( Third proposal for handling recovered IPv4 address space) Purpose of this document This document provides a background report on the progress of an active Global Policy proposal, “Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA”. It is intended as a background briefing for the ICANN Board and the wider community. Introduction Global Internet Number Resource Policies are defined by the ASO MOU – between ICANN and the NRO – as “Internet number resource policies that have the agreement of all RIRs according to their policy development processes and ICANN, and require specific actions or outcomes on the part of IANA or any other external ICANN-related body in order to be implemented”. Attachment A of this MOU describes the Development Process of Global Internet Number Resource Policies, including the adoption by every RIR of a global policy to be forwarded to the ICANN Board by the ASO 1 , as well as its ratification by the ICANN Board. In this context, the ICANN Board adopted its own Procedures for the Review of Internet Number Resource Policies Forwarded by the ASO for Ratification. Among other features, these Procedures state that the Board will decide, as and when appropriate, that ICANN staff should follow the development of a particular global policy, undertaking an “early awareness” tracking of proposals in the addressing community. To this end, staff should issue background reports periodically, forwarded to the Board, to all ICANN Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees and posted at the ICANN web site. At its meeting on 21 April 2011, the Board resolved to request tracking of the development of a “Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA”, under discussion in the addressing community. The status overview presented below is compiled in response to this request and will be further updated as developments proceed, for information to ICANN entities and the wider community. This is the second background report on this proposal. Status Overview The purpose of the proposal is to enable IANA to allocate returned IPv4 blocks to RIRs. IANA would place IPv4 blocks returned by the RIRs in a Recovered IPv4 Pool. This Pool would be declared active when one RIR has less than half its last /8 left. IANA would then allocate an “IPv4 allocation unit” (minimum size /24) to each RIR, if the Pool size so permits. If the space available in the Pool is too limited, allocation would be deferred in 6 month intervals until space is available. Following list discussions over slightly different draft versions early in 2011, the second version of this global policy proposal was first formally introduced in the APNIC region on 20 February 2011 and has since been introduced on the policy mailing lists of all the other RIRs. The proposal has been adopted in APNIC and is in discussion in the other RIRs. Process history On 3 February 2011, the ASO AC 2 recognized the proposal as fulfilling the formal requirements as a candidate for a Global Policy. Once the proposal has been adopted in all RIRs, i.e. AfriNIC, APNIC, ARIN, LACNIC and RIPE, the proposal will be handled by the NRO EC 3 and the ASO AC according to their procedures before being submitted to the ICANN Board for ratification. As a background to this policy proposal, it should be noted that a previous proposal for handling recovered IPv4 address space, “Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries” was introduced in 2009 but abandoned by the NRO EC in view of version differences across the RIRs. For more information on that proposal, see the corresponding background report . That proposal is denoted as the first proposal in the table below. Also, a second proposal on this theme “Global Policy Proposal for the Allocation of IPv4 by IANA Post Exhaustion” was introduced in 2010. This proposal was rapidly adopted in ARIN, but abandoned in APNIC and withdrawn in RIPE, making it unlikely that the proposal would advance to become a global policy. For more information on that proposal, see the corresponding background report . That proposal is denoted as the second proposal in the table below. The proposal that is the object of the current background report – for direct access to the proposal text click here [TXT, 12 KB] – is denoted as the third proposal in the table below, where the significant differences between the proposals are summarized. Proposal/features Third proposal Second proposal First proposal RIR return to IANA Not mentioned Voluntary Mandatory vs. voluntary RIR Eligibility Simultaneous for all RIRs Per RIR, when it has less than a /8 in stock Simultaneous for all RIRs ASO reference GPP-IPv4-2011 GPP-IPv4-2010 GPP-IPv4-2009 An overview of these proposals is also provided on the ASO website, see http://aso.icann.org/global-policy-proposals/ The table below outlines the steps taken within each RIR for the current proposal. Hyperlinks are included for easy access. Status of Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA (GPP-IPv4-2011) RIR AfriNIC APNIC ARIN LACNIC RIPE Proposal Introduced 7 Feb 2011 list message 28 April 2011 list message 25 Jan 2011 list message prop-097 20 Feb 2011 version 2 8 Mar 2011 list message prop 137 18 Mar 2011 list message prop 2011-05 21 Mar 2011   list message prop 2011-01 Discussion list Resource Policy Disc. List SIG-Policy Public Policy Mailing List Politicas – Policy Mailing List Address Policy WG Public Forum AfriNIC 14 4 – 10 June 2011 consensus APNIC 31 21  – 25 Feb 2011 consensus LACNIC XV 15 – 20 May 2011 – presentation [PDF, 241 KB] RIPE 62 2 – 6 May 2011 Final Call for Comments 1 Mar – 26 Apr 2011 27 May – 11 July 2011 Next Public Forum (AfriNIC-15 19 – 25 Nov 2011) ( APNIC 32 29 Aug  – 2 Sept 2011 ) ARIN XXVIII 12 – 14 Oct 2011 LACNIC XVI 4 – 7 Oct 2011 RIPE 63 31 Oct – 4 Nov 2011 Adoption Endorsed by APNIC EC 6 May 2011 Link to document AFPUB-2011-v4-004-draft-01 prop-097-v002 Proposal 137 LAC-2011-05 [PDF, 241 KB] (EN) LAC-2011-05 [PDF, 345 KB] (ES) LAC-2011-05 [PDF, 360 KB] (PT) Proposal 2011 – 01 Link to Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Policy Development Process Status Consensus, awaiting final call Adopted In discussion Final call closed In discussion 1 The ASO MoU states that the NRO shall fulfill the role, responsibilities and functions of the ASO (Address Supporting Organization). 2 The ASO AC (Address Council) consists of elected representatives from each RIR’s policy making community and membership. 3 The NRO EC (Executive Council) consists of the CEOs of the five RIRs. This ICANN announcement was sourced from: www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-26apr11-en.htm

