Public participation site

The results of an excellent study made, for reasons that will become clear, by an anonymous author reaches this conclusion:

So, how big is the Internet?
That depends on how you count. 420 Million pingable IPs + 36 Million more that had one or more ports open, making 450 Million that were definitely in use and reachable from the rest of the Internet. 141 Million IPs were firewalled, so they could count as "in use". Together this would be 591 Million used IPs. 729 Million more IPs just had reverse DNS records. If you added those, it would make for a total of 1.3 Billion used IP addresses. The other 2.3 Billion addresses showed no sign of usage.

Notice that, of the roughly 4 billion possible IPv4 addresses, less than half appear to be "owned" by somebody and only 591 million appear to be active.

The problem is, to make the study, the author created a botnet — that is he wrote a small program that took advantage of insecure devices to enlist additional machines to help in the study. What is amazing (if you are not a security researcher) is the extent to which he was able to coop insecure devices testing only four name/password combinations, e.g. root:root, admin:admin and both without passwords.

This is very valuable research and it was apparently done without causing anyone any harm. None-the-less, the US government has treated this kind of research as a crime in the past even before all the cyber security laws of the past decade. So I hope this researcher anonymity holds.

Written by Brough Turner, Founder & CTO at netBlazr

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Web

The first round of Initial Evaluation results has been released exactly on schedule. On March 23, ICANN announced that 27 out of 30 new gTLD applications reviewed this round passed Initial Evaluation. The remaining three applicants are still marked as in Initial Evaluation. For more details see, '27 Applicants Passed Initial Evaluation in the First Round' via www.GetNewTLDs.com.

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Top-Level Domains

The first round of Initial Evaluation results has been released exactly on schedule. On March 23, ICANN announced that 27 out of 30 new gTLD applications reviewed this round passed Initial Evaluation. The remaining three applicants are still marked as in Initial Evaluation. For more details see, '27 Applicants Passed Initial Evaluation in the First Round' via www.GetNewTLDs.com.

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Top-Level Domains

The Writing's On The Wall

Well it is not new that the US has always maintained that the Internet should be a tax free zone as per the US Congress's Tax Freedom Act 1998 (authored by Representative Christopher Cox and Senator Ron Wyden and signed into law on October 21 1998 by then President Clinton) which following expiry continued to be reauthorized and its most recent re-authorization (legal speak for extension) was in October 2007 where this has been extended till 2014. It is unclear whether there will be another extension post 2014. There is a moratorium on new taxes on e-commerce, and the taxing of internet access via the Tax Freedom Act. Whilst the US Congress's Tax Freedom Act 1998 bars federal, state and local governments from taxing Internet access and from imposing discriminatory Internet only taxes such as bit taxes, bandwidth taxes and email taxes, it also bars multiple taxes on electronic commerce. It does not exempt sales made on the Internet from taxation, as these may be taxed at the same state and local sales tax rate as non Internet sales.

New Bill in the House

With the introduction of the US Marketplace Fairness Act in 2013 in both the Senate and the House of Representatives will make for some interesting discussions and lobbying at the Hill. Whilst the Bill in its current form acknowledges the exemptions that are currently in place — the manner in which discussions play out by the manner in which both Senators and Representatives are having reflect a change in atmospheric pressure — which in my mind is significant.

In 1998 the US Senate voted 96-2 to approve the Tax Freedom Act and the mere fact that the new Bill has 28 Co Sponsors and in the House of Reps, there are 47 co sponsors is indicative of either a shift in paradigm or that State coffers are screaming to be filled.

The S.336 Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on February 14 day, 2013 and sponsored by US Senator Michael Enzi [R-WY] There are 28 co-sponsors (21D, 6R, 1I).

There is a prognosis that the Bill might not get past the Committee and 0% chance of getting enacted.

The H.R.684: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 introduced on February 14, 2013 and sponsored by US Rep. Steve Womack [R-AR3] had 47 cosponsors (25D, 22R). There is a prognosis that it has a 28% chance of getting past the committee and 11% chance of getting enacted.

To Tax or Not to Tax

The term 'electronic commerce' (e commerce) means any transaction conducted over the Internet or through Internet access, comprising the sale, lease, license, offer, or delivery of property, goods, services, or information, whether or not for consideration, and includes the provision of Internet access.

As early as 2000, the problems of tax free e commerce was discussed during the first E Commerce Roundtable meeting in Washington D.C. If e-commerce proceeds untaxed, it would mean that state treasuries would face an eroding tax base. States within the United States of America rely on sales tax for approximately 25-40% of their revenue. As such there is a trade-off or opportunity cost as other taxes may have to increase to make up for the deficit caused by tax-free e-commerce.

The deficit caused by tax free e-commerce means that other taxes may be subjected to increase and also potential funding may be siphoned away from other priority areas. Traditional firms or businesses who do not trade electronically are at a disadvantage as they are forced to collect sales tax at the register. This is why it is sometimes cheaper to purchase a pair of boots online than if you were to walk into a traditional store.

One of the issues that was discussed in the E commerce round table meeting was the widening of the digital divide where people without credit cards or Internet access may be forced to shoulder the burden of sales tax.

E Commerce is blossoming

Global business-to-consumer e-commerce sales will pass the 1 trillion euro ($1.25 trillion) mark by 2013, and the total number of Internet users will increase to approximately 3.5 billion from around 2.2 billion at the end of 2011, according to a new report by the Interactive Media in Retail Group (IMRG), a U.K. online retail trade organization as reported by Internet Retailer dot com . The study estimates that business-to-consumer e-commerce sales in 2011 increased to 690 billion euros ($961 billion), an increase of close to 20% from a year earlier.

According to that study, the US remains the world's largest single market as far as e commerce goes. The same study highlighted that with China's phenomenal growth rates that it is speculated to surpass the United States in this regard shortly.

