[Chapter-delegates] ISOC England Chapter Statement regarding direct.uk consultation

Tue Jan 8 08:49:07 PST 2013

Olivier,

An excellent review. Thanks to ISOC.uk.

Where it says:

    As a reminder:

    .co.uk, .ltd.uk, .me.uk, .net.uk, .nic.uk, .org.uk, .plc.uk and
    .sch.uk are managed by Nominet UK.
    .gov.uk, .mil.uk, .ac.uk, .mod.uk, .nhs.uk, .parliament.uk,
    .police.uk, .bl.uk, .british-library.uk, .jet.uk and .nls.uk are not.

I'd appreciate your pointing me to info on the overall governance 
structure of the .uk TLD.  I'd thought it was Nominet. I gather from 
this "reminder" that this is not so.

Thanks,

Tom Lowenhaupt

On 1/8/2013 6:38 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> Dear ISOC Chapter leaders,
>
> Nominet has recently conducted a consultation on a proposal involving 
> registration of domains directly at the second level, thus changing 
> the current system of having a limited second level set of domains and 
> allowing registration at third level.
> The proposals go further than this change: they are linked to 
> proposals for the new second level domains to be somehow certified and 
> certify content under those domains, which is a big change to the 
> function of a Registry.
> Proposals are found here:
> http://www.nominet.org.uk/sites/default/files/Nominet_FINAL_electronic_form3_0.pdf
>
> This might be a landmark proposal since other ccTLD operators might 
> wish to propose a similar service. Please note the "ccTLD" - Country 
> Code Top Level Domain, which is different in status and function to 
> the "gTLD" - Generic TLD.
>
> With the importance of this issue being so high, ISOC England has 
> encouraged its members to provide input for a consolidated statement 
> from ISOC England to be submitted to the consultation process. The 
> member consultation took a month; a final statement was drafted and 
> finally submitted yesterday. The Web page which holds a copy of the 
> statement includes a comment box which allows our members to support 
> or show their disapproval (in some cases) the Statement, in addition 
> to the statement having been drafted directly from member input.
>
> Please be so kind to find the statement appended in the message below.
>
> I would like to thank the ISOC England Leadership Team for the help in 
> drafting this with Christian de Larrinaga in particular having been a 
> very strong co-pen-holder.
>
> I am sharing this with you here since it might be of interest in 
> future consultations.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> ISOC England Chair
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: 	ISOC England Chapter Statement regarding direct.uk consultation
> Date: 	Mon, 07 Jan 2013 18:25:09 +0100
> From: 	ISOC England <contact at isoc-e.org>
> To: 	direct.uk <direct at nominet.org.uk>
> CC: 	ISOC England <contact at isoc-e.org>
>
>
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> please be so kind to find below the comments from the English Chapter 
> of the Internet Society, on the Nominet Consultation for direct.uk .
> Publication of this Statement is found on our Web Site: 
> http://www.isoc-e.org/uk-sld/
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
> ISOC England Chair
> contact at isoc-e.org
>
>
>
>
> STATEMENT OF THE INTERNET SOCIETY ENGLAND CHAPTER
>
>
> The English Chapter of the Internet Society 
> (www.internetsociety.org.uk <http://www.internetsociety.org.uk>) 
> thanks the members, board and staff of Nominet UK for the invitation 
> to comment on their important proposal for substantial changes to the 
> management of the UK domain name system known as direct.uk.
>
> The Society has conducted a consultation of its own members which is 
> summarised below.
>
>
> Summary
>
> In this paper we shall be touching on the following:
>
>
>   * Double registration of domains
>   * Trademark Issues
>   * Loss of Hierarchy
>   * Is .uk in UK?
>   * Lack of justification for proposal
>   * Operational Risk
>   * DNSSEC Adoption
>   * Legality under Digital Economy Act 2010
>   * Second level UK Domain Policy
>
>
>
> Double-registering of domain name space
>
> Some members think direct.uk has the potential for making domain names 
> shorter.
>
> However there is considerable concern that current holders of .co.uk 
> and .xx.uk (where xx is a second level domain) are affected negatively 
> in two ways:
>
> Legitimate added value of active domains can be affected negatively. 
> For registrants, this introduces a need to register a second level 
