ICANN Oversight and Security of Internet Root Servers and the Domain Name System (DNS)
September 30, 2004
02:30 PM
02:30 PM
Members will hear testimony examining the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), international cooperation in management and governance of the Domain Name Syatem (DNS), and the security of the Internet's root servers and the DNS.
If you are having trouble viewing this hearing, please try the following steps:
- Clear your browser's cache - Guide to clearing browser cache
- Close and re-open your browser
- If the above two steps do not help, please try another browser. Google Chrome and Microsoft Edge have the highest level of compatibility with our player.
Testimony
-
Mr. John Kneuer
Testimony
Mr. John Kneuer
Mr. Chairman, Thank you and the members of the Committee for this opportunity to testify on the progress of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between ICANN and the Department, and international discussions on Internet governance. The Administration has been engaged in laying out its vision for future telecommunications and information services. The President announced the goal of universal and affordable broadband services for all Americans by 2007. In furtherance of this goal, the Administration has pursued a comprehensive set of policies, including spectrum reform, deregulation, and financial incentives, that have been demonstrably effective. Since the President took office, broadband has nearly tripled with the number of high speed lines growing from 9.6 million to 28.2 million. More Americans today access the Internet through broadband than narrowband connections. While the Administration is committed to the future growth of this important industry, the Department has also continued to devote significant effort to ensure that the existing foundation of the Internet - - the domain name and addressing system - - remains stable and secure. It was a little over a year ago that Assistant Secretary Victory testified before you about the state of the Administration’s privatization efforts for the Internet domain name and addressing system (DNS) and the Department’s plans for amending the ICANN MOU to further this goal. Today I would like to focus my testimony on the progress made over this past year and the challenges we see for the future. The Department’s Role and Relationship with ICANN The Department continues to believe that the stability and security of the DNS can best be achieved through the privatization of and broad, international participation in the technical management of the system. The vehicle for achieving this goal is the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department and ICANN. ICANN, the entity responsible for day-to-day technical DNS management issues, was formed in response to the Department of Commerce’s call for a partner to lead the transition to private sector management of the DNS. The relationship between the Department and ICANN is defined by contract, not regulation. The Department plays no role in the internal governance or day-to-day operations of the organization. However, under the terms of the MOU, the Department provides oversight to ensure that ICANN performs the MOU tasks and offers expertise and advice on certain discrete issues. Last year the Department and ICANN agreed to renew the MOU for a period of three years, substantially longer than previous renewals, and included several date-certain milestones aimed at guiding ICANN to a stable, independent, and sustainable organization. The expectation of the Department is that this three-year time frame allows ICANN sufficient opportunity to: · Complete the remaining MOU tasks: Complete privatization, the ultimate goal of the Department, is dependent upon ICANN fulfilling the terms of the MOU by finalizing the appropriate relationships with the organizations that form the technical underpinnings of the Internet DNS. These include securing stable agreements with the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) so ICANN is able to perform its address allocation responsibilities; solidifying relationships with the root server system operators that guarantee the security of this resource; and developing and implementing framework agreements with country code top-level domain (ccTLD) operators that recognize national sovereignty and international law. Also critical in this area is the need to finalize a long-term, predictable, transparent and objective process for introducing new top-level domains (TLDs). · Secure resources critical to long-term independence: To become fully independent, ICANN must identify and secure the resources, both financial and personnel, necessary to carry out its core mission. ICANN’s financing model must demonstrate a strong value proposition to its various constituencies such that they are convinced of the on-going benefit of supporting ICANN financially. · Enhance participation of all Internet stakeholders: For ICANN to be a sustainable organization into the future, the Internet stakeholder community must recognize ICANN as the essential forum for decision-making on the technical functions of the Internet DNS and related policy discussions. The Department believes that ICANN should continue to improve its mechanisms that allow for the opinions of all stakeholders to be heard and considered. · Continue to improve its decision-making processes: ICANN must have transparent, predictable, and timely working methods, which must also be flexible to adapt to innovations in the Internet DNS. Progress to Date It is now one year into the agreed three-year renewal period and the Department can report that ICANN has made progress during the past year towards meeting the MOU objectives. Specifically, ICANN is continuing discussions with the RIRs toward formalizing their relationship and is in the process of developing new framework agreements for ccTLD operators. In addition, ICANN, working collaboratively with the Department, completed a contingency plan to ensure continuity of operations in the event the corporation incurs a severe disruption of operations, or the threat thereof, by reason of its bankruptcy, corporate dissolution, a natural disaster, or other financial, physical or operational event. Further, ICANN has opened an office in Europe and is engaging in outreach with local Internet communities in other regions to determine how it can best respond to their needs. ICANN is also continuing to implement its past reform effort which focused on structural adjustments aimed at further enhancing constituency representation in ICANN decisions. Finally, ICANN has successfully met the MOU milestones addressing development of a strategic plan and corporate administrative, financial, and compliance reviews. While ICANN has made progress, both the Department and ICANN recognize that much remains to be accomplished in order for ICANN to evolve into the fully stable and sustainable organization that it must be. In this regard, it is critical that ICANN clearly focus on its core competencies and the need to execute the outstanding tasks in the MOU within the remaining timeframe. In addition to making visible and measurable progress on the fundamental MOU tasks (i.e., securing relationships with the RIRs, root server system operators and ccTLD operators), the Department will be expecting ICANN to: · publish a report on the implementation of the ICANN WHOIS Data Reminder Policy by November 30, 2004 including statistics on registrar compliance with the policy; · implement its financial strategy which details predictable and sustainable sources of revenue by December 31, 2004; · complete and implement a predictable strategy for selecting new TLDs by December 31, 2004; and, · commence implementation of their multi-lingual communications strategy by December 31, 2004. International discussions on Internet governance The Department is aware that many in the Internet community are participating in and closely following the discussions in the United Nations (UN) World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) process related to Internet governance. The Department is fully engaged in this activity through the U.S. coordination process that Ambassador Gross oversees. While he will provide more detailed information on the process to date and the broad principles that guide the Administration’s thinking, the Department offers a few points of clarification with respect to the role of ICANN and DNS issues in this debate. First, it has been suggested that the responsibility for DNS technical management may shift to a UN agency as a result of WSIS. Let me take this opportunity to clarify that neither the WSIS nor the subsidiary discussions regarding Internet governance are chartered to take action or to yield an international treaty with binding obligations. Rather, the WSIS is a forum for discussions among interested parties that may yield proposals in the area of Internet governance. Further, the Department does not believe that any existing UN body, such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) or the UN ICT Task Force, is qualified to assume the responsibilities currently held by ICANN for the technical coordination and management of the Internet domain name system. Second, the Department does not approach discussions on Internet governance premised on a debate between the importance of the various stakeholders. Rather governments, the private sector and civil society each has a role to play in advancing Internet development and deployment and should seek to work together cooperatively and productively. For example, private sector entities such as ICANN, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) and the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) have important technical contributions to make to this dialogue based on their respective expertise and competencies. Governments represent the collective interests of their citizens when it comes to the broader public policy concerns and user communities often voice their opinion through civil society organizations. Third, the United States has taken domestic actions with respect to some Internet-related public policies (e.g., we have enacted an anti-spam law and developed a national strategy to secure cyberspace). Given that the Internet is borderless and global in nature, the Department recognizes that some Internet-related public policy issues may call for some form of international cooperation to be effective (e.g., the need for cooperation amongst enforcement authorities to combat spam). Broad international Internet-related public policy issues, which may fall under the rubric of Internet governance, are not within the mandate or the competencies of ICANN. With this in mind, the Department will continue to work closely with the international community and private sector and civil society stakeholders to find appropriate solutions as situations warrant. Conclusion In conclusion, the Department continues to be supportive of privatization of the technical management of the domain name system as envisioned in the ICANN multi-stakeholder, public-private partnership model. Within the next two years, ICANN must execute the remaining tasks in the MOU and reach full corporate maturity to assure the Department and the Internet community that it is able to effectively carry out its important core technical missions - in a stable and sustainable manner - into the future. Thank you and I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. -
Mr. Paul Twomey
Testimony
Mr. Paul Twomey
Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak before this Committee in my role as President and CEO of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). ICANN is an internationally organized public benefit non-profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. ICANN is recognized by the world community as the global authoritative body on the technical and organizational means to ensure the stability and interoperability of the DNS, and the equitable distribution of IP addresses. The limited and distinct mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is clearly set out in Article I of its Bylaws. ICANN: 1. Coordinates the allocation and assignment of the three sets of unique identifiers for the Internet, which are a. Domain names (forming a system referred to as "DNS"); b. Internet protocol ("IP") addresses and autonomous system ("AS") numbers; and c. Protocol port and parameter numbers. 2. Coordinates the operation and evolution of the DNS root name server system. 3. Coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately as they relate to these technical functions. Since appearing before you last year, ICANN has taken great steps forward in solidifying its structure, enabling us to continue to fulfill our mission relating to the technical coordination of the domain name system (DNS). At the core of our mission is global interoperability. The Internet requires a stable and secure system of unique identifiers if it is to serve its global community efficiently and reliably. During the past 35 years, the Internet has met such needs through informal policy development forums that have been collaborative, inclusive and impressively effective. ICANN has been established to serve the Internet community in maintaining the stability and security of the Internet’s unique identifier systems, while fostering competition where appropriate to give Internet users greater choice at optimal cost. In ICANN’s self-governance model, the policies that create that stable, competitive domain name system are able to be developed in a manageable, bottom-up, consensus-based process that has global, multi-stakeholder representation. In short, ICANN’s bottom-up coordination of global stakeholder interests is the way in which it accomplishes stability and competition. Since its origins in 1998, ICANN has helped secure an environment in which over 700 million people can use the Internet daily with universal resolvability. It has addressed stakeholder issues as they have appeared, and fostered greater choice, lower costs and better services to DNS registrants and their end-user customers. Since its creation, the Internet community has vigorously discussed and reviewed the mission and values that guide ICANN’s actions. This extensive, inclusive and bottom up discussion has been encapsulated in ICANN’s revised Bylaws, its Mission and Core Values. ICANN’s achievements to date Since 1998, ICANN’s self-governance model has succeeded in addressing stakeholder issues as they have appeared, and bringing lower costs and better services to DNS registrants and everyday users of the Internet. Among ICANN’s main achievements for ICANN’s stakeholders are the following: Market Competition. The market competition for generic Top Level Domain (gTLD) registrations established by ICANN has lowered domain name costs by an estimated 80%, with savings for both consumers and businesses. Choice of Top Level Domains (TLD). ICANN continues to introduce new Top Level Domains to give registrants right of choice. These include the introduction of seven new gTLDs in 2000 and this year's round considering ten applications for Sponsored TLDs (sTLDs), a focused sub-set of gTLDs. Internationalized Domain Names (IDN). Working in coordination with the appropriate technical communities and stakeholders, ICANN’s adopted guidelines have opened the way for domain registration in hundreds of the world's languages. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). The Policy has resolved more than 5000 disputes over the rights to domain names, and proven to be efficient and cost effective. The Redemption Grace Period (RGP). The 30-day period allows domain name holders to reclaim their name if it has been unintentionally deleted from the registry database. This grace period has allowed a more stable and continuous web presence for many, saving domain name holders money and worry. Streamlined domain name transfers. After significant study and discussion, and working with the accredited gTLD registrars, ICANN developed a domain name transfer policy which allows domain name holders to transfer management of their domain name from one registrar to another, bringing further choice to domain name holders. ICANN’s successful operations and support for the management efforts of its community underpin the operation of the global internet. Each day this system supports an estimated 20 billion resolutions more than 6 times the number of phone calls in North America per day. There are about 64.5 million domain name registrations globally. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and ICANN, working together, have allocated approximately 388 million IPv4 addresses since 1999. Each day more than 700 million users use the Internet. Due to the universal DNS resolvability secured by ICANN, the Internet works in the same way for every one of them. ICANN’s Priorities Going Forward Since I last testified, ICANN staff and Board members have consulted with a wide range of people representing a variety of interests and needs relating to ICANN’s mission. Our formal discussions have included governments and law enforcement officials, academic and everyday users of the Internet, country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) managers, gTLD registry and registrar operators, business leaders, Internet service providers, technical Internet operators, and many more. There has been considerable commonality on the issues raised by stakeholders. The issues that have settled out as being key are as follows: 1) Complete the MOU process with the United States Department of Commerce 2) Proactively ensure the future stability and security of the DNS 3) Substantially augment core IANA services and ensure they function effectively 4) Efficiently introduce new gTLDs to increase competition in the domain name space 5) Significantly expand available resources to assist developing nation Internet communities with education and technical coordination 6) Meaningfully increase preparation of ICANN materials in multi-lingual formats 7) Actively promote consumer interests through information and service 8) Effectively educate consumers on how to obtain resources for dispute resolution, consumer protection and law enforcement 9) Considerably strengthen services to gTLD Registries to address their growing needs as new gTLDs are introduced 10) Significantly strengthen services to gTLD Registrars to ensure a healthy, competitive marketplace 11) Materially aid gTLD Registrars with managing consumer complaints The objectives identified by the community and those outlined in the MOU coincide in many respects. The first issue raised by nearly all stakeholders is for ICANN to fulfill the existing MOU and so the transition to private sector leadership. Other stakeholder identified issues also appear as obligations under the existing MOU. This year, the ICANN Board adopted the proposed budget that will allow ICANN to successfully complete and meet all of its objectives. Memorandum of Understanding In November 1998, the United States Department of Commerce entered into the first MOU with ICANN, recognizing it as the private sector, non-profit corporation that should assume a set of technical coordination and related policy development responsibilities for the Internet. Subsequently, there have been a number of additional one-year extensions of the MOU, recognizing ICANN’s significant progress towards achieving the tasks necessary to transition oversight of the naming and numbering system to a public/private partnership. On 16 September 2003, ICANN and the United States Department of Commerce agreed to extend their joint Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for three additional years until 30 September 2006. Earlier this month, we completed the first year of this MOU. This three-year MOU highlights ICANN’s responsibility to ensure the stability of the Internet and foster its globalization. Toward those ends, ICANN will: implement an objective process for selecting new Top Level Domains; implement an effective strategy for multi-lingual communications and international outreach; and develop a contingency plan, consistent with the international nature of the Internet, to ensure continuity of operations in the event of a severe disruption of operations. ICANN is working with the United States Department of Commerce to complete, within this term, the transition toward privatization that began with the first MOU. Tasks completed within this first year included implementing an objective process for selecting new Top Level Domains; creating an effective strategy for multi-lingual communications and international outreach; the development of a contingency plan, consistent with the international nature of the Internet, to ensure continuity of operations in the event of a severe disruption of operations, have now all been met in a timely fashion. To date ICANN has successfully completed all of its milestones through 30 September, 2004 as due under the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In fulfilling its obligations to the current United States Government under the terms of the MOU and meeting all the stated deadlines, ICANN has moved significantly towards transition to the private sector for the technical coordination of the Domain Name & (Address) System (DNS). In parallel to the MOU, ICANN is delivering on its four strategic priorities over the period of July 2003 to June 2006. The four strategic priorities as set forth at ICANN’s foundation and embedded in its By-Laws, are the following: 1. Contribute to stability and security of the unique identifier systems and root management 2. Promote competition and choice for registrants and other users 3. Forum for multi-stakeholder bottom-up development of related policy, and 4. Ensuring on a global basis an opportunity for participation by all interested parties. For ICANN to fulfill its mission, each of these priorities must be reviewed and pursued. The policies that create stable, competitive unique identifier system must be developed through a bottom-up, consensus-based process that has global representation. Through ICANN’s strategy development process, we have found that those initiatives and processes that best foster and ensure an independent, bottom-up policy consensus, also foster global representation in that process and consensus. Conversely, the initiatives that foster global representation do support the achievement of a bottom-up policy consensus. Update on specific areas of the MOU I would like to elaborate on progress in some of the specific areas of the MOU that may be of interest to this Committee. Finalizing Address Supporting Organization (ASO) MOU with RIRs, and Frameworks of Accountability with the RIR’s. The Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) each have a share in a global responsibility, delegated to them by IANA, to manage Internet address space. The IANA policies for allocation of IPv4 address blocks and other number resources to the RIRs are applied fairly and transparently, based purely on the documented need for address space. Addresses and other number resources are distributed in a coordinated fashion from a single global pool, with no pre-allocation to different countries or regions. Apart from ensuring fairness, the distribution system ensures that isolated “shortages” will not occur. The stability and fairness of this allocation system and the management of the unallocated address pool would be further secured by formal agreements between ICANN and the RIRs. Formal agreements are being prepared to define the strategies for distributing IPv6 blocks and other IANA-related functions. After considerable discussion, the RIRs put forward a revised MOU that established how the ICANN Board would receive global policy recommendations from the ASO, and the steps necessary to ratify that policy, or return it to the ASO