Showing posts with label Jon Postel. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jon Postel. Show all posts

2017-12-31

News Review | 12 Questions for 2018: Domains, ISOC, Internet, ICANN

graphic "News Review" ©2016 DomainMondo.com
Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-12-31 pdf) with analysis and opinion: Features •  1) 12 Questions for 2018: Domains, Internet Society (ISOC), Internet, ICANN,  2) ICANN news: Public Comments Closing in Jan 2018, 3) New gTLD Domains: $MMX, 4) ICYMI Internet Domain News - Reality Check: One World, One Internet, in 2017? 5) Most Read in 2017 & last week.

1) 12 Questions for 2018: Domains, Internet Society (ISOC), Internet, ICANN
graphic: "12 Questions for 2018: Domains, ISOC, Internet, ICANN" ©2017 DomainMondo.com
1. Domain Names: Will 2018 Be As Bad As 2017 or Worse, particularly for new gTLDs (new generic top-level domains)?

The 2017 collapse in new gTLDs' domain name registrations:
graphic source: ntldstats.com
"Everyone has a plan 'till they get punched in the mouth." - Mike Tyson

2. Will the Internet Society (ISOC) find its way in 2018? 
  • The Internet Society receives most of its revenue (pdf) from its affiliate Public Interest Registry (PIR), specifically, PIR.org’s operation of the legacy gTLD .org. But does Public Interest Registry operate in the public interest?
Keeping Copyright Site-Blocking At Bay: 2017 In Review | Electronic Frontier Foundation | eff.org: "... This year, we’ve kept pressure on ICANN, the nonprofit body that makes domain name policy, to keep copyright enforcement out of their governing documents. And we’ve called out domain name registry companies who bypassed ICANN policy to create (or propose) their own private copyright enforcement machines. Public Interest Registry (PIR), the organization that manages the .org and .ngo top-level domains, announced in February that it intended to create a system of private arbitrators who would hear complaints of copyright infringement on websites. The arbitrators would wield the power to take away a website’s domain name, and possibly transfer it to the party who complained of infringement. The Domain Name Association (DNA), an industry trade association [started by Fadi Chehade and ICANN], also endorsed the plan. EFF pointed out that this plan was developed in secret, without input from Internet users, and that it would bypass many of the legal protections for website owners and users that U.S. courts have developed over the years. Within weeks [and only after being exposed by the EFF], PIR and DNA shelved this plan, apparently for good. Unfortunately, some domain registries continue to suspend domain names based on accusations from major motion picture distributors (whom they call “trusted notifiers”) ... these policies erode public trust in the domain name system, a key piece of Internet infrastructure ..."
  • IANA Internet Assigned Numbers Authority trademarks now held by IETF Trust c/o Internet Society after being assigned by ICANN as required by terms of the IANA transition
"Whereas, the IANA Stewardship Coordination Group (ICG) included in its proposal that the intellectual property held by ICANN in relation to performing the IANA functions should be transferred to a neutral third party to hold for the benefit of the global Internet community, and licensed back to ICANN."
The Internet Society is the organizational home of the IETF and supports it with funding; the IETF Trust was created by the Internet Society and the Corporation for National Research Initiatives.
IANA graphics from USPTO.gov records at links below
IANATrademark Status & Document Retrieval | uspto.gov: "Owner Name: IETF TRUST  Composed of: Arkko, Jari, individual, Finland; Berger, Louis I., individual, United States; Brown, Kathryn C., individual, United States; Daigle, Leslie, individual, United States; Gondrom, Marc Tobias Daniel, individual, Germany; Levine, John, individual, United States; Pelletier, Raymond G., individual, United States; Schliesser,, Benson R., individual, United States; Sullivan, Andrew John, individual, United States; Owner Address:  c\o INTERNET SOCIETY 1775 Wiehle Avenue, Suite 201, Reston, Virginia 20190."
Trademark Electronic Search System (TESS) | uspto.gov: IANA "Registration Date September 17, 2002 ... Last Listed Owner IETF TRUST .... Assignment Recorded. Distinctiveness Limitation Statement in part, as to 'INTERNET ASSIGNED NUMBERS AUTHORITY.'"
Editor's note: The Internet Society's (ISOC) misguided missteps:
  • ISOC should have defended the internet principles of Jon Postel's RFC 1591: "These designated authorities (TLD registry operators) are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community." Instead, ISOC "sold out" the global internet community and Postel's principles by allowing ICANN to trash RFC 1591 in its new gTLDs program--buying and selling gTLDs like chattel--and giving away gTLDs in perpetuity, each having complete predatory pricing power, contrary to the advice and recommendations of the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (pdf). When it really counted, the Internet Society failed the global internet community;
  • ISOC should have become an advocate for consumers (registrants) worldwide, knowing ICANN was completely neglecting consumer (registrant) protections in its new gTLDs program contrary to the advice of the DOJ Antitrust Division (link above);
  • ISOC's registry operator, PIR, with over 10 million domain names under management, should not still be relying on for-profit Afilias, to provide registry back-end services;
  • ISOC should have developed and have in place contingency plans for providing the IANA services when the global internet community replaces ICANN and/or its affiliate PTI (see Question 12. below). 

