Agent Name Service - DNW Podcast #568  [music] [music] Welcome to the Domain name wire podcast. I'm your host Andrew Alamman and this is episode number 568. My guest this week is James Bladel. He's the VP of corporate and government affairs at GoDaddy. We're going to talk about the proposal for agent name service and how this could impact the domain name industry. James also talks about some policy items that people in the domain industry should be paying close attention to in 2026 and beyond. An interesting thing happened while James and I were recording this show. I use a platform called SquadCast to record my shows. It records the guest side locally which improves the sound quality. Well, James and I finished recording and then got an error message that the recording could not be uploaded. After troubleshooting, I refreshed squadcast.fm and it forwarded to a parked page. So, I looked at the FM who is record and saw that the issue was SquadCast forgot to renew its domain name. Like many registries, the FM registry interrupts the DNS for domains at some point after they expire. This alerts the domain owner that their domain has expired so it doesn't go into full deletion. In this case, we happen to be recording at the exact moment the FM changed the DNS for this domain. Fortunately, I know the people at thefm registry and reached out to them to alert them about this expiration. They're obviously very big in the podcasting space and didn't want this domain to expire. They worked with Squadcast to renew the domain name. I've learned to always make a local backup of my podcast recordings. So, fortunately, we didn't lose any of this great interview with James. Normally at this point in the podcast, we talk about news in the domain business from the past week, but I was traveling for the holiday last week. So, we're going to skip straight to the interview segment, but I still published stories last week, so please check out domainamewire.com for the latest news. Now, let's chat with James Bladel. [music] My guest is James Bladel. He is the VP of corporate and government affairs at GoDaddy. James, welcome to the show. >> Thanks, Andrew. Thanks for having me. >> So, want to start by first of all congratulating you. You've been named as a new board member for the Internet Commerce Association. What do you think you'll bring to the table to help a >> Well, thanks. Well, first I should probably acknowledge that Paul Nicks and I started at GoDaddy about a week apart. So I had a front row seat to his work and his work with the ICA and just the overall impact that he had on the industry and I just can't say enough good things uh about him and of course wish him well in his retirement. I've always been a fan of the internet commerce association. I believe it brings a different perspective particularly to uh organizations like I can which has been my focus for most of my time at godaddy. I've always felt that the voice of the reg was somewhat absent from policy discussions. I mean as a registar we try to function as a proxy for our customers of course but I think ICA can potentially be more effective in bringing those interests into policy discussions um because otherwise I think you're you're missing an important stakeholder when you think about those things that are impactful to the folks who really don't know about IAN and really don't care how it works and just want their domain names to serve their uh their identity and their business and and are really relying on organizations like ICA to act on their behalf. So, I'm really looking forward to that work and hopefully I can bring a slightly different perspective to the board the based that draws upon just my years of experience operating in IAN. >> Yeah, I think Zach's really happy. Of course, Zach isn't a board member. He's the general counsel, Zack Muskovich, but he had the deepest policy knowledge there. Certainly I think that you know a lot of the board members are domain investors and such which is great but to have someone else who's already going to all the I can meetings anyway [snorts] you know being on the board I think will be a big help to the organization. Why don't we start by you know I had Zach on the show very recently and he was talking about the internet commerce association's collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization WIPO on evaluating UDRP. You've been around I can for a long time. you've been involved for a long time. It seems like it can take forever for things to get done there. So, what do you think about what the AA and WIPO did here to kind of bring a a work product or a starting point that hopefully I can process will now consider? >> To be blown, I was blown away by that collaboration for a number of reasons. I mean one first off here you have two of probably the recognized bodies of expertise on this issue in the internet commerce association and WIPO and folks who have been around I can long enough and really you don't have to be around I can that long to realize they're probably going to come at a lot of these issues from completely different perspectives in serving their stakeholders. So for them to be able to work together and identify and contribute and lend their expertise to these issues and identify some areas of common ground for improvement. I think it is amazingly helpful and can really accelerate the policy development process. I was encouraged to see that they agreed mostly that the UDRP was functioning as it was intended 25 years ago when it was first created and that it doesn't really need wholesale reform. It needs some improvements and benefit from some enhancements around the edges. But generally, I really hope that this kind of a model can serve the community for future PDPs and sticky issues of how we can jumpstart that policy development process and get it moving a little faster because in my view, I've watched it slow down to the point where it's almost operating on a