- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] Re "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" Public comment
by Maureen Hilyard July 10, 2014

July 10, 2014

+1 Mwendwa -----Original Message----- From: gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mwendwa Kivuva Sent: Thursday, 10 July 2014 2:26 a.m. To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Cc: gTLD WG; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [ALAC] Re "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" Public comment Thanks Dev for those constructive comments. I hope I'm coherent enough in my response :-). On keeping with Specification 5, section 2, I think that clause should not be cast in stone, even if we we are to protect the interests of unborn territories. The way I see it, we can preemptively reserve names of new territories to be formed in the next 20 years based on the information on either of these lists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition We find that there are just about 10 territories that might be formed in the near future. We find many countries not getting ISO 3166-1 codes which are more logical to their alphabetical country names. For example, UK and US are really perfect names with no confusion at all. But look at these names Angola - AO Antigua and Barbuda - AG [Austria - AT and Australia -AU] - Very similar country names but Austria was shortchanged [Congo - CG and Colombia - CO] Based on the above, new territories can still get "not very appropriate" names when their desired names have been taken, but we should not reserve two character names indefinitely if innovators have use for them. After all, even when a new gTLD is applied for, it will still have to comply with the guidebook, and go through community advice. Warm Regards -- ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya twitter.com/lordmwesh "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson On 10 July 2014 10:08, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > Thanks for this, Dev. > You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but > if there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could > indeed make a Statement. > Kindest regards, > > Olivier > > On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote: > > Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character > > Domain > Names > > in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg > > which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at > > https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg > > for consideration: > > > > "Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions > > to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement > > ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 > > character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would > suffice. > > > > While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries > > and territories being created, and then allocated a new two > > character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see > > > https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/coun > try_codes/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm > > ). > > > > Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not > receive > > the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would > > find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they > > wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5. > > > > Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting > > 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? > > Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character > > labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle > > shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. > > However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked > > for > in > > the public comment. > > > > If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country > > codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should > > be enforced > to > > ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII > > labels are protected in the same way as those territories and > > countries in > today's > > ISO 3166-2 list. > > > > Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred > > by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. > > should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5. > > > > The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that > > the > two > > character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by > > ISO > > 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be > > confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification > > 5 and could be approved. > > > > Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e > > Participações > S.A > > which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not > > letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a > > letter are > labels > > that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved." > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe > e+(ALAC) > > > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

1 0

Board Response to Statement made during the ICANN 50 Public Forum by GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim July 8, 2014

July 8, 2014

FYI Rinalia ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Steve Crocker" <steve(a)shinkuro.com> Date: Jul 8, 2014 1:30 AM Subject: [icann-board] Response to Statement made during the ICANN 50 Public Forum by GNSO's Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies To: <mllemineur(a)gmail.com>, "William Drake" <wjdrake(a)gmail.com>, < rafik.dammak(a)gmail.com>, <krosette(a)cov.com>, "Elisa Cooper" < Elisa.Cooper(a)markmonitor.com>, <tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, "Michele Neylon - Blacknight" <michele(a)blacknight.com>, "Keith Drazek" < keith.drazek(a)neustar.biz>, "Jonathan Robinson" < jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> Cc: "Icann-board ICANN" <icann-board(a)icann.org>, "David Olive" < David.Olive(a)icann.org> Dear GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies, On behalf of the ICANN Board I thank you for your statement at the ICANN public forum on 26 June with regards to ICANN accountability. It's copied below for reference. The Board heard your statement and we agree that trust in ICANN's accountability processes and mechanisms is of great importance to present and future success. We look forward to your active participation in the already planned accountability track along with the rest of the community. This will be, as you note in your statement, an important area of ICANN’s work. And let me emphasize “your active participation.” This cannot be done without you. As you know, ICANN’s efforts to improve the accountability mechanisms are ongoing. The work that involves the community includes the work of the AoC ATRT process, with the most recent developments reflected in the Board approved ATRT2 recommendations during the ICANN 50 meeting. Thank you again for your input and we look forward to your continued work in this area. Kind regards, Steve Crocker Chairman, ICANN Board P.S. I hope I included everyone who participated in your statement. If not, please accept my apologies and forward to all the appropriate people. *Statement made during the ICANN 50 Public Forum* I’m Keith Drazek, I’m Chair of the Registries Stakeholder Group, with me are the leaders of all of the GNSO’s Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. I’m happy to report that the GNSO community took up Fadi’s challenge from the Opening Ceremony to seek harmony this week in London. Instead of a song or two, the statement we’re about to read represents an unprecedented -- yes unprecedented -- event. It only took us 50 meetings, but I think the rarity of what you’re witnessing this afternoon sends a very strong message about our views. The GNSO community, with all our diversity and occasionally competing interests, has come together to unanimously support the following: The entire GNSO joins 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 GNSO community, it is a necessary and integral element of the IANA stewardship transition. True accountability does not mean ICANN is only accountable to itself, or to some vague definition of "the world." It does not mean that governments should have the ultimate say over community policy without regard to the rule of law. Rather, the Board's decisions must be open to challenge and theBoard 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 stewardship 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. _______________________________________________ icann-board mailing list icann-board(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board

2 2

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks
by Evan Leibovitch July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014

> The privacy issue you raise is one that EU based registrars face every day. > FWIW, I'm seeing that the EU position on privacy has been, shall we say, declining in credibility <http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/06/right-to-be-forgotten-…>. It has probably been necessary to engage the experiment to see what happens when obsession with privacy -- to the exclusion of accountability, free speech rights or public interest -- is carried to its logical conclusions. It wouldn't surprise me to see some of these excesses rolled back.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks
by Evan Leibovitch July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014

I am reminded by Kerry's comments of my involvement in negotiations regarding the RAA <http://icannwiki.com/index.php/RAA> that were taking place about five or so years ago, before I was on the ALAC. I recall that Beau Brendler, who WAS at that time on the ALAC, was involved with me in trying to embed an assertion of registrants rights into the RAA. This happened at one meeting -- I believe it was this one <http://sel.icann.org/node/7372>, held during the Seoul ICANN meeting in 2009, which became a kind of verbal firing squad. A room full or registries and registrars on one side, Beau and me on the other, taking what I can best rexcall as a relentless attack. How DARE we try to affect the business models of registrars?!?! Though we had come to the meeting to simply explore the idea, Beau and I were put on the spot to indicate EXACTLY what kind of rights we had in mind. Over a matter of a few minutes, pressed for time, I came up with a list that I thought was a reasonable first stab, intended to be later expanded and reworded but at least giving an idea of what we were hoping for. That list, preserved here <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/raa+wg+a+workspace+for+aspirati…>, asserted that a registrant has the right to - have accurate, current and complete contact and locative information regarding their registrar - be the sole entity capable of asserting and changing ownership information for their domain - have ample opportunity to renew their existing domain(s) at the same rates as new domains - protect their trade name against unauthorized use - refuse the transfer of their personal information to unauthorized bodies - expect ICANN to enforce its agreements with registrars We didn't think there was anything really contentious in that list. Nonetheless, it was dismissed by the registrars and registries in the room as out of the scope, and that while the ALAC could do whatever it wanted with this "aspirational set of rights" they would never find their way into the RAA. We went for support elsewhere amongst registrant constituencies in the GNSO but found no takers -- the commercial side was obsessed with protecting trademarks and the non-commercial side obsessed with protecting anonymity. Not having found any partners to fight for something that wasn't even really within ALAC's remit, Beau and I eventually gave up on it (Beau eventually gave up on ICANN), and only scant records exist <http://nbo.icann.org/node/8896> to verify that the effort ever existed. So I hear you, Kerry. ICANN has served its vested interests well, and the rest are left to fend for themselves. Sell as many domains as possible and let the consequences sort themselves out later. (Such is the mantra of the current gTLD expansion as well.) But this is why I focus on the end user side of things. While I feel for the small business registrant that has been sideswiped by consultants and agents (and have rescued a few of them myself!), in this forum I am most mindful of the end user. Registrants have their own designated champions within ICANN; if they can't do the job we can't fight their battles for them. We can barely fight our own. The core point of this thread, the suspension issue and the ALAC position -- is that domains must have clear contact information. Kerry's comments that this is necessary both in the case of abuse *by* a registrant and abuse *of* a registrant. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks
by Holly Raiche July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014

This is really interesting feedback - and thank you for it. So the problem is NOT LEAs - or may not be. It is about - at least partly - registrants and their lack of awareness of their responsibilities for their domain name. The issue is still about accurate Whois Information, but it is also about education - and probably best - at least in part - from the organisation they would have at least some contact with: the registrar;reseller. Holly On 7 Jul 2014, at 2:18 pm, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > Il 06/07/14 19:41, Kerry Brown ha scritto: >> I can speak from the end user point of view on this issue. As a >> consultant to small businesses I have seen several clients suffer >> business hardship because of this issue (invalid contact email). It >> is not uncommon for a small business owner to not want to deal with >> "the internet". They hire someone to get them "the internet". This >> usually means a domain, a web site, email, etc. Someone sells them a >> package that includes all this. Often the contact email will be the >> person that sells them the package. Some of these resellers are >> unscrupulous, some are just incompetent, some for whatever reason >> leave the business. The domain may not even be registered in the >> small business name but in the name of the reseller who has >> disappeared. When the domain goes dark the business loses email, >> their website, and possibly more. By the time the small business >> owner contacts someone like me to fix their internet a few weeks to a >> month may have gone by. Small business owners are busy running th e >> day to day things and thought they had "the internet" covered, after >> all they have been paying someone to deal with it. By the time they >> figure out they don't have someone to deal with it and find someone >> who will they may have lost the domain. There is almost aways a >> charge from the registrar to reinstate the domain. They have not had >> email or a web site for long enough that it has cost them business. >> They end up with a very sour taste for "the internet" and the people >> that "run" it. They equate internet governance with the people that >> run the internet. They have no idea how things happen so they they >> are on "the internet". They mostly think of Al Gore when they even >> think about how the internet works. We who have built this ecosystem >> have not built it for people that are not intimately involved in it. >> It is up to us to fix it. We can't simply blame registrants. > > This is just so true... When, several years ago, I used to make websites for small companies and non-profits in Italy, most of the people in charge at the customer had no idea of what "Whois" was. I had the choice of either listing as the main contact the actual registrant, who would not be able to understand any communication about this matter, or myself, which I did. Later, I stopped doing that job, but I could not convince almost any of my former customers that they needed to put someone else as a contact, also because they didn't have anyone able to assume the role. Now, I am a nice guy and continue watching over their domain names for free, but in any other case those domains would now be stuck with the contact information of someone who does not care anymore about them, let alone update the information as it changes. > > This is also because, you know, the only thing people usually expect from their domain name is for it to point to their website and/or mail server. They don't expect their domain name to be a point of contact for their company or themselves, nor to have to waste time on updating a wondrously complex set of contacts. Actually, even if their Whois contacts are not up to date, usually you could just go to their website and find an e-mail address and/or phone number that works, and that they keep up-to-date. In case something bad happens with their domain name, it takes you ten seconds to google their name and find their contacts - it actually takes less than using Whois. So why should registrants lose time to update contact information that no one uses (actually, no one even knows that it exists) except a small community of techies and lawyers, when they already provide valid contact information in a page on their website? > > Moreover, among the few registrants who actually know what Whois is, I know many here in Italy who provide bogus contact information on purpose: the registrant's name is correct, but the address and phone number are not, and the e-mail address either does not work at all or, more likely, is a specific "spammable" e-mail address that they use for situations in which they don't know how the information will be managed (e.g. obscure websites that require a registration to allow you to do something which you only need to do once), and which is so full of spam that it is never read except at the time when you register somewhere and need to click on a confirmation email. > > People would be much more likely to submit real contact information if they knew that it wouldn't be made public to anyone who would want to abuse it, e.g. spammers, phishers, bully lawyers and the likes. I don't think that ICANN has any right to blame anyone not providing valid contact information if it is not providing any protection for the privacy of that information, and I would expect the ALAC (at least its European members) to point out just that. > > Ciao > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> now blogging & more at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > _______________________________________________ > 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

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks
by Alan Greenberg July 6, 2014