3. What's Next for (U.S.) Internet Net Neutrality, in Congress, in the FCC / FTC and the federal courts--will the federal courts stop the FCC's attempt to do away with the Title II net neutrality rules?
Team Internet Is Far From Done | eff.org

4. Should the Internet Governance Forum be "allowed to die" (like the NetMundial Initiative)?

5.  China's 5th World Internet Conference in 2018: Even Bigger, Broader, Bolder?

  • "The Chinese government is aggressively moving to attract international support for its vision for internet rule-making and management, while the United States government appears largely missing in action."--Ryan Hass

6.  Will ICANN be ready for EU GDPR compliance on 25 May 2018?
  • "We'll need to move quickly"--Goran Marby, ICANN President and CEO.
  • "... we believe that compliance with the GDPR will have an impact on the WHOIS system, and thus the domain name space ... we need to work together to find the right balance between the current WHOIS services and compliance with local laws ..."--14 Nov 2017 Letter from ICANN (Akram Atallah & Theresa Swinehart) | ICANN.org (pdf) (emphasis added). 
  • More info: EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and ICANN WHOIS.
  • WP29 (pdf): "... the unlimited publication of personal data of individual  domain name holders raises serious concerns regarding the lawfulness of such practice under the current European Data Protection directive (95/46/EC), especially regarding the necessity to have a legitimate purpose and a legal ground for such processing. Determining whether (and to what extent) these concerns are justified is ultimately for the DPAs [Data Protection Authorities] to decide, although the primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with the law is with the data controller(s) ..."
  • Protection of personal data | European Commission | ec.europa.euThe EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is the most important change in data privacy regulation in 20 years​."--EU GDPR | eugdpr.org.

7.  Will NTIA extend the Cooperative Agreement with Verisign on or before November 30, 2018, and specifically, what will happen to .com pricing (long-term)? Will the U.S. government allow ICANN and Verisign exploit legacy gTLD .com registrants the way ICANN and Verisign already exploit legacy gTLD .net registrants?

8.  Will ICANN "roll the root zone KSK" in 2018 or "break the internet" in the process?
  • Root KSK Rollover Project | ICANN.org 18 Dec 2017: "The ICANN org is today announcing that it will not roll the root zone KSK in the first quarter of 2018. We have decided that we do not yet have enough information to set a specific date for the rollover."

9. What will be the outcomes of  ICANN litigation in 2018?

10. What will the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division do about .WEB, Verisign and ICANN
Editor's note: As I noted last weekICANN mismanaged its ill-conceived and misbegotten expansion of gTLDs from just 22 to over 1200, rejecting the advice of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (pdf) and U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (pdf) with regard to competition, pricing power, and consumer (registrant) protection. The above US DOJ letter was sent to ICANN by NTIA in Dec 2008 (pdf).
UPDATE 9 Jan 9 2018DOJ closes .WEB investigation (no action)--Verisign, Inc. Form 8-K, Jan 9, 2018, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission:
"Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure.
As the Company (Verisign, Inc.) previously disclosed, on January 18, 2017, the Company received a Civil Investigative Demand from the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) requesting certain material related to the Company becoming the registry operator for the .web gTLD.   On January 9, 2018, the DOJ notified the Company that this investigation was closed.   Verisign previously announced on August 1, 2016, that it had provided funds for Nu Dot Co’s successful bid for the .web gTLD and the Company anticipates that Nu Dot Co will now seek to execute the .web Registry Agreement with ICANN and thereafter assign it to Verisign upon consent from ICANN." (emphasis added)
    See also: News Review | New gTLD .WEB, ICANN & Verisign, What's Next?

    11. What will happen to the ICANN Reviews, including the still suspended SSR2 (by unilateral action of the ICANN Board of Directors on Oct 28, 2017, with AC/SOs leadership acquiescence)?

    12. Will the global internet community begin taking steps to reform or replace ICANN in 2018, including at PP-18, ITU Plenipotentiary Conference 2018 | Dubai, UAE 29 Oct - 16 Nov 2018, or just establish a new, competing root?

