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

URGENT: Statement on Domain Name Front Running
by At-Large Staff March 13, 2008

March 13, 2008

Dear Members: The statement reproduced below on the practice known as ³Domain Name Front Running² was approved by the NARALO on 10 March 2008. The ALAC reviewed this statement on 11th March 2008, and by decision of the ALAC you are kindly asked to register any objections to this statement not later than Monday 17 March at 1200 UTC after it will be considered approved by the ALAC and transmitted to the Board by the Chair at her convenience. The statement may be found at the following URL in addition to being reproduced below: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?statement_to_the_icann_board_on_domain _front_running Statement on Domain Name Front Running Presented to NARALO by electronic Mail, 1 March 2008 Dear ICANN board directors: While we are aware that you have been monitoring the public outrage in response to registrar activities that have been variously described as "front-running" and/or "domain reservation" or "cart-hold" or "cart-reserve" activities, we are of the view that the obligation to safeguard the operational stability of Registrar Services now requires the immediate temporary establishment of a consensus policy curtailing such practices to be taken in accordance with the board's authority under the provisions set out in section 4.3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, that states: "A specification or policy established by the ICANN Board of Directors on a temporary basis, without a prior recommendation by the council of an ICANN Supporting Organization, shall also be considered to be a Consensus Policy if adopted by the ICANN Board of Directors by a vote of at least two-thirds of its members, so long as the Board reasonably determines that immediate temporary establishment of a specification or policy on the subject is necessary to maintain the operational stability of Registrar Services, Registry Services, the DNS, or the Internet, and that the proposed specification or policy is as narrowly tailored as feasible to achieve those objectives." Please be advised that we have reached this conclusion based in part upon the following considerations: 1. The use of "cart-hold" or "cart-reserve" systems has been actively under discussion within the registrars constituency since early October 2007 when three different registrars first advanced the concept within the context of a straw poll on the impact to registrants were the AGP to be eliminated in its entirety (see footnote 1 at the bottom of the page) 2. The use of this domain name reservation practice next came to be adopted by a large-volume registrar (Network Solutions) on or about 8 January 2008, and the practice was immediately condemned by the community at large (with extensive coverage in the Tech media, the general press, in blogs world wide, on domain name forums, and on community discussion lists). 3. The actions of Network Solutions has now spawned a similar project on the part of another large-volume registrar (register.com) and we have no reason to believe that other large-volume registrars will refrain from rapidly setting up comparable efforts. (see Footnote 2). While we recognize that we are unable to point to an ICANN-approved definition of "operational stability of Registrar Services" (as no such definition exists within either current ICANN contracts or supporting materials), we take guidance from the ICANN Policy Document ICP-3 which posits that activities that do not interfere with the operation of the DNS are, generally speaking, those that operate within community-established norms. Such norms tend to respect a set of long-established principles such as the principle of least astonishment. When registrants currently search for a domain name at these registrars using normative search practices, they are clearly astonished by that which results from their efforts: the inability to readily register the domain name of their choice with a more competitive registrar and/or the domain name that they have selected appearing in the WHOIS with the name of the registrar as the registrant of record. (Footnote 3 The community's trust in ICANN's ability to manage the Domain Name System is at stake. It is inappropriate for such registrar activities to proceed unabated in a policy vaccuum. Accordingly we call upon the ICANN board to establish a temporary narrowly-tailored policy as a stopgap until such time as the relevant policy-recommending ICANN Supporting Organizations can provide a comprehensive consensus policy solution. -- Regards, ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

GNSO action on Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg March 13, 2008

March 13, 2008

The GNSO group looking at how to address domain tasting has come up with a recommendation which is similar to the actions recently requested by Afilias and Neustar. The proposed motion is at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/dnt-motion-6mar08.shtml. The process to adopt this motion has been started, with the proposed motion being posted for public comment and with constituencies being given an opportunity to update their constituency statements. In this instance, ALAC has been treated as a GNSO consistency and we have the opportunity to update our statement. The original ALAC statement is on page 49 of http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-final-report-domain-tasting-08feb08.…. Updates are due no later than March 28th. Based on the input, the draft motion may be updated. If approved by the GNSO, it will be forwarded to the Board with the intent that it can act on the issue in Paris. The ALAC has decided that we should indeed comment on the planned motion. Input from At-Large and specifically from RALOs is solicited. My recommendation is that we make a very short statement indicating our support (or opposition) to the motion. My first draft follows. Given the overall deadline and the requirement for ALAC approval once drafted, I am asking for input no later than Friday, March 23:59 UTC. Alan ========================================== DRAFT COMMENT ON GNSO DOMAIN TASTING MOTION The At Large Advisory Committee has consulted with its constituent bodies regarding the proposed GNSO Council motion on Domain Tasting. Some constituents would have preferred to see a more aggressive recommendation - specifically to eliminate the Add Grace Period entirely. However, the ALAC recognizes that compared to some alternative suggested ways of addressing domain tasting (such as using a 90% threshold instead of 10%, a more modest "restocking fee", more studies, or simply letting the domain name market evolve without intervention), the proposed action is relatively aggressive. Given that the proposed motion includes the requirement to monitor the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed limitations on the AGP, the ALAC unanimously [or replace as appropriate] supports the proposed motion.

2 1

FW: Transmittal of SAC 025 to ALAC
by Danny Younger March 12, 2008

March 12, 2008

Dave, please see attached comments Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

1 0

"DonorGate" Is Latest Scandal To Hit Wikipedia
by Jeffrey A. Williams March 12, 2008

March 12, 2008

All, Seems truth and honesty on Wikipedia yet again in question. Seems to me anyway, the stench of Wikipedia is getting nearly overwhelming whether or not these latest allegations are true or false... In the latest of a long train of scandals to hit Wikipedia, the Sydney Morning Herald reports on an accusation that founder and Wikia President Jimmy Wales traded a multi-thousand dollar donation for an article re-write. Jeff Merkey, formerly of Novell, claims that Wales approached him in 2006 and said that for a fee, Wales would personally see to it that the article on Merkey, which had cast him in a negative light, would be re-written in Merkey's favor. Merkey claims that after he donated $5,000, Wales followed through on this quid pro quo. The Wikipedia edit history does indicate that Wales wiped out the article on Merkey, and then personally re-wrote it. The SMH reports that Wales has called the allegation 'nonsense. See: http://www.smh.com.au/news/web/more-woes-for-jimmy-wales/2008/03/11/1205125… Update: 03/12 00:39 GMT by http://slashdot.org/~kdawson/ KD : Wikimedia Foundation spokesman Jay Walsh provided this official statement: "Current allegations relating to Jimmy Wales soliciting donations for the Wikimedia Foundation in order to protect or edit Wikipedia articles are completely false. The Wikimedia Foundation has never accepted nor solicited donations in order to protect or make edits to a Wikipedia article nor has Jimmy Wales. This is a practice the Wikimedia Foundation would never condone." Regards, 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 My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] FW: Transmittal of SAC 025 to ALAC
by Veni Markovski March 12, 2008

March 12, 2008

At 21:15 12.03.2008 +1200, Franck Martin wrote: >Huge cross posting and e-mail with no relevance and facts. What are >you talking about again? Frank, I don't mind you sending such letters, but do you mind cutting the quotes? I have filters for Jeff himself, but if I put the filter to delete everything that contains his name, that will delete other, legitimate, mail. There's no need to quote him, esp. that you are also not so interested in what he says. Let's try to focus on the substantative emails, not on the noise. veni >On 12/03/2008, Jeffrey A. Williams ><<mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: >Dave and all,

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Proposal of the ALAC Chair on Code of Conduct Enforcement
by Michele Neylon March 12, 2008

March 12, 2008

JFC Morfin wrote: > Because I think this mail of yours is disruptive and non-democratic. Democracy would fail if leaders did not take firm positions > Would you accept to be banned for six months without the possibility to > object? If I was being blatantly disruptive I'd expect to get banned > I guess not. So, this has to be organised. Drum justice is not good for > mailing lists. > Cheers! > jfc -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ Tel. 1850 929 929 Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

3 2

Proposal of the ALAC Chair on Code of Conduct Enforcement
by Danny Younger March 12, 2008

March 12, 2008

I'm extremely disappointed by the Proposal of the ALAC Chair on Code of Conduct Enforcement -- I don't think I have ever seen a more milquetoast approach. So here's a counter-proposal: Upon the Chair's determination that there has been a Code of Code violation, the Chair will immediately impose upon the violator a minimum six-month suspension of posting rights. The Chair's initial proposal may be found here: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_cc_0308_1_5_proposal_of_the_cha… ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

