NZOC Monthly Report for March 2007
NZRS Report
NZRS have produced their monthly report for March 2007. Main points NZOC would like to highlight with Council are:
§ System availability for March was 99.84% against the SLA standard of 99.9%
Total unscheduled outage time was 72 minutes. Of this total time, 62 minutes was a single outage due to a failure of the border router at Albany on 25 March 2007. The rest was due to micro outages.
§ The scheduled maintenance window was utilised on 25 March 2007.
§ Performance times for key transactions for March are in the following table:
|
Transaction |
Average Response Times (in seconds) |
|
|
As per SLA |
March 2007 |
|
|
Domain Details Query |
1.5 |
0.03 |
|
Domain Update |
0.8 |
0.45 |
|
Domain Create |
0.8 |
0.47 |
|
Get Message |
0.8 |
0.03 |
|
WHOIS |
0.8 |
0.09 |
|
UDAI Valid Query |
0.8 |
0.13 |
§ DNS SLA standards met
Server % Availability
|
|
Jun 06 |
Jul 06 |
Aug 06 |
Sep 06 |
Oct 06 |
Nov 06 |
Dec 06 |
Jan 07 |
Feb 07 |
Mar 07 |
|
NS1 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
NS2 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
NS3 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
NS4 |
100 |
100 |
99.99 |
100 |
99.97 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
NS5 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
NS6 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
|
NS7 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
100 |
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.
|
DNS |
Target |
UDP transactions |
TCP transactions |
||||||||||
|
|
|
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
Oct |
Nov |
Dec |
Jan |
Feb |
Mar |
|
NS1 |
<5 / <50 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
|
NS2 |
<5 / <50 |
0.12 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.07 |
0.33 |
0.27 |
0.27 |
0.26 |
0.26 |
0.27 |
|
NS3 |
<5 / <50 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.09 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
0.38 |
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
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.
|
Measurement |
Jul 06 |
Aug 06 |
Sep 06 |
Oct 06 |
Nov 06 |
Dec 06 |
Jan 07 |
Feb 07 |
Mar 07 |
|
Average Time (sec) |
751 |
723 |
1001 |
1181 |
1186 |
929 |
657 |
757 |
761 |
§ The total number of WHOIS queries increased from 1,872,000 to 1,895,000
§ The level of active .nz domain names increased from 268,744 to 272,752. An increase of 4008.
.nz Policies and Procedures
2.1 Registrar Compliance
§ No major compliance issues arose in March
2.2 Policy Reviews
§ Submissions from the Registering, Managing and Cancelling Domain Names Policy Review were discussed at the NZOC meeting on 1 March. It was agreed that the operational changes identified would be processed and a further paper written on the proposed registration policy changes.
2.3 Applications
§ An application for .bank.nz was notified and public comment sought. At the end of the submission period 20 submissions had been received. These will be considered by NZOC as part of their decision making process. It is expected this will be by way of a teleconference call during April.
§ An application for access to the zone file previously received was declined but is being reconsidered following a further submission by the applicant.
Registrar authorisation and connection
One new registrar was authorised over the month. Discount Domains Limited is related to Digiweb New Zealand Limited which has been trading using the name DiscountDomains.co.nz. No new registrars connected to the production environment over the month.
Other .nz matters
§ NZOC held a meeting on 1 March. A copy of the minutes is available at http://www.dnc.org.nz/content/Minutes_1_March_07.pdf
Dispute Resolution Service (DRS)
For the month of March 2007, there were 7 new electronic complaints submitted. Of these, none were deemed invalid and therefore all complaints were able to progress through the system.
The first 10 months of the DRS to 31 March 2007 has seen 85 complaints lodged with 26 (30%) ruled invalid.
Of the 54 valid complaints:
§ 10 proceeded to an Expert determination
- 7 ordered transferred
- 1 ordered cancelled
- 2 dismissed
§ 21 were resolved between the parties either at, or prior to, mediation
§ 12 were withdrawn
Remainder continuing through the process
6. DNC Office
§ The DNC attended the ICANN meeting held in Lisbon, Portugal. A copy of the travel report is enclosed as Appendix 1
7. Financial
The financial report as at the end of March 2007 will be provided when the end of year accounts are finalised.
Debbie Monahan
Domain Name Commissioner
Appendix 1
ICANN Meeting – Lisbon, March 2007
Links to the agenda, and access to a number of the transcripts and presentations, are at http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/archives.htm.
Sunday 25 March
There were a couple of tutorials relating to expiring domain names and the secondary market. The presentations focused mainly on the .com space and outlined the process around names not renewed and what registrars are legitimately able to do under the current rules.
One presentation outlined how a particular registrar doesn’t delete names if they can see value in them. When the domain name hits pending release the registrar changes the registrant name to their own company, or an associated entity. If at this stage the registrant is seeking the name back, they can theoretically still renew the name but essentially the registrar has control. There is no obligation on the registrar to hand control back to the registrant but it was noted that the industry hasn’t yet seen a situation where a registrant has asked for it to happen and the registrar has refused.
