March 2008 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Empowering the Users
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com March 28, 2008

March 28, 2008

Danny and all, Danny is quite correct here regarding the inaccuracies in Whois. This has long been a problem and a good policy was devised to address it. However due to what can only reasonably be a lack of oversight by ICANN staff, their accuracy requirement has not been enforced adaquately, if at all. I cannot say with any certainty as to why ICANN's policy on Whois accuracy has not been enforced, but my guess is that there are likely two reasons: 1.) Not enough staff and/or other resources within ICANN to do so. 2.) An unwillingness to terminate Accreditation of Registries for not doing their oversight of their respective Whois maintenance as an incentive for being irresponsible stewards. What's bad about all this for users is that if a user gets an Email containing questionable content that he/she did not solicit for or has no earthly idea why they are receiving such questionable content [ kiddy porn, scam emails, other objectionable content ], and the admin. or postmaster Email address is not listed in the Whois, or is inaccurately listed, he/she user has no way of addressing this themselves without resorting to more serious means such as blocking software, reporting such emails to spam(a)uce.gov or US-Cert, Oct., Oct... I cannot tell you how many thousands of these Emails I have received many of which contained illegal content that I at one span in time had no known place to report them and when I contacted the admin. or postmaster Email ID it bounced back as non-diliverable. This still occurs today but with a bit less frequency. However most of this sort of spam and phishing attempts I get come from Yahoo Email addresses. Some of these that I have received though I have tracked back to mis-configured DNS's of web sites that I have visited, been sent, or from other Emails I have received whos ISP's are not adaquately secured. However instead of just complaining, let me make a suggestion as to how to actually fix this inaccurate Whois problem. First, give those Registries and Registrars running their own Whois for their Domain Names in whatever namespace/TLD 3 months to get it squeeky clean, or suspend their Accreditation until they are clean and accurate. Second, have a clearing house Email address for users to send whatever data they have or their providers have for them to use, at an ICANN email address so that ICANN staff members can address each complaint and fully investigate such to actually get the inaccuracy addressed fully. Bare in mind, NO domain name is to be put on hold or temporarly suspended because their Whois data is not accurate without significant just cause. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Mar 27, 2008 6:00 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Empowering the Users > >First, I would like to thank Kieren for his efforts >that have resulted in ICANN's Compliance Director >having a look at the current WDPRS system problems. >Ms. Burnette has stated: "We were not aware that >follow-up notices were not being transmitted to >reporters. I have asked the site administrator to >address this problem right away." >http://public.icann.org/node/657#comment-22 > >Next, I'd like to discuss the topic of user >empowerment. > >The Whois Data Problem Reporting System is a tool used >by consumers to flag inaccurate WHOIS data. On a >daily basis, users are beseiged by junk mail >associated with domains that have been registered with >false data. In response, individuals and networks >have acted to utilize the WDPRS to bring down these >offending domains. > >The problem, of course, is that a very high percentage >of registrations have inaccurate data (owing to [1] >ICANN's failure to deal with privacy concerns; [2] >owing to ICANN's lousy policy for dealing with >inaccurate data that places way too much discretion in >the hands of the registrars; and [3] owing to the >worldwide failure to effectively deal with SPAM and >the criminal element). > >This means that we need to have either a very robust, >scalable WDPRS that can handle this high percentage or >a set of policies designed to properly vet >registrations prior to activation. > >As most in the registrar community have thus far >chosen not to scrutinize any registration fields other >than the data associated with billing contacts, we >need to act to force them to change their modus >operandi. > >As I sincerely doubt that we will see any positive >changes in the upcoming RAA revisions on this topic, I >am of the view that we need to bolster the WDPRS >system so that registrars are forced to manually >respond to thousands of requests daily -- I am sure >that in response to such a deluge they might >reconsider their current stance on data verification >efforts -- manual efforts will in the long run cost >them alot more than the cost of implementing automated >data verification processes. > >Currently, the system can handle only a few thousand >complaints daily, but we have firms waiting in the >wings that could put through 10,000 valid complaints a >day. We need to talk about improving the WDPRS >capabilities so that those that want to clean up the >mess that ICANN has helped to create through its lax >policies can better get on with their efforts to >protect and serve the public. > >Improving sytem capabilities is one consideration; >another consideration to look at is the registrar use >of WHOIS rate limiters that make it difficult for the >WDPRS to process large volumes of complaints. Beyond >that we need to look at ICANN's manpower situation and >determine how much more personnel will be required to >properly manage the WDPRS process (in terms of >regular oversight activities, periodic audits and >system management needs). Current processing and >staffing levels are just not designed to meet the size >and scope of todays problems. > >All of the above call for either budgetary decisions >to be reached, or new policy to be drafted. > >While we can certainly attack on both fronts, what we >cannot do is fail to properly empower the users by >allowing this Reporting System to continue on its >faltering path without improvements being made. > >I would like to see ALAC comments on the budget >address this important user issue. > > > Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Verisign to raise .COM fees again
by Bret Fausett March 27, 2008

