[alac] [fwd] [council] Background memo to council re: Verisign Registry Site Finder (from: mcade@att.com)

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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 -----