Ethos Capital's Press Release Targeting The Sale of PIR, .ORG gTLD →

Ethos Capital Announces Accountability Initiatives to Secure a Strong Future for .ORG

Ethos Voluntarily Initiates Legally-Binding Public Interest Commitments that Enforce Price Limits on .ORG and Codify Strong Safeguards Against Censorship of Free Expression and Use of Personal Data

Establishes a $10 Million Community Enablement Fund to Support the .ORG Community

Releases .ORG Stewardship Council Charter

February 21, 2020 – Boston, MA – Ethos Capital (“Ethos”) today announced several key initiatives that strengthen and reinforce the company’s commitments to the .ORG community as part of its acquisition of Public Interest Registry (“PIR”). These initiatives are legally-binding measures that enforce price limits, safeguard against censorship and protect personal data through an amendment to PIR’s Registry Agreement with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) that allows PIR to operate the .ORG top-level domain. This amendment is codified in what is known as a Public Interest Commitment (“PIC”). These legally-binding commitments cannot be unilaterally modified by PIR and will apply to .ORG regardless of who operates .ORG.

In connection with these initiatives, PIR has granted ICANN an additional extension to March 20, 2020 to review PIR's submissions. PIR will continue to work collaboratively with ICANN to address any potential outstanding questions by this date.

PUBLIC INTEREST COMMITMENT (PIC)

In response to the .ORG community’s requests for increased clarity around Ethos’ commitments, Ethos has voluntarily proposed to add an amendment to PIR’s .ORG Registry Agreement with ICANN in the form of a PIC. Upon completion of the acquisition, the PIC will become a legally binding amendment to the current Registry Agreement. It will be enforceable both by ICANN through its compliance department and by members of the community through ICANN’s Public Interest Commitments Dispute Resolution Procedure (“PICDRP”).

“We have been listening closely to stakeholder feedback – both positive and negative – and have been working diligently to address these specific issues head on,” said Erik Brooks, Founder & CEO of Ethos Capital. “A primary request we heard from the .ORG community was for strong enforceability measures to ensure that Ethos would be held accountable to its promises. We are taking these actions to show that we stand firmly behind the commitments we’ve made – and most importantly – behind the registrants and users who have made .ORG the incredible domain it is today.”

This Amendment to include the PIC will include the following legally-binding contractual provisions:

Affordability of .ORG Domain Names: Fees charged to registrars for initial or renewal registration of a .ORG domain name will not increase by more than 10% per year on average for eight years from the start of the current Registry Agreement, under a precise formula that does not permit front-loading of those price increases. Through this commitment, .ORG will become one of the only TLDs to have a price restriction and it will remain one of the most affordable domains in the world.

ORG Stewardship Council: The .ORG Stewardship Council (the “Council”) will have authority to provide independent advice on and a binding right to veto modifications proposed by PIR to PIR’s policies regarding (1) censorship and freedom of expression and (2) use of .ORG registrant and user data. The Council will have specific authority to veto any proposals or modifications that would limit the Council’s oversight in these areas. No employee, director or member of PIR shall serve on the Council.

Community Enablement Fund: PIR will establish a Community Enablement Fund to provide support for initiatives benefitting .ORG registrants and approved by the Council. The commission, charter, and funding of the Community Enablement Fund will be established by PIR’s Board with input from the Council. The Council will be responsible for providing recommendations and advice regarding the Community Enablement Fund. Appropriations from the Community Enablement Fund will be subject to approval of the PIR Board. It is anticipated that PIR will contribute $10 million to the Community Enablement Fund over the remaining life of the current Registry Agreement.

Annual Public Report: PIR will produce and publish annually a report that assesses PIR’s compliance with the PIC commitments and the ways in which PIR pursued activities for the benefit of the registrants of .ORG domain names during the preceding year.

