Author: Arnaud Wittersheim

Head of Operations Department Nameregistry - Compliance - Nameshield

Status of ongoing projects after ICANN64

A month ago, ICANN held its first annual meeting with the Internet community in Kobe, Japan. At this summit, ICANN presented the major projects of the year and those of the coming years. Let’s look back at the main topics.

The implicitely constraint of the GDPR

While in May 2018, Europe adopted ambitious legislation to protect users’ personal data, ICANN imposed a regulatory framework on domain name players to bring the industry into line with the constraints of the GDPR.

In the absence of consensus, this framework was imposed when the GDPR came into force on May 25, 2018. It contains non-consensual provisions such as no longer publishing in the registry’s registration directory service, which currently operates via the Whois protocol, data that can be assimilated to personal data for contacts associated with domain names: registrant contacts, administrative contacts, technical contacts. Exit therefore the names, first names, postal addresses, telephone numbers and anonymization of email addresses or hidding via a contact form.

However, as provided for in the Bylaws, the rules governing the role and operation of ICANN, non-consensual rules may not be imposed beyond one year. ICANN therefore had the May 2019 deadline in mind throughout the Kobe meeting.

To build on this, last year ICANN initiated an expedited policy development process (ePDP) whose delicate mission was to develop consensus rules to replace the temporary provisions currently in place.

Shortly before ICANN64, this working group, in which Nameshield participates, submitted its proposals to the GNSO, the ICANN body that manages policy development for generic domain names. This report, which is currently open for comments, is expected to result in a final framework that will be submitted to the ICANN Board in early May for voting and promulgation.

The proposals outline a target date for implementation by 29 February 2020. ICANN has therefore focused its efforts on managing the transition period between May 2019 and this still distant deadline of February 2020. The prevailing approach is rather pragmatic as it consists in keeping the provisions currently in place such as the masking of personal data in the Whois until all the new provisions can be implemented by actors such as registrars and registries by the above-mentioned deadline.

Access to hidden data subject to tensions

Launched in 2012 during the last round of openings of new domain name extensions but quickly relegated to the boxes, the RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol), an alternative to the aging Whois protocol, has resurfaced with the GDPR because of its modularity, which allows, unlike Whois, to filter access to certain data according to the user’s profile.

ICANN confirmed in Kobe that this protocol will be widely deployed by this summer. First, this protocol will coexist alongside the Whois protocol. Registrars will therefore provide access to domain name data through both protocols.

The stakeholders present at ICANN64 also learnt about the project submitted by a technical study group mandated by ICANN on the operational way envisaged through the RDAP protocol for access to hidden domain name data. It has been the subject of tensions because it is not the result of a consensual process and ICANN suggested it could play a central role in collecting all requests to validate their authorization, with authentication of requests being carried out upstream by agents accredited by data protection authorities. This topic is also part of the new mission of the Policy Development Working Group (ePDP) in the coming months. Things can therefore evolve on this subject in the future.

Status of ongoing projects after ICANN64
Goran Marby, ICANN CEO, speaking on the proposed functioning of access to hidden data for domain names through the future RDAP

A multi-year strategic plan

At ICANN64, ICANN also presented progress on the implementation of a strategic operating plan for the organization for the period 2021-2025.

The adoption of a five-year plan is new for this organization, which has always operated on an annual basis. This plan must determine the priorities for the coming years, which is also a novelty in a context where multiple projects have always been carried out simultaneously without any real prioritization.

We already know that DNS security is one of the major issues of the coming period. Among the priorities identified are the reinforced fight against malware and the increased security of the DNS, in particular through a faster deployment of DNSSEC.

For the next round of new domain names extensions openings also mentioned, ICANN has also indicated that it will take into account the lessons learned from the previous round. Among them, new extensions are ten times more targeted than historical generic extensions (like .COM,.NET,.ORG,.BIZ,.INFO) by malicious practices such as typosquatting and dotsquatting on which phishing and pharming practices proliferate.

Feel free to contact your Nameshield consultant, who is very knowledgeable on all these subjects.

A much awaited first report on DNS abuse in the new extensions

A much awaited first report on DNS abuse in the new extensions

While the fate of 25 not yet delegated new extensions remains to seal, which represents approximately 2 % of all the accepted extensions during the current opening round, ICANN has just published a study on the proportion of DNS abuse in the new extensions launched after 2012.

The study was requested by the Competition, Consumer Trust and Consumer Choice Review Team ( CCTRT), which is mandated by ICANN to examine the extent to which the introduction or expansion of generic extensions has promoted competition, consumer trust and consumer choice. By defining the parameters of the study, the CCTRT tried to measure the rates of the common forms of unfair activities in the system of domain names, such as spamming, phishing and distribution of malware.

As a reminder, phishing is a technique used by swindlers to obtain personal information with the aim of committing identity thefts.

What is the report based on?

The study was led by SIDN, the registry of the extension of the Netherlands, as well as the University of Technology of Delft also located in the Netherlands. It was realized over a period going from 2014 to 2016, thanks to an access to the zone files granted by ICANN to these two entities.

More than 40 million names were analyzed, among which 24 million names registered in the new extensions and 16 million in the historic generic extensions: .com, .net, .org, .biz and .info. For the new extensions, it targeted the extensions which proposed a Sunrise phase for brand owners. Thus, this study ultimately concerned few .BRAND registries, since they are not required to make Sunrise phases.

Both entities made their own measures to detect abuse and the data were cross-checked with eleven heterogeneous lists referencing domains and URLS identified as hostile, which were supplied by five specialized organizations.

What are the study’s conclusions?

Regarding phishing and malware distribution, the study shows a convergence of the proportions observed within the new extensions and those in the historic generic extensions. However, in the historic generic extensions, the rates tend to remain stable while those of the new extensions increase.

On the other hand, a strong disparity appears on the spamming. At the end of 2016, the proportions of affected domains are almost ten times higher on the new generic extensions: 526 on 10000 names against 56 on 10000 names. Trends show a shift of the cybercriminals towards the new extensions.

The analysis also shows that near half of the deposits identified in activities of spamming on the three most concerned new extensions, come from known cybercriminals and from blacklisted users by Spamhaus. Spamhaus is a non-governmental international organization, its purpose is to trace spammers.

However, these phenomena do not concern all the new extensions because 36% did not encounter any abuses during the last quarter of 2016.

The study also shows that the operators which compete by lowering their prices in order to sell volume, are the ones which are the most used by the cybercriminals. Besides competitive registration prices, not restrictive registration requirements, a variety of other registration options such as the wide range of the available methods of payment, inclusive services such as DNS hosting or services of WHOIS masks, are so many other factors looked for by the cybercriminals.

What is the impact of the DNSSEC on abuses?

While the DNSSEC protocol is rapidly expanding, the entities appointed by ICANN to conduct this study also analyzed how the structural properties and the security measures implemented by the operators of new extensions influence domain abuses. As expected, the DNSSEC plays a statistically significant role and thus incites to deploy more widely the protocol on more extensions. The extensions supporting DNSSEC are indeed less of a target of such practices.

What’s happening next?

The study is now open to public comments until September the 19th. The entities which led it, also intend to analyze more in detail the possible correlations between the registration policies and abuses.

The CCTRT is then going to make recommendations to ICANN to stem the increase of DNS abuse that ICANN can then transform into new obligations for the registry operators. This time, however, all the registry operators may be concerned, thus also the .BRAND registries. NAMESHIELD is going to follow this subject closely.