Inet Revolutio2.4 Part 4
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Opensrs Contract Fax Cover Sheet for .Us Reseller Agreement______
OpenSRS Contract Fax Cover Sheet for .us Reseller Agreement_____________ Please use this as your cover page when you fax in your OpenSRS contract. Before faxing the contract to OpenSRS, please be sure that you have: Signed up to be an OpenSRS Reseller at: https://horizon.opensrs.net/~vpop/subscribe/ Completely reviewed the contract, providing all necessary information, namely: Date and company information on Page 2 Address and contact information on Page 13 Signature and date on Page 13 Please provide the information below: Company Name:__________________________________________________ Web site URL:http://________________________________________________ OpenSRS Username:*______________________________________________ *obtained after you’ve signed up online Please fax only pages 2 and 13 of the .us OpenSRS contract to: +1 416-531-2516 Thanks, Team OpenSRS Page 1 Tucows Inc. .us RSP v1.1 REGISTRATION SERVICE PROVIDER AGREEMENT This Agreement (the "Agreement") is dated as of ("Effective Date") by and between: TUCOWS Inc. ("TUCOWS") and (*) ("RSP") (TUCOWS and RSP may be referred to individually as a "Party" and collectively as the "Parties") WHEREAS, TUCOWS is authorized to provide domain name registration services for second-level domain names within the .us top-level domain; WHEREAS, RSP intends to establish the right to initiate the registration of .us domain names through OpenSRS (as defined below); NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, benefits and covenants contained herein, TUCOWS and RSP, intending to be -
Network Working Group N. Freed Request for Comments: 2049 Innosoft Obsoletes: 1521, 1522, 1590 N
Network Working Group N. Freed Request for Comments: 2049 Innosoft Obsoletes: 1521, 1522, 1590 N. Borenstein Category: Standards Track First Virtual November 1996 Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions (MIME) Part Five: Conformance Criteria and Examples Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Abstract STD 11, RFC 822, defines a message representation protocol specifying considerable detail about US-ASCII message headers, and leaves the message content, or message body, as flat US-ASCII text. This set of documents, collectively called the Multipurpose Internet Mail Extensions, or MIME, redefines the format of messages to allow for (1) textual message bodies in character sets other than US-ASCII, (2) an extensible set of different formats for non-textual message bodies, (3) multi-part message bodies, and (4) textual header information in character sets other than US-ASCII. These documents are based on earlier work documented in RFC 934, STD 11, and RFC 1049, but extends and revises them. Because RFC 822 said so little about message bodies, these documents are largely orthogonal to (rather than a revision of) RFC 822. The initial document in this set, RFC 2045, specifies the various headers used to describe the structure of MIME messages. The second document defines the general structure of the MIME media typing system and defines an initial set of media types. -
Equinix Solution Neustar
EQUINIX SOLUTION NEUSTAR A Global Best Practice for Online Success. Equinix and Neustar Deliver High-Performance Global Platform for Managed Services. “With Neustar offering its DNS and monitoring service combined with Equinix’s industry leading network neutral colocation and interconnection facilities, we provide the world’s best DNS routing and application monitoring services to create a seamless IT fabric that covers the globe.” Alex Tulchinsky, SVP Shared Services, Neustar Performance Failure is Not an Option Consider the impact of poor network performance: Companies deploying mission and market critical online applications and websites are recognizing they can optimize their performance • Google now includes a website’s speed in its search ranking and availability by migrating from algorithms and writes that “Faster sites create happy users and a single-homed, single-site we’ve seen in our internal studies that when a site responds 1 deployment to a globally slowly, visitors spend less time there.” distributed model. This brief • In a joint experiment, Google and Bing concluded that “Delays discusses the reasons for this under half a second impact business metrics.”2 move and key best practices for success. • Amazon.com found that every 100-ms increase in the page load time decreased sales by 1 percent.3 • AOL has demonstrated that slower page speeds reduce page views per visit.4 • Wikia demonstrated that exit rates—the percentage of users leaving a site from a given page—drop as pages get faster.5 • After a year-long performance -
Who Governs the Internet? the Emerging Policies, Institutions, and Governance of Cyberspace
