DOCSLIB.ORG

The Struggle for WHOIS Privacy: Understanding the Standoff Between ICANN and the World’S Data Protection Authorities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Struggle for WHOIS Privacy: Understanding the Standoff Between ICANN and the World’S Data Protection Authorities The Struggle for WHOIS Privacy: Understanding the Standoff Between ICANN and the World’s Data Protection Authorities by Stephanie E. Perrin A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of degree of Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information University of Toronto © Copyright by Stephanie E. Perrin 2018 The Struggle for WHOIS Privacy: Understanding the Standoff Between ICANN and the World’s Data Protection Authorities Stephanie E. Perrin Doctor of Philosophy Faculty of Information University of Toronto 2018 Abstract This dissertation examines the struggle over privacy rights in WHOIS, the public directory of registrants of Internet domain names. ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, is the non-profit corporation established by the U.S. government to run the Domain Name System and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, functions essential for Internet operations. Through contractual obligation, ICANN requires registrars to collect and publish personal data in the WHOIS directory, contravening many national data protection laws. My research first asked how ICANN managed to avoid the demands of authorities mandated to enforce data protection laws. Analyzing extensive documentary records maintained by ICANN, I demonstrate that the organization refused to effectively accommodate privacy concerns in their policies. I found that, since its inception, ICANN rebuffed repeated complaints by data protection authorities that WHOIS requirements violate national laws and continue to avoid privacy compliance. I provide evidence of a clash of values in the emerging commercial Internet. Business enterprises with strong intellectual property interests, supported by the U.S. ii government, initiated the focus on an open WHOIS policy to ensure they could identify suspected copyright and trademark violators. Law enforcement agencies represented at ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee also demanded open access to registrant data. A growing information services industry depended on the sale of this data to domain businesses and cybercrime fighters in both the public and private sectors. In combination, these stakeholders have prevented privacy advocates from gaining a foothold. Data Protection Authorities have also declined to exercise their powers, and they have remained outsiders and unsuccessful interveners in ICANN’s multi-stakeholder process. The dissertation then explores the implications of this failure of privacy law from the perspectives of Internet privacy scholarship and accountability issues in multi-stakeholder governance. Establishing WHOIS as a wide-open information resource not only erodes legitimate expectations of privacy in telecommunications directories, it undermines our ability to negotiate personal space and speech on the Internet. This research contributes to understanding challenges to Internet privacy, law enforcement access to personal data, and the prospects for developing international Internet governance regimes that promote the public interest while protecting the rights of individuals. iii Acknowledgements I could not have completed this project without the enthusiastic support of my advisors, Andrew Clement and David Phillips. Leslie Shade, besides being the graduate coordinator during a critical period of this research, has also been a terrific committee member and supporter of my work. Straddling the rift between privacy advocate, government employee, and doctoral student has been challenging and I thank these three for helping me to navigate this transition effectively. Thanks also to Professor Colin Bennett, whose encouragement was greatly appreciated, and to the many other professors and colleagues who supported me and provided advice. Had I listened to Professor Lee Bygrave’s excellent advice to quit volunteering at ICANN for six months to finish writing, the dissertation would have been done earlier. In terms of my research and writing, I must thank my sons Matthew Purcell, Jesse Purcell, Joe Rochon, and Marco Rochon for their unflagging support. Special thanks to my friends Heather Black for her insight into privacy compliance issues, and Bob Gellman in Washington for reading versions of the document and providing valuable feedback. Thanks also to Theo Geurts of Realtime Register for reading the draft and providing valuable feedback from a technical and business perspective. To all my other friends and relatives who have put up with me, listened to me discuss ICANN, and encouraged me to finish, my thanks to you all. My cohort at the Faculty of Information, Glen Farrelly, Michael Jones, Rebecca Sheffield, and Rhon Teruelle have been great supporters and colleagues. And finally to my many colleagues at ICANN, particularly in the Noncommercial Users Constituency and the Noncommercial Stakeholders Group, my thanks for all their support, information, and collaboration. This is a small contribution to the literature on how privacy protection fails in one specific application. I hope to contribute solutions to the problems and to raising the support required to achieve that end. iv Table of Contents Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ iv Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ v List of Tables ................................................................................................................................ xii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................. xiii List of Appendices ....................................................................................................................... xiv Chapter 1 The Failure of WHOIS Privacy at ICANN: What is at Stake? ...................................... 1 1.1 Development of the WHOIS Directory of Domain Registrants ......................................... 2 1.1.1 Establishment of ICANN ........................................................................................ 3 1.1.2 The Domain Name System is fundamental to Internet operations ......................... 6 1.2 Who Wants WHOIS Data and Why? .................................................................................. 7 1.2.1 Three leading stakeholders: intellectual property owners, law enforcement, and the value-added services providers .................................................................. 