> domain themselves for an additional fee, should they wish to safeguard 
> their invested trade.
>
> This is seen very negatively as being motivated by Nominet looking to 
> sell more domain
> names to organisations having already registered under .uk via the 
> current second level domains.
>
> Secondly, registrants of active .co.uk domains have invested in their 
> online branding, search engine listings and other directory services. 
> Some search engines prioritise listings by keywords found in domain 
> names under higher levels of the domain name system, i.e. second level 
> before third level.
>
> As commercial entities they are likely to view entries in direct.uk as 
> potential passing off opportunities and will wish to register 
> themselves in direct.uk as well. Those who succeed will end up paying 
> twice for no added benefit compared to prior to introduction of direct 
> .uk registrations. Those who do not register under direct.uk will end 
> up risking confusion in their online brand.
>
>
> Trademark Issues
>
> How will Nominet ensure trademarks are managed for direct.uk, in 
> particular where there are trademarks across different classes held by 
> different entities with one holding the mark in .co.uk and others 
> wishing to register in direct.uk?
>
>
> Loss of Hierarchy
>
> Concerns are being raised that the UK Namespace which until now is 
> well ordered with second level domains (such as .org.uk, .gov.uk, 
> .ac.uk, .co.uk etc. ) representing distinctive communities will lose 
> the ability to discern whether a domain originated from an educational 
> establishment, government or a company as the current second level 
> domain service indicates. This blurring of lines was seen as not 
> favouring the public interest.
>
> But with proposed direct.uk second level domains looking to have 
> special security status, the clear hierarchy appears to be reversed - 
> the non- hierarchical name-space being counter-intuitively marketed as 
> "better" protected. How will direct.uk distinguish security policies 
> for SLDs from new direct domains so that the market is not confused in 
> the UK or
> internationally?
>
>
> Is .uk in UK?
>
> While recognising the urgency of the need to give greater confidence 
> that the use of .uk means that the registrant is subject to UK law, 
> the status today is that residency of .uk services cannot be 
> determined. Clearly some work needs to be done in order to clarify 
> this situation.  ISOC England is willing to work with interested 
> parties into future consultations to explore and establish potential 
> solutions for this matter.
>
> In the meantime, it is widely believed even by a "security expert" on 
> the BBC Today Program in late November 2012 that a .uk domain means 
> the site is in the UK.
>
> The uncertainty this imposes on users suggests there is a need to give 
> greater confidence of what jurisdiction a service using .uk is 
> operating. Direct uk does not appear to offer a solution to this issue.
>
> How can Nominet correct this false impression for .uk when it is promoting
> direct.uk domains as having a UK physical contact address but with no 
> guarantee of UK resident Internet services? Can Nominet explain how a 
> postal mail PIN delivery process adds value for direct.uk domains and 
> will not continue to confuse the market? Will users really distinguish 
> between the values of a .co.uk? a .ltd.uk and a direct.uk domain?
>
>
> Lack of justification for proposal
>
> Nominet has not justified why direct registrations under .uk are 
> needed. The security mechanisms could just as easily be provided under 
> a new or existing SLD such as ltd.uk or plc.uk which are both low 
> volume and limited community managed zones.
>
>
> Operational Risk
>
> Is it the role of a ccTLD operator to offer such services as malware 
> scanning on third party networks and so forth?
>
> Nominet has not shown why as a ccTLD operator it should be both 
> delegated authority for domain of .uk AND the regulator of the .uk 
> Register AND now add further roles in regulating content and services 
> of devices on other networks which may resolve for direct.uk domains 
> as well as others.
>
> DNS resolution is a best effort service on the Internet. However 
> malware scanning of third party devices implies quality of service 
> metrics and so could be open to substantial risk of damages. Such 
> damages could arise from any part of the world, from users, from 
> registrars, from
> network operators, from registrants or service providers. It could 
