Stephanie Duchesneau took a roll call.
Ms. Duchesneau ran through general business items. The next council deliverable is the Q2 2015 Stakeholder Council Quarterly Report, which is due at the end of July. Mr. Harris asked the secretariat to prepare a draft of the report for the week prior to the July 20 call to allow the Council time to make any necessary edits.
James Bladel suggested that the report could also include quarterly statistics about .US. Michele Neylon supported this suggestion. Ms. Duchesneau responded that she would see what .US was currently published and what other metrics could be made available. Mr. Harris suggested that the secretariat also look into reporting practices by other ccTLDs to inform this. Others supported this suggestion.
Mr. Harris opened discussion about follow up on the kids.us Suspension Comment Period and next steps; he asked the secretariat to review what had been done with the comments received and what the requirements were per the Council Operating Procedures. Ms. Duchesneau responded that the Operating Procedures required that comments be posted publically, considered by the council, and that the assessment of comments be reflected including in Quarterly reports, but by and large the Operating Procedures did not specify how the comment periods would be managed. So far the comments received had been published on the Council website and that she had contacted the commenter noting that his comments were being taken under consideration and that more substantive response would be provided following Council discussion.
Mr. Bladel recommended that in assessing the comments the Council should not be confined to the current comment period, in which only one was received, but should be adaptable lest comment periods attract dozens or even hundreds of comments. To these ends, he recommended an approach similar to the ICANN comment periods, where a single summary was provided that reviewed the substance of all comments in aggregate. Several councilors supported this suggestion.
Ms. Duchesneau reviewed the substance of the comment received, which supported the recommendation to maintain the suspension of the namespace and made two additional suggestions. The first suggestion was to review the suspension on an annual basis to determine whether it was still practical. The second was to focus continued efforts on cyber security awareness for K-12 aged children.
Given the background and history behind the suspension, Mr. Harris said that he was not inclined to support the recommendation that the suspension needed to be reconsidered annually, but rather that this should only occur if significant circumstances changed such that would affect the viability of the namespace. Several councilors echoed this position including Mr. Bladel, Mr. Neylon, Tom Barrett, Bryan Britt, and Phil Corwin.
Mr. Harris asked what Neustar requirements would persist under the suspension. Ms. Duchesneau responded that under the present suspension Neustar continues to be required to provide an annual report to Congress about the status of the namespace, and this would continue even with an extended suspension, as long as the Kids.us Implementation and Efficiency Act Remained in place. She suggested that as an alternative to conducting a review, concurrent to this review, the secretariat could notify the Council that it was preparing the annual report, at which point the Council could determine whether a revisitation of the suspension was warranted by change in circumstances.
Mr. Harris asked that the second recommendation be elaborated upon. Ms. Duchesneau responded that a possible angle would be to focus on online practices and how kids could be safe when navigating the web. Several Councilors agreed that this would be a worthwhile endeavor. Ms. Duchesneau added that Heather Dahl who had previously worked at Neustar wrote a book series on this topic that may be worth exploring as a possible partnership. Becky Burr seconded the recommendation, adding details about the comic series.
Mr. Harris asked that the secretariat prepare a draft summary reflecting the procedures and positions established on the call.
Mr. Harris turned the call over to Mr. Britt to give a presentation about the locality namespace. Mr. Britt gave a detailed presentation beginning with the origins and history of the locality namespace in RFC 1480. He reviewed the requirements for being a delegated manager including equitable and competent management of the space, provision of two geographically separate name servers, commitment to timely communication, and implementation of the .US Nexus Policy. He reviewed the branched naming structure for locality registrations which, other than special branches, are generally broken out as follows, with registrations at the fourth level beneath one of the branches.
He noted that delegated managers were limited to operating 500 locality domains. Ms. Rose asked what was considered a locality domain for this purpose, and Ms. Duchesneau and Mr. Britt confirmed that it was a third-level registration. He provided an illustrative how DNS servers worked for locality domain names. Mr. Britt described some challenges to delegated managers. One challenge was that the WHOIS only shows the information of the delegated manager and not of registrants beneath the third level, which has sometimes led registrants to be confused and believe that a domain was being squatted on. Mr. Britt suggested that a tool to enable WHOIS to be provided for large delegations would be a useful improvement to the space. He also noted an issue by Internet Service Companies, including GoDaddy, where requests for SSL Certificates did not include complete information about the domain for which it had been purchased.
Mr. Barrett asked about the composition of the delegated manager space. Ms. Duchesneau gave an overview of the current breakdown which included 370 delegated managers responsible for 2,263 legacy domains. Of this 286 delegated managers are responsible for a single locality domain name, 55 delegated managers are responsible for 2-10 names, and 29 delegated managers are responsible for 10+ names. The ten largest delegated managers responsible for 63 percent of the locality domain names.
Ms. Rose provided some context about the state of the namespace at the time of transfer to Neustar, at which the namespace was entirely decentralized and largely undocumented. Ms. Burr noted that it was found that about three-fourths of the delegated managers was undocumented.
Mr. Bladel asked about the continued viability of the namespace in the DNS today, noting an anecdotal example of his children’s’ school shifting away from a .US locality name. Ms. Rose said that she believed that it remained an important part of the character of .US but that the Council should contribute to discussions about how to modernize the space.
Ms. Rose asked about whether RFC 1480 still governed or whether the delegated managers had been brought under contract. Ms. Duchesneau noted that an agreement between Neustar and Delegated Managers had been developed, which incorporates RFC 1480 as well as other key policies like the Nexus that now covers over two thirds of locality domain names. Delegated Managers are now also expected to enter into registration agreements with fourth and fifth-level registrants.
Several Councilors thanked Mr. Britt for the presentation.
Mr. Harris noted that the Council had used up all of its time and recommended that the policy items be moved to the July 20 call.
The call wrapped concluded.
- Secretariat to prepare a draft of the Q2 2015 Quarterly Report 4-5 days before the next Council meeting
- Secretariat to research and provide an update on ccTLD reporting practices at the next Council meeting
- Secretariat to prepare comment summary for kids.us suspension
- Scott Blake Harris
- James Bladel
- Bryan Britt
- Karen Rose
- Phil Corwin
- Tom Barrett
- Alex Deacon
- Stephanie Duchesneau
- Cory Lancaster
- Becky Burr
Department of Commerce Participants
- Elizabeth Bacon