30 November, 2010

GNSO Chair Preliminary Election Results

Stephane Van Gelder

From the GNSO Council list:

Report for election:  Non-contracted Parties, 2010-11-19 (as
attached)

0        None of the above
8        Olga Cavalli = 61.5%
5        Stéphane van Gelder = 38.5%

Report for election: Contracted Parties, 2010-11-19 (as attached)

0        None of the above
0        Olga Cavalli = 0%
7        Stéphane van Gelder = 100%

According to the procedures http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2010.htm approved by the Council on 28 October 2010, Stephane van Gelder, with a total of 138.5% goes through to the second round.

The ballots for the second round will be distributed on Wednesday, 1 December and the voting period will run through until Tuesday, 7 December at 22:00UTC (17:00 COT Cartagena). Please respond by voting on the web form.

The ballot will  look like this:
[ ] Stéphane van Gelder
[ ] none of the above

Motion to move forward with RAA amendments

The GNSO's Kristina Rosette has submitted a motion to approve the recommendations in the Final Report on Proposals for Improvements to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.

The text of the motion (minus all the whereas language):

RESOLVED, that the GNSO Council appreciates the effort of the Joint GNSO/ALAC RAA Drafting Team in developing the recommendations and proposals delineated in the Final Report for improvements to the RAA;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council hereby accepts the Final Report and approves of the Form of the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter as described in Annex D of the Final Report;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff commence the consultation process with Registrars in the RAA to finalize the Registrant Rights and Responsibilities Charter for posting on the websites of Registrars as specified in Section 3.15 of the RAA;

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that Staff adopt the process specified as Process A in the Final Report to develop a new form of RAA with respect to the High and Medium Priority topics described in the Final Report. 

Process A states:

"1.     Prioritized list of topics goes to GNSO council (i.e., final form of this report).  Staff and council review may filter out topics that fall under consensus policy.
2.      Negotiations begin with negotiation group consisting of Staff, the Registrars (as a whole, not individually), and certain observers representing the interests of affected non-parties to the agreement.
3.      During negotiations, if Staff and Registrars agree, parties may vote to hold discussion on specified topics in executive session (excluding observers), then reporting back to the full negotiation group re progress.
4.      Negotiating group reports [to GNSO and ALAC, or to the public] periodically (such as monthly) on status and progress.  Negotiating group is expected to make bracketed text, and/or agreed items, available for public comment and feedback.
5.      Negotiating group reviews comments and continues negotiations and repeat step 4 as necessary.
6.      Staff and Registrars, after consultation with observers, determine when full final draft of new RAA is ready to be posted for public comment.
7.      GNSO Council reviews and considers public comments and votes on approval of the RAA. GNSO Supermajority Vote to be obtained in favor of the new form.
8.       If Council approves, the new RAA goes to Board for approval.
9.       If Council does not approve, goes back to negotiation team with appropriate feedback for reconsideration. Repeat from step 6." 

RESOLVED FURTHER, that the GNSO Council recommends that this process be initiated by ICANN immediately.

IANA Free Pool now down to 7 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s.

Leo Vegoda writes to the NANOG list:

The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of four /8 IPv4 blocks to ARIN and RIPE NCC in November 2010: 5/8, 23/8, 37/8 and 100/8.  The IANA free pool contains 7 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s.

Comments from the Government of Norway

Interesting set of ATRT comments from the Government of Norway:
  • According to the ICANN Bylaws, the Board members are obliged to act in the interest of the global Internet community but they are not accountable in the normal meaning of the word.  This especially applies to the Board members selected by the NomCom.  In our view it could be argued that this system indicates that there is insufficient accountability and perhaps even a shortage of classical democracy within ICANN.
  •  Norway is of the opinion that the present practice of communication between the GAC and the ICANN Board handling the GAC advice is not very good.
  • With reference to the recommendations by the President's Strategy Committee, we strongly believe that ICANN should continue to explore the ways in which an international legal entity could be established.

Variant Management: Why the delay?

The China Internet Network Information Center (CCNIC) writes:

We find that the progress on exploring solutions to variant management seems paused and even drawn back according to this AGB. We have growing concerns about whether it's compliant with ICANN's Bylaw to avoid this challenge of variant management (in particular variant involved delegation), especially when it's affecting billions of global users' right of using the Internet.  For Chinese users, Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese are ONE language and they are identical. Based on millions of Chinese users' right of using the Internet and their usability and readability, we encourage and welcome paired delegation of Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese gTLDs.

Considering millions of Chinese users' interest and right of accessing both online content in SC or TC, any attempt to separate SC from TC would constitute a cultural segregation because it shall lead to user confusion and result in the marginalization of millions of users who view SC and TC as essentially identical.

On the other hand, allowing SC and TC strings identically adopted as IDN TLDs offers tremendous convenience to Chinese users whose keyboards, input methods, and sometimes display methods support only one or the other. Some research has shown that Chinese users expect both versions of domain names to be held and used by the same registrant. A survey conducted by CNNIC in 2009 indicated that 95 percent of respondents are eager to own pure Chinese domain names. Based on this research, we strongly oppose delegating only one version of a Chinese gTLD to an applicant, which will surely deprive the registry operator, CDN registrants, and Chinese users worldwide of the right to properly use CDNs.

NOTE:  The Board Briefing Materials on Variant Management may be found here (starting at page 8).

