Zone File Checking Tools.

Let’s add some information to the current debate on zone file checking: There is a variety of free tools available which performs many checks like the ones mentioned in IANA’s FAQ on TLD zone file access. Examples include dnswalk, dlint, doc. Unle…

Let’s add some information to the current debate on zone file checking: There is a variety of free tools available which performs many checks like the ones mentioned in IANA’s FAQ on TLD zone file access. Examples include dnswalk, dlint, doc.

Unless IANA is actually using one (or several) of the tools listed above in order to check TLD zone files, it would most likely be a great service to the community if they’d publish the software they are currently using to check zone files – I don’t believe they are inspecting TLD zone files manually. Such a tool could be helpful to those who (as opposed to large ccTLDs) still edit zone files manually.

ICANN posts status report on ccNSO

ICANN has posted a status report on the formation of the ccNSO assistance group (which carries a date of September 13 – for whatever reason). The status report characterizes the group (which includes individuals with a large variety of backgrounds…

ICANN has posted a status report on the formation of the ccNSO assistance group (which carries a date of September 13 – for whatever reason). The status report characterizes the group (which includes individuals with a large variety of backgrounds) as providing the ERC “with additional qualified and experienced hands and minds to help complete its work”. This particular assistance group’s job seems to be the “creation, structure and operation of the ccNSO”. The obvious reaction is most likely to ask why this entire thing isn’t left to the current ccTLD constituency. That reaction does, however, miss the blueprint’s design goal for a ccNSO: “The CNSO is not intended to be just an elevated ccTLD constituency, but is rather a policy-development body.” The composition of the assistance group is certainly in line with that objective. However, it’s not at all clear why even the ccTLDs’ “representatives” (not really) to this group were appointed. Alf Hansen (.no) offers some thoughts on this. (BTW, the GA is amazingly useful today.)

IANA Access to ccTLD Zone Files (updated [september 18])

In a posting to the GA, Stuart Lynn responds to a planned Names Council resolution on ICANN’s (or, for that matter, IANA’s) demand to get zone file access to ccTLDs’ zones before any changes concerning these ccTLDs are made to the root zone. Accor…

In a posting to the GA, Stuart Lynn responds to a planned Names Council resolution on ICANN’s (or, for that matter, IANA’s) demand to get zone file access to ccTLDs’ zones before any changes concerning these ccTLDs are made to the root zone. According to the ccTLDs, IANA’s current practice is threatening stability. According to Lynn, it’s not.

Public Benefit or Consensus? ICANN’s mission still unclear.

A recent exchange of opinions on the GA mailing list sheds a spotlight onto the fact that ICANN’s mission is not yet clearly specified, even this deep into the reform process. More precisely, the ERC’s output so far doesn’t seem to provide the cri…

A recent exchange of opinions on the GA mailing list sheds a spotlight onto the fact that ICANN’s mission is not yet clearly specified, even this deep into the reform process. More precisely, the ERC’s output so far doesn’t seem to provide the criteria needed to decide whether or not certain implementation details are a good idea in order to implement ICANN’s mission.

Moving.

You may have noticed that this weblog has changed URLs: Due to slightly absurd side effects of a change in hosting arrangements, this site now resides at log.does-not-exist.INFO. For the time being, the old URL will continue to work and will redir…

You may have noticed that this weblog has changed URLs: Due to slightly absurd side effects of a change in hosting arrangements, this site now resides at log.does-not-exist.INFO. For the time being, the old URL will continue to work and will redirect you to the new one.

Irritations about the ccNSO.

It seems like the ERC’s approach to setting up the future ccNSO may have caused some irritations among ccTLD managers. See this message from Peter Dengate Thrush to Alejandro Pisanty for details.

It seems like the ERC’s approach to setting up the future ccNSO may have caused some irritations among ccTLD managers. See this message from Peter Dengate Thrush to Alejandro Pisanty for details.

Dotster to ICANN: WLS requires consensus.

Dotster has sent a letter to ICANN, complaining about the board’s decision to permit WLS. The argument goes like this: Section 4.2.4 of the RAA says that “new and revised specifications and policies may be established” concerning “principles for a…

Dotster has sent a letter to ICANN, complaining about the board’s decision to permit WLS. The argument goes like this: Section 4.2.4 of the RAA says that “new and revised specifications and policies may be established” concerning “principles for allocation of Registered Names”. WLS changes these principles. Thus, the board’s decision constitutes new policy which would require appropriately documented consensus. Dotster says that no such consensus exists (certainly true), and that it would like to bring this to the Independent Review Panel. Since no Independent Review Panel exists, Dotster is not obligated to comply with the new policy. Consequently, WLS must be stayed.