March 27, 2008

Effective October 1, 2008, Verisign's fee for .COM will go up to $6.86. http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSWNAS610320080327 Bret -- Bret Fausett (skype me at "lextext") smime.p7s is a digital signature http://www.imc.org/smime-pgpmime.html -------------------------------------

1 0

Service Degradation in IANA Public WHOIS Services for Top Level Domains
by Danny Younger March 27, 2008

March 27, 2008

http://iana.org/reports/2008/whois-issues.html Service Degradation in IANA Public WHOIS Services for Top Level Domains 26 March 2008 ICANN, in managing the IANA function, provides WHOIS services for informational purposes to the public. This service is not used in management or updating of the root zone data, and does not affect its accuracy. It is an additional and separate service to the authoritative root zone data. Between 20 February and 14 March 2008, information in IANA's public WHOIS services for top level domains was not properly updated. That caused some of the nameserver information to be different from the authoritative information in the root zone. The accuracy of the root zone data was unaffected. The problem was identified and repaired and all services have been correct and operational since 15 March 2008. Staff has thoroughly reviewed this issue and while there were several contributing factors, the main cause was a software failure in a new system deployed on 20 February. Process changes are being implemented to ensure that this problem is not repeated in the future. As noted above, there was no impact on root zone information and the operational impact on the service affected was minimal. ICANNs mission is to provide accurate information and operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner, so ICANN has published this notice for public attention. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

1 0

Empowering the Users
by Danny Younger March 27, 2008

March 27, 2008

First, I would like to thank Kieren for his efforts that have resulted in ICANN's Compliance Director having a look at the current WDPRS system problems. Ms. Burnette has stated: "We were not aware that follow-up notices were not being transmitted to reporters. I have asked the site administrator to address this problem right away." http://public.icann.org/node/657#comment-22 Next, I'd like to discuss the topic of user empowerment. The Whois Data Problem Reporting System is a tool used by consumers to flag inaccurate WHOIS data. On a daily basis, users are beseiged by junk mail associated with domains that have been registered with false data. In response, individuals and networks have acted to utilize the WDPRS to bring down these offending domains. The problem, of course, is that a very high percentage of registrations have inaccurate data (owing to [1] ICANN's failure to deal with privacy concerns; [2] owing to ICANN's lousy policy for dealing with inaccurate data that places way too much discretion in the hands of the registrars; and [3] owing to the worldwide failure to effectively deal with SPAM and the criminal element). This means that we need to have either a very robust, scalable WDPRS that can handle this high percentage or a set of policies designed to properly vet registrations prior to activation. As most in the registrar community have thus far chosen not to scrutinize any registration fields other than the data associated with billing contacts, we need to act to force them to change their modus operandi. As I sincerely doubt that we will see any positive changes in the upcoming RAA revisions on this topic, I am of the view that we need to bolster the WDPRS system so that registrars are forced to manually respond to thousands of requests daily -- I am sure that in response to such a deluge they might reconsider their current stance on data verification efforts -- manual efforts will in the long run cost them alot more than the cost of implementing automated data verification processes. Currently, the system can handle only a few thousand complaints daily, but we have firms waiting in the wings that could put through 10,000 valid complaints a day. We need to talk about improving the WDPRS capabilities so that those that want to clean up the mess that ICANN has helped to create through its lax policies can better get on with their efforts to protect and serve the public. Improving sytem capabilities is one consideration; another consideration to look at is the registrar use of WHOIS rate limiters that make it difficult for the WDPRS to process large volumes of complaints. Beyond that we need to look at ICANN's manpower situation and determine how much more personnel will be required to properly manage the WDPRS process (in terms of regular oversight activities, periodic audits and system management needs). Current processing and staffing levels are just not designed to meet the size and scope of todays problems. All of the above call for either budgetary decisions to be reached, or new policy to be drafted. While we can certainly attack on both fronts, what we cannot do is fail to properly empower the users by allowing this Reporting System to continue on its faltering path without improvements being made. I would like to see ALAC comments on the budget address this important user issue. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Draft GNSO Improvements Statement from At-Large: Comments due by 31st March 1200 UTC
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com March 27, 2008