Greater internet security: SWITCH blocks malicious websites

As noted on the CENTR website:

SWITCH, the registry for all country-code Internet domain names registered in Switzerland and Liechtenstein, is stepping up the security measures for the Swiss internet: Swiss websites which spread malicious software and infect the computers of internet users with malware as they surf, will be removed from the web as of Thursday 25 November 2010. 

On 25 November: SWITCH will check the notifications it receives about websites spreading malware. If it finds malicious websites, SWITCH will contact the holder and the operator (provider) and ask them to resolve the problem. If no action is taken within one working day, SWITCH will block the internet address. “We will only remove a website from the web in an emergency. The aim is for the malicious site to be cleaned up rapidly”, explains Serge Droz. This consistent approach will make a key contribution to maintaining the high security standard for Swiss internet addresses.

P2P DNS

From the alternate DNS Blog:

"A small tweet turned into a lot of interest.
We haven’t organized yet, but trying to. The background for this project is that we want the internet to be uncensored! Having a centralised system that controls our information flow is not acceptable.

By using existing technology for de-centralisation together with already having a crew with skilled programmers, communicators and network specialists, an alternative system is not far away. We’re not going to re-invent the wheel, we’re going to build on existing technology as much as possible.
There will be a press release shortly with more details.

If you’re interested in talking to us, we’re at the IRC channel #dns-p2p on EfNet."

As reported on computerworld.com:
 
"The Dot-P2P project is not filesharing, but peer-to-peer exchanged DNS data which is both open and secure. According to Dot-P2P goals, "By creating a .p2p TLD that is totally decentralized and that does not rely on ICANN or any ISP's DNS service, and by having this application mimic force-encrypted BitTorrent traffic, there will be a way to start combating DNS level based censoring like the new US proposals as well as those systems in use in countries around the world including China and Iran amongst others.""

Dotconnectafrica releases song and dance video

29 November, 2010

Registrar Speculation in Domain Names: new gTLD implications

Over the course of the last few days we have learned that ICANN-accredited registrar RU-CENTER registered in its own name 24,500 .рф domains and then promptly put them up for auction -- one example:  prostitutki.RF” that was auctioned for 190,000 U.S. dollars.

Yes, this happened in the world of IDN ccTLDs...

but it just as easily could happen with new gTLDs because ICANN's Registrar Accreditation Agreement still has no provisions governing domain name speculation by registrars -- clause 3.7.9 only states:  "Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars" ...and of course, there are no such policies or specifications.

What's to stop any accredited registrar from speculating in new gTLD domain names, from hoarding a trove of domain names, from auctioning off the pick of the litter that they have obtained for themselves through gaming of the system?

In the current situation, the Russian Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (FAS) immediately took action to protect the public interest.  In the gTLD world (where up to 500 new TLDS might be launched within a single year), who will rush in to protect the public?

One thing's for sure... It sure won't be ICANN.

RSSAC Comments on root scaling

RSSAC's Jun Murai
In correspondence to the ICANN Board, the Root Server System Advisory Committee writes:

As a first step, RSSAC is beginning work to determine and make available a list of parameters that define the desired service for the root zone system. These parameters include the desired latency in the distribution, the frequency of the updates and their size. With knowledge of these target parameters in hand, RSSAC will then seek to produce estimates of acceptable zone size and dynamics that ensure the system works within the desired range. This will involve RSSAC working closely with the root server operators to gather best estimates for what size and update rate of the root zone would cause service to be outside the desired parameters. This work will be available in draft form by 11 March 2011 and updated twice yearly thereafter.

In the case of the proposed gradual expansion of no more than 1000 entries per year for the next several years, RSSAC expects the system to remain stable and robust.

Olympic Committee Writes to ICANN, again

From the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook forum:

"The IOC has submitted eleven public comments to ICANN opposing its new gTLD program.  These comments uniformly request -- in the event that ICANN does proceed to launch an unlimited number of new gTLDs -- that the Olympic trademarks, including OLYMPIC and OLYMPIAD, be placed on a reserved names list.  We have received no response from ICANN to date regarding this request.

Our comments also request adequate rights protection measures necessary to quell an expected unprecedented level of cybersquatting and trademark infringement.  Yet these comments have been relegated for consideration by the Generic Names Supporting Organization -- a body comprised primarily of registries, registrars and registrants who have no motivation to support effective trademark protection mechanisms and who actively aim to reduce accountability for intermediaries and legitimize cybersquatting.

Subject to the foregoing, the IOC maintains its opposition to the introduction of new gTLDs because it is inherently flawed and injurious to owners of famous trademarks -- particularly non-profit rights holders that rely in part on special statutory protection.
If these critical issues are not fully resolved and ICANN chooses not to place the Olympic trademarks on the reserved names list, then the IOC and its National Olympic Committees are prepared to employ all available legislative, regulatory, administrative and judicial mechanisms to hold ICANN accountable for damage caused to the Olympic movement."

Pirate Bay to set up Alt Root

Peter Sunde of Pirate Bay fame has tweeted his intent to set up an alt root server to compete with ICANN.

He (brokep) tweets:

@ioerror That's why I always wanted a new root-server that was out of their control. And in the future a distributed system - see DM.

Hello all #isp of the world. We're going to add a new competing root-server since we're tired of #ICANN. Please contact me to help.