    Background:
    "The ITU has problems, but there is no other organization that includes most of the world. In particular, 14 out of 18 board members at ICANN come from the U.S. and allies. The majority of world Internet users aren't represented. This is unsustainable."--circleid.com (emphasis added). 
    Is Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance Dying? | Electronic Frontier Foundation | eff.org: "... there is a strong tendency for ICANN working groups to be stacked with private sector stakeholders such as lawyers for intellectual property rights holders and the domain name industry, who are able to dominate discussions, to obstruct attempts at compromise, and to push for one-sided outcomes, such as the right for a single company to control a generic word domain. As a result, ICANN, although notionally multi-stakeholder, in practice fails to fulfil the criterion of balance. Its processes do not place a priority on the facilitation of understanding and consensus between warring stakeholder groups, and this feeds politicking and strategic behavior. Even many industry stakeholders acknowledge this shortcoming; for example Jonathan Matkowsky, who works for a digital threat management company, said in an ICANN mailing list post recently, “It's very sad to see the open Internet breaking down as a result of the multistakeholder process failing to work.”" (emphasis added)
    APC Priorities for the 12th Internet Governance Forum | Association for Progressive Communications"being influential in ICANN requires a degree of effort and consistency which is difficult to sustain ... even in the IGF the fragility of the multistakeholder approach is evident as participation from governmental and business actors appears to be tailing off." 
    A Closer Look at Why Russia Wants an Independent Internet | circleid.com"the ICANN board in 2016. The Internet doesn't look like this anymore."

    Russia Will Build Its Own Internet Directory, Citing US Information Warfare | DefenseOne.com."In 2014, the U.S. cleverly announced it would give control of the DNS database to a non-governmental international body of stakeholders, a process to be run by the California-based Internet Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. “Now, when China stands up and says, ‘We want a seat at the table of internet governance,’ the U.S. can say, ‘No. The internet should be stateless.’ They’re in a much stronger position to make that argument today than they were before,” Matthew Prince, co-founder of the company Cloudflare, told Defense One at the time. In a statement Tuesday, Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov framed Russia’s desire for an alternative DNS as essential to “protecting it from possible external influence.” “We all know who the chief administrator of the global internet is. And due to its volatility, we have to think about how to ensure our national security,” Peskov said ... The move follows Russia’s 2016 launch of its own segregated military internet for top-secret communication, called the Closed Data Transfer Segment, modeled slightly after the U.S. Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System, or JWICS. (emphasis and links added).
    ICANN | Electronic Frontier Foundation | eff.org"ICANN's susceptibility to capture has been no more evident than in the excessive deference given to the interests of intellectual property owners." Read also Why Did ICANN Become a Member of Trademark Lobbyist Group INTA? | DomainMondo.com Oct 15, 2015.
    Editor's note: remember, the global internet community, including domain name registrants, never chose ICANN, the U.S. government did. ICANN is a California corporate monopoly controlled primarily by the special interests mentioned above by EFF.org (gTLD registry operators and registry service providers, registrars, trademark lawyers, big tech (mostly U.S.) companies, and other special interests, lawyers, and lobbyists), who collectively are often referred to as the "ICANN community" which does not represent the global internet community and therefore is unable to reflect the global public interest. It should be a priority to reform or replace ICANN and its "ICANN community" with a more representative, balanced organization, with the ability to provide consumer (registrant) protections, and act as a competent and responsible steward of the global internet DNS, a global public resource, in accordance with the principles of RFC 1591.

    2) ICANN news
    graphic "ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers"
    Public Comment Opportunities Closing in Jan 2018 | ICANN.org closing dates (subject to change):

    3) Names, Domains & Trademarks
    graphic "Names, Domains & Trademarks" ©2017 DomainMondo.com
    New gTLDs Registry Operator Minds + Machines Group Ltd (mmx.co) (LON:MMX):
    MMX shares are priced in GBX Pence Sterling not US Dollars
    Still think new gTLDs are a great business opportunity?

    4) ICYMI Internet Domain News - Reality Check: One World, One Internet, in 2017?
    graphic "ICYMI Internet Domain News" ©2017 DomainMondo.com
    •  Net NeutralityTeam Internet Is Far From Done: What’s Next For Net Neutrality and How You Can Help | Electronic Frontier Foundation | eff.org

    •  China closed more than 13,000 websites in past three years reports China's  state news agency Xinhua: The Chinese government says all countries regulate the internet, and its rules are aimed at ensuring "national security and social stability" ... users themselves were punished for sharing sensitive news and commentary, with prison terms ranging from "five days to eleven years."--"These moves have a powerful deterrent effect," said Wang Shengjun, vice chairman of the Chinese parliament’s standing committee--usatoday.com.

    •  How Europe's New Internet Laws Threaten Freedom of Expression | ForeignAffairs.com

    •  Google & Cybercrime: A year ago, a grand jury in Palm Beach County, Florida, investigated fraud and abuse in the addiction industry and found that gaming Google searches is a common tool for criminals to lure addicts into questionable and sometimes dangerous treatment. Addiction treatment in America is driven by effectively paying to acquire patients, in the form of digital marketing or so-called patient lead acquisition. Google is at the center of it all. There’s big money involved. "A midsize addiction treatment center can easily shell out $1 million a month or more for Google AdWords."--Why It Took Google So Long to End Shady Rehab Center Ads | Bloomberg.com. [Editor's note: in September, Google announced plans to stop accepting ads for rehab centers.]

