March 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Day Five ICANN Singapore
by Glenn McKnight March 27, 2014

March 27, 2014

https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157642954212553e Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Compliance PIC enforcement
by h.raiche＠internode.on.net March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Agree- good catch and yes, a formal letter is a good suggestion - happy to let Alan with his knowledge of this do the hard yards Holly On Wed 26/03/14 5:17 PM , Evan Leibovitch evan(a)telly.org sent: Good catch, Alan. I agree that such a question should be filled. On Mar 26, 2014 11:53 AM, "Alan Greenberg" wrote: > At the meeting between Compliance and ALAC on Sunday, Maguy reported that > there is a form on the ICANN web site for reporting alleged PIC violations. > > At the public compliance session today, it became clear that this form was > related to the PICDRP (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/ [1] > applicants/agb/picdrp-19dec13-en.pdf). > > The PICDRP is ostensibly applicable only if the complainant can claim it > has been harmed by the alleged non-compliance. > > To quote: "1.1 Any person or entity that believes they have been harmed as > a result of a Registry Operator's act or omission in connection with the > operation of its gTLD that is non-compliant with its PICs may report such > alleged non-compliance by the Registry Operator ("Reporter")." > > During the session question period, I explicitly asked whether the process > was applicable if the complainant does not claim any harm to the > complainant. > > The answer was less than crystal clear. We were told that Compliance would > evaluate the complaint and decide whether it had merit (including following > up with the complainant if the submitted information was insufficient). On > specific questioning of whether they would consider it a valid complaint if > no harm was demonstrated, there was not a definitive answer. Related to > this is my understanding that even if a complaint *was* forwarded to the > Standing Panel, the rules under which it will operate would not allow it to > find for the complainant with harm being demonstrated. > > I would suggest that the ALAC file an explicit written question with > compliance on this issue, since it is effectively the SAME question that we > have been asking for over a year now. > > I would be happy to draft such a letter. > > Alan > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [2] > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [3] > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large [4]+ > Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac [5] At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org [6] ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… [7]) Links: ------ [1] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fnewgtld… [2] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [3] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [4] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun… [5] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarg… [6] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.atl… [7] http://webmail-old.internode.on.net/parse.php?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fcommun…

1 0

Compliance PIC enforcement
by Alan Greenberg March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

At the meeting between Compliance and ALAC on Sunday, Maguy reported that there is a form on the ICANN web site for reporting alleged PIC violations. At the public compliance session today, it became clear that this form was related to the PICDRP (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/picdrp-19dec13-en.pdf) The PICDRP is ostensibly applicable only if the complainant can claim it has been harmed by the alleged non-compliance. To quote: "1.1 Any person or entity that believes they have been harmed as a result of a Registry Operator's act or omission in connection with the operation of its gTLD that is non-compliant with its PICs may report such alleged non-compliance by the Registry Operator ("Reporter")." During the session question period, I explicitly asked whether the process was applicable if the complainant does not claim any harm to the complainant. The answer was less than crystal clear. We were told that Compliance would evaluate the complaint and decide whether it had merit (including following up with the complainant if the submitted information was insufficient). On specific questioning of whether they would consider it a valid complaint if no harm was demonstrated, there was not a definitive answer. Related to this is my understanding that even if a complaint *was* forwarded to the Standing Panel, the rules under which it will operate would not allow it to find for the complainant with harm being demonstrated. I would suggest that the ALAC file an explicit written question with compliance on this issue, since it is effectively the SAME question that we have been asking for over a year now. I would be happy to draft such a letter. Alan

3 2

Fwd: At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting @ ICANN 49 in Singapore
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 26, 2014