@svs Alternative dns root is step 1. Step 2 is the new DNS system that is in the making. It's not advanced, it's p2p and more secure.

UPDATE:  The story has been picked up by Slashdot; commentary is here.

Melbourne IT to host post-Cartagena update

On December 13th Melbourne IT will host a live update following the ICANN meeting.  Dr. Bruce Tonkin, Melbourne IT Chief Strategy Officer and ICANN Board member, will provide a summary of the discussion topics regarding New TLDs that take place during the public meetings.

 Key topics expected to be discussed:
•    Decisions regarding launch timing.
•    Proposed and approved changes to the guidebook.
•    Changes or additions to rights protection.

The webinars will be held at three different times to accommodate global participants.

Europe and the Americas
15:00 – 16:00   (10:00 AM – 11:00 AM US EST)
Registration link: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/959845914

Americas
2:00 PM – 3:00 PM US EST (11:00 AM – 12:00 PM US PST)
Registration link: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/463564843

Australia and Hong Kong
1:00 – 2:00 PM EDT (10:00 AM – 11:00 AM HKT)
Registration link: https://www2.gotomeeting.com/register/196174370

IANA Free Pool Update


Leo Vegoda, IANA Number Resources Manager, writes: The IANA IPv4 registry has been updated to reflect the allocation of a /8 IPv4 block to AfriNIC in November 2010: 105/8.

The IANA free pool contains 11 unallocated unicast IPv4 /8s.

Use of Diacritics in Czech Domains Again Refused

Prague, 19 November – For the fourth time in a row, the Czech Internet public refused the introduction of diacritics in the .CZ domain system. This ensues from a public opinion survey carried out by Markent for the CZ.NIC association, the administrator of the Czech domain registry.

Eight-seven percent of organisations that responded and 62 percent of ordinary Internet users surveyed objected to the introduction of the IDN system (Internationalized Domain Names).

“The repeated refusal of IDN was not a surprise. The last three surveys had very similar results and there have been no signs over the last two years pointing towards a change in this trend. Quite the opposite – in the long term, the negative attitude of the Czech Internet public toward IDN is growing,” stated Ondřej Filip, Executive Director of the CZ.NIC association.

Among the most frequent spontaneously mentioned negative aspects of IDN were unwillingness to get used to the change and more complicated access for foreign visitors.

Ten award-winning projects

From the LACNIC website:

The Regional Fund for Digital Innovation in Latin America and the Caribbean (FRIDA) is pleased to announce that the ten projects that have made the greatest contribution to the development of the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean in the past few years have been selected to receive the FRIDA eLAC 2010 Award.

These ten proposals were selected from among moren than 190 projects presented within the framework of a competition summoned earlier this year by FRIDA, together with ECLAC, with the aim of recognizing those initiatives that had made the greatest contribution to the digital growth of the continent.
The awards ceremony took place this Sunday (November 21st), during the opening of the III Ministerial Conference on the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean (eLAC), which was held in Lima, Peru.

The ten award-winning projects can be found at: http://premiofrida.org

ATRT Comment Deadline Approaching

The public comment period for the Accountability and Transparency Review Team draft proposed recommendations is coming up fast -- comments need to be in by 3 December.

Thus far comments have been tendered by the International Chamber of Commerce and by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation.

The Danes write:  "Furthermore, ICANN's legal accountability is very narrow as the organization is incorporated under Californian law.  As recommended by the President's Strategy Committee (PSC), ICANN should continue to explore the ways in which it can create an international legal entity (Denmark notes that Brussels and Switzerland was suggested by the PSC) in order to further enhance the organization's accountability to internet users globally."

28 November, 2010

ALAC Elects Bachollet

Sébastien Bachollet
Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) writes:

"Therefore it is my pleasure to announce that Mr. Sébastien Bachollet, has secured the required support from the electorate to be declared the winner, and will occupy seat #15 beginning at the end of the 2010 Annual General Meeting to be held in Cartagena, Colombia."

ICANN Board's Cartagena Agenda

 
The ICANN Board's Agenda for the Cartagena Meeting has been posted. Of interest will be the Board response to reconsideration requests from the .JOBS Charter Compliance Coalition and from Michael Palage (regarding the High Security Zone TLD).  Also we note that .xxx is once again on the agenda, but a new entry (UDRP Status Update) admittedly has me baffled -- although it might be a reference to the ACDR proposal.  You can expect the new gTLD portion of the agenda to occupy the most amount of time.