    •  Has the New York Times Made Gloria Steinem's Original 1998 Defense of Bill Clinton Disappear? | newsbusters.org"... Steinem sent her feminist credentials into the toilet in March 1998 when, in a Times op-ed, she defended Bill Clinton against the charges which eventually led to his impeachment later that year. The link to that op-ed in the previous paragraph was found in a public library database. That's because I couldn't locate it in multiple searches at the Times website ..."

    •  Ten Reasons Libraries Are Still Better Than the Internet | AmericanLibrariesMagazine.org

    •  How Facebook's Secret Unit Created Digital Propaganda Troll Armies To Influence Elections | ZeroHedge.com"how a secret unit of Facebook has helped create troll armies for governments around the world including India for digital propaganda to influence elections."

    •  The Internet: 10 predictions for 2018 | DiploFoundation | diplomacy.edu

    5) The Five Most Read Posts in 2017 on DomainMondo.com: 
    graphic "Domain Mondo" ©2017 DomainMondo.com
    1. News Review | Esther Dyson Interview, ICANN Founding Board Chair
    2. News Review | RySG Requests $$$ and "Detailed Accounting" From ICANN
    3. News Review | ICANN Pays Senior VP Sally Costerton Secret Contract $$$
    4. News Review: ICANN Interactive Webinar, Editor's Comment on DNS Abuse
    5. News Review | Report: ICANN's New gTLDs As Global DNS Malware
    Top 3 Most Read this past week:
    1. News Review | Domain Name Registrations Decline Worldwide Q3 2017 Dec 24
    2. Investors Warned By FINRA Not To Get Fooled By Bitcoin Scams (video) Dec 26
    3. A Lesson in Money: Venezuelans Want U.S. Dollars NOT Cryptocurrency Dec 28

    -- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

    feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


    DISCLAIMER

    2017-07-02

    News Review: ICANN59 Report; .NET Greed: ICANN + Verisign $VRSN

    News Review | ©2016 DomainMondo.com
    Domain Mondo's weekly internet domain news review (NR 2017-07-02)with opinion and analysis:

    Features •  1) ICANN59 Report, 2) .NET Greed: ICANN + VeriSign $VRSN; 3) A Bad Omen for the CCT-RT (Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review), 4) ICANN's Junket Culture, 5) ICANN60, Abu Dhabi, Oct 28-Nov 3, 6)Other ICANN News: a. ICANN Public Comment periods closing in July, b. Holding ICANN Accountable (IRS Form 990),  c. GNSO Projects List, d. KSK rollover, e. Thick Whois for .COM and .NET, f. Cost of domain registration hampering Africa's internet,  7) Most Read.

    1) ICANN59 Policy Forum ended June 29 in Johannesburg, South Africa:
    ICANN59 Interview with Verisign's Chuck Gomes:

    Video above published by ICANN on June 27, 2017: Verisign's Chuck Gomes, Chair of the PDP (Policy Development Process) Working Group on the Next-Gen Registration Data Services (RDS) to replace WHOIS. Chuck explains what some of the Working Group's struggles are and how the ICANN59 Cross-Community Session helped explain the complexity of this topic. (Note: Chuck is retiring from Verisign but will continue as Chair of the Working Group).

      CENTR.org (Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries) Report on ICANN59 (pdf) excerpt (emphasis added):

     GAC Communiqué (pdf) excerpt:

    •  Other ICANN59-related matters:
    • Cross Community Working Group on Enhancing ICANN Accountability--CCWG-Accountability--Co-Chairs statement (pdf): "... on the Jurisdiction sub-group’s recent discussions regarding the possibility of changing the location of ICANN’s headquarters or creating a blanket immunity for ICANN. In this session it was confirmed that it was unlikely there would be consensus in the CCWG for any recommendation that involved changing ICANN’s headquarters’ location or jurisdiction of incorporation or creating a blanket immunity for ICANN. As such, the sub-group’s work shall focus on recommending accountability improvements that are issue-driven remedies which build upon ICANN’s status as a non-for-profit organization headquartered in California ..." (emphasis added).