March 26, 2014

Pls note change of meeting room for IDN WG meeting today. 5-6pm in Hullet Room (not VIP Room). ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Gisella Gruber" <Gisella.Gruber(a)icann.org> Date: Mar 26, 2014 9:07 AM Subject: At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting @ ICANN 49 in Singapore To: "rmohan(a)afilias.info" <rmohan(a)afilias.info>, "Ram Mohan" < ram.mohan(a)icann.org>, "Edmon Chung" <edmon(a)registry.asia>, "jothan(a)gmail.com" <jothan(a)gmail.com>, "sarmad.hussain(a)kics.edu.pk" <sarmad.hussain(a)kics.edu.pk>, "jordyn(a)google.com" <jordyn(a)google.com>, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" < michele(a)blacknight.com>, "Andrei Kolesnikov" <andrei(a)cctld.ru>, " hotta(a)jprs.co.jp" <hotta(a)jprs.co.jp>, "Youn Jung Park" <yjpark21(a)gmail.com>, "ethan(a)kisa.or.kr" <ethan(a)kisa.or.kr>, "Rinalia Abdul Rahim" < rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> Cc: When: Wednesday, March 26, 2014 5:00 PM-6:00 PM. Malay Peninsula Standard Time Where: 17:00 - 18:00 / HULLET Room *~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Change of MEETING ROOM - now in HULLET Apology from Hiro Hotta Hello everyone, Please find below the agenda for the At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting in Singapore. Thank you for confirming your participation and look forward to see you there. I will request ICANN staff to send out calendar invites so that you have this event in your calendar. At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting @ ICANN 49 in Singapore Date: 26 March 2014 (Wednesday) Time and Venue: 5.00pm-6.00pm VIP Room Meeting Co-Chairs: Rinalia Abdul Rahim and Edmon Chung Agenda: 1. Welcome by Co-Chairs 2. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs: A discussion on collaboration and coordination needed for the universal acceptance of IDN TLDs worldwide to benefit end users Discussants: Ram Mohan (Afilias), Jothan Frakes (Mozilla), Jordyn Buchanan -TBC (Google), Sarmad Hussein (Al-Khawarizmi Institute for Computer Science, Pakistan), Michele Neylon (Blacknight Solutions), Andrei Kalesnikov (ccTLD.ru) and Edmon Chung (Joint ccNSO-GNSO IDN Working Group) 3. Root Zone LGR Project Generation Panel Development: Language Community Issues - Arabic script community (Sarmad Hussein - KICS Pakistan) - Chinese language community (Edmon Chung - dotAsia) - Japanese language community (Hiro Hotta - JPRS) - Korean language community (Joo Young (Ethan) Kim / YJ Park - KISA) - Cyrillic script community (Andrei Kalesnikov - ccTLD.ru) Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Pictures of Day One Singapore
by Glenn McKnight March 23, 2014

March 23, 2014

Here is the link to the first day event of ALAC Since the event was covered on Adobe Connect I didn't do any video. https://www.flickr.com/photos/glennmcknight/sets/72157642764416133/ You can download any of the pictures without watermark Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight .

1 0

Fwd: in memoriam Alain
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 23, 2014

March 23, 2014

FYI -------- Original Message -------- Subject: in memoriam Alain Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2014 12:10:04 +0800 From: marie-laure Lemineur <mllemineur(a)gmail.com> To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com>, Excom NPOC <excom(a)npoc.org>, Anthony Harris <anthonyrharris(a)gmail.com>, Lori Schulman <lori.schulman(a)ascd.org>, "ec-ncsg(a)ipjustice.org" <ec-ncsg(a)ipjustice.org>, "NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu" <ncSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu>, Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, "npoc-voice(a)icann.org" <npoc-voice(a)icann.org> Dear all, This is to let you know that it has just confirmed to me that Alain will be recognized during the Board meeting on Thursday at 6pm SGT. Best, Marie-laure

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Lack of Enforcement of UDRP Decisions
by Garth Bruen March 20, 2014

