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

Wrapping up the thread/discussion - Apoligies
by Robert Guerra July 6, 2008

July 6, 2008

I wanted to not post any further messages related to the topic on the list, but specific private comments from Evan and others have made me post one last message. First, If my comments offended you veni - well, I do apologize. Secondly, my recent posts on the issue of the fall meeting and internet freedom and how it can be discussed inside ICANN, come not as a result of a "Red Bull binge" as some might suggest - but after consultation and discussion with numerous internet experts, users and NGOs at last week's computers, Freedom & Privacy conference at Yale University. Specifically, the request that ICANN comment on rights at the upcoming Egypt meeting came from the session on Internet Freedom & during the open discussion on technology policy recommendations to the new US administration. Ref: http://www.cfp2008.org/ http://cfp.wikia.com/wiki/CFP08 Thought many on this list might not believe internet freedom should be discussed inside ICANN, suffice it to say that others have a different opinion. I've posted a specific proposal. If there's no support among At-large or regionally at NA RALO, then i will not comment further on this list. regards Robert

12 15

ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan (fwd)
by John Levine May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

Patrick Jones asked me to pass this along. Since registry failover actually does affect both registrant and non-registrant users, and is something ICANN can actually do, I'd encourage the ALAC to take him up on his offer. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:21:18 -0700 From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> To: "johnl(a)iecc.com" <johnl(a)iecc.com> Subject: ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan John, I have seen the comments on the ALAC list regarding the gTLD Registry Failover Plan. Quite a lot of work has gone into the draft gTLD Registry Failover Plan since the public version was last posted in November 2007. See http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/. An updated version of the plan will be made available in advance of the Paris meeting. If ALAC would like an update in Paris on the Failover work, please let me know. Feel free to pass this on to the ALAC list. Regards, Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones(a)icann.org

5 4

Re: [At-Large] Not the pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

Michele and all, Very good question IMHO. That figures out to be about 8k per registration just for administration costs! Looks to me there are some shanagans going on there... I bet they wouldn't pass a in depth audit... Of course niether did ICANN some time back... Birds of a feather perhaps? And so the ICANN/GNSO decision making saga continues eh? What's next, lets see now... Maybe .Pharm for pharmacuticles? or maybe just .Drug instead? -----Original Message----- >From: Michele Neylon <michele(a)blacknight.ie> >Sent: May 30, 2008 4:59 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Not the pending death of a registry > > >On 30 May 2008, at 01:58, John Levine wrote: >> It appears that .TRAVEL generates about $1.5 million per year in >> revenue, >> which should be enough to keep it going just fine if they cut down on >> whatever is costing $200K/mo in administrative overhead, which >> shouldn't >> be hard. > > >What on earth are they spending that money on? > >When I wrote about them last year they only had 25 thousand names >registered: > >http://www.isquattedyour.eu/2007/05/20/tralliance-in-trouble-travel-could-d… > > >> So it's not a particularly noble situation, but it looks >> like .TRAVEL will >> survive to fail another day. > > >Considering its size and "popularity" why aren't they courting one of >the other registry operators? Is there any sane reason for them to >continue a loss making exercise when a larger and leaner organisation >might be in a better position to do it? > >> >> >> I agree with Danny that ICANN should still be working on registry >> failover >> plans, because if Egan ever loses interest, Tralliance could >> collapse in a >> matter of weeks. > > >Agreed > >Mr Michele Neylon >Blacknight Solutions >Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection >http://www.blacknight.com/ >http://blog.blacknight.com/ >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >Locall: 1850 929 929 >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 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 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

Re: [At-Large] ISOC-NY 'Connecting .nyc' forum - video
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

Joly and all, I don't believe in the idea that the ISOC-NY "Deserves" a TLD, but I also see no reason why .NYC could not be created as long as it wasn't managed by ISOC-NY but rather by some other entity. One question would be, is there sufficient funding avaliable to manage the proposed .NYC, or is Donnald Trump ponying up the funding? I do hope it's not Mike Roberts! After all he already has managed to foul up .EDU pretty handely! -----Original Message----- >From: WWWhatsup <joly(a)punkcast.com> >Sent: May 30, 2008 5:03 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] ISOC-NY 'Connecting .nyc' forum - video > > >> > > >Video of Tom Lowenhaupt's presentation last week about the plan to acquire >the .nyc TLD on behalf of the local community is now posted: > >http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=242 > >Joly > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > WWWhatsup NYC >http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ >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 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

Re: [At-Large] ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan (fwd)
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