March 27, 2008

Evan and all, Excellent suggestion, and one that I made directly to the Chair some time ago with little or no results other than to be publically denagrated for doing so. It has always been my position and the opinion of most of our members that "Generic" Email addresses other than for mailing lists is a bad practice and one that needs eliminating for the basis reasons you Evan, so correctly state. If the ALAC staff wants it's own closed mailing list, that's fine and dandy with me, however if in doing so lack of transparency and openness questions begin to be ask or assumed, than they will have some proper justification as in using such closed mailing lists for public policy discussion is in direct violation of the MOU accordingly. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Mar 26, 2008 10:09 PM >To: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Draft GNSO Improvements Statement from At-Large: Comments due by 31st March 1200 UTC > >At-Large Staff wrote: >> Dear Members of the At-Large Community: >> >> I have the pleasure to provide you with the attached draft statement of the >> ALAC Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements. >> >> >> -- Regards, ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >While I appreciate the work being done, it would be courteous if anyone >using the first person in an email would actually sign their name. > >"ICANN staff" is not a headless amorphous blob. It is people, who have >names and roles. Certainly the above mail was not written collectively >by all of ICANN At-Large staff. > >At a time when At-Large is trying to invite and energize the public, >this is not the time to de-personalize. > >- Evan > Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Draft GNSO Improvements Statement from At-Large: Comments due by 31st March 1200 UTC
by At-Large Staff March 27, 2008

March 27, 2008

Dear Members of the At-Large Community: I have the pleasure to provide you with the attached draft statement of the ALAC Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements. It is intended that the statement should be transmitted by the At-Large Advisory Committee to the Board of Directors of ICANN as a formal statement on behalf of the At-Large community. In order to do this, the following timeline has been established by the Working Group: 1. At-Large community views on the document are requested to be received not later than 31st March at 1200 UTC; 2. The Working Group will meet on 31st March to revise the statement as necessary to reflect the views of the community; 3. The Chair of the ALAC will transmit the finalised statement to the Board of Directors directly after it is finalised. We are requested to point out to you that the consultation on the GNSO Improvements proposal has been extended to 25th April 2008. As a result, the attached statement once finalised will also be transmitted to that public consultation. The consultation is open to all concerned and it is the hope of the ALAC that many members of the community will take this opportunity to comment directly. The consultation can be found at: http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gnso-improvements-report-2008. Comments may be sent directly to gnso-improvements-report-2008(a)icann.org. The comments of others may be found at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/ -- Regards, ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Contacting ICANN
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com March 27, 2008