City University of New York (CUNY) CUNY Academic Works All Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects Dissertations, Theses, and Capstone Projects 2013 Who Governs the Internet? The Emerging Policies, Institutions, and Governance of Cyberspace Robert J. Domanski The Graduate Center, City University of New York How does access to this work benefit ou?y Let us know! More information about this work at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu/gc_etds/1481 Discover additional works at: https://academicworks.cuny.edu This work is made publicly available by the City University of New York (CUNY). Contact: [email protected] i WHO GOVERNS THE INTERNET? THE EMERGING POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND GOVERNANCE OF CYBERSPACE by ROBERT J. DOMANSKI A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, The City University of New York 2013 ii © 2013 ROBERT J. DOMANSKI All Rights Reserved iii This manuscript has been read and accepted for the Graduate Faculty in Political Science in satisfaction of the dissertation requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Donna Kirchheimer 8/5/2013 Date Chair of Examining Committee Joe Rollins 8/5/2013 Date Executive Officer Stephen Brier Andrew Rich Charles Tien Sarah Zelikovitz Supervisory Committee THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK iv Abstract WHO GOVERNS THE INTERNET? THE EMERGING POLICIES, INSTITUTIONS, AND GOVERNANCE OF CYBERSPACE by Robert J. Domanski Sponsor: Professor Donna Kirchheimer There remains a widespread perception among both the public and elements of academia that the Internet is “ungovernable”. However, this idea, as well as the notion that the Internet has become some type of cyber-libertarian utopia, is wholly inaccurate. -
Registry Operator Monthly Report
Registry Operator Monthly Report February 2020 Prepared: March 2020 Registry Services, LLC 21575 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 Monthly Progress Report for February 2020 As required by the Department of Commerce/Registry Services, LLC (“Neustar”) Agreements, this report provides an overview of Neustar Registry activity during the reporting month. Table of Contents: Section 1: Summary of Major Events ........................................................................................ 3 Section 2: Performance Data ...................................................................................................... 5 Section 3: Monthly Transaction Statistics ................................................................................. 5 Section 4: Monthly Registration Data ........................................................................................ 7 Section 5: Website Statistics ........................................................................................................ 7 Section 6: Accredited Registrar Status ...................................................................................... 7 Section 7: .US Locality Statistics ................................................................................................ 7 Section 8: WHOIS Complaint Statistics .................................................................................... 7 Page 2 Monthly Progress Report for February 2020 Section 1: Summary of Major Events Technical and Operational Update There were no operational changes -
Iplanet Messaging Server 5.1 Reference Manual • May 2001 Imadmin Domain Modify
Reference Manual iPlanet Messaging Server Release5.1 May 2001 Copyright © 2001 Sun Microsystems, Inc. Some preexisting portions Copyright © 2001 Netscape Communications Corporation. All rights reserved. Sun, Sun Microsystems, and the Sun logo are trademarks or registered trademarks of Sun Microsystems, Inc. in the United States and other countries. Netscape and the Netscape N logo are registered trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation in the U.S. and other countries. Other Netscape logos, product names, and service names are also trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation, which may be registered in other countries. Federal Acquisitions: Commercial Software—Government Users Subject to Standard License Terms and Conditions The product described in this document is distributed under licenses restricting its use, copying, distribution, and decompilation. No part of the product or this document may be reproduced in any form by any means without prior written authorization of the Sun-Netscape Alliance and its licensors, if any. THIS DOCUMENTATION IS PROVIDED “AS IS” AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT, ARE DISCLAIMED, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH DISCLAIMERS ARE HELD TO BE LEGALLY INVALID. ________________________________________________________________________________________ Copyright © 2001 Sun Microsystems, Inc. Pour certaines parties préexistantes, Copyright © 2001 Netscape Communication Corp. Tous droits réservés. Sun, Sun Microsystems, et the Sun logosont des marques de fabrique ou des marques déposées de Sun Microsystems, Inc. aux Etats-Unis et dans d’autres pays. Netscape et the Netscape N logo sont des marques déposées de Netscape Communications Corporation aux Etats-Unis et d’autre pays. -
Deploying DNSSEC: from Content to End-Customer