Robert and all, It's clear if one reads the so called "Fail-over Plan" that is is fundementally flawed as it does not provide what so ever for "Fail-over" of a registry in that ICANN is back peddeling on its earlier promise to cover the possibility of a registry failure. Ergo, unless public funding for such a calamity be provided in ICANN's stead, the registry that is failing will fail fully at some point and perhaps that is how it should be according to some. The only other possiblility is to find a "White Knight" that is willing to put up their own financing to run/manage the failing registry. But most of these are going to want some sort of "Deal" by which they have no or little liability in case they are unable or not fully able to bring a dying registry to good health... Microsoft or Google comes to mind here... -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> >Sent: May 30, 2008 8:40 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan (fwd) > >I would like to second John's proposal. I thus propose that Patrick's >offer to update ALAC on the gTLD Registry Failover Plan be - it on our >next conference call, or added to our Paris meeting agenda. > >thank you. > >Robert > > >On 30-May-08, at 8:02 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> Patrick Jones asked me to pass this along. >> >> Since registry failover actually does affect both registrant and non- >> registrant users, and is something ICANN can actually do, I'd >> encourage the ALAC to take him up on his offer. >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:21:18 -0700 >> From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> >> To: "johnl(a)iecc.com" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >> Subject: ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan >> >> John, >> >> I have seen the comments on the ALAC list regarding the gTLD >> Registry Failover Plan. Quite a lot of >> work has gone into the draft gTLD Registry Failover Plan since the >> public version was last posted in >> November 2007. See http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/. An >> updated version of the plan will be >> made available in advance of the Paris meeting. >> >> If ALAC would like an update in Paris on the Failover work, please >> let me know. >> >> Feel free to pass this on to the ALAC list. >> >> Regards, >> >> Patrick >> -- >> Patrick L. Jones >> Registry Liaison Manager & >> Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers >> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >> Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >> Tel: +1 310 301 3861 >> Fax: +1 310 823 8649 >> patrick.jones(a)icann.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 > > >_______________________________________________ >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 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

Finnaly!: ICANN Directs Registrars to Take Steps to Authenticate WHOIS Data
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

All, Some very good news from ICANN finnaly! This is what myself, Danny Younger and others have been urging ICANN to do for several years now on various forums, especially the RAA and ALAC. It is a bit sad that it has taken ICANN several years to finnaly see the light. But at least they have in this regard at last. Now we shall see if they follow through... See: http://www.gcn.com/online/vol1_no1/46351-1.html?topic=security&CMP=OTC-RSS http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/05/29/analysis_crackdown_on_domain_nam… 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