for further consideration. ICANN has expressed to the RIRs its willingness to sign the MOU, after receiving commentary from the ICANN community. It is anticipated that a concluding agreement will be signed on 21 October, 2004. Establish stable relationships with ccTLD operators One of the tasks to complete under the MOU with the United States Department of Commerce is agreements, or frameworks of accountability, with ccTLD operators. Specifically, ICANN should “continue its efforts to achieve stable agreements with ccTLD operators that address, among other things, issues affecting the stable and secure operation of the DNS, including: delegation and redelegation of ccTLDs; allocation of global and local policy-formulation responsibility; and the relationship between a ccTLD operator and its relevant government or public authority. Such efforts shall include activities to encourage greater dialogue between ccTLD operators and their respective governmental authority.” Oversight of ccTLDs is delegated to recognized managers, who operate according to the interests of the local Internet community, including governments. These interests reflect local policies that are adapted to best meet the economic, cultural, linguistic, and legal circumstances of the country or territory involved. Both ICANN and ccTLD managers have an interest in ensuring the stable, secure, and proper functioning of the domain name system, and each have a distinctive role to play in that goal. At the global level, ccTLDs managers participate through the recently formed country-code Name Supporting Organizations (ccNSO) in ICANN’s policy development process to contribute to global policy regarding ccTLD management (See below). A formalized relationship is desired between ICANN and ccTLD managers, acting as the trustee for the ccTLD on behalf of the local Internet community, to help to maintain stability for the single root, and to confirm accountability for the ccTLD operations. An agreement identifies where authoritative decision rights lie concerning ccTLDs, and the history of that authority, to help maintain accountability for operations. Significant progress has been made in the past year with ccTLD managers on the process and theory of redelegations and the establishment of frameworks for accountability between ccTLD manager and ICANN. These frameworks of accountability follow the recommendations contained in the February 2000 Governmental Advisory Committee principles for the administration and delegation of ccTLDs. With my tenure, and with the formation of the ccNSO, ICANN staff is now working with the respective interested parties to identify criteria that must be included in agreements between ICANN and a ccTLD manager, and to work with respective ccTLD managers to ensure that their unique situation is encapsulated in a framework of accountability with ICANN. Collaboration on root name server systems and formalization of relationships One possible threat to DNS stability and security is the corruption of the root-zone file, or the unavailability of the root server system. Were the zone file to become corrupted or obsolete, or the root servers to become completely unavailable (e.g., through a denial of service attack), the DNS would begin to degrade immediately, and within days would be unusable. While the present system has remained stable and secure through the last 35 years, such an eventuality is something that must be guarded against. ICANN through its Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC) plays a key role in the coordination of the root server system. The responsibility of the Root Server System Advisory Committee is to advise the ICANN Board about the operation of the root name servers of the domain name system. The Root Server System Advisory Committee considers and provides advice on the operational requirements of root name servers, including host hardware capacities, operating systems and name server software versions, network connectivity and physical environment. The Root Server System Advisory Committee also examines and advises on the security aspects of the root name server system. The Committee includes representatives of organizations responsible for operating the world’s thirteen root name servers and other organizations concerned with stable technical operation of the authoritative root-server system, including representatives of the Regional Internet Registries and the protocol development body, the Internet Engineering Task Force. RSSAC members have been closely involved in the development, testing and deployment of new protocols in the root-server system. Recently this led to a recommendation from ICANN’s Root Server System Advisory Committee that the IANA function of ICANN should go forward with the inclusion of IPv6 addresses in the root-zone. ICANN is also a part of that root-server community. L.root-server.net has been directly operated by ICANN for the past four years. ICANN’s staff operate and coordinate on a regular basis with the other root-server operators. Accountability Mechanisms Implementing accountability mechanisms ICANN has taken significant steps to ensure corporate responsibility and accountability over its Board of Directors, Officers and Staff. The completion of the Reconsideration Process, improvement in efforts to increase public participation, as well as the introduction of the Independent Review Panel and Ombudsman Program, supplement the existing structures of corporate responsibility and accountability already in place by mechanisms of law and under the organizations structure and corporate governance systems. In addition, ICANN will continue to seek to improve this corporate responsibility by implementing a Corporate Oversight Panel for any high level issues so that there are no gaps in the strategy associated with ICANN’s contingency planning mechanisms that are occurring in the next quarter. Competition and Choice To continue fostering the benefits of competition within the global DNS, without risking its stability and security, ICANN is pursuing two key objectives in these areas: · Fostering innovation, competition, and growth in the registration of Internet resources to benefit providers and users of registration services. · Defining and implementing a predictable strategy for selecting new gTLDs, and providing support for their successful launch so that the stability of the Internet is maintained These objectives also meet specific requirements of the MOU. Among ICANN’s most noted successes to date have been establishing and fostering competition within the domain name registration arena. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) has reported that “ICANN’s reform of the market structure for the registration of generic Top Level Domain names has been very successful. The division between registry and registrar functions has created a competitive market that has lowered prices and encouraged innovation. The initial experience with competition at the registry level, in association with a successful process to introduce new gTLDs, has also shown positive results.” The ICANN community and Board decisions have led to greater choice for consumers, with an expansion of the domain name space to include 7 new Top Level Domains. Over 200 accredited registrars are now able to assist registrants with 10 gTLDs. As a result, annual registration fees have fallen from US$50 in 1998, when there was only 1 registrar, down to as low as US$6.75 by mid-2004. ICANN has also seen new technologies and protocols introduced for the registries and registrars to enable them to better service the growing number of registrants, who are better protected through transfer options and redemption grace periods. Process of Implementing new TLDs The development of an appropriate process and policy for the creation of new gTLDs is central to fostering choice and competition in the provision of domain registration services, and as such is critical to the promotion of ICANN's core values. New gTLDs have been a topic of discussion within ICANN and the broader Internet community since the creation of ICANN in 1998. ICANN is committed to developing and implementing a comprehensive strategy for selecting new gTLDs using predictable, straightforward, transparent, and objective procedures that preserve the stability and security of the Internet. This strategy is being informed by ICANN's past gTLD introductions. These are the proof of concept tests in the Year 2000 round that resulted in the introduction of seven new gTLDs and this year's round considering ten applications for Sponsored TLDs (sTLDs), a focused sub-set of gTLDs. Review by third parties has confirmed ICANN’s commitment to fair and impartial processes. As the OECD noted in a major review of ICANN’s introduction of new TLDs: “When OECD countries allocate resources they have certain common objectives irrespective of the method chosen. These can include efficient allocation of a resource and efficient use of that resource, transparency in the award of resource, non-discrimination, and the creation of appropriate conditions for market competition. There may also be other wider economic and social objectives. Through statements and actions it is clear that ICANN shares the ideals inherent in these objectives.” The questions to be addressed in the implementation of a new gTLD strategy are complex and draw on technical, economic, operational, legal, public policy and other elements. Moreover, many stakeholders in the global Internet community will be interested in participating in the implementation of the strategy. Mechanisms to foster informed participation by community ICANN is committed to international participation in decisions that determine the security and stability of the global Internet; the Internet's participants, origins and diversity are its ultimate strength. With this global participation, ICANN ensures that policy development incorporates all relevant perspectives, and that it is operating for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole. The mechanism in place guarantees to continue to develop, maintain and improve the policy development processes which foster global broad-based participation, competition, continued innovation and above all, end-to-end interoperability for the Internet users around the world. ICANN currently coordinates a number of aspects of public participation in ICANN, including interaction with our multiple stakeholder operating across various Supporting Organizations. We constantly update our Website with the latest news and ICANN initiatives and organize regular online Public Forums concerning issues pertinent to and of priority to the Internet community. ICANN will be adding a separate and additional Community Relations website to further promote participation - this website will be designed to provide the newcomer and the experienced ICANN participant with fresh information, ease of participation in ongoing public forums, and an ICANN perspective on current issues in the Internet community. ICANN receives regular input from the general community of Internet users and support active and positive participation in the ICANN process by Internet stakeholders, especially end users. This is how participation in the ICANN process works: 1. By continuing to support a public meeting program that unites government, business, public, private, and civil society interests of facilitating a stable, interoperable and dynamic Internet. To accomplish this objective ICANN holds public meetings throughout the year. Recent meetings have been held in Accra, Bucharest, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, Montreal, and Tunis. So far this year meetings in Rome and Kuala Lumpur have attracted over 800 delegates from 78 different countries and Cape Town is expected to draw even greater numbers. The ICANN community sees a growing need for outreach to developing country Internet communities, particularly in areas where network access to tools such as broadband, and personal travel costs can impose a significant burden on local operators, users, and other stakeholders in the ICANN process. These local Internet communities are vital stakeholders in ICANN, relying on a stable and secure DNS to provide common ground as they connect to and engage with the global Internet. ICANN seeks to foster their involvement in the ICANN process, and to ensure that their needs are fully considered as policy is developed. Therefore ICANN is developing criteria for regional offices and to establish an ICANN presence in each ICANN region to better support the needs of regional stakeholders, enhance staff diversity, and enable ICANN staff to attend and support more regional forums. 