    2) .NET Greed: ICANN + VeriSign $VRSN
    As is its usual practice and custom, the ICANN Board met in a closed meeting to approve the renewal of the .NET registry agreement with Verisign--reporting days later the dastardly deal--Adopted Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board June 24, 2017 | ICANN.org: "... Resolved (2017.06.24.22), the proposed .NET Renewal Registry Agreement is approved and the President and CEO, or his designee(s), is authorized to take such actions as appropriate to finalize and execute the Agreement ..." [including $0.75 fee to ICANN (vs. $0.25 for most other gTLDs) & 10% annual increases (10% compounded annually) in fees to Verisign]--see my comment and objections and the other comments and objections here. ICANN's Unmistakeable Message to Registrants
    If you don't like ICANN's monopolistic crony capitalism, the "presumptive right of renewal" and sweetheart deal the ICANN organization gave away to Verisign re: .NET (doubling Verisign's fees every 7 years into perpetuity), as well as imposing ICANN fees that are 3x other gTLDs), too bad! Dump ALL your .NET domain names! 
    The .NET tragedy is symptomatic of all that is so wrong with ICANN--corrupt, inept, or dysfunctional. And the deal ICANN gave away to the new gTLDs registry operators is even worse! (for registrants). Consumer (registrant) protection is almost completely disregarded in the entire ICANN ecosystem, something the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division noted in 2008. ICANN operates almost completely counter to the ideals and values promulgated in RFC 1591 by Jon Postel in 1994.

    3) A Bad Omen for ICANN's CCT-RT (Competition, Consumer Trust, and Consumer Choice Review re: ICANN's new gTLDs program): 
    "I am resigning as a member of the Review Team effectively immediately.  Do not associate my name with the Review Team's report."--Stanley M. Besen, Senior Consultant, Charles River Associates, June 25, 2017.

    4) ICANN's Junket Culture:
    ICANN wasted over $100,000 on one party at ICANN55
    Each ICANN Meeting (three a year), costs ICANN, on average, US$4 million (pdf), including about US$1 million in airfares, hotels, and $$ per diem for hundreds of select stakeholders / attendees a/k/a "ICANN insiders" who have largely been "captured" by the ICANN organization itself to represent and defend ICANN as its self-designated "ICANN community," as opposed to the broader "global internet community" a/k/a "global multistakeholder community." Unlike ICANN's "contracted parties" (registrars and registry operators), and ICANN's periodic self-serving statements notwithstanding (in ICANN talk is cheap), domain name registrants have little representation and voice within the "ICANN community." There is no "Registrants Stakeholder Group" in ICANN. By intentional design of ICANN structures, domain name registrants (except corporations and trademark holders) are mostly excluded and marginalized by ICANN which claims to be operating in the "global public interest."

    5) ICANN60, Abu Dhabi, Oct 28-Nov 3
    The next ICANN meeting,  ICANN60 (ICANN's Annual General Meeting), will be held in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 28 October-3 November 2017.  "After a lengthy debate, the ccNSO decided to participate in the Abu Dhabi meeting, despite strong concerns about participants' personal safety."--CENTR report, p. 3.  See also United Arab Emirates | travel.state.gov (Safety and Security tab).

    6) Other ICANN news
    a. ICANN Public Comment periods closing in July:  Issue  | Close Date (subject to change)

    b. Holding ICANN Accountable re: ICANN FY16 form 990 (pdf): now 35 days without substantive response from ICANN CFO Xavier Calvez.

    c. GNSO Projects List - 28 June 2017 | Generic Names Supporting Organization:
    projects-list-28jun17-en.pdf Date: 28 June 2017

    d. Letter From ICANN CEO Goran Marby to Internet and Telecomm Regulators | ICANN.org--Upcoming changes to root zone DNS Security Extensions marby-to-internet-telecomm-regulators-16jun17-en.pdf  [191 KB]--An estimated 750 million people could be affected by the KSK rollover worldwide on October 11, 2017.

    e. Thick WHOIS Transition Update | ICANN.org June 30, 2017:  "... the ICANN organization approved Verisign's request for a 120-day extension of the 1 August 2017 date in the Thick WHOIS Transition Policy by which Verisign is required to deploy an Extensible Provisioning Protocol (EPP) mechanism and an alternative bulk transfer mechanism for .COM and .NET for registrars to migrate registration data for existing domain names. With this extension, the new date for Verisign's compliance with the requirement is 29 November 2017."  See also: Letter from Verisign's Patrick Kane to Akram Atallah | ICANN.org June 20, 2017--issue: Thick Whois for .COM and .NET--kane-to-atallah-20jun17-en.pdf (3.7 MB) requesting "an extension of the August 1, 2017 date of no less than 120 days." 

    f. Cost of domain registration hampering Africa's internet ecosystem | ITWebAfrica.com.