.ORG STEWARDSHIP COUNCIL CHARTER

In addition to clarifying the role of the .ORG Stewardship Council in the PIC, Ethos has publicly released the .ORG Stewardship Council Charter (the “Charter”) outlining the principles and protocols that will govern the administration and operation of the Council.

Key components of the Charter are as follows:

The Council will have the power to veto changes to .ORG policies in two essential areas, consistent with the values of the .ORG community and with PIR’s Anti-Abuse Policy: (1) appropriate limitations and safeguards against censorship of free expression in the .ORG domain name space; and (2) appropriate limitations and safeguards regarding use or disclosure of registration data or other personal data of .ORG domain name registrants and users. The Council will also have authority to veto any changes to the .ORG Stewardship Council Charter that would diminish the Council’s rights with respect to policies in these two areas.

The Council will provide the PIR Board with independent strategic advice and recommendations to help guide PIR in considering and balancing the best interests of all .ORG stakeholders, in order to help the PIR Board assess how it can promote values that serve the mission-driven goals of the .ORG community.

The Council will provide recommendations and advice regarding the Community Enablement Fund established by PIR to provide support for initiatives benefitting .ORG registrants that are consistent with the mission and values of the .ORG community.

The full text of the PIC and the Charter, which includes additional information about the Council’s duties and responsibilities and details its policies and procedures, may be viewed at www.keypointsabout.org/accountability.

PUBLIC INTEREST REGISTRY’S FUTURE

The acquisition will ensure a bright future for PIR and .ORG registrants and users. Ethos’ investment in PIR will deliver significant benefits to the .ORG community, including investment in value-added products and services that will strengthen and grow the .ORG brand. PIR will conduct market studies and surveys to help identify the products and services that can further build the online presence of mission-driven organizations around the world.

“PIR’s mission has always been to serve the .ORG community, and this agreement with ICANN ensures that we will continue to do just that,” said Jon Nevett, CEO of Public Interest Registry. “The binding and enforceable commitments announced by Ethos today ensure protections that support Ethos’ pledge to be a responsible partner to PIR. On behalf of the entire team at PIR, we could not be more thrilled to be working with Erik, Nora and the Ethos team. It’s clear that they believe in our mission and support the values we’ve worked so hard to establish over the past 17 years. We hope to complete this transaction in the near future so that we can move forward on building an even stronger .ORG together.”

THE INTERNET SOCIETY’S FUTURE

The transaction will allow the Internet Society to do more for the Internet. The Internet Society will invest the proceeds from the transaction and use the resulting investment income to power the organization’s mission of an Internet that is open, globally-connected, trustworthy and secure. The sustainable funding offered by the investments will ensure the Internet Society community efforts to build, promote, and defend the Internet can continue, and that these efforts reach far and wide. By decoupling from its reliance on revenue from the domain name industry, the Internet Society will also achieve a greater degree of independence, allowing it to be a more vocal champion for an open and inclusive Internet that is a force for good for everyone.

“With this announcement, Ethos shows that it has been listening to the questions some have raised. Ethos has responded by embedding its commitments on pricing, censorship and data use policies in a legally-binding contract, and giving ICANN and the community the ability to hold Ethos to its commitments. They listened, and responded,” said Andrew Sullivan, President and CEO of the Internet Society. “With this in place, and as the Internet Society and PIR advance their missions, the Internet will become stronger, more secure, and more accessible.”

.ORG COMMUNITY DISCUSSION

The principals from Ethos, PIR and the Internet Society will host a community discussion on Thursday, February 27, 2020 from 3:00 – 4:00 PM EST (8:00-9:00 PM UTC) to provide additional details on these important commitments. More information about this event may be found at www.keypointsabout.org/events.

Ethos, PIR, and the Internet Society look forward to hosting additional community discussions in the coming weeks.

About Ethos Capital

Ethos Capital is a specialized investment firm that helps transform and grow established companies in today’s rapidly evolving digital economy. Ethos Capital’s Founder and CEO, Erik Brooks, has deep expertise and relationships across the business, technical, and social communities that protect and promote the Internet’s core founding values. As a mission-driven firm, Ethos Capital is committed to setting the gold standard of ethics and social responsibility for registry operations and supporting a globally connected and resilient Internet. For more information, please visit https://ethoscapital.com/.