8 1.3 What Does Privacy Mean in this Context? ......................................................................... 9 1.3.1 Risks of releasing personal information and privacy rights .................................. 11 1.4 Who Cares About WHOIS Privacy and Why? ................................................................. 12 1.4.1 Civil society and their allies .................................................................................. 12 1.5 Data Protection Authorities ............................................................................................... 14 1.5.1 My involvement with ICANN and choice of this case study as a research focus ...................................................................................................................... 14 1.6 ICANN Stymies WHOIS Data Privacy Since 1998 ......................................................... 16 1.6.1 ICANN’s failure to respond .................................................................................. 17 1.7 WHOIS Conflicts with Law Policy—ICANN’s Only Concession to Privacy Demands . 18 1.8 Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 19 v 1.9 The Importance of These Questions and Prospective Research Contributions to Privacy Scholarship (and Advocacy) ................................................................................ 20 1.9.1 Implications for Internet governance .................................................................... 27 1.9.2 Implications for the Domain Name System industry ............................................ 28 1.10 Thesis Outline ................................................................................................................... 29 Chapter 2 Personal Background and Methodological Approach .................................................. 32 2.1 Researcher, Privacy Expert and Advocate ........................................................................ 32 2.2 Why I Worked with ICANN Documents .......................................................................... 34 2.3 Selecting Documents ........................................................................................................ 37 2.3.1 Selecting documents relevant to a process and decision....................................... 40 2.4 Possible Explanations for ICANN’s Lack of Response to Privacy Claims ...................... 43 2.4.1 Political and governmental issues ......................................................................... 43 2.4.2 Legal and practical issues affecting data commissioners ..................................... 44 2.4.3 Economic issues facing stakeholders .................................................................... 46 2.4.4 Internal ICANN issues management .................................................................... 47 Chapter 3 Privacy Scholarship Relevant to WHOIS Privacy
Load more

Recommended publications
  • ARIN History and Services
    History and Services www.arin.net Table of Contents Part I: History..............................................................................................3 How did ARIN get started?..................................................................3 Where does ARIN fit in the “Big Picture”?.......................................4 Key Organizations - ICANN, the NRO, and PTI/IANA..................5 ARIN Community & Membership......................................................7 Stakeholders.............................................................................................7 ARIN the Organization..........................................................................8 ARIN Staff...................................................................................................8 ARIN Elections........................................................................................12 Part II: Services........................................................................................13 The Internet Numbering Landscape.............................................13 ARIN’S Strategic Plan..........................................................................16 Scope of ARIN Services – the things we do for you!................16 Get Involved...........................................................................................20 Acronym Quick Guide.........................................................................21 2 Part I: History How did ARIN get started? 1960s to 1980s: Internet Foundation The formation of
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Internet Commerce Association
    No. 19-46 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. BOOKING.COM B.V., Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BRIEF OF THE INTERNET COMMERCE ASSOCIATION AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT Megan L. Brown Counsel of Record David E. Weslow Ari S. Meltzer Jeremy J. Broggi WILEY REIN LLP 1776 K Street NW Washington, DC 20006 (202) 719-7000 [email protected] February 19, 2020 Counsel for Amicus Curiae - i - TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES .......................... ii INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .....................................3 ARGUMENT ...............................................................7 I. The Government Seeks A Bright-Line Rule That Would Devalue Registered Domain Names As A Class Of Intellectual Property Assets. ...............................................................7 II. The Government’s Rule Would Discourage Investment In The Internet Economy By Precluding Trademark Protection For New Types of Domain Names. ............................... 13 III. The Government’s Rule Would Eliminate A Critical Consumer Protection And Anti-Fraud Tool, Opening The Door To More Domain Name Abuse. ................................................... 15 A. Cybercriminals Abuse Domain Names Through Typosquatting And Domain Name Hijacking To Perpetrate Fraud And Proliferate Malware. .................... 16 B. Companies Rely On Trademark Protection To Combat Domain Name Abuse. ................................................... 20 C. Non-Trademark Remedies Do Not Provide A Sufficient Means For Combatting Domain Name Abuse. ..... 26 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 28 - ii - TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Central Source LLC v. annaulcreditreports.com, No. 20-CV-84 (E.D. Va.) ....................................... 23 Central Source LLC v. aabbualcreditreport.com, No. 14-CV-918 (E.D.