March 20, 2014

Sorry to add insult to injury on this, but I imagine everyone has seen this story posted by Dev: http://domainnamewire.com/2014/03/19/registrar-suspends-all-domain-names-tra nsferred-from-terminated-registrar/ The domains sponsored by AB Systems were completely malicious. If anyone had visited their website before they were de-accredited you would have seen it was IMPOSSIBLE buy domains from them. They only sold domains to themselves and they were all used for selling illicit and counterfeit pharmaceuticals. >From what I understand relevant regulatory bodies had directly informed ICANN about the AB Systems operation. The first example in the report I sent last week concerns UDRP non-enforcement going back several years at AB Systems. The domains cited in these cases are the same as above. ICANN had all the documentation and notice needed to look into AB Systems, yet they are allowed to persist. Then, after being de-accredited ICANN allowed all the domains to be sloughed off to another registrar who had to deal with the mess. Who is running this show? -----Original Message----- From: Garth Bruen [mailto:gbruen@knujon.com] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 4:36 PM To: ocl(a)gih.com Cc: 'ALAC Working List' Subject: Lack of Enforcement of UDRP Decisions Dear ALAC Chair Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond and ALAC Members, I am forwarding you the immediate results of an investigation into UDRP Complaint handling by ICANN with a request for action. As everyone here knows, the UDRP is a critical component of Internet compliance and ensuring the public trust. As sometimes happens, registrars fail to cooperate with the process and it is up to ICANN to enforce this component of the RAA. What you will see in the attached memo is a number of cases where a UDRP provider reported to ICANN that a registrar failed to comply with the process but ICANN did not issue enforcement on the matter. In some cases, the domain was never transferred and is still held by the registrant/registrar in violation of the UDRP. There are three cases in particular which should be of great concern, domains potentially selling: *Illicit Pharmaceuticals *Counterfeit Electronics *Knockoff Cigarettes Please review the details in the attached document. I am requesting that this document be forwarded to ICANN Compliance and that ALAC take this matter up for inquiry. While it is late, I would like to see this on the agenda while in Singapore. I will be distributing this information widely myself, but I encourage you to share it with any interested party. As a representative of an Internet user community and an officer of At-Large it is my duty to investigate and report on these matters. As the At-Large community is our duty to advise ICANN on these specific issues. Sincerely, Garth Bruen ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com Chair of ICANN At-Large North America (naralo.org) Twitter: @Knujon Skype: gobruen "If history is deprived of the Truth, we are left with nothing but an idle, unprofitable tale" -Polybius

4 4

Fwd: Re: ALAC Statement on the Related-Issue Compliance Submission Process
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 19, 2014

March 19, 2014

Dear all, please be so kind to find the response from ICANN Compliance below. Follow-up during our Session in Singapore. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: ALAC Statement on the Related-Issue Compliance Submission Process Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2014 13:06:22 -0700 From: Maguy Serad <Maguy.Serad(a)icann.org> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Olivier, Thank you for the ALAC statement. In preparation, Compliance checked on the frequency of a single reporter submitting different complaints on the same day. Based on a seven month timeframe, from July 2013 through January 2014, of the total 17,454 complaints submitted only 1.1% (197) of the complaints were submitted by the same reporter on the same day during this time period. To put it in perspective, only two reporters submitted three different complaints types in one day during this seven month period. Compliance requests that ALAC, during the meeting, provide clarity/examples on summary items #2 and #3 as it relates to "wide-spread problem" and "multiple related issues". Looking forward to the discussion with the ALAC team. Sincerely, Maguy Serad VP, ICANN Contractual Compliance ICANN 12025 Waterfront Drive, Suite 300 Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Tel: +1 310-301-5800 Fax: +1 310-823-8649 On 2/27/14 5:22 AM, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: Dear Maguy, please be so kind to find attached the "ALAC Statement on the Related-Issue Compliance Submission Process" which I am sending you on behalf of the ALAC. This Statement was ratified by the ALAC in its last Conference call on 25 February 2014. The vote resulted in the ALAC endorsing the Statement with 14 votes in favor, 0 votes against, and 0 abstentions. Please be so kind to treat this Statement as formal Advice from the ALAC. We look forward to addressing any questions during our Singapore session with you and your Team. A copy of this Statement is being sent to the ICANN Board and to the ICANN CEO for their information. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

3 2

Meeting with Fadi and Steve Crocker on NTIA
by Beran Gillen - Yahoo! March 15, 2014

March 15, 2014

Dear All, Does anyone know where this meeting is being held? I have been on standby waiting for Adobe Connect or Adigo details but nothing yet. It was scheduled to start at 14:00 UTC today. Any details would be appreciated. Beran

3 5

Re: [ALAC] Compliance complaint
by Garth Bruen March 15, 2014

March 15, 2014

All, Given the recent announcement by NTIA/DOC, it is more important than ever for the Internet community to provide oversight of ICANN in new era of global governance. The US couldn't keep its baby bird in the nest forever, but this puts the responsibility on us. So it appears Compliance has "gone into the bunker" if they won't respond to ALAC or even the board. At least everyone now knows how it feels to be an ordinary Internet user and not get results from ICANN Compliance. Is this Accountability and Transparency? Why the secrecy? It leaves us with a number a gaping concerns. The fact that they announced a complaint limit increase from 100 to 300 should not be seen as an improvement. If it is possible have unlimited registrations in a week, there should be a capacity for unlimited complaints. That they lack the tools and staff to deal with the "real-world" volume of complaints is of course a fact, but it is something they should have fixed years ago. Honestly, this should be marked as an overall organizational failure especially since they have consistently claimed they have the resources they need and can handle the expansion of new gTLDs. In terms of expiry of the domain, this is irrelevant for many reasons, already stated. "Henry Nguyen Gong" has 1,179 domains. This is not just a an problem for the way Compliance accepts complaints, it's a problem for the way ICANN deals with registrars. The important detail here is this is not a "rogue domainer" but rather a specific issue within the registrar BizCn. "Henry Nguyen Gong"/privacy-protect.cn is a privacy service ONLY offered through BizCn. Privacy services are supposed only be offered by the registrar or contracted through a registrar. So is this a rogue privacy service or is it rogue behavior within BizCn. Either way it is another violation of the RAA. The new answer from ICANN/BizCn contradicts their earlier answers which is incredibly problematic because BizCn's contract was renewed while this issue was still on the table. Along with the UDRP issue I sent earlier this calls for a comprehensive approach to ICANN Compliance oversight. We need an ongoing effort that works directly with Compliance on all areas within the mandate and we need real cooperation, what has happened since is not even a shadow of cooperation. -Garth -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 10:32 AM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Holly Raiche Cc: ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [ALAC] Compliance complaint Thanks Olivier. I guess we should tell them that this will be a discussion item so they are not taken by surprise (although I would hope they could have figured it out for themselves). I note on the Singapore page, there is no section for topics for the Compliance meeting. Alan At 13/03/2014 05:36 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >Dear Alan, > >you're correct, we have heard nothing back. > >Since sending our official ALAC Statement to Maguy Serad on 27 February >2014, I have received no confirmation of receipt whatsoever. Having >CC'ed both Fadi Chehadé, ICANN CEO and Steve Crocker, ICANN Board >Chair, I asked Steve when I had lunch with him last week at the London IETF. >Immediately after receiving the note, Steve asked Compliance whether >the Board should get involved and the response from Compliance was "no >thanks, we'll work on it ourselves." > >I find it very poor etiquette from Compliance to not have at least >acknowledged receipt of the ALAC Advice. Nonetheless, we should be >pursuing this question when we meet with Compliance in Singapore. > >Kind regards, > >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >ALAC Chair > >On 13/03/2014 01:30, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > I am assuming that the lack of a reply from Olivier means we have > > heard nothing back. > > > > Compliance has already they don't want to spend the time with us > > going over the same presentation that they will give in the public > > session, so focusing on our proposal for a new submission tool seems appropriate. > > > > Alan > > > > At 12/03/2014 07:25 PM, Holly Raiche wrote: > >> Hi Alan (and Garth) > >> > >> Well done - so far. My suggestion - that this be front and centre > >> with any ALAC discussions with Compliance > >> > >> Holly > >> > >> On 12/03/2014, at 4:09 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> > >> > I received a message from Compliance on 10 March saying that the > >> complaint we submitted had been closed because "Based on the > >> current Whois data, the domain was suspended when the complaint was > >> received by ICANN, or the registrar demonstrated that it took > >> reasonable steps to investigate the Whois inaccuracy claim by > >> suspending, deleting, cancelling or otherwise deactivating the domain name." > >> > > >> > On checking the Whois record, the domain still exists, but it is > >> > in > >> "client Hold" status which means that it is no longer in the zone > >> file. A DNS lookup confirmed this. > >> > > >> > The domain is due to expire on 24 April. > >> > > >> > So the result of this exercise is that the particular domain that > >> we were complaining about is out of service. It remains to be seen > >> whether it will pop back again or not. The fictitious e-mail > >> address is still reported (by domaintools.com) as being in use by > >> over 1000 other domain names. It is not clear how many of them > >> might also be unusable, but at least one that I checked > >> (updflashplayer.com) is still in the DNS but does not seem to be live. > >> > > >> > To do further investigation would require more time than I have > >> > at > >> the moment, and access to domain tools that I don't have. Perhaps > >> Garth would like to follow0up and if so, I ask that he contact me > >> directly to develop a plan of action. > >> > > >> > The bottom line seems to be that the compliance process worked in > >> this case, but it is clearly insufficient to address the root > >> problem that was being identified. The complaint process that we > >> have suggested to Compliance would be far better suited. Have we > >> had ANY response from them? > >> > > >> > Alan > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > At 18/02/2014 05:03 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > >> >>> The problem summary: > >> >>> > >> >>> Reporter Name: Alan Greenberg, on behalf of ALAC Leadership

1 0