CircleID: Featured Blogs

First gTLD Auction Settled; Next Auction Will Be on August 13th

2013-06-19T14:25:00-08:00

We're pleased to announce that the first Applicant Auction has come to a successful finish! As of this morning, the winners are now the only remaining applicants for the six contested strings:

.club — .CLUB Domains
.college — XYZ.COM
.luxury — Luxury Partners
.photography — Donuts
.red — Afilias
.vote — Monolith Registry

The winning prices totalled $9.01 million, which we have distributed to the other applicants after confirming that their ICANN applications have been withdrawn.

The auction resolved contention among nine entities — Afilias, .CLUB Domains, Covered TLD, Donuts, Luxury Partners, Monolith Registry, Merchant Law Group, Top Level Design LLC, and XYZ.com — including a three-way contest for .club.

This is an important milestone for us at Innovative Auctions that we're proud to share with the CircleID community. In completing the auction, we have confirmed that this auction model was a transparent, reliable way of settling contention between applicants. All of the winners are now on track to receive ICANN approval for ownership of the domains, and the other participants have received pay outs upon withdrawal of their applications.

As promised, everything was transparent and predictable. All participants agreed that the results were fair — in fact, all of the participants from this auction who have additional strings in contention have signed on to use the process to resolve their remaining contentions. We're looking forward to helping these and other applicants resolve contention in the upcoming auctions.

Currently, we have the next auction scheduled for August 13, and we're excited about the growing number of participants. If you'd like to participate, please reach out! We are also open to holding auctions on earlier dates, if applicants require them. Either way, drop us an email at info@applicantauction.com, and we'd be happy to discuss.

Written by Sheel Mohnot, Project Director, Applicant Auction

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Top-Level Domains

Provoking National Boundaries on the Internet? A chilling thought…

2013-06-18T17:56:00-08:00

The impact of the recently revealed US government data collection practices may go well beyond the privacy ramifications outlined in the Internet Society's statement: expect a chilling effect on global, resilient network architecture. As governments of other countries realize how much of their citizens' traffic flows through the US, whether or not it is destined for any user or service there, expect to see moves to curtail connections to and through the US.

Let's consider how it happens. The reality is that it may be cheaper, easier, and faster to send a packet from Vancouver (Canada) to Toronto (Canada) via Seattle (United States) than any all-Canadian route — but that makes the traffic subject to US inspection.

Or, many international connections out of Latin America terminate in Miami, because that provides the most direct link to all other continents. But, that means traffic from Santiago (Chile) to London (UK) may well pass through the US and be subjected to US government inspection/collection.

The first situation can be addressed by building more Internet exchange points (IXPs) to make it economically viable to keep Canadian Internet traffic in Canada. The second is a little harder to address without moving continents closer together, although it is reasonable to expect that some other, non-US location will emerge as a preferred nexus for Latin American inter-continental traffic.

But, before we conclude this is just a messy and expensive question of network operators changing their connections, it's important to take a step back and think about what this means for a resilient, robust Internet.

The Internet was not designed to recognize national boundaries. It's not being rude — it just wasn't relevant. Resiliency^1&2 is achieved through diversity of infrastructure. Having multiple connections and different routes between key points ensures that traffic can "route around" network problems — nodes that are off the air because of technical, physical, or political interference, for example. We've seen instances where countries are impacted by disaster but at least some of that country's websites remain accessible: if the ccTLD has a mirror outside the impacted network, and if the websites are hosted/mirrored elsewhere, they're still accessible. This can be incredibly important when a natural disaster occurs and there is a need to be able to get to local resources.

The more there is a push to retrofit the Internet to align with national borders for the sake of maintaining apparent control over all the resources (as opposed to considered network architectural reasons), the more we run the risk of undermining the diversity that gives the Internet the resiliency it has today. The Internet works through collaboration; making decisions on the assumption of territorial boundaries weakens it at every step.

For certain, there are legitimate concerns that policymakers have about security of their networks and privacy of their citizens. In developing policies to address these concerns, it's important that policymakers bear in mind that resiliency is a key component of security, trust and interoperability. As one of those considerations, the impact on network resiliency should be properly weighed as a negative side effect when proposing the kind of broad scale tracking that the the US is apparently doing.

On the Internet, no nation is an island.

This blog post originally appeared on the Internet Society's Internet Technology Matters blog: http://www.internetsociety.org/blog/tech-matters

¹ https://wiki.ittc.ku.edu/resilinets_wiki/index.php/Definitions#Resilience

² http://www.internetsociety.org/what-we-do/issues/security

Written by Leslie Daigle, Chief Internet Technology Officer

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cybercrime, Internet Governance, Law, Policy & Regulation, Privacy, Security

Introducing Internet Society's Intellectual Property Issues Paper

2013-06-18T06:23:00-08:00

What made an organization like the Internet Society draft an issues paper on Intellectual Property? What is the aim of this paper? How does the paper relate to overall Internet governance discussions? And, what — if any — impact does it aim to have on the discussions regarding Intellectual Property?

At a time when there is a desire to resolve policy considerations by employing technological measures, the Internet Society, through an issues paper, amongst other things, seeks to chart a path forward: for the Internet Society, it is vital that policy makers develop public policy approaches that are consistent with the principles that have demonstrably worked. For instance, intellectual property enforcement solutions should not be at odds with the underlying architecture of the Internet — technology can assist intellectual property rights in other ways (e.g. identification of the intent of the content creator), but enforcement is not one of them. The Internet is a unique tool for economic and social empowerment and we should ensure that it continues to perform this significant role. However, some policy initiatives over the last 18-24 months (SOPA/PIPA and ACTA) resulted in a highly publicized and deep schism between policy, technology and the various stakeholders.

To this end, the Internet Society believes that it is important to articulate a set of minimum standards for all intellectual property discussions. Multistakeholder participation and inclusion, transparency, the rule of law, respect for the Internet's architecture and upholding the open standards of the Internet, constitute the types of propositions that should be established in intellectual property governance.

Fundamentally, the underlying premise of this paper is neither novel nor new. It is written with the intention to communicate and compile existing ideas that could contribute to the ongoing broad discussions relating to: a) the effect the Internet has on intellectual property rights and, b) the place intellectual property rights should occupy within the Internet ecosystem.

Reflecting on the Intellectual Property discussions thus far, we appear to be lacking such minimum propositions that could help provide a framework for how intellectual property interactions are to be structured, shaped or fashioned. We lack a set of best practices that could provoke forward-looking approaches for how to address this highly contested issue more effectively.

One of the first things we observe is that the realm of intellectual property remains one of the few thematic Internet governance areas that still lacks inclusive structures for stakeholder engagement. This is not to say that multistakeholder discussions relating to intellectual property are not taking place; but such procedural formats are not yet the primary mechanism for discussing intellectual property matters and their potential impact on the Internet. So, although we acknowledge that there is a conscious effort from some stakeholders to end the policy schism and urge the reconciliation of intellectual property with technology, the lack of overall inclusiveness, precludes the emergence of a robust and sustainable way forward.

None of this, of course, is new and the Internet Society's issues paper does not seek to reinvent the wheel. What it seeks to do, however, is to reflect on the many considerations as they have developed from years of policy making and Internet governance processes. It is through these considerations that the Internet community will much better serve the need to promote the open development and use of the Internet for the benefit of all people throughout the world.

So, the time is right to reflect and strategize on how to strengthen the dialogue through inclusiveness, transparent processes, adherence to the rule of law and respect of the Internet's architectural design when talking about intellectual property on the Internet.

The full version of the paper can be found here.

This post first appeared on the Internet Society Public Policy website.

Written by Konstantinos Komaitis, Policy Advisor for the Internet Society

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Internet Governance, Law, Policy & Regulation

Will the GNSO Review Be Pushed Back Another Year?

2013-06-15T10:12:00-08:00

ICANN bylaws mandate periodic reviews of the organisation's main structures. For the body that handles gTLD policy making, the GNSO, that review was due to start in February this year.

The review appears much needed. The GNSO Council is the manager of the gTLD policy process and as such, it has representatives of all GNSO groups. But according to repeated statements by many of those representatives, the Council's current bicameral structure has not lived up to expectations.

This two-house structure is the result of the last review and the recommendations that came out of it. Each GNSO Council house is divided in two sub-groups called stakeholder groups (SGs). But that's where the symmetry ends.

In the contracted parties house, the two SGs are the only entities. So the registry SG and the registrar SG are often able to find areas of common interests.

But in the non contracted parties house, the 2 SGs are made up of 5 sub-groups, called constituencies. Seeing eye to eye is not always so easy for the commercial SG (the business, internet service providers and intellectual property constituencies) and the non commercial SG (the non commercial users and the not for profit organizations constituencies).

The review would help evaluate whether the GNSO's current structure is well suited to ICANN's changing environment and policy making needs in a world that has already been dramatically changed by the new gTLD program. Its results would pave the way for any changes that are deemed necessary.

Yet it seems the review is unlikely to start anytime soon. On June 12, in an email to the GNSO Council, ICANN staff explained that the "Board Structural Improvements Committee (SIC) is considering postponing the GNSO Review (potentially for a year) while it evaluates options for streamlining the organizational review process and considers relevant discussions involving development of a new ICANN Strategic Plan. The SIC expects to make a recommendation to the Board in Durban and staff will keep you apprised of these developments."

Those who feel the current bicameral structure is unbalanced will not be happy to hear the GNSO may not be reviewed for another year. It's also unclear how such a decision, should it be confirmed, would fit with the ICANN bylaws requirement which states that "reviews shall be conducted no less frequently than every five years, based on feasibility as determined by the Board." (Article IV, section 4).

Obviously allowing the Board to determine feasibility gives the SIC the leeway to push the review back. But can a 2 year delay still be considered reasonable?

Written by Stéphane Van Gelder, Chairman, STEPHANE VAN GELDER CONSULTING

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Internet Governance, Top-Level Domains

Belgian Country Code Now Supports Internationalized Domain Names

2013-06-14T09:53:00-08:00

Earlier this week dns.be launched Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs).

The Belgian registry opted to support the accented characters for Dutch, French and German. In so doing they've also ended up providing support for other European languages, such as Swedish, Finnish and Danish.

The characters supported are below:

ß*	à	á	â	ã	ó	ô	þ	ü	ú	ð
æ	å	ï	ç	è	õ	ö	ÿ	ý	ò	ä
œ	ê	ë	ì	í	ø	ù	î	û	ñ	é

The registry reported quite a bit of interest in the launch with over 3000 IDN domains being registered in the first hour. That number had practically doubled by close of business on the first day.

So what domains are people registering?