It was with great interest that I read a recent announcement about a plan by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) to publish template answers on a wiki for the 22 questions relating to registry technical operations contained within ICANN’s new Top-Level Domain Applicant Guidebook. As someone who has spent the best part of six years following the development of the program (witnessing first-hand each evolution of the Applicant Guidebook) my first thought was one of bemusement – How can a generic solution taken “off the shelf” accurately demonstrate whether an applicant is capable of understanding the technical requirements for setting up and operating a new Top-Level Domain? Quite frankly, it can’t. The application process for new Top-Level Domains (TLD) has been carefully designed by ICANN to thoroughly examine whether an applicant has performed the required research to adequately understand what it means to own and operate a vital piece of Internet infrastructure. Operating a TLD is a huge responsibility that should not be taken lightly. The application process has been created in its current format to determine this. For the applicant, the risk of landing in Extended Evaluation, ICANN’s special audit system for applications that require further attention, is far too great to be toying with a one size fits all approach. In an attempt to save money, applicants will instead be at risk of losing at least $150,000 should their application fail the evaluation criteria set by ICANN. While consultants working closely with the ITU are correct in stating that applicants do not have to be currently operating Domain Name Registry Systems, they still must identify the technical solution that supports the specific Registry requirements of the application in question. The financial and organisational descriptions must do the same. The solution proposed by the ITU becomes even more unrealistic when you consider the following: Registry technical operations must identify the intended registry system specifications such as: domain name lifecycle, servers, software, infrastructure, data centres, bandwidth providers, policies & procedures etc. Those who know will agree that this is impossible to do generically. Any Registry Services provider worth a pinch of salt is offering the ‘technical operations’ component of the application free of charge with their back-end registry services solution. One has to question whether the approach suggested by the ITU is one that delivers a significant increase in risk without actually delivering any tangible cost reduction? This is not a turnkey solution. Applicants will still be required to provide answers to non technical and financial sections, answers which need to be consistent with the information provided in the technical sections of the application, so those who consider the ITU’s approach will struggle to establish consistency throughout all sections of the application. Without having properly researched, designed and finally settled on a technical solution, whether that be to outsource to industry experts, or build in-house, Applicants will not have the ability to identify information for other areas of the application such as Registry set up and operational costs that will be critical to the successful development of sound and accurate financials. Further, how will applicants be able to demonstrate to ICANN that the technical specifications provided can be delivered on? From my perspective, taking answers from another entity (whose content has no relation to any registry system (real or proposed)) clearly demonstrates two things: 1) You are proficient with the cut and paste function of your keyboard and; 2) You clearly lack the understanding necessary to manage a critical piece of Internet infrastructure such as a new Top-Level Domain. As any high school student can tell you, cutting and pasting answers from a wiki is prone to failure. Although the ITU claim that only ‘approved contributors’ will be able to edit the information, it is unclear how someone would be granted ‘approved contributor’ status. With the highly competitive nature of the TLD process, Applicants should be aware that the accuracy of the information contained within the template has the potential to be highly dubious and potentially even prone to subtle sabotage. I have no doubt that ICANN’s evaluators will be on the lookout for these responses, just like any good teacher would do. The message to prospective applicants here is simple: If you show disrespect to the evaluators and don’t give the technical criteria of your application the attention it truly deserves, then why should they take your application seriously. I am left with two equally horrifying questions: 1). Is this simply an attempt by the ITU to devalue and undermine the entire new TLD application process (and therefore ICANN)? 2). Does anyone at the ITU truly understand the goals of the application process and what it is intended to do? Were the ITU’s ambitions truly altruistic, they would spend their efforts providing capability advice and skills to the community. This approach would be useful and would not water down the quality of submissions to ICANN, as this solution almost certainly will. Finally, this blog does not set out to be self-serving. Yes, there is a level of confidence that comes with choosing a back-end registry provider that is established and experienced. However, ICANN has ensured that anyone who can fulfil the technical requirements will be awarded a TLD Registry. So, the point I am making is that the process of fulfilling the technical requirements of a new TLD Registry involves more than a simple cut and paste. It requires communicating a level of understanding that a new TLD is a piece of mission critical infrastructure and that there are enormous responsibilities that come with this. This posting by Chris Wright, Chief Technology Officer at AusRegistry International , was sourced from: www.ausregistry.com/blog/?p=823

The newly elected ICANN chair, and one of the internet’s founding architects, has been announced as the keynote speaker at the upcoming “newdomains.org – The Munich Conference on new TLDs” meeting in September. The two-day conference will kick-off in the Bavarian capital of Munich on 26 September and will bring experts in the fields of technology, trademark law and business from around the world. The focus of the conference will be the recent approval of the new TLD programme that ICANN approved at the beginning of their recent meeting in Singapore. The announcement of Steve Crocker as the new ICANN chair replacing Peter Dengate Thrush was one of the last announcements of the meeting. Being the first of its kind in Europe, the conference offers a unique opportunity for all interested parties to build valuable connections and network with experienced industry professionals. Additionally, it will deliver answers to all questions concerning this major change for the internet The conference organisers are anticipating over 400 applications for new TLDs from cities, regions, brand names and special interest groups. “Who better to open the only event in Europe focusing on this important topic than one of the people who has had such decisive influence on the development of the internet–a tool we all now so commonly use,” said Markus Eggensperger, co-founder of united-domains, the host of the newdomains.org conference. Regarding the upcoming event, Dr. Crocker stated, “The internet has experienced unprecedented changes in its 40 year history and the introduction of new top-level domains will be one such challenge. I’m delighted that I can contribute the keynote and hope we can all make the most of this unique moment for the good of the global Internet community.” More information about the conference at www.newdomains.org

Lloyd’s Development Capital ( LDC ), the private equity arm of Lloyd’s Trustee Savings Bank, the third largest bank in the U.K. (and state-backed) announced today that it has acquired a majority stake in leading web hosting provider UK2Group . The equity group paid a total of $77 million for its majority stake in partnership with the current management team

An image from UK2’s own webuywebhosts.com website (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) — Private equity firm Lloyds TSB Development Capital ( www.ldc.co.uk ) announced on Wednesday that it has acquired a majority stake in the major web hosting provider UK2 Group ( www.uk2group.com ), paying roughly $77 million for that stake, in partnership with the company’s management team.

An image from UK2’s own webuywebhosts.com website (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) — Private equity firm Lloyds TSB Development Capital ( www.ldc.co.uk ) announced on Wednesday that it has acquired a majority stake in the major web hosting provider UK2 Group ( www.uk2group.com ), paying roughly $77 million for that stake, in partnership with the company’s management team.

Company: Lloyds TSB Development Capital (LDC) LDC announces that it has acquired a majority stake in the UK2 Group, an international hosting company, for £47million in partnership with its management team.

An illustration, from the Rackspace website, of Cloud Load Balancers in operation (WEB HOST INDUSTRY REVIEW) — Managed and cloud hosting provider Rackspace ( www.rackspace.com ) announced on Tuesday that it has introduced its Cloud Load Balancers offering, a software-based, utility-priced load balancing product designed for use with its cloud hosting products, as well as its dedicated and managed server offerings. In private beta since Novmeber of 2010, and public beta since February of this year, Cloud Load Balancers, says Rackspace, is designed to alleviate the barriers to entry and architectural complexity associated with using third-party open source software load balancers. Based on that lengthy beta period, says Jerry Schwartz, enterprise services product manager at Rackspace, in an interview with the WHIR, the company incorporated a great deal of customer feedback into the development of its Cloud Load Balancers

Telnic Limited the registry operator for the .tel top level domain (TLD) today that Turkey Yellow Pages is the latest yellow pages organization to integrate the .tel service into its online advertising packages. Trevor Nadeau, Managing Director for Turkey Yellow Pages, said: “As the established provider of verified business listings in Turkey, we’re constantly looking at the development of the internet and new technologies to provide our customers with the greatest audience. With .tel, we can provide an integrated, location-ready and mobile optimized site that will really complement all of our investments in the mobile internet, apps and better discoverability for our clients.” Located in Kavacik, Istanbul and with more than 600,000 verified business listings and over 2.5 million unique visitors per month, the Yellow.com.tr platform of products has become Turkey’s trusted destination for business listing information.

Web Hosting – PALO ALTO, CA — VMware, Inc.