The US Department of Commerce reported that Total Retail Sales from the fourth quarter of 2012 was estimated at $1,105.8 billion which is an increase of 4% from the third quarter of the same year.

Only Time Will Tell

Whether the US Marketplace Fairness Act will eventually get passed and enacted is something that only time will tell but the timing is certainly interesting.

Written by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro, Director of Pasifika Nexus

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Internet Governance, Law, Policy & Regulation

Two approaches can be taken towards the development of Fiber to the Home (FttH). One is all about its commercial potential — the sale of the most awesome commercial applications in relation to video entertainment, gaming and TV. The other is a perhaps more sophisticated approach — from the perspective of social and economic development.

Of course the two are not mutually exclusive. Those who successfully follow the commercial route create an infrastructure over which those other social and economic applications will eventually be carried as well. This is quite a legitimate route, but the reality is that most people in this situation will say 'the FttH entertainment applications are absolutely awesome, but totally useless'. In other words, nice to have but it is highly unlikely that people will pay for them.

We basically see this with such commercial FttH deployments around the world. Commercial FttH subscriptions cost consumers well over $100 per month, and at such a price penetration in developed countries will reach no more than approximately 20%. That will not be sufficient mass to launch other social and economic applications over such a network.

If we are serious about those national benefits we will have to treat FttH differently — not just as another telecoms network, but as national infrastructure. However the all-powerful telcos will fight such an approach tooth and nail, since that would make their network a utility. They are used to extracting premium prices based on their vertically-integrated monopolies and they are in no mood to relinquish this. Simply looking at the amount of money telcos spend on lobbying reveals that they do not want to see government making any changes to their lucrative money-making schemes.

It will be interesting to see what Google Fibre in Kansas City will do. Its price is more affordable (around $75) but it is still operating on that 'awesome entertainment' level. Will it be able to attract sufficient customers to eventually create that broader infrastructure that will be used by a far greater range of applications? We estimate that it would be able to achieve around 40% penetration, and if it could move past 'awesome but useless' that could grow to 60%. By that time sufficient mass would have been created to move to the next stage. So, all very doable over, let us say, a five-year period.

The good thing is that if any company can create such a breakthrough development it is Google. It is not a telco. It simply wants to prove the business case — that FttH makes business sense. If it can prove the commercial success of Ftth it is more likely that other telcos will follow. There is no way Google on its own can fibre the USA, let alone the world. So its role in relation to Google Fibre is to extend the global FttH footprint by example, as that would allow it to increase the number of next-gen applications and service. With its dominant position in this market the spill-over from that is many times larger than the financial gains the company can make running a FttH network.

Written by Paul Budde, Managing Director of Paul Budde Communication

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband

One of the good things about participating in the meetings of the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development is seeing the amazing impact our industry has on the daily lives of literally billions of people. While everybody — including us — is talking about healthcare, education and the great applications that are becoming available in these sectors, the real revolution is taking place at a much lower level.

If one looks in particular at those who live below the extreme poverty line of $1.25 per day then e-health and e-education are certainly not the first applications that reach these people. The most fundamental change happens when people get access to communications — thus extending their network beyond neighbours, who are probably living below the poverty line as well, and so are unable to do much to lift the community out of its misery. In the 1990s Broadband Commissioner Muhammad Yunus through his Grameen Bank initiative showed that a simple mobile phone (2G) in a Bangladesh village, and, by extension, in any other village operating below the poverty line, can lift the local economy by 20%. This technology gives access to data, and people can make calls to find out what is the best market to go to today to sell the fish they just caught, or find out what the market price is for their wheat (not just the price that their middleman is quoting).

Access to facts is liberating people, and with facts they can start improving their lives. Once people know something, it cannot be taken away from them and therefore will create a lasting change. People will use that knowledge, data and information to make social and economic improvements.

On a larger scale the same thing happens when access is obtained to facts that go beyond what the local politicians are providing, or hiding. The Arab Spring is a good example here. While its end result is not yet clear there is no way back once people have the facts; again, this is a very liberating experience and will ultimately lead to improving people's lives and lifestyles.

Another of the Broadband Commissioners, Dr Mohamed Ibrahim, the founder of Celtel in Africa, is a staunch supporter of the movement 'one.org'. This grassroots, non-political organisation is concentrating on eradicating extreme poverty and statistics are showing that this could be possible before 2030.

Extreme poverty has already declined and this trend is accelerating. In 1990 43% of the global population fell into the category of extreme poverty; by 2000 this had dropped to 33%; and by 2010 it had dropped further, to 21%. Interestingly, the fastest acceleration of this trend is taking place in most of the poorest countries in Africa.

Rock star and activist Bono stated in a recent TED presentation that the major obstacles to this process of acceleration are inertia, loss of momentum and corruption. The silver lining here, especially in relation to the latter, is that again technology is a driving force for change. With access to communications and facts it becomes much easier to expose corruption. Technology makes it easier to create a more transparent society and, while corruption will never be stamped out altogether, extreme corruption will be greatly reduced.

It is great to work with the Broadband Commission to develop projects and programs, using our technologies, to ensure that the social and economic processes accelerate these positive developments, creating greater equality. The high ranking of those involved makes it possible to get these messages across at the highest levels of government and the highest level governance of the international organisations addressing these issues.

Written by Paul Budde, Managing Director of Paul Budde Communication

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband

Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare
Paperback / ISBN:9781107613775
Publication date: March 2013The newly released handbook applies the practice of international law with respect to electronic warfare. The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare — named for the Estonian capital where it was compiled — was created at the behest of the NATO Co-operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, a NATO think tank. It takes current rules on battlefield behaviour, such as the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration and the 1949 Geneva Convention, to the internet, occasionally in unexpected ways.