2. We have developed a comprehensive and multilingual communications strategy, ICANN Materials are now translated into over 12 different languages and the Website will soon be available in French and Spanish. We have a collaborative outreach program and strong media relationships, to ensure that ICANN and its stakeholders are constructively aware of each others' activity, roles, resources and interests. 3. Priority is given to support and encouragement of a policy development process that fully engages the principle of private-public governance and bottom-up coordination of multiple stakeholder interests. 4. We have built a significant track-record in facilitating participation from the global community of Internet stakeholders, to ensure that policy development incorporates all relevant perspectives and stakeholder value for the security and stability of the global Internet. WHOIS The gTLD Registry Agreements and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement require that the registry operator and the registrars provide WHOIS services that can be used as a look-up service for registrars, registrants and other individuals and businesses that wish to query details of domain names or name servers stored in the registry. The WHOIS data includes information about the registrant, administrative contact, and technical contact associated with each domain name. ICANN and the GNSO continue working on developing WHOIS system requirements. ICANN announced recently three new consensus policies developed through ICANN’s policy development process. Once fully implemented these new regulations are expected to demonstrate further success in the accuracy and usability of the WHOIS services. The result of the new policies along with additional statistics will be made available to the United States Department of Commerce in the two yearly reports as required in Amentment 6 to the ICANN/Department of Commerce MOU: Experience with the WHOIS Data Reminder Policy and, Effectiveness of the WHOIS Data Problem Report System. To facilitate the information requested in these reports ICANN will continue to expand and improve the WHOIS Data Problem Report System (as is available at www.internic.org). The latest version of this system was deployed in March 2004. Development of Contingency Plan ICANN has developed a contingency plan to ensure continuity of operations in the event that ICANN incurs a severe disruption of operations, or the threat thereof, by reason of its bankruptcy, corporate dissolution, a natural disaster, or other financial, physical or operational event. ICANN worked collaboratively with the Department of Commerce earlier this year in an effort to ensure that the plan reflects the international nature of the DNS. The IANA Function The IANA is a function performed by ICANN. The IANA has three main stakeholders: the Top Level Domain (TLD) managers, the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), and the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). The IANA is also the operator of the .int TLD registry, among other functions. IANA – Redelegations, response time, et. al. · The ccTLD redelegation process follows a format with deep roots, going all the way back to RFC 1591 (1994) and beyond · The key aspect of our redelegation process is that the members of the Local Internet Community (LIC) come to agreement on the direction a redelegation should take · ICANN does not “intervene” in the management of a ccTLD. · ICANN does offer its services in facilitating conversation and understanding between parties in order to come to a more rapid conclusion · Because this process depends almost wholly on the parties in the LIC, and require extensive examination by the ICANN staff, some redelegations can take years to sort out, while others can be handled much more quickly. Transition to IPv6 Recognizing the importance of IPv6 to the Internet community, ICANN has coordinated with its Root Server System Advisory Committee, Top Level Domain managers, Security and Stability Advisory Committee, and other interested parties in careful analysis of this issue. After a period of thorough examination, the decision was made to move forward with deployment of the IPv6 address records in the manner prescribed by the community. On 20 July 2004 the IPv6 AAAA records for the Japan (.jp) and Korea (.kr) ccTLD name servers became visible in the root zone file with serial number 2004072000. Other requests have been received and processed. It is expected that the IPv6 records for France (.fr) will be added shortly. Other requests are pending and will be added in accordance with documented procedure, which was developed through ICANN's unique multi-stakeholder consensus-based approach. -
Ambassador David A. Gross
Testimony
Ambassador David A. Gross
Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you for holding this important hearing and I appreciate the opportunity to testify concerning the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) and on discussions that have been taking place internationally on the issue of Internet governance. I am Ambassador David Gross, the U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy (CIP) at the Department of State. The Department of State has primary authority and ultimate responsibility for establishing U.S. foreign policy with respect to international communications and information policy, in close coordination with numerous Government agencies. I would like to describe our accomplishments at Phase I of WSIS, update you on how Phase II is progressing, and articulate our key objectives for Phase II as they relate to the foreign policy dimensions of the issue of Internet governance. I will also summarize current international discussions relating to the Internet and the key principles that the U.S. believes will promote the continued growth, reliability, and stability of the Internet. Let me first emphasize that we should all be proud of the role that the U.S. has played in the development and stewardship of the Internet. Information and communication technologies (ICT) have transformed our world and created new opportunities on a global scale. The Internet provides tremendous opportunities for economic and social development. The Internet has become a key medium for communicating information and ideas and conducting business. It has promoted education through distance learning, facilitated scientific advancements through sharing of research, and expanded the reach of health care through telemedicine. It has changed the way we live, learn, and work, and it will continue to transform our lives. Recognizing the central role that information and communication technologies play in economic and social development, the United Nations has sponsored the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to focus world attention on the issues related to information and communication technologies and their uses for economic and social development. The World Summit on Information Society is being held in two phases. Phase I took place in Geneva in December of 2003, and Phase II will take place in Tunisia in November of 2005. I had the honor of leading the U.S. delegation to Phase I of the Summit. Dr. John Marburger, the Science Adviser to the President and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, represented the President at the Summit and delivered the U.S. address to the Summit. The Summit resulted in a Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action. As part of the WSIS process, the global community came together for the first time to recognize that information and communication technologies are a key element of political progress, economic growth, and social development. By agreeing to the Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, the United States reaffirmed our commitment to the importance of the use of ICTs to promote peace, security and stability, and to enhance democracy, respect for human rights, open and transparent government and the rule of law. We are pleased that through the adoption of the WSIS Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, the international community recognized that infrastructure development, human capacity building, and network security are critical to achieving our vision. A global consensus emerged at the Summit that a multi-stakeholder approach to the development of ICTs and, in particular the Internet, is essential. Relevant stakeholders include Governments, international organizations, the private sector and civil society. The Summit recognized the importance of private and public sector involvement as a prerequisite for the successful international coordination and cooperation needed to meet our shared goal of ensuring that all the world’s inhabitants realize the benefits afforded by the Internet. The delegates to WSIS identified and achieved consensus on a series of difficult issues that represent key challenges presented by the Information Society in which we now live: First, Governments affirmed their commitment to freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Second, Governments agreed that achieving ubiquitous and affordable access to ICT infrastructure and services requires a stable policy and regulatory environment that attracts private investment, fosters competition, and promotes the development of human capacity through education and training. Third, WSIS also recognized that building confidence in the security of ICTs is critical and that cooperation is needed to foster a global culture of cyber security. Fourth, WSIS also acknowledged the importance of intellectual property protection to the Information Society. Phase II of WSIS will focus on three themes – implementation of the Geneva Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action, financing mechanisms for ICT development, and Internet governance. Phase II will not reopen the agreements reached in Phase I. Instead, it will provide the United States an opportunity to reaffirm the importance of freedom of expression, promotion of democracy, advancement of scientific research and development, human capacity building, infrastructure development, growth of the Internet and a continued leadership role for the private sector, and network security. As agreed during Phase I of WSIS, the UN Secretary General is establishing the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). This group will do the following: (1) develop a working definition of Internet governance; (2) identify the public policy issues that are relevant to Internet governance; (3) develop a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of governments, existing intergovernmental and international organizations and other forums as well as the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries; and (4) prepare a report on the results of this activity to be presented for consideration and appropriate action for the Second Phase of WSIS in Tunis in 2005. Consultations on the establishment of the WGIG were held on September 20-21 in Geneva to obtain the views of the various stakeholders. The meeting was well attended with broad participation from governments, private sector, civil society and the academic community. The Group agreed that future discussions