    7) This past week's most read posts (# of pageviews Sun-Sat) on DomainMondo.com: 
    1. News Review: ICANN59 Policy Forum, June 26-29, Johannesburg
    2. Global Phishing Survey, New gTLD Domain Names, Malicious Registrations
    3. EVIL GOOGLE: European Commission €2.42B (US$2.73B) Antitrust Fine

    -- John Poole, Editor, Domain Mondo 

    feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


    DISCLAIMER

    2016-10-28

    Scott Bradner: A Look Back at the History of IANA & ICANN (video)

    NANOG 68 Keynote IANA Transition:

    Video above published Oct 18, 2016:

    Keynote: IANA Transition
    Meeting: NANOG 68, 2016-10-17 10:30am - 11:30am
    Presenter / Speaker: Scott Bradner, Harvard University, retired

    Abstract"Scott Bradner will discuss the history of Internet Governance leading up to the transition of oversight of the IANA function from NTIA to the internet's multistakeholder community."

    Topics discussed include Jon Postel, competition in the TLDs (top-level domains) space, ICANN's expansion of new gTLDs and what Jon Postel would think about what ICANN has done, and become, since Jon's vision for the organization in 1998 when it was formed. (Hint: .COM, .NET, and .ORG domains will become more valuable.)

    Scott Bradner was involved in the design, operation and use of data networks at Harvard University since the early days of the ARPANET. He was involved in the design of the original Harvard data networks, the Longwood Medical Area network (LMAnet) and New England Academic and Research Network (NEARnet). He was founding chair of the technical committees of LMAnet, NEARnet and the Corporation for Research and Enterprise Network (CoREN). Bradner retired from Harvard University in 2016 after 50 years working there in the areas of computer programming, system management, networking, IT security and identity management. He still does some patent related consulting. 
    "... Scott Bradner is of the view that ICANN is seen as process bound, and I find it hard to disagree. He noted that the original ByLaws of the organisation had 9,000 words, and over time this has expanded to 36,000 words. Scott appears to hold the view that ICANN blew any goodwill Jon [Postel] had personally gathered from the start, and has maintained a largely secretive and capricious perception. Again, I cannot disagree with this opinion .... we are now in a new phase and one that has its elements of continued change and potential instability. The degree of public sector commitment is variable, and the pressures on ICANN are completely and totally unpredictable. It's likely that at best, all we can say is that this will probably not stay the same as it is today ..."--Geoff Huston, Author & Chief Scientist at APNIC, circleid.com (emphasis added)
    Note: NANOG 68 | North American Network Operators Group | nanog.org: NANOG 68 took place on October 17-19, 2016, at Dallas, TX.

    Presentation slides (pdf) embedded below:

    Transcript (pdf) auto-generated by YouTube.com (unedited) embedded below:



    feedback & comments via twitter @DomainMondo


    DISCLAIMER

    2015-10-26

    Verisign, ICANN, Internet Root Zone, Risk Factors to the Root Domain

    UPDATE: "... I don't see any way that ICANN itself is held accountable for the consequences of its policy decisions (e.g. creating large numbers of unnecessary gTLDs for no discernible motive except money) ... I've been concerned since 1998 that unchecked expansion of the number of gTLDs will eventually take us into uncharted territory from a technical resilience point of view. I see no technical and operational feedback mechanism to protect us against this operational risk in the proposal. I would like to see a multistakeholder DNS Operations Committee with a clear role in identifying DNS-wide technical issues and pressing for their resolution ... (As an IETF contributor I am an IANA customer.) ..." -- Brian Carpenter, August 1, 2015, Public Comments (pdf), IANA Stewardship Transition Proposal
    "... In the Domain Name System (DNS) naming of computers there is a hierarchy of names. The root of system is unnamed. There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166. It is extremely unlikely that any other TLDs will be created..."-- Jon Postel, March 1994, RFC 1591 (emphasis added)
    "... The requirement for uniqueness within a domain further implies that there be some mechanism to prevent name conflicts within a domain. In DNS this is accomplished by assigning a single owner or maintainer to every domain, including the root domain ... This is a technical requirement, not a policy choice ... There is one specific technical respect in which the root zone differs from all other DNS zones: the addresses of the name servers for the root zone come primarily from out-of-band information. This out-of-band information is often poorly maintained and, unlike all other data in the DNS, the out-of-band information has no automatic timeout mechanism. It is not uncommon for this information to be years out of date at many sites. Like any other zone, the root zone contains a set of "name server" resource records listing its servers, but a resolver with no valid addresses for the current set of root servers will never be able to obtain these records. More insidiously, a resolver that has a mixed set of partially valid and partially stale out-of-band configuration information will not be able to tell which are the "real" root servers if it gets back conflicting answers; thus, it is very difficult to revoke the status of a malicious root server, or even to route around a buggy root server. In effect, every full-service resolver in the world "delegates" the root of the public tree to the public root server(s) of its choice. As a direct consequence, any change to the list of IP addresses that specify the public root zone is significantly more difficult than changing any other aspect of the DNS delegation chain. Thus, stability of the system calls for extremely conservative and cautious management of the public root zone: the frequency of updates to the root zone must be kept low, and the servers for the root zone must be closely coordinated. These problems can be ameliorated to some extent by the DNS Security Extensions [DNSSEC], but a similar out-of-band configuration problem exists for the cryptographic signature key to the root zone, so the root zone still requires tight coupling and coordinated management even in the presence of DNSSEC. ..." --Internet Architecture Board, IAB Technical Comment on the Unique DNS Root, May, 2000, RFC 2826  (emphasis added)


    From Verisign's Form 10-Q filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on October 22, 2015, for the reporting period ending September 30, 2015 (emphasis and links added):

    "We operate two root zone servers and are contracted to perform the Root Zone Maintainer function. Under ICANN’s new gTLD program, we face increased risk from these operations.