"The product of a three-year project by twenty renowned international law scholars and practitioners, the Tallinn Manual identifies the international law applicable to cyber warfare and sets out ninety-five 'black-letter rules' governing such conflicts. It addresses topics including sovereignty, State responsibility, the jus ad bellum, international humanitarian law, and the law of neutrality. An extensive commentary accompanies each rule, which sets forth the rule's basis in treaty and customary law, explains how the group of experts interpreted applicable norms in the cyber context, and outlines any disagreements within the group as to each rule's application."

Related Links:
First cyber war manual released The Age, Mar.20.2013
Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare Cambridge University Press

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cyberattack, Law, Policy & Regulation

Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare
Paperback / ISBN:9781107613775
Publication date: March 2013The newly released handbook applies the practice of international law with respect to electronic warfare. The Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare — named for the Estonian capital where it was compiled — was created at the behest of the NATO Co-operative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence, a NATO think tank. It takes current rules on battlefield behaviour, such as the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration and the 1949 Geneva Convention, to the internet, occasionally in unexpected ways.

"The product of a three-year project by twenty renowned international law scholars and practitioners, the Tallinn Manual identifies the international law applicable to cyber warfare and sets out ninety-five 'black-letter rules' governing such conflicts. It addresses topics including sovereignty, State responsibility, the jus ad bellum, international humanitarian law, and the law of neutrality. An extensive commentary accompanies each rule, which sets forth the rule's basis in treaty and customary law, explains how the group of experts interpreted applicable norms in the cyber context, and outlines any disagreements within the group as to each rule's application."

Related Links:
First cyber war manual released The Age, Mar.20.2013
Tallinn Manual on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Warfare Cambridge University Press

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cyberattack, Law, Policy & Regulation

Sender Address Validation and Authentication (SAVA) is the silver bullet. It will send to Cyberia all dark forces that make us shiver when we make a purchase on the internet, pose a threat to our very identities and have made DDoS a feared acronym.

Some of you will remember the heated debates when Calling Line Identification (CLID) was first introduced in telephony. Libertarians of all stripes called passionately to ban such an evil tool threatening our most precious civil liberties like the impunity of calling home from the bar, pretending to be still at work or with a customer. Today everybody welcomes the decline of crank and obscene calls even if telemarketers can continue to be a nuisance. Will SAVA be for the internet what CLID was for telephony?

One of the beauties and at the same time a source of potential vulnerability of the internet design is that it forwards packets connectionless, hop by hop, based on the destination address. This has proven a cornerstone of the amazing resiliency and scalability of the internet. The flip side is that this makes the blue box offspring, address spoofing more prevalent. From making occasional free calls in the 'telephony era', internet address spoofing now substitutes legitimate source addresses to fraudulently obtain personal information from unsuspecting end-users or wreak havoc flooding network hosts, DNS systems and even networks with DDoS attacks. So much so that a number of ISP's now offer 'scrubbing services' to their customers. Zacks Investment sees Cyber Security firms as a major investment opportunity. This is surely a growing and lucrative market segment; I might follow their advise.

SAVA was first presented at an IEEE conference in 2007 and subsequently proposed as a RFC to the IETF in 2008 with Tsinghua University of Beijing as lead author. The paper addressed the need for source address verification on the access network, intra-AS within a network, and inter-AS between networks across BGP boundaries. This led to the creation of a quite active IETF working group called SAVI to tackle the subject. An informational draft issued this February provides a good overview of a variety of 'attack vectors' and threats. How fast some of these RFC will be completed and approved and, more importantly, implemented remains however an open question.

China has reported that it is experimenting with a SAVA implementation in its CNGI (China Next Generation Internet) IPv6 only based R&E network, in no less than the United Kingdom's prestigious Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. This has in turn triggered some activity in the blogosphere ranging from more factual to a bit more alarming. Concluding yet again that China is light years ahead of the United States in IPv6 deployment remains questionable however. While CNGI has without question been the benchmark for native IPv6 deployment for many years in a Research and Education Networking environment, China has been really lagging so far in the commercial deployment of IPv6. They obviously bide their time.

While some will argue that SAVA would undermine their civil liberties and individual freedom especially when they prefer anonymity in whatever they are doing on the internet and others will see it as another step to big brother watching us, the need for better security is undeniable and even more urgent as we accelerate towards a mobile broadband data environment. IDC predicts that, this year, smartphone sales will for the first time surpass feature phones. Mobile operators enjoy usage based services and billing; to correctly identify the source will always remain essential to revenue generation and corporate wellbeing. And what would the impact be of a DDoS attack choking a major LTE network?

Major ISP's and mobile operators might want to track SAVA more closely; ça va ou ça va pas?

Written by Yves Poppe, Director, Business Development IP Strategy at Tata Communications

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: DDoS, DNS Security, IPv6, Security

Google today announced that its "Public DNS" service is now performing DNSSEC validation. Yunhong Gu, Team Lead for Google Public DNS, in post today wrote:

"We launched Google Public DNS three years ago to help make the Internet faster and more secure.Today, we are taking a major step towards this security goal: we now fully support DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions) validation on our Google Public DNS resolvers. Previously, we accepted and forwarded DNSSEC-formatted messages but did not perform validation. With this new security feature, we can better protect people from DNS-based attacks and make DNS more secure overall by identifying and rejecting invalid responses from DNSSEC-protected domains."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: DNS, DNS Security, Security

Google today announced that its "Public DNS" service is now performing DNSSEC validation. Yunhong Gu, Team Lead for Google Public DNS, in post today wrote:

"We launched Google Public DNS three years ago to help make the Internet faster and more secure.Today, we are taking a major step towards this security goal: we now fully support DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions) validation on our Google Public DNS resolvers. Previously, we accepted and forwarded DNSSEC-formatted messages but did not perform validation. With this new security feature, we can better protect people from DNS-based attacks and make DNS more secure overall by identifying and rejecting invalid responses from DNSSEC-protected domains."

