued financial support for the NSRC's IROC, AROC, SROC offerings is a reasonable goal. (iii) The "malicious conduct" construct has, thus far, avoided mention of the causes for operational capability of actors that engage in conduct characterized as "malicious". It is primarily an individual morality construct, carefully omitting the business models which create the financial incentives as well as the technical means for "malicious conduct" on a global scale. Signing zones as a consequence of the discovery that cache poisoning could be accomplished in seconds is a reasonable response to the discovery of a economic development in attack cost. Ignoring the non-adoption of BCP-38 and other forms of industrial externalization of costs, to ccTLD operators in the Conficker .C case, is not a reasonable response to a long-standing problem. Morality as policy is fine on TeeVee. It is a profoundly dull tool for network policy making. (iv) No comment. (v) Reference to the area of work undertaken by the Joint Applicant Support Working Group is gratifying. IV. A health internet eco-system This section contains four strategic objectives: (i) One unified, global internet, (ii) Building stakeholder diversity, (iii) Improve communications and (iv) Ongoing accountability and transparency. (i) The first section contains the alarming possibility that the overwhelming contributions of volunteer time, paid staff, and expended resources committed to the new gTLD program since 2006 have only a "potential" to realize a single new community-based or public interest registry. Leaving the merits of forming corporate vision and mission from a sample of semi-random responses to a social networking technology that amounts to little more than an IRC client (who's operator collects and monitizes personally identifiable information about its users), there are the implicit limitations of this "vision". Nearly all of ICANN's contractual counter-parties to registry agreements are legally domiciled in the North American Region, and with the exception of name server constellations, are operationally contained in the North American Region. The same is true of the approximately six hundred of its (wildly shell-registrar inflated) nine hundred counter-parties to registrar agreements, four of which alone account for 50% of all gTLD registration. It is in the public interest that public policy is informed by data and both the failures, and the successes, of policy choices, can be discerned and outcomes understood in terms of causes and effects. Legal barriers particular to the North American Region's legal culture prevent research access to operational network infrastructures for reasons of economics, ownership, and trust (EOT). These must be reduced if policy making is to be informed by knowledge rather than by belief. For reasons of operational necessity a constellation of name servers was activated by CNNIC in November, 2001. Since early 2008 this constellation of name servers has provided service to more users in Asia than the original constellation of name servers provides users in North America. The Vision Statement should be amended to correct the impression that some more fundamental management problem exists than managing the sources of policy errors which have necessitated the existence of the CNNIC root server constellation, and the continued necessity for divergence between these two root systems. It is not in the public interest for North American internet users to be unaware that errors of judgment have, and may further partition "the internet". These two changes to the Vision Statement may be expressed as: "Informed by data, divided only by necessity." (ii) The second strategic objective contains a gratifying reference to ALAC, though the language reads "representing" rather than "elected by" when referring to a seat on the ICANN Board. (iii) The third strategic objective seems under developed relative to the other three, and adding a technical and policy journal, similar to the work Ole Jacobson has been doing, initially for Dan Lynch's InterOp, and subsequently for cisco, in his Internet Protocol Journal, would be more useful than more web ephemera. (iv) The fourth strategic objective references fact-based policy development and decision making. Data as a necessary predicate condition to "ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems", is absent. This is very unfortunate as in practical terms, for each year of the past decade, persons with nothing more than beliefs, which may as well be religious beliefs, have dominated ICANN's policy making. The available data is not good. We are running out of addresses, and therefore must make a partially planned transition without widespread testbed experience of the new infrastructure. The routing system too is at the limits of its scalability. There are pervasive peer-to-peer overlay networks which are incongruent with economic models, and therefore the source of fundamental legal struggles over ownership and control. The security and stability of the naming, addressing and routing infrastructure is problematic, independent of anything ICANN is on record contemplating as its plan of record. Absent operational data concerning unique endpoint identifiers, unique routing identifiers, and protocols, stable and secure operations are indistinguishable from instable and insecure operations. The DNS remains a private resource, where access to profoundly important operational data necessary for basic research on the range of meaningful policy alternatives is at the whim of commercial entities acting under private law. Afterward: Having spent 2004-2009 primarily "off-the-grid", that is, responsible for power, connectivity and bandwidth while residing in rural venues in North America, improving access to the net, for the residents of California rural farmworker housing cooperatives, Prairie Provinces and High Plains States native reservations and reserves, and isolated populations such as Appalachicola as exemplars of an broad area of unmet need seems like a reasonable "increase residences served" strategic goal. Having been in and out of the network and registry operator communities since the NIC was at SRI the mid-80s, getting behind and assisting the adoption of RPKI in the ARIN region also seems like a reasonable "improve resiliency" strategic goal. Having recently reviewed the Final Report of the ACM K-12 Task Force Curriculum Committee, commissioning a model "What is the Internet" unit of curriculum for primary, non-STEM secondary, and tertiary classroom adoption also seems like a reasonable "informational" strategic goal. Moving outside the self-similar comfort zone of corporate and suburban residential service and marketing profiles Thank you for taking the time to read this lengthy comment on the 11 page 2011 - 2014 Strategic Plan. Eric Brunner-Williams Unaffiliated NARALO Member Representative

