Nominet takes another step to increase the security of the UK namespace

[news release] Nominet is boosting the security of the UK namespace to help protect it from attack and exploitation. As part of this, we’ll be offering two-factor authentication access to our Online Services (OS) to registrars later on this year. Two-factor authentication is a two-step verification process and provides an extra layer of security to users accessing online systems.

 

GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, ALAC and SSAC Issue Unprecedented Joint Letter Questioning ICANN’s Staff-Imposed Accountability Process

In another unpredicted development the entire community of ICANN stakeholders has sent a joint letter to CEO Fadi Chehade and the ICANN Board that strongly questions the “Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance – Process and Next Steps” document published by ICANN staff on August 14^th over widespread community objections. Signatories to the August 26^th letter (text below) include the GNSO Council and all of the GNSO’s stakeholder groups and constituencies, the Country Code Name Supporting Organization, the At-Large Advisory Committee, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee – and, most surprisingly, the Governmental Advisory Committee.

 

The letter states that “substantial questions and concerns remain unanswered, including around the process to date and the plan as constructed” and promises to deliver a “list of clarifying questions and comments within seven days” so that the signatories “not only understand the proposed approach, but are able to endorse it”. In other words, the current Accountability Process lacks the endorsement of any stakeholder group within ICANN.

In addition to this letter and the detailed questions to be delivered to ICANN next week, a number of ICANN stakeholder groups are preparing to file a formal Reconsideration Request to ICANN’s Board by the required 14-day (August 28) deadline in which the Board will be asked to review and reverse or modify the staff plan on the grounds that both its substance and the process by which it was created have materially harmed their interests. In an ironic twist those stakeholders are requesting that the Board hold the staff accountable for the alleged violations arising from publication and adoption of this non-endorsed Accountability Process.

Comments filed with ICANN as well as other community input indicated a strong preference for the establishment of a standard Cross-Community Working Group (CCWG) to develop the vital enhanced accountability measures that are supposed to accompany any proposal for facilitating the IANA functions transition away from US control, with experts available to facilitate the work of that CCWG at its request. Instead, ICANN’s staff are trying to unilaterally impose an overly complicated tripartite construct that  resembles a Rube Goldberg machine.

The staff proposal would segregate community discussion into an Accountability & Governance  Cross Community Group that would have a restricted ability to appoint participants to the Accountability & Governance Coordination Group in which the real decisions would be made, and which would issue a final report and recommendations. Meanwhile, a separate Accountability & Governance Public Experts Group (PEG) would appoint up to seven “experts” to the decision-making group. Many within the ICANN community view the proposed structure as designed to dilute the strength of any final recommendations for new enhanced accountability measures; especially the establishment of an independent appeals mechanism with the power to reverse decisions that violate ICANN Bylaws, and to discipline Board members and staff. It is highly doubtful that anything as robust as the “KEY PRINCIPLES FOR COORDINATION OF INTERNET UNIQUE IDENTIFIERS” that are attracting increasing support among Internet companies, trade associations, and civil society could ever emerge from such a process.

In addition, the staff-imposed Process contains this key language:

Following public comment, the Coordination Group will submit its final report to the ICANN Board. The ICANN Board will immediately and publicly post the final report, consider whether to adopt all or parts of it, and direct the CEO to implement those parts it has accepted once that decision is made. ICANN staff should be involved in assessing feasibility and flagging implementation concerns as early as possible in the recommendation development process to allow for alternatives to be identified.  To be clear, ICANN’s goal is to have this work develop recommendations that are capable of implementation, and not solely to go through the exercise of a review.  Any decision by the Board to not implement a recommendation (or a portion of a recommendation) will be accompanied by a detailed rationale.

As described, ICANN staff will have free rein to assess “feasibility” and to flag “implementation concerns” throughout the process, and the Board will be able to cherry-pick the final recommendations and reject anything it cares to, with no standard for  rejection and subject only to the requirement that it provide some rationale for its decision. It is almost impossible to envision anything that imposes enhanced accountability  and binding disciple on the Board and staff resulting from such a Process.