Another impact of this sort of approach is that domain names are essentially controlled by the registrar and not released back to the general pool for re-registration. Thus registrars are effectively ‘silos’ for particular names.
While listening to these presentations, I thought about the policies in place for .nz and how these prevent registrars from effectively trapping domain names. Though the speakers acknowledged that the registrars retaining domain names were acting within the rules, I consider that the policies in place for .nz are far more registrant-friendly, fairer to all and more reflective of a fair and level playing field for .nz domain name registrations.
Monday 26 March
Following the Welcome Ceremony, the morning session of the Public Forum included the President’s report, an outline of the ICANN Operating Plan and issues arising from the RegisterFly experience.
As part of his President’s Report, Paul Twomey noted that nearly 900 had registered for the Lisbon conference. He then outlined the current policy development activities, the Operating Plan, agreements with ccTLD managers and the new website changes. Paul also referred to a planned visit by the ITU Secretary General to the meeting, the first time the ITU General Secretary has attended an ICANN meeting.
Following the President’s Report, there was an overview of the Operating Plan. Kurt Pritz outlined the process and current version of the operating plan which then feeds into the budget. Refer http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-22mar07.htm
There was then a presentation regarding ICANN and RegisterFly which gave an overview of events to date and the issues arising from that. This presentation can be seen at http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/presentation-public1-accreditation-26mar07.pdf
As part of the presentation, a fact sheet was provided which sets out a bit more detail about the situation and how RegisterFly became an accredited registrar. This is at:
http://www.icann.org/announcements/factsheet-registerfly-registrars-26mar07.pdf
I had been following this issue prior to the meeting and found some of the additional information I learned in Lisbon rather interesting as the same situation would not arise with .nz registrars. We expressly prohibit organisations from becoming authorised registrars merely by buying a company that is already authorised. We also are more proactive in checking compliance and following up on possible policy breaches.
Though ICANN are now fully managing the situation, in my view the timeframes indicate that not a lot was done in the initial stages of complaints being made. A general timeframe is provided in a letter sent 21 February 2007 which is online at http://icann.org/correspondence/registerfly-notice-of-breach-21feb07.pdf
There is quite a bit of information about the RegisterFly situation available on the ICANN website, many of which link from http://www.icann.org/announcements/.
There was comment on the panel discussion supporting steps to make registrar agreements more registrant friendly.
§ Joint ccNSO / GAC meeting on IDN
A well attended session on IDN was held in the afternoon. The meeting discussed the issues paper produced by the Joint ccNSO / GAC working group (copy available on request). This paper sets out some general issues such as whether an IDN ccTLD string be meaningful and are there ‘rights’ attached to any given character set? It also includes issues around the introduction of IDN ccTLDs and around the delegation and operation of IDN ccTLDs. A number of questions are posed for consideration.
It was agreed that further discussion on the issues, and possible options for solutions, would take place. This item is going to be discussed at the next APTLD meeting, which is an excellent place to have such a discussion given the amount of IDN expertise in the Asia-Pacific region with the likes of Japan, Taiwan, China and Korea.
Tuesday 27 March
A joint session with the ccNSO and the GAC was held. One of the items on the agenda was the discussion paper around the ICANN regions (paper available through http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-rev-28nov06.htm). Introduced by Keith Davidson, Dave Archibald gave a presentation on the issues around the regions proposed that he identified. Dave highlighted the potential problems when a ccTLD is located geographically in one region but is a representative of a totally different region with different cultures, languages etc. The ccNSO is to discuss this topic, and the APTLD have also indicated an interest in seeking the views of members.
There was an interesting presentation regarding developing ICT in Tanzania. The Government has taken an active role in its development as they consider it important for the economic development of the country. This has been key to kick start development of the Internet but it is also considered important that private industry also contribute.
Following the joint meeting with the GAC, the ccNSO meeting resumed with Paul Twomey and Vint Cerf present. A range of subjects was raised including the eIANA project, which is well on its way with the major stage of software development to be completed by the end of May. No definite date for operational release yet.
The transcript of the ccNSO meeting for Tuesday 27 March is online at http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-ccnso-members-27mar07.htm
Patrick Jones spoke about Registry Failover and the initial report published on 5 March regarding gTLD registry data escrow. They are looking for comments (by end of April) on potential changes to the data escrow requirements. A copy of the paper can be seen at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-05mar07.htm
Though the project was really set up for gTLD they believe they can learn from the ccTLD community regarding guidelines for registries to follow to ensure contingency plans in place to ensure operations continue. Questions were asked about the role and responsibilities of ICANN in the event of a registry failure. There was a comment that ICANN would not step in if a ccTLD registry got into trouble. Want to learn from the ccTLD community, not apply any of this to them
The meeting then heard from Kieren McCarthy regarding his new role as ICANN General Manager, Public Participation. He spoke about wanting more input, better input and making that input count. As an example of information out, he went through the new ‘public information’ site at http://public.icann.org/.
This was followed by an update on IANA and then the first session on IDNs with a very interesting presentation given by Vaggelis Segredakis from Greece (.gr). Vaggelis outlined how they implemented IDNs in the .gr space covering the various scripts in the Greek language. Like the implementation in other ccTLDs, some of the bigger issues are in the policy aspects, for example what variants is a registrant provided with automatically when registering an ASCII or IDN name. The vagaries of the Greek language and how it handles capitals etc also caused for additional policy and technical decisions to be made.