Consent Agenda:
  1. Approval of Minutes from 28 October 2010 ICANN Special Board Meeting
  2. Approval of Minutes from 5 November 2010 ICANN Board Meeting
  3. Thank You’s
  4. From the Board Governance Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting):
    1. Approval of Bylaw Amendments on Board Member Term Transitions
    2. Response to Reconsideration Requests 10-2 and 10-3
  5. From the Structural Improvements Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting):
    1. Approval of Posting of New Constituency Charter          
    2. Approval of NomCom Review Implementation
    3. Approval of RSSAC Review High-Level Implementation Plan
  6. From the Board Finance Committee (tentative depending on committee meeting):
    1. ICANN Investment Policy
  7. Approval of Location of the Asia June 2011 Meeting (tentative depending on Finance & PPC committee meetings)
  8. Acknowledgment of Receipt of FY 11 Update to the ICANN Plan for Enhancing Internet Security, Stability & Resiliency
  9. Approval of MoU with the New Partnership for Africa’s Development Planning and Coordinating Agency (NEPAD/NPCA)
  10. Status Report on AOC Reviews
  11. UDRP Status Update
Main Agenda:
  1. From the Structural Improvements Committee (all tentative depending on committee meeting):
  2. SSAC Bylaw Changes
  3. Strategic Plan
  4. New gTLDs
    1.  Guidebook Consideration
    2. Morality & Public Order
    3. Geographic Names
  5. SSAC Report on Invalid Top Level Domain Queries at the Root Level of the Domain Name System
  6. ICM Registry Sponsored Top-Level Domains – .XXX
  7. Items Arising from the Cartagena Meeting
  8. Any Other Business
Agenda for Organizational Meeting – 10 December 2010 – Cartagena
  1. Election of Board Chairman
  2. Election of Board Vice-Chairman
  3. Appointment of Membership of Board Committees
  4. Confirmation of Officers of ICANN
  5. Other Business

27 November, 2010

Reactions to U.S. Homeland Security Seizures

Found this pic on a co.nz forum.  The worldwide reaction to headlines that scream "ICANN Blocks Domains" is understandable.  Within ICANN itself, discussions on this issue have emerged on both the Business Constituency list and the Non-Commercial Constituency list.

"Global Leading Oil Company" wants new gTLD

Found posted on an internet recruitment website:

Senior Project Manager – ICANN, Domain names/Web Technologies
Contract - Part Time
London
• This is a fantastic contract opportunity for a Senior Project Manager to work for a Global Leading Oil Company that we have supplied contract staff as a number one supplier for several years. The ideal applicant will be responsible for the ICANN project (the governance and domain name policy for the internet) to evaluate, apply and implement a new top level domain for the company.

NOTE:  Sorry, the closing date for this position was Monday the 15th of November 2010.

At-Large Election: LACRALO Voting Irregularities

From the LACRALO List:

Morris:  Actually, there was no proper vote, with credentials sent to ALSes and so on, was there?  If a directed vote was to be done (and Dev said that there wasn't), then shouldn't there have been a proper vote, and also the weighted calculation as stated in the LACRLO rules?  Given that the 2nd round of voting goes until the 28th, I think that any ALS expressing its opinion before then is perfectly within the timeframe of the election of the candidate for seat 15. How can expressing an opinion on the 25th, when first round voting went until the 25th and 2nd round voting goes until the 28th be too late?

Piazza:  I have spoken with tens of people, read arguments, counter-arguments, on Alan, on Sebastien, written by them and others, I have seen his file of participation.  I believe, like many, that Sebastien can  represent us suitably. But also I feel that Alan will be representative.  I do not believe in the myth about that Alan "can not represent to the users ". In fact, while Carlos and Sylvia felt, thought and concluded their analysis the same way as me, voting for Sebastien, a part of me is glad that Carlton (NomCom targeted, you can vote for who he wants), has elected Alan. It is a balance and I feel justice done.

Sooknanan:  It appears that you are attempting to decorate this flaw in the process and convince us that we should adhere to and appreciate it.  It is clear the Caribbean ALSes believe that Alan is the better choice, while our Latin American colleagues have identified a preference for Sebastien.  It is a little insulting for Caribbean ALSes to accept that our viewpoint be represented by Carlton, as he is voting on behalf of NOMCOM and should not at all be bound by LACRALO.  If there were balance (that you stake Justice has been done upon), then we would suggest that the LACRALO vote be split down he middle to represent aptly these two differing views. Otherwise just say that you have voted on your own accord and keep Justice out of it!  I understand that second round voting is yet to come, but it is necessary that our representation is not only felt but also demonstrated.

Measuring the Success/Failure of the new gTLD program

Posted to the GNSO Council list:

One topic that as a Board member I would be interested in discussing, is how will we review the success of the new gTLD launch.  It is a requirement under our Affirmation of Commitments to do so.  I would like to ask the GNSO to consider what the measures of success should be.

There might be some short term measures (e.g number of applications, number of applications with non-Latin characters) and also long term measures (DNS traffic from new gTLDs, number of second level registrations etc).

Prior to a review process - I would like to understand what we will be measuring, and what targets for those measures would be seen as "success" by the GNSO.

So I would like to request if the GNSO agrees that we add an agenda item:  - measuring success of the new gTLD program

Regards,
Bruce Tonkin

The Strategic Plan & the IANA Function

The ICANN Strategic Plan has been posted.

The comment period will close on 10 January 2010 and the Strategic Plan will be submitted to the Board for approval at their January meeting.

Identified as a key concern is the renewal of the IANA contract.  We are told that "the current multiyear contract expires September 30, 2011. ICANN will submit a proposal for the IANA contract renewal or its replacement, is well positioned to compete for the award, and expects to continue to operate the IANA function."

In the document, IANA operations are described as "flawless", and yet Nominet's Martin Boyle has pointed to issues with the "e-IANA" implementation, stating:  "This has been a long-delayed implementation, with no explanation as to why the initiative has been delayed and no indication of likely timescales."

In 2003, a number of ccTLDs, disgruntled with their treatment by ICANN, said they would consider mounting a bid to take over the IANA function, being the groups most affected by its decisions. 