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: DNS, DNS Security, Security

Do you agree this is a critical time for many of the original 1930 applications to ICANN to operate a gTLD Registry.

How has The "Fadi Effect" contributed to those Applicants' Key Dates, Decisions, Dilemmas and their Critical Path to success or a costly Delay.

The first step along the path (see below) for each applicant is the need to respond to its Clarifying Questions (CQs), particularly the Financials ones.

As of today a small number of global brand applicants have already been withdrawn, reducing the number of applications to 1905. Were their applications' unprepared? I believe that this trend will continue at a pace now, and especially given that applicants can a get a 80% refund on their $185000 application fee if they withdraw before the Initial Evaluation(IE) results are due.

The 23 March is one critical key date by which some (see below) applicants receive their IE results, which is looming up fast.

My feedback from many applicants through our previous involvement in the financial evaluation process, (developing financial models, advising and offering guidance and financial commentaries on the key financial questions (45- 50)) is that many applicants (and their consultants) are in overload. Are you in agreement with this comment and that the situation is likely to deteriorate.

Key Background Information and the "Fadi Effect":

But firstly let us briefly look at the background and how applicants arrived at this critical point. The recent arrival of the very impressive Fadi Chehade, as CEO of ICANN, has clearly made a huge impact. I'll call it the "Fadi Effect".

Back in June 2012 in London I was one of the lucky people in attendance, with the world wide press when ICANN announced that there were 1930 applications to ICANN to operate a TLD Registry. Each one an Internet start up, with no prior knowledge of operating a gTLD. The monopoly age of .com was dead, perhaps. This ushered in DNS 2 and a huge expansion, and a huge investment by each applicant. $185000 was required — just to apply. ICANN, a not for profit, was in receipt of $357,050,000, increasing overnight its balance sheet by four times. New players came into the DNS space, headed by Google, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and everyone else under the guise of competition and consumer choice. The Game Theory and Internet landgrab had began. Will total user confusion result when those lucky applicants (with early Draw and critical competitive advantage) are expected to go operationally live in Quarter4 2013?

ICANN staff, through its multistakeholder — bottom up — consensus driven policy development process had put together an Applicant Guidebook. It took six years to write, ending up on Version 12 with 352 pages. Each applicant for a string had to put together financial, technical and operational business models using worst case and most likely business case scenarios, with fifty questions to be answered, to be evaluated and points scored.

Despite those six years, twelve versions, the Applicant Guidebook has more holes in it than a typical swiss cheese. US lawyers are going to have a field day. ICANN beware. Whether the whole gTLD evaluation, processes, contractual agreements with ICANN, implementation, delegation to IANA's root zone should go ahead is a very mute point. The recent appointment of the very impressive Fadi Chehade as CEO and the "Fadi Effect" appears to have put the whole program back on track. He put his neck on the line committing ICANN to meet agreed target dates. So far so good.

Applicants' Key Strategic Dates

So what are these key dates that all applicants, their consultants need to have at their fingertips to better enabled them to make key decisions on short and long term strategies. What are the Priorities. Priority 1 has to be the resubmission of Clarifying Questions (CQs), particularly the Financial related ones to achieve the required pass score at Initial Evaluation. (See Q&As below)

Evaluation ProcessesClarifying Questions - FinancialStart: 14 January 2013 – Closes: 29 May 2013Clarifying Questions - TechnicalStart: 14 January 2013 – Closes: 29 May 2013Objection PeriodClosed: 13 March 2013Independent ObjectorClosed: 13 March 2013Contention SetsPublished: 3 March 2013Contention Set ResolutionsOn going from 3 March 2013Closed Generics Public CommentsClosed: 7 MarchInitial Evaluation Results (Batch 1)Published 23 March 2013GAC Advice at ICANN 46 BeijingStart: 7 April closes 11 AprilInitial Evaluation Results (Batch 2)Published 31 August 2013Public Interest Commitment (PIC)Closed: 5 MarchDelegation ProcessesPre Delegation Test PilotStart: 11 March 2013 – Closes: 5 April 2013Pre Delegation TestingStart: 22 April 2013 – ongoingPost Delegation ProcessesTrademark Clearing House (TMCH)Launches 26 March 2013Sunrise & Trademark Claims ServicesStart: 1 April 2013Contract Negotiations With ICANNStart: 15 April 2013Operational LiveEstimated Q4 2013

Applicants' Key Strategic Decisions

Following the LA Priority Draw in December 2012 and the announcement on the 3 March 2013 of the completed list of Contention Sets (now 234 strings affecting 738 applications) each applicant can now analyse its critical path towards its gTLD Registry operational readiness and a successful new gTLD Registry start up.

Applicants have so very many key questions that need answering quickly. Key decisions need to be made on what to do next.

One has to assume that each application had a strategy on applying. Many it seems — did not.

Clearly each applicant has different key issues, timelines, and action points and business critical, sensitive decisions to make.

Applicant's Key Strategic Dilemmas:

Applicants (and perhaps their business consultants) might identify with some of the following from the endless business scenarios along their critical path.

1. The applicant's business model is totally underfunded. This was not factored in (ICANN's models did not require a huge balloon payment for the auction costs of their contention set). Of course they had no idea when they applied, whether they would be in a contention set, let alone how many. Can additional funding be found? How much would be needed? What is the "economic worth" of operating and "leasing" that particular TLD string, currently in a contention set. Part 2 will be issued shortly on contention set valuations.

2. The applicant has already been hit by a Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) early warning and further GAC advice is due at ICANN Beijing meeting. Should the worst be feared, in which case should the applicant withdraw now. How much refund would be offered or should the applicant fight back.

3. The applicant is in contention with Google and/or Amazon. What are the implications for their application with debate raging over closed-vertically integrated-generic-"industry word"-business models that the likes of Google and Amazon are using in their applications.