    [Show full text]
  • July 18, 2012 Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 445 12Th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Re
    July 18, 2012 Chairman Julius Genachowski Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Re: Letter, CG Docket No. 09-158, CC Docket No. 98-170, WC Docket No. 04-36 Dear Chairman Genachowski, Open data and an independent, transparent measurement framework must be the cornerstones of any scientifically credible broadband Internet access measurement program. The undersigned members of the academic and research communities therefore respectfully ask the Commission to remain committed to the principles of openness and transparency and to allow the scientific process to serve as the foundation of the broadband measurement program. Measuring network performance is complex. Even among those of us who focus on this topic as our life’s work, there are disagreements. The scientific process happens best in the sunlight and that can only happen when as many eyes as possible are able to look at a shared set of data, work to replicate results, and assess its meaning and impact. This ensures the conclusions from the broadband measurement allow for meaningful, data-driven policy making. Since the inception of the broadband measurement program, those of us who work on Internet research have lauded its precedent-setting commitment to open-data and transparency. Many of us have engaged with this program, advising on network transparency and measurement methodology and using the openly-released raw data as a part of our research. However, we understand that some participants in the program have proposed significant changes that would transform an open measurement process into a closed one. Specifically, that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is considering a proposal to replace the Measurement Lab server infrastructure with closed infrastructure, run by the participating Internet service providers (ISPs) whose own speeds are being measured.
    [Show full text]
  • Internic Faqs on the Domain Names, Registrars, and Registration
    InterNIC I FAQs on the Domain Names, Registrars, and Registration 12/4/11 1:20 PM InterNlC Home ~Re istrsrs FAQ Whois InterNIC FAQs on the Domain Names, Registrars, and Registration The following is a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about the domain name registration process and the new competitive registration environment. It is expected that this list will be updated frequently, so please check back often. What is the domain name system? The Domain Name System (DNS) helps users to find their way around the Internet. Every computer on the Internet has a unique address — just like a telephone number — which is a rather complicated string of numbers. It is called its "IP address" (IP stands for "Internet Protocol" ). IP Addresses are hard to remember. The DNS makes using the Internet easier by allowing a familiar string of letters (the "domain name") to be used instead of the arcane IP address. So instead of typing 207.151.159.3, you can type www.internic.net. It is a "mnemonic" device that makes addresses easier to remember. What does it mean to "register" a domain name? When you register a domain name, you are inserting an entry into a directory of all the domain names and their corresponding computers on the Internet. How do I register a domain name? Domain names ending with .aero, .biz, .corn, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, .org, or .pro can be registered through many different companies (known as "registrars") that compete with one another. A listing of these companies appears in the Re istrar Directo on this site.
    [Show full text]
  • Search the Whois Database
    Search the whois database. Is this really GoDaddy.com? BobParsons.com See the internet version of our Verify the site for your protection! new "Window Washer" ad here! Did we go too far -- again? Domains Hosting & Servers Site Builders Email SSL Certificates Business Domain Auctions Reseller Plans Logout My Account Company Info Why our prices are so low Our Values What's New! FAQ Commercials RSS Feeds Search again Enter a domain name: PFLP-ELECTIONS.NET Whois Server Version 1.3 More About Domains Domain names in the .com and .net domains can now be registered ● Compare our prices with many different competing registrars. Go to http://www.internic.net for detailed information. ● Why our prices are so low ● Transfer your domain to GoDaddy.com for just $6.95! Includes a 1-year Domain Name: PFLP-ELECTIONS.NET extension. Registrar: TUCOWS INC. ● Find out what this domain is worth Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net Referral URL: http://domainhelp.tucows.com Name Server: NS3.LNHI.NET Name Server: NS2.LNHI.NET Name Server: NS1.LNHI.NET Available TLDs Status: REGISTRAR-LOCK Updated Date: 29-dec-2005 PFLP-ELECTIONS.COM $8.95 SAVE! Creation Date: 29-dec-2005 Expiration Date: 29-dec-2006 PFLP-ELECTIONS.ORG $7.95 SAVE! PFLP-ELECTIONS.INFO $5.95 SAVE! >>> Last update of whois database: Wed, 11 Jan 2006 02:39:40 EST <<< $7.95 SAVE! NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the PFLP-ELECTIONS.BIZ registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is $7.95 SAVE! currently set to expire.
    [Show full text]
  • The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet
    The People Who Invented the Internet Source: Wikipedia's History of the Internet PDF generated using the open source mwlib toolkit. See http://code.pediapress.com/ for more information. PDF generated at: Sat, 22 Sep 2012 02:49:54 UTC Contents Articles History of the Internet 1 Barry Appelman 26 Paul Baran 28 Vint Cerf 33 Danny Cohen (engineer) 41 David D. Clark 44 Steve Crocker 45 Donald Davies 47 Douglas Engelbart 49 Charles M. Herzfeld 56 Internet Engineering Task Force 58 Bob Kahn 61 Peter T. Kirstein 65 Leonard Kleinrock 66 John Klensin 70 J. C. R. Licklider 71 Jon Postel 77 Louis Pouzin 80 Lawrence Roberts (scientist) 81 John Romkey 84 Ivan Sutherland 85 Robert Taylor (computer scientist) 89 Ray Tomlinson 92 Oleg Vishnepolsky 94 Phil Zimmermann 96 References Article Sources and Contributors 99 Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors 102 Article Licenses License 103 History of the Internet 1 History of the Internet The history of the Internet began with the development of electronic computers in the 1950s. This began with point-to-point communication between mainframe computers and terminals, expanded to point-to-point connections between computers and then early research into packet switching. Packet switched networks such as ARPANET, Mark I at NPL in the UK, CYCLADES, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet, were developed in the late 1960s and early 1970s using a variety of protocols. The ARPANET in particular led to the development of protocols for internetworking, where multiple separate networks could be joined together into a network of networks. In 1982 the Internet Protocol Suite (TCP/IP) was standardized and the concept of a world-wide network of fully interconnected TCP/IP networks called the Internet was introduced.