Updates from ccTLD Regional Organisations and ICANN's Regional Liaisons closed the day. The meeting heard from Michuki Mwangi, AfTLD, Don Hollander, APTLD, Peter van Roste, CENTR, Margarita Valdes Cortes, LACTLD, and the ICANN Regional Liaisons.
Wednesday 27 March
The ccNSO Meeting continued with a range of presentations including one on Accountability and Transparency by Paul Levins, Executive Officer and Vice President Corporate Affairs, ICANN and a number of ccTLD updates. Copies of the presentations should be published online shortly.
A continuation of the IDN subject in the form of a workshop was held on the Wednesday afternoon. A transcript of this part of the meeting is available online at http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-idn-wg-28mar07.htm
There are a number of issues identified as part of the IDN.IDN project and there is a joint gNSO/ccNSO working group looking at these. The IDN area is one where Asia/Pacific representatives are making a significant input. Operationally, a number of Asian ccTLD managers have successfully implemented IDNs at a local level and are making them more operational.
Workshops and presentations like the ones held at the Lisbon ICANN meeting, demonstrate that the most difficult matters impacting on the IDN implementation are the policy related issues.
After the ccNSO meetings, there was a DNSSEC session with the focus being on Sweden and Bulgaria who have both signed their zone.
Sweden is the first ccTLD to fully implement DNSSEC and they provided a valuable insight into the approach they used, the issues they encountered and what they are planning to do next. Transcript at http://www.icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-dnssec-28mar07.htm.
Presentations were given by Jörgen Samuelsson, Head of Section Ministry of Enterprise, Energy and Communications, by Staffan Hagnell, Head of R&D .SE, by Mats Dufberg, Senior Engineer TeliaSonera, by Kjell Rydjer, Senior Security Architect Swedbank/CIO Strategy and Architecture Strategic responsible for the IT Security and Communication in Swedbank Group, and by Anders Rafting, the Swedish National Post and Telecom Agency. The speakers represented a wide range of organisations including the .se registry, the banking industry and the government.
Dave Baker and I had met with the .se representatives prior to this session to discuss their DNSSEC implementation and how they managed issues around policy, registrar uptake and what was compulsory or voluntary, and the costs associated from their perspective and from that of the registrars. Dave was going on to visit the .se registry at the conclusion of the ICANN meeting so a lot of the focus of our informal meeting was on policy and how the registry dealt with registrars over the decision to implement, and the implementation.
An interesting observation made by the Swedish was that they implemented the initial version of DNSSEC (the one with the zone walking issue that .nz decided not to look at implementing for that reason, the .se does not display full WHOIS information though so it wasn’t an issue for them) and it is not that simple to now convert to the latest version that is hopefully soon to be signed off.
We discussed the possibility of implementing DNSSEC for one or two of the moderated .nz second level domains and the Swedish thought that this was a good thing to consider as the scale of any issues would not be as great as trying to implement in the .co.nz space, or the whole .nz at the same time. It would also mean that it would be easier to convert to the newer version of DNSSEC if we decided to commence with the initial version.
Relevant links:
http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/agenda-dnssec-28mar07.htm
http://www.dnssec-deployment.org/
Thursday 29 March
A range of presentations with a technical focus were held on the Thursday. Chaired by Eberhard Lisse, the day included a range of DNS related topics including DDOS attacks, DNS Setup and Anycast experiences. Copies of the presentations are meant to be put up online at some stage. http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/agenda-cctld-29mar07.htm
I took the opportunity throughout the day to talk to various ccTLD people who had expressed an interest in a DNS benchmarking survey that is being planned by Nick Griffin and NZRS. Nick had prepared preliminary documents and had emailed specific questions out to those ccTLD managers who had expressed an interest in the work. In conjunction with Dave, the managers that Nick had been in contact with were spoken to regarding their thoughts about the proposed survey. The information obtained will be passed back to Nick.
It is anticipated that DNS monitoring will be included on the agenda for the next Technical Meeting day in Puerto Rico.
Friday 30 March
The Board Meeting was the agenda item for the day with the key item on the Board agenda being the decision on the proposed .xxx Registry Agreement (which was declined). The transcript of the day is at http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/transcript-board-30mar07.htm and it is interesting to read the comments by the various board members regarding the .xxx vote. With the ‘new 2LD’ creation process in the .nz policy, I can’t imagine the .xxx experience being replicated in the .nz domain name space.
One interesting issue raised during the board meeting was also something that had come up previously during the ICANN meeting – how far does ICANN go and what are their responsibilities to registrants? ICANN has some work to do in this area to develop guidelines as to how many protections they should introduce for registrants.
A planned meeting with the Secretary General of the ITU, Dr Hamadoun Toure, was cancelled after issues with his flight. Paul Twomey had invited some ccTLD representatives to meet with Dr Toure, .nz included, and it was unfortunate that this meeting did not eventuate.