The most popular requests were:

1. café.be
2. météo.be
3. hôtels.be
4. bébé.be
5. crédit.be
6. hôtel.be
7. één.be
8. italië.be
9. cinéma.be
10. château.be

The registry announced that close to 80% of the IDN domains registered were registered to Belgian residents, thus reinforcing the view that IDNs were in demand from the local market.

More details here.

Written by Michele Neylon, MD of Blacknight Solutions

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Names, Multilinguism

Don't Overlook the Network When Migrating to the Cloud

2013-06-13T14:26:00-08:00

The success or failure of public cloud services can be measured by whether they deliver high levels of performance, security and reliability that are on par with, or better than, those available within enterprise-owned data centers. To emphasize the rapidly growing cloud market, IDC forecasts that public cloud IT spending will increase from $40 billion in 2012 to $100 billion in 2016. To provide the performance, security and reliability needed, cloud providers are moving quickly to build a virtualized multi-data center service architecture, or a "data center without walls."

This approach federate the data centers of both the enterprise customer and cloud service provider so that all compute, storage, and networking assets are treated as a single, virtual pool with optimal placement, migration, and interconnection of workloads and associated storage. This "data center without walls" architecture gives IT tremendous operational flexibility and agility to better respond and support business initiatives by transparently using both in-house and cloud-based resources. In fact, internal studies show that IT can experience resource efficiency gains of 35 percent over isolated provider data center architectures.

However, this architecture is not without its challenges. The migration of workload between enterprise and public cloud creates traffic between the two, as well as between clusters of provider data centers. In addition, transactional loads and demands placed on the backbone network, including self-service customer application operations (application creation, re-sizing, or deletion in the cloud) and specific provider administrative operations can cause variability and unpredictability to traffic volumes and patterns. To accommodate this variability in traffic, providers normally would have to over-provision the backbone to handle the sum of these peaks — an inefficient and costly approach.

Getting to Performance-on-Demand

In the future, rather than over-provisioning, service providers will employ intelligent networks that can be programmed to allocate bandwidth from a shared pool of resources where and when it is needed. This software-defined network (SDN) framework consists of virtualizing the infrastructure layer — the transport and switching network elements; a network control layer (or SDN controller) — the software that configures the infrastructure layer to accommodate service demands; and the application layer — the service-creation/delivery software that drives the required network connectivity — e.g. the cloud orchestrator.

SDN enables cloud services to benefit from performance-on-demand

The logically-centralized control layer software is the lynchpin to providing orchestrated performance-on-demand. This configuration allows the orchestrator to request allocation of those resources without needing to understand the complexity of the underlying network.

For example, the orchestrator may simply request a connection between specified hosts in two different data centers to handle the transfer of 1 TB with a minimum flow rate of 1 Gb/s and packet delivery ratio of 99.9999% to begin between the hours of 1:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. The SDN controller first verifies the request against its policy database, performs path computation to find the best resources for the request, and orchestrates the provisioning of those resources. It subsequently notifies the cloud orchestrator so that the orchestrator may initiate the inter-data center transaction.

The benefits to this approach include cost savings and operational efficiencies. Delivering performance-on-demand in this way can reduce cloud backbone capacity requirements by up to 50 percent compared to over-provisioning, while automation simplifies planning and operational practices, and reduces the costs associated with these tasks.

The network control and cloud application layers also can work hand-in-hand to optimize the service ecosystem as a whole. The network control layer has sight of the entire landscape of all existing connections, anticipated connections, and unallocated resources, making it more likely to find a viable path if one is possible — even if nodes or links are congested along the shortest route.

The cloud orchestrator can automatically respond to inter-data center workload requirements. Based on policy and bandwidth schedules, the orchestrator works with the control layer to connect destination data centers and schedule transactions to maximize the performance of the cloud service. Through communication with the network control layer, it can select the best combination of connection profile, time window and cost.

Summary

Whether built with SDN or other technologies, an intelligent network can transform a facilities-only architecture into a fluid workload orchestration workflow system, and a scalable and intelligent network can offer performance-on-demand for assigning network quality and bandwidth per application.

This intelligent network is the key ingredient to enable enterprises to inter-connect data centers with application-driven programmability, enhanced performance and at the optimal cost.

Written by Jim Morin, Product Line Director, Managed Services & Enterprise at Ciena

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cloud Computing, Data Center

Poll on New TLDs Shows Value of Brand Loyalty, Willingness to Try New Equivalents to .COMs

2013-06-13T11:01:01-08:00

Internet users are willing to navigate to, use, and trust new web addresses that will be flooding the Internet later this year, and brand name websites will carry more weight with Internet users than generic sites.

These are among the results of a public opinion survey commissioned by FairWinds Partners, a consultancy that specializes in domain name strategy.

The poll also found that the owners and operators of these new addresses should be technically prepared or risk driving away or losing traffic intended for their sites.

Hundreds of new gTLDs are expected to roll out later this year and a total of approximately 1,400 could be operational in a year or so.

Internet users are untethered to the past, broadminded, and based on this survey, receptive to new ways of doing things. Respondents prefer to take control of their Internet experiences, expect to find their favorite brands at intuitive sites, and will adapt to the new addresses without too much difficulty.

The online poll of 1,000 Internet users found that consumers have an open mind about new gTLDs even though they remain a largely unknown and abstract concept:

57 percent said they had no preference or would be willing to navigate to a new gTLD media website, while 43 percent said they would stick with a .COM media site
52 percent said they had no preference or would be willing to shop on a new gTLD, compared to 48 percent who preferred .COM
53 percent said they had no preference or would be willing to bank with a financial institution operating a new gTLD site, compared to 47 percent who would stick with .COM

The poll found that consumers trust the brands that they know and likely would embrace brand name gTLDs without much hesitation:

14 percent of respondents navigating to a media site would prefer a brand name site, such as .CBS compared to 9 percent who preferred a generic such as .NEWS
17 percent of respondents shopping online would navigate to a brand name site compared to 9 percent who preferred a generic gTLD, such as .SHOES
15 percent of those banking online said they would prefer a brand gTLD, for example .CITI compared to 10 percent who opted for a generic site such as .LOANS

Brand owners — whether they applied for a new gTLD or not — can draw valuable lessons from FairWinds' research. Internet users indicated they expect to see their favorite brands adopt and use new gTLDs and that poor online user experiences will lead to missed revenue and opportunities for brand owners.

The better brand owners understand consumer behavior, the better prepared they will be to optimize use of their new gTLDs and remain competitive in the new Internet space.

The poll, conducted by InsightsNow! in April, questioned Internet users between the ages of 13 and 64. This is the second in a series of polls FairWinds is undertaking to gauge the impact of new gTLDs on consumers and businesses. The first FairWinds market research survey may be read here.

Written by Josh Bourne, Managing Partner at FairWinds Partners

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Domain Names, Top-Level Domains

The Cable Show Experience

2013-06-13T09:20:00-08:00

National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) Cable Show Washington, DC – June 10-12, 2013 (Photo: NCTA)I had the opportunity this week to take part in the National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) Cable Show — a traveling show in the U.S. that took place in Washington, DC, this year. The Cable Show is one of the largest events of the cable industry and this year was also my first time attending.

In the U.S. capital, it's difficult to avoid the topic of politics and its effects on the telecommunications industry. This was especially true during The Cable Show in light of recent news around communication monitoring, wiretapping, and how far it's going. But while this was a hot topic on the minds of attendees, politics for the most part was left at the door when it came to the exhibition floor.

As expected, a wide variety of exhibitors brought their best efforts to The Cable Show, displaying tools, software, services, and content. From mega-sized displays showcasing the latest TV shows and series; to rubbing shoulders with famous actors, business celebrities, and reality TV cast members; to viewing the very precise equipment and software that allows all this to come true — this show had it all.

The number of companies in attendance and their technology categories are useful in identifying trends for where the cable industry is heading:

Content was definitely at the core of the show, with 81 exhibitors involved in cable programming
Multi-screen content and HDTV were also well represented, with more than 40 vendors each
IPTV followed closely, with 37 exhibiting companies
Mobile apps and cloud services also had a presence

This focus on content and new strategies indicates a disruption in traditional cable TV, the strengthening of over-the-top (OTT) services, and the adoption of IPTV. It also raises the question — how long before Quadrature Amplitude Modulation (QAM), which is the format used by cable providers to transmit content, is replaced by IP?

Even with all this on site, two displays placed strategically side-by-side caught my attention. One was called the "Observatory" and celebrated the history and evolution of the cable industry and its technologies. The other, "Imagine Park," looked at the path ahead of us. What is the cable industry working on to stay relevant, when competition is continuously increasing?

Technology is all about evolution and creating solutions to problems. That said, one cannot simply focus on the future and ignore the past, which is why these displays were so effective. It's good to see that someone is thinking of that — celebrating how far the cable industry has come and how far it will continue to take us.

Written by Rick Oliva, Sales Support Engineering Manager at Incognito Software

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, IPTV, Telecom

So, Your gTLD was Approved - What Now?

2013-06-13T08:29:00-08:00

The world is just waking up to the fact that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has been accepting applications for new generic top-level domains, or gTLDs, since 2012 and that hundreds of these gTLDs have already been approved through Initial Evaluation, with more being approved every week. It is expected that the new extensions will begin appearing online in the second half of 2013, and over 1,000 new extensions will likely be added to the Internet by 2014.

But if you're reading this, you've known this for a long time. In fact, you may have just gotten word that your application is approved.

Congratulations! Awesome news… but, what now?

You've put all of this time, money and effort into getting a valuable domain extension, but even if your application has been approved, there is still a lot to be done before you're able to go out and start marketing and selling. Consider taking this time to hone in on your strategy and prepare for a successful launch.

You're not alone if this is the first time you, or your company, has launched a TLD — after all, ICANN has controlled the Doman Name System very tightly until now. So how do you know what to expect next? Once you've gotten the "go ahead," how do you know where you should focus your efforts to launch with a big splash and finally begin generating revenue?

As a company that has helped launch TLDs in the past, and as a neutral observer in the new TLD process (i.e. we did not apply for any TLDs of our own), here are a few tips that Sedo has gained over the last ten plus years in the industry.

When developing a launch strategy, it's important to place significant emphasis on your registry's premium names. Obviously they're the most valuable, so selling a few good names up front has the potential to jump start revenue. In addition, getting a few premium names in the hands of end users that have aggressive marketing plans (or budgets) is free advertising for your registry and could drive general interest. With that in mind, here are five things you need to think about when preparing your premium sales and auction strategy.