    [Show full text]
  • Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees
    Internet Hall of Fame Announces 2013 Inductees Influential engineers, activists, and entrepreneurs changed history through their vision and determination Ceremony to be held 3 August in Berlin, Germany [Washington, D.C. and Geneva, Switzerland -- 26 June 2013] The Internet Society today announced the names of the 32 individuals who have been selected for induction into the Internet Hall of Fame. Honored for their groundbreaking contributions to the global Internet, this year’s inductees comprise some of the world’s most influential engineers, activists, innovators, and entrepreneurs. The Internet Hall of Fame celebrates Internet visionaries, innovators, and leaders from around the world who believed in the design and potential of an open Internet and, through their work, helped change the way we live and work today. The 2013 Internet Hall of Fame inductees are: Pioneers Circle – Recognizing individuals who were instrumental in the early design and development of the Internet: David Clark, David Farber, Howard Frank, Kanchana Kanchanasut, J.C.R. Licklider (posthumous), Bob Metcalfe, Jun Murai, Kees Neggers, Nii Narku Quaynor, Glenn Ricart, Robert Taylor, Stephen Wolff, Werner Zorn Innovators – Recognizing individuals who made outstanding technological, commercial, or policy advances and helped to expand the Internet’s reach: Marc Andreessen, John Perry Barlow, Anne-Marie Eklund Löwinder, François Flückiger, Stephen Kent, Henning Schulzrinne, Richard Stallman, Aaron Swartz (posthumous), Jimmy Wales Global Connectors – Recognizing individuals from around the world who have made significant contributions to the global growth and use of the Internet: Karen Banks, Gihan Dias, Anriette Esterhuysen, Steven Goldstein, Teus Hagen, Ida Holz, Qiheng Hu, Haruhisa Ishida (posthumous), Barry Leiner (posthumous), George Sadowsky “This year’s inductees represent a group of people as diverse and dynamic as the Internet itself,” noted Internet Society President and CEO Lynn St.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Experiences with the Internic Whois Data Problem Reports System
    Community Experiences with the InterNIC Whois Data Problem Reports System 31 March 2006 Contents Executive Summary...........................................................................................................1 Introduction........................................................................................................................2 I. Applicable Provisions of the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement ..............3 II. Implementation of the WDPRS...................................................................................4 III. Statistics from Operation of the WDPRS................................................................. 5 IV. Impact of the WDPRS on Improved Whois Data Accuracy................................. 11 Executive Summary This Report summarizes ICANN's experience with the operation of the Whois Data Problem Report System (WDPRS) during a 12-month reporting period that ended 28 February 2006. ICANN developed this system to receive and track complaints about inaccurate or incomplete Whois data entries. Individuals who encounter such entries may notify ICANN by completing an online form, which is then forwarded to the registrar of record for appropriate action. The WDPRS is one of the tools that ICANN uses to improve the accuracy of Whois data. Through the WDPRS, ICANN is able to track how many reports are filed and confirmed by the reporter so they may be sent to the registrar of record. After forty-five days, ICANN asks the person filing the report to complete the process by performing a follow- up review, which involves checking the Whois data again and indicating whether (i) the data was fixed; (ii) the domain name was deleted; (iii) the data was unchanged; or (iv) there is some other disposition. On average, there were 4,305 reports completed each month during the reporting period, totaling 51,664 total reports for which ICANN received follow-up responses. Of these, 25,219 represented unique domain names. Thus, 26,445 duplicate reports were submitted.
    [Show full text]
  • Investor Presentation
    Investor presentation 05.06.2021 Nasdaq (TCX) | TSX (TC) 1 Safe Harbor Statement This presentation may contain forward-looking statements, relating to the Company’s operations or to the environment in which it operates, which are based on Tucows Inc.’s operations, estimates, forecasts and projections. These statements are not guarantees of future performance and are subject to important risks, uncertainties and assumptions concerning future conditions that may ultimately prove to be inaccurate or differ materially from actual future events or results. A number of important factors could cause actual outcomes and results to differ materially from those expressed in these forward-looking statements. Consequently, investors should not place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements, which are based on Tucows Inc.’s current expectations, estimates, projections, beliefs and assumptions. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this presentation and are based upon the information available to Tucows Inc. at this time. Tucows Inc. disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. 2 Table of Contents 01 02 03 Our business Domain services Mobile Services Page 4 Page 11 Page 16 04 05 Resources06 Fiber Internet Services Quarterly Financial Highlights Page 18 Page 23 Page 26 3 Our business Consistent, reliable cash flow generation + growth 4 Our business Investment Summary Consistent and reliable revenue and Visible
