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

Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
by Ross Rader April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:21 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Roberto, Danny, > I tend to agree with Danny. Danny's position is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the facts. The GA wasn't "shut down" because of the threat it posed with the strong positions it took, the GA was shut down because it completely failed to organize and produce any coherent results. My personal belief is that we need to keep the structure of the GNSO simple. I would like to see a certain number of votes allocated to contracting parties (Registrants, Registries and Registrars) and a certain number allocated to Users (Commercial, Non-commercial, Individual). This would allow us to move ahead fairly small, but highly representative number of constituencies within the GNSO without drastically altering the overall structure and processes that we've evolved over the last few years. Current commercial users (ISPC, BC, IPC) would have to get used to the fact that their influenced would be rightsized, but given the undue influence they've had over the processes for the last 7 years, I think its a reasonable step to take. My only concern relates to Whether commercial/non-commercial is an appropriate distinction to make. I am really trying to make a distinction between for-profit and not-for profit institutional participation. I don't think that its appropriate to mix the voices of Registrants and Users into the same grouping. The needs of each are very different and I don't think that jamming it all into one structure will give the plurality of those voices proper representation within the structure. I do think it is time however to give the "customers" of the DNS much more of a voice than they have today - the balance is completely out of whack within the current process. -ross

3 3

Re: [At-Large] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

Alan and all, Do we have any difinative evidence that this "Factoring in" was actually done? Do we even have any empirical evidence of such? I haven't seen any and cannot seem to find any either... -----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Sent: Apr 10, 2008 9:34 AM >To: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk>, avri(a)acm.org, krosette(a)cov.com, lgasster(a)gmail.com >Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz>, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, GA <ga(a)gnso.icann.org>, twomey(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April > >There was at least one comment on the At-Large list, and on the LAC >list. There may have been other comments on RALO lists that I don't >see (but were factored in by the ALAC reps). Other comments were in >private e-mail or on non-public lists. > >Alan > >At 10/04/2008 11:08 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote: >>Alan, >> >>Thank you for your response. I am not able to recognize your input >>in the teleconference discussion as your contributions are not >>marked as those of yours anywhere in the transcript. >> >>Yes, I know about the explicit stronger position presented by the >>ALAC in the past. That is why I am so surprised by this quick shift >>in the position. >> >>Could you please send me some hints (mailing lists, forums, docs) >>where I can take a look at the non-dissenting support of the RALOs >>(including NARALO) for the current ALAC's updated statement? >> >>Thank you >> >>Dominik >> >> >>---------- >>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:45 PM >>To: Dominik Filipp; avri(a)acm.org; krosette(a)cov.com; lgasster(a)gmail.com >>Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey(a)icann.org; At-Large Staff; >>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; GA >>Subject: Re: Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team >>Teleconference held on 1 April >> >>At 10/04/2008 04:15 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote: >> >>>Alan from ALAC joined the teleconference but I have not noticed any >>>input advocating the preferred motion presented by RALOs. This is >>>certainly not the way how public oice should be advocated. >>> >>>Dominik >> >>The statement that I submitted to the report regarding the proposed >>motion was: >>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 supports the proposed motion. >>As noted, this was approved by the ALAC with no dissenting opinions, >>including from the NARALO which originally was the strongest group >>to push for complete AGP elimination. The statement was aired on the >>At-Large list with no negative comments. Accordingly I believe that >>my participation in that teleconference was completely in line with >>the current positions taken by the ALAC and RALOs. >> >>The page references in the report pointing to At-Large organizations >>that wanted stronger action came from the INITIAL ALAC statement and >>was included as part of the entire history. Those same organizations >>later agreed that the proposed motion was a reasonable compromise as >>noted above. I note that several other constituencies (including >>NCUC) also supported the motion as written, despite earlier and even >>ongoing concerns. >> >>Alan Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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

FW: FYI: Remote participation for the gTLD face to face meeting in LA
by Wendy Seltzer April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

I encourage you to contact Nick if you'd like to participate remotely in this meeting to learn more about the staff's new gTLD implementation work. The GNSO Council will be meeting face-to-face in LA tonight and tomorrow. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ALAC-Internal] FW: FYI: Remote participation for the gTLD face to face meeting in LA Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:48:57 -0700 From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> To: ALAC internal list <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear All: Below please find the remote participation details for the GNSO meetings in Los Angeles. I have been asked not to forward them to public lists, so I'm sending them to all of you. If you know of someone in your regions who would like to observe these meetings, do let them know what they need to do to connect. ... The New gTLD meeting starts on Friday morning, 11 April 2008, at 08:00am PDT local time, 15:00 UTC and will run all day until the close of the mmeeting at about 17:30 local time. (08:00 PDT, 08:00 Phoenix Arizona, 11:00 EDT, 12:00 Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, 16:00 London, 17:00 Barcelona, Brussels, 23:00 Singapore/Hong Kong)