9 9

FW: Transmittal of SAC 025 to ALAC
by At-Large Staff March 12, 2008

March 12, 2008

Dear At-Large community members: We have the pleasure of providing the attached for your review. ------ Forwarded Message From: Dave Piscitello <dave.piscitello(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2008 12:00:49 -0700 To: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca>, <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, <cheryl(a)hotek.com.au> Cc: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> Subject: Transmittal of SAC 025 to ALAC 12 March 2008 Transmittal of SAC025: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS to the ALAC At the direction of the ICANN Board of Directors, the Security and Stability Advisory Committee invites the ALAC to consider the accompanying Advisory, SAC 025: Fast Flux Hosting and DNS. A PDF of the Advisory may be downloaded from the ICANN web site at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf Cyber-criminals and Internet miscreants use Fast Flux hosting to frustrate anticrime efforts aimed at locating and shutting down web sites used for illegal purposes. Fast flux hosting supports a wide variety of cyber-crime activities (fraud, identity theft, online scams) and is considered one of the most serious threats to online activities today. One variant of fast flux hosting, "double flux", exploits the domain name registration and name resolution services. SAC 025 describes the technical aspects of fast flux hosting and fast flux service networks and explains how the DNS is exploited to abet criminal activities that employ fast flux hosting. The Advisory discusses current and possible methods of mitigating fast flux hosting at various points in the Internet and identifies those methods that SSAC considers practical and sensible. SSAC asks that the ALAC consider in particular the Section entitled Shut Down the fast flux hosts, where measures to reduce the number of hosts that attackers can compromise and use in fast flux attacks are discussed. While these measures alone cannot eliminate fast flux hosting, they can greatly improve the overall Internet security baseline if implemented broadly and uniformly. We thank you in advance for your time and consideration. David Piscitello ICANN Senior Security Technologist, On behalf of the SSAC ------ End of Forwarded Message

3 2

Re: [At-Large] List Posting and Moderation
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 12, 2008

March 12, 2008

As you know, considerable email traffic and discussion on this topic has recently occurred in the Public At-Large email list... As you also know the matter of moderation/ sanction (and an unfortunately I admit L somewhat complex procedure for future management of complaints on postings and list activity ruled to be outside of that permitted under Rule 22 of that ALAC Rules of Procedure) was on the Agenda for discussion at the ALAC meeting held at 1330 UTC on 11th of March. This message is to inform this list of the outcomes of that part of the meetings discussion and the associated resolutions of the ALAC, in advance of the meeting notes being posted, as well as the meeting recording and transcript (if any) being posted to the Wiki page associated with that meeting... Please be advised that any person who has been deemed as having been posting to this list in variance with our existing Code of Conduct for list activity has recently received a private message from me, indicating that they are now moderated, as at 1200 UTC March 12, 2008. They have also received the following explanatory text. Please also note that:- 1. Considerable time was taken in our discussion of this complex matter in an effort to find a balance between the requests of many list Members and the desire to ensure that we continue to provide a forum where opinion and points of view can be posted, providing they are within the published ALAC list guidelines. 2. As a result of our deliberations you are now being moderated in the At-Large (public) email list, and that moderation means that you will currently have a posting limit of three (3) messages per day. These will literally be the first three (3) messages sent in any 24hr period beginning from 1200 UTC 12th of March, 2008. 3. Moderation is manual, will be conducted by the At-Large staff with no attention being paid to the content or topic of the messages. They will simply forward the first three (3) messages to the list and all others (in any 24hrs 1200 UTC onward) will be deleted regardless of topic or content. 4. This level of moderation will be reviewed in 30 days. 5. Further activities outside of our list code of conduct (with or without complaints from list Members), will result in an increase in moderation, and could result in removal from the list. 6. The ALAC At-Large List will now be informed of these outcomes, without any specific reference to any particular list Member(s). Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2008

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Proposal of the ALAC Chair on Code of Conduct Enforcement
by Thompson, Darlene March 11, 2008

March 11, 2008

Well, fortunately we all are reasonable people and that would never happen. Hey, lets face it, I have a pretty big mouth at times. There have been times when a person or two have e-mailed me privately to say I was stepping out of line or my reasoning was faulty because... No problem. Thank you and I will govern myself accordingly (and have done so). People like the ones we are seeing now have been warned repeatedly and I cannot conceive of an instance where the chair would just pull the rug out from someone without any kind of explanation and warning. It wouldn't happen and if it did then I'm sure we would all hear about it in short order. I support Danny, Michele, Evan, et al, in giving the Chair a WHOLE lot more latitutde to act definitely and quickly without so much red tape. The notice going out to the list is a good idea and then state what action is being taken and then take it. Done. Darlene ________________________________ From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of JFC Morfin Sent: Tue 3/11/2008 1:53 PM To: Michele Neylon :: Blacknight; Danny Younger; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposal of the ALAC Chair on Code of Conduct Enforcement At 17:50 11/03/2008, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote: Content-Language: en Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=_000_C3FC68CA2B183micheleblacknightie_; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-428E52CB Agreed. If there's a disruptive person on a mailing list simply ban them. I don't see why you have to make it into a bureaucratic mess Because I think this mail of yours is disruptive and non-democratic. Would you accept to be banned for six months without the possibility to object? I guess not. So, this has to be organised. Drum justice is not good for mailing lists. Cheers! jfc

1 0