Fast Flux Briefing Session
by Matthias Langenegger May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Veuillez trouver la version française du message suivant plus bas Por favor véase el mensaje en español abajo Dear all, We have been asked to host a Teleconference briefing session on Fast Flux Hosting and Dave Piscitello from ICANN's Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) agreed to give a presentation on the subject. The session will be recorded and there will be simultaneous interpretation in French and Spanish. We plan to have a series of briefing sessions on current ICANN issues that will then be posted on our website for training purposes. What is Fast Flux hosting ? "Fast flux" is an evasion technique that cyber-criminals and Internet miscreants use to evade identification and to frustrate law enforcement and 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. For further reading on the issue, please consider the following publications. They will shortly be available in Spanish and French. * SSAC Advisory on Fast Flux Hosting and DNS ( http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf * GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux…) * PDP approval motion of the GNSO (see Motion 20080508-3 under http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Those of you interested in this presentation, please use the below link to a meeting planer with a couple of proposed slots in early June. Please indicate all slots that would work for you. We will then send you an invitation with participation information. http://www.doodle.ch/kbqbwvxca9ay2g5y Regards, At-Large Staff Cher(e)s membres, Nous avons été invité d'héberger, par le biais d'une téléconférence, une session d'information sur "l'Accueil Rapide de Flux" (ou "Fast Flux Hosting"). Monsieur Dave Piscitello de la division Sécurité et Stabilité du Comité Consultatif (SSAC) d'ICANN a accepté de présenter un exposé sur le sujet. La session sera enregistrée et il y aura une interprétation simultanée en français et en espagnol. Nous prévoyons également d'avoir une série de sessions d'information sur les questions actuelles d'ICANN qui seront ensuite placées sur notre site Web en tant qu'outils de formation. Qu'est-ce que l'Accueil Rapide de Flux? "L'Accueil Rapide de Flux" est une technique d'évasion que les cyber-criminels et les mécréants d'Internet emploient pour esquiver l'identification et pour frustrer le renforcement des lois et les efforts anticriminelles afin de non seulement localiser, mais aussi d'arrêter les sites Internet utilisés à des buts illégaux. L'Accueil Rapide de Flux soutient une large variété d'activités cyber-criminelle (fraude, vol d'identité, escroqueries en ligne) et est considéré comme une des plus graves menaces des activités en ligne d'aujourd'hui. Une variante de l'Accueil Rapide de Flux, les "doubles flux" exploite l'enregistrement des Noms de Domaine et des Services de Résolution des Noms. Pour davantage de lecture sur ces questions, veuillez s'il vous plait examiner les publications suivantes. Elles seront sous peu disponibles en espagnol et en français. * SSAC Advisory on Fast Flux Hosting and DNS ( http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf ) * GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux… ) * PDP approval motion of the GNSO (voir Motion 20080508-3 sous http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/ ) Ceux d'entre vous intéressé par cette présentation, veuillez s'il vous plait utiliser le lien ci-dessous qui vous dirigera vers quelques choix proposées pour la semaine du 2 Juin. Veuillez s'il vous plait selectionner tous les dates que vous seront possible. Nous vous enverrons par la suite une invitation électronique. http://www.doodle.ch/kbqbwvxca9ay2g5y Cordialement, At-Large Staff Estimados miembros de At-Large, Dave Piscitello del comité de asesores de seguridad y estabilidad de ICANN (Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC)) ha declarado estar dispuesto a hacer una presentación sobre el Fast Flux Hosting. Lo interpretará simultaneamente en lengua española y francesa así como una grabación de audio. Planeamos tener una serie de presentaciones sobre temas actuales de Internet que luego estarán disponibles en un archivo de formación online. Que es el Fast Flux Hosting? El Fast Flux es un método de evasión usada por criminales de Internet para evadir su identificación y así frustrar la lucha anticriminal de los autoridades que intentan localizar y cerrar los sitios Webs usados para fines ilegales. El Fast Flux Hosting es usado en varias actividades del ciber-crimen organizado tales como el fraude, el robo o suplantación de identidad y el engaño on-line y representa hoy en día una de las más serias amenazas para la actividad on-line de hoy. Otra variante del Fast Flux Hosting es el Double Flux, un método que se aprovecha de los servicios de registro de dominios. Para obtener más información sobre este tema, las siguientes publicaciones pueden ser útiles. Serán traducidas en español y francés en breve. * SSAC Advisory on Fast Flux Hosting and DNS ( http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf * GNSO Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting ( http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux…) * PDP approval motion of the GNSO (véase Motion 20080508-3 en http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/) Si le interesa esta presentación, siga por favor el vínculo abajo para que sepamos los datos que más le convengan. Le ofrecemos opciones para la semana del 2 de Junio. Por favor, seleccione todas las opciones que le convengan. Le enviaremos una invitación con toda la información para participar después. http://www.doodle.ch/kbqbwvxca9ay2g5y Saludos, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] ISOC-NY 'Connecting .nyc' forum - video
by WWWhatsup May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

At 10:17 2008-05-30, you wrote: >WWWhatsup wrote: >> Video of Tom Lowenhaupt's presentation last week about the plan to acquire >> the .nyc TLD on behalf of the local community is now posted: >> >> http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=242 >> > >Some months ago Tom was in this forum himself, advancing the idea. There >were many objections and concerns raised, and he had answers for none of >them. > >"We deserve it" is not (or at least no longer) sufficient grounds for >getting a TLD. > >- Evan I wasn't around for that. The concept of a community-based non-profit registry seems laudable. He is unapologetically and, I guess, understandably, a bit woolly on the details, but firm on the principle. If you have specific comments on the content of the video - over and above the typos in his powerpoint, of which we have already apprised him - please feel free to add them as comments at the url above. .joly --------------------------------------------------------------- WWWhatsup NYC http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

The pending death of a registry
by Danny Younger May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

For those of you following the ongoing demise of .travel, here is its parent corporation's most recent filing: "Based upon the Company's current financial condition, as discussed above, and without the infusion of additional capital, management does not believe that the Company will be able to fund its operations beyond the end of May 2008." Form 10-Q for THEGLOBE COM INC: http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080509/tglo.ob10-q.html