1. Data Gets You Started; Not All Premium Lists Are Created Equal – Identifying your most valuable domain assets is one of the first things you should do. But, at the same time, as you create a list of premium addresses, think about which ones you may want to place on reserve for later sales. Put simply, you need to know which possible addresses will be worth more to you than the others. You have one chance to do this correctly — and you don't want to leave money on the table or let a potential "category killer" slip through the cracks because you didn't correctly identify the opportunities in front of you.

A historical view is important in order to accurately crunch the numbers. What has been popular in the past? What types of domains have consistently sold or increased in value? Which ones have decreased? How about international opportunities — have you considered what domains wouldn't be successful in North America, but might be of huge interest in other parts of the world? What non-English domains could be valuable with your TLD?

History, as they say, offers lessons, and without access to historical data to make your decisions you will already be at a disadvantage. You need to use every advantage possible to ensure that you get the best possible list, so you don't miss out on potential revenue.

2. Auction Everything? Or Develop a Sales Strategy? Auctions are a good way to generate revenues quickly. However, many times the highest sale prices don't come in an auction. This is because it can be difficult for the 'perfect' buyer(s) to know that the auction is happening at X date. Many registries are neglecting the idea of using a longer term approach, including sales distribution channels and premium domain marketplaces.

It is important to understand, however, that there is no "one-size-fits-all" way to sell domains under your TLD:

• It's important to actively look for strategic deals early on, via the Brokerage and Business Development of your premium domains. Your focus should be finding end users that will develop, use and actively market their company or product under your new TLD.

• All new TLDs must hold a Sunrise period to give trademark holders an opportunity to pre-register related names. Sunrise is a key opportunity for early cash flow, but you need to properly drive awareness of when the period will begin and end and identify potential leads.

• A Landrush period is another excellent way to secure cash flow for your extension. It's customary to hold a Landrush so anyone can submit an application to get early access to the domains they really want. But did you know a Landrush is not something that's mandated by ICANN? It's optional, so it's worth carefully considering the benefits (quick cash flow, free publicity from usage of the domain) and drawbacks (potential for domain value to increase if extension is successful) to your new registry. Competition and conflict auctions give some high demand domains a strong chance at very high values (higher than you may ever have expected).

• Auctions are a key element to your success as well – and to auction domains successfully, you need to have global reach, a way to weed out fraudulent bidders and the international expertise to make sure the widest audience possible can bid. A good thing to remember is that there is a huge appetite for English language domains outside of North America, so make sure you can reach those buyers globally!

3. Take Your Marketing Strategy Seriously – Businesses today understand the power of a good domain name. Whether a premium "category killer" name or a company's own proper name, the right domain makes a company easy to find and helps it stand out in searches. Businesses will want to get in on names they may have had to pay six- or seven-figure sums for as a .com, or names that line up with their existing or planned products. This is why you need to start marketing now. Where is my market and how can I reach it?

The first step is developing a consistent message that will connect with your most valuable audience, be it a specific audience like skiers (.ski, for example), or a general one like business technology users (.web, for example). When it comes to executing, stick to that message across all channels to really drive it home. You need to take marketing seriously and pick your strategy wisely — and early.

4. Choose Your Registrar Distribution Strategy – Target registrars that make the most sense for distributing your new gTLD. You want to look for global reach and areas of activity — in short, who do I need to work with to reach the greatest amount of potential buyers in the shortest amount of time?

Registrars may actually come into the picture when you're considering premium name sales too. Many registrars are not set up to sell premium domains, while others have joined premium networks that have been in place for years, enabling end users that are looking for a "regularly priced" name to also see an option for a premium name that may suit them better. When choosing registrars and premium sales partners, it's worth looking into synergies between the two so all your domains get the best visibility in front of potential buyers. When doing so, make sure the partner you choose will act as a true partner, helping with launch, promotion and everything in between.

5. Data Keeps Your TLD Strong; Build Valuable Market Data and Harness it Moving Forward – Data is key, which is why it bookends a solid strategy. If you're successful with the above and have a solid sales and marketing strategy in place, then this will be a repeatable process and you'll want to track sales and customer data. It's important to retain and refine your data to help you grow as the TLD grows. A strong partner can help you to do this and re-market or continue marketing to the same groups in a way that keeps your premium domain strategy fresh.

The planning phase that you enter as soon as your application makes it through initial evaluation — if not sooner — is a critical period that will ultimately determine whether your new gTLD is a success or a failure. There are several steps that need to be undertaken correctly, from identifying which domains will be the most valuable under your new extension, to making sure that you find the audience most likely to purchase them. Taking the extra time to consider these steps carefully and begin executing on them immediately will give you a lasting advantage over other new gTLDs as they are approved and released.

Written by Kathy Nielsen, Head of Business Development, New gTLDs, Sedo

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Top-Level Domains

Broadband Meets Content at ANGA COM 2013

2013-06-12T13:31:00-08:00

AGNA COM Exhibition and Congress 4-6 June 2013, Cologne/Germany (Photo: AGNA COM)The Association of German Cable Operators' annual trade show has a new name. Europe's principal cable industry exhibition and convention was previously known as ANGA Cable, but last week (June 4-6, 2013), the show launched as ANGA COM. This new title — an abbreviation of communication — highlights how the convergence of technologies and networks is blurring the line between cable operators and other communication and entertainment services providers.

This new focus was reflected in the many service-oriented sessions centered on broadband, video, and all forms of entertainment delivered to consumers via various modes of access technologies. The annual convention in Cologne, Germany, brought together broadband, cable, and satellite operators, as well as their vendor partners. For the first time, major telcos Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone were invited and took to the stage to discuss trends, technologies, and how broadband is working to deliver content.

Germany is a major player in the cable industry and holds the lion's share of cable homes in Europe, with 18 million households subscribed to cable. Digital transition has helped drive cable adoption, and today, about half of all German cable households use digital TV packages offered by broadband cable, especially HDTV, VOD, DVR, and TV sets with integrated digital receivers. The German cable industry is poised for further growth, with Europe's largest cable operator, UPC — which operates cable services in 13 European countries — citing Germany as its "growth engine" and the company's CEO stating that some 40% of the UPC's growth comes from this country.

Of course, cable faces fierce competition in Europe, as it does elsewhere in the world. Recent research from IHS Screen Digest shows that during the five-year period from 2007 to 2012, European cable operators lost 1.4 million subscribers. So where did the growth come from and why did convention attendees seem so upbeat about cable's future, as evidenced by the show's record number of 16,000 attendees and 450 exhibiting companies? The fact is, it's not all doom and gloom. The same IHS research shows that cable actually gained 17.8 million more revenue-generating units (RGU) during the same five year period that it lost subscribers. RGU drives total revenue growth and is a positive sign for an industry facing fierce competition from traditional telcos, satellite, and OTT players.

So, what's fueling this RGU growth? There are a few factors at play here:

Digital transition
"Triple-play" or bundling of data, voice, and video
The multitude of new, value-added services

Value-added services have been made possible by the growing number of available consumer devices — tablets, laptops, PCs, and smartphones. These new services include home security and Wi-Fi, both in and around the house, as well as in public areas. Multi-screen services are also enabling cable operators to offer OTT-like, proprietary video services.

These offerings are becoming essential as consumers demand easy access to content as they move from room to room inside the home, as well as outside in public places such as stadiums, theaters, and shopping malls. It's not surprising, then, that multiscreen was a hot topic at ANGA COM, along with the usual topics of fiber expansion, IPTV, video on demand, smart TV, software solutions, and consumer electronics.

For an uninterrupted multi-screen experience, consumers need to be able to easily access content across devices, and device provisioning and service activation should occur seamlessly. This enables customers to enjoy the same quality of experience across multiple devices, both inside and outside the home. At the same time, service providers need to be aware of security concerns associated with the multi-device consumption of content — particularly security of content and consumer privacy.

Operators are also turning their attention to the monetization of services associated with multiple-device use. Clearly, the multi-screen experience is changing the dynamics of customer services and technical support. Consumers want ease of use and an uninterrupted experience, where they can simply order a service that is then provisioned so quickly that they don't even realized it's happened, and everything works without any issues. For operators, this type of experience requires network reliability and for customer service representatives (CSRs) to have all the necessary information and tools at their fingertips for fast issue resolution.

The demand for quality of experience puts pressure on service providers to understand subscriber usage behavior patterns. Solutions from vendors like Incognito offer operators ways to construct meaning out of the massive amount of bandwidth utilization data that they accumulate, and enable them to use that intelligence to improve the user experience.

ANGA COM provided an excellent opportunity for us to catch up with customers and partners, and strategize ways to take advantage of new technologies to provide a better service for customers and their subscribers. Bring on ANGA COM 2014!

Written by Will Yan, Senior VP, Worldwide Sales at Incognito Software

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Broadband, IPTV

Intelligence Exchange in a Free Market Economy

2013-06-11T10:09:00-08:00

Speaking on behalf of myself,

Dear U.S. Government:

I was reading some interesting articles the past few weeks:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/15/...
http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/...
http://www.securityweek.com/dhs-share-zero-day-intelligence
http://www.csoonline.com/article/733557/...
http://www.dhs.gov/enhanced-cybersecurity-services

and with the understanding that:

my livelihood right now depends on building tools that facilitate data-sharing and trust relationships
I'm sure there are misunderstandings in the reporting
this process requires some level of sustainability to be effective
this process requires some extra care with respect to sensitivity, legal and ethical constraints (not to mention cultural implications)

The USG is causing a huge disservice to protection and defense in the private sector (80%+ of CIKR¹) by creating an ECS that contains monetary incentive for a few large players to exert undue control over the availability, distribution, and cost of security threat indicators. While there may be a legitimate need for the federal government to share classified indicators to entities for protecting critical infrastructure, the over-classification of indicator data is a widely recognized issue that presents real problems for the private sector. ECS as currently construed creates monetary incentives for continued or even expanded over-classification.

The perception of a paid broker-dealer relationship with the USG sets a very unsettling precedent. Private citizens are already concerned about the relationship between the intelligence community and the private sector and these types of stories do very little to help clear the FUD. Compounded with the lack of transparency about what constitutes classified data, how it protects us and the relationship agreement between the entities sharing the data, this type of program could do much more economic harm than good. Many private sector orgs have indicators that the USG would find useful, but have given up trying to share them. The current flow suggests that we would send data thru competitors to get it to the USG, would never scale well in a free-market based economy.

The network

As with the "PDF sharing programs" of the past (err… present?), it also appears to be a system that adds cost to the intelligence network with the addition of each new node, rather than reducing it. High barriers to entry for any network reduce that network's effectiveness, and in a free market economy, eventually isolates those nodes from the greater network where the barrier to entry is lower. I get it, I understand why certain things are happening, I'm arguing that it's NOT OK. My intent is to widen the dialog a bit to see where we, as an operational community can step up and start doing a better job of leading, instead of allowing the divide between the USG community and the operational community to widen.

Before tackling ECS, the USG should strongly address the over-classification issue. It should establish efficient and effective means for engaging with existing operational information exchanges that are working now in the private sector. Most useful indicators to the non-govt community are not classified, and in my understanding, much of the classified intel is classified due to its "source, method and/or attribution", not the actual threat data. Finding a way to mark the data appropriately and then share it directly with a (closed) community will be a good thing. Washing the data thru a classified pipe does nothing to make the data more useful to the non-classified community. While the exchange of classified intelligence problem still exists, figuring out how to scale it to the unclassified environment will more aggressively help solve scaling it in an classified environment (more players can help solve similar problems across many spaces).

Economics

In my opinion, we should be leveraging existing, trusted security operational fabrics such as the ISC (SIE), TeamCymru, Shadowserver, Arbor networks, Internet Identity, the APWG and the ISAC's (to name a few, based on the most recent industry wide effort, DNS Changer Botnet takedown) that have facilitated great public/private partnerships in the past². Leveraging this existing framework for intelligence exchange would have been a much more valuable investment than what this is perceived to be, or what development has taken place thus far. There are also a number of ISP's² who actively pursue a better, more cleaner internet that have proven to be great partners in this game.

The tools and frameworks for this type of intelligence sharing have existing semi-developed (workable) economic models and more importantly, they consist of those who actually run the internet (ISP's, DNS providers, malware researchers, a/v companies, large internet properties, financial institutions, international law enforcement, policy advisors (ICANN/ARIN/etc) and other sector based CSIRTS). These operational communities have already taken down botnets, put people in jail and in some estimates, saved the economy billions of dollars at a global scale over the last few years. The process has proven to work, scale, and is rapidly maturing.

It is my opinion that a subsection of USG agencies are falling behind in the realm of intelligence exchange with the operations space. The rest of the world is moving towards the full-scale automation of this exchange across political boundaries and entire cultures. All this while finding unique and interesting, market friendly ways of reducing our "exchange costs". As a nation, we're at a crossroads. There are operational folks from within the USG that actively participate in these communities help make the Internet safe and "do the right thing". There are elements within the USG (mainly on the "national security" side) that appear to operate in isolation.

The argument I'm sure to hear is "well, wait, we're working on that!". In my opinion, whatever "that" is, is mostly a re-invention of existing technologies and frameworks that will mostly only ever be adopted by those that get funding in the .gov space to implement it, which still isolates the USG from what the rest of the operational community is already doing. Competition of ideas is good, it encourages innovation and all, but it's something we should be taking a hard look at and asking if it's the best use of our limited resources…

I've been pitched my own ideas from enough belt-way startups that it almost makes me want to scream… almost.

The bigger picture

My concern is that, it's becoming evident that the decision makers for some agencies are making choices that could ultimately isolate their operational folks from the rest of the operational world (whether in terms of principal, or in terms of trust, or fear of legal action, etc). As private industry progresses and parts of the USG fall further and further behind, this can only hurt us as a nation, and as a culture.

My suggestions:

fix the classification problem with respect to non-attribution type threat intelligence
parallel to the the classified sharing projects, DHS should be working more aggressively with the rest of industry with as much unclassified intel as possible, figure out where we can bridge the gaps
encourage participation with things like the NCFTA, SIE, TeamCymru, ArborNetworks, Shadowserver, Internet Identity, the APWG and the ISAC's when working to share intelligence, not through private 3rd parties whom have a noted history as the industry standards for operationalizing and disseminating threat intelligence.
encourage long term participation with the FBI at NCFTA, take lessons learned from their adventures in intelligence sharing and locking up bad-guys.

If you want to be more successful (reads: we want you to be more successful), don't put so much emphasis on standards or how to disseminate classified information, and more on how to aggressively share unclassified intel with your constituents. We have lots of data we'd like to share with you to help protect our national investments. If the USG can get to that place (without invoking something like CISPA, which makes zero sense in a free market economy), the classified problem will solve itself, while only accounting for .001% of the data being shared (reads: will not be such a distraction).

I know some in the USG understand this and are fighting the good fight, but it's clear that not enough at the higher levels of government do (reads: have you written your elected officials lately?). When you combine this with haphazard style of reporting (terrible at best) and lack of a clear message (reads: translucency), these types of ill perceptions can run rampant and do more economic harm that good to the national process.

I personally will be pushing harder in the coming months in figuring out how we, as the operational community can do more to bring more of USG folks into the fold in terms of building out more sustainable operational relationships. Also, facilitating ways we can share classified intel more aggressively in the future. My goal, is that in the coming year or two, we can change the culture of over-classification while bridging the gap with the rest of the operational industry when it comes to protecting the internet. In order to protect ourselves from economic threats that vastly outweigh our individual business models, there has to be a better solution than the [perceived?] sale of classified intel.

Why we're re-inventing the wheel, why our federal government clamors for "the need to share intel with industry" but appears to not be listening, at-least to the right people, who have a good record of sharing highly sensitive intelligence globally, and operationalizing it ... is beyond me. Washington is a very large echo chamber, and is such a large economy unto itself, that sometimes I feel like the process can sometimes drown out what's going on just a few miles down the road.

Sincerely,

Wes.

¹ http://www.dhs.gov/blog/2009/11/19/cikr

²
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/november/malware_110911/...
http://www.dcwg.org/isps/
http://www.dcwg.org/detect/
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/technology/...
http://krebsonsecurity.com/2012/05/microsoft-to-botmasters-abandon-your-inboxes/...

³ As denoted at the bottom of http://www.dcwg.org/detect:

• AT&T
• Bell Canada
• Century Link
• Comcast
• COX
• Shaw Communications
• Telecom Italia
• Time Warner
• Verizon

Written by Wes Young, Security Architect

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Cybercrime, Security

CAN SPAM Issues in Zoobuh V. Better Broadcasting

2013-06-11T08:26:01-08:00

Last week a Utah court issued a default judgement under CAN SPAM in Zoobuh vs. Better Broadcasting et al. I think the court's opinion is pretty good, even though some observers such as very perceptive Venkat Balasubramani have reservations.

The main issues were whether Zoobuh had standing to sue, whether the defendants domain names were obtained fraudulently, and whether the opt-out notice in the spam was adequate.

Standing

The standing issue was easy. Zoobuh is a small ISP with 35,000 paying customers who spends a lot of time and money doing spam filtering, using their own equipment. That easily met the standard of being adversely affected by spam, since none of the filtering would be needed if it weren't for all the spam.

Domain names

CAN SPAM prohibits "header information that is materially false or materially misleading." The spammer used proxy registrations at eNom and Moniker. The first subquestion was whether using proxies is materially false. Under the California state anti-spam law, courts have held that they are, and this court found that the California law is similar enough to CAN SPAM that proxies are materially false under CAN SPAM, too.

Venkat has reservations, since in principle one can contact the domain owner through the proxy service, but I'm with the court here. For one thing, even the best of proxies take a while to respond, and many are in fact black holes, so the proxy does not give you useful information about the mail at the time you get or read the mail. More importantly, businesses that advertise are by nature dealing with the public, and there in no plausible reason for a legitimate business to hide from its customers. (Yes, if they put real info in their WHOIS they'll get more spam. Deal with it.)

CAN SPAM also forbids using a "domain name, ... the access to which for purposes of initiating the message was obtained by means of false or fraudulent pretenses or representations." Both eNom and Moniker's terms of service forbid spamming, so the court found that the senders obtained the addresses fraudulently, hence another violation. Venkat finds this to be circular reasoning, arguing that the court found the spam to be illegal because the spam was illegal, but in this case, he's just wrong.

Despite what some bulk mailers might wish, CAN SPAM does not define what spam is, and mail that is entirely legal under CAN SPAM can still be spam. eNom's registration agreement forbids "if your use of the Services involves us in a violation of any third party's rights or acceptable use policies, including but not limited to the transmission of unsolicited email". Moniker's registration agreement prohibits "the uploading, posting or other transmittal of any unsolicited or unauthorized advertising, promotional materials, "junk mail," "spam," "chain letters," "pyramid schemes," or any other form of solicitation, as determined by Moniker in its sole discretion." There is no question that the defendants sent "unsolicited email" or "unsolicited advertising" and there's nothing circular about the court finding that the defendants did what they had agreed they wouldn't.

Opt out notice

The third issue is whether the spam contained the CAN SPAM required opt out notices. There were no notices in the messages themselves, but only links to remote images that presumably were supposed to contain the required text. As the court said:

The question presented to the Court in this case is whether Required Content provided in the emails through a remotely hosted image is clearly and conspicuously displayed. This Court determines that it is not.

One issue is that many mail programs do not display external images for security reasons or (as in my favorite program Alpine) because they don't display images at all. The court cites multiple security recommendations against rendering remote images, and concludes that there's nothing clear or conspicuous about a remote image. Even worse, the plaintiffs said that the remote images weren't even there if they tried to fetch them,

The real point here is that the senders are playing games. There is no valid reason to put the opt-out notice anywhere other than text in the body of the message, which is where every legitimate sender puts it.

Summary

Overall, I am pleased at this decision. The court understood the issues, was careful not to rely on any of the plaintiff's claims that couldn't be verified (remember that the defendant defaulted, so there was no counter argument) and the conclusions about proxy registrations and remote images will be useful precedents in the next case against spammers who use the same silly tricks.

Written by John Levine, Author, Consultant & Speaker

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Law, Spam

World IPv6 Day: A Year in the Life

2013-06-10T10:58:00-08:00

On the 6th June 2012 we held the World IPv6 Launch Day. Unlike the IPv6 event of the previous year, World IPv6 Day, where the aim was to switch on IPv6 on as many major online services as possible, the 2012 program was somewhat different. This time the effort was intended to encourage service providers to switch on IPv6 and leave it on.

What has happened since then? Have we switched it on and left it on? What has changed in the world of IPv6 over the past 12 months? Who's been doing all the work? In this article I'd like to undertake a comparison of then and now snapshots of IPv6 deployment data. For this exercise I'm using the data set that we have collected using a broad based sampling of Internet users through online-advertisements.

The daily snapshots of the V6 measurement can be found here, and the breakdown of this data by economy and by provider can be found on this page and here.

First a look at the big number picture

A year ago, in June 2012, we measured some 0.60% of the world's Internet user population that was able to successfully retrieve a dual stack web object using IPv6. At the time the estimate of the total user population of the Internet was some 2.24B users, so 0.60% equates to 13.5M users who were using a working IPv6 protocol stack, and preferring to use IPv6 when given a choice of protocols by a dual stack service.