1 0

Re: [At-Large] An Assault on Competition: The Registries Latest Policy Paper
by Danny Younger April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

I note that the registrars were quick to pick up on the intent behind the registries position paper. Here are the comments of Adrien Kinderis: Chuck, Thanks for posting this. Just so I am clear. "RyC believes that a key means of avoiding this problem is to allow all manifestations of a given top level domain to be managed by a single entity. This simple solution will also address the second issue: ensure that each TLD name always means the same thing." Which one(s) of the following is therefore true in the further explanation you (the RyC) have provided; a. No one, other than Verisign, could have a TLD (ascii or IDN) that looks like .com b. No one , other than Verisign, could have a TLD (ascii or IDN) that sounds like .com c. No one, other than Versign, could have a TLD (ascii ot IDN) that means the same as .com I think examples will help explain the RyC paper. Thanks and see you later today (?) Adrian Kinderis __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April
by Alan Greenberg April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

There was at least one comment on the At-Large list, and on the LAC list. There may have been other comments on RALO lists that I don't see (but were factored in by the ALAC reps). Other comments were in private e-mail or on non-public lists. Alan At 10/04/2008 11:08 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote: >Alan, > >Thank you for your response. I am not able to recognize your input >in the teleconference discussion as your contributions are not >marked as those of yours anywhere in the transcript. > >Yes, I know about the explicit stronger position presented by the >ALAC in the past. That is why I am so surprised by this quick shift >in the position. > >Could you please send me some hints (mailing lists, forums, docs) >where I can take a look at the non-dissenting support of the RALOs >(including NARALO) for the current ALAC's updated statement? > >Thank you > >Dominik > > >---------- >From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:45 PM >To: Dominik Filipp; avri(a)acm.org; krosette(a)cov.com; lgasster(a)gmail.com >Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey(a)icann.org; At-Large Staff; >alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; GA >Subject: Re: Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team >Teleconference held on 1 April > >At 10/04/2008 04:15 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote: > >>Alan from ALAC joined the teleconference but I have not noticed any >>input advocating the preferred motion presented by RALOs. This is >>certainly not the way how public oice should be advocated. >> >>Dominik > >The statement that I submitted to the report regarding the proposed >motion was: >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 supports the proposed motion. >As noted, this was approved by the ALAC with no dissenting opinions, >including from the NARALO which originally was the strongest group >to push for complete AGP elimination. The statement was aired on the >At-Large list with no negative comments. Accordingly I believe that >my participation in that teleconference was completely in line with >the current positions taken by the ALAC and RALOs. > >The page references in the report pointing to At-Large organizations >that wanted stronger action came from the INITIAL ALAC statement and >was included as part of the entire history. Those same organizations >later agreed that the proposed motion was a reasonable compromise as >noted above. I note that several other constituencies (including >NCUC) also supported the motion as written, despite earlier and even >ongoing concerns. > >Alan

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April
by Alan Greenberg April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

At 10/04/2008 04:15 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote: >Alan from ALAC joined the teleconference but I have not noticed any >input advocating the preferred motion presented by RALOs. This is >certainly not the way how public oice should be advocated. > >Dominik The statement that I submitted to the report regarding the proposed motion was: 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 supports the proposed motion. As noted, this was approved by the ALAC with no dissenting opinions, including from the NARALO which originally was the strongest group to push for complete AGP elimination. The statement was aired on the At-Large list with no negative comments. Accordingly I believe that my participation in that teleconference was completely in line with the current positions taken by the ALAC and RALOs. The page references in the report pointing to At-Large organizations that wanted stronger action came from the INITIAL ALAC statement and was included as part of the entire history. Those same organizations later agreed that the proposed motion was a reasonable compromise as noted above. I note that several other constituencies (including NCUC) also supported the motion as written, despite earlier and even ongoing concerns. Alan

1 0

RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
by Danny Younger April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