About Public Interest Registry

Public Interest Registry (PIR) is a nonprofit corporation that operates the .ORG top-level domain—one of the world’s largest generic top-level domains with more than 10 million domain names registered worldwide. As an advocate for collaboration, safety, and security on the Internet, PIR’s mission is to serve as an exemplary registry and to provide a trusted digital identity. PIR strives to educate the global community to use the Internet more safely and effectively while taking a leadership position among Internet stakeholders on policy and other issues relating to the domain naming system. PIR was founded by the Internet Society (https://www.internetsociety.org) in 2002 and is based in Reston, Virginia, USA. Visit Public Interest Registry at https://pir.org.

About .ORG

.ORG is the original purpose-driven “generic” top-level domain (gTLD) with more than 10 million domain names registered worldwide. .ORG is open to everyone, providing a global platform for organizations, associations, clubs, businesses and individuals to bring their ideas to life. For more than 30 years, .ORG has built an enduring legacy of trust, preserving an open and secure Internet where diverse communities can establish a trusted online identity and freely share ideas. Visit www.TheNew.org for more information.

About the Internet Society

Founded by Internet pioneers, the Internet Society (ISOC) is a non-profit organization dedicated to ensuring the open development, evolution and use of the Internet. Working through a global community of chapters and members, the Internet Society collaborates with a broad range of groups to promote technologies that keep the Internet safe and secure, and to advocate for policies and infrastructure that enable universal access. The Internet Society also provides a corporate home for the administrative entity that supports the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF). For additional information, visit https://www.internetsociety.org/.

Contacts

Ethos Capital Monique Sidhom Sard Verbinnen & Co EthosCapital-SVC@sardverb.com

Public Interest Registry Andy Shea Jackson Street Partners shea@jacksonstreetpartners.com

Internet Society James Wood & Kristi Mason jwood@isoc.org Mason@isoc.org

Mozilla Foundation: ICANN Directors Should Scrutinize .ORG TLD Sale

via the Mozilla Foundation's blog, Mark Surman - Executive Director of the Mozilla Foundation - has crafted a superlative missive - proffering advice to the ICANN Board of Directors, in which, the good Mr. Surman advises the Board to 'take a close look' at the .ORG top level domain sale to Ethos Capital by ISOC. Given the lackluster effort mounted by the Board (see the ICANN .ORG Update), a 'look' won't be sufficient - perhaps methodical scrutiny of the minutae of the sale by members of the legal community would be more effective...

'ICANN directors should also discuss whether alternatives to the current sale should be considered, including an open call for bidders. Internet stalwarts like Wikimedia, experts like Marietje Schaake and dozens of important non-profits have proposed other options, including the creation of a co-op of dot orgs. In a Washington Post op-ed, former ICANN chair Esther Dyson argues that such a co-op would “[keep] dot-org safe, secure and free of any motivation to profit off its users’ data or to upsell them pricy add-ons.”' - via Mark Surman, writing at the Mozilla Foundation's blog this morning

ISOC, 2015 Jonathan B. Postel Service Award Goes To Rob Blokzijl

The Internet Society has awarded the Jonathan B. Postel Service Award to Rob Blokzijl, Ph.D. for his tireless labor and over 25 years as the Founding Member, and Retired Chair (retired in May 2014) at (Réseaux IP Européens] aka RIPE. That work coupled with the critically important labor of assisting other European policy makers, engineers and scientists to spread the Internet across Europe informed the selection of Dr. Blokzijl!.