Deploying DNSSEC: From Content to End-customer InterOp Mumbai 2012 11 October 2012 [email protected] Terminology Registrant (Content)ßàRegistrarß àRegistryßàRootß àISPßàEnd User (Eyes) Example: tata.in (TATA)ßànet4.in (Net4)ß ànixi.in (NIXI)ßàicann.org (ICANN)ß àAirtel, Sify, etc..ßàISP Customer Creang a Chain of Trust • Registrant generates, signs their records with and publishes key to Registrar. • Registrar manages key at the Registry on behalf of the Registrant. • Registry generates, signs Registrant key with and publishes its own key in root. • The root generates, signs Registry key with and publishes its own key to public. • ISP/End User validates Registrant DNS record with Registrant key then Registrant key with Registry key and finally Registry key with root key. • This creates the chain of trust from content provider (Registrant) to end user. RegistrantàRegistraràRegistryàRootàISPàEnd User DNSSEC: We have passed the point of no return • Fast pace of deployment at the TLD level • Deployed at root • Supported by soUware • Growing support by ISPs • Required by new gTLDs à Inevitable widespread deployment across core Internet infrastructure DNSSEC: Plenty of Mo;va;on • DNSChanger aack, calls for deployment by governments, etc… • Technology and standards built on DNSSEC* – Improved Web TLS and certs for all – Secured e-mail (S/MIME) for all – SSH, IPSEC, … • …and new applicaons – VoIP – Digital iden^ty – Secured content delivery (e.g. configuraons, updates) – Smart Grid – A global PKI – Increasing trust in e-commerce A good ref hp://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/dnssec/ *IETF standards complete or currently being developed DNSSEC interest from governments • Sweden, Brazil, Netherlands and others encourage DNSSEC deployment to varying degrees • Mar 2012 - AT&T, CenturyLink (Qwest), Comcast, Cox, Sprint, TimeWarner Cable, and Verizon have pledged to comply and abide by US FCC [1] recommendaons that include DNSSEC. -
Us Delegated Manager Agreement 1. Introduction
.US DELEGATED MANAGER AGREEMENT 1. INTRODUCTION. In this .us Delegated Manager Agreement ("Agreement"), "we", "us" and "our" refer to Neustar, Inc. ("usTLD Administrator"), a Delaware corporation located at 46000 Center Oak Plaza, Sterling, Virginia 20166, and "you" and "your" refer to any person that serves as a delegated manager (“Delegated Manager”) responsible for the maintenance, support and administration over .us locality domain names (“Locality Names”) registered by localities, schools, state agencies, federal agencies, distributed national institutes, and general independent entities (collectively referred to as "Registrants"). This Agreement explains our obligations to you, and your obligations to us in relation to our .US domain registration services. If your .US domain name registration services for a particular Locality Name previously were provided under arrangement with any of our predecessors, including, but not limited to VeriSign, Inc., Network Solutions, Inc., or the Information Sciences Institute, University of Southern California (collectively referred to as “Predecessors"), your continued service as a Delegated Manager in the .US domain and the use of our .US domain name registration services constitutes your assent to the terms of this Agreement. If you submitted an application for our .US domain name registration services, the Effective Date of this Agreement shall be the date of our acceptance of your application. If you previously received .US domain name registration services from any Predecessor, the Effective Date of this Agreement is October 12, 2005. 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement is from the Effective Date to the date on which the usTLD Administrator has no further obligation to render .US Top Level Domain ("TLD") administration services under any agreement with the United States Government, or until earlier terminated pursuant to Section 26 hereof (the "Initial Term"). -
Case Study Transfer of Domain Name Registered
YOUR PARTNER FOR GLOBAL GROWTH CASE STUDY TRANSFER OF DOMAIN NAME REGISTERED WITH A DORMANT REGISTRAR BACKGROUND OF THE CASE Our client had registered their website domain name with Domain Name Registrar - Net4 Network Services Limited (Net4), with latest renewal for 3 years done in 2018. Our client wanted to transfer their domain from Net4 to another registrar to facilitate email migration. Upon logging onto their Net4 account, our client realised that no option was provided by Net4 for initiating transfer and few other important details necessary for email migration were also missing. This unusual omission prompted them to seek Octagona India’s assistance for completing domain transfer. HOW DID OCTAGONA INDIA HELP? Our team undertook the following actions: The very first step was to establish contact with Net4. We called their help line and office numbers but most calls did not go through and the ones which did, went unanswered. We also raised complaints and sent several emails. On not receiving any response on phone or email our team then decided to conduct physical due diligence. We visited Delhi, Noida and Pune Office of Net4 to establish contact. At Delhi and Noida, we were informed by the security guard that Net4 offices were taken over and sealed by a bank in India on account of Net4’s failure to pay their loan. The Pune office was not in existence. Understanding the complexity of the problem, we undertook preliminary inspection of Net4’s records present on the website of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs and noted that current status of the Company was ‘Under process of Striking-off’. -
