NZOC Monthly Report for May 2006

1. NZRS Report

NZRS have produced their monthly report for May 2006. Main points NZOC would like to highlight with Council are:

• System availability for May was 99.98% against the SLA standard of 99.9%

There were no major incidents during the month with the unavailability time due to micro outages totalling 6 minutes and 48 seconds over the month.

• The scheduled maintenance window was utilised on 28 May

There was an issue in that the SRS did not go into Maintenance Mode correctly so for a period of approximately 40 minutes the system was fully available when it should have been offline. This did not have any impact as no create transactions were received in that time.

• Performance times for key transactions for May are in the following table:

Please note that the SLA signed in May is in effect for reporting from this May 2006 report.

• DNS SLA standards met

Server % Availability

*NS6 did not respond to TCP queries for a period of 34 minutes and 15 seconds between 07:33:06 and 08:07:21 on 8 May. NS5 continued to respond throughout this period so there was no degradation of the Ultra DNS service.

­Performance Stress testing

The figures are derived from the 'stress testing' of the name servers. 1201 UDP and 121 TCP transactions are used. Measurements are in milli-seconds.

The measurements for the Primary name servers and NS1, NS2 and NS3 are taken by running the programme on the individual servers.

• SRS Zone Pushes

No issues have been reported with the zone pushes.

These figures show the average time taken from the point that the first Primary begins the zone push to the time that the last of the secondary’s acknowledges that it is up to date.

• The total number of WHOIS queries increased from 1,738,000 to 1,870,000.

• The level of active .nz domain names increased from 225,475 to 230,531, a net increase of 5,056. The number of domain names registered over the month was in excess of 7,000 with 7,780 ‘create domains’ transactions.

2. .nz Policies and Procedures

2.1 Registrar Compliance

No major compliance issues were identified during May.

1. Policy Reviews

There are currently no reviews being undertaken

2.3 Applications

No applications were received under the Zone Transfer Policy and no applications for a new Second Level Domain were received.

3. Registrar authorisation and connection

One further organisation was authorised as a .nz registrar in May. InternetX is a German company. Four organisations connected to the production environment in May. They were AirNet, OpenHost, Distribute IT and Pacific Technology Solutions. There are now 59 authorised registrars with full access to the production SRS.

4. Other .nz matters

• NZOC held a strategy meeting, followed by a formal NZOC meeting, on Friday 26 May in Napier. Notes from the strategy day are attached as Appendix 1.

• The brochure written for registrars to pass on to their resellers, and for organisations like web developers who register domain names for their clients, has been published. “Keeping the customer satisfied – a guide for .nz domain name resellers” was finalised after input from registrars and NZOC.

5. DRS Planning

• Work during May included was focussed on final preparation for the 1 June implementation date. This included arranging for various students to come and work through the production system making complaints, responses and replies with only the online help available for assistance.

• A brochure outlining the Dispute Resolution Service was developed, along with a similar style document containing the full policy and procedure. Copies of these documents will be sent out to the respondent when a complaint is received so that they can read about the process and how to contribute to it.

• The DNC joined with Andrew Brown QC, Chair of Experts, in giving presentations, in Wellington and Auckland, to the Intellectual Property Society of Australia and New Zealand (IPSANZ). These presentations were well attended with approximately 80 present in Auckland and 50 in Wellington.

6. DNC Office

• The DNC attended the International Trademark Association conference held in Toronto. The main purpose for attending was to give a presentation to a group of brand owners at a breakfast session hosted by MelbourneIT. A brief summary of this is provided in Appendix 2.

• LEADR NZ is hosting the 9^th LEADR International Conference to be held in Wellington September 2007. They have approached the office to talk to the conference about our experiences with telephone and email mediation. By next September, I expect that we would have had sufficient cases through to be able to speak about how it has operated so we have agreed to be involved. Consideration will also be given to having the next mediators annual session held around the same time as we may be able to take advantage of any overseas speakers that might be attending.

7. Financial

April 06

May 06

Frank March

Chair, NZOC

Appendix 1

NZOC Strategy Day

Napier, Friday May 26 2006

Overview

This day was set aside to have a wide-ranging discussion on a number of points to identify future areas of work, subjects where NZOC could look at taking an interest, or the lead, and any other items that NZOC considered relevant to future planning.

A general list of topics was identified:

• Environmental scan

  • Incorporating such items as DNSSEC, Security, ICANN and Accountability Frameworks, relationship with NZ Government, InternetNZ Structural review, NZRS SRS/DNS review, ENUM, Certification Authority

• Continuity

  • Including DNC job description and plans, NZOC Terms of Reference and position description, Composition of NZOC

• Work Plan

At the conclusion of the strategy discussion was a formal NZOC meeting.

.nz strategy document

It was agreed by NZOC that the document prepared at the last strategy day was still applicable with some minor changes suggested by members. Amendments will be made to the document to:

• Reflect the new responsibility of managing the Dispute Resolution Service

• Increase the focus on DNS

• Strengthen the wording around the relationship with Government

Formalising relationship related to the management of the .nz domain name space

It was agreed by NZOC that the relationships with both the NZ Government and ICANN should be formalised in some way in order to ensure the protection of the .nz delegation and its operation.