> arise from faulty scans, damage caused by scans or where scans were 
> legitimately blocked by local providers and expectations of users of 
> "security" were falsely raised.
>
> Risk of legal action from non best effort services would be a 
> substantial change in the business model and Risk for .uk.
>
> We should note that the increase in risk from litigation for damages 
> from anywhere in the world could be so substantial as to weaken the 
> robustness of the .uk Domain Name System as a whole including existing 
> SLDs.
>
> How can Nominet justify adding such unquantifiable risks within the 
> operations of a private sector entity operating as a ccTLD registry 
> for the UK?
>
>
> DNSSEC Adoption
>
> Security of the .uk domain space and its reputation can be improved 
> substantially through the adoption of DNSSEC. In 2010 the Nominet 
> board signed .uk on behalf of all .uk but into 2013 take up by service 
> providers, registrars, and users remains low.
>
> More work and investment is needed in the UK to seed research and 
> services to improve awareness, tools, training and infrastructure 
> support for DNSSEC for all .uk domains.
>
> The opportunity exists to expand security for all .uk domains using 
> DNSSEC and it is questionable policy to restrict emphasis for security 
> to direct.uk domains.
>
> How will the direct.uk project avoid being a distraction to a key 
> priority of promoting DNSSEC security services for all .uk domains?
>
>
> Compatibility with Digital Economy Act 2010
>
> Would Nominet's proposed move to make registrations directly under .uk 
> make implementation of the Digital Economy Act 2010 Sections 19, 20 
> and 21 by the Government more complicated and costly?
>
> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/24/crossheading/powers-in-relation-to-internet-domain-registries
>
>
> Second level UK Domain Policy
>
> direct.uk has put current SLD policy as of March 2004 in disarray 
> irrespective of outcome of consultation. 
> http://www.uksld.org.uk/page/procedure.html
>
>
> It is not clear following direct.uk proposal how community-led SLDs 
> are intended to be established and function under .uk going forward.
>
> As a reminder:
>
> .co.uk, .ltd.uk, .me.uk, .net.uk, .nic.uk, .org.uk, .plc.uk and 
> .sch.uk are managed by Nominet UK.
> .gov.uk, .mil.uk, .ac.uk, .mod.uk, .nhs.uk, .parliament.uk, 
> .police.uk, .bl.uk, .british-library.uk, .jet.uk and .nls.uk are not.
>
>
> Implementation Phase
>
> Some contributions from ISOC England members make suggestions about 
> implementation phase - and these may be premature. One example is for 
> the direct.uk proposal to preserve the rights of the current .co.uk 
> users by providing the second level domain registration at a 
> discounted cost-recovery basis fee to current holders of the third 
> level registrations. Alternatively, current third level registrations 
> could be kept in a "reserved" list so as for second level 
> registrations to  avoid clashing.
>
> Should direct .uk move towards implementation, the complexity and 
> uncertainties so far raised indicate that a fresh outreach 
> consultation will be needed.
>
>
> Conclusion
>
> In conclusion, the English chapter of the Internet Society urges 
> caution regarding the direct.uk proposals. In the absence of 
>  consensus for direct .uk and in view of the risk to stability of uk 
> domain name system the conclusion is NOT to implement direct .uk plans 
> to shorten domains as proposed.
>
> Should the proposed security mechanisms be justified they could just 
> as easily be provided under a new or existing SLD such as ltd.uk or 
> plc.uk which are both low volume and limited community managed 
> zones.This would be more consistent with the well established 
> management of the UK domain name space.
>
> Stability and Security of Internet services is an important priority 
> for users. The chapter would prefer enhanced support for the 
> deployment of core Internet protocols that can provide users across 
> the whole of .uk with improved security such as DNSSEC. The benefits 
> of malware scanning as proposed do not appear to be core to ccTLD 
> operations nor likely to be dependable for users.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> As an Internet Society Chapter Officer you are automatically subscribed
> to this list, which is regularly synchronized with the Internet Society
> Chapter Portal (AMS): https://portal.isoc.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/private/chapter-delegates/attachments/20130108/8fb7fb80/attachment.htm>