What does it look like one year later?

In June 2013 We see a rolling average of 1.29% of the Internet's users who are preferring to use IPv6 when presented with a dual stack object to fetch. With a current estimate of Internet user population of an estimated 2.43B users, that figure equates to a count of 29.3 M users.

In one sense a growth of 0.60% to 1.29% of the Internet sounds like very small steps, but at the same time a growth in users from 13.5M to 29.3M users is indeed a significant achievement in 12 months, and is easily doubling the extent of IPv6 use in this period.

The tracking of this metric across the past 12 months is shown in Figure 1. There is some indication that there was a significant exercise in the deployment of IPv6 in June 2012 at the time of the World IPv6 Launch event, but also some evidence of shutting IPv6 down in some parts of the network in the months thereafter. There was another cycle of growth and decline in the period November 2012 to March 2013, and another period of further growth from March 2013 until the present day.

Figure 1 – IPv6 Deployment: June 2012 - June 2013 (Click to Enlarge)

Where did IPv6 happen?

One way to look at IPv6 deployment is by looking at IPv6 deployment efforts on a country-by-country basis. Which countries were leading the IPv6 deployment effort twelve months ago?

Table 1 contains the list of the top 20 countries, ordered by percentage of the Internet user population who are showing that they can use IPv6, from June 2012.

2012 Rank	Economy	% of Internet Users who use IPv6	# of IPv6 Users
1	Romania	7.40%	641,389
2	France	4.03%	2,013,920
3	Luxembourg	2.59%	12,049
4	Japan	1.75%	1,766,799
5	Slovenia	1.07%	15,175
6	United States of America	1.01%	2,500,684
7	China	1.01%	5,209,030
8	Croatia	0.85%	22,551
9	Switzerland	0.80%	51,575
10	Lithuania	0.66%	13,845
11	Czech Republic	0.55%	39,694
12	Norway	0.51%	23,333
13	Slovakia	0.44%	19,112
14	Russian Federation	0.39%	238,576
15	Germany	0.32%	217,494
16	Hungary	0.31%	19,896
17	Portugal	0.30%	16,406
18	Netherlands	0.27%	40,870
19	Australia	0.25%	49,425
20	Taiwan	0.24%	38,843

Table 1 – IPv6 Deployment, ranked by % of national users: June 2012

That's an interesting list. There are some economies in this list that were also rapid early adopters of the internet, such as the United States, Japan, Norway and the Netherlands, and also some of the larger economies, such as the France, Japan, the United States, the Russian Federation and Germany, who are members of the G8 (Italy, the United Kingdom and Canada are the other members of the G8). Some 15 of the 20 are European economies, and neither South America or Africa are represented on this list at all.

Also surprising is the top economy at the time. The efforts in Romania earlier in 2012 to provision their fixed and mobile service network with IPv6 produced an immediate effect, and by June 2012 some 7.4% of their user base was using IPv6, after commencing the public deployment of IPv6 in late April 2012.

Interestingly, in percentage terms, the numbers trail off quickly, so that only 10 countries were above the global average, and by the time you get to the 20th ranked economy in this list, Taiwan, the level of IPv6 deployment is rate was some 0.24%. So the overall picture could be described as "piecemeal", with some significant efforts in just a small number of countries to deploy IPv6.

There is another way to look at this 2012 list, which is to perform the same ranking of economies by the population of IPv6 users, as shown in the following table:

2012 Rank	Economy	% of Internet Users who use IPv6	# of IPv6 Users
1	China	1.01%	5,209,030
2	United States of America	1.01%	2,500,684
3	France	4.03%	2,013,920
4	Japan	1.75%	1,766,799
5	Romania	7.40%	641,389
6	Russian Federation	0.39%	238,576
7	Germany	0.32%	217,494
8	Indonesia	0.17%	94,543
9	Switzerland	0.80%	51,575
10	Australia	0.25%	49,425
11	United Kingdom	0.08%	41,461
12	Netherlands	0.27%	40,870
13	Czech Republic	0.55%	39,694
14	Taiwan	0.24%	38,843
15	India	0.03%	36,881
16	Ukraine	0.21%	31,933
17	Malaysia	0.18%	30,034
18	Thailand	0.15%	27,617
19	Brazil	0.03%	26,051
20	Nigeria	0.06%	25,149

Table 2 – IPv6 Deployment, ranked by IPv6 users: June 2012

Of the 13.5M IPv6 users a year ago, some 5M were located in China, and between the four economies of China, the United States, France and Japan we can account for 85% of the total estimated IPv6 users of June 2012. This observation illustrates a somewhat fragmented approach to IPv6 adoption in mid 2012, where Internet Service Providers in small number of economies had made some significant levels of progress, while in other economies the picture of IPv6 deployment ranged from experimental or highly specialised programs through to simply non-existent.

There are a number of interesting entrants in this economy list, including India, Brazil and Nigeria, which point to some levels of experimentation by some service providers in the provision of IPv6 services in other economies. Hopefully this experimentation was a precursor to subsequent wider deployment programs.

Was this this case? What has happened in the ensuing year?

Here are the same two tables, using IPv6 use data as of June 2013, showing a comparable perspective of IPv6 deployment as it stands today.

2013 Rank	Economy	% of Internet Users who use IPv6	# of IPv6 Users
1	Romania	10.84%	1,053,237
2	Switzerland	10.72%	700,777
3	Luxembourg	6.96%	32,535
4	France	5.46%	2,824,465
5	Belgium	4.17%	339,651
6	Japan	4.13%	4,137,476
7	Germany	3.24%	2,212,062
8	United States of America	2.72%	6,768,264
9	Peru	2.42%	273,370
10	Czech Republic	2.12%	157,203
11	Singapore	1.58%	54,060
12	Norway	1.21%	53,677
13	Slovenia	0.92%	13,230
14	China	0.90%	4,651,953
15	Greece	0.78%	44,572
16	Portugal	0.76%	45,408
17	Taiwan	0.72%	120,180
18	Netherlands	0.70%	109,425
19	Australia	0.69%	121,256
20	Slovakia	0.52%	21,169

Table 3 – IPv6 Deployment, ranked by % of national users: June 2013

This table clearly shows that Switzerland, Belgium, Germany, Peru, the Czech Republic and Greece have made a significant change in their level of IPv6 deployment in the last 12 months. We now see 7 of the 20 economies as being non-European economies. Eleven of these economies have IPv6 usage rates above the global average of 1.3%, an increase of 2 since 2012.

We can plot these numbers onto a world map, as shown in Figure 2, using a colouring scale from 0 to 4% of each national Internet user population that is capable of using IPv6.

Figure 2 – IPv6 Deployment, ranked by % of national users: June 2013 (Click to Enlarge)

The following table shows the estimated IPv6 user population per economy in June 2013.

2013 Rank	Economy	% of Internet Users who use IPv6	# of IPv6 Users
1	United States of America	2.72%	6,768,264
2	China	0.90%	4,651,953
3	Japan	4.13%	4,137,476
4	France	5.46%	2,824,465
5	Germany	3.24%	2,212,062
6	Romania	10.84%	1,053,237
7	Switzerland	10.72%	700,777
8	Belgium	4.17%	339,651
9	Peru	2.42%	273,370
10	Czech Republic	2.12%	157,203
11	Russian Federation	0.21%	143,677
12	United Kingdom	0.27%	135,076
13	Australia	0.69%	121,256
14	Taiwan	0.72%	120,180
15	Netherlands	0.70%	109,425
16	Canada	0.19%	55,492
17	Singapore	1.58%	54,060
18	Norway	1.21%	53,677
19	Portugal	0.76%	45,408
20	Greece	0.78%	44,572

Table 4 – IPv6 Deployment, ranked by IPv6 users: June 2013

Again the distribution of IPv6 users appears to be somewhat is skewed, in so far as just 5 economies account for 85% of the total population of IPv6 users in June 2013, which is the same four economies of United States, Japan, France, and China, but this time joined by Germany. Unfortunately we no longer see India, Brazil or Nigeria in this top 20 economy list. The top 20 economies cut off has risen from 38,000 IPv6 users per economy to 44,000, so unless there was some form of continued expansion of IPv6 deployment (such as the United Kingdom's rise from 41,000 users in mid-2012 to 135,000 in mid-2013), the economies at the lower end of the top 20 in 2012 were likely to slip off the top 20 list if there was no continued expansion of their IPv6 program through the year.

In percentage terms what has changed over the past 12 months? The following table compares the values from mid 2012 to the values in mid-2013. The first table lists the top 20 economies who have lifted the percentage of their users who are capable of using IPv6, ranked by the rate of change of this percentage value.

2013 Rank	Economy	Diff (%)	Diff IPv6 User Count
1	Switzerland	+9.92%	+649,202
2	Luxembourg	+4.37%	+20,486
3	Belgium	+4.07%	+331,153
4	Romania	+3.44%	+411,848
5	Germany	+2.92%	+1,994,568
6	Peru	+2.41%	+272,327
7	Japan	+2.38%	+2,370,677
8	United States of America	+1.71%	+4,267,580
9	Czech Republic	+1.57%	+117,509
10	Singapore	+1.43%	+48,524
11	France	+1.43%	+810,545
12	Greece	+0.70%	+40,530
13	Norway	+0.70%	+30,344
14	Taiwan	+0.48%	+81,337
15	Portugal	+0.46%	+29,002
16	Australia	+0.44%	+71,831
17	Netherlands	+0.43%	+68,555
18	New Zealand	+0.35%	+13,174
19	South Africa	+0.33%	+34,022
20	Bosnia and Herzegovina	+0.32%	+8,914

Table 5 – IPv6 Deployment, ranked by % of national users: change from June 2012 to June 2013

The largest change was Switzerland, where a further 10% of their users were able to use IPv6, and significant efforts were visible in Luxembourg, Belgium, Romania, Germany, Peru and Japan in terms of the ratio of IPv6 users in each economy.

In terms of user population who are IPv6-capable, the table of economies who deployed IPv6 over the largest set of users is provided in Table 6.

Obviously one economy where there has been substantial effort in the past 12 months has been the United States, where some additional 4.2M users are now using IPv6 in just 12 months. That is an extremely impressive effort. Similarly, there has been a significant effort in Japan and Germany.

It also should be noted that as or April 2011 the further provision of IPv4 addresses through the conventional Regional Internet Registry allocation system had ceased for the Asia Pacific region, so a case could be made that the efforts this region, including those of Japan, Tawian, Australia and New Zealand were spurred on by this event. Similarly the Regional Internet Registry serving Europe and the Middle East also exhausted its pools of available IPv4 addresses in September 2012, which may have some bearing on the IPv6 efforts in Germany, France, Switzerland Romania. Belgium, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Greece, Norway, Portugal and Luxembourg. However, IPv4 addresses are still available for service providers in North and South America and in Africa, which makes the efforts in the United States all the more laudable for their prudence.