'During the 1980s, Dr. Blokzijl was active in building networks for the particle physics community in Europe. Through his experience at the National Institute for Nuclear and High Energy Physics (NIKHEF) and CERN, he recognized the power of collaborating with others building networks for research and travelled worldwide to promote cooperation across networkers. In the 1990s, Dr. Blokzijl was influential in the creation of the Amsterdam Internet Exchange, one of the first in Europe. His most widely recognized contribution is as founding member and 25-year chairman of RIPE, the European open forum for IP networking. Dr. Blokzijl was also instrumental in the creation of RIPE NCC in 1992, the first Regional Internet Registry in the world.' - via the Internet Society

DARPA and BBN, 'A History of the ARPANET: The First Decade' →

Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) Report #4799 Document entitled 'A History of the ARPANET: The First Decade'. First published in 1981, and detailing early ARPANET engineering, via the March 2015 'The Internet Protocol Journal' (Volume 18, Number 1). Download IPJ back issues and find subscription information at Internet Prorocol Journal.

FCC Denies Delay Requests, Net Neutrality Rules On The March →

via Grant Gross, writing at PC World, comes news of the United States Federal Communications Commission denial of submitted requests from a group of Cable and Telephony providers (the ususal suspects) to slow the implementation of the Commission's Net Neutrality rules. This, my fiends, is one commish we can all get behind (except, of course, the Cable, Telephony and their lobbyists).

Open Internet and Mobility...

Behold, Mobile Monday DC. Today's Must See TV...

The panel represented a stakeholder cross-section - small carriers, lobbyists, and content/application providers. Speakers: Dan Johnson, VP, Policy, Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA); Jon Potter, President, Application Developers Alliance; Aaron Saunders, CEO, Clearly Innovative; Eric Wolf, VP Technology Strategy & Management, PBS. Moderator: Stephanie Joyce, Arent Fox. - via Joly MacFie

ISOC Releases 2015 Internet Governance Survey Results

ISOC - the Internet Society, has released the compiled results of the organizations' 2015 Internet Governance Survey (download the PDF here). Via the 2015 Internet Governance Survey, the primary takeaways are:

• The majority of respondents (86%) indicated that Cybersecurity is the most important issue facing the Internet community today;

• The priorities for the community are to make Internet governance easier to understand (with 75% feeling that this is “Extremely” or “Very Important”) and to develop and share best practices amongst countries and communities (70% indicating that this was Extremely” or “Very Important”);

• A high percentage of respondents (90%) indicated that informal local and regional communities should be enhanced while 87% of respondents want the global, regional, and national Internet Governance Forums (IGFs) to be enhanced; and

• 27% of respondents think NMI is needed for effective Internet governance, while 56% indicated that they are unclear as to whether NMI is needed, and 17% think it is not needed.

FCC Issues Net Neutrality Order Document →

The Federal Communications Commission has issued the codified order targeting Net Neutrality. Entitled FCC 15-24*, for GN Docket Number 14-28, In the Matter of Protecting and Promoting the Open Internet, Report and Order on Remand, Declaratory Ruling, and Order. At over *Four hundred pages long*, this document will (likely) become one of the most highly contentious Orders emerging this year (or the weapon of choice for conspiracy theorists due to it's weight*) from the Commission.

Mythos of IPv6, It's Too New to be Attacked... →

More IPV6 myths exposed by ISOC's Deploy360 Director Chris Grundemann. This time focusing on the myth that IPv6 is too new to be attacked. Today's MustRead!

Net Neutrality Doomed? →

via Jeff Hecht, writing at the IEEE's Spectrum Magazine, notes the fundamental issues with the interwebs may not be oversight, policy or warring leviathan corporate monstrosities. It, that is, Network Neutrality, may be doomed from a technical perspective... Read it and Weep.

IPv6 Security Myth: No NAT Means No Security

Astoundingly, myths still arise in this epoch of science, strangely so, when dealing with new technologies [Read: new means new in the final two years of the last century as IPv4 was originally codified by the IETF in 1981, with the acceptance of RFC 791] - in this case the vaunted move to IPv6. Now,  arising from the ashes of IPv4 exhaustion hysteria, comes a current popular myth surrounds the utilization NATs in IPv4  and the lack of a counterpart construct in IPv6.