On August 19^th, five days after imposing this Process as a fait accompli without any opportunity for public comment, ICANN announced the members of the PEG. They are:

• Mr. Brian Cute – CEO of The Public Interest Registry
• Ms. Jeanette Hofmann – Director, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society, in Berlin, Germany
• Amb. Janis Karklins – Latvian Ambassador
• Hon. Lawrence E. Strickling – NTIA Administrator and Assistant Secretary for Communication and Information of the U.S. Department of Commerce

It is particularly disquieting to see Secretary Strickling on this list as it may be viewed by some parties as implying US government endorsement and support for an ICANN staff-originated  Process that was imposed over the objections and concerns of ICANN community leaders and that has subsequently elicited widespread pushback from the entire community. This is not how the much vaunted multistakeholder model is supposed to operate.

Just two months ago all of the GNSO constituencies issued a joint statement at ICANN’s London meeting in which they called for “the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community” and asked “the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative”.

Instead of supporting the community’s desire for an Accountability CCWG, the staff has indicated its apparent mistrust of the community through this attempt to impose its own Accountability Process that many believe will dilute any final recommendations — and even then allow the Board to reject any of them for any reason whatsoever. That staff attempt has resulted in this new and broader message to ICANN that extends well beyond the boundaries of the GNSO, including the GAC. It appears that ICANN’s staff is driving unprecedented unity within the ICANN community – unfortunately, that unity is based on unanimous and extremely serious concerns about staff actions on a matter of overarching importance.

The road ahead on Accountability will either follow the flawed path developed by staff – with active community participation in substantial doubt – or, even if significant modifications are achieved through united community resistance, the forthcoming Process may well be marred by lingering mistrust as a result of this high-handed staff action. All of this is very unfortunate and was totally avoidable if ICANN had simply allowed for bottom-up development and made adequate solicitation of public comment before adopting a final Accountability Process.

 

The text of the letter follows:

 

August 26, 2014

Fadi Chehadé, CEO, ICANN

Dr. Stephen Crocker, Chair, ICANN Board of Directors

Dear Fadi, Steve and ICANN Directors,

Regarding ICANN’s announcement on August 14, 2014, Enhancing Accountability: Process and Next Steps, the Supporting Organisation, Advisory Committee, Stakeholder Group and Constituency chairs formally request additional time and opportunity to review and discuss the proposal contained in the announcement and in the subsequent FAQ’s published on August 22, so that next steps can be confirmed with increased support from the ICANN community.

Recognizing that the ICANN plan is a brand new construct that was announced without a corresponding public comment period, substantial questions and concerns remain unanswered, including around the process to date and the plan as constructed.

The undersigned Supporting Organisation, Advisory Committee, Stakeholder Group and Constituency leaders are currently engaging our respective groups’ bottom-up, consensus processes at this time to develop and finalize a list of questions that will require clarification or correction. As a result, additional opportunity is needed to ensure understanding of the proposal and the ways in which it is responsive to the interests and working methods of the ICANN stakeholder groups. We commit to submitting to ICANN staff our list of clarifying questions and comments within seven days of this letter.

Since the Enhancing Accountability process will affect ICANN’s future, as well as the range of stakeholders impacted by its decisions, we trust that this request will be received positively and lead to further engagement on this important matter to ensure that the SOs, ACs and SGs and Cs not only understand the proposed approach, but are able to endorse it.

Signed,

Elisa Cooper, Commercial Business Users, Commercial Stakeholder Group

Olivier Crépin-LeBlond, At-Large Advisory Committee

Rafik Dammak, Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group

William Drake, Non-Commercial Users

Keith Drazek, Registry Stakeholder Group

Heather Dryden, Governmental Advisory Committee

Patrik Fältström, Security and Stability Advisory Committee

Byron Holland, Country Code Names Supporting Organization

Tony Holmes, Internet Service Providers, Commercial Stakeholder Group

Michele Neylon, Registrar Stakeholder Group

Jonathan Robinson, Generic Names Supporting Organization Council

Kristina Rosette, Intellectual Property, Commercial Stakeholder Group

This article was sourced with permission from the Internet Commerce Association website here.

