October 21st, 2013
From ICANN Blog
Today, the first four domains from ICANN’s New Generic Top-Level Domains Program were cleared to proceed to delegation. This marks the start of a measured roll out of new gTLDs, which are designed to expand opportunities for businesses, communities and Internet users around the world.
These first new gTLDs, or strings, are:
- شبكة (xn--ngbc5azd) – the Arabic word for “Web” or “Network”
Registry : International Domain Registry Pty. Ltd.
- онлайн (xn--80asehdb) – Russian for “Online”
Registry: Core Association
- сайт (xn--80aswg) – Russian for “Web site”
Registry: Core Association
- 游戏 (xn--unup4y) – Chinese for “Game”
Registry: Spring Fields, LLC
Get the full skinny HERE.
Posted in Domain Names, gTLDS, ICANN, IDNs by Ken Taylor |
October 18th, 2013
From AZZURI DOT ORG
So what is IPv6, and why do I need to know about it?
IPv6 or IP version 6 is the next generation Internet protocol which will eventually replace the current protocol IPv4. IPv6 has a number of improvements and simplifications when compared to IPv4. The primary difference is that IPv6 uses 128 bit addresses as compared to the 32 bit addresses used with IPv4. This means that there are more available IP addresses using IPv6 than are available with IPv4 alone. For a very clear comparison, in IPv4 there is a total of 4,294,967,296 IP addresses. With IPv6, there is a total of 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 IP addresses in a single /64 allocation.
To also help illustrate the sheer magnitude of available IP addresses using IPv6, you can get 65536 /64 allocations out of a single /48, and then 65536 /48 allocations out of a single /32. Many Service Providers are getting /32 allocations from their Regional Internet Registry (RIR) like ARIN, APNIC, RIPE, etc.
A significant difference between IPv6 and IPv4 is the address notation. IPv4 uses a period (.) between each octet, compared to IPv6 which uses a colon (:). With IPv6, if you have a series of zeroes in a row, the address need not be written out completely. You can use a double colon (::) to represent that series of zeroes, however you can only use that once. For example, if you have an address like “2001:0DB8:0000:0003:0000:01FF:0000:002E”, it can be written like “2001:DB8::3:0:1FF:0:2E” or “2001:DB8:0:3:0:1FF::2E”, but would never be written like “2001:DB8::3::1ff::2E”. You also cannot have three colons in a row (:::).
IPv6 availability depends on your Service Provider, either at home or for work. In a dual-stack environment, IPv4 and IPv6 co-exist along the same connection and don’t require any special kind of connection. If dual-stack is not available, you might find yourself using an IP tunneling product or service to bring IPv6 connectivity to you. Even though IPv4 exhaustion has happened at IANA, IPv4 won’t simply disappear off the face of the Internet, but continued explosive growth requiring more unique IP address assignments will mean using more and more of the abundant IPv6 address space.
Many Operating System platforms have native IPv6 support these days. The UNIX based platforms like Linux, BSD (Free, Open, Net) & MacOSX have had IPv6 support enabled for years now. Microsoft Windows starting having native IPv6 support enabled by default with its Vista and Windows 2008 products. Earlier Windows versions like 2000/2003/XP had to have it installed optionally, and did not have as robust features that are available in the newer versions of Windows. Even common web browsing and email software will use IPv6 if it is enabled and available, without having to check off an option or special configuration. The transition from IPv4 to IPv6 is being worked on to be as seamless as possible, and many might not even notice the subtle changes in the coming years.
Posted in Internet Security, IPv6, Tech News by Ken Taylor |
October 17th, 2013
On October 16, 1998, Jon Postel died at the age of 55. The impact of the technical and organizational improvements he made to the Internet during his all too brief life is immeasurable.
At the time of his death, Jon had been working tirelessly to create an entity to manage and maintain the Internet’s address directory – ICANN.
Numerous tributes followed Jon Postel’s death and they continue today. Please take advantage of the links provided below to read about Jon Postel and listen to the remembrances of three Internet pioneers who knew him well.