    "We administer and operate two of the 13 root zone servers. Root zone servers are name servers that contain authoritative data for the very top of the DNS hierarchy. These servers have the software and DNS configuration data necessary to locate name servers that contain authoritative data for the TLDs. These root zone servers are critical to the functioning of the Internet. Under the Cooperative Agreement with the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (“NTIA”) of the DOC [U.S. Department of Commerce], we play a key operational role in support of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (“IANA”) function as the Root Zone Maintainer [see: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/legacy/DNS/CurrentProcessFlow.pdf ]. In this role, we provision and publish the authoritative data for the root zone itself multiple times daily and distribute it to all root server operators.

    "Under its new gTLD program, ICANN has recommended delegations into the root zone of a large number of new gTLDs. In view of our role as the Root Zone Maintainer, and as a root server operator, we face increased risks should ICANN’s delegation of these new gTLDs, which represent unprecedented changes to the root zone in volume and frequency, cause security and stability problems within the DNS and/or for parties who rely on the DNS. Such risks include potential instability of the DNS including potential fragmentation of the DNS should ICANN’s delegations create sufficient instability, and potential claims based on our role in the root zone provisioning and delegation process. These risks, alone or in the aggregate, have the potential to cause serious harm to our Registry Services business. Further, our business could also be harmed through security, stability and resiliency degradation if the delegation of new gTLDs into the root zone causes problems to certain components of the DNS ecosystem or other aspects of the global DNS, or other relying parties are negatively impacted as a result of domain name collisions or other new gTLD security issues, such as exposure or other leakage of private or sensitive information.

    "Additionally, DNS Security Extensions (“DNSSEC”) enabled in the root zone and at other levels of the DNS require new preventative maintenance functions and operational practices that did not exist prior to the introduction of DNSSEC. Any failure by Verisign or the IANA functions operator to comply with stated practices, such as those outlined in relevant DNSSEC Practice Statements, introduces risk to DNSSEC relying parties and other Internet users and consumers of the DNS, which could have a material adverse impact on our business.

    "On March 14, 2014, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration announced its intent to transition key Internet domain name functions potentially impacting our Root Zone Maintainer function.

    "On March 14, 2014, NTIA announced its intent to transition its oversight of the IANA function to the global multi-stakeholder community. NTIA asked ICANN to convene global stakeholders to develop a proposal to transition the current role played by NTIA in the coordination of the DNS. The NTIA is also coordinating a related and parallel transition of related root zone management functions. These related root zone management functions involve our role as Root Zone Maintainer under the Cooperative Agreement. At NTIA’s request, we submitted a proposal with ICANN to NTIA as how best to remove NTIA’s administrative role associated with root zone management in a manner that maintains the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet’s domain name system. We have performed the Root Zone Maintainer functions as a community service spanning three decades without compensation at the request of the Department of Commerce under the Cooperative Agreement. While it is uncertain how the transition of oversight of the IANA function and related root zone management functions will affect our role as Root Zone Maintainer, it is anticipated that performance of the root zone management function would be conducted by us under a new root zone management agreement with ICANN once the root zone management function obligations under the Cooperative Agreement are completed. Although our Root Zone Maintainer function is separate from our Registry Services business, and the NTIA announcement does not affect our operation of the . com, .net and . name or other registries, including the root zone, there can be no assurance that the transition of the IANA function, the transition of the related root zone management functions and associated transition processes will not negatively impact our business...."

    Caveat Emptor!

    Additional info:



    DISCLAIMER

    2015-06-02

    ICANN, IANA functions, Ultimate Mechanism of Accountability, A New Root

    A new root--the ultimate mechanism of accountability for ICANN and the IANA functions--
    There are currently three accountability structures in place to hold ICANN to account. The first, and perhaps least understood, is that worldwide participation in the naming system, managed by ICANN, is voluntary and subject to modification (as the Chinese have done). If the global community truly became dissatisfied with ICANN, a new root could be developed that everyone referenced instead of the one managed by ICANN ... the ultimate mechanism of accountability... (source: Jonathan Zuck*, emphasis added) 
    *From the testimony of Jonathan Zuck, President, ACT | The App Association, before the U.S. Congress, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet on Stakeholder Perspectives on ICANN: The .Sucks Domain and Essential Steps to Guarantee Trust and Accountability in the Internet's Operation, May 13, 2015.