March 27, 2008

Danny and all, IF your correct, and from all available appearances it seems you very well MAY be, than two possible and obvious surmises would be that ICANN is trying to hide something, OR has so many inquiries/complaints that whatever available staff doesn't know how to address such nor inform the public of same. If the latter than such would be understandable but not excusable, if the former, well I for one can't imagine what advantage hiding something would be long term, advantagious. And not that the "Cat is out of the bag" so to speak, whatever advantage that was precieved, is rapidly disapating. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Mar 26, 2008 9:46 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Contacting ICANN > >I continue to see inquiries by members of the public >posted to ICANN's "participation website" that go >unanswered; this is the latest: > >No More WDPRS Follow-Ups? > >Submitted by Dale H. Cook on Wed, 2008-03-19 14:47. > >I have not received a 45-day WDPRS follow-up since >20-Jan-2008, even though I have filed WDPRS reports >almost daily for the past several months. Has ICANN >discontinued WDPRS follow-ups? > >I have emailed the webmaster a few times about this >matter, but as with all emails to the webmaster on any >subject, I have never received a reply. > >Dale H. Cook, Chief Engineer, Centennial Broadcasting, >Roanoke/Lynchburg, VA - WZZI / WZZU / WLNI / WLEQ >http://members.cox.net/dalehcook/starcity.shtml > >http://public.icann.org/hot-topics#comment-12 > >Note: I have earlier posted on the topic of the WHOIS >Data Problem Report System crash... are there now a >new set of problems with this system that we should >know about? > >One would think that ICANN Staff could answer a simple >question posed by the public... the lack of timely >answers will assuredly lead to speculation that ICANN >is trying to hide something... > > > Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Contacting ICANN (follow-up)
by jwkckid1＠ix.netcom.com March 27, 2008

March 27, 2008

Danny and all, Well Danny as you know this is and always has been standard procedure for ICANN unfortunately. Have you forwarded these inquiries on to DOC/NTIA or maybe even DOJ a la James Tierney perhaps? I believe James is still the primary contact for this sort of thing at DOJ... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Mar 26, 2008 12:15 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Contacting ICANN (follow-up) > >I put out my own inquiries to a firm that regularly >uses the WDPRS and got the following reply: > >"The last follow up I got was January 20th. That >follow up was actually 76 days behind, not 45 days >(noting that 15 days is the follow up period >promised). I've gotten zilch since. I have made >attempts to call and email the director of compliance >to work out some kind of resolution and gotten >silence. They owe me over 50,000 follow-ups. We are >still processing 1000 - 2000 complaints per day(unique >complaints). We could file 10,000 per day but their >system can't handle it (yes, the size of the illict >networks we are examining are that big)." > >Clearly, there are issues here that haven't been >broadly discussed with the community -- WDPRS system >response problems, scalability problems and >communications problems with ICANN Compliance Staff. > > > > > Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Contacting ICANN
by Danny Younger March 26, 2008

March 26, 2008

Hello Kieren, When a member of the public writes that "I have emailed the webmaster a few times about this matter, but as with all emails to the webmaster on any subject, I have never received a reply", then this clearly points to a problem. Someone that serves in the capacity of Manager of Public Participation might indeed wish to look into why a member of ICANN Staff (the webmaster) appears to be routinely ignoring messages from the public. and as to the non-answer that you provided to Dale, I think you could have done much better... The WDPRS handles over 100,000 complaints monthly. If there is a problem with system-generated follow-ups as he has indicated, then this is a major concern. ...perhaps you'll get around to actually looking into the problem at some point. regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

2 1

Contacting ICANN (follow-up)
by Danny Younger March 26, 2008

March 26, 2008

I put out my own inquiries to a firm that regularly uses the WDPRS and got the following reply: "The last follow up I got was January 20th. That follow up was actually 76 days behind, not 45 days (noting that 15 days is the follow up period promised). I've gotten zilch since. I have made attempts to call and email the director of compliance to work out some kind of resolution and gotten silence. They owe me over 50,000 follow-ups. We are still processing 1000 - 2000 complaints per day(unique complaints). We could file 10,000 per day but their system can't handle it (yes, the size of the illict networks we are examining are that big)." Clearly, there are issues here that haven't been broadly discussed with the community -- WDPRS system response problems, scalability problems and communications problems with ICANN Compliance Staff. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

1 0