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@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+(ALA...)