For more information about Jon Postel, please visit the following pages:
Internet Hall of Fame: Jon Postel
ISOC: Tenth Anniversary Tribute
Wired Magazine: Remembering Jon Postel – And the Day He Hijacked the Internet
“If Jon were here, I am sure he would urge us not to mourn his passing but to celebrate his life and his contributions. He would remind us that there is still much work to be done and that we now have the responsibility and the opportunity to do our part. I doubt that anyone could possibly duplicate his record, but it stands as a measure of one man’s astonishing contribution to a community he knew and loved.”
- Vint Cerf, RFC2468
Posted in ICANN by Ken Taylor |
September 13th, 2013
The ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) met on 10 September 2013 and, among other things, reached a decision regarding the GAC‘s further advice on new gTLDs. The GAC conveyed its advice to the NGPC in its Durban Communiqué , issued on 18 July 2013. Applicants submitted responses to the advice on 23 August 2013.
At its most recent meeting, the NGPC adopted the Durban Scorecard, available at Annex 1 , disposing of all of the GAC‘s further advice with one exception – the NGPC indicated it would take action on the advice concerning the .amazon string at a future meeting.
The NGPC also discussed the remaining open items from the Beijing Communiqué. These include the advice pertaining to protections for IGO names and acronyms; Category 1 Safeguard advice; and Category 2 advice with respect to exclusive access registries. The NGPC and staff are working with the GAC to identify a time and place for further dialogue on these items.
The NGPC will next meet on 28.09.2013 and will provide a further update following that meeting.
The New gTLD evaluation and objection processes remains on track while the NGPC continues its deliberations. The NGPC is prioritizing its work in order to allow the greatest number of applications to move forward as soon as possible. We will continue to provide updates on the NGPC’s progress in responding to the GAC Beijing and Durban Advice.
Posted in GAC, gTLDS, ICANN by Ken Taylor |
August 30th, 2013
At its meeting on 13 August 2013, the ICANN Board New gTLD Program Committee (NGPC) adopted a resolution affirming that “dotless domain names” are prohibited. Dotless domain names are those that consist of a single label (e.g., http://example, or mail@example). Dotless names would require the inclusion of, for example, an A, AAAA, or MX, record in the apex of a TLD zone in the DNS (i.e., the record relates to the TLD-string itself).
In addition to public comments on dotless domain names, the NGPC considered the security and stability risks associated with dotless domain names highlighted in the following papers:
- On 23 February 2012, the ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) published SAC 053: SSAC Report on Dotless Domains [PDF, 183 KB]. In this report, the SSAC stated that dotless domains would not be universally reachable and recommended strongly against their use. As a result, the SSAC recommended that the use of DNS resource records such as A, AAAA, and MX in the apex of a Top-Level Domain (TLD) should be contractually prohibited where appropriate, and strongly discouraged in all cases.
- On 10 July 2013 the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) released a statement on dotless domain names, recommending against the use of dotless domain names for TLDs.
- On 29 July 2013 Carve Systems delivered a report on dotless domain names, which was commissioned by ICANN. Consistent with the SSAC report, Carve’s report on dotless domain names [PDF, 1.02 MB] identifies security and stability issues.
When adopting its resolution, the NGPC considered the security and stability risks identified in these papers, as well as the impracticality of mitigating these risks. Based on the NGPC resolution, ICANN does not plan to pursue any additional studies on the subject.
Posted in Domain Names, gTLDS, ICANN by Ken Taylor |
August 28th, 2013
As ICANN previously announced, we commissioned a study to consider the likelihood and impact of name space collisions between applied-for new gTLD strings and non-delegated TLDs. In light of that study, ICANN proposed to the community several possible mitigation measures, including:
- Proceeding with contracting and delegation of those strings categorized as “low risk” (80%) but recommending additional mitigation measures which should not materially impact their timeline for delegation.
- Conducting further study on those strings categorized as “uncalculated risk” (20%) anticipated to take 3-6 months to complete.
