Privacy proxy services used by registrants are under threat following proposals in the Trans Pacific Partnership and from “a new revision of the OECD E-commerce Recommendation that would require domain name registration information to be made publicly available for websites that are promoting or engaged in commercial transactions with consumers,” according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.And this, also according to the EFF, when ICANN’s GNSO Privacy & Proxy Services Accreditation Issues Working Group looked like it would “accept that privacy services should remain generally available, including by those who use their domain names commercially.”Both of these changes are being pushed by the United States with the backing of corporate interests, particularly those in the entertainment industries.The secretive Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP), a proposed trade agreement between 12 countries – Brunei, Chile, New Zealand, Singapore, Australia, Canada, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the United States and Vietnam – “has just ridden roughshod over that entire debate (at least for country-code top-level domains such as .us, .au and .jp), by cementing in place rules (QQ.C.12) that countries must provide ‘online public access to a reliable and accurate database of contact information concerning domain-name registrants.'””The same provision also requires countries to adopt an equivalent to ICANN’s flawed Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), despite the fact that this controversial policy is overdue for a formal review by ICANN, which might result in the significant revision of this policy. Where would this leave the TPP countries, that are locked in to upholding a UDRP-like policy for their own domains for the indefinite future?”The TPP’s prescription of rules for domain names completely disregards the fact that most country code domain registries have their own, open, community-driven processes for determining rules for managing domain name disputes. More than that, this top-down rulemaking on domain names is in direct contravention of the U.S. administration’s own firmly-stated commitment to uphold the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance. Obviously, Internet users cannot trust the administration that it means what it says when it gives lip-service to multi-stakeholder governance — and that has ramifications that go even deeper than this terrible TPP deal.”These proposed agreements go against everything that ICANN has sought to achieve through its attempts at improving accountability with its multi-stakeholder model.For more information see:
The Final Leaked TPP Text Is All That We Feared
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/final-leaked-tpp-text-all-we-fearedU.S. Bypasses ICANN Debates on Domain Privacy with Closed Room Deals at the OECD and TPP
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/us-bypasses-icann-debates-domain-privacy-closed-room-deals-oecd-and-tppDomain Registrars Have to Ask ICANN’s Permission to Comply With Laws Protecting Your Privacy
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/10/domain-registrars-have-ask-icanns-permission-comply-laws-protecting-your-privacyVoluntary Practices and Rights Protection Mechanisms: Whitewashing Censorship at ICANN
This report makes the case that IPv6 represents an example of a platform; within the context of IPv6, the sides of the platform are Internet service providers, backbone providers, device manufacturers, content providers, and so forth. The net benefits to adopting the new platform are not distributed equally across sides.For some participants, such as backbone and transit providers and manufacturers of devices such as routers, the transition to IPv6 has been relatively swift. For these participants the benefits of adoption were clear, and adoption demonstrated the technical ability of the company and fitness of its network.For others, such as many content providers for the Web, enterprises contemplating deployment of IPv6 within internal firm networks, and providers of consumer electronics equipment such as DVD or Blu-Ray players or televisions, the transition has been slower. For them the benefits have not been as clear, and many legacy devices, networks, customers and suppliers have not transitioned.This OECD report is available for download from:
This report considers the transition from IPv4 to IPv6 alongside the use of network technologies to prolong IPv4 use in the face of depletion of further IPv4 protocol addresses, but it does not aim to address all issues surrounding the transition to IPv6 or to detail the economic incentives faced by various Internet actors. It first provides a status update of address management issues and the run-out of IPv4.
It then describes the advantages and limitations of increased use of network address translation as one response to sustain the use of IPv4 in the face of IPv4 address exhaustion. It provides an overview of the IPv6 protocol; the advantages of IPv6 deployment as a response to IPv4 address exhaustion and the IPv6 transition plan compared to actual deployment to date. Finally, the report examines the choices facing individual actors, their potential consequences, and the policy implications on openness and innovation for the future of the Internet.
This OECD paper is available to download from:
IPv4 addresses are nearing full allocation, with over 92% of all available addresses already in use in March 2010. Global adoption of IPv6 – the long-term solution to the address space problem – would require a major increase in its use, in little time, and significant mobilization across all parts of the Internet. This report shows that while IPv6 use seems to be growing slightly faster than IPv4, IPv6 is not being deployed sufficiently quickly to intercept the estimated IPv4 exhaustion date, which could stifle creativity and the deployment of new services.
One of the major challenges for all stakeholders in thinking about the future of the Internet is its ability to scale to connect billions of people and devices. The Internet Protocol (IP) specifies how communications take place between one device and another through an addressing system. Each device must have an IP address in order to communicate. However, existing best projections are that the currently used version of the Internet Protocol, IPv4, will run out of previously unallocated addresses in 2012.1 IPv4 addresses are nearing full allocation, with just 8% of addresses remaining in March 2010.When IPv4 addresses run out, operators and companies must support IPv6 in order to add new customers or devices to their networks. Otherwise, they will need complex and expensive layers of network address translation (NAT) to share scarce IPv4 addresses among multiple users and devices. For this reason, the timely deployment of the newer version of the Internet Protocol (IPv6) by network operators and content/application providers is an increasing priority for all Internet stakeholders. In terms of public policy, IPv6 plays an important role in enabling innovation and scalability of the Internet. In addition, security, interoperability and competition issues are involved with the depletion of IPv4.The objective of this report is to investigate indicators of IPv6 deployment, to help raise awareness among policy makers of the level of IPv6 deployment on the Internet. Various indicators are presented in this report, each of which offers information on a specific aspect of IPv6 deployment and from a particular vantage point. The difficulty of such a measurement exercise and the many caveats associated with each indicator are underscored.Today, IPv6 is still a small proportion of the Internet. However, IPv6 use is growing faster than continuing IPv4 use, albeit from a low base. And several large-scale deployments are taking place or planned. Overall, the Internet is still in the early stages of a transition whereby end hosts, networks, services, and middleware are shifting from IPv4-only to support both IPv4 and IPv6. During a potentially long transition, both IPv4 and IPv6 will co-exist in “dual-stack” operation on most of the Internet, although some green-field IPv6-only deployments will also take place for new usage models such as mobile Internet or sensor networks deployments.To download this report in full, see: