July 2014 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: [At-Large] A million domains taken down by email checks
by Alan Greenberg July 4, 2014

July 4, 2014

The registrars are asking for data from law enforcement, and rightfully so. However, before I would charge off and recommend that the ALAC takes a position, I would like to see some data from registrars. 800,000 is a large number. But it is also just 0.5% of all gTLD registrations. In the past when the ALAC has raised issues related to similar problems (such as loss of registrations after accidental expiration), one of the replies from registrars has been that the number is only a tiny fraction of the registrations that are not lost. In my mind, the issue was not the percentage but the absolute number of people suffering problems, and it still is in this case. When we were looking at expiration issues, and how to alert a registrant that a name had expired, the PDP WG came to the conclusion that the best way to wake up a registrant who is either ignoring e-mails, or has e-mails directed to an invalid or dead e-mail box, it to take down the domain. Not working does catch people's attention! Yes, it is a harsh way to do this, but very effective. The first reports that we are getting from Contractual Compliance is that with these new measures in place, complaints are way down, as much as 50% for some expiration-related complaints. So I would want to understand something about where this 800,000 number comes from, and how it is broken down. Examples of questions that come to mind and should be explored are: - how many of those 800,000 result in the registrant correcting the data and the domain goes live again - how many are not due to bad registrant contact information, but bad contact information for the a privacy/proxy service or web hosting company I'm sure a bit of discussion would raise other questions as well. So I am all for the ALAC making a statement, But the content of that statement should be based on a better understanding of what is going on here. Alan Postscript: One of the issues that came up during the expiration renewal PDP was that many registrations use the domain in question for the contact e-mail. For example, the domain example.com might had a contact e-mail address of webmaster(a)example.com. If the domain stops working for any reason, the contact address is by definition useless. Registrant need to be educated to NOT use the domain being registered for its own contact address. The PDP recommended that registrars warn registrants about this. Perhaps it is being done, but I have not seen it. At 03/07/2014 06:36 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim wrote: >Dear ALAC, > >In reference to Joly MacFie's mail to the At-Large (see forwarded), the >topic was also raised by Registrars during their meeting with the ICANN >Board in London. > >Fadi posed a question to the Registrars on whether they have engaged with >the At-Large on the matter. Fadi then raised the issue to the At-Large >during his ATLASII Fayre speech. > >It would be important that the At-Large articulates its position on the >issue (possibly via an ALAC statement) as it is being presented as a >problem for Internet users. > >Best regards, > >Rinalia >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: "Joly MacFie" ><<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>joly at punkcast.com> >Date: Jun 26, 2014 1:00 AM >Subject: [At-Large] A million domains taken down by email checks >To: "At-Large Worldwide" ><<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>at-large >at atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: > >Fwd over from the NCSG list. I underdtand that this would have been > > discussed in today's EWG and privacy sessions. Any comments? > > > > > > > <http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks>http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks > > > > A million domains taken down by email checks > > < > > > <http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks>http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks > > > > > Kevin Murphy > <<http://domainincite.com/about>http://domainincite.com/about>, > June 24, 2014, 14:34:25 > > (UTC), Domain Registrars > > > <<http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registrars>http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registrars> > > > > *Over 800,000 domain names have been suspended since the beginning of the > > year as a result of Whois email verification rules in the new ICANN > > Registrar Accreditation Agreement.* > > > > Thats according to the Registrars Stakeholder Group, which collected > > suspension data from registrars representing about 75% of all registered > > gTLD domain names. > > > > The actual number of suspended domains could be closer to a million. > > > > The 2013 RAA requires registrars to verify the email addresses listed in > > their customers Whois records. If they dont receive the verification, > > they have to suspend the domain. > > > > The RrSG told the ICANN board in March that these checks were doing more > > harm than good > > < > > > <http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-g…>http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-g… > > > > > and today Tucows CEO Elliot Noss presented, as promised, data to back up > > the claim. > > > > There have been over 800,000 domains suspended, Noss said. We have > > stories of healthcare sites that have gone down, community groups whose > > sites have gone down. > > > > I think we can safely say millions of internet users, he said. Those are > > real people just trying to use the internet. They are our great > > unrepresented core constituency. > > > > The RrSG wants to see contrasting data from law enforcement agencies and > > governments which pushed hard for Whois verification showing that the > > RAA requirement has had a demonstrable benefit. > > > > Registrars asked at the Singapore meeting in March that law enforcement > > agencies (LEA) be put on notice that they cant ask for more Whois controls > > until theyve provided such data and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade said > > < > > > <http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-g…>http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-g… > > > > > It shall be done by London. > > > > Noss implied that the majority of the 800,000 suspended names belong to > > innocent registrants, such as those who had simply changed email addresses > > since registering their names. > > > > What was a lovely political win that we said time and time again in > > discussion after discussion was impractical and would provide no benefit, > > has demonstrably has created harm, Noss said. > > > > He was received with cautious support by ICANN board members. > > > > Chair Steve Crocker wonder aloud how many of the 800,000 suspended domains > > are owned by bad guys, and he noted that LEA dont appear to gather data in > > the way that the registrars are demanding. > > > > We were subjected, all of us, to heavy-duty pressure from the law > > enforcement community over a long period of time. We finally said, Okay, > > we hear you and well help you get this stuff implemented,, he added. > > That creates an obligation as far as Im concerned on their part. > > > > Were in a at least from a moral position in a strong position to say, > > You must help us understand this. Otherwise, youre not doing your part of > > the job, he said. > > > > Chehade also seemed to support the registrars position that LEA needs to > > justify its demands and offered to take their data and concerns to the LEA > > and the Governmental Advisory Committee. > > > > They put restrictions on us that are causing harm, according to these > > numbers, he said. Lets take this back at them and say, hey, you ask for > > all these things, this is what happened. > > > > If you cant tell me what good this has done, be aware not to come back > > and ask for more, he said. Im with you on this 100%. Im saying lets > > use the great findings you seem to have a found and well-package them in a > > case and I will be your advocate. > > > > Director Mike Silber also spoke in support of the RrSGs position. > > > > My view is if what you are saying is correct, the LEAs have blown their > > credibility, he said. Theyre going to have to do a lot of work before we > > impose similar disproportional requirements on actors that are not proven > > to be bad actors. > > > > So what does this all mean for registrants? > > > > I dont think theres any ongoing process right now to get the Whois > > verification requirements overturned that would require a renegotiation > > of the RAA but it does seem to mean demands from governments and police > > are going to have to be much more substantiated in future. > > > > Noss attempted to link the problem to the recommendations of the Whois > > Expert Working Group (EWG), which propose a completely revamped, > > centralized Whois system with much more verification > > > <<http://domainincite.com/16855-whois-killer-is-a-recipe-for-a-clusterfuck>http://domainincite.com/16855-whois-killer-is-a-recipe-for-a-clusterfuck> > > and not much to benefit registrants. > > > > To paraphrase: if email verification causes so much harm, what harms could > > be caused by the EWG proposal? > > > > The EWG was not stuffed with LEA or governments, however, so it couldnt > > really be characterized as another set of unreasonable demands from the > > same entities. > > > > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > > WWWhatsup NYC - <http://wwwhatsup.com>http://wwwhatsup.com > > http://pinstand.com - <http://punkcast.com>http://punkcast.com > > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - <http://isoc-ny.org>http://isoc-ny.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>At-Large > at atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > > At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org>http://atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Fwd: [At-Large] A million domains taken down by email checks
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim July 3, 2014

July 3, 2014

Dear ALAC, In reference to Joly MacFie's mail to the At-Large (see forwarded), the topic was also raised by Registrars during their meeting with the ICANN Board in London. Fadi posed a question to the Registrars on whether they have engaged with the At-Large on the matter. Fadi then raised the issue to the At-Large during his ATLASII Fayre speech. It would be important that the At-Large articulates its position on the issue (possibly via an ALAC statement) as it is being presented as a problem for Internet users. Best regards, Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Joly MacFie" <joly(a)punkcast.com> Date: Jun 26, 2014 1:00 AM Subject: [At-Large] A million domains taken down by email checks To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Fwd over from the NCSG list. I underdtand that this would have been > discussed in today's EWG and privacy sessions. Any comments? > > > http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks > > A million domains taken down by email checks > < > http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks > > > Kevin Murphy <http://domainincite.com/about>, June 24, 2014, 14:34:25 > (UTC), Domain Registrars > <http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registrars> > > *Over 800,000 domain names have been suspended since the beginning of the > year as a result of Whois email verification rules in the new ICANN > Registrar Accreditation Agreement.* > > That’s according to the Registrars Stakeholder Group, which collected > suspension data from registrars representing about 75% of all registered > gTLD domain names. > > The actual number of suspended domains could be closer to a million. > > The 2013 RAA requires registrars to verify the email addresses listed in > their customers’ Whois records. If they don’t receive the verification, > they have to suspend the domain. > > The RrSG told the ICANN board in March that these checks were doing more > harm than good > < > http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-g… > > > and today Tucows CEO Elliot Noss presented, as promised, data to back up > the claim. > > “There have been over 800,000 domains suspended,” Noss said. “We have > stories of healthcare sites that have gone down, community groups whose > sites have gone down.” > > “I think we can safely say millions of internet users,” he said. “Those are > real people just trying to use the internet. They are our great > unrepresented core constituency.” > > The RrSG wants to see contrasting data from law enforcement agencies and > governments — which pushed hard for Whois verification — showing that the > RAA requirement has had a demonstrable benefit. > > Registrars asked at the Singapore meeting in March that law enforcement > agencies (LEA) be put on notice that they can’t ask for more Whois controls > until they’ve provided such data and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade said > < > http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-g… > > > “It shall be done by London.” > > Noss implied that the majority of the 800,000 suspended names belong to > innocent registrants, such as those who had simply changed email addresses > since registering their names. > > “What was a lovely political win that we said time and time again in > discussion after discussion was impractical and would provide no benefit, > has demonstrably has created harm,” Noss said. > > He was received with cautious support by ICANN board members. > > Chair Steve Crocker wonder aloud how many of the 800,000 suspended domains > are owned by bad guys, and he noted that LEA don’t appear to gather data in > the way that the registrars are demanding. > > “We were subjected, all of us, to heavy-duty pressure from the law > enforcement community over a long period of time. We finally said, ‘Okay, > we hear you and we’ll help you get this stuff implemented,’”, he added. > “That creates an obligation as far as I’m concerned on their part.” > > “We’re in a — at least from a moral position — in a strong position to say, > ‘You must help us understand this. Otherwise, you’re not doing your part of > the job’”, he said. > > Chehade also seemed to support the registrars’ position that LEA needs to > justify its demands and offered to take their data and concerns to the LEA > and the Governmental Advisory Committee. > > “They put restrictions on us that are causing harm, according to these > numbers,” he said. “Let’s take this back at them and say, hey, you ask for > all these things, this is what happened.” > > “If you can’t tell me what good this has done, be aware not to come back > and ask for more,” he said. “I’m with you on this 100%. I’m saying let’s > use the great findings you seem to have a found and well-package them in a > case and I will be your advocate.” > > Director Mike Silber also spoke in support of the RrSG’s position. > > “My view is if what you are saying is correct, the LEA’s have blown their > credibility,” he said. “They’re going to have to do a lot of work before we > impose similar disproportional requirements on actors that are not proven > to be bad actors.” > > So what does this all mean for registrants? > > I don’t think there’s any ongoing process right now to get the Whois > verification requirements overturned — that would require a renegotiation > of the RAA — but it does seem to mean demands from governments and police > are going to have to be much more substantiated in future. > > Noss attempted to link the problem to the recommendations of the Whois > Expert Working Group (EWG), which propose a completely revamped, > centralized Whois system with much more verification > <http://domainincite.com/16855-whois-killer-is-a-recipe-for-a-clusterfuck> > and not much to benefit registrants. > > To paraphrase: if email verification causes so much harm, what harms could > be caused by the EWG proposal? > > The EWG was not stuffed with LEA or governments, however, so it couldn’t > really be characterized as another set of unreasonable demands from the > same entities. > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability?
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond July 2, 2014

July 2, 2014

Please be so kind to also consider the email below, which includes the proposed text. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Proposed Joint Statement on IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability? Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2014 07:20:01 +0000 From: Drazek, Keith <kdrazek(a)verisign.com> To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond (ocl(a)gih.com) <ocl(a)gih.com> Olivier, Are you aware of this joint community statement under development (below)? I think we have a very unique opportunity, perhaps even unprecedented, for the community to come together around a common position and sign on to a statement calling for meaningful accountability reform. From all conversations I’ve had this week, there seems to be strong consensus around the principles outlined in the draft statement, and I think this is a critical issue for all of us. Do you have a sense of whether the ALAC might be able to join the GNSO (and possibly the ccNSO) and sign on before Thursday’s public forum? Happy to discuss when we both find a few free minutes. Also, not sure if you saw this from yesterday’s Board-GAC session, but /Fadi is attempting to reverse his NetMundial position on the interdependence of IANA Transition and ICANN Accountability:/ / / /NETMUDIAL/ /"These two processes are very interrelated. I may have used the word in the past 'separate'. I take that word back. They are related processes. They will run in parallel but they will inform each other. They are interdependent, they're interrelated, and if we are successful, we should get these processes to work on the same timeline."/ / / /YESTERDAY (DURING BOARD-GAC MEETING)/ /“I acknowledge the statement from the EU and assure them the accountability process will be very important. It is currently open and this is a time for you to contribute. We have to be careful how we tie this to the transition as there are elements in the community who want to delay the transition. This should not be about interdependence between the two processes but about them being interrelated./ Thanks and regards, Keith BEGIN TEXT: The [entire GNSO] join together today calling for the Board to support community creation of an independent accountability mechanism that provides meaningful review and adequate redress for those harmed by ICANN action or inaction in contravention of an agreed upon compact with the community. This deserves the Board's serious consideration - not only does it reflect an unprecedented level of consensus across the [entire] ICANN community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of “the world,” nor does it mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy subject to the rule of law. Rather, the Board’s decisions must be open to challenge and the Board cannot be in a position of reviewing and certifying its own decisions. We need an independent accountability structure that holds the ICANN Board, Staff, and various stakeholder groups accountable under ICANN’s governing documents, serves as an ultimate review of Board/Staff decisions, and through the creation of precedent, creates prospective guidance for the board, the staff, and the entire community. As part of the IANA transition, the multi-stakeholder community has the opportunity and responsibility to propose meaningful accountability structures that go beyond just the IANA-specific accountability issues. We are committed to coming together and developing recommendations for creation of these mechanisms. We ask the ICANN Board and Staff to fulfill their obligations and support this community driven, multi-stakeholder initiative. “This message (including any attachments) is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is non-public, proprietary, privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law or may be constituted as attorney work product. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, notify sender immediately and delete this message immediately.”

2 2