Monthly Report for March 2003
Registry Operator Monthly Report August 2018 Prepared: September 2018 Neustar, Inc. 21575 Ridgetop Circle Sterling, VA 20166 Monthly Progress Report for August 2018 As required by the Department of Commerce/Neustar Registry Agreements, this report provides an overview of Neustar Registry activity during the reporting month. Table of Contents: Section 1: Summary of Major Events ........................................................................................ 3 Section 2: Performance Data ...................................................................................................... 4 Section 3: Monthly Transaction Statistics ................................................................................. 4 Section 4: Monthly Registration Data ........................................................................................ 6 Section 5: Website Statistics ........................................................................................................ 6 Section 6: Accredited Registrar Status ...................................................................................... 6 Section 7: .US Locality Statistics ................................................................................................ 6 Section 8: WHOIS Complaint Statistics .................................................................................... 7 Page 2 Monthly Progress Report for August 2018 Section 1: Summary of Major Events Technical and Operational Update The SRS and WHOIS had an unscheduled site switchover resulting -
RFC 2557 MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents March 1999
Network Working Group J. Palme Request for Comments: 2557 Stockholm University/KTH Obsoletes: 2110 A. Hopmann Category: Standards Track Microsoft Corporation N. Shelness Lotus Development Corporation March 1999 MIME Encapsulation of Aggregate Documents, such as HTML (MHTML) Status of this Memo This document specifies an Internet standards track protocol for the Internet community, and requests discussion and suggestions for improvements. Please refer to the current edition of the "Internet Official Protocol Standards" (STD 1) for the standardization state and status of this protocol. Distribution of this memo is unlimited. Copyright Notice Copyright (C) The Internet Society (1999). All Rights Reserved. Abstract HTML [RFC 1866] defines a powerful means of specifying multimedia documents. These multimedia documents consist of a text/html root resource (object) and other subsidiary resources (image, video clip, applet, etc. objects) referenced by Uniform Resource Identifiers (URIs) within the text/html root resource. When an HTML multimedia document is retrieved by a browser, each of these component resources is individually retrieved in real time from a location, and using a protocol, specified by each URI. In order to transfer a complete HTML multimedia document in a single e-mail message, it is necessary to: a) aggregate a text/html root resource and all of the subsidiary resources it references into a single composite message structure, and b) define a means by which URIs in the text/html root can reference subsidiary resources within that composite message structure. This document a) defines the use of a MIME multipart/related structure to aggregate a text/html root resource and the subsidiary resources it references, and b) specifies a MIME content-header (Content-Location) that allow URIs in a multipart/related text/html root body part to reference subsidiary resources in other body parts of the same multipart/related structure. -
Residential Demand for Broadband Telecommunications and Consumer Access to Unaffiliated Internet Content Providers
Residential Demand for Broadband Telecommunications and Consumer Access to Unaffiliated Internet Content Providers Jerry A. Hausman†, J. Gregory Sidak††, and Hal J. Singer††† In this article, we examine the open access debate in the context of cable services and broadband Internet services from an antitrust framework. Our analysis is prompted by the recent AT&T-MediaOne and AOL-Time Warner mergers, which raise issues concerning the impact of integrated cable content and Internet access to residential telecommunications. Economic analysis, demographic surveys and federal antitrust guidelines each indicate that the broadband Internet access market is distinct from the narrowband Internet access market. Emerging or competing technologies, such as satellite Internet services or digital subscriber lines, cannot discipline the broadband Internet access market over the relevant time horizons. Vertical integration increases the incentives and power of cable providers to discriminate against unaffiliated broadband content, thereby substantially decreasing consumer welfare. We conclude that the recent mergers of cable content and Internet access is the most current manifestation of the classic strategy of cable providers to control alternate channels of content distribution. Introduction ......................................................................................... 131 I. Improperly Combining the Narrowband and Broadband Internet Access Markets ........................................................................... 135 A. Qualitative