4.The applicant has been hit by the change to Q50b and now will not be able to answer the questions sufficiently well to enable them to get the maximum three points and so pass the Initial Evaluation. One and two points will not be enough.

The applicant can elect to go to Extended Evaluation but that will delay their application at least seven months. The problem can be solved. ICANN will not help or engage with any applicant. If the applicant does not have a solution, we do.

5. The applicant deadline on PICs( Public Interest Commitments) has been missed. Many would argue that ICANN have forced them into this position, by failing to give them sufficient time to respond. As a result should only one be submitted, albeit belatedly. They have hundreds. Does each one have to be different. Maybe a change request should be submitted which would change their whole business model. Does that mean that the whole application needs reevaluating, causing inevitable delays.

6. The TMCH (Trade Mark Clearing House) will be open for business on 26 March. What does a corporation do next. What is the cost going to be to a global brand that didn't apply. What is the corporation's defensive strategy. What is the cost to a global brand corporation that did apply.

7. Loads of CQs have just arrived in the applicants' TAS inbox. The questions is what to do next. Response times are short and critical. This is what we will focus on in Part 1 today (see below).

Key Applicant Questions and Answers

The PART 1 focus will be on: Clarifying Questions (CQs) - Financials and Initial Evaluation Results Day

Clarifying Questions (CQs) - Financials, 14 January 2013 – 29 May 2013

Currently 642 applicants have been issued with CQs- Financial as 6 march for Week 8, Prioritization Draw (PD) No 700-799. This is an alarming and surprisingly high number. Here are some typical Q&As.

Why are they being issued? When did they start? Who, When, Which applicants will receive them? What is the turnaround time? Will ICANN/evaluators provide feedback and comeback? Has ICANN changed questions post AG?

Q: What are they?
A: They are issued by six panels. Financial, Technical, Geographic Names, String Similarity, Registry Services, DNS Stability.

Q: Which applicants and How many will receive them?
A: ICANN' evaluators have indicated that 90% of all applicants will receive CQs. They have not indicated which applicants will receive them and will not do so.

Q: What percentage of applicants have currently failed the Financial Capability Evaluation Test?
A: 61% of applicants have currently failed to achieve a pass score on the CQ — Financial Q45-Q50 , Templates 1&2.

Q: Which of Q22-Q50 (Financial & Technical) questions were the worst answered?
A: Q48 costs, Q49 contingencies and Q50 Letter of Credit were amongst the worst answers. Q25- Technical

Q: Has ICANN issued Advisories? Which Questions? Do they help? Are they proforma answers?
A: Q25, 30, 48, 50 back in Nov 12. Note critically Q50B changed Dec 12. Not really! No.

Q: What is the current status on CQ- Financials?
A: Pre CQ- Financial Evaluation 1269; Pending CQ Response 517; Post CQ Evaluation 125. Total 1911 Source: ICANN Webinar 6 March

Q: When, To Whom are CQs- Financials being issued?
A: CQs - Issued from Financial & Technical Panels according to LA Draw No at 100 applications per week over 20 weeks.

Started Week 1 w/b 14 January (Request our Priority, Contention Set Report (PCS) re CQ issue date).

Q: How long have applicants got to respond on all their CQs, from all panels?
A: This was increased from maximum time of two to four weeks with deadline midnight UTC for Priority No 600 and below, 01.00 for Priority Number 600 and up. Deadlines are still incredibly tight, especially for multiple applicants.

Q: Can applicants contact the evaluation panels directly? Can they issue a CQ response early and request some feedback to resubmit again (within 4 week deadline)?
A: Applicant will not be allowed to have contact with any panel. No. No.

Q: Why were CQs- Financial & Technical being issued?
A: It is being increasingly evident that:

• Brand applicants, previously going to adopt a defensive strategy and not apply, did indeed apply, applying extremely late, ill prepared, didn't and/or refused to answers all questions.
• Conflict between AG and Supplementaries, particularly on Q50 (b).
• Applicant given the one off opportunity to increase their points score on CQs to overall be given a pass score at Initial Evaluation.
• Applicants, especially portfolio applicants, issuing standardised answers, when each application should standalone and be financed separately.
• ICANN financial Templates 1& 2 flawed.

Q: What is applicant appropriate responses to CQs (Source: ICANN Webinar 6 March)?

A: They are:

• Applicants must answer all CQs and provide requested support documentation, or risk the application failing IE.
• Applicants address all issues mentioned in the CQs.
• Applicants not to submit a change request when responding to CQs.
• Applicant CQs responses must be submitted in TAS by the due date (UTC).

Q: Who will get their Initial Evaluation Results, 23 march 2013? How many points do they require?
A: For the lucky early Draw applicants the 23 March 2013 will be a critical date. Huge early mover/adopter advantage. This will the date when "some" applicants (see our PCS analysis) receive their Initial Evaluation results. They require 22 points from Q22 — Q44 to pass technical evaluation, 8 points from Q45-Q50 to pass the Financial Capability Evaluation Test.

Q: What are the applicant's suggested CQ Financial strategy?

A:

• Assume that your application(s) will get many CQs (up to 6 CQ questions on the financials).
• Get our PCS report to work out which week your application(s) will receive your CQ- Financials.
• Be proactive. Work out schedules, including operational live dates.
• Prioritise, using PCS,all your applications by Draw No, Most Desired by Contention Set, by Default / Worst Case Contention Sets.
• Assume first 400 Draw No will get IE results 23 March. Assume 401-1934 get IE results 31 August.
• Comply with ICANN's Q&As above.
• Prepare a cost benefit analysis between staying with the application or withdrawing.
• Complete a change request form with a revised financial model, based on latest assumptions, further costing information and get the application reevaluated.

Written by Phil Buckingham, CEO of Dot Advice Ltd.