2013 Rank	Economy	Diff (%)	Diff IPv6 User Count
1	United States of America	+1.71%	+4,267,580
2	Japan	+2.38%	+2,370,677
3	Germany	+2.92%	+1,994,568
4	France	+1.43%	+810,545
5	Switzerland	+9.92%	+649,202
6	Romania	+3.44%	+411,848
7	Belgium	+4.07%	+331,153
8	Peru	+2.41%	+272,327
9	Czech Republic	+1.57%	+117,509
10	United Kingdom	+0.19%	+93,615
11	Taiwan	+0.48%	+81,337
12	Australia	+0.44%	+71,831
13	Netherlands	+0.43%	+68,555
14	Singapore	+1.43%	+48,524
15	Greece	+0.70%	+40,530
16	South Africa	+0.33%	+34,022
17	Canada	+0.11%	+33,104
18	Norway	+0.70%	+30,344
19	Portugal	+0.46%	+29,002
20	Luxembourg	+4.37%	+20,486

Table 6 – IPv6 Deployment, ranked by national users: change from June 2012 to June 2013

Also it would appear that Europe remains a strong focal point for IPv6 deployment at present, while the deployment in other regions is far more piecemeal. Although I must mention Peru and South Africa in this context as two highly notable exceptions to this general observation.

And where is China in June 2013? What we saw in our measurements is a relative decline in the population of users who are seen to use IPv6 from June 2012 to June 2013. This decline was estimated to be some 557,000 users. One of the more variable factors for China is the role of the national firewall structure, and its capabilities with respect to IPv6, and as the IPv6 measurement system was hosted outside of China, the measurements relating to Chinese use of IPv6 are dependant on the behaviour of this filter structure. It is possible that the firewall has different behaviours for IPv6, and equally possible that these behaviours have altered over time. It could well be that an internal view of China would have a different result than that which we see from outside the country.

It is also possible to provide some insights as to which ISPs are undertaking this activity, by tracing the originating Autonomous System number of the user's IP address who have provided capability data to this measurement exercise. The following is a list of some of the larger Service Providers that are showing some significant levels of activity in the past 12 months with IPv6. The list is by no means exhaustive, but it is intended to highlight those providers that have been seen to make significant changes in their IPv6 capability measurements over the past 12 months in the economies listed in Table 6. The percentage figures provided in the list are the percentage of clients whose IP address is originated by these AS's who are able to use IPv6 in June 2012 and in June 2013.

2Economy	AS Number	AS Name	2012 IPv6 (%)	2013 IPv6 (%)
United States of America
	AS6939	Hurricane Electric	29%	37%
	AS22394	Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon Wireless	6%	20%
	AS7018	AT&T Services	6%	15%
	AS3561	Savvis	0.7%	5%
	AS7922	Comcast	0.5%	2.7%
Japan
	AS2516	KDDI	16%	27%
	AS18126	Chubu Telecommunications	0.2%	23%
	AS17676	Softbank	0.5%	4%
Germany
	AS3320	Deutsche Telekom AG	0.01%	4.9%
	AS31334	Kabel Deutschland	1.18%	7.4%
	AS29562	Kabel BW GmbH	0%	10.2%
France
	AS12322	Free SAS	19%	22%
Switzerland
	AS67722	Swisscomm	0.2%	23%
	AS559	Switch; Swiss Education and Research Network	11%	18%
Romania
	AS8708	RCS & RDS SA	11.5%	24.7%
Belgium
	AS12392	Brutele SC	0%	33%
	AS2611	BELNET	2.6%	22.4%
Peru
	AS6147	Telefonica del Peru SA	0%	3.1%
Czech Republic
	AS2852	CESNET z.s.p.o.	20%	27%
	AS5610	Telefonica Czech Republic; a.s.	0%	3.5%
	AS51154	Internethome; s.r.o.	0%	2.8%
United Kingdom
	AS786	The JNT Association (JANET()	51%	68%
	AS13213	UK2 Ltd	0%	23%
Taiwan
	AS9264	Academic Sinica Network	0%	21%
	AS1659	Taiwan Academic Network	1.6%	7.6%
Australia
	AS7575	Australian Academic and Research Network	13%	21%
	AS4739	Internode	5%	11%
Netherlands
	AS3265	XS4ALL Internet BV	6%	27%
Singapore
	AS7472	Starhub Internet Pte Ltd	0%	13%
	AS4773	MobileOne Ltd.	0%	10%
Greece
	AS5408	Greek Research and Technology Network S.A	17%	19%
South Africa
	AS2018	TENET	0.3%	3%
Canada
	AS6453	TATA Communications	10%	13%
	AS22995	Xplornet Communications Inc	0.1%	9%
Norway
	AS224	Uninett; The Norwegian University and Research Network	16%	24%
	AS39832	Opera Software ASA	1.3%	100%
	AS57963	Lynet Internett	0%	56%
Portugal
	AS3243	PT Comunicacoes S.A.	0.01%	1.3%
Luxembourg
	AS6661	Entreprise des Postes et Telecommunications	4%	14%

Table 7 – IPv6 Deployment 2012-2013, Selected Autonomous System Measurements

What can we say about the state of IPv6 deployment one year after the commencement of the IPv6 Launch program?

The encouraging news is that overall numbers of IPv6-capable end users have doubled in 12 months. The measurements presented here support an estimate that today some 30 million Internet users who will use IPv6 when they can.

But this is not happening everywhere. Indeed, it is happening in a small number of countries, with still a relatively small set of service providers. What we appear to be seeing are concentrated areas of quite intense IPv6 activity. Many national academic and research networks have been highly active in supporting IPv6 deployment within their network. In the commercial networks we are seeing a number of major commercial network service operators, primarily in the United States, Japan, Germany, France, Switzerland and Romania, launch programs that integrate IPv6 services into their retail offerings. Whether this effort will provide sufficient impetus to motivate other providers to also commit to a similar program of IPv6 deployment is perhaps still an open issue today, but there is some evidence that there is now a building momentum and an emerging sense of inexorable progress with the deployment of IPv6.

We'll be continuing these measurements, and providing further insights as to where we can see IPv6 deployment underway across the Internet over the coming months. You can find daily reports of our measurements, including breakdowns by economy and tracking of progress with IPv6 for individual network service providers at http://labs.apnic.net/ipv6-measurement. If you would like to assist us in this measurement exercise we'd obviously like to hear from you&emdash;drop us a note to research@apnic.net.

Written by Geoff Huston, Author & Chief Scientist at APNIC

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: IPv6

First Private Auction for New Generic Top Level Domains Completed: 6 gTLDs Valued at Over $9 Million

2013-06-06T19:40:00-08:00

On behalf of Innovative Auctions, I am very happy to announce that we've successfully completed the first private auction for generic Top Level Domains (gTLDs). Our auction resolved contention for 6 gTLDs: .club, .college, .luxury, .photography, .red, and .vote. Auction winners will pay a total of $9.01 million. All other participants will be paid from these funds in exchange for withdrawing their application.

In ICANN's gTLD Applicant Guidebook, applicants for gTLD strings that are in contention are asked to resolve the contention among themselves. ICANN did not further specify how to do that. Our Applicant Auction, designed by my colleague Peter Cramton, has now become the most successful—and proven— alternative to tedious multilateral negotiations. The first withdrawal as a result of our auction (an application for .vote) has already been announced by ICANN.

All participants—winners and non-winners alike—indicated that they were pleased with the results of the first Applicant Auction. "The auction system was clear, user-friendly, and easy to navigate," said Monica Kirchner, applicant for Luxury partners. "The process worked smoothly, and we're very happy with the outcome."

"The Applicant Auction process is extremely well organized and we were very pleased with the results for us" said Colin Campbell, of .CLUB LLC. "It is a fair and efficient way to resolve contention and support the industry at the same time, with auction funds remaining among the domain contenders."

Top Level Design's CEO Ray King praised the auction's execution. "The applicant auction process was great, the software functioned without a hitch and all of the folks involved were responsive and highly professional. We look forward to participating in future auctions with Innovative Auctions."

In the last days leading up to the auction, many single-string and multiple-string participants have expressed an interest to participate in private auctions in general and the Applicant Auction in particular. Antony van Couvering's insightful article on CircleID a few days ago lays out the reasons why his company TLDH will participate in private auctions, and Colin Campbell, who announced earlier today that his company was the winner for .club, predicts that "many other parties who stood by the sidelines in this first auction will participate in future Applicant Auctions."

We'll hold additional auctions in the coming months, on a schedule and under terms mutually agreed upon by applicants, to resolve contention for many more of the rougly 200 gTLDs still pending. Please direct questions to info@applicantauction.com.

Written by Sheel Mohnot, Project Director, Applicant Auction

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Top-Level Domains

BIND 9 Users Should Upgrade to Most Recent Version to Avoid Remote Exploit

2013-06-06T11:02:01-08:00

A remote exploit in the BIND 9 DNS software could allow hackers to trigger excessive memory use, significantly impacting the performance of DNS and other services running on the same server.

BIND is the most popular open source DNS server, and is almost universally used on Unix-based servers, including those running on Linux, the BSD variants, Mac OS X, and proprietary Unix variants like Solaris.

A flaw was recently discovered in the regular expression implementation used by the libdns library, which is part of the BIND package. The flaw enables a remote user to cause the 'named' process to consume excessive amounts of memory, eventually crashing the process and tying up server resources to the point at which the server becomes unresponsive.

Affected BIND versions include all 9.7 releases, 9.8 releases up to 9.8.5b1, and 9.9 releases up to version 9.9.3b1. Only versions of BIND running on UNIX-based systems are affected; the Windows version is not exploitable in this way. The Internet Systems Consortium considers this to be a critical exploit.

All authoritative and recursive DNS servers running the affected versions are vulnerable.

The most recent versions of BIND in the 9.8 and 9.9 series have been updated to close the vulnerability by disabling regular expression support by default.

The 9.7 series is no longer supported and those using it should update to one of the more recent versions. However, if that is not desirable or possible there is a workaround, which involves recompiling the software without regex support. Regex support can be disabled by editing the BIND software's 'config.h' file and replacing the line that reads "#define HAVE_REGEX_H 1" with "#undef HAVE_REGEX_H" before running 'make clean' and then recompiling BIND as usual.

At the time of the initial report, ISC stated that there were no active exploits for the vulnerability, but a user reported that he was able to develop and implement a working exploit in ten minutes.

