Hello there, thanks to Jorge for his answers, it is good opportunity for discussion. as usual the studies can be somehow contradictory and make the situation more fuzzy. @Mary of course, there is no only discussion about trademark, the session about malicious conduct is a proof of that assumption. for context, I asked Jorge because the tweets I read from some SSAC members (that explain the comment made by thomas Narten during new gTLD session) We need all point of views and I confirm that Trademark is big issue . I think that there is few WG that we need some techie people to participate Rafik 2009/10/26 Mary Wong <[log in to unmask]> > Jorge, thanks so much for this summary and update. It's very useful, and > as one of the non-technie lawyers here in Seoul (and periodically but > regularly needing to deal with technical issues on the Council) I for one > appreciate your sharing your expertise. > > I hope members - especially those who are not able to attend ICANN meetings > in person - don't think that the only major issues NCUC has to deal with are > trademark-related (fundamentally important though that may be). The > trademark issues are also but one (albeit substantial) part of the whole > discussion about new gTLDs. At this meeting, for instance, studies and > decisions relating to matters that will have global impact include the > forthcoming introduction of fast-track IDNs, registry/registrar vertical > separation, and malicious conduct (from abusive registrations to phishing > etc.) > > I hope that members with expertise in all these issues, from technical to > legal, will contribute to our learning and discussion on this list. > > Thanks, > Mary > > > > *Mary W S Wong* > Professor of Law & Chair, IP Programs > Franklin Pierce Law Center > Two White Street > Concord, NH 03301 > USA > Email: [log in to unmask] > Phone: 1-603-513-5143 > Webpage: http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php > Selected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) > at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584 > > > >>> Jorge Amodio <[log in to unmask]> 10/25/2009 11:35 PM >>> > > I received a question from Rafik that I believe interesting to share > my answer with the rest of the > NCUC crowd. > > Question from Rafik (via FB) > >Hi Jorge, > > > >it is plenty of lawyers here , I am not sure that they understand > technical side. almost discussion > > are about trademark, trademark and trademark. > >wil be glad to know your feedback (technical) > > > >Rafik > > yes way too many lawyers over there. > > From the technical side, the first thing you must know is that the > three reports which are connected > are not conclusive. > > One of the reports deal with how the technology scales or not, that's > the OARC report > (Root Zone Augmentation and Impact Analysis), which shows that servers > running BIND or NSD may > be able to scale swiftly but there are some breaking points where > memory and concurrent number of > processes running on the servers could produce problems. > > There are also some issues related to server load and additional > traffic growth based on the increase in > size of the dns query responses that exceed 512 bytes due or > additional IPv6 glue records or > DNSSEC information. > > Users sending queries for which the answer will exceed 512 bytes and > are not able to receive that > response via UDP will revert to TCP, this has the side effect that now > the query has to establish > a full TCP handshake, taking more processor time/memory and additional > network traffic, this not > only will increase the delay to obtain the response but also will put > more load on the servers and > on the network. And the studies are preliminary since there is not yet > a conclusive study that shows > how the entire system will behave when DNSSEC is fully deployed. > > Also having the query being satisfied via TCP will potentially break > the use of ANYCAST as the > mechanism that enables to have replicated "mirror" root servers around > the world. > > The second report, or the "TNO Report" (by the folks from > Netherlands) only describes the model has > been used to forecast and try to put together a systematic model to > simulate the DNS root, > but it is just that a description of the model and unfortunatelly > given the short time these > guys had to do their job the report states: > "Given the time frame of the root scalability study, there was barely > time to perform scalability analysis > with the model. However, for purpose of model validation and to > illustrate typical use of the > simulation model several numerical cases were simulated." > > The last report, and most important one is the report of the Root > Scaling Study Team known > as the "Report on the Impact on the DNS Root System", which also > address many aspects > of scalability but in particular how the associated processes (like > dealing with VeriSign, IANA, > root operators, DoC, etc) scale or not. > > One of the important topics on this report (and you can talk more > about it over there with > Patrik Fältström) is that the recommendation is that we need to > introduce all these changes > to the root zone in a gradual manner and have the tools to monitor and > analyze the impact > of each change since all the previous experience has been based on the > concept that the > root zone is something in the system that has been stable and without > major changes, and > the problem is not just adding the new TLDs, is how the processes and > the overall system > will react when we are required to update/remove/change entries in the > root zone in a > more dynamic fashion with many thousands or hundreds of thousand new TLDs. > Some changes will be driven by the technology, such as DNSSEC that > will require changing > keys, signatures, etc. > > Because of the rush and pressure of the moment, many years ago we > missed the opportunity > to nail the baseline metrics and study the overal system before the > "proof of concept" TLDs > where added to the root zone. > > This is the information that now the SSAC is digesting but there is a > lot of work to do > to put together a summary report and reach a more conclusive analysis. > So far the best > advice seems to be "PROCEED WITH CAUTION". > > The lawyers need to understand that this is a real concern and not > just a trick to delay the > introduction of new gTLDs. > > Feel free to ask if you need more specifics or have any questions. > > Here are the links to the three related reports: > > Root Zone Augmentation and Impact Analysis: > > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/ssr/root-zone-augementation-analysis-17sep09-en.pdf > > TNO report - Root Scaling Study > Description of the DNS Root Scaling Model: > > http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/root-scaling-model-description-29sep09-en.pdf > > Scaling the Root - Report on the Impact on the DNS Root System > of Increasing the Size and Volatility of the Root Zone: > > http://www.icann.org/en/committees/dns-root/root-scaling-study-report-31aug09-en.pdf > > Regards > Jorge >