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Top-Level Domains

Lucian Constantin reporting from the IDG News Service: "The practice of issuing SSL certificates for internal domain names with unqualified extensions could endanger the privacy and integrity of HTTPS communications for upcoming generic top-level domains (gTLDs), according to a security advisory from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The advisory was finalized by ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) last week and warns that existing SSL certificates which have been issued for non-public domain names like those used to identify servers inside private networks, could be used to hijack HTTPS traffic for real domain names as new gTLDs become operational. ICANN oversees the Internet's top-level domain name space."

Read full story: Computerworld

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Security, Top-Level Domains

Lucian Constantin reporting from the IDG News Service: "The practice of issuing SSL certificates for internal domain names with unqualified extensions could endanger the privacy and integrity of HTTPS communications for upcoming generic top-level domains (gTLDs), according to a security advisory from the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The advisory was finalized by ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) last week and warns that existing SSL certificates which have been issued for non-public domain names like those used to identify servers inside private networks, could be used to hijack HTTPS traffic for real domain names as new gTLDs become operational. ICANN oversees the Internet's top-level domain name space."

Read full story: Computerworld

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Security, Top-Level Domains

On May 24, together with Nate Silver, Caterina Fake and Kahlil Gibran Muhammad, I will receive an honorary doctorate from The New School. Thanks to Nancy Lublin and everyone at The New School for making this happen.

It turns out that I'm actually an alum of The New School. Back in the fall of 1985, I took and completed two online courses - "Artificial Intelligence & Life" and "Propaganda: Lit Science" which were part of a batch of the first fully online graduate school courses for credit. (MOOC schMOOC!) It used a pre-World Wide Web system called EIES. I remember these courses fondly, especially the Propaganda course. They were really engaging and involved a lot of peer learning.

With all of the excitement about massive open online courses (MOOCs), it's interesting to reflect that we've been doing versions of these since the 80s.

Last year, MIT asked me to walk with the faculty during commencement, but I didn't have a academic robe. MIT offered to let me wear an MIT robe, but I felt it would be "grammatically incorrect" for me to wear a robe posing as a college graduate so I opted not to attend the official commencement. This year, I'll be able to walk with the faculty proudly wearing my gown from The New School. ;-)

And no, I won't make you call me "Doctor Ito". Ha!

A very rare thing happened in the GNSO Council meeting this week — the ICANN community spoke with one voice. Registries, registrars, non-commercial interests, new TLD applicants, IP owners and businesses unanimously and unambiguously agreed that giving ICANN a "unilateral right to amend" the registry and registrar agreements is not compatible with ICANN's bottom-up processes and poses a fundamental threat to the multi-stakeholder model. There is true consensus that this change should be rejected.

On February 5, 2013, ICANN surprised the community by re-introducing its demand for a unilateral right to amend the gTLD Registry Agreement. ICANN made the same change in the Registrar Accreditation Agreements. (This was posted for public comment on March 7, 2013. See: Proposed 2013 RAA Posted for Comment).

This move came without consultation, nearly five years after the new gTLD Program moved into the implementation phase, and three years after the community and ICANN, through a bottom-up process, rejected this approach and reached a compromise on similar language.

During the GNSO Council's monthly teleconference on March 14, 2013, while discussing the recent changes to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, Council members raised the topic of ICANN's proposed unilateral right to amend the registry and registrar agreements. ICANN staff present on the call explained its position, saying, "the amendment clause is actually intended to be last resort for when there is agreement that something needs to be done, but there is a logjam within the processes that we have that don't allow us to move forward." Essentially, ICANN is asking, "what happens when everyone agrees that a particular change is needed, but the multi-stakeholder processes — or someone manipulating those processes — prevents the community from moving forward with what the community wants."

Taken in isolation and without any other context, this is a perfectly reasonable question. If there truly were no mechanisms in the registry or registrar agreements to make necessary changes when the community demands action, then ICANN staff's concerns would be justified. It would be a good question to ask if someone could use ICANN processes to block a change that everyone else supported. The fact is, however, that there already are a number of mechanisms ICANN can take to implement community supported changes.

First, of course, contracted-parties can agree to make a change they support. Second, there is a bottom-up Consensus Policy mechanism for critical changes that ensures that any implementation is appropriately balanced across multiple constituencies and stakeholder groups. Truly important and time-sensitive issues can be addressed via Temporary Policies that remain in place for up to a year and, during that year, can be adopted as Consensus Policies. Finally, the new gTLD agreement contains a new mechanism that gives ICANN authority to make amendments supported by a specific percentage of the registry operators effective across the entire registry group. This is the compromise that was developed through a bottom-up process in 2009-2010 when the community rejected the unilateral change provision.

ICANN agreed in 2010 that these three mechanisms gave it the necessary tools to amend the registry contract to implement changes demanded by the community. Apparently, it has had a change of heart and now wants the authority to unilaterally impose changes to the agreements. To date, ICANN's explanation is that the introduction of new gTLDs will change things in ways that cannot be anticipated. ICANN has not responded to community requests for a concrete example of when this right would actually be needed.

Of course, the ICANN world is not unique — the future is inherently unknown, but parties enter into long-term contracts with high stakes all the time without introducing the kind of uncertainty that a unilateral amendment right would create. To borrow from the gTLD Registries comment made on February 26, 2013: "we are in the midst of dramatic change in the administration of the top-level domain name system. All businesses — whether for profit or nonprofit — require a measure of predictability, stability and certainty of contracts. Public and multi-national company applicants are subject to regulatory regimes that cannot be reconciled with the expanded unilateral authority ICANN is seeking. In deciding whether or not to utilize new gTLDs for their critical infrastructure assets, a key goal of the new gTLD program, registries cannot be subject to the whim of one private entity, even those acting under the guise of public interest, regardless of how well-intentioned that private entity purports to be."