Hosting.co.uk Launches New ‘Flexible Approach’ For Its Super-Affiliates

Leading UK Web hosting provider Hosting.co.uk have launched a new ‘flexible approach’ to its super-affiliate program designed to maximise affiliate marketers profits whilst providing UK consumers with low cost, best-in-class web hosting.

[news release] hosting.co.uk one of the leading web hosting providers in the UK have today launched a new service especially designed for its Super-Affiliates designed to be ultra-flexible to its affiliate marketers needs, whilst delivering best in class web hosting to its end users.

Frederick Schiwek, CEO of Hosting.co.uk, commented, “One size doesn’t fit all, and that’s what we have found with our & others affiliate programs in the past. We now have a ‘flexible approach’ and offer unrivalled support to our super affiliates by offering them tailored affiliate marketing options. No one else currently does this!”

Mr Schiwek went on to say, “Our Super-Affiliates, the type of affiliates who drive hundreds & thousands of new signups per month, can now work with us on a flexible basis and choose how there referral fees are calculated. We offer all affiliate marketing models instead of just one. For example we are able to offer cost- per-sale, rolling revenue shares or white label solutions.”

“We want to reward our loyal and hardworking affiliates with increased earnings. We know our affiliates invest heavily in there traffic & lead generation and want to make sure they get a good deal.”

Affiliates & Super-Affiliates who want to join the Hosting.co.uk affiliate program can liaise directly with the decision makers at Hosting.co.uk and enjoy a mutually beneficial relationship. So if you feel undervalued with your current hosting affiliate program, get in touch with us.

About Hosting.co.uk

Our network, datacentre and servers are all housed in the UK with email hosting for Microsoft exchange hosted out of Luxembourg. Our Tier IV Midlands datacentre offers lightning fast speeds to visitors across the UK, Europe and the rest of the world. We are green web hosting providers and we firmly believe in doing right by the environment.

We are passionate about growing our Affiliate network and welcome approaches from Affiliate Marketing Websites & Agencies looking for more information.

ICANN: New L-Root Instance in Puerto Rico Will Help Mitigate Network Outages and Deliver Improved Internet Experience

[news release] Gauss Research Laboratory, Inc. ( NIC .pr) announced today that it has successfully installed an L-Root instance in San Juan, Puerto Rico. This new instance will provide Internet resiliency to the region and reduce the response time their customers experience when making Domain Name System ( DNS ) queries.

 

“This new instance is part of Puerto Rico’s ongoing efforts to strengthen the robustness and resiliency of its Internet infrastructure while also fostering local content development,” stated Dr. Oscar Moreno, CEO & Founder of .pr. “On top of that, this announcement coincides with Gauss Research Laboratory’s celebration of the 25th anniversary of NIC .pr.”

This new L-Root instance is the result of an agreement between Gauss Research Laboratory, Inc. and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( ICANN ).

” ICANN applauds NIC .pr’s efforts in developing Puerto Rico’s information and telecommunication sector,” said Chris Mondini, ICANN ‘s Vice President of Stakeholder Engagement in North America and Global Business Engagement. “L-Root server instances contribute to faster response times for DNS queries, and we encourage other organizations to consider deploying their own instances to help develop their regions.”

There are 13 “root,” or fully authoritative, DNS servers, identified by alphabetic letters A through M — the “L” root being one. Computers locate one another on a network by using numeric addresses, while humans find it easier to use and remember names (for instance, users typically remember the domain name ” ICANN .org” more easily than the Internet Protocol address, 2620:0:2d0:200::7). The Domain Name System ( DNS ) matches domain names with numeric addresses, in much the same way a phone book matches names to phone numbers.

##

To learn more about root servers, please visit: http://root-servers.org/

For more information on Gauss Research Laboratory, please visit: http://www.grl.pr/

For more information on NIC .pr, please visit: https://nic.pr/index.asp

This ICANN news release was sourced from:
https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2014-08-25-en

ICANN: Implementing Rights Protection Mechanisms in the Name Collision Mitigation Framework

Brief Overview: To determine the requirements on the appropriate Rights Protection Mechanisms for names removed from registry SLD Block Lists.

 

Section I: Description, Explanation, and Purpose

Section II: Background

Section III: Relevant Resources