More recently, the topic of the IANA contract has come up in the IGF "Main Session:  Managing Critical Internet Resources".  You can review that commentary here.

Breaking the WHOIS Stalemate

Having witnessed the ICANN Board breaking the stalemate within the relatively short-lived Vertical Intergration Working Group by making a decisive decision with regard to registry-registrar separation rules, it's time to now ask the question:

"Will the Board also break the ten-year old stalement over WHOIS?"

We have seen that the Board has established a private closed-door working group to address data and consumer protection issues (DCP-WG).  Harald Alvestrand, Dennis Jennings (Chair), Mike Silber, Bruce Tonkin, and Ram Mohan (non-voting member) are members of that WG. 

Will this group induce the rest of the Board to break the decade old stalemate on WHOIS?  Probably.

I would venture the assessment that the Board seems to be enjoying their current display of unbridled arrogance and as a group they certainly seem prepared to once again act by fiat instead of by consensus.

Loyalty to the ALAC

Over the course of time we have seen some pretty inane things in the ALAC Rules (such as Rule 25 -- Invocation of the UN General Assembly Rules of Procedure), and now we are reminded once again of such stupidities through the rules governing the election call for liaisons:

Rule 5.5 -- All liaisons have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and
loyalty to the Committee


I'm sure we're all looking forward to the swearing in ceremony where the ALAC loyalty oath will be administered.

26 November, 2010

ICANN as a Market Regulator

From the discussion thread in the VI Working group on Board Resolution 2010.11.05.20:

Palage:  "Clearly there is nothing voluntary about the agreements, in fact the proposed template Registry Agreement is nothing more than a one sided adhesion contract - full stop. Perhaps you might want to ask the supporters of the RACK proposal if they feel they are being coerced into participating into a new gTLD process under the terms of the most recent Board resolutions.

Therefore I think it time for us recovering ICANN Board directors to publicly acknowledge that when ICANN acts in the absence of consensus it is doing so not as a technical coordinator but as a market regulator."

ICANN's Bored Board

 
Found on the NCUC-discuss list:

Hi,

In the past we have had meetings with the Board. Robin and I have been talking about Cartagena and we disagree on whether this is worth the time.

At our last meeting, they seemed bored with the activity, some worked on their laptops the whole time, one reprimanded us for staff bashing and the chair told us we better have a really good reason for asking to meet with them again.

U.S. Government Seizes BitTorrent Search Engine Domain

As reported on torrentfreak.com:

Following on the heels of this week’s domain seizure of a large hiphop file-sharing links forum, it’s clear today that the U.S. Government has been very busy. Without any need for COICA, ICE has just seized the domain of a BitTorrent meta-search engine along with those belonging to other music linking sites and several others which appear to be connected to physical counterfeit goods.

While complex, it’s still possible for U.S. authorities and copyright groups to point at a fully-fledged BitTorrent site with a tracker and say “that’s an infringing site.” When one looks at a site which hosts torrents but operates no tracker, the finger pointing becomes quite a bit more difficult.

When a site has no tracker, carries no torrents, lists no copyright works unless someone searches for them and responds just like Google, accusing it of infringement becomes somewhat of a minefield – unless you’re ICE Homeland Security Investigations that is.

This morning, visitors to the Torrent-Finder.com site are greeted with an ominous graphic which indicates that ICE have seized the site’s domain.

UPDATE:  From the U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement website

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) announced the launch Wednesday of "Operation In Our Sites," a new initiative aimed at Internet counterfeiting and piracy.

In the first action carried out as part of the initiative, authorities executed seizure warrants against nine domain names of Web sites that were offering first-run movies, often within hours of their theatrical release. Seven of those sites were targeted for seizure by the SDNY. Agents from ICE's Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) also seized assets from 15 bank, Paypal, investment and advertising accounts, and executed four residential search warrants in several states.

Domain Name Seizures Expected

As reported on itpropotal.com:

"Nominet, the UK's domain name registry provider, has been asked by the Serious and Organised Crime Agency (SOCA) to set up a procedure that will allow law enforcement agencies to seize and shut down domain names that facilitate illegal activities.

The company said in a statement that: “There are increasing expectations from law-enforcement agencies that Nominet and its members will respond quickly to reasonable requests to suspend domain names being used in association with criminal activity and Nominet has been working with them in response to formal request.”

The new rules come into force less than two weeks after the police took down Fitwatch, a website that advised student protesters on how to disguise themselves in order to escape from the police."

At-Large Apathy


In the current at-large election process we have learned that only 56% of the electorate bothered to vote for a candidate in the EURALO poll.

In APRALO, the situation was even worse, with only 36% of the electorate voting.

... and in the crucial at-large director election itself 3 out of 19 electors failed to cast a vote.

All in all, a pretty lousy situation that reflects badly upon the credibility of the at-large.

Election Results: What are they hiding?




The preliminary at-large director election results have been posted and something is seriously amiss.
 
The election results announcement displays a table:

Names                       Votes %
Sébastien Bachollet         43.75
Pierre Dandjinou            25.00*
Alan Greenberg              31.25

You will note that the total number of votes per candidate is not displayed (only the percentage).