4 8

Fast Flux Hosting 5 June 1300 UTC
by At-Large Staff May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Veuillez trouver la version française de ce message suivant plus bas Por favor véase el mensaje en español abajo Dear all, You are invited to join Dave Piscitello¹s Briefing Session on Fast Flux Hosting which will take place on 5 June at 1300 UTC. Please find the meeting page with participation instructions and documents below. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?fast_flux_hosting French and Spanish interpretation is tentatively scheduled for this meeting. However, there is currently only one French and no Spanish speaking person who expressed interest in the Briefing session. As you can imagine, it takes a considerable amount of resources to organize a multilingual presentation and it is only worth doing if there is a real interest from the non-English speaking language communities for these events. If you would like to participate in the French or Spanish channel for this meeting, please write an email to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. What is Fast Flux? "Fast flux" is an evasion technique that cyber-criminals and Internet miscreants use to evade identification and to frustrate law enforcement and 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. Cher(e)s membres, Vous êtes invité, par le biais d¹une téléconférence, à participer à une session d'information sur ³l'Accueil Rapide de Flux² (ou ³Fast Flux Hosting²) de Monsieur Dave Piscitello de la division Sécurité et Stabilité du Comité Consultatif (SSAC) d'ICANN, qui aura lieu le 5 juin à 13.00 UTC. Veuillez s¹il vous plait trouver ci-dessous la page de cette réunion avec les instructions de participation et les informations supplémentaires pour cette réunion. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?fast_flux_hosting L'interprétation en français et en espagnole est programmée pour cette réunion. Cependant, il y a actuellement seulement une seule francophone et aucune personne hispanophones qui a montré un intérêt pour cette session d'information. Comme vous pouvez imaginer, il requiert une quantité considérable de ressources afin d¹organiser une présentation multilingues et il est seulement intéressant de le faire, si et seulement si, il y a un vrai intérêt des communautés non anglophones pour ces événements. Si vous voulez participer à cette conférence sur le canal français, envoyez s¹il vous plaît un email à staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Qu¹est-ce que l'Accueil Rapide de Flux? "L'Accueil Rapide de Flux" est une technique d'évasion que les cyber-criminels et les mécréants d'Internet emploient pour esquiver l'identification et pour frustrer le renforcement des lois et les efforts anticriminelles afin de non seulement localiser, mais aussi d¹arrêter les sites Internet utilisés à des buts illégaux. L'Accueil Rapide de Flux soutient une large variété d'activités cyber-criminelle (fraude, vol d'identité, escroqueries en ligne) et est considéré comme une des plus graves menaces des activités en ligne d¹aujourd'hui. Une variante de l'Accueil Rapide de Flux, les ³doubles flux" exploite l'enregistrement des Noms de Domaine et des Services de Résolution des Noms. Estimados miembros de At-Large, Les invitamos para la sesión de David Piscitello sobre el Fast Flux Hosting que será el 5 de Junio a las 1300 UTC. Véase la página web de este reunión telefónica para ver las instrucciones de participación. Cargaramos más documentos sobre la reunión en breve. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?fast_flux_hosting La interpretación en lengua española y francesa es planeada de manera provisoria. Sin embargo, por el momento solo hay una persona de lengua francesa y ningún hispanohablante que ha manifestado su interés por esta presentación. Como se lo puede imaginar, organizar una presentación en varias idiomas necesita muchas recursos y solo valga la pena si existe interés suficiente da la comunidad no anglófona. En caso de que quiere participar en este reunión en el canal español o francés, escriba un email a staff(a)atlarge.icann.org por favor. Que es el Fast Flux Hosting? El Fast Flux es un método de evasión usada por criminales de Internet para evadir su identificación y así frustrar la lucha anticriminal de los autoridades que intentan localizar y cerrar los sitios Webs usados para fines ilegales. El Fast Flux Hosting es usado en varias actividades del ciber-crimen organizado tales como el fraude, el robo o suplantación de identidad y el engaño on-line y representa hoy en día una de las más serias amenazas para la actividad on-line de hoy. Otra variante del Fast Flux Hosting es el Double Flux, un método que se aprovecha de los servicios de registro de dominios. Regards, Cordialment, Cordialmente, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Wendy and all, Although Cheryl may believe that the ALAC supports the proposed tripartite model, I can only actually count 5 ALAC posters that support such and have clearly stated as much. Ergo as liason, to put forth the view that the ALAC supports such as a whole would be less than accurate. Secondly, as the ALAC has so few actual known members, and seemingly only about 30 or so individual user members, it is difficult to see how any claim of the ALAC to represent individual users. As such, it would be much more appropriate that whatever you put forth to be sure that this recognition is fully discribed. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 1:45 AM >To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion > >Hi Cheryl, > >Apology accepted. > >I fully intend to put forward the views of ALAC, and not my own. To the >extent that I can get the ALAC reasoning supporing those views, I can >make a stronger case than if I'm simply left to rely on adherence to a >joint statement. > >As is, I suspect my sole contribution to what may be a heated debate, >will have to be "ALAC supports the joint user statement, specifically >expressing concern that there be strong and equitable individual user >representation in the GNSO." > >--Wendy > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >> Wendy, >> >> With from the ridiculous number of glitches, technical issues and >> interventions / interruptions with the French Chanel interpreter last night >> I felt that the ALAC may perhaps not have yet made itself clear to you on >> what we desire to have you as Board Liaison impart to the Board regarding >> the status of ALAC support and endorsement for the Joint UC statement and >> the proposed tripartite model... >> >> I apologise for the delay in sending this to you but it should arrive in >> time for you to read *before* the Board meeting and I am in a national >> conference yesterday and today (not able to connect other than in a break >> and this has been my first chance)... >> >> If I understood and interpreted you correctly, then you may be planning to >> not simply forward in addition to our May ALAC statements/position pieces >> and further the argument for full,(and within the User Constituencies mix) >> an equitable part for Internet users, (including DNS Registrants and non >> registrants) i.e. the At-Large Community in a a redesigned GNSO structure, >> but perhaps to indicate that this overarching principle is a modification of >> / alteration to / or new view separate from, that which is outlined in the >> Joint UC Proposal... If am wrong or misinterpreting your intent here then >> I do most humbly apologise. >> >> I therefore as Chair, write to you to state that, whilst your personal >> opinion will naturally be transmitted to the Board in your personal >> capacity the ALAC view is as we have recently described and reviewed at >> considerable length in several documents and messages. You are required to " to >> put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. (ROP >> 4.8) *and *"To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to [the >> Board]..." (ROP 5.7). >> >> Any indication by you as an ALAC Liaison, that the Joint UC is not endorsed >> or that we have moved back from our position of support of its proposal on >> structure to the Board, would be a matter in our opinion of you 'not acting >> in the best interests of the ALAC'. >> >> An example of a suitable and non personally compromising statement to the >> Board would be along the lines of what Vanda as ALAC Vice Chair, recently >> sent to The Board Chair in response to a question on this matter to the GNSO >> improvements BGC which I have copied below... >> >> <snip>Para: 'Peter Dengate Thrush' >> Assunto: RES: Future Board discussion and resolution on the matter of GNSO >> Improvements - Specifically GNSO structure. >> >> Peter, being with ALAC, I should not have other comments than ALAC's >> position already stated. >> Best, >> Vanda <end snip> >> > > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org >Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.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 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