Vanda, These are the comments that I today sent to the BGC. Enhancing Public Participation in the GNSO When ICANN's Evolution and Reform Committee first conceptualized the service of Nominating Committee appointees in the GNSO, it understood that these appointees were to function "without any real or perceived obligations to any particular constituency" and "as the neutral tiebreakers". While we await the issuance of the BCG's "NomCom Improvement Process" document, I would like to tender a simple proposal for consideration. I believe that we are at the point where we may augment our thinking to regard these appointees as "representatives of the public interest". With this concept in mind, I would propose allowing these appointees to function as a defacto "public constituency". This constituency would have it's own listserv, a website, regularly scheduled teleconferences, etc. (all the normal trappings of a constituency) that would allow the public to properly interact with its designated representatives. To implement this proposal, all that is called for is a tiny modicum of Staff support to get this virtual constituency up and running. All other current participants in the GNSO have such mechanisms at their disposal. It's time to give the Nominating Committee appointees the same set of tools that others enjoy to better do their jobs. ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

3 6

IISI Competes with the EURALO
by Danny Younger April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Lomonosov Moscow State University Institute of Information Security Issues (IISI) have signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) to work together on increasing awareness on Internet issues inside Russia. The goal of the MoU is cooperation and information sharing on issues related to Internet governance, IP addresses, and the Domain Name System (DNS). To make this happen ICANN and the IISI will work to: Promote the exchange of information in the field of Internet policy, and Internet security; Promote the exchange of publications and documentation on current activities of each party; Support the organization of workshops and conferences, and; Investigate the possibility of organizing joint seminars and projects. A copy of the signed MoU, which was approved by the ICANN Board on 23 January 2008, will be available on the ICANN website. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-09apr08.htm One wonders how much of the At-Large budget will be set aside for IISI activities... Just guessing, but I suppose that neither Paul Twomey nor Veni Markovski recommended to the IISI that they join the EURALO. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

3 4

Re: [At-Large] Network Solutions hijacking unassigned sub domains?
by Danny Younger April 9, 2008

April 9, 2008

This is sickening and appalling behavior by NetSol. Internet names and numbers are not owned but are in the public trust. Network Solutions is acting as if these subdomains are their own private property. This program is the registrar equivalent of VeriSign's Sitefinder debacle. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

5 4

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 9, 2008

April 9, 2008

Chris and all, This might work, but seems to me would require that each registrant, and the registerant only have access to their registration and Whois data for their Domain Names. I proposed this idea back in 2002, and it wasn't well recieved by the registry constituency, the BC, nor the IPC, and hence was rejected accordingly... -----Original Message----- >From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic(a)blogs.pn> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 9:45 AM >To: derek(a)aa419.org, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >I say leave privacy as an option for each individual user and enforce the >accuracy of the information either way. > >Chris McElroy > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Derek Smythe" <derek(a)aa419.org> >To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:29 PM >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft >Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > > >> Wendy Seltzer wrote: >> >>> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to >>> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy. >> ... >> ... >>> >>> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very >>> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs >>> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as >>> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to >>> make a big problem worse – and the existing reporting system is already >>> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with >>> respect to WHOIS – fixing this should be a headline compliance activity >>> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our >>> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational >>> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns >>> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements >>> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid. >>> >> Wendy >> >> I respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in >> enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective . >> >> I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is >> submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused >> to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by >> design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3 >> April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm , >> which is sadly hardly ever enforced. >> >> I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are >> being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent domain's existence >> endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy protection we >> find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS privacy is a >> very sharp two sided sword. >> >> As an example of why we need whois details currently: Right now a big >> corporate is giving away free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a >> disproportionate large number of registrants from small towns across >> America shown in domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other >> businesses. We contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had >> no knowledge of these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents >> etc. We have contacted the big corporate and registrar in an attempt >> to address this issue. The domains are "disabled" in the corporate's >> system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS >> without the victims' permission. Without verifiable whois this problem >> would have been denied (as was originally attempted) and the problem >> invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking far in excess >> of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip of the >> iceberg ... >> >> To really represent end users, current issues and procedures should be >> fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised and we would all >> be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact that much more >> money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being >> visible. >> >> Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price >> of partially disarming those currently doing what they do to make the >> Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to, >> though they would have the same problem. >> >> Personally I have numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois >> details are 100% correct for those domains and I am using an available >> acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them. >> These mechanisms are available to other users as well, if privacy is a >> concern to them - with the exception of the initially much abused .us >> TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices. >> >> In a nutshell, there is also a reason why whois is sometimes not >> accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility illegal activities. >> How do you protect against that? >> >> To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each action. >> Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would wish. >> Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Derek Smythe >> http://www.aa419.org >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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

4 6