- Delaying contracting and delegation of the two “high risk” strings until mitigation efforts can place them in the “low risk” category.
ICANN has solicited community comment on the mitigation steps outlined in the staff recommendation paper, with a comment close date of 27 August 2013 23:59 UTC. Pending receipt of community feedback on the staff mitigation proposals, ICANN intends to proceed with New gTLD applications as follows:
- Low Risk – Eligible applicants will be invited to begin contracting and may proceed through contract execution of a Registry Agreement. Delegation of Low Risk strings will be held until we have evaluated community comments and settled on appropriate mitigation measures.
- Uncalculated Risk – Eligible applicants will be invited to begin contracting. Execution of registry Agreements will be held until we have evaluated community comments and settled on appropriate mitigation measures.
- High Risk – Applicants will not be invited to begin contracting until we have evaluated community comments and settled on appropriate mitigation measures.
We encourage the community to submit comments on name space collision and appropriate mitigation measures to assist ICANN in considering these matters.
For further information from ICANN on Name Space Collision, go HERE.
Posted in DNS, gTLDS, ICANN by Ken Taylor |
August 23rd, 2013
From The Domains
85 new gTLD applications passed ICANN Initial Evaluation today, including the Dot Brands: .Netflix, .Ping, .Lamborghini, .Tiffany, .Dish, .BBT, .HITACHI, .Gallo, .Symantec and .Intuit.
See the full skinny HERE.
Posted in gTLDS, ICANN by Ken Taylor |
August 19th, 2013
From Harvard Business Review
How IT Professionals Can Embrace the Serendipity Economy
With Frederick’s Taylor invention of scientific management in the 1880s, and its subsequent assimilation into what we now consider modern management, organizations have used logic and rationality to the eliminate waste, to seek efficiency, and to transfer human knowledge to tools and processes. This perspective created the industrial economy lens through which most managers perceive their operations.
The industrial age economy does not exist in a vacuum. Running alongside it is the Serendipity Economy, an economic space where often random, always unanticipated interactions occur that may lead to value. Industrial age measures can’t evaluate Serendipity Economy results, leaving its outcomes like invention and innovation, process improvements, and new businesses relegated to the evidence of anecdote.
IT professionals need to recognize and embrace the Serendipity Economy in order to better understand the impact of technology investments, improve employee engagement and drive business transformation.
Get the full skinny HERE.
Posted in Cool Ideas by Ken Taylor |
August 8th, 2013
ICANN has embarked on an effort to reinvent today’s WHOIS system. Be part of the solution and join the discussion…online and at ICANN‘s Durban meeting.
At the request of ICANN Community Members, the Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services has extended its open consultation period until 6 September 2013 – 23:59 UTC in order to provide the Community with additional time to comment on the proposed model and recommendations.
Please note that the EWG is meeting in late August to begin revising the initial report . Comments received by 23 August 2013 – 23:59 UTC will be most useful.
See the full skinny HERE.
Posted in gTLDS, ICANN, Whois by Ken Taylor |
August 7th, 2013
Marshall McLuhan’s profound observation that “the medium is the message” is often misunderstood. It is assumed the 20th-century communications theorist meant that channels of mass media eventually take precedence over the content they deliver, but that’s not the case.
McLuhan’s notion of a medium was “any extension of ourselves,” which could easily be a wheel or a Walkman®. The message the medium conveys is found in “the change of scale or pace or pattern” that it introduces into human affairs—in other words, how the medium transforms people.
In the mid-1800s, for example, the telegraph transformed the world. By accelerating the pace at which business was conducted, the telegraph (medium) resulted in a populace that came to expect instant gratification in matters of discourse, regardless of distance (message).
What today’s Internet is telling us is still unclear, even if we know its message is vastly more complex than the telegraph’s. Indeed, that message will likely be at least as far-reaching as the medium itself. And social media are increasingly a part of whatever story is unfolding—as Corporate America is about to discover in ways it probably could have never imagined.
See the full skinny HERE.
Posted in Social Networks by Ken Taylor |