While most of the major DNS providers, including DNS Made Easy, have patched and updated their software, DNS software on servers around the Internet tends to lag behind the most recent version. Because BIND is so widely used and DNS is essential to the functioning of the Internet, knowledge of this vulnerability should be disseminated as widely as possible to encourage system administrators to update.

It should be noted that this exploit is totally unrelated to the widely publicized problems with the DNS that allows criminals to launch DNS amplification attacks. Those attacks depend on a misconfiguration of DNS servers rather than a flaw in the software. However, both problems can be used to create a denial of service attack. Open recursive DNS servers can be used to direct large amounts of data at their targets; effectively using DNS as a weapon to attack other parts of the Internet's infrastructure, whereas the regex vulnerability could be used to attack the DNS itself.

Written by Evan Daniels

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: DNS, DNS Security

A Look Ahead to Fedora 19

2013-06-06T11:00:01-08:00

Fedora 19 is the community-supported Linux distribution that is often used as a testing ground for features that eventually find their way into the Red Hat Enterprise Linux commercial distribution and its widely used noncommercial twin, CentOS. Both distributions are enormously popular on servers and so it's often instructive for sysadmins to keep an eye on what's happening with Fedora.

Fedora prides itself on being at the bleeding edge of Linux software, so all the cool new features tend to get implemented there before they are included in Ubuntu and the other popular distros.

Late May saw the release of the beta version of Fedora 19, AKA Schrödinger's Cat, which has a number of new features that will be of interest to developers, system administrators, and desktop users.

Updated Programming Languages

This release seems to be primarily focused on developers, who will be pleased to hear that many of the most popular programming languages used on the web are getting a bump.

Ruby 2.0 – This is the first major ruby release in half a decade, and adds a number of new features to the language, including keyword arguments, a move to UTF — 8 as the default source encoding, and many updates to the core classes.

PHP 5.5 – PHP 5.5 brings some great additions to everyone's favorite web programming language, including support for generators with the new "yield" keyword, and the addition of a new password hashing API that should make it easier to manage password storage more securely.

OpenJDK 8 – Those who really like to live on the bleeding edge can check out the technology review of OpenJDK 8, which won't be officially released until September (if all goes according to plan). This release is intended to add support for programming in multicore environments by adding closures to the language in addition to the standard performance enhancements and bug fixes.

Node.js – The Node.js' runtime and its dependencies will be included as standard for the first time.

Developer's Assistant

The Developer's Assistant is a new tool to make it easier to automate the setting up of an environment suitable for programming in a particular language, so it'll take care of installing compilers, interpreters, and their dependencies, and running various scripts to set environmental variables and other factors necessary for creating the perfect development environment for the chosen language.

OpenShift Origin

OpenShift origin is an application platform intended for the building, testing and deploying Platform-as-a-Service offerings. It was originally developed for RHEL and is now finding its way into Fedora.

Desktop environments are also getting the usual version increment, with KDE moving to version 4.10 and Gnome getting a bump to 3.10.

If you want, you can give the new Fedora Beta a try by grabbing the image from their site. The usual caveats apply: you shouldn't use it in a production environment.

Written by Graeme Caldwell, Inbound Marketer for InterWorx

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Web

The Pros and Cons of Vectoring

2013-06-06T10:11:00-08:00

Vectoring is an extension of DSL technology that employs the coordination of line signals to reduce crosstalk levels to improve performance. It is based on the concept of noise cancellation: the technology analyses noise conditions on copper lines and creates a cancelling anti-noise signal. While data rates of up to 100Mb/s are achievable, as with all DSL-based services this is distance related: the maximum available bit rate is possible at a range of about 300-400 meters. Performance degrades rapidly as the loop attenuation increases, becoming ineffective after 700-800 meters. The technology is seen as an intermediate step to full FttH networks.

Vectoring is also specific to the DSL environment, being more appropriate to DSL LLU but becoming severely limited when applied with VDSL2 sub-loops unless all the lines are managed by the same system. Vectoring requires that all copper pairs of a cable binder are operated by the same DSLAM, and several DSLAMs need to work in combination in order to eliminate crosstalk. A customer's DSL modem also needs to support vectoring. Though the ITU has devised a Recommendation for vectoring (G.993.5), the technology is still under development and currently there remains a lack of standardisation across these various elements.

The quality of the copper network is also an issue, with better quality (newer) copper providing better results. Poorer quality copper cabling (e.g. having poorer isolation, less copper pair drilling) can also result in higher crosstalk, and thus a higher degree of pair-related interference. Nevertheless, these issues could be addressed within the vectoring process.

Vectoring is also incompatible with some current regulatory measures, though again future amendments could bring a resolution to these difficulties. While Telekom Deutschland has been engaged in vectoring since late 2012, the technology requires regulatory approval since it is based on DSL infrastructure, and some services which TD must provide to competitors is incompatible with vectoring. As such, TD must negotiate with the regulator the removal of those services from its service obligations. A partial solution may be achieved through the proposal that the regulator restricts total unbundling obligations for copper access lines to the frequency space below 2.2MHz.

Operators which have looked to deploy vectoring are being driven by cost considerations. The European Commission's target in its 'Digital Agenda 2020' is for all citizens in the region to have access to speeds of at least 30Mb/s by 2020, with at least half of all premises to receive broadband at over 100Mb/s. This presupposed fibre for most areas, with the possibility of LTE to furnish rural and remote areas. However, some cash-strapped incumbents are considering vectoring to enable them to meet these looming targets more cheaply, while still pursuing fibre (principally FttC, supplemented by FttH in some cities).

Belgium was an early adopter of vectoring: the incumbent Belgacom had been one of the first players to deploy VDSL1, which has since been phased out for the more widely used VDSL2, supplying up to 50Mb/s for its bundled services customers. The company's investment in vectoring will enable it to upgrade a portion of its urban customers more quickly and cheaply than would otherwise be possible with FttH. Yet it is perceived as a stop-gap measure to buy it time and to forestall customer churn to the cablecos which have already introduced /s and 120Mb/s services across their footprints and are looking to release 200Mb/s services or higher. The inherent limitations of copper, regardless of technological tweaking, will mean that Belgacom will have to follow Scandinavian operators and deploy 1Gb/s FttH services in order to keep pace with consumer demand for bandwidth for the next decade.

Vectoring technology has also been trialled by Telekom Austria as part of its FttC GigaNet initiative, as also b P&T;Luxembourg which in early 2013 contracted Alcatel-Lucent (one of the vendors leading vectoring R&D;) to develop one of the world's first trials of combined VDSL2 bonding and vectoring technologies. The Italian altnet Fastweb is also investing in vectoring, in conjunction with a programme to deliver FttC to about 20% of households by the end of 2014. Fastweb's parent company Swisscom has budgeted €400 million for the project (as part of a wider FttC co-investment with Telecom Italia), costing each connection at about €100 per home. The low figure is partly explained by Fastweb being able to utilise its existing fibre networks. Nevertheless, Fastweb in the long-term is aiming to have an FttH-based network across its footprint, having recently committed an additional €2 billion investment to 2016, contracting Huawei to upgrade its network from 100Mb/s to 1Gb/s.

Written by Paul Budde, Managing Director of Paul Budde Communication

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: Access Providers, Broadband, Telecom

One Year Later: Who's Doing What With IPv6?

2013-06-06T01:00:00-08:00

One year on from the World IPv6 Launch in June 2012, we wanted to see how much progress has been made towards the goal of global IPv6 deployment.

Both APNIC and Google are carrying out measurements at the end user level, which show that around 1.29% (APNIC) and 1.48% (Google) of end users are capable of accessing the IPv6 Internet. Measurements taken from this time last year show 0.49% (APNIC) and 0.72% (Google), which means the amount of IPv6-enabled end users has more than doubled in the past 12 months.

Rather than looking at the end user, the measurements the RIPE NCC conducts look at the networks themselves. To what extent are network operators engaging with IPv6? And how ready are they to deploy it on their networks?

IPv6 RIPEness

The RIPE NCC measures the IPv6 "readiness" of LIRs in its service region by awarding stars based on four indicators. LIRs receive stars when:

They receive an initial allocation of IPv6 address space from the RIPE NCC
The IPv6 address space is visible in global routing
There is a route6 object registered in the RIPE Database
Reverse DNS has been set up for the IPv6 address space

The pie charts below show the number of LIRs holding 0-4 RIPEness stars at the time of the World IPv6 Launch in June 2012, and the number today.

The first RIPEness star is awarded when the LIR receives an allocation of IPv6 address space. When we look at the charts above, we see that the number of LIRs without an IPv6 allocation has decreased from 50% at the time of the World IPv6 Launch to 39% today.

One factor that shouldn't be overlooked here is that the current IPv4 policy requires that an LIR receive an initial IPv6 allocation before it can receive its last /22 of IPv4 address space. However, this does not explain the increase in 2-4 star RIPEness, which can only come from LIRs working towards IPv6 deployment.

Five-Star RIPEness

At the recent RIPE 66 Meeting in Dublin, we presented the results from our introduction of a fifth RIPEness star, which is still in the prototype stage. This fifth star measures actual deployment of IPv6. It looks at whether LIRs are providing content over IPv6 and the degree to which they are providing IPv6 access to end users. More information on the fifth star and the methodology behind it can be found on RIPE Labs. In this first version, 573 LIRs in the RIPE NCC service region qualify for the fifth star, which represents 6.24% of all LIRs in the region.

The Day We Crossed Over

Coincidentally, the World IPv6 Launch was around the same time as another milestone for the RIPE NCC service region. It was roughly then that the number of LIRs with IPv6 allocations outnumbered those without IPv6 for the first time. This number has continued to increase, and there are currently 5,630 LIRs with IPv6 and 3,584 without.

The blue line on the graph below represents LIRs with an IPv6 allocation, while the red line indicates those with no IPv6.

ASNs Announcing IPv6

One of the things the RIPE NCC regularly checks is the percentage of autonomous networks announcing one or more IPv6 prefixes into the global routing system. This is an important step before a network can begin exchanging IPv6 traffic with other networks.

When we take a global view using the graph, we see that in the year since the World IPv6 Launch, the percentage of networks announcing IPv6 has increased from 13.7% to 16.1%. Of the 44,470 autonomous networks visible on the global Internet, 7,168 are currently announcing IPv6.

When we adopt a regional perspective, one of the things we would hope to see is increasing IPv6 deployment in those regions where the free pool of IPv4 has been exhausted. It is reassuring to see this confirmed — both the APNIC and the RIPE NCC service regions are leading the way, with 20.0% and 18.1% (respectively) of networks announcing IPv6.