glacial timeline. >> You talking about I can or the >> I can's process. Yeah. >> For UDRP review >> for any policy. >> For any Yeah. because I think there are so many calcified positions that are unwilling to communicate or work together. So, I'm really hoping that this A and WIPO collaboration can serve as a as a breakthrough and maybe a sign for ways that we can improve the PDP and make it more responsive and more functional. It's interesting when I was at the IAN meeting in Seattle last year, there was someone who had was very much involved in ICAN many years ago. I kind of stepped away, changed the role, changed company focus and they came back to that one and they said, "Wow, it's the same thing but much slower. Much slower." I think we're talking about the same individual who said something like, "It's good. Good news is I get to see all of my friends again. Everyone's still here." here. The bad news is you're still talking about the same stuff you were when I left 5 years ago. So hopefully this collaboration and other joint efforts like it can really kind of punch through some of those roadblocks and get some of these policy development efforts moving again. >> So speaking specifically about what ICA and WIPO did, when do you think UDRP when do you think this PDP as policy development process picks up again at IAN? Yeah, unfortunately I think that the calendar is already filling up for 2026 in terms of what I can can realistically take on. I think it's probably looking like later in the year it would be considered for an initiation and possibly early 27. >> Okay, so late 26, early 27 hopefully. >> Yeah, hopefully. >> Nobody ever lost money betting uh against delays at I can right as a rule. >> I think that there's an opportunity. it would be a lot slower and we' probably be talking into the possibly even into the 2030s had they not put this report out there. So that's I think this bought us a couple of years pulling the process forward. We'll talk more about policy later, but uh in case some people are falling asleep uh listening to the show who aren't really into policy. It's funny I say that in Jess because it used to be if I wrote about policy people are like, "Oh, come on. It's so boring." But I will say over the past 10 years there's been a pretty big change there where policy stories have become some of my more popular ones and I think people realize the importance of it even if it's not like immediate to them whether they're a domain investor of course registars registries they realize how important it is absolutely and and I think that you know it's a it's a credit to what you're doing and and those of us who are trying to communicate these very dry and complex policy issues into uh audiences that can understand then how it impacts their business and their use of domain names. You know, I can for all of its faults is rewriting the landscape and changing the rule book in its wake. You know, we have to participate in that and we have to be actively engaged in those processes otherwise we'll get run over. Well, we'll come back to policy in a bit, but I want to talk to you about GoDaddy has been kind of pitching this idea of this agent name service or ANS. I've received a few press releases about it that frankly I read them and didn't understand what it meant whatsoever. So I want to unpack that a little bit today. What is this idea behind agent name service? Sure. And yeah, some of the stuff uh is pretty technical, but just in a nutshell, I think agent name service is a way to leverage the proven infrastructure of the DNS to support Gent AI. I think we all kind of hear the hype around Agentic AI, but even in the most conservative estimates that I'm reading, there could be over a billion autonomous AI agents operating on the on the internet by 2030. And if you think about there's I don't know the number [clears throat] 300 350 million active domain names. So this is something that is already has the potential to dwarf the existing DNS because all of those agents are going to have two problems. They're going to have the the challenge of identity and discoverability but also the uh challenges associated with trust and how do you know that an agent is operating is who it claims to be when you're interacting with it. I think the good news is is that we've already solved those problems. We've used the DNS uh as a ubiquitous and unique naming schema to establish those identities and make those services discoverable and we have uh SSL certificates and the verification that goes into those to establish the trust. So by using those two services, those two existing standards, >> DNS and SSL certificate, >> DNS plus SSL certificate, we can build an infrastructure for Aentic AI that operates at the scale that's going to be necessary, you know, in the next in the next few years. And, you know, for the domain name industry, I think that this is important because it leverages what we're already doing. I think the alternatives are concerning because they could be a number of competing and proprietary standards or it could be a lot of closed gardens like we see with app stores and other ecosystems like that. So, GoDaddy is pushing this not as a product announcement or a service that we're excited about but more as something that we can rally the domain name industry around as an open standard and use what we know already works to support Agentic AI. So is the idea here about using domains in the DNS is the idea that if I'm going to if some agent is going to go out and wants to say register a domain name that the agents it interacts with it knows that they are who they are because of their domain name and it's kind of been registered for as the definitive agent for this agent or this company that sort of thing. Yeah, I think it would be analogous to when you use a browser to go to an e-commerce site and you see the padlock or the green navigation bar that says that, you know, the SSL certificate