[fwd] [council] Background memo to council re: Verisign Registry Site Finder (from: mcade@xxxxxxx)
FYI
--
Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
----- Forwarded message from "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx> -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
To: "Gnso. Secretariat (E-mail)" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Council (E-mail)" <council@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Grant Forsyth (E-mail)" <grant.forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Bruce Tonkin (E-mail)" <bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 00:46:10 -0400
Subject: [council] Background memo to council re: Verisign Registry Site Finder
X-Spam-Level:
Background
On Monday and Tuesday 15 and 16 September , I became aware of rapidly growing
expressions of concern regarding the impact of a new registry service on spam
filtering, DNS servers, ISP services and IP implications. Newsgroups and lists
related to communications among ISPs and network operators were flooded with
questions and expressions of concern. I reviewed these concerns and questions
to determine the impact on the global Internet, and therefore of concern to
ICANN.
ICANN's primary and most fundamental responsibility is the stability,
reliability and interoperability of the Internet. It has other
responsibilities as well, but this is an overriding, and critical
responsibility
First and foremost, the DNS is simple, reliable, and predictable. Many
applications rely upon its predictability and the integrity and reliability of
the Internet is build upon its simplicity. Internet standards of operation have
been developed, since the early days of the Internet, by engineers working
together in a collaborative and collegial approach. They have understood that
the good of the Internet has overriding precedent to the interests of an
individual provider.
RFCs are the standards by which the Internet functions. When RFCs aren't clear
enough, the IETF can undertake to refine or modify an RFC. In the Internet,
good will, and cooperation are the "rule". The private sector leadership of the
Internet depends, and is dependent upon these concepts of collegiality, mutual
respect, adherence to the letter AND the spirit of the RFCs, and an
understanding of the interdependency we all bring to the successful operation
of the Internet.
Today, over 100,000 networks interoperate, interconnect, and ensure that any
email reaches any other email address. Billions of dollars of e-commerce rely
upon the successful operation of the Internet. It is a critical infrastructure.
We must protect its integrity. That is "our" responsibility. Not governments.
Not someone else's. We, as elected gNSO councilors, bear a significant role in
ensuring the success of this global critical infrastructure. We share that with
other entities of ICANN, including the Board and President of ICANN.
The registry new service, introduced without notice or consultation with
affected parties, is alleged to be interfering with existing applications and
with valid, practical assumptions which underpin the reliability and integrity,
and therefore the stability of the Internet.
Some may question whether the gNSO Council is out of "scope" in raising this
issue in an advisory resolution to the ICANN board. Business users believe that
the Council, like all ICANN entities, has a first and primary accountability to
examine and ensure the stability of the Internet. Failure to advise the Board
would be a dereliction of responsibility by the elected Councilors. However, it
is clear that the gNSO alone cannot address the questions being raised. It is
undoubtedly and obviously, a cross ICANN entity concern, involving the ASO, the
ccNSO, the GAC, the IAB, and Security and Stability Advisory Committee.
The primary issue is whether it is acceptable to permit a new service to harm
the Internet. The answer has to be "no". However, the question of whether the
Internet is harmed is the first question to examine. That question deserves a
fair hearing, and a process which enables examination by knowledgeable
experts, and by those who are affected. Other questions, such as competition
are valid, but I suggest these can be addressed on a different time frame than
the "harm to the Internet" which is imperative.
Conclusion
>From my assessment, it is my view that there are sufficient questions
>demanding explanation, and with urgency, that I recommend that Council provide
>an advisory resolution to the ICANN Board and request specific action by the
>Board in relation to the new registry level service. My resolution will be
>posted separately to Council. I ask that the Chair place the resolution on
>the agenda of the next Council meeting of 26 September 2003. I urge fellow
>councilors to support this resolution. Because all are mentioned in the
>resolution, I will copy the ASO leadership, the ccNSO launching Committee, and
>the Stability and Stability Advisory Committee on the forthcoming resolution.