In this particular vote there were only nineteen eligible voters (the list can be found here), and the only way that the mathematics can hold true is if only sixteen votes were cast:

Sebastien -- 7 votes out of 16 = 43.75%
Pierre      -- 4 votes out of 16 = 25.00%
Alan        -- 5 votes out of 16 = 31.25%

Inquiring minds would love to know which members of the "ALAC/RALO-chair" electorate couldn't be bothered to vote.  It certainly makes you wonder whether this group even deserves having an at-large director on the Board. 

As no single candidate received more than 50% of the vote, a run-off election will now be held.  If you cross your fingers for good luck, maybe they'll remember to give a damn and vote in the upcoming election.

25 November, 2010

RU-CENTER ordered to halt auctions

Reprinted from the Moscow News:  

Cyrillic web domains are set to be frozen amid concerns that many of the .рф sites sold this month have been bought by profiteers.  The initial sale of the first public Russian-language domains was hailed as a huge success, with organisers saying demand had far outstripped expectations.  But yesterday tech group RU-CENTER was ordered to halt auctions after a rash of cases over illegal cyber-squatting and attempts to inflate prices for popular domain names, RIA Novosti reported.  The domains will be frozen, preventing the buyers from creating their own sites or selling them on at a profit.

No halt
RU-CENTER said there are no plans to stop sales, with spokesman Andrei Vorobyov saying: “We do not believe we have violated the law or the rules of the co-ordinating centre.”  But at the end of last week the Federal Anti-Monopoly Service (FAS) launched legal action against six registrars from the agency, claiming they had broken competition laws.  The auctions were set-up with a condition that successful bidders could not transfer the site for at least 12 months, in a bid to prevent so-called cyber-squatting. 

Rapid purchases
RU-CENTRE got into trouble after the first Cyrillic domains went on sale on Nov. 11.  On its own it bought 38 per cent of the names, and through partner companies the group acquired 48 per cent of the .рф hosts.  And Vedomosti reported that the FAS is unhappy with the deals RU-CENTER has brokered with its partners and is following complaints from both users and rival registrars.

The Current State of Internet Governance

Found this comment/observation on the GA list:

"...and I find your remark extremely petty (but quite in line with the current state of the Internet governance, where only lawyers and trolls are left alive)."

Governmental Summit being planned for ICANN San Francisco session

From the Cartagena schedule:

"The GAC will be holding a special session in San Francisco where senior representatives from Governments will discuss long-term strategic issues related to the development of the DNS. This is the preparatory meeting to set out the broad agenda and planning for the meeeting."

Interesting... this won't be a typical gathering of lower-level GAC functionaries, but rather it will involve high-level senior governmental representatives in a meeting designed to take place just prior to the scheduled launch of the new gTLD program.  What does this bode?

Some Cartagena Board Committee Reports Now Available

Already posted to the Cartagena schedule pages are two Board Committee presentations; one from the Board Risk Committee and the other from the Board Finance Committee.

On one slide from the Risk Committee we hear about a Staff Review of Enterprise Risk Management (and of course we wonder if these reviews will ever be made available to the public).

On a slide from the Finance Committee we learn that they have "Engaged KPMG to review Investment Policy (IPS), participated in online survey. Discussed risk profiles, alternative investment strategies, optimal sizing, etc."

IPv6: The Impact on Users

Geoff Huston has written a brilliant article on "IPv6 and Transitional Myths".

On the topic of how IPv6 will impact the user community he writes:

"Myth:  It's just a change of a protocol code. Users won't see any difference in the transition."
 
If only that were true!

In an open market environment scarcity is invariably reflected in price. For as long as this transition lasts this industry is going to have to equip new networks and new services with IPv4 addresses, and the greater the scarcity pressure on IPv4 addresses the greater the scarcity price of IPv4 addresses. Such a price escalation of an essential good is never a desirable outcome, and while there are a number of possible measures that can be taken that would be intended to mitigate, to some extent or other, the scarcity pressure and the attendant price escalation, there is still a reasonable expectation of some level of price pressure on IPv4 addresses as a direct outcome of scarcity pressure.

In addition, an ISP many not be able to rely solely on customer-owned and operated NATs to locally mask out some of the incremental costs of IPv4 address scarcity. It is likely, and increasingly so the longer the transition takes, that the ISP will also have to operate NATs. The attendant capital and operational costs of such additional network functionality will, ultimately be a cost that is borne by the service provider's customer base during the transition.

But it's not just price that is impacted by this transition. The performance of the network may be impacted during the transition. Today a connection across the internet is typically made by using the DNS to translate a name to an equivalent IP address, then launching connection establishment packet (or the entire query in the case of UDP) to the address in question. But such an operation assumes a uniform single protocol. In a transition world you can no longer simply assume that everything is contactable via a single protocol, and it is necessary to extend the DNS query to two queries, one for IPv4 and one for IPv6. The client then needs to select which protocol to use if the DNS returns addresses in both protocols. And then there is the tricky issue of failover. If the initial packet fails to elicit a response within some parameter of retries and timeouts, then the client will attempt to connect using the other protocol with the same set of retries and timeouts. In a dual stack transitional world not only does failure take more time to recognise, but even partial failure make take time.

So users may see some changes in the Internet. They may be exposed to higher prices that reflect the higher costs of operating the service, and then may see some instances where the network simply starts to appear "sluggish" in response.

Draft Comment from ICANN's Business Constituency

From the BC draft "Comment on ICANN's Proposed Final Guidebook for new gTLDs":

"The BC is disappointed that so many of our concerns have been disregarded, despite repeated comments by multiple stakeholders. There are repeated instances where the majority of the comments call for a change, yet staff chose to present a solution which ignores majority comments without presenting a rationale.   