matches, you know, who claims to have registered this domain name. So, it's using the fully qualified domain name plus the SSL certificate to establish that discoverability and trust. And also, by the way, it could be consumer to agent interactions that require discoverability and trust or it could be agent to agent interactions. So this is uh something that could be built into the agent itself and then you would use ANS to locate an agent. You know, you could for example gain even more information about what it does, who's operating it, what language does it speak, what communications is it expecting. It really is repurposing that service agnostic system of the DNS as a platform on which to build this whole new internet. So when I think of agents right now, I think they're generally serving they're going out to do one purpose and I feel like if they interact with other agents, they're literally kind of programmed to interact with them at this point. Am I correct? Like they aren't going out and searching for agents and then to do something for them or are we there yet? I think there's certainly some folks inside GoDaddy that have more AI specific expertise than I do, but my understanding is as the agents and what distinguishes them from just bots and other web automation is they're able to learn and make autonomous decisions. So that they could, for example, be initially set out to interact with specific agents or services, but they could over time learn to identify and locate and interact with new services that were not part of their original instructions. They could potentially decide to create an agent for themselves to follow a specific path or to provide some function. So I think it's the autonomy and the ability to modify their own initial functions and add to their services that makes them really exciting and also maybe problematic without very scary at the same time. >> Yeah. I mean, if you don't trust them or if you can't find them or if you maybe you have interacted with an agent and you really liked that interaction and you want to do business with them again, having a a unique identifier like a fully qualified domain name under ANS is really going to establish that repeatable interaction. So, GoDaddy pitches this idea, right? There have been some blog posts, that sort of thing. What happens next? I mean, how do you get traction on this as an idea? because as you mentioned there are some competing ways to do this some of which would be closed if you will. So how does that work? >> Well I think we're I mean the short answer is we're talking to everyone who we think wants to listen and can contribute to this. So we're talking to the talking to you and the folks at Ian and the other counterparts in the DNS industry. We are speaking with a lot of the main publishers of the um AI models and counterparts at other and other vertical industries. We're working through some of the techn technical organizations like IETF to get standards published and I believe we are seeing some discussion around our proposals there really u trying you know making sure that we're putting this message out on every channel that we participate in to spread the word that this or it's a bunch of walled gardens. And I think as a domain name industry company, we believe, of course, we're well situated to, you know, help this succeed. But we can't do it alone. And we want to make sure that there's a recognition of the benefits for all of the participants in the DNS industry. Even, you know, other registars and other registries, even domain name investors, for example, could see benefits from a standard like this taking off. >> Yeah. I mean, presumably ultimately more domains registered. Are we talking about agents having their own domain name or being associated with a company's domain name? >> My understanding is it's each ANS verified agent would have its own fully qualified domain name and a specific SSL ser. >> Yeah. So that would that would obviously boost the the number of domain registrations which helps all of us regardless of if the domains are if the whole idea of having a great generic domain matters or not in this circumstance. So I mean you mentioned GoDaddy can't do it on its own. It can't also be seen as like a GoDaddy thing necessarily, right? It needs to be a standard. And how does something like that do you have like a standards board that oversees something like that or how does that ultimately look? >> I think the starting point for that is the IETF and some of the other technical bodies. They operate very very different. >> Tell me about what the IETF what their role typically is. And well, now you're getting probably beyond my level of expertise, but generally speaking, you would submit a proposal or an RFC and other companies could comment on that and then it would ultimately I think at the end of that process be adopted as a protocol that can be incorporated into other code bases and products. I think you know I've always understood for example the internet to be have three components names numbers and protocols and I can handle the names and the RA's handled the protocol the numbers but IETF owned the protocols and so of those areas to adopt this as an open standard and it makes sense in a way if you think about the DNS as a service agnostic platform is just a lookup engine. The fact that we use it mostly to look up websites is how it gained its traction. But this could be a second life for the DNS beyond just web resources and email servers and using it to connect these autonomous agents to us and to each other. >> Got it. So I'll drop in a link to where people can learn more about this because it doesn't appear that there's a website created specifically for it. Am I right there? >> I think so. I think we have uh some blog posts that also link to u some u of our technical resources and I would encourage folks who are more technical than I am to take a look at some of those some of those libraries. >> I'll drop some links in so people can learn more about this and you know again it could this sounds like it could be really exciting for the domain name industry as a whole. Um and as you mentioned here the alternatives aren't necessarily pretty or they're all about driving profit to wall gardens. So I now understand a bit more about this. I think I think that this blog post explaining it really kind of helped me as opposed to the press releases which press releases are press releases, right? So I do think this is interesting. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. So I'll definitely drop some links here into the show so people can check that out. But now I want to talk a little bit more about kind of general policy stuff again. And so first of all, new top level domains application is supposed to open in what April of 2026. Now I remember last time it was like okay we're going to open in a few months or 6 months and then it didn't happen. But it seems like this time I can's really like this is going to happen. What what's your take on this as an observer and participant? >> I also shared your skepticism. I've been invested in I can deadlines and dates too many times only to be disappointed. But just before we were recording, in fact within maybe the last 12 hours or so, I can announced that they'll be opening uh applications no later than uh midnight on April 30th, 2026. And that they'll be and they'll be open for 105 days, closing on August 12th. That came through actually just a few hours ago. So it seems like they are committed to this timeline. We've had some developments where governments in particular in the Gak were the government advisory committee were putting new hurdles on the critical path. >> Even the US, right? Wasn't the >> Yeah, even the US. Most of which involve domain name abuse, which we can talk about a little bit later, but it looks like all signs at this point are still pointing to that April 30th, late April through August application window. Yeah, I I think it's probably, you know, I think although governments have pushed back for a long time, I think they were being pushed by trademark interests who are pushing back, you know, and so it seems like it's less scary this time because we know what happened last time. >> Yeah, I think that's correct. And I think I can correctly determine that the government advice was aimed more at allocating and activating the TLDDS in the domain name system as opposed to allowing the application process to proceed. So, >> okay, >> it seems like I can is learning to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time and do a couple of things in parallel as opposed to, you know, gatekeeping each step of the process with the previous requirements. Now, that said, one of my concerns about that government advice is it was very non-specific about what the outcome looked like. I think if you say that you know you are requiring something to be a prerequisite you know for being able to allocate domain names top level domains in the route I think we need to be very clear about what's our baseline and what's the percentage improvement that we're looking for otherwise I think it opens itself up to more debate later on in the process >> explain specifically what the governments are asking for here >> yeah I think what the government and I don't have the exact language in front of me but essentially they advised I can that they wanted to see meaningful policies developed and implemented to address some issues regarding DNS abuse. >> Okay. >> Prior to activating new TLDDS for the next round in the DNS route. And my question is what does that look like? I mean we've already had direct contract negotiations between registries registars and I can undertake some policy development uh work to build on those and expand those efforts. But I'm not sure what improvement looks like. I mean certainly I don't think the expectation should be that there is no fraud or crime ever on the internet. So what sort of improvements are we looking for? How do we measure that? What baseline are we establishing as our means of comparison? And really just getting more towards a data descriptive success outcome as opposed to just kind of leaving the door open for another scathing report that will slow down the process, you know, 6 to 12 months from now. I think about DNS abuse and I think there's been language re fairly recently added to what registar accreditation agreements or was it registry about DNS abuse right it was both and they're implemented and they're in force but I think you rais a good point is they were so recent it's very difficult to see what kind of measurable impact they've had on the problem of DNS abuse so we're following them up with more work but we haven't really in my view we haven't really controlled for all the variables yet >> and we don't want to come into a situation where everyone applies they send in their money and then we've got this this still kind of this hurdle hanging out there before they actually go on the web >> yeah I think that's right and and I think I'm mostly concerned about just the lack of definition and description on how to get past that hurdle and it just kind of we don't want to create a situation where it's just very easy to move the goalpost And you know I I think about it and there are lots of groups doing things outside of I can on DNS abuse you know.org has created an entire almost I don't know if it's a subsidiary but you know it's kind of a group there that's focusing on it. I think Net Beacon Institute is its current name, but I think there's a lot of advocacy around here and I think most players realize this is important and it'd be great if the industry could regulate it itself, but there's always this competing push here on, you know, if the industry doesn't regulate itself and do a good job, then that's when governments step in. Is that >> Yeah, I think that's a fair