July 6, 2014

Evan, one point. It is unclear to me whether the issue is 100% invalid addresses, or as some people have implied, valid addresses where the registrant has not replied in 15 days. The two situations are substantively different, and we need to get a handle on which is the cause of these suspensions, or if mixed, what percentage. If ssomeone on this list *knows* definitively what the answer is, it would be much appreciated. Alan At 06/07/2014 11:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I was actually surprised to hear Fadi's comments about this at the Fayre. > >I was both dismayed at the stance he took (I recall him saying the incident >diminished the standing of "law enforcement") and his choice of venues (one >of too many speeches delivered at a social event when many of the >participants were winding down after a day of exhaustion). > >Had the issue been raised at a time where genuine interaction and >thoughtfulness were called for, I suspect Fadi may not have received the >anticipated response, as this incident clearly indicates how out of touch >ICANN is with the rest of the world,. > >*Inside the ICANN bubble:* > >* "We are appalled that 800,000 domains were taken down for having >non-responsive contact info" * >*The rest of the world:* *"Did you just say that 800,000 domains have >non-responsive contact info?"* > > >The methods of verification and the speed of takedown could be tweaked to >ensure that good actors with minor access problems (such as mail going into >spam filters, increasing time to respond, forget to change after moving, >etc) would not be adversely affected. But the end objective is absolutely >welcomed from the non-registrant end-user point of view. > >So I personally have zero ethical qualms about the suspensions, noting that >the issue has already been inflated for dramatic effect. A claim of 800,000 >domains becomes a million in the headlines. And then there was this gem: > >*"We have stories of healthcare sites that have gone down,"*, chimes Elliot >Noss in the CircleID article ><http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks> >. > >I don't know about the rest of you ... but given the sensitivity of >information at healthcare sites regarding privacy and accuracy, that >category of site is amongst those *most* in need of accurate contact info >IMO. So if such sites have non-functional contact info, frankly, I couldn't >suspend them fast enough until things are fixed. This attempt at media >manipulation backfires. > >The salient point is that a contact address is just that, a way to make >contact. If it won't work from the registrant's own registrar or registry >-- a body with which whom the registrant has a contractual and financial >relationship -- it certainly won't work if someone from the public has a >question, complaint, or warrant to serve. If policy indicates that contact >info must be accurate and current, then that is what needs to be enforced. > >When the interests of ICANN and contracted parties are hurt by inaction of >registrants -- notably non-payment -- enforcement such as suspension is >immediate, automated and non-controversial. (Indeed, it was even once gamed >by some contracted parties, which is what led to the PEDNR ><http://icannwiki.com/index.php/PEDNR> debate.) But here, the inaction >indicates harm to the public interest while enforcement threatens financial >loss to ICANN and contracted parties, so all hell breaks loose and Fadi >lectures us at the Fayre. > >This isn't just a matter of law enforcement, and I am puzzled why that >community is being singled out for recrimination. Sure, some chunk of those >800,000 are bad actors in the sense of intending to have unusable contact >info. But how many of the others have bad contact info because the domains >themselves are neglected and unused, squatted or speculated names that >their registrants have just locked away and forgotten? How does that serve >the interest of end users to have so many extant but useless domains? > >So, by all means, let's engage in a proper dialogue -- not one initiated, >almost in passing, at a social event more than halfway into the ICANN >meeting. We may all look at this incident and see within it a deep problem, >but the problems At-Large identifies may be far different from those seen >by the registrars. > >Be careful what you wish for. While registrars complaining loudly may score >power points inside the bubble (at the expense of public-interest >advocacy), outside it just reinforces ICANN's detachment from the rest of >the Internet-using world. If news broke that there were 800,000 cars on the >road with unusable contact info related to their license plates, public >reaction would be loud and ugly no matter what proportion of those cars >belonged to criminals. > >I look forward to any debate going forward on the issue in At-Large's >Regulatory Issues Working Group, which is where I believe any future ALAC >stance must be discussed and first formulated. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

IANA transition coordinating committee formed
by Alan Greenberg July 6, 2014

July 6, 2014

https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-03-en ALAC members still to come. Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks
by Holly Raiche July 6, 2014