The BC is concerned that the Guidebook has moved to 'proposed-final' form before delivery of an Economic Study of costs and benefits that is required as one of the overarching issues for new gTLDs.  As the BC has previously commented, economic analysis must inform decisions about gTLD introduction, including IPR protections."

In all, the BC has offered up around a dozen-and-a-half recommended changes to the Guidebook (which reflect its highest priority comments), and each proposed change is accompanied by a supporting rationale.

24 November, 2010

Solving an ICANN new gTLD Applicant Guidebook Problem

I recently came across a public comment submitted by Patrick Vande Walle that serves to illustrate an ongoing Guidebook problem.

Patrick writes:  "The current draft version says, with regard to the URS process (5.1): "A Registrant will have 14 days from the date the URS Provider sent its Notice of Complaint". The agreement reached earlier by the community was 20 days. There is no explanation given why this delay was shortened."

Patrick, of course, is correct -- the Guidebook itself offers no explanation nor rationale for the change that was made.

However... the Board Briefing material from 25 September (on pages 26 and 27)  in the section called "URS Timing Requirements" offers a reasonable analysis of the current environment/recent developments and puts forward a recommendation with a lengthy rationale.

It's explanatory notes such as these that should be accompanying the Guidebook.  Frankly, it's exactly the approach that the GAC has been asking for:
"The GAC expects the Board to provide the ICANN community a thorough and reasoned explanation of all decisions taken, the rationale thereof and sources of data on which ICANN relied.."
If such explanations/rationales can be provided to the ICANN Board, they most certainly can be provided to the community that is being called upon to offer public comments.

SITA: we don't consult

The Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques (SITA) has filed a Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) request to allow for DNSSEC implementation.

In their paperwork they indicate that:
  • SITA has not consulted with any community or experts
  • SITA has not consulted with the sponsored TLD community
  • SITA has not consulted with gTLD registrars or the registrar constituency
  • SITA did not deem consultations with any other constituency group appropriate, and has not consulted with any other constituency groups
  • SITA did not deem consultations with end users appropriate, and has not consulted with any end users
 

Beckstrom's Trademark Application

Posting to the General Assembly list, George Kirikos writes:

Hi folks,

Truth is stranger than fiction.  Did ICANN's Board do a background check when hiring its CEO?  Take a look at the TM application by Rod Beckstrom

"Bull****ters Anonymous"

It was refused as being "immoral."

According to the dictionary (referenced in the USPTO file on the application), the definition of the noun variation is:

"Something worthless, deceptive or insincere."

Perhaps this is what ICANN's Board was looking for, someone that would fit the culture of ICANN perfectly, and take the deception and insincerity to new levels?

ICANN Responds to the GAC

Peter Dengate Thrush
In a very long letter, ICANN's Chairman of the Board, Peter Dengate Thrush, has responded to concerns earlier enumerated by the Governmental Advisory Committee.

With regard to the new gTLD objection process, the Board response to the GAC is guaranteed to ruffle more than a few feathers; Peter writes:

"The Board discussed the GAC's position that governments should not be required to pay a fee for raising objections to new gTLD applications, and does not agree with the GAC on this point.  It is the Board's view that governments that file objections should be required to cover costs of the objection process just like any other objector; the objection process will be run on a cost-recovery and loser-pays basis (so the costs of objection processes in which governments prevail will be borne by applicants).  How would the dispute resolution process be funded:  a speculative increase in application fees or increased fees to gTLD registrants?  Either of these cases or others seem difficult to implement and unfair."

ALAC Votes to endorse JAS Charter extension

At the ALAC monthly meeting, the group endorsed extending the Charter of the "Joint SO/AC Working group on support for new gTLD applicants".

The endorsement notes:  "The Working group is asked to present a schedule for the work that allows for completion in time for the opening of the application round, currently scheduled for Q2 2011."

Recent Board resolutions on the topic:

RESOLVED (2010.09.25.03), any direct financial support for applicant fees must come from sources outside of ICANN.

RESOLVED (2010.10.28.22), the Board further stresses that any needy applicant support program must have a sustainable funding model that may be independent of ICANN and can be implemented transparently, and effectively to the benefit of the global Internet community.

(Draft) Progress Report IDN ccTLD String Selection Criteria and Requirements


The purpose of the working group (WG) is to report on and identify a feasible policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the territories listed in the ISO3166‐1 (IDN ccTLDs) within the framework of the IDN country code Policy Development Process.

The Working Group's "Progress Report" may be found here.

IGF renewal a step closer: text approval on Nov. 30

From Jovan Kurbalija's blog:

The Second Committee of the General Assembly has just negotiated a final version of the draft resolution on the future of the Internet Governance Forum, a reliable source has confirmed.

Our source in New York has also confirmed that unless there are any last-minute interventions by Member States, the Second Committee is expected to adopt the final text on November 30. Although anything is possible, further amendments to the text are ‘highly unlikely’.

Consultations have been taking place on the margins of the General Assembly since November 4, after Yemen – on behalf of the Group of 77 and China – presented a draft resolution entitled ‘Information and communications technology for development’. Once the Second Committee adopts the text, it will then forward its draft text for consideration in the plenary of the General Assembly. The plenary is expected to adopt the resolution without a vote ‘as soon as next week, possibly the week after’ our source confirmed.