3 2

At-Large community event, 21 June 2008
by At-Large Staff May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Dear all, We plan to have an At-Large community dinner at the ICANN Paris meeting and would like to invite you to this event. Before we go forward with the preparations, we would like to know how many of you are likely to participate. If you are in Paris on the evening of Saturday, 21 June and would like to participate, please follow the link below and put in your name. http://www.doodle.ch/ddihym5hhpeuhdwt Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 1

Re: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Danny and all, Agreed to all of your points but #7. It need not be necessary for the GNSO to exhume the whole expense of language translation, other NGO's can belly up to the bar and volunteer to take on some of that expense, as well as automated language translation software has, will, and can reduce this cost significantly, all be it that some few ALAC members may have some "Culture" related problems with such. Those that do should be the ones doing the volunteering. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 4:22 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion > >Wendy, > >Thank you for your comment on this topic. I am sure >that if asked you will indicate that: > >1. The ALAC never took a formal vote on the Statement >2. No members of the ALAC from regions other than NA >expressed any views whatsoever on the topic on the >at-large discussion list (which is not surprising as >they rarely express any opinions on anything). >3. The work of the ad-hoc GNSO Improvements Working >Group was totally non-transparent (not even an >archived discussion list). >4. The broad At-Large community was not afforded an >opportunity to discuss the Joint document prior to its >release. >5. There are those in the at-large that do not >support the concept of eliminating Non-Com >representation in the GNSO. >6. Some in the at-large view the statement that >"At-Large would not accept anything less than 50% of >the voting power of the Non-Commercial Interest >Group", as ludicrous. >7. Some regard the ALAC push for a multilingual >approach within the GNSO to be a foolish waste of >money