July 6, 2014

Just to correct a few misapprehensions: First, as Michele said, it is suspensions - not cancellations. Very different things. Next - this reads as it it is only the LEAs that want data. Having sat on Whois WGs since 2009, I can confirm that ALAC, and the business constituency, particularly the IP community have been very keen to have Whois data accuracy improved. In Australia, both our corporate regulator and our competition/consumer regulator use Whois as well and also press for accurate data. And yes, ALAC has been calling for Whois accuracy for ages - just check our statements. We certainly called for better registrant information. The Rights and Responsibilities document that came out of the 2013 RAA was, in the ALAC view, a start but could be greatly improved by using less jargon and more detail. And it is also a matter of education of registrants - that domain names are not allocated to them for life and that they do have responsibilities - which is why the Registrants Rights and Responsibilities document should be improved, and drawn to the attention of all registrants. As to resellers, Michele has also pointed to the 2013 provisions that mean registrars are far more responsible for their resellers - and ask him (and others) how they do that. And finally, I’d also like to know more about the 800,000 number. How many were canceled (as opposed to suspended), and why the suspensions/cancellations. And why is the blame being sheeted home to LEAs? I am slightly amused (bemused) that Fadi thinks ALAC and the registrars should better engage. Someone should tell him that members of ALAC have been engaged with the GNSO WGs on the issue for AGES - and will continue to do so. I agree with Alan - let’s first get a better handle on what actually happened before any statement is made. Holly On 4 Jul 2014, at 7:18 pm, Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: > Dear Rinalia Abdul Rahim: > > On 04 Jul 2014, at 04:14, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >> ... a bit of discussion would raise other questions as well. > Thankyou for drawing this to our attention. A quick review of some of the available links indeed leads me to ask more questions than to make substantive comments or recommendations at this stage: > 1. What was the At Large participation in the preparation of the 2013 RAA? What was the final ALAC position? > Were missions of designated At Large participants to each of the relevant ICANN/GNSO meetings funded by ICANN? Were they in a position to report back to the At Large community? > Why does the implementation of the 2013 RAA place a disproportionate burden on the individual registrants? The 15 day limit is clearly too short. The sanction of deleting the domain is optional, although it appears that the Registrars are deleting them all, anyway. Why? > > > There should be a much more articulated procedure, including a longer delay, requirements for reminders and acknowledgement of receipt, proactive visits to the relevant website, actual physical addresses could be checked, etc. People go on holiday. Some e-mail addresses are monitored only intermittently e.g. an NGO without permanent secretariat etc. Some 'proxies' may well be even more inefficient than are the individual registrants! > > > The balance of costs, prices and funding between Registrars, Registries and ICANN, in this area probably needs to be reviewed. (Since Registrars are evidently sufficiently profitable to be able to pay the exhorbitant ICANN fees for - sometimes multiple - new gTLDs, then they could reasonably be required at least to invest more in the appropriate care and maintenance of their existing portfolios.) > > > If and when there is an agreed policy that actually works, how exactly do the Registrars ensure that their 'Resellers' (who do not have contracts with ICANN) effectively respect the RAA? > What is the actual breakdown of the reported '800k.' deletions? > Private individual users; SMEs, NGOs, Speculators and Cybersquatters? > > > Personally, I would not mind if bulk registrations for speculative purposes with incorrect Whois data were to be deleted, en bloc. These are expropriated names which should be available, at the basic registration price, to individual registrants who wish to use them. > > What has been done about 'educating' the registrants in their new obligations under the 2013 RAA? (Although as a sample of one registrant, responsible for one gTLD domain, - not statistically significant ;-)) - nonetheless, I have seen nothing of that. My other domains are ccTLD. > ) > Actually, the vade-mecum on the ICANN website is rather cute: the idea of millions of Registrants buzzing off to ICANN, spontaneously, to read all about updating their Whois data ... well, you get the point. > > Is it possible to resolve the current issue without reference to the EWG report and its eventual implementation? > > In that context, in the light of recent history, the proposed centralised database would obviously have to be outside US jurisdiction. Also, as long as the 'Legal Contact' data is 'outside the gate' - to use EWG parlance – the problem of incorrect data will persist for privacy reasons and a fortiori for misuse. > > How does any of all of the above apply in non-English languages and in the IDNs? > More generally, these issues derive from a long history of cumulatively lax implementation of Whois accuracy by ICANN and gTLD Registries and Registrars. The backlog is considerable. > That situation has been aggravated by continued breach of privacy laws – at least in the EU – through the open publication of gTLD registration data. Thus the interests of Law Enforcement and the trademark industry are, in practice, at loggerheads. > Regards to you all > Christopher Wilkinson > > > On 04 Jul 2014, at 04:14, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >> 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.* >>>> >>>> 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…>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…>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>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://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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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

2 1

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