In an attempt to getting NARALO back onto discussion of domain name issues that we are mandated to understand (hopefully enough to comment upon in the public interest), I would like to bring your attention to the issue of "dotless domains". Ie, "http://domain" or "http://example" Dotlesss domains were explicitly ruled out of the new gTLD expansion, according to 2.2.3.3 of the Applicant Guidebook. The SSAC has come out strongly against them, in this round or any others, in SSAC-053. Yet Google wants to designate .search as dotless<http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/10/google-wants-to-operate-search-as-a-dotless...>, having applied originally based on the premise that it would not be. Apparently, the issue is still being considered and has not been abruptly rejected as one might have thought. I am still learning about the issue, though at first glance I am puzzled by any move that would seem to retroactively contravene the application rules. I further don't see any great benefit to the public interest that would offset the SSAC's concerns about stability. I would like to know what others know or think on the matter. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
To try to understand this issue: why were dotless domains ruled out of the new gTLD expansion? What is the problem with them? Thanks, D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 4:27 PM To: NARALO Discussion List; John R Levine Subject: [NA-Discuss] Dotless domains In an attempt to getting NARALO back onto discussion of domain name issues that we are mandated to understand (hopefully enough to comment upon in the public interest), I would like to bring your attention to the issue of "dotless domains". Ie, "http://domain" or "http://example" Dotlesss domains were explicitly ruled out of the new gTLD expansion, according to 2.2.3.3 of the Applicant Guidebook. The SSAC has come out strongly against them, in this round or any others, in SSAC-053. Yet Google wants to designate .search as dotless<http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/10/google-wants-to-operate-search-as-a-dotless...>, having applied originally based on the premise that it would not be. Apparently, the issue is still being considered and has not been abruptly rejected as one might have thought. I am still learning about the issue, though at first glance I am puzzled by any move that would seem to retroactively contravene the application rules. I further don't see any great benefit to the public interest that would offset the SSAC's concerns about stability. I would like to know what others know or think on the matter. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Darlene, A domain name that consists of a single label is referred to as a "dotless domain name". Use of dotless names could provide potential innovations to the domain name industry and new gTLD applicants, but their use also raises usability, functionality, security and stability concerns as described in the SSAC 053 advisory. SSAC 053 advised against it. Further work is proceeding to document the security and stability implications of dotless domains. On the 28th of May ICANN announced that it has commissioned a study on the potential risks related to dotless domain names based on SAC 053 report. The study report will identify and describe the potential risks that dotless names raise with particular focus on those related to security and stability. The report will also provide options forICANN as to how to mitigate the various risks and will describe the pros and cons of the options. In both cases ICANN intends to deliver the study teams findings before the ICANN 47th meeting in Durban, South Africa. ref - http://www.icann.org/en/groups/ssac/documents/sac-053-en.pdf - http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-28may13-en.htm regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org On 2013-06-09, at 6:22 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote:
To try to understand this issue: why were dotless domains ruled out of the new gTLD expansion? What is the problem with them?
Thanks,
D
Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson@gov.nu.ca ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] on behalf of Evan Leibovitch [evan@telly.org] Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 4:27 PM To: NARALO Discussion List; John R Levine Subject: [NA-Discuss] Dotless domains
In an attempt to getting NARALO back onto discussion of domain name issues that we are mandated to understand (hopefully enough to comment upon in the public interest), I would like to bring your attention to the issue of "dotless domains".
Ie, "http://domain" or "http://example"
Dotlesss domains were explicitly ruled out of the new gTLD expansion, according to 2.2.3.3 of the Applicant Guidebook. The SSAC has come out strongly against them, in this round or any others, in SSAC-053. Yet Google wants to designate .search as dotless<http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/10/google-wants-to-operate-search-as-a-dotless...>, having applied originally based on the premise that it would not be. Apparently, the issue is still being considered and has not been abruptly rejected as one might have thought.
I am still learning about the issue, though at first glance I am puzzled by any move that would seem to retroactively contravene the application rules. I further don't see any great benefit to the public interest that would offset the SSAC's concerns about stability. I would like to know what others know or think on the matter.
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On 6/9/13 3:39 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
... could provide potential innovations ...,
The innovations are still quite speculative, and since the advocates could demonstrate their innovations and prove the value claims trivially in either a demonstration root (as ICANN did during the early ccTLD IDN work), or in the second level in the IANA, or CNNIC, or other "alternate root" schemes, the utility claim is under-proved.
... SSAC 053 advisory.
The risks however, are not under-proved. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
I agree with Eric. What I find astounding about the issue is that it's still alive right now. ICANN has its hands full dealing with problems emanating from the *existing* regulations guiding the current application round. Adding new points of deviation from what was explicitly disallowed is an invitation for even more grief. If Google and others want to demonstrate innovation that makes the DNS more diverse while providing public benefit and addressing the real security concerns, we have until the next round to figure it out. I think it is wholly appreciate that NARALO further discuss this issue. We have the aims of both informing our community, and possibly advising ICANN (in as strong and direct language as possible) to defer consideration of this issue until after the fallout from round one of the gTLD expansion program is understood. - Evan (via mobile) On 2013-06-09 8:52 PM, "Eric Brunner-Williams" <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
On 6/9/13 3:39 PM, Robert Guerra wrote:
... could provide potential innovations ...,
The innovations are still quite speculative, and since the advocates could demonstrate their innovations and prove the value claims trivially in either a demonstration root (as ICANN did during the early ccTLD IDN work), or in the second level in the IANA, or CNNIC, or other "alternate root" schemes, the utility claim is under-proved.