ICANN's proposal for this new mechanism, however, has been met with opposition not only from the new gTLD Applicants and existing registries, but also the registrars, non-commercial interests, businesses and IP owners. In fact, every single comment on ICANN's last minute changes to the new gTLD registry agreement called for its removal. EVERYONE is in agreement that this is a bad idea and should be withdrawn. The fact that the entire community has never been so aligned about a particular subject speaks volumes, but despite this clarity ICANN continues to insist on a unilateral right to amend the registry and registrar agreements,

Ironically, in this case ICANN itself is creating a logjam that is preventing forward movement. By walking away from the version of the legal agreement contained in the final Applicant Guidebook, ICANN is preventing the new gTLD Program from going forward. This same issue is also the logjam preventing the roll out of a new registrar accreditation agreement containing enormous changes that would benefit registrants, law enforcement, intellectual property owners and Internet users in general.

So in response to ICANN's question about clearing logjams, we think they are asking the wrong question. ICANN should stop worrying about the theoretical logjams of the future. It's time to take this request for extraordinary, unilateral power off the table in order to clear away today's very real logjam. Once this request is withdrawn, the new gTLD program can move forward and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement can be finalized.

Written by Jeff Neuman, NeuStar, Inc., Vice President, Business Affairs

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Policy & Regulation, Top-Level Domains

According to reports, North Korea has accused the United States for conducting a cyberattack that has disrupted Internet connectivity in the country. "While the details of the cause of the disruption are unknown, we can confirm that in the last two days, North Korea's sole Internet provider has, in fact, suffered from disruptions in connectivity to the global Internet," reports Doug Madory from Renesys.

"North Korea has an extremely small Internet for a country of 24 million people. Not counting the network involved in the recent Pirate Bay hoax, the four networks of North Korea are routed by a single Internet service provider, Star JV (AS131279), which has two international Internet service providers: China Unicom (AS4837) and Intelsat (AS22351). Star began service on 18 November 2010 and gained Intelsat as a provider on 8 April 2012."

UPDATE: Wed 20 Mar 2013 – South Korean authorities have reported that they have been victims of a cyber attack which impacted TV News organizations as well as banking institutions. According to Renesys, at least some of today's incidents escalated to the point of global visibility, as both South and North Koreans networks experienced actual disconnections. Also noted are similar timed outages affecting South Korea's largest natural gas company.

Other sources: (UPDATED Mar 20, 2013 12:04 PM PDT)

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cyberattack

According to reports, North Korea has accused the United States for conducting a cyberattack that has disrupted Internet connectivity in the country. "While the details of the cause of the disruption are unknown, we can confirm that in the last two days, North Korea's sole Internet provider has, in fact, suffered from disruptions in connectivity to the global Internet," reports Doug Madory from Renesys.

"North Korea has an extremely small Internet for a country of 24 million people. Not counting the network involved in the recent Pirate Bay hoax, the four networks of North Korea are routed by a single Internet service provider, Star JV (AS131279), which has two international Internet service providers: China Unicom (AS4837) and Intelsat (AS22351). Star began service on 18 November 2010 and gained Intelsat as a provider on 8 April 2012."

UPDATE: Wed 20 Mar 2013 – South Korean authorities have reported that they have been victims of a cyber attack which impacted TV News organizations as well as banking institutions. According to Renesys, at least some of today's incidents escalated to the point of global visibility, as both South and North Koreans networks experienced actual disconnections. Also noted are similar timed outages affecting South Korea's largest natural gas company.

Other sources: (UPDATED Mar 20, 2013 11:04 AM PST)

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cyberattack

ICANN has announced that the Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) will "launch" on March 26.

Brand Owners: Brace yourself. Soon every trademark law firm and corporate registrar will be screaming at you:

— The Trademark Clearinghouse Is Here!
— You Need to Be Ready to Submit on March 26!
— Do You Have Your Act Together Yet?

Here are some tips for brand owners to consider about ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse:

1. Relax.

Relax. This is advice probably no one is telling you. The truth is, you have some time before the first Sunrise Period.

Yes, you should be thinking about your overall brand protection strategy regarding new TLD's now.

Yes, you should be checking and updating inaccuracies on your trademark records at the local Patent & Trademark Office now.

Yes, you should be compiling your documentation required for the TMCH now. This includes: Licensee and Assignee agreements, your proof of use marketing specimens and copies of trademark registrations for those countries that the TMCH will not be validating via an online database.

But you have some time before the first Sunrise Period.

How much time do you have before the first Sunrise?

The first Sunrise is not likely to occur until summer or fall. The technical specifications for Sunrise were just released this week for public comment. Without a final spec., Registries and Registrars have not yet started programming their systems to support Sunrise and Claims.

This gives you several months before any new TLD's launch. ICANN may try to push out the first Sunrise in June. But if so, it is likely to be a long extended Sunrise Period to allow for the on-boarding of Registrars and the slow summer holidays.

Our suggestion? Don't act in haste or fold to high-pressure sales tactics from whoever wants your TMCH business. The Annual Meeting of the International Trademark Association (INTA) is in early May. Attend INTA and discuss the TMCH with your colleagues. Visit the exhibitors offering TMCH services (We will be there). You will then have at least another month or two before the first TLD Sunrise launches.

There are no prizes for being first. The TMCH is offering an "incentive" for early filers, but the benefit is minimal. The offer is that if you apply early, then your anniversary date for renewals will be based on when the first TLD launches, as opposed to when you submitted your trademark to the TMCH. However, this may not be beneficial unless you plan to participate in that first Sunrise, which has not yet been announced. It could be an IDN. Why not give the TMCH some time to work out the kinks before submitting your trademarks?

2. Should you go direct or through a Trademark Agent?

The TMCH will allow trademark owners to submit trademarks directly or through an authorized Trademark Agent. The authorized Trademark Agent can be an ICANN Registrar or Law Firm, but it does not need to be. Just be sure to select a Trademark Agent with extensive experience dealing with ICANN Sunrise Periods and a thorough understanding of how the TMCH will conduct its validation processes.