No decision was made by NZOC as to the form any documentation or approach should take, but did consider that NZOC was in the best position to take the lead on advancing this matter.

Any proposal to proceed will need to be supported and agreed to by the InternetNZ Council. The NZOC Chair will outline the general discussion and agreement made by NZOC to Council at their next meeting in June. Following that, a more detailed proposal will be developed and forwarded to Council for consideration at their next meeting. This proposal will:

• set out reasons for formalising the relationship

• suggest a plan on how to proceed

• propose that NZOC is best to take the lead and why

• detail who NZOC will consult, and reference, as part of the process

• outline what any recommendations are likely to be

Technical matters

NZOC agreed that NZRS were in a position to work on some initiatives, for example the Certification Authority proposal and development of IPv6 and ENUM matters, but that this should only occur if their primary business related to the .nz registry wasn’t negatively impacted.

There was a discussion in respect of the SRS/DNS review currently being undertaken and concern expressed about some wording in Clause 5 of the review document that included NZRS “owns the technical architecture and has full and final say”. It was agreed that any major technical changes should be brought before NZOC prior to any commitment by NZRS as ultimately NZOC was responsible for the whole .nz domain name space. This point will be made to the Project Manager of the review, and also to the NZRS Chair, in letters to be sent from the NZOC Chair.

It was also agreed that NZOC would make a formal group response to the SRS/DNS review document that contains two points:

• NZOC should be consulted prior to any significant technical changes

• Reference should be made in relevant documents to .nz following “best current practice RFCs

As part of referencing ‘best current practice RFCs’ in documents, an amendment to Clause 6.3 of the Roles and Responsibilities policy (responsibilities of the registry) should be made to incorporate this. Any exceptions should be agreed with NZOC.

In respect of technical advancements, NZOC commented that it would be good to see NZRS take the lead in making IPv6 operational in New Zealand through providing a parallel system which processes IPv6 transactions, and also establishing a separate DNSSEC server so that they can start getting experience and be more prepared when the next iteration that is meant to address the policy issues is ready for implementation. These points will be included in a letter from the NZOC Chair to the Chair of NZRS.

NZOC stated a view that .nz name servers should only be available through open access points. This does not fit with the two primary name servers currently operated on a ‘grace and favour’ basis by Telecom and TelstraClear. It was agreed that NZOC should make this position known to NZRS by including it in the letter being sent to the Chair, and also by making this point as part of comments into the NZRS SRS/DNS review.

InternetNZ Structural Review

This was discussed but not in great detail. It was agreed however, that one thing that needed to be preserved, regardless of the form of structure, was the independence of the DNC in the regulation of the .nz market.

Continuity planning

The DNC job description was still largely relevant. It needs to be updated to remove reference to the transition period and incorporate areas such as communication which are now a key part of the role.

Similarly, the NZOC Role Description and Terms of Reference also largely still apply but need to be made current. A few minor amendments to these were agreed.

The amended documents will be presented at the next NZOC meeting.

Policy reviews

NZOC discussed the policies that haven’t yet been reviewed and agreed to review these in the following order:

First: Registering, Managing and Cancelling domain names

Second=: Dispute and Complaints process

Investigations and Inquiries process

Third: Authorisation of Registrars process

Fourth=: Change of Registrant

Privacy Policy

It was agreed that the .nz Oversight Committee Policy on .nz Policy Development Process would be brought to the next meeting for confirmation.

Other opportunities

An email and documents from CoCCA setting out their request to use the .nz DRS was discussed. There was concern that changes made to the .nz DRS policy to apply to CoCCA members in fact fundamentally changed the intent of the policy with the replacement of ‘unfair registration’ with ‘unacceptable use’.

Following a discussion on other ccTLDs using us or our policies, NZOC agreed that, in principle, we should support where possible other small ccTLDs. This should only be where it doesn’t conflict with our wider policy framework. Any support must:

• be within our capacity

• not put NZOC or the DNC at risk

• be such that it is close or consistent with our policies, especially in the area of policy compliance work. This position reflects that the greater the deviation from our policies the greater the risk

This position was formally noted as part of the NZOC meeting held at the end of the strategy discussions.

Actions arising from meeting:

1. NZOC Chair to write to NZRS Chair. Letter to include the following:

• NZOC concern regarding the wording in Clause 5 of the review document

• Desirability of NZRS taking the lead in advancing IPv6 in New Zealand. This could be done by enabling IPv6 transactions through a parallel stream to the current IPv4 system.