Marilyn Cade,
gNSO Representative of the Commercial and Business Users Constituency (CBUC)
----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx> -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP" <mcade@xxxxxxx>
To: "Council (E-mail)" <council@xxxxxxxx>,
"Gnso. Secretariat (E-mail)" <gnso.secretariat@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Bruce Tonkin (E-mail)" <bruce.tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grant Forsyth (E-mail)" <grant.forsyth@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Paul Twomey (E-mail)" <paul.twomey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Steve Crocker (E-mail)" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Dan Halloran (E-mail)" <halloran@xxxxxxxxx>,
"Mark McFadden (E-mail)" <mcf@xxxxxxx>,
"Denise Michel (E-mail)" <denisemichel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2003 01:10:09 -0400
Subject: [council] Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service
X-Spam-Level:
Dear fellow Councilors
As described in an earlier post to Council, I hereby present a resolution to
Council, proposing action by the ICANN board regarding a new registry service
related to typos in domain names:
The resolution which follows describes the situation and proposes ICANN board
action and further steps by the community.
I urge an affirmative vote at our upcoming Council meeting. Because all are
mentioned in the resolution, I will forward copies to the ASO leadership, the
ALAC, the ccNSO launching Committee, the IAB, the Security and Stability
Advisory Committee on this resolution, and the ICANN President and staff.
--
"Whereas, the primary and overriding imperative to ICANN's mission is the
stability and reliability of the global Internet. All other responsibilities
must support and respect that overriding responsibility.
Whereas, ICANN also has other responsibilities which must co-exist with this
primary responsibilty, and which include competition, transparency, bottom up
consensus policy development and informed participation by the broad community.
Whereas, the global Internet is dependent upon standards and practices that are
undertaken and agreed to by the private sector through collegial and bottom up,
consensus based processes, embodied in RFCs. Innovation in services at the
"edge" of the Internet, which do not interfere with core technical assumptions
of the Internet's operation are to be encouraged; changes at the core of the
Internet's fundamental assumptions cannot be undertaken lightly, without
notice, and cannot be tolerated if they harm basic resolvability, reliability
and stability of the Internet.
Whereas, infrastructure providers of the global Internet include network
connectivity providers, ISPs of all sizes, web hosting companies, enterprise
operators who operate resolvers and routers, gTLD registries and registrars,
ccTLD registries. These entities share a common and important responsibility of
adherence to a common bond of "do no harm" to the Internet's core reliability
and stability. This responsibilty is a basic imperative which must underpin
even contractual obligations, and is a responsibility of all infrastructure
providers.
Whereas, the introduction of the new registry level service entitled Site
Finder, introduced by Verisign Registry, has raised significant questions from
ISPs, network operators, spam filtering users, and others about its negative
and harmful impact on applications on the Internet, and on the infrastructure
providers, and on the reliabity and stability of the Internet.
Whereas, there was no notice, comment, nor consultation with affected
infrastructure entities by Verisign Registry. These affected entities are
experiencing related complaints, demands on their staff time and resources to
deal with problems, and failures in applications software;
Whereas, failing to address these concerns responsibly and responsively,
creates a concern to governments who may be forced to intervene into such
situations, thus threatening private sector leadership of the Internet,
Whereas, significant questions of harm to the stability and reliability of the
Internet are raised in a variety of technical forums
Therefore, the gNSO Council:
Resolves:
The President and ICANN Board should immediately request Verisign to withdraw
this service for a period of 90 days, during which time the following
activities are advised and will be undertaken, on a fast track process:
1) Request that the Stability and Security Advisory Committee of ICANN, in
conjunction with representation from the gNSO, ccNSO/Launching Committee, ALAC,
ASO,and the IAB create a "committee" to undertake an assessment of the impact
of such service upon the stability and reliability of the Internet. Liaison
participation should be invited from the GAC, and other relevant entities of
ICANN. A report to the ICANN board, and to the participating entities of ICANN
should be prepared for comment and provided by a date certain, within a 90 day
period. The recommendation should be posted for comment on the ICANN site for
the requisite period of time, and a final report presented to the board within
the 90 day period. During this time, the service should be discontinued.
2) The community should cooperate, in a positive and productive manner, in
documenting the impact experienced by the service to date, to inform and
educate the working group in their deliberations. Such information should be
made available via an ICANN comment process, however, a staff developed format
should be recommended, so that the input is organized, coherent, and fact
based.
3) Upon the conclusion of the work of the "committee" and taking into account
the input and advice of the entities identified above in (1), the ICANN
Security and Stability Advisory Committee should provide written public advice
to the Board, regarding the impact of the said service on the stability and
reliability of the Internet.
----- End forwarded message -----