2 3

REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 10 January 2011 @ 20:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

Dear All, The next NARALO Teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 10 January 2011 at 20:00 UTC. The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+10.01.2011+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(a)atlarge.icann.org. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Request: Re-schedule NA RALO conference call
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 10, 2011

Jan. 10, 2011

Fine with me. A week later? Alan At 09/01/2011 06:33 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >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 > > >------ >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

NA RALO response to DOC letter
by Beau Brendler Jan. 8, 2011

Jan. 8, 2011

Greetings, all. I am informed by Darlene we took as an action item in our last meeting (in Cartagena) the formulation of a response to the US Dept. of Commerce's letter to Rod Beckstrom on the topic of new gTLDs. The letter can be found at the following URL: http://forum.icann.org/lists/5gtld-guide/pdf4SSmb5oOd5.pdf In essence, the DOC is saying that ICANN failed to respond to concerns raised in a letter the DOC's NTIA sent two years ago. That letter, much clearer than this follow-up, can be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/baker-to-dengate-thrush-18dec08-en.p… At issue is an economic study ICANN was supposed to perform to determine if the cost of expanding the number of gTLDs would outweigh the benefits. The commerce department says ICANN's June 16 publication of "An Economic Framework for the Analysis of the Expansion of Generic Top-Level Domain Names" is insufficient, and that the topic needs further study. You can read the ICANN paper here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/economic-analysis-of-new-gtlds-16j… The December DOC letter takes ICANN to task not only for the paper's failure to live up to what it expected, but also says that citation of data and decision-making process is insufficient, adding up to "bad faith" in light of ICANN's promises to improve accountability and transparency. What should NA RALO's response be? For context, here's what Milton Mueller has to say: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/12/3/4694980.html We can discuss during Monday's call, unless a consensus emerges prior to. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> >Sent: Jan 7, 2011 10:17 AM >To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Call for comment ASAP on ICANN strat plan > >Oliver, > >Thank you, that is helpful. The abandonment of the "Everyone >Connected" phrase from the corporate vision statement is harsh, they >could have at least substituted something like "Most everyone with >some kind of accessibility". > >I was invited to join the formation of a U.S. Delegation to the ITU >Meeting on IPv6, March 15 and 16 2010 in Geneva on the issue you mention. > >> ... distribute IPv6 addresses using Country Internet Registries (CIR) thus bypassing the Regional Internet Registries (RIR) system ... > >I submitted written comments, as CORE's Chief Technical Officer at the >time, which I'd be happy to share on this very point, the issues >present in both the CIR and RIR models for routing resources. > >I still hope to see the older vision statements. If there was one back >when the Berlin meeting took place and the Constituencies were formed, >it might have been "This might work" or "There is no Plan B". > >Eric >------ >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 >------

3 2