The table below compares the percentage of autonomous networks announcing IPv6 — both now and at the time of the World IPv6 Launch in 2012.

The RIPE NCC's graph of IPv6-Enabled Networks (below) shows this as a comparison over time and allows for comparisons between countries and regions.

Reassuring, But The Real Work Is Still Ahead

While the above statistics provide good cause for optimism, there is still a long way to go. Now, more than ever, network operators need to learn about IPv6 and deploy it on their networks in order to safeguard the future growth of the Internet. To find out more about IPv6, visit IPv6ActNow.

Written by Mirjam Kuehne

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: IPv6

IPv6: Less Talk and More Walk

2013-06-05T08:40:00-08:00

The sixth month of the year is both symbolic and historic for IPv6 and a good time to take stock and see how we've progressed. But instead of looking at the usual suspects of number of networks, number of users, number of websites, etc… on IPv6, let's look at some new trends to see what's happening.

At gogo6 we've been measuring the "Buzz" of the IPv6 market every week over the last two and a half years. Each tweet, blog and news story on IPv6 has been counted, categorized and indexed for posterity. By graphing the 102,641 tweets, 6,620 blogs and 4,251 news stories during that time we capture the "Talk" of the market. Reviewing Graph 1 shows spikes in the right places but what is striking is the definitive downward trend in volume as time goes on. The "Talk" is going down.

This could be interpreted as a slowing of interest or a job complete so next I dug into the gogoNET social network database. By plotting the registration dates of the 47,142 networking professionals who joined during this same period of time I could infer the level of interest and work being done in deploying IPv6. The resulting trend line in Graph 2 is flat indicating a constant interest and flow of networking professionals preparing to implement IPv6. These are the "Workers".

The fruit of this steadfast labor pool can be seen in Graph 3. Plotting the first derivative of the IPv6 Adoption curve generated by the Google Access Graph over the same period of time yields a normalized curve of new IPv6 users. Though the original data is noisy there is a definitive upward trend indicating the rate of new users is increasing over time. And this is what I call the "Walk" — the tangible result of the constant stream of IPv6 workers.

The big headline on this one year anniversary of World IPv6 Launch is the number of IPv6 users have doubled. Taking a closer look indicates a market starting to get the job done. Sure there are more people using IPv6 but more importantly this is happening at an increasing rate — the result of a constant stream of new workers walking the walk by spending less time on naval gazing and more time on doing. Less talk and more walk.

Written by Bruce Sinclair, CEO, gogo6

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: IPv6

ICANN Auctions or Private Auctions?

2013-06-03T15:34:01-08:00

By this time next year the allocation of the new Internet namespace will be complete. Several hundred contention sets, ranging from likely blockbusters like .WEB to somewhat less obvious money-makers like .UNICORN, will be decided by some method.

One way to resolve contention is to form a joint venture. We are in the process of doing this with Uniregistry for .country. That works well when there are only two competitors and there's a good basis of trust, and it's a great solution because there are no losers. But if there are three or more competitors, or if you don't like and trust your prospective partner-to-be, this really isn't an option. Realistically, there will be only a limited number of joint ventures.

It may happen that you and a competitor are head-to-head on two strings and if so, a second method for resolving contention is a straight-across trade. It's not a bad solution: it's cashless, it's quick, and each party gets something. But it's not as easy as it might at first appear. Some people want to win everything, so they view this solution as a loss. And who gets to pick first? Is a random draw an acceptable solution?

If you can't manage one of these two solutions, you're left with either arranging a private deal with someone (again, not very realistic if there are more than two parties), or else you're going to auction. There are two kinds of auction being talked about: ICANN's "mechanism of last resort," or a "public auction" as it's often called; and the much-debated private auctions.

The ICANN auction is simple enough: it's an ascending floor auction. The auctioneer asks (electronically) who's in at $100K, $250K, $1M, $2M, and so on. The last one left standing pays their money and walks away with the TLD. The losers walk home with nothing except some memories and a 20% refund on their application fee. ICANN walks away with a bundle of cash to add to the dragon's hoard of $350M that they have already reaped in application fees.

A private auction is just an auction between companies, but without ICANN. The parties involved decide on the rules, so it may be in any auction format, but the favorite today is to ape the ICANN format exactly — with one important difference — instead of ICANN getting the money, it's split evenly among the losers.

If you have more than one or two applications, a little money can go a long way (it's also good for single applicants, see below). Let's suppose, for example, that you are head-to-head with someone for .tremendous. The bidding goes up and up, but in the end your competitor likes it more and pays you $2M for .tremendous. The next day, you and your competitor are back again for .fantastic. This time, you value it more, and you win, again for $2M. Result: you both have $2M and you both have a TLD. Except for the auctioneer's fee, it ends up being a cashless transaction.

Across multiple private auctions, this recycling of cash is writ large. With a modest war chest, you can lose more auctions and walk away with more money than you started with; you can win and lose in equal monetary proportions and end up cash-neutral; or you can try to win more value than you lose and spend your war chest in exchange for TLDs. As long as auction prices are stable relative to one another, then even a modest amount of cash will enable you to walk away with a return. Compare to ICANN auctions, where you get nothing if you lose and winning one auctions could mean that you're unable to compete in any others.

Is this analysis only relevant for portfolio players like us? On inspection, the logic of the benefit holds no matter how many strings you are in contention for. If you have a single string, you should bid up to that string's value — given your financial resources — in either a public or private auction. In each case, a competitor who places a higher value on the TLD, who has the financial resources, will ultimately beat you. The question is:, do you want to be compensated for that loss?

It took us a while to get our heads around private auctions. Actually, auctions of any kind take some time to understand, but at first blush an auction under the aegis of ICANN seemed safer; private auctions provoked a lot of questions. For instance, what if someone overbids in order to drive the price up and get a bigger payout from you? If you win, why should your money go to a competitor who might use your money to beat you at the next auction? Are the bid prices in general going to be higher or lower in a private auction?

The basic answer to all these questions is that you should bid up to what you think a TLD is worth, and no more. If you follow that rule, you should do well in a private auction. Auction participants must have an idea of what they believe a TLD is worth. For example, if Minds + Machines bid on .awesome, we would estimate how many .awesome registrations we could sell in a given year, how many premium .awesome names we could sell, and what the brand uptake might be for a .awesome sunrise. We would then translate that into a discounted net present value for the TLD, and in no case bid higher than that in either a public or private auction. Keeping this in mind should spare you all kinds of woe, and it's equally valid in an ICANN or a private auction.

What about someone overbidding to drive up the price? If you were up against Awesome Industries, the 10-billion-dollar king of awesome products, you might be tempted to overbid for .awesome in a private auction with the view of getting a higher pay out. But that's a dangerous strategy, because the reality is that at any instant Awesome could drop out, leaving you with a very, very expensive bid for something you don't think is really that… awesome. Everyone has their limit, even Awesome Industries.

On the flip side, you might worry that by winning .great for $2M in a private auction you will be providing cash to your competitor for the next auction, for .amazing. But if they overbid on .amazing, beating you, you should be pleased to take their money — leaving you with a bunch of cash as well that you think is the tld that is more amazing than .amazing.

Nobody likes the idea of enriching the competition. But consider these options, you can either:

Give money to the competition if you win, but you get money if you lose; or
Give your competitors nothing if you win, but you get nothing if you lose.

Which is the rational choice? Game theory says that it's the first choice.

There's another important point in favor of private auctions: we believe that our competitors will do more to promote the TLD space in general (thereby helping us) than ICANN will. So we're actually happy about paying our competitors instead of ICANN, as we view it as an investment in the promotion of the entire new gTLD program.

We struggled for a while with the question of which auction process, ICANN or private would produce the higher winning bids. We think that private auction prices will be lower, for the simple reason that people who've been at this as long as we have are going to inevitably fall victim to the dreaded sunk cost fallacy and are going to hate the idea of walking away with nothing. The loser's consolation prize mitigates this effect, we think, and works to prevent people from overbidding to prevent being totally skunked.

Even larger corporate players like Google or Amazon have an economic incentive to enter private auctions, because overall it will lower their cost of acquiring their name portfolios. We don't believe that Google will pay any amount for .LOL — and even Google and Amazon could find themselves outbid for some strings which are not core to their business models.

Then there is the issue of anti-trust. Do private auctions constitute bid-rigging? I talked to the Justice Department, who told me that they might or might not issue a letter giving guidance, which might or might not say that private auctions were good or bad. In other words, they told me nothing at all. We've all seen opinions issued by lawyers on both sides of the question, and we've had our own lawyers opine as well. It's clearly an untested area, and that means it carries some risk. In the end, we decided that while we are bound to follow the law, we are not bound — in fact we're not qualified, and neither is anyone else — to decide what the law might or might not become. In our experience, successful startups do not succeed without taking risks, and they do not succeed if they let themselves be ruled by lawyers pointing out potential risks — that way madness lies. Collusion carries with it an implication of secrecy, of back-room deals, but private auctions are advertised and anyone with a contested application can join in. ICANN, perhaps the most conservative, risk-averse, lawyer-driven organization in our industry, clearly encourages applicants to "work it out" and we think that private auctions are a fair and open way to do so. The first private auction is being held in a few days, and we'll see if anyone gets a letter or phone call from the government. We feel that it's a remote possibility.

Minds + Machines will proceed with private auctions. We won't participate in the first set of private auctions: given ICANN's history of delays, and the fact that it has not yet delegated a single new gTLD, we don't see any need to enter private auctions just yet. But we intend do so when the time is right: it's to our benefit, to the benefit of our competitors and to the industry generally. We also believe it's to ICANN's benefit and to the benefit of consumers, because while the ICANN auctions would leave applicants even more depleted of cash and unable invest in marketing, research, and technology, private auctions will provide money to create healthy vigorous registries that will fulfill ICANN's mission to create choice and competition in the top-level namespace.

Written by Antony Van Couvering, CEO of Minds + Machines

Follow CircleID on Twitter

More under: ICANN, Top-Level Domains

ß*	à	á	â	ã	ó	ô	þ	ü	ú	ð
æ	å	ï	ç	è	õ	ö	ÿ	ý	ò	ä
œ	ê	ë	ì	í	ø	ù	î	û	ñ	é

ß*	à	á	â	ã	ó	ô	þ	ü	ú	ð
æ	å	ï	ç	è	õ	ö	ÿ	ý	ò	ä
œ	ê	ë	ì	í	ø	ù	î	û	ñ	é

ß*	à	á	â	ã	ó	ô	þ	ü	ú	ð
æ	å	ï	ç	è	õ	ö	ÿ	ý	ò	ä
œ	ê	ë	ì	í	ø	ù	î	û	ñ	é