    [Show full text]
  • 4/Final Dst I/Iccp
    Unclassified DSTI/ICCP(2005)4/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Economiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ___________________________________________________________________________________________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY Unclassified DSTI/ICCP(2005)4/FINAL OECD INPUT TO THE UNITED NATIONS WORKING GROUP ON INTERNET GOVERNANCE (WGIG) English - Or. English Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format DSTI/ICCP(2005)4/FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN POINTS............................................................................................................................................ 4 ICT/INTERNET-INDUCED BENEFITS .................................................................................................... 8 Leveraging ICT/the Internet in OECD countries ...................................................................................... 8 Growth in Internet usage in OECD countries........................................................................................ 8 Productivity impact and contribution to economic growth.................................................................. 10 Benefits of ICT/the Internet in non-OECD countries..............................................................................11 ICTs and development goals..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Department of Homeland Security, Directive 139-01 Domain Names
    Department of Homeland Security DHS Directives System MD Number: 139-01 Revision Number: 00 Issue Date: 07/31/2007 DOMAIN NAMES I. Purpose This directive establishes Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policy regarding the approval and acquisition of Domain Names Services (DNS) for web sites owned or operated by, or on behalf of, DHS and its organizational elements. II. Scope This directive applies to all DHS organizational elements. III. Authorities A. This directive is governed by Public Laws, regulations, and other directives, such as: 1. Department Of Homeland Security Management Directives: MD 4400.1 – "DHS WEB (INTERNET, INTRANET, AND EXTRANET INFORMATION) AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS." 2. Request for Comments (RFC) 2146 titled "U.S. Government Internet Domain Names." a. In May 1997, the General Services Administration (GSA) issued RFC 2146, which described the registration policies for the top-level domain ".GOV". The purpose of RFC 2146 was to establish a single identifiable Internet name for each U.S. Federal government agency. b. RFC 2146 restricts Domain Name registration to coincide with the approved structure of the U.S. Government, as listed in the document "Codes for the Identification of Federal and Federally Assisted Organizations," Federal Information Processing Standards (FIPS) 95-1 (or its successor). RFC 2146 provides for waivers to this restriction to be granted based upon the advice of the agency Chief Information Officer. 3. For more information on the .GOV naming convention visit: <http://www.dotgov.gov/dnc.aspx>. - 1 - MD # 139-01 Revision # 00 B. References: 1. RFC 1480 - The U.S. Domain: <http://www.dotgov.gov/help_rfc1480.aspx>.
    [Show full text]
  • Naming the Net: the Domain Name System, 1983-1990
    Naming the Net: The Domain Name System, 1983-1990 Eric Gade [email protected] Dissertation Submission for Award of MA/MSc Columbia University & The London School of Economics and Political Science May 2011 Contents 1 Preface to the Online Version 3 2 Introduction 4 3 Developing the Namespace 7 3.1 A Host of Problems, Problems with Hosts ................. 7 3.2 Logics of Design ............................... 10 3.3 The Coming World Standards: CCITT/ISO, IFIP, and Geography ... 12 3.4 A System for Whom? ............................ 14 3.5 Synthesizing Semantics ........................... 15 4 The System in Practice: The NIC, Registration, and Semantic Neutrality 19 4.1 The NIC’s Updated Role .......................... 19 4.2 Developing an Application Process ..................... 21 4.3 Problems with Generic Naming ...................... 23 4.4 MILNET and Naming the NIC ...................... 24 4.5 Which Domains Are International? .................... 27 5 The International System: The Net Grows Up, the Net Grows Out 31 5.1 Changes in the Landscape ......................... 31 5.2 The German Question ........................... 32 5.3 The UK and the Fall of the Iron Curtain .................. 34 5.4 The NIC and the Gulf War ......................... 36 6 Conclusion 40 7 Bibliography 43 7.1 Archival Sources .............................. 43 7.2 Other Primary Sources ........................... 43 7.3 Secondary Sources ............................. 44 8 Appendix A: How DNS Works 46 9 Appendix B: Glossary 48 1 Contents 10 Appendix C: List of Acronyms 50 2 Preface to the Online Version A professor of mine once opened a book with: “Writing is hard.” Too true. But having written? Now there’s a sweetness rarely matched elsewhere in life.
    [Show full text]