... SSAC 053 advisory.
The risks however, are not under-proved.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Colleagues, I suggest that the first issue to consider is whether the Board is in possession of the best advice on the subject from some other AC, and if so, is further advice from another AC, ALAC in particular, can in fact inform the Board. In my view, the Board already has the best advice on the subject from an AC and no communication from another AC can in fact inform an already informed Board. Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon
Eric, I would agree that the Board already has good advice from the SSAC. However, it appears that the Board, having received this advice, may not be following it. There may be value in the ALAC being vocally supportive of the SSAC work -- without re-inventing it -- and informing the Board that in ALAC's view going against SSAC053 is against the public interest. If the Board had fully heeded its AC's advice we would not be having this discussion, and the Board would have trusted the SSAC advice rather than needing third-party consultation and evaluation. At very least it would have deferred the issue until the current round has been delegated (which is what my original point was about). On 10 June 2013 11:19, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
Colleagues,
I suggest that the first issue to consider is whether the Board is in possession of the best advice on the subject from some other AC, and if so, is further advice from another AC, ALAC in particular, can in fact inform the Board.
In my view, the Board already has the best advice on the subject from an AC and no communication from another AC can in fact inform an already informed Board.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Evan, There are 3 of not more SSAC members on the ICANN board, as such - I believe - advisories are taken seriously. However, as you mention there are other drivers in their discussions, as such ALAC's support of SSAC053 and other advisories is much appreciated and very strategic. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org On 2013-06-10, at 11:32 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Eric, I would agree that the Board already has good advice from the SSAC. However, it appears that the Board, having received this advice, may not be following it. There may be value in the ALAC being vocally supportive of the SSAC work -- without re-inventing it -- and informing the Board that in ALAC's view going against SSAC053 is against the public interest.
If the Board had fully heeded its AC's advice we would not be having this discussion, and the Board would have trusted the SSAC advice rather than needing third-party consultation and evaluation. At very least it would have deferred the issue until the current round has been delegated (which is what my original point was about).
On 10 June 2013 11:19, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
Colleagues,
I suggest that the first issue to consider is whether the Board is in possession of the best advice on the subject from some other AC, and if so, is further advice from another AC, ALAC in particular, can in fact inform the Board.
In my view, the Board already has the best advice on the subject from an AC and no communication from another AC can in fact inform an already informed Board.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Item 11.1.1 for today: https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+2013.06.10+Teleconference -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Monday, June 10, 2013 11:49 AM To: NARALO Discussion List Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Dotless domains Evan, There are 3 of not more SSAC members on the ICANN board, as such - I believe - advisories are taken seriously. However, as you mention there are other drivers in their discussions, as such ALAC's support of SSAC053 and other advisories is much appreciated and very strategic. Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra@privaterra.org On 2013-06-10, at 11:32 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Eric, I would agree that the Board already has good advice from the SSAC. However, it appears that the Board, having received this advice, may not be following it. There may be value in the ALAC being vocally supportive of the SSAC work -- without re-inventing it -- and informing the Board that in ALAC's view going against SSAC053 is against the public interest.
If the Board had fully heeded its AC's advice we would not be having this discussion, and the Board would have trusted the SSAC advice rather than needing third-party consultation and evaluation. At very least it would have deferred the issue until the current round has been delegated (which is what my original point was about).
On 10 June 2013 11:19, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
Colleagues,
I suggest that the first issue to consider is whether the Board is in possession of the best advice on the subject from some other AC, and if so, is further advice from another AC, ALAC in particular, can in fact inform the Board.
In my view, the Board already has the best advice on the subject from an AC and no communication from another AC can in fact inform an already informed Board.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
On a general note, in the ICANN context I would strongly disagree with the assertion that the presence of good information necessarily means that the Board as a whole is well informed. The POTENTIAL to be well informed exists; whether that potential is realized is quite a different matter. ICANN is informed by many bodies offering a broad diversity of views, and obviously some of the information it receives is counter to what At-Large would consider "good". It is notable that direction from ICANN's gTLD supporting organization (ie, the industry input) *must* be heeded (ie, can only be rejected by a super-majority of the Board); however, input from its ACs is purely optional and can be (and often is) disregarded at whim (without even an explanation, except in the case of the GAC). IMO, the state of WHOIS offers another example of where AC advice has been poorly accepted because of industry resistance. Many such examples exist, unfortunately for the public interest. ICANN -- and the DNS -- would be a far different environment had its AC input been taken as conscientiously and seriously as its industry input. - Evan On 10 June 2013 11:32, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Eric, I would agree that the Board already has good advice from the SSAC. However, it appears that the Board, having received this advice, may not be following it. There may be value in the ALAC being vocally supportive of the SSAC work -- without re-inventing it -- and informing the Board that in ALAC's view going against SSAC053 is against the public interest.
If the Board had fully heeded its AC's advice we would not be having this discussion, and the Board would have trusted the SSAC advice rather than needing third-party consultation and evaluation. At very least it would have deferred the issue until the current round has been delegated (which is what my original point was about).
On 10 June 2013 11:19, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>wrote:
Colleagues,
I suggest that the first issue to consider is whether the Board is in possession of the best advice on the subject from some other AC, and if so, is further advice from another AC, ALAC in particular, can in fact inform the Board.
In my view, the Board already has the best advice on the subject from an AC and no communication from another AC can in fact inform an already informed Board.
Eric Brunner-Williams Eugene, Oregon ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
participants (5)
-
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen -
Robert Guerra -
Thompson, Darlene