Sitefinder, instability, new services

[Harold Feld]

Chun:

This gets us squarely to the topic of "what is stability."

I was at the Washington meeting of the ICANN security and stability
committee (whatever the proper name is) and saw the presentations.
 Vixie and someone from XO communications discussed the instability
issues around Sitefinder.

It was indesputable that sitefinder had a significant effect on many
internet users.  Some spam filters and security filters were effected
(estimates of how much differed from various experts and VRSN's
presentations).  Some applications that rely on dependable error
messages were confused because sometimes they interpreted a misspelling
as an error and sometimes they did not.  There was a definite cost
imposed on a wide variety of end users as a class.  This was
quantifiable and real.

Many ISPs and others began to respond.  Some even responded by
pre-empting VRSN's sitefinder with their own version.  Vixie and many
other technologists saw this kind of response as increasing instability,
because a user's experience will now vary based on what ISP he or she is
using even though they are typing in the same DNS information.

But it was also equally clear that anyone who entered a domain name that
had been delegated and had a corresponding IP number got where they
wanted to go.  It was also clear that VRSN itself was responsive to
complaints from third parties regarding impacts on other systems and
worked to minimize problems (while still maintaining the service).

So we come back to the exciting question, what constitutes instability
of a kind that triggers an ICANN response?  I am genuinely uncertain
what the answer should be.  Unlike previous fights over new TLDs or
privacy, where it was clear that "stability" was simply a code word for
priveleging some political and economic interests over others, that was
unclear here.  There _were_ real world effects.  There _were_ costs
imposed on third parties that were powerless todefend themselves, but
the DNS did not crash and was in no danger of crashing as far as I can tell.

Harold

Chun Eung Hwi wrote:

>Dear Harold Feld,
>
>
>On Thu, 6 Nov 2003, Harold Feld wrote:
>
>>1) Registries, registrars, and users are best positioned to know what
>>services best serve their needs.  Furthermore, there is great concern
>>that pre-approval may be used by competitive rivals to delay roll out of
>>new services -- to the disadvantage of users.  Nor is it the role of
>>ICANN to preserve a particular status quo, but to focus on technical
>>stability.
>>
>
>One problem is that given the importance of technical stability,
>pre-approval could be preferred. In Carthage meeting, John Klensin noted
>the importance backward stability by taking the example of IDN standard
>when he presented in Sitefinder workshop. They will argue that such kind
>of technical consideration should be done before the introduction of
>new service for the purpose of stability.
>
>
>>2) In particular, registries serving smaller, well identified
>>communities, such as .org, .museum, or others, should be encouraged to
>>consult within their communities before rolling out new services and
>>ICANN should respect the choices of these communities.  This is
>>particularly true where innovations will address clearly stated user
>>needs, such as privacy concerns.  Generic registries should also be
>>encouraged to establish informal consultation processes to ensure
>>technical stability.  Use of these processes should be relevant in
>>assessing whether any after-the-fact remedy or emergency relief is
>>warranted.
>>
>
>The example of privacy concerns must be very appropriate. And if such
>criteria are to be taken, even gTLDs should be encouraged to consult with
>user community.
>
>
>>2a) At the same time, registries as businesses may have genuine business
>>reasons for wanting to maintain confidentiality of information.  ICANN
>>should establish means by which such confidentiality can be protected,
>>while providing adequate opportunity for potentially effected parties to
>>comment and invoke remedies.
>>
>
>Striking a balance could be taken into account as a compromise at the last
>stage. But as a user constituency, the prior consultation with user
>community should be a must.
>
>
>>3) To the extent .com and .net pose a special case due to their existing
>>market share, any policy process must clearly delineate the boundaries
>>of such special consideration, why it is necessary, and what conditions
>>must be met by the .com and .net registries to alleviate the need for
>>such special treatment.
>>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20031110/b2ad35f8/attachment.html>