⌘

IETF RFC 7258, Pervasive Monitoring Is An Attack →

Quite likely, the most important document published this week on Infosecurity.US, now over a half-year old, [released during the month of May, 2014]. In accordance with the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions relating to IETF Documents in effect on the date of publication of this document, this RFC is published in it's entirety, without modification. Further information and Feedback opportunities can be found at the RFC Editor / RFC Database. The following information is the accurate content of RFC 7258. Enjoy!

###

BEST CURRENT PRACTICE

Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF)                        S. Farrell
Request for Comments: 7258                        Trinity College Dublin
BCP: 188                                                   H. Tschofenig
Category: Best Current Practice                                 ARM Ltd.
ISSN: 2070-1721                                                 May 2014
                  

Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack

Abstract

   Pervasive monitoring is a technical attack that should be mitigated
   in the design of IETF protocols, where possible.

Status of This Memo

   This memo documents an Internet Best Current Practice.

   This document is a product of the Internet Engineering Task Force
   (IETF).  It represents the consensus of the IETF community.  It has
   received public review and has been approved for publication by the
   Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG).  Further information on
   BCPs is available in Section 2 of RFC 5741.

   Information about the current status of this document, any errata,
   and how to provide feedback on it may be obtained at
   http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7258.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2014 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Farrell & Tschofenig      Best Current Practice                 [Page 1]

 
RFC 7258            Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack           May 2014

1. Pervasive Monitoring Is a Widespread Attack on Privacy

   Pervasive Monitoring (PM) is widespread (and often covert)
   surveillance through intrusive gathering of protocol artefacts,
   including application content, or protocol metadata such as headers.
   Active or passive wiretaps and traffic analysis, (e.g., correlation,
   timing or measuring packet sizes), or subverting the cryptographic
   keys used to secure protocols can also be used as part of pervasive
   monitoring.  PM is distinguished by being indiscriminate and very
   large scale, rather than by introducing new types of technical
   compromise.

   The IETF community's technical assessment is that PM is an attack on
   the privacy of Internet users and organisations.  The IETF community
   has expressed strong agreement that PM is an attack that needs to be
   mitigated where possible, via the design of protocols that make PM
   significantly more expensive or infeasible.  Pervasive monitoring was
   discussed at the technical plenary of the November 2013 IETF meeting
   [IETF88Plenary] and then through extensive exchanges on IETF mailing
   lists.  This document records the IETF community's consensus and
   establishes the technical nature of PM.

   The term "attack" is used here in a technical sense that differs
   somewhat from common English usage.  In common English usage, an
   attack is an aggressive action perpetrated by an opponent, intended
   to enforce the opponent's will on the attacked party.  The term is
   used here to refer to behavior that subverts the intent of
   communicating parties without the agreement of those parties.  An
   attack may change the content of the communication, record the
   content or external characteristics of the communication, or through
   correlation with other communication events, reveal information the
   parties did not intend to be revealed.  It may also have other
   effects that similarly subvert the intent of a communicator.
   [RFC4949] contains a more complete definition for the term "attack".
   We also use the term in the singular here, even though PM in reality
   may consist of a multifaceted set of coordinated attacks.

   In particular, the term "attack", used technically, implies nothing
   about the motivation of the actor mounting the attack.  The
   motivation for PM can range from non-targeted nation-state
   surveillance, to legal but privacy-unfriendly purposes by commercial
   enterprises, to illegal actions by criminals.  The same techniques to
   achieve PM can be used regardless of motivation.  Thus, we cannot
   defend against the most nefarious actors while allowing monitoring by
   other actors no matter how benevolent some might consider them to be,
   since the actions required of the attacker are indistinguishable from
   other attacks.  The motivation for PM is, therefore, not relevant for
   how PM is mitigated in IETF protocols.