The final version also confirmed the very clear distinction between the IGF and enhanced co-operation that are to be pursued by the Secretary-General of the United Nations through two distinct processes.

As for the reference to Critical Internet Resources as ‘public resources that belong to all mankind’, with countries being ‘equally entitled to the management and utilisation of those resources’ (paragraph 23), this has been removed too.

Orchestrating the ICANN Cartagena Public Forum

To: Gomes, Chuck; Chris Disspain; Louis Lee; Cheryl Langdon-Orr; Heather Dryden; Steve Crocker; Jun Murai
Subject: Cartagena Public Forum ; input requested

Dear Chairs,

I'd be grateful for some comment on topics your organisations might like to have included on the agenda of the Public Forum for Cartagena.  It would be helpful if you indicate the context of any proposed topics, including who is affected by the outcomes, and the timeframe in which decisions might have to be made.

Note that new gTLD topics are provided for already by separate sessions.

Many thanks - I look forward to seeing you in Colombia.

regards

Peter Dengate Thrush
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

The Implementation Challenges for DNSSEC

Rod Rasmussen
An article by Rod Rasmussen on securityweek.com:


Trouble Ahead - The Implementation Challenges for DNSSEC

There has been a lot of recent buzz surrounding implementation of Domain Name System Security extensions (i.e., DNSSEC). The latest example: verification and signing of DNSSEC for the .IN (India) and .ASIA top-level domains (TLDs), which are being pitched as major enhancements to global security for much of Asia.

Yet massive industry-wide confusion, continued lack of awareness for DNSSEC outside the DNS industry, a plethora of DNSSEC verification techniques and standards, and arguments over which to use, tell a different story. This also leads to some key takeaways for anyone looking at implementation today. We will take a closer look at the history and reasons for the existence of DNSSEC and some of the key implementation roadblocks in this first of a three-part series on DNSSEC deployment.

For the rest of the article (it's really good), click here.

Three New Registrar Contract Breaches Posted

From ICANN's Notices of Breach, Termination and Non-Renewal page:

ICANN Sends Notice of Breach (Best Bulk Register)
ICANN Sends Notice of Breach (Mister Name)
ICANN Sends Notice of Breach (Open System Ltd.)

The registrars hail from Brazil, France and the U.S.

The issues (collectively):
  • failure to provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query‐based access to up‐to‐date data
  • failure to escrow registration data
  • failure to pay accreditation fees to ICANN

At-Large & the new gTLD "Ambassador Program"


Found in the At-Large Work Team D minutes:

Heidi:  "I can tell you that Barbara [that's Barbara Ann Clay -- ICANN's Vice President for Communications and Marketing] is going to be asking At-Large for a favor.  So this could be a good time for At-Large to want something from the Communications Department.  They are going to ask you if At-Large could serve as ambassadors to new gTLDs by presenting on what ICANN is doing, emphasizing what is being done for new gTLDs.  And, in fact, for At-Large to do this with a variety of resources, including slideshows, videos, etc."

Hmmmm..... this should be interesting.... while details of this plan have been available for more than a year since the publication of the new gTLDs Draft Communications Plan, I don't think that anyone ever expected the at-large to engage in any real outreach (as candidly, they're just not that good at it).

By the way, the section of the Communications Plan that pertains to the At-Large states:

Message

With the introduction of new gTLDs the Internet landscape may significantly change by offering challenges but also opportunities and competition. Specific messaging for TLD acceptance – tbd.

Approach
  • Produce global outreach events.
  • Produce webinars.
  • Produce informational materials that are easy to read and accessible in multiple languages.
  • Maximize media outreach through targeted PR efforts.

We'll have to wait and see if an at-large ambassador corps emerges in response to this initiative...

P.S. Also found in the same minutes is this sad statement:    "Well, the specific problem is that ALSes do not understand how domain names work (and, even worse, some that don’t unfortunately think they do)."

Milton Mueller: Networks and States


From the acclaimed author of Ruling the Root, a new book.
-- summary from MIT Press:

"When the prevailing system of governing divides the planet into mutually exclusive territorial monopolies of force, what institutions can govern the Internet, with its transnational scope, boundless scale, and distributed control? Given filtering-censorship by states and concerns over national cyber-security, it is often assumed that the Internet will inevitably be subordinated to the traditional system of nation-states. In Networks and States, Milton Mueller counters this, showing how Internet governance poses novel and fascinating governance issues that give rise to a global politics and new transnational institutions. Drawing on theories of networked governance, Mueller provides a broad overview of Internet governance from the formation of ICANN to the clash at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the formation of the Internet Governance Forum, the global assault on peer-to-peer file sharing and the rise of national-level Internet control and security concerns.

Mueller identifies four areas of conflict and coordination that are generating a global politics of Internet governance: intellectual property, cyber-security, content regulation, and the control of critical Internet resources (domain names and IP addresses). He investigates how recent theories about networked governance and peer production can be applied to the Internet, offers case studies that illustrate the Internet's unique governance problems, and charts the historical evolution of global Internet governance institutions, including the formation of a transnational policy network around the WSIS."

Internet governance has become a source of conflict in international relations. Networks and States explores the important role that emerging transnational institutions could play in fostering global governance of communication-information policy."