characterization and I think it's in this conversation it's important that we don't lose sight of all those individual organization and industry efforts and to highlight them as you know the responsible operators are already taking measurable and meaningful steps to address these problems either alone or in conjunction with their industry peers. And it really depends also on the type of abuse that we're talking about. if it's fishing malware or botn nets there are different groups that are spoke narrowly targeting those types of issues that we also participate in outside of I can I think it's important to not lose sight of that when you go into an IAN conversation and folks are saying well what are we doing about DNS abuse it's like just because it isn't happening here doesn't mean it's not happening anything else on DNS abuse before we move on >> yeah that's going to be a big topic I think for 2026 and one of the reasons why I think the calendar is pretty full for other topics like UDRP reform and why they're going to get squeezed into 2027. There's going to be, I think, a PDP or policy development process launched early in 2026, perhaps at the first meeting that will focus on new requirements for registries and registars. for example, put more stringent security controls in front of API tools and other registration platforms to conduct what they're calling associated domain checks with reports of abuse. So that if for example, if you reported to GoDaddy that there was something happening with a particular domain name and we did discover that it was being used in an abusive or malicious or fraudulent way, we wouldn't stop the investigation there. we would continue to look at that account and other domain names that were registered by that uh by that customer to see if there was any other associated abuse. That is a best practice that I think most of the major players are doing currently. But uh I think that's a pretty big complaint which is okay. You you shut down this one the same credit card was used for another thousand domains. Are you actually going to follow up on that? >> Exactly. just keep pulling on those threads uh until you know you find that that common connection in a way to marginalize their impact on your platform because we don't want these folks on our platform either if they're going to use our services for illegal purposes. >> Yeah. Anything else on I can I want to talk briefly about what's going on in uh Washington DC? No, I think for the first half of a year it's going to be uh most of the conversations are going to center around DNS abuse work and also on the new GTLD application window. There of course are some it's I can so of course they'll always find something new and controversial to discuss but I think that's going to be the sideshow and those are going to be the two main events for 2026. >> Got it. So Washington, you know, it's interesting. I I follow the NTIA's website which is under Department of Commerce and they hadn't announced anything since, you know, the renewal of the Verisign contract until just recently actually, which we don't need to dig into it because it directly impacts GoDaddy. It was the US contract which GoDaddy registry still manages. But I was kind of like, are we going to hear anything out of here, you know, and what's going on? So what should we be keeping an eye on in DC right now? Yeah, I think there are a few things that are not specific to the domain name industry, but just technology in general that are worth watching. I mean, the first one is the US still does not have data protection legislation at the federal level. So, it's popping up in different states. I know you live in Washington now. It has pretty robust uh data protection laws on the books at the state level. In other states, it may be just still completely absent. I think the challenge now is that if you try to introduce uh data protection at the federal level, it runs into the congressional delegations from the states that already have solid protections like Washington or California. They're not obviously they're not going to support or vote for something that reduces the protections that they're residents currently have on the internet. This is challenging for companies like GoDaddy that operate in every state and also globally is trying to find that high watermark between all the different states of what the most uh stringent data protection framework is and then aim our services and products towards that and not just us but also helping our customers navigate those waters. I think we're also seeing a lot of work on a lot of conversations about section 230 which is something that comes up quite a bit in my circles but I don't know if that's uh something your audience >> this is the one that kind of protects like well if someone comments on domain name wire that sort of thing about if it's my you know on X or Facebook am I responsible for it or is the other person >> exactly it gives you as a platform operator some degree of protection from the things that third party users you you know say and do on on your service. And you can imagine, for example, a company that was a massive web host, if they were responsible for everything that their customers generated on the web, that would be a completely different legal landscape than what we're operating in today. So, I think we continue to see talk of either reforming section 230 or even sunsetting it. And I think that would be for so many businesses that would be just almost an existential impact to their risk profile. I was joking, but not only half joking. I said, you know, if you want to see the S&P 500 drop 20% in one day, go ahead and cancel section 230. >> Get rid of 230. Huh. Yeah. Yeah. Definitely. It's interesting even as a website operator, you know, you see you've got the EU's rules. You've got, you know, I know a lot of sites now say, you know, California residents, if you want to do this, you know, click