on this issue should go forward in a transparent and inclusive environment. To assist the work of the WGIG, the United States submitted a paper encouraging the WGIG to adopt six guiding principles with respect to Internet development. These principles promote the continued growth, reliability, and stability of the Internet and encourage innovation. They are to: · Promote an enabling environment through effective and efficient competition: To maximize the economic and social benefits of the Internet, a clear, market-based, legal framework and supportive policy environment that promotes and ensures effective and efficient competition is important. The United States believes that full competition is the cornerstone of a healthy, robust Internet market. Innovation, expanded services, and lower prices will arise most easily in a market-driven arena, not in an environment that operates under substantial regulation. · Recognize the roles of all stakeholders: One of the main drivers of the success of the Internet has been its distributed nature. This open architecture has encouraged innovation by all stakeholders. Cooperation and partnership among all stakeholders is fundamental to building a people-centred Information Society. Public-private partnerships are essential to this effort. · Support continued private sector leadership: The private sector is the primary investor in and innovator of Internet infrastructure, products, content, and services. Private sector participants are the primary stakeholders who build, operate and maintain the IP-based networks that collectively form the Internet and are largely responsible for its commercial success. Consequently it is imperative that private sector leadership in these areas be maintained and encouraged. · Avoid overly prescriptive or burdensome regulation: The Internet exists in a dynamic, fast-changing environment. Competitive market forces, rather than prescriptive rules, more effectively respond to public needs. While being cautious not to use outdated regulatory models on the Internet, the United States recognizes that each country needs to address its domestic public policy objectives. However, often the costs of regulation can outweigh the benefits of regulation. Therefore, we encourage countries to examine the pros and cons of regulation prior to adoption, on a case-by-case basis, in a full and open process. · Ensure the stability and security of networks: Confidence in the security and stability of the Internet is essential if the economic and social potential of the Internet is to be achieved. · Embrace the global, collaborative and cooperative nature of the network: The Internet is intrinsically global in nature and national efforts need to be supported by effective international and regional cooperation. Efforts should be made to enhance existing synergies and not duplicate the extensive body of work already underway in the global and regional bodies. The U.S. funds several information and communication technology programs in furtherance of these principles. For example, the Digital Freedom Initiative (DFI) is an initiative established by President Bush to provide small businesses and entrepreneurs with information and communication technology skills and knowledge to compete in the global economy. Our current DFI partners are Senegal, Indonesia, Peru, and Jordan. Over 90 U.S. businesses, non-governmental and academic institutions comprise the DFI Business Roundtable and provide volunteers for the Program. The Telecommunications Leadership Program (TLP) is a joint State Department/USAID Program that, in coordination with other agencies including National Telecommunications and Information Administration and the Federal Communications Commission, provides technical assistance and builds institutional capacity in developing countries to reform their telecommunications policies and practices. TLP’s primary goal is to help developing country governments establish fair, transparent, and market-oriented telecommunications policies and practices. Typical projects include training for developing country telecommunication officials and workshops on current telecommunications issues. USAID has a wide variety of important programs that support telecommunications in many developing countries around the world. The Internet governance debate has stimulated many views and proposals but we all agree on one essential fact – the Internet is the leading transforming technology of today. We will work to ensure that the consensus achieved in the Geneva Phase of the WSIS process – international recognition and support for a multi-stakeholder approach to the Internet – can be further elaborated for the benefit of all. Internet governance will be debated and discussed in other multilateral settings over the next few years. These include the International Telecommunication Union’s Plenipotentiary Conference scheduled for 2006 and a possible Treaty-level conference on International Telecommunications Regulations in 2007. We will continue to actively participate in these discussions and to reiterate the importance of private sector leadership and support for the privatization of the technical management of the domain name system as envisioned in the ICANN model. That multi-stakeholder model has served the United States and the global digital economy well. As we approach the issue of Internet governance, the United States is aware of the paramount goal of building an open, empowering Information Society. Communication technologies link the nations of the world. The Internet is one key that can unlock the door to limitless opportunities for all stakeholders in society. Given the Internet’s potential to drive economic growth, foster the exchange of information and ideas, and spread democracy, the challenge is to ensure that all persons fully enjoy the benefits provided by these technologies. This concludes my prepared remarks. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have.
Witness Panel 2
-
Mr Pat Morrissey
Witness Panel 2
Mr Pat Morrissey
Good afternoon, Chairman Burns, Ranking Member Hollings, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Patrick Morrissey, I am the Deputy Director of Law Enforcement and Intelligence with the United States Secret Service. I am pleased to have an opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the security of the Internet’s Domain Name System (DNS), associated DNS root servers, Top Level Domains, and related DNS support infrastructure. At the most basic level all Internet communication begins with addressing and naming - identifying who should communicate and what objects are relevant. The DNS infrastructure is very closely tied to the fundamental health and stability of the Internet. As many of you are aware, without DNS services, vast portions of the Internet itself become inaccessible for almost all applications. This is a particularly heightened concern as the United States and other nations around the world are increasingly dependent on a functioning Internet for fundamental business activities, and homeland and national security activities. Domain Name System DNS security is a highly complex topic fraught with many technical nuances. At their very essence, domain name services translate commonly used domain names such as www.dhs.gov to a machine addressable Internet Protocol (IP) Address. So, for example, when a computer user types a web page into a browser, DNS services translate that name to a numeric IP address and direct the web browser application to the corresponding server, which, if there are no problems, responds to the browser’s request. This process of mapping of a domain name to a numerical IP address is called “name resolution.” While the concept are fundamental and fairly easy to conceptualize, the distributed architecture of the Internet results in a complex series of practices and protocols that work together to provide great autonomy and control to network and domain name operators. These practices and protocols are necessary to preserve a highly functional and interoperable Internet. Because of this distributed architecture domain name queries often traverse multiple branches of a DNS “tree” to resolve the address for a requested system name. Using our previous example, when a user types www.dhs.gov, the computer first contacts the server to determine the IP address of dhs.gov. The system is hierarchical so that the root servers themselves do not have to handle the entirety of all global DNS resolutions. There are other ways that the resolution can occur as well. But, this is the most fundamental method. As you can appreciate, the modern Internet supports millions of registered domains (according to Verisign as of Q2 2004) and allows each domain name owner to define how their domain responds to Internet queries for email delivery, web services, file transfers, telnet and other Internet applications. For complex enterprise networks, various branches of an organization’s DNS are often managed by different systems administrators and service providers, and many times are located in separate geographic areas. . This allows for greater flexibility and autonomy for the infrastructure, but results in increased complexity and possibility for compromise. While there is no doubt that the number of registered domain names has increased dramatically over the past 10 years, there has also been a dramatic increase in the number of Internet users and associated domain name queries performed and responded to by the DNS infrastructure. The Internet’s DNS infrastructure handles billions of translations transactions each day, as well as keeping millions of IP addresses up to date. In practice, DNS forms one of the largest and most active distributed databases in the world, and without it, the Internet very quickly becomes generally unusable for many purposes and applications. Some challenges to the successful delivery of DNS services include denial of service and distributed denial of service attacks, DNS poisoning, misconfiguration, and spoofing. DNS servers, and the software controlling those servers, are attractive targets to attackers. Imagine a scenario where a user types an e-commerce website into a browser and a different web site appears instead. Or worse yet, this different web site which looks very similar to the authentic site, appears where a user could be fooled into entering personal information, credit card information and more. Other ways that attackers target the DNS include denial of service attacks to overload DNS servers, or exploiting vulnerabilities to compromise corporate networks. In addition, viruses can also shut down DNS services by using thousands of infected machines to search the network for new victims often overloading those name servers. The State of DNS and Root Server Security Over the years, DNS has been the subject of many high profile attacks. For example, in 2001 it was widely reported that attackers disabled nine of 13 root servers. Contrary to popular belief, only one root name server failed during those attacks, and it only failed for a short time over a 45 minute period. The "“nine of 13 failed" statement was specious, and based on” widely reported at that time simply was an inaccurate monitoring. statement. Since that time, as with other key components of the Internet, meaningful investments have been made by root server operators and others, and significant progress is occurring to improve the resiliency of the network on which the Internet relies. Denial of service attacks are generally considered to be among the most likely and potentially dangerous threats to the DNS infrastructure. The highly distributed and robust global DNS architecture mitigates the risk of denial of service attacks but increased capacity is believed to be the most practical protection against denial of service attacks. Better system design, investments in high performance systems, configuration management, and the implementation of