Our suggestion is to wait until the INTA Annual Meeting and learn more about what your options are. To evaluate possible Trademark Agents, here are some areas to consider:

Flexible payment options

• The TMCH requires pre-payment for all submissions. The pre-payment can either be a credit card, with a maximum of 10 trademarks per order, or a $15,000 bank wire

• In comparison, a Trademark Agent will likely extend you credit to enable post-payment

One chance to make corrections

• Deloitte, the TMCH validator, will be strict about your TMCH application matching the official trademark application. You get only one chance to get your application correct before paying an extra fee.

• Pre-validation is a critical step you should take before submitting to the TMCH. If you are not equipped to do this yourself, find someone who will do it for you

Sunrise management

• ICANN expects to be eventually approving new TLD's at a rate of 20 per week. Who will keep track of the new Sunrise Periods you actually care about?

• After your trademark is deemed eligible for Sunrise by the TMCH, you will receive a token called the Signed-Mark-Data (SMD) file. This has to be passed to each and every registrar you might use for a Sunrise period.

Bulk management

• If you have a lot of trademarks to submit to the TMCH, then entering them manually will cost time, money and get tedious fast

• Trademark Agents using the TMCH programming interface (API) will be able to manage TMCH records in bulk

Portability beyond the TMCH

• At least one major TLD applicant, Donuts, has announced its own trademark blocking service for its TLD's. Called the Domain Marks Protected List (DPML), this block will protect your trademark in all of the Donuts TLD's. They've applied for over 300 TLD's with half of those uncontested. The DPML is not sold by the TMCH but will require that trademark owners first be validated for Sunrise eligibility by the TMCH.

Who will manage these non-TMCH Rights Protection Mechanisms for you?

Summary

I hope these tips help remove some of the anxiety some trademark owners might have about the March 26 launch of the Trademark Clearinghouse. The key point is that this is not a race. You have plenty of time to get your trademarks in the TMCH before the first Sunrise Period.

EnCirca has participated in nearly every Sunrise Period conducted by an ICANN TLD. We also offer real-time trademark validation services for TLD's via our TM.Biz subsidiary: We recently provided such services for the .PW and .XXX Sunrise Periods. And TM.Biz will be offering TMCH pre-validation services for Brand Owners, Trademark Agents and Registrars as well.

Written by Thomas Barrett, President - EnCirca, Inc

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Top-Level Domains

Independent Objector (IO) has lodged objections on 24 new Applied-for gTLD (name scripts) before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) on 12th March 2013. IO has exercised his important role and functionality in favor of Public interests on the grounds of Limited Public Interest and Community.

New gTLD name scripts .Med, .Health, .Hospital, .Amazon, .Indians are included in the list of objections filed. However non of the exclusively adult-content TLDs is included in the list of the Objection Filed by the IO. For many communities, such TLDs that promote pornographic content are a disgrace and an offensive to their religions and social norms.

IO role was introduced by ICANN, who has to act solely in the best interests of global Internet users to look after their concern. IO only could file an objection, when at least one opposing comment is received from public and in cases where no other objection has been filed. The IO may file a Limited Public Interest objection against an application even if a Community objection has been filed, and vice versa. The IO has to remain Independent and neither ICANN staff nor the ICANN Board of Directors has authority to direct or require the IO to file or not file any particular objection. If the IO determines that an objection should be filed, he or she will initiate and prosecute the objection in the public interest. The responsibility for the selection of IO was delegated to M/s Odgers Berndtson. On 14 May 2012 ICANN finally announced the appointment of Professor Alain Pellet as the person who has to serve as the Independent Objector. IO has initiated notices of early warning to highly objectionable applications, however, IO has withdrawn from most of its objections. IO has reserved his right to file any formal objection, until the last date of objections submission, i.e. 13th March 2013. Exercising the role the Independent Objector (IO) lodged 24 Objections on new Applied for gTLD Names where the public opposing comments are already available. Separate objection are filed before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC).

The following list of objections will be examined by experts' panels appointed by the ICC and in light of the New gTLD Dispute Resolution Procedure from ICANN, the ICANN gTLD Applicant Guidebook, the ICC Rules for Expertise, the Appendix III to the ICC Rules for Expertise and the ICC Practice Note on the Administration of Cases.

Community Objections (filed by the Independent Objector):
Applied-for gTLD string(Applicant)Application ID.Health (Afilias Limited) 1-868-3442.Health (dot Health Limited) 1-1178-3236.Health (DotHealth, LLC) 1-1684-6394.Health (Goose Fest, LLC) 1-1489-82287.Healthcare (Silver Glen, LLC) 1-1492-32589.Hospital (Ruby Pike, LLC) 1-1505-15195.Med (Charleston Road Registry Inc.) 1-1139-2965.Med (DocCheck AG) 1-1320-21500.Med (HEXAP SAS) 1-1192-28569.Med (Medistry LLC) 1-907-38758.Medical (Steel Hill, LLC) 1-1561-23663

Limited Public Interest Objections (filed by the Independent Objector):
Applied-for gTLD string(Applicant)Application ID.Health(Afilias Limited)1-868-3442.Health(dot Health Limited)1-1178-3236.Health(DotHealth, LLC)1-1684-6394.Health(Goose Fest, LLC)1-1489-82287.Healthcare(Silver Glen, LLC)1-1492-32589.Hospital(Ruby Pike, LLC)1-1505-15195.Med(Charleston Road Registry Inc.)1-1139-2965.Med(DocCheck AG)1-1320-21500.Med(HEXAP SAS)1-1192-28569.Med(Medistry LLC)1-907-38758.Medical(Steel Hill, LLC) 1-1561-23663

Written by Imran Ahmed Shah, IT Consultant

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Names, ICANN, Internet Governance, Top-Level Domains