here. you know, kind of thing on their site. And that's obviously not ideal for any anyone in the internet space. So, >> yeah. And if you're traveling overseas and you try to access your hometown newspaper or look up something, you know, for sports local sports team and you find you're blocked because of, you know, they don't want to >> Google News is blocked in a lot of countries, right? Cuz the countries are like, you've got to pay the public, you know. So yeah, >> it's changing the way that I grew up with the internet in that it was a consistent uh customer and user experience no matter where you were, you know, on the planet or no matter, you know, where you were in the country. And unfortunately, it's just part of that continued fragmentation along national and state boundaries. So final question for domain investors that are listening to this show that have never gone to an ICAN meeting. There are so next year there's the the spring meeting. That's the what do they call the spring meeting? >> That is good question. I think that's the community forum. >> That's not the summer one. No, the summer is the policy form. So it goes community policy and annual. So you've got but you know everything gets talked about at all of them right to some degree. So you've got Mumbai in the spring, you've got Sevilla in the summer, and then you have Oman, >> back to Oman, >> and back to Oman in the fall. And then, of course, there's a contracted party summit as well, which I believe is April in Europe. I know they haven't formally announced the place. Most people are talking about it anyway, but >> Exactly. >> But if someone were to go to the first meeting and they're a domain investor, which of those, you know, geography, you know, doesn't matter. Which of those would you recommend that they go to next year? >> Wow, good question. I mean, I always say geography does matter. I mean, that's why the Seattle meeting was so popular. >> But if that were not a consideration, I think more impactful work is discussed and completed in the AGM, the larger meeting at the end of the year >> where it's not only the policy work, but also, you know, the internal housekeeping and governance more broadly. Uh whether it's, you know, council turnover and or board leadership changes. I think that's where that's where more work is being done. But honestly, I think that really there's only um a few issues that are currently bouncing around ICAM that could impact a main investors. For example, understanding um you know what's going to happen with the next round and whether or not they want to participate in some of those TLDs that are coming out or potentially changes around the rules for privacy and proxy services. Some I think some investors may like those because it allows them to have a portfolio acquisition without tipping their hand on what their strategy might be and some domain investors may not like those because it's friction in between them and maybe transacting with another party that might be uh using a privacy service. So changing around rules about those and then I think yeah and then understanding what the registries and registars are doing separately in terms of their strategies like right now I think a lot of registries and registars have acknowledged that domain name parking revenue has gone off a cliff and so what does that mean for their product offering are they going to scale back their you know their focus in serving those clients so all of that I think is worth paying attention to and I think again just going back to how we opened our conversation it's why it's so important for folks like you, folks like me and other folks in this space to be able to sit on a lot of these hour-long calls and and attend these week-long meetings so that we can bring back those nuggets of valuable information and those those truly impactful bits of policy work and then synthesize those for a more mainstream audience that really doesn't have the time to follow this stuff as closely as we do. >> And so specifically, one way to do that is to join the Internet Commerce Association. >> Absolutely. And they do do a good job of synthesiz not getting into the weeds unless you want to you know they obviously call on people to participate at a higher level but just to understand kind of what's going on and provide feedback because even amongst you know the ICA board they're there people with different interests right who might have different opinions on things so you know uh providing feedback on how the A should advocate >> yeah I think understanding what the legislative pri and policy priorities should be is half the battle. You know, once you have that nailed down and established, then going out and taking that into I can or taking that into Washington DC. I don't want to say that's the easier part, but it's certainly the more straightforward exercise. But understanding what the membership of a group like a wants. It can't just be to stop everything from changing, but maybe there could be something to advancing their ideals and their interests and getting that fed into the policy development process. Well, James, thanks so much for coming on the show today. I'll of course uh check out the blog post here for links to information about agent name service if you want to dig into that more. And then James, I assume you'll be at the ICA meeting in January. >> Yep. Looking forward to it. My first one. >> If anyone hasn't met James, there's a great opportunity to do that. So, thanks so much for coming on the show. >> Thanks for having me. It's always a pleasure. >> My guest this week has been James Bladel. He is the VP of corporate and government affairs at GoDaddy. That's a wrap on this week's Domainwire podcast. You can listen to all previous episodes at dnw.com/mpodcast or on your favorite podcast app. Thanks for [music] listening. [music] >> [music], Agent Name Service - DNW Podcast #568, YouTube, 01kh6zbj9f60w222b8ajypawvn.