Farrell & Tschofenig      Best Current Practice                 [Page 2]

RFC 7258            Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack           May 2014

2. The IETF Will Work to Mitigate Pervasive Monitoring

   "Mitigation" is a technical term that does not imply an ability to
   completely prevent or thwart an attack.  Protocols that mitigate PM
   will not prevent the attack but can significantly change the threat.
   (See the diagram on page 24 of RFC 4949 for how the terms "attack"
   and "threat" are related.)  This can significantly increase the cost
   of attacking, force what was covert to be overt, or make the attack
   more likely to be detected, possibly later.

   IETF standards already provide mechanisms to protect Internet
   communications and there are guidelines [RFC3552] for applying these
   in protocol design.  But those standards generally do not address PM,
   the confidentiality of protocol metadata, countering traffic
   analysis, or data minimisation.  In all cases, there will remain some
   privacy-relevant information that is inevitably disclosed by
   protocols.  As technology advances, techniques that were once only
   available to extremely well-funded actors become more widely
   accessible.  Mitigating PM is therefore a protection against a wide
   range of similar attacks.

   It is therefore timely to revisit the security and privacy properties
   of our standards.  The IETF will work to mitigate the technical
   aspects of PM, just as we do for protocol vulnerabilities in general.
   The ways in which IETF protocols mitigate PM will change over time as
   mitigation and attack techniques evolve and so are not described
   here.

   Those developing IETF specifications need to be able to describe how
   they have considered PM, and, if the attack is relevant to the work
   to be published, be able to justify related design decisions.  This
   does not mean a new "pervasive monitoring considerations" section is
   needed in IETF documentation.  It means that, if asked, there needs
   to be a good answer to the question "Is pervasive monitoring relevant
   to this work and if so, how has it been considered?"

   In particular, architectural decisions, including which existing
   technology is reused, may significantly impact the vulnerability of a
   protocol to PM.  Those developing IETF specifications therefore need
   to consider mitigating PM when making architectural decisions.
   Getting adequate, early review of architectural decisions including
   whether appropriate mitigation of PM can be made is important.
   Revisiting these architectural decisions late in the process is very
   costly.

   While PM is an attack, other forms of monitoring that might fit the
   definition of PM can be beneficial and not part of any attack, e.g.,
   network management functions monitor packets or flows and anti-spam

Farrell & Tschofenig      Best Current Practice                 [Page 3]

 
RFC 7258            Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack           May 2014


   mechanisms need to see mail message content.  Some monitoring can
   even be part of the mitigation for PM, for example, certificate
   transparency [RFC6962] involves monitoring Public Key Infrastructure
   in ways that could detect some PM attack techniques.  However, there
   is clear potential for monitoring mechanisms to be abused for PM, so
   this tension needs careful consideration in protocol design.  Making
   networks unmanageable to mitigate PM is not an acceptable outcome,
   but ignoring PM would go against the consensus documented here.  An
   appropriate balance will emerge over time as real instances of this
   tension are considered.

   Finally, the IETF, as a standards development organisation, does not
   control the implementation or deployment of our specifications
   (though IETF participants do develop many implementations), nor does
   the IETF standardise all layers of the protocol stack.  Moreover, the
   non-technical (e.g., legal and political) aspects of mitigating
   pervasive monitoring are outside of the scope of the IETF.  The
   broader Internet community will need to step forward to tackle PM, if
   it is to be fully addressed.

   To summarise: current capabilities permit some actors to monitor
   content and metadata across the Internet at a scale never before
   seen.  This pervasive monitoring is an attack on Internet privacy.
   The IETF will strive to produce specifications that mitigate
   pervasive monitoring attacks.

3. Process Note

   In the past, architectural statements of this sort, e.g., [RFC1984]
   and [RFC2804], have been published as joint products of the Internet
   Engineering Steering Group (IESG) and the Internet Architecture Board
   (IAB).  However, since those documents were published, the IETF and
   IAB have separated their publication "streams" as described in
   [RFC4844] and [RFC5741].  This document was initiated after
   discussions in both the IESG and IAB, but is published as an IETF-
   stream consensus document, in order to ensure that it properly
   reflects the consensus of the IETF community as a whole.

