[council] Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder Service

Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP mcade at att.com
Fri Sep 19 20:53:29 UTC 2003

My intent in raising this is to ensure that we consider impact on the Internet itself. You will note that I said that there may be other issues, such as competition, but that can be addressed on a longer term time frame. Having a negative impact on other applications and underlying concepts upon which applications rely is not "good" for the Internet.  that is what has to be examined, and I believe referring this to the Security and Stability Advisory Committee is the right step. But that is a topic for discussion.

I understand that some in the registry constituency may have conflicts of interests. It is important for anyone with conflicts to be prepared to declare those conflicts before the discussion, perhaps just as we start the discussion. That is consistent with our collegial way of interacting with each other on Council.

mcade at att.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Demi Getschko [mailto:demi at agestado.com.br]
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 3:23 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff
Cc: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP; Council (E-mail); Gnso. Secretariat
(E-mail); Bruce Tonkin (E-mail); Grant Forsyth (E-mail); Paul Twomey
(E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Mark McFadden (E-mail); Denise Michel
Subject: Re: [council] Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site
Finder Service

Dear all,

(sorry if you got this more than once... -
just adding my two cents...)
I agree that we have to discuss this. It's not, exactly, a
"business issue" in my view. We are not discussing
the actual business but something new, that Verisign
has done, and that can affect the business at the global level.
In my opinion, it is not an issue that can viewed
as just a "Verisign business issue" but an unilateral
move, perhaps going beyond Verising's rights,  that
could have impact in many other aspects of the Internet,
including stabiliby, adherence to standards, ecc ecc...

I'm for discussion this a little more deeply...

Best Regards

Demi Getschko

"Neuman, Jeff" wrote:

> All,
> Thanks Marilyn for your personal resolution and subsequent analysis.  I
> believe this is an issue that all sides have to make their own independent
> analysis and for that reason, I have no problem with your resolution of
> studying the issue for a period of 90 days and then coming out with a final
> report.
> What I do take issue with in your motion is your request that all activity
> stop while this issue is being studied.  What you are requesting from the
> Council (or more precisely, that we request from the Board) is effectively
> the legal equivalent of ICANN issuing a "temporary injunction" on VeriSign's
> business while we are studying the amount of harm.
> >From a very simplistic legal perspective, if this issue were in a court in
> the United States (which I understand there may be a case already pending),
> such remedial action would only be granted when a Court has proof of
> irreparable harm from a particular service (not when such harm needs to be
> evaluated).  Such remedies are rarely granted, especially in situations like
> this where there is a reasonable dispute by technical experts as to the harm
> caused by this service.
> In addition, in the rare instance of an injunction being granted, such an
> injunction can have a large financial and business impact on the entity
> being enjoined. This is precisely why courts require the party complaining
> about the service to post a substantial bond in the event that it is
> determined that the injunction should never have been issued in the first
> place.  This bond would then be used to compensate the entity for which an
> injunction was granted.
> Marilyn and Council.  I am not sure that we want to be responsible for doing
> this to a business while the issue is being studied.  I understand that
> ultimately, this will be an issue for the Board to consider and it will be
> them that makes the legal determination and takes the legal risks.  However,
> I for leery about suspending an entity from engaging in its business because
> we are studying its policy impacts.
> I would request that the ICANN General Counsel be present at any vote or
> discussion on this issue so that we can address this legal issue along with
> several others that may arise out of the GNSO/ICANN taking such drastic
> action.
> Jeff
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cade,Marilyn S - LGCRP [mailto:mcade at att.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 1:10 AM
> To: Council (E-mail); Gnso. Secretariat (E-mail)
> Cc: Bruce Tonkin (E-mail); Grant Forsyth (E-mail); Paul Twomey (E-mail);
> Steve Crocker (E-mail); Dan Halloran (E-mail); Mark McFadden (E-mail);
> Denise Michel (E-mail)
> Subject: [council] Resolution regarding Verisign Registry Site Finder
> Service
> 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.

More information about the council mailing list