• A request that NZRS consider setting up a separate set of servers to start testing DNSSEC

• NZOC’s intention to amend documents to state that NZRS is to follow ‘best current practice RFCs’ in its operation of .nz with any exceptions to this to be agreed by NZOC

• NZOC’s concern regarding the two ‘grace and favour’ name servers and their position that name servers should only be available through open access points

2. Amendments to .nz strategy document as noted in meeting

3. NZOC Chair to write to Project Manager of the NZRS SRS/DNS review, Doug Mercer, to express concerns regarding the statement in Clause 5 of the review document

4. NZOC Chair to advise Council at their meeting on 16 June 2006 that “NZOC are intending to put the matter of formalising relationships with the NZ Government and ICANN on their work plan for the following period. NZOC will be bringing a proposal to Council about a way forward, probably to the next Council meeting in August.”

5. Depending on response from Council to Action Point 4, above, a detailed proposal will need to be developed.

6. Amend clause 6.3 of the Roles and Responsibilities policy to state that NZRS should follow ‘best current practice RFCs’.

7. Modify DNC job description to make current and incorporate communication requirements

8. Amend NZOC Terms of Reference and Role Description as agreed

9. DNC to work with CoCCA on possible arrangements that will allow assistance within the guidelines agreed by NZOC

Appendix 2

DNC Travel – May 2006

I attended the International Trademark Association conference held in Toronto May 6-10 2006. The main purpose for attending was to give a presentation to a group of brand owners at a breakfast session hosted by MelbourneIT.

Approximately 90 brand owners were present at the session, and in fact there were so many responses to the invitation that MelbourneIT had to find a larger room for the event. There were three speakers – Bruce Tonkin, Chief Technical Officer for MelbourneIT started the session, followed by Mike Rodenbaugh Senior Legal Director for Yahoo!, with me following as the final speaker.

The subject related to various aspects of cyber-squatting and typo-squatting. Issues discussed included:

• Re-registrations of domain names and utilising the five day grace period to evaluate if the domain will make money. If not, the domain name is cancelled within the five day grace period. This means that the actual growth in the .com space is nowhere near as high as the number of creates. It is calculated that around 90% or registered domain names are now cancelled within the grace period.

• ‘pay per click’ approach to making money from domain names which is linked to the above point about making money from domain names. It was raised that this is a bigger money-maker than trying to on-sell a domain name registration.

• The role search engines like Yahoo! and Google in providing content for domain name for their use as ‘portal’ sites providing the pay per click revenue. It was commented by both Yahoo! and Google (at a public session another day) that they will take down such sites if contacted by a trademark owner who can show that the domain name shouldn’t be used for such purposes.

The .nz presentation started with a brief overview of how it is structured, then a look at our registration policies and the rights and responsibilities of the various parties. The focus of the presentation was however the new Dispute Resolution Service.

The fact that we were implementing a DRS was appreciated however, some of the audience of trademark owners were concerned that .nz had defined the rights wider than Intellectual Property rights, meaning that a trademark owner might miss out to an individual or organisation whose use of the domain name is not determined to be unfair.

It was a valuable session with a number of good questions asked about the new DRS as well as our processes for managing complaints regarding incorrect registrant details.

As well as undertaking the presentation, I attended some of the session in the conference. There was only one session related to the Internet and domain names and this followed a similar topic to that done by the MelbourneIT session. I found it interesting that there was only one formal session set aside for this subject matter, especially given that touring the exhibitors showed a clear majority were focused on such topics as protecting identities and property online, monitoring and managing domain names and integrating domain names into general portfolio management.

I also attend various social events, including a brunch hosted by the China Brand Owners’ Association (CBOA). At these events, a number of attorneys were interested in how .nz operated and in particular our WHOIS service as this is a topical matter for many at the moment with the gNSO reviewing what data is displayed from a WHOIS search with possible implications especially for the .com domain name space.

It was interesting to learn that the CBOA had recently had a win in their fight against Copyright infringement with the successful prosecution of an owner of a building used to sell counterfeit material.

Visit to Register.com

The opportunity was taken while on the East Coast of North America, to visit Register.com, an authorised .nz registrar that is still operating as a reseller through Domainz in addition to being their own registrar. This has caused confusion so it was agreed with Register.com representatives at the Wellington ICANN meeting, that it would be worthwhile for me to meet with each of the three divisions (Retail, Reseller and Corporate Services) to go through the .nz operations and discuss what we require from Register.com.

Tommy Ho from the Corporate Services Division was the contact point for this meeting and this turned out to be rather significant as, just as I arrived at the INTA meeting, Register.com announced that they had sold their Corporate Services Division to Corporation Service Company (CSC) (www.incspot.com).

As soon as the sale was announced, Register.com ‘discarded’ their Corporate Services Division and would not allow communication between them and the divisions remaining with Register.com. Unfortunately this meant that the meeting I had was with Tommy Ho and other representatives from CSC. This was useful in itself as we worked through various options for the amended division but it did mean that the opportunity to meet with all divisions together was lost.

Contact names and details were provided for the other areas of Register.com but attempts to meet with them that day were unsuccessful. Emails were sent afterwards and the DNC Office is still working with Register.com on their business model and the operations of the various divisions.