4. Security Considerations

   This document is entirely about privacy.  More information about the
   relationship between security and privacy threats can be found in
   [RFC6973].  Section 5.1.1 of [RFC6973] specifically addresses
   surveillance as a combined security-privacy threat.

Farrell & Tschofenig      Best Current Practice                 [Page 4]

 
RFC 7258            Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack           May 2014

5. Acknowledgements

   We would like to thank the participants of the IETF 88 technical
   plenary for their feedback.  Thanks in particular to the following
   for useful suggestions or comments: Jari Arkko, Fred Baker, Marc
   Blanchet, Tim Bray, Scott Brim, Randy Bush, Brian Carpenter, Benoit
   Claise, Alissa Cooper, Dave Crocker, Spencer Dawkins, Avri Doria,
   Wesley Eddy, Adrian Farrel, Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Phillip
   Hallam-Baker, Ted Hardie, Sam Hartmann, Paul Hoffman, Bjoern
   Hoehrmann, Russ Housley, Joel Jaeggli, Stephen Kent, Eliot Lear,
   Barry Leiba, Ted Lemon, Subramanian Moonesamy, Erik Nordmark, Pete
   Resnick, Peter Saint-Andre, Andrew Sullivan, Sean Turner, Nicholas
   Weaver, Stefan Winter, and Lloyd Wood.  Additionally, we would like
   to thank all those who contributed suggestions on how to improve
   Internet security and privacy or who commented on this on various
   IETF mailing lists, such as the ietf@ietf.org and the
   perpass@ietf.org lists.

6. Informative References

   [IETF88Plenary]
              IETF, "IETF 88 Plenary Meeting Materials", November 2013,
              <http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/>.

   [RFC1984]  IAB, IESG, Carpenter, B., and F. Baker, "IAB and IESG
              Statement on Cryptographic Technology and the Internet",
              RFC 1984, August 1996.

   [RFC2804]  IAB and IESG, "IETF Policy on Wiretapping", RFC 2804, May
              2000.

   [RFC3552]  Rescorla, E. and B. Korver, "Guidelines for Writing RFC
              Text on Security Considerations", BCP 72, RFC 3552, July
              2003.

   [RFC4844]  Daigle, L. and Internet Architecture Board, "The RFC
              Series and RFC Editor", RFC 4844, July 2007.

   [RFC4949]  Shirey, R., "Internet Security Glossary, Version 2", RFC
              4949, August 2007.

   [RFC5741]  Daigle, L., Kolkman, O., and IAB, "RFC Streams, Headers,
              and Boilerplates", RFC 5741, December 2009.

   [RFC6962]  Laurie, B., Langley, A., and E. Kasper, "Certificate
              Transparency", RFC 6962, June 2013


Farrell & Tschofenig      Best Current Practice                 [Page 5]

 
RFC 7258            Pervasive Monitoring Is an Attack           May 2014


   [RFC6973]  Cooper, A., Tschofenig, H., Aboba, B., Peterson, J.,
              Morris, J., Hansen, M., and R. Smith, "Privacy
              Considerations for Internet Protocols", RFC 6973, July
              2013.

Authors' Addresses

   Stephen Farrell
   Trinity College Dublin
   Dublin  2
   Ireland

   Phone: +353-1-896-2354
   EMail: stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie


   Hannes Tschofenig
   ARM Ltd.
   6060 Hall in Tirol
   Austria

   EMail: Hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net
   URI:   http://www.tschofenig.priv.at


Farrell & Tschofenig      Best Current Practice                 [Page 6]
Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.109, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/

Resolved →

Well scrivened thought piece via CircleID, written by Geoff Huston targeting the Domain Name System, and the location of users in relation to the named resolvers... Today's Must Read!