anycast protocols have also increased our national and global capacity to handle many attack scenarios. The development and deployment of anycast has allowed for the replication of the 13 root servers; there are dozens. Having a larger number of high performance systems function as the so that there are multiple instances of those servers. The ability to replicate those root servers allows for faster response times, greater load distribution and diversity, and greater overall infrastructure survivability. The discovery of bugs or vulnerabilities in implementations of DNS, such as Internet Systems Consortium-Berkley Internet Name Domain (ISC-BIND), is an infrequent but potentially serious occurrence. Investments within the root and top-level domain servers have resulted in reasonable diversity in DNS software. This reduces the likelihood that a single software vulnerability that is discovered will affect the entire infrastructure. There has been a series of proprietary and commercially available implementations of DNS. While these implementations have not benefited from the extensive peer review that ISC-BIND has, many of them show significant advantages in ease of management and performance characteristics for both discarding invalid inquires as well as processing valid requests. Again, since an effective defense for denial of service attacks is to design significant excess capacity, DNS performance is important. Generally speaking, the owners and operators of the root servers, global top level domains and country code top level domains are doing a good job of managing and protecting the DNS critical infrastructure. These owner/operators have taken, and continue to take, the security of DNS very seriously, covering, not only the cyber aspects, but also, physical security, operational network challenges and corresponding policies and procedures. There exists a good diversity of deployment and software in DNS today. The operators monitor DNS and coordinate the community’s response in the event of anomalous activity. Many of the case scenarios where large scale outages might occur in the DNS root infrastructure typically require a combination of factors which are very unlikely to occur, given the level of professionalism in the management of today’s infrastructure and investment in capacity and diversity. However, to coordinate response to a cyber emergency of national significance the National Cyber Security Division established the National Cyber Response Coordination Group (NCRCG) formerly the Interagency Incident Management Group (C-IIMG). NCRCG is a forum of 13 principle agencies to coordinate intra-governmental and public-private preparedness and operations to respond to, and recover from national level cyber incidents and physical attacks that have significant cyber consequences. The group brings together officials from national security, law enforcement, defense, intelligence, and other government agencies that maintain significant cyber security responsibilities and capabilities. In the event of an incident, NCRCG can provide a strategic picture of the impact to the information infrastructure and a coordinated response, due to its close association with others in private industry, academia, and international and local governments. The senior level membership of NCRCG helps ensure that during a significant national incident, the full range and weight of federal capabilities will be deployed in a coordinated and effective fashion. The interagency group meets monthly, has established communication protocols and coordination activities, and has conducted a tabletop exercise to identify gaps in performance. DNS is one of the largest and most active distributed databases in the world, and the distributed nature of DNS is essential to its performance. By distributing the physical location of the server, as well as the kinds of organizations responsible for managing and protecting those servers, DNS in its entirety is not susceptible to simple failure scenarios. Non-systemic, but problematic DNS issues While the professional management and resiliency of the DNS infrastructures have made great progress, serious issues still exist. Technical surveys of corporate DNS implementations show that 62 percent of DNS implementations are flawed or vulnerable. These practices unnecessarily expose corporations, business partners and clients a wide variety of bad scenarios ranging from information disclosure to full network compromise. There are a number of best practices that have developed to secure the DNS. Common practice includes limiting Zone transfers, avoiding recursive queries, patching, and using obfuscated naming conventions. In fact, several best practices and guides have emerged from a variety of industry and academic sources on topics such as: · Securing an Internet name server · A secure BIND configuration and topology to help defend against BIND attacks · Running an authoritative-only BINF name server · Installing and configuring a DNS server in Windows 2000 · How to install and configure a DNS server in Windows 2003 · Primary and secondary DNS server configuration for ISPs · The importance of separating DNS caches from DNS servers For your reference, a list of websites to these guides is included in the appendix to my written statement. The Future The demands on DNS are only going to continue to grow. Mandates for e-government, and incentives for online payment and commerce only constitute the very beginnings of our reliance on some form of DNS; RFID, anti-spam, and other applications will soon call greater attention to the importance of DNS. In the future users must be able to have a degree of confidence in the naming on the Internet. DNS was originally developed when the Internet was a trusted environment that didn’t anticipate on the need for authentication as the Internet evolved. New security extensions and other DNS enhancements have been proposed that would allow DNS infrastructure to have a method of verifying the integrity of record being served, in addition to verifying the actual identity of servers claiming to be authoritative DNS servers. A second feature of these enhancements would allow DNS to be used as a central distribution method for public-keys, establishing the DNS system as the global architecture for security information distribution as well as addresses and names. All of these additional enhancements to the DNS system are currently being evaluated by various standards bodies and task forces for implementation. Most notably, the directorate of Science and Technology within DHS is actively developing programs aimed at accelerating development and deployment of DNS security into the Internet infrastructure. Conclusion The DNS system is an essential subsystem of the global Internet. The highly redundant and distributed architecture of DNS makes it extremely robust and generally resilient. However, as threats and exploits become increasingly complex, the DNS system will continue to be attacked in new and different ways. It is everyone’s responsibility to ensure that the DNS system is as modern and robust as possible. The Department of Homeland Security, through the National Cyber Security Division is committed to working with private sector, government, and international organizations, providers, and individual companies to continue to support increased resiliency of the DNS system. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. I would be pleased to answer any questions you have at this time. Appendix Securing an Internet name server http://www.cert.org/archive/pdf/dns.pdf A secure BIND configuration and topology to help defend against BIND attacks: http://www.cymru.com/Documents/secure-bind-template.html Running an authoritative-Only BIND name server http://www.isc.org/pubs/tn/?tn=isc-tn-2002-2.html Installing and configuring a DNS server in Windows 2000 http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-6268-1033115.html How to install and configure a DNS Server in Windows Server 2003 http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;814591 Primary and secondary DNS server configuration for ISPs http://www.microsoft.com/serviceproviders/whitepapers/isp_dns_config.asp The importance of separating DNS caches from DNS servers http://cr.yp.to/djbdns/separation.html -
Mr. Bill Manning
Witness Panel 2
Mr. Bill Manning
Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I would like to state that I only speak from my perspective as an operator of the "B" root nameserver; each operator speaks for himself or herself and I am pleased to see several of them here today. I would like to make a few personal observations and then direct my comments to the history and evolution of the DNS root server system make some observations on its current status and muse on factors that will affect its future. First, it is important to understand that perhaps the key attribute of Internet technologies is the speed with which change occurs and is propagated. The phrase "Internet Time" refers quite directly to the speed of change-for innovation, obsolescence, application relevance, technologies, threats, and countermeasures. This phrase also may be viewed as the tendency for technical advances to propagate worldwide very quickly. Change, rapid change, is an attribute of the Internet. The DNS and the root server system has had and will continue to accommodate the pace of technical advances in the past, today, and into the future while taking steps to protect the network against error or malice. Second is that the root server operators have done a very good job at managing change, since the inception of the DNS. This has always involved coordination with others. Proper planning and extensive change management are a part of the system and will continue to evolve over time. It is useful to recognize that root server operations have, in general, not had to worry about the contents of the root zone itself. We simply publish the data provided. Our focus and mission has been on providing a diverse, robust publication platform that provides the best service possible. An integral component of the best service is preserving the integrity of the data. A third facet is that the root server operators have responded to the growth of the Internet, from a DARPA funded research project to the foundation of the Information Superhighway (http://www.ed.gov/pubs/parents/internet/whatis.html) or Information GRID (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf2/d81001p.pdf) by increasing the outreach, as publishers of key data, to non-technical communities. The root server operators must try to understand and accommodate their desires while continuing to provide the highest levels of service to the existing Internet community. It is important to explicitly recognize that the Internet is composed of the interconnection of many different networks, each with its own policy, management, and service level requirements. This outreach continues, with perhaps more interest being expressed by national and international bodies in today's environment than in the past. The fourth area looks to the future. New features and technologies are emerging that will place additional demands on the root server system. The prudent and careful planning processes that have been adopted by the root server community, in addition to working with other standards based organizations will allow us to integrate and deploy those features in a prudent way, with minimal disruptive impact for the Internet user. So much for my observations. Now some history. I became involved with the operation of the "B" root server in 1994, when I was asked by Jon Postel to work with the IANA and the other, existing root operator community. At this period of time, the evolution of the Internet had lead to an increased and noticeable change in loading on the machines acting as root nameservers. These nine machines were serving not only the root zone, but many of the top-level domain (TLD) zones as well. Additionally, many of the queries were being sourced from outside the US, as Internet technologies were adopted in many countries. (http://www.cs.wisc.edu/~lhl/maps/) This lead to my first task, which was to work with several other root server operators and Jon in devising a non-disruptive way to adapt the system to not only cope with what was the current technological challenge which was the ever increasing load on the system; we also set out to include additional parties in the operations of root servers, and reduce the apparent time to answer "queries" from end-systems. The method as designed, renaming the machines as single letters and sharing a common domain name, allowed us to create four additional "letters" and encourage TLD holders to establish their own servers. An example of the outreach to others may be found in RFC 2010, which attempted to document the engineering consensus on best practices for running root and TLD nameservers for operators encountering such tasks for the first time. Jon coordinated the re-deployment of two of these new root servers, one into Europe, making this the second root server there, and one into Japan, the first in Asia. Work was in progress to coordinate the redeployment of the other two, when Jon passed away. At that time, plans had been underway for some time to formalize the functions of IANA under an independent entity, but his death was still a premature and somewhat traumatic event. It had several seminal effects, one of which was the first ever face to face meeting of all the root server operators in Nov. 1998." This meeting resulted in the crystallization of the core principles of the root server operator community: We faithfully publish the root zone that is provided by the IANA. We are absolutely committed to providing stable, reliable data to the Internet Community We work together and with others on technical coordination A few words on these principles. We are not editors. The zone contents are published as provided. It is expected that the data provided will have been checked, verified, and will accurately represent the needs of the Internet community. A description of the methods used was provided during the ICANN meeting in Marina del Rey in 2001, which focused on the security of the DNS. (http://www.rssac.org/mdr2001-rootsec.pdf) To publish this data, each operator has invested and must continue to invest the resources needed to provide stable, reliable services to the Internet community. Such investment is different for each operator, recognizing that each is placed differently in the broad categories that have been used to describe components of the Internet, e.g. commercial, research & education, and governmental/military sectors. The resources required within each sector are similar but not homogeneous. And while we, as operators, are the experts in our particular discipline, we can and do work with other standards bodies on technical coordination and planning the adoption of new technologies and features. We also have an active outreach to non-technical bodies that have an interest in this work, such as ICANN's GAC, the ITU's WSIS, and this meeting today. A review of the past history of the root server operators will show that we have always performed our task with a diligence and attention to detail that shows a level of professional demeanor and behavior. As a community the root server operators provided a baseline of stability to the Internet community while the important issues of Internet management and governance were being hammered out in the absence of the original IANA, Jon Postel. These issues are still in a state of flux, six years after his death, with a number of influential actors, each with their own view on what is of critical importance and each with their own contributions to bring to the table. I believe that the root operators are expecting the IANA to continue to be the source of the root zone file data. The role the root server operators play is to provide the stable operational basis for the users of Internet technologies so that these important issues can be adequately dealt with while we can continue expanding the scope and reach of Internet technologies across the digital divide and prepare for the new features and capabilities that will be ask of the root server system. Some of the highlights in the root server system since that seminal meeting follow. In early 1999, the root operator community was asked to participate in the Y2K evaluations, with an eye to maintaining the operational stability of the root server system. We not only generated a report on the impact of Y2K on the root server system, we also participated in the active monitoring of the system during the event. (http://www.rssac.org/y2k-statement.htm) Several open issues were identified in this report that impact the security of the operations of the root servers, not all of which have been addressed. In the 1999/2000 time frames, RSSAC recommended, at the urging of the root operations community to migrate TLD delegations off the root servers and onto server sets specifically dedicated for publishing TLD data. This activity has been largely completed. In 2001 the root server operators tested, planned and after consultation with RSSAC, deployed the first phase of protecting the integrity of the root zone data with the use of transaction signatures (TSIG) as documented here: (http://www.rssac.org/rs-tsig6.htm) This technique ensures that the data is transferred between servers that share the correct tokens. In the 2002/2003 timeframe the root server operators began to broadly implement what is called "anycast". This technique allows multiple servers to be deployed, each of which may appear to be the original server. This technique was selected because it allows there to be potentially hundreds of new root server instances. This has two advantages: 1) it allowed the root operators to place servers much closer to many more of the Internet users. 2) it mitigates the impact of denial of service attacks by "sinking" bad traffic close to its source while leaving the other servers that service other parts of the network topology relatively untouched. This technique has been very successful, with nearly 80 root server instances now in service on every continent except Antarctica. An overview of anycast technology was presented to the ICANN GAC at their meeting in Rio and may be found here (http://www.autonomica.se/liman/presentations/icann) Use of anycast technologies has helped maintain one of the core objectives, to provide stable, reliable DNS information. The security and integrity of the root server system is integral to our mission of providing stable and reliable service to the Internet community. It is important to note however that the concerns regarding what factors are most crucial to the security of the root server system has varied over time and will change in the future. For instance after the 9/11 terrorist attacks there were concerns about physical security of the root servers. A survey of the root servers found that all servers were housed facilities that maintain multi-level access controls in restricted access datacenters. From that basic design, there are ranges of increasing physical security capabilities within the root-server community. It should be pointed out that several of the root nameservers are located in physically very secure, world-class environments with the primary "I" instance site in Stockholm, Sweden, is probably being the most physically secure installation to date and unlikely to be superceded in the future. In a similar way the large "distributed denial of service" attack of 2002 caused the risk of the root server system being overwhelmed by a flood of apparently malicious queries to be regarded as an important threat to guard against. Hence the subsequent broad adoption of anycast deployment that has led to an increase in capacity by more than two orders of magnitude in less than two years time. However, there remain ranges of techniques used by the operations community to cope with the massive increase in queries to the root servers. Anycast is one technique; extensive provisioning of communications capacity from many providers into single locations has the same effect but with a distinctly different threat model. These examples illuminate the point that the security of the root server system is intrinsic to the service provided. Our mission is not only to "serve the data" but also to ensure that we can continue to serve the data in the light of changes in the environment that we work in. And this is exactly what is being done. It might be reasonable to ask who is the intended consumer of the data we publish. I think that it is a generally accepted view that the root server operations community is responsible to the general Internet community at large due to a social contract that is much older than any subsequent administrative oversight. There exists a status quo process that works, I have confidence that a formal agreement will evolve, and in the meantime I posit that the root server community as publisher and ICANN, in existing partnership with DoC and Verisign as editor both regard our responsibilities as both clear and competently met to date. Hence one could view the relation between ICANN and each operator is rather one between peers that fulfill different tasks where each eventually is responsible to the Internet community. I will note that when such a formal agreement has emerged, it too will be subject to a continuous process of evolution and refinement as the Internet itself grows and changes. This last paragraph points to some of the future features of the DNS that various root server operators are involved in, as they will have an impact on how the root zone data is made available to the larger Internet community. First is ipv6. As you are aware, DoC, in the NTIA office has been actively involved in developing an understanding of the impact of ipv6 and its impact on the stability of Internet data visibility. (http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/ntiageneral/ipv6/) Most of the root operators, as they participated in ICANNs root server system advisory committee, evaluated the impact of adding ipv6 capable servers at the TLD level and with due caution and guidelines, recommended ICANN proceed with adding ipv6 support for TLDs earlier this year. (http://www.rssac.org/rssac-v6tldglue.html) This recommendation has been reviewed and approved, with many TLD's now becoming visible over ipv6 transport. The impact of adding native ipv6 capability to the root servers will impact individual end systems in as yet, unidentified ways. Several of the root server operators are actively involved in performing the evaluations of the threat as an RSSAC task. Based on the last RSSAC meeting, there is every expectation that a report on the impact of adding ipv6 capability to the root servers will be completed before the next scheduled meeting in November. A bit further out is the deployment of DNS Security, a set of extensions to the technology of the DNS to strengthen it against the injection of false data. This is important as criminals develop more sophistication in identity theft and other frauds that rely on diverting user activity to false websites and email addresses. Root server operators are involved with the ICANN SSAC and several groups working on engineering best practices for deploying DNSSEC. Some of the root server operators, in their various capacities as members of the community, are also working with the IETF on technical standards and with early adopters of this technology on deployment plans. Some of the changes being wrought to the DNS are complex, and wide participation is needed in test and analysis to ensure that the general Internet user will benefit from these new features and capabilities while avoiding potential pitfalls. This concludes my presentation. Thank you for your time this afternoon. --bill manning -
Mr Ari Balogh
Witness Panel 2
Mr Ari Balogh
Good Afternoon Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee. My name is Aristotle Balogh; I am Senior Vice-President for Infrastructure of VeriSign, Incorporated, we are based in Mountain View, California, with major operation facilities located here in Northern Virginia. I have a prepared statement, which I request be inserted in the record. VeriSign delivers intelligent infrastructure services that make the Internet and telecommunications networks more reliable and secure. Everyday VeriSign’s infrastructure and services support: · 14-billion Web site look-ups and emails · Routing for 2.7-billion phone connections · Security for 3,000 global enterprises · $100-million in e-commerce transactions For over a decade, VeriSign has also managed the .COM and .NET top level domains. VeriSign is proud of how we have kept secure, managed, upgraded and innovated the essential directory services that make possible the secure, fast, safe and reliable access to web sites and email addresses for the worlds 1.2 billion users. With this perspective, I wish to make three points today: · First, the “State of the Internet” is sound, and the reliance on the Internet for commerce and communications is growing faster than expected. At the same time, however, security attacks are escalating dramatically, and criminals and other adversaries are becoming more sophisticated in the way they exploit the network’s weakness. · Second, the Internet is not a monolith. It’s a web of interests with different constituencies who care very much how their respective “web” is operated. · And third, because of its growing importance, and the escalating risks, we must invest and generally do more to ensure that the critical infrastructures of the Internet are protected. State of the Internet: How it is Vital to National and Economic Security Whether you work on Wall Street or Main Street, Silicon Valley or Paradise Valley, you and your business or organization rely on the Internet everyday for commerce and communications. Manufacturers have implemented systems that rely on the Internet to inventory and track shipments to assure efficient production. Congressional members and their staff rely on the Internet through their blackberries to communicate important information. Community support groups such as the American Cancer Society and The Boys and Girls Clubs of America rely on the Internet to share information and receive much needed donations. And Students rely on the Internet as a source for their homework. The Internet works really well. So, naturally most Internet users take the smooth operations for granted. The network volume has increased and will continue to grow exponentially. In the last two years alone, the numbers of website lookups and emails that VeriSign helps connect have doubled and the number of e-commerce transactions we process has tripled. Now with the actual convergence of the Internet and telecommunications services, these volumes will continue to grow in astonishing proportions adding to the demands on the Internet infrastructure. For example, already over three million Americans get phone service either using VoIP or Voice over Cable, and those numbers are projected to increase by five times by 2007. The Internet is no longer a small component of the economy. It is the essential foundation by which billions of dollars of economic activity take place every day. And that business volume is growing. If the Internet were to go down for a just few hours, we would lose hundreds of millions of dollars of economic activity. If it went down for several days, U.S. economic activity would be severely curtailed; payrolls would not be met, securities transactions not cleared; invoices not paid. Given its critical importance to the economy and society, one would think we’d be closely scrutinizing the security of the infrastructure that supports the Internet. Unfortunately, we are not. And even worse, our adversaries are paying close attention to this infrastructure. The Internet is Not a Monolith. It’s a Web of Interests Because we all surf the Internet through a web browser, we have a tendency to think of the Internet as a single entity. But its strength is the fact it’s a network of networks managed by multiple operators, ISP’s, and millions of website owners. In many instances, specific constituencies are passionate about their corner of the “web.” Congress and the rest of Government have a strong dependence on .GOV. You want your constituents to be able get to your websites and you and your staff to want to communicate via email and blackberries. .ORG is a critical top-level domain for the not-for-profit and non-profit world. United Way and many other charity organizations rely on it to communicate about their activities and raise money through online donations through their .ORG websites. So when .org goes down, as it did for over five hours one day this past June, it restrains the helping hands that reach out across the web. Even with the strong growth of other TLDs both in the United States and globally with the explosion of country-code domains, .COM and .NET remain the underpinning for commerce and communications. While we all know the importance of .COM, I want to focus my remarks on .NET because in the next year ICANN will face a decision about whether VeriSign should continue to operate .NET. While we all think of .COMcom as the center of the Internet, there actually can be no Internet without .NET. It is a little known fact that many of the services at the core of the DNS, the Internet’s routing system, and the operations of many top-level domains are reliant on the .NET servers. For example, banks, telephone carriers and other large institutions with blocks of names in .COM depend on the smooth functioning of .NET. Each branch of the US government has an infrastructure reliance on .NET; specifically, senate.GOV, whitehouse. GOV, supreme-court.GOV, NSA.GOV and fema.GOV all have .NET as the backbone to their infrastructure. And, many ISPs and corporate networks run their own consumer networks directly on .NET, such as Earthlink.NET, Comcast.NET, and ATT.NET. To give a specific example, while Wal-Mart’s website may be walmart.COM, a .NET server is relied upon for consumers to reach the website. If .NET goes down, walmart.com is unavailable. The same is true for 36 of the 100 most visited .COM websites. Overall, 30 percent of all e-commerce runs over .NET. In addition, more than 155 billion emails run over the .NET infrastructure every day. That means, every minute, .NET enables over $1.4m in e-commerce and the routing of over 650 thousand e-mails! As I mentioned, the .NET contract is up for re-compete by ICANN. VeriSign is proud of the fact that we have maintained and operated .NET at such a high level of performance and reliability. We are also pleased that leading companies such as Microsoft and Sun Microsystems have endorsed VeriSign’s continued operation of .NET. ICANN needs to take into account the critical importance of .NET in the overall functioning of the Internet. Understanding how many of the Internet’s 500 billion daily connections depend on .NET, VeriSign believes stability and performance should be the top two criteria for ICANN’s decision. ICANN has, however, indicated that promoting competition is most important. VeriSign recommends that the Senate Commerce Committee keep a close watch on the .NET selection process to ensure that the process is transparent and that stability, security and operational integrity are the primary evaluation criteria. Ensuring the Critical Infrastructure of the Internet is Protected and Strengthened To ensure the reliable availability of the Internet, we must focus on ensuring its integrity and continually strive to make it stronger. Make no mistake; the Internet is under constant attack. Recently, a member of the financial industry was attacked and virtually inoperable for more than a week. Earlier this year the vulnerability in the key routing protocols of the Internet sent service providers scrambling to patch their systems. Exploits of this vulnerability could have literally taken down the Internet. VeriSign has worked diligently with our industry colleagues to address security vulnerabilities. We continue our investments in R&D, and have developed innovative tools and architectures to make the DNS more reliable. We have also developed tools and practices to withstand large-scale attacks as well as tools to provide investigative forensics to help track down those who falsify Internet addresses as part of their web attacks. To help with DHS and the law enforcement agencies we have furnished our comprehensive DNS monitoring tools to the Department of Defense, the FBI, and DHS. We are working with global law enforcement to provide these same tools to the Internet security center of the European Union, as well as that of the U.K. More must be done to ensure the security of the networks. Critical infrastructure providers should report comprehensive information about their performance, including reports on outages and disruptions. For example, in October 2002, the root server system suffered a major denial of service attack that was widely reported in the press. Since this attack we have encouraged the sharing of best practices and the need for reporting requirements to assess root server performance, but two years have passed and there is still little progress. VeriSign strongly recommends that ICANN place a greater priority on reaching agreements with root server operators, the entities (of which VeriSign is one) that manage the 13 root servers that are the underpinning of all Internet traffic. These agreements should minimum operational thresholds and adherence to best practices. ICANN’s MOU with the Department of Commerce includes the requirement that it formalize relationships with the root server operators. It is critical that ICANN do so. The critical infrastructure industry must strive to constantly improve the operations of the top-level domains. Unfortunately, in at least one instance we have observed degradation in performance. That should not be acceptable because our enemies keep getting smarter. Internet operators must have incentives to invest in the Internet infrastructure. VeriSign has invested hundreds of millions of dollars in its infrastructure. Because of that investment, we were able to manage a ten-fold spike in volume of Internet traffic with ease. The incentives for VeriSign to invest on this scale depended upon the opportunity to offer new services. In recent years, however, the ability of companies such as VeriSign to introduce innovations that improve the Internet have been hindered and in some instances shut down. The reasons have been largely ideological and political. If it takes three years or more to bring a new service to the market, most companies won’t bother. Such roadblocks discourage companies from investing in new services and therefore making investments that ensure the Internet remains robust. VeriSign recommends that the Senate Commerce Committee hold oversight hearings on ICANN’s processes for the introduction of new services. CONCLUSION This fall we celebrate the 10th anniversary of the web browser available to consumers and effectively what we call the Internet. In those ten years, we have seen dramatic adoption. To put it in perspective, it took 46 years for 25 percent of the population to have electricity, 35 years for the telephone and 16 years for the personal computer. It took only nine years for the Internet. Mr. Chairman, it’s thanks to your leadership and others on this committee and in Congress who have helped ensure this dramatic growth. But as dramatic as the Internet’s growth has been, this is just the beginning. The decisions we make in months and years ahead will go a long way towards ensuring that this technology reaches its full potential. Thank you for giving me the time today to express our views.