    The possibility of a new Internet DNS root is, and always will be, the ultimate mechanism of accountability for both ICANN and the IANA functions, regardless of the outcome(s) of any and all ICANN Cross-Community Working Group processes.

    Jon Postel even demonstrated to the world one way it could be accomplished in his 1998 "test"--see: The Day Jon Postel Freed The Internet Root From US Government Control.

    See also: What Is The US Government's Claim to the Internet Root? and Alternative DNS root .

    2015-05-12

    Frank Schilling's Uniregistry Is An Investor in New gTLD dot SUCKS

    "...the largest owner of the Vox Populi registry, operator of .Sucks, is Momentous, a Canadian company. But it has been reported that "its IANA record lists an address in Bermuda for its technical contact and Uniregistry's office in Grand Cayman as its administrative address"...." source: ICANN.WTF? FTC & OCA Asked Whether .SUCKS is a Law Breaker (Part I)
    Is dot SUCKS the problem or is ICANN the problem?

    Who actually owns that new gTLD Registry operator from which you just registered that new gTLD domain name? Where are they located? Canada? Caymans? Hong Kong or Belarus? Hard to say, and good luck finding out from ICANN who currently holds those ownership interests, whether controlling or non-controlling. WHOIS? That doesn't tell you anything about the principals behind each of ICANN's new gTLDs. With at least one already launched new gTLD headed for third-party auction--see Are Zombie TLDs coming this year? | Domain Name Wire--who knows who will end up having ownership "interests" in these 1000+ new gTLDs ICANN unwisely launched into the global DNS (over which ICANN is supposed to be a steward acting in the public interest)? ICANN appears to be clueless or inept at keeping itself, much less the public, informed.

    Case in point: Kevin Murphy at Domain Incite broke the story of a connection between .SUCKS and Frank Schilling's Uniregistry in a March 23, 2015 post:
    "“We have a joint venture agreement and are presently handling postage and handling for Vox Populi,” Schilling told DI today. “We are providing office space services to them as well.” He characterized the deal as a “working relationship”. I would not be at all surprised if it’s much closer than that."--Why is .sucks based in Frank Schilling’s office? | DomainIncite
    Turns out Kevin's intuition was right--according to an updated Statement of Interest from Bret Fausett, General Counsel for Uniregistry, Inc., it appears that Frank Schilling's Uniregistry, Inc. is doing more than just "handling postage and providing office space services"--

    Bret Fausett SOI - GNSO Statements of Interest (SOI): 9) Please list any financial relationship beyond de minimus stock ownership you may have with any company that to your knowledge has a financial relationship or contract with ICANN: "Uniregistry, Corp. [Uniregistry, Inc.] has a non-controlling investor interest in certain TLDs currently operated by other companies, including .CAR, .COUNTRY, and .SUCKS."--(emphasis added)

    Which probably explains this:

    Domain Mondo remembers when operating a generic top-level domain (gTLD) was a "trusteeship" carrying with it a duty to serve the global Internet community--

    RFC 1591: ".... 2) These designated authorities [TLD Registry Operators] are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community....
    6) For any transfer of the designated manager trusteeship from one organization to another, the higher-level domain manager (the IANA in the case of top-level domains) must receive communications from both the old organization and the new organization that assure the IANA that the transfer in mutually agreed, and that the new organization understands its responsibilities ..." (emphasis added)

    But money-grubbing ICANN--its staff, its officers, its Board of Directors, and its self-interested "stakeholders" who have largely captured its policy-making GNSO--decided to trash the ideals of Jon Postel et al and the global public interest, and instead, corrupt the global DNS with their new gTLDs program and policy of the highest-bidder, winner-take-all, sale and auctioning off of the global Internet DNS.

    Within the sick organizational culture of ICANN, what U.S. Senator John D. Rockefeller IV characterized as "a predatory shakedown scheme" has become merely a "clever policy to keep TM names costly for brands." In other words, ICANN authorizes, enables, encourages (and in return receives fees from) new gTLD registry operators who then have carte blanche to exploit and prey upon domain name registrants--particularly those with "deep pockets." The "lawyers" Schilling refers to in his tweet above are, apparently, the Intellectual Property Constituency (IPC), now also joined by the Business Constituency.  See: Domain Mondo | The dot SUCKS Conundrum: ICANN, FTC, OCA, New gTLD Domains.

    UPDATE: see also .Sucks Registry Goes On Offense & Threatens To Sue ICANN For Defamation/Breach of Contract | TheDomains.com  and  Vox Populi Registry Says "Enough" About .SUCKS Accusations | circleid.com

    Caveat Emptor!


    Domain Mondo archive