March 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Day Five ICANN Singapore
by Glenn McKnight March 26, 2014

March 26, 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 25, 2014

March 25, 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

NTIA Announces Intent to Transition Key Internet Domain Name Functions
by Eduardo Diaz March 14, 2014

March 14, 2014

You may find this interesting. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2014/ntia-announces-intent-transition… -ed -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

3 2

Lack of Enforcement of UDRP Decisions
by Garth Bruen March 13, 2014

March 13, 2014

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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Compliance complaint
by Alan Greenberg March 13, 2014

March 13, 2014

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 Team >>Reporter Email: alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca >>Domain being reported: rapetube.org >> >>Time of submission/processing: Tue Feb 18 16:23:13 2014 >> >>Problem in whois block: Technical Contact >> --- Error in address: Incorrect address >> --- Error in email: Incorrect email >> --- Comment: Same information as above. >> >>Problem in whois block: Registrant Contact >> --- Error in address: Incorrect address >> --- Comment: Domain given for e-mail address, >> "Privacy-Protect.cn" is a non-existent domain and >> therefore cannot possible be a valid address. >> >>Street address, "Rue la produit 34, Nimes, >>Languedoc-Roussillon, France, Postal Code:30189" is a >>non-existent address, and the postal code given (30189) is in fact >>an "area code" or "INSEE code" and not a valid postal code. >> >>The same registrant for other registrations gives the same invalid >>e-mail address, but often a valid street address (26 Rue Jean >>Reboul, Nimes, Languedoc-Roussillon, France 30900" which is >>apparetnly the address of a restaurant - >>https://maps.google.com/maps?q=26+Rue+Jean+Reboul,+Nimes,+France&hl=en&…) >> >>Problem in whois block: Administrative Contact >> --- Error in address: Incorrect address >> --- Error in email: Incorrect email >> --- Comment: Same information as above. >> >>The whois at the time of processing is: >> >> >>REGISTRY WHOIS: >> >> >>Domain Name:RAPETUBE.ORG >>Domain ID: D155914076-LROR >>Creation Date: 2009-04-21T14:44:42Z >>Updated Date: 2013-04-16T08:41:16Z >>Registry Expiry Date: 2014-04-21T14:44:42Z >>Sponsoring Registrar:Bizcn.com, Inc. (R1248-LROR) >>Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 471 >>WHOIS Server: >>Referral URL: >>Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited >>Registrant ID:orgre90683958698 >>Registrant Name:Henry Nguyen Gong >>Registrant Organization:Privacy-Protect.cn >>Registrant Street: Rue la produit 34 >>Registrant City:Nimes >>Registrant State/Province:Languedoc-Roussillon >>Registrant Postal Code:30189 >>Registrant Country:FR >>Registrant Phone:+33.466583875 >>Registrant Phone Ext: >>Registrant Fax: +33.466583875 >>Registrant Fax Ext: >>Registrant Email:contact@privacy-protect.cn >>Admin ID:orgre90683959424 >>Admin Name:Henry Nguyen Gong >>Admin Organization:Privacy-Protect.cn >>Admin Street: Rue la produit 34 >>Admin City:Nimes >>Admin State/Province:Languedoc-Roussillon >>Admin Postal Code:30189 >>Admin Country:FR >>Admin Phone:+33.466583875 >>Admin Phone Ext: >>Admin Fax: +33.466583875 >>Admin Fax Ext: >>Admin Email:contact@privacy-protect.cn >>Tech ID:orgre90683960526 >>Tech Name:Henry Nguyen Gong >>Tech Organization:Privacy-Protect.cn >>Tech Street: Rue la produit 34 >>Tech City:Nimes >>Tech State/Province:Languedoc-Roussillon >>Tech Postal Code:30189 >>Tech Country:FR >>Tech Phone:+33.466583875 >>Tech Phone Ext: >>Tech Fax: +33.466583875 >>Tech Fax Ext: >>Tech Email:contact@privacy-protect.cn >>Name Server:NS3.CNMSN.COM >>Name Server:NS4.CNMSN.COM >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>Name Server: >>DNSSEC:Unsigned

4 6

Re: [ALAC] Compliance complaint
by Alan Greenberg March 12, 2014

March 12, 2014

At 12/03/2014 11:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On Mar 12, 2014 8:33 PM, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> 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. > >I agree, partially. > >The submission tool issue is important, but only part of a larger >conversation about ICANN's approach towards third-party >whistleblowers, consumer groups, state regulators, etc. Improving >the submission tool is necessary but not sufficient. No not sufficient, but a mechanism by which one can submit a CLASS of infractions without necessarily identifying them one-by-one will result in a quantum change. >And then there is still the issue of backlogs of complaints, which >cannot be brushed aside if they remain unresolved. This isn't like a >bankruptcy; ICANN can't just absolve itself of responsibility >because it has upgraded the contract. > >Even if action can't be taken because an older fraudulent act didn't >violate an old RAA, these issues still needs closure as a matter of >salvaging trust. > >It will be interesting to know how much of the above will be covered >in the public Compliance session. Probably none. That is why I said that our wantin to discuss this meshes well with not previewing the public meeting with us.

1 0

Statement Necessary? ICANN Strategy Panels
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 12, 2014

March 12, 2014

Dear All, Do you believe that a Statement on the following PC is necessary? Please note that the ALAC are likely to discuss this in Singapore F2F. ICANN Strategy Panels<https://community.icann.org/x/2hLRAg> Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<applewebdata://68497759-1B04-4F9B-84B7-B9445B8F305F/Regards,%20Heidi%20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20Gisella%20Gruber,%20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy%20Staff%20in%20support%20of%20ALACmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [community] Ariel Liang shared "At-Large ICANN Strategy Panels Workspace" with you
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 12, 2014

March 12, 2014

Dear all, just following up on Ariel's note. It is worth knowing that the work of these Strategy Panels will be shared in a session in Singapore, in addition to the recent Webinars. Kind regards, Olivier On 12/03/2014 16:06, Ariel Liang (Confluence) wrote: > Ariel Liang <https://community.icann.org/display/%7Eariel.liang> has > just shared a page with you: > At-Large ICANN Strategy Panels Workspace > <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+ICANN+Strategy+P…> > > Hello everyone, > > I hope your day has been going well. > > Do you think a Statement on this PC is necessary? > > Please note that ALAC are likely to discuss this PC in Singapore F2F. > > Thank you, > Ariel > Also shared with: > alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > If you are having trouble accessing the link, please copy and paste > the URL below into your browser: > https://community.icann.org/x/2hLRAg > > Sent by Atlassian Confluence > <http://www.atlassian.com/software/confluence> 5.1.5, the Enterprise > Wiki <url.enterprise.wiki> >

1 0

[community] Ariel Liang shared "At-Large ICANN Strategy Panels Workspace" with you
by Ariel Liang (Confluence) March 12, 2014

March 12, 2014

1 0

At-Large IDN Update
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 11, 2014

March 11, 2014

Dear Colleagues, This is an update about IDN-related matters in preparation for the Singapore ICANN Meeting: 1. ALAC Statement on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information - The finalized draft statement has been posted on the wiki and will be open for an ALAC vote shortly: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Translation+and+… - The PDP Working Group on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information will have meetings in Singapore. 2. At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting @ Singapore ICANN 49 Meeting (Wed, March 26th, 5-6pm, VIP room) *Agenda:* 1. Welcome by Co-Chairs (Rinalia Abdul Rahim and Edmon Chung) 2. Universal Acceptance of IDN TLDs: A discussion on collaboration and coordination needed for the universal acceptance of IDN TLDs worldwide for the benefit of end users Discussants: Ram Mohan (Afilias), Jothan Frakes (Mozilla), Jordyn Buchanan (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) Please join us for this meeting as there is no IDN Working Group update scheduled for the ALAC Meetings during the week in Singapore. Best regards, Rinalia

1 0

Sam Lanfranco: "Challenges facing ICANN in particular and Internet Governance Stakeholders in General"
by Evan Leibovitch March 2, 2014

March 2, 2014

Hello all, The following has been recently published on the website of The Internet Society Canada Chapter, a NARALO ALS. "Challenges facing ICANN in particular and Internet Governance Stakeholders in General <http://www.internetsociety.ca/lanfranco-icann-challenges/>" Its author is Sam Lanfranco, Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar of York University in Toronto, and also a participant in the Non-Profit Organization Constituency (NPOC) of ICANN. He is also the subject of a series of video interviews on Internet issues<http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEVM0xMLSuCKt5UwU8eQlgA>done by the Chapter. Comments are welcomed but moderated. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

(DRAFT) ALAC Statement on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information in Response to Working Group Input Request from SO/AC
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim March 1, 2014

March 1, 2014

Dear Colleagues, A draft ALAC statement has been posted on the Charter questions posed by the Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information Working Group on this wikipage: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Translation+and+… The draft is provided as a basis for discussion. Please note that you need to log-in to enable the comments feature of the wikipage. If you cannot log-in for whatever reason, please send your comments to staff ( staff(a)at-large.icann.org) and they can help you. The draft statement is pasted below for a quick review so that you can decide whether or not to comment via the wiki. Best regards, Rinalia *(DRAFT) ALAC Statement on Translation and Transliteration of Contact Information in Response to Working Group Input Request from SO/AC* (Note: The use of the word "transformation" of contact information pertains to the "translation and / or transliteration" of contact information.) *(1) Whether it is desirable to translate contact information to a single common language or transliterate contact information to a single common script* It is important to note that translating contact information to a single common language privileges the users of that language over other users, just as the transliteration to a single common script privileges users of that particular script over others. The choice of one single common language or script does not reflect or support a global Internet community, which is diverse in language and script use. Our preference is to have registration contact information in languages and scripts that reflect the diversity of Internet users. We believe that it is unreasonable to assume that registrants will be able to enter contact information in scripts or languages other than their local script and language. It is possible that some registrants may have the ability to do so, but in principle registrants should not be expected or required to transform their own contact information. In terms of the choice of whether to translate or transliterate contact information, the transformation of contact information to a level where it is understandable to users of registration data may require a combination of both. For example, when transforming contact information, proper names or nouns (i.e., unique names of persons, places, events and things) should not be translated and should instead be transliterated. *(2) What exactly the benefits to the community are of translating and/or transliterating contact information, especially in light of the costs that may be connected to translation and/or transliteration?* The Internet has a global user base. Transformed contact information that is validated to be accurate and useable allows users worldwide to see who are the domain name registration holders and how to contact/reach them. Contact information is used for various purposes by a range of users. The purposes include regulatory/contract enforcement, domain name monitoring and research, domain name purchase/sale, individual Internet use, technical issue resolution, legal action, abuse mitigation and malicious Internet activities (see Expert Working Group on gTLD Directory Services Report). In cases where harmful Internet activities are perpetrated, the availability of transformed contact information that is accurate and useable facilitates those taking action to protect end users. Moreover, transformed contact information that is validated for accuracy and usability promotes consumer trust in the Domain Name System and is beneficial to the At-Large community. *(3) Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all gTLDs?* Based on the principle that gTLDs serve global Internet users, transformation of contact information should be mandatory for all gTLDs. *(3) Should translation and/or transliteration of contact information be mandatory for all registrants or only those based in certain countries and/or using specific non-ASCII scripts* If transformation of contact information is to be implemented as a matter of policy, then it should be mandatory for all registrants for the purpose of serving global Internet users. Registrants based in countries and / or using specific non-ASCII scripts should not be discriminated against in the implementation of contact data transformation. Contact information for registrants in ASCII script should also be equally transformed for the benefit of non-ASCII script users. *(4) What impact will translation/transliteration of contact information have on the WHOIS validation as set out under the 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement?* No comment. *(5) When should any new policy relating to translation and transliteration of contact information come into effect?* No comment. *(6) Who should decide who should bear the burden translating contact information to a single common language or transliterating contact information to a single common script? This question relates to the concern expressed by the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group (IRD-WG) in its report that there are costs associated with providing translation and transliteration of contact information. For example, if a policy development process (PDP) determined that the registrar must translate or transliterate contact information, this policy would place a cost burden on the registrar.* The decision on who should bear the burden of transforming contact information should be informed by the views of and impact on all affected parties, which would include the provider of the information (registrants), those involved in collecting and maintaining the information (i.e., registrar, reseller, registry) and the range of users that include end users and regulatory authorities/law enforcement agencies. The PDP decision-making rules and procedures for Consensus Policy should apply with input from all ICANN Advisory Committees (i.e., At-Large Advisory Committee, Governmental Advisory Committee and Security and Stability Advisory Committee). *(7) Who does your SG/C believe should bear the cost, bearing in mind, however, the limits in scope set in the Initial Report on this issue?* In determining who should bear the cost, it would be important to consider whether the transformation of contact information is made for general use or specialized use. If the transformation is required for general use, the cost should be borne by the process/entities that collect the information. If the transformation is required for specialized use, the parties requiring the specialized service should bear the cost of contact information transformation. If transformation has general use and is crucial for particular specialized use, then a sharing of costs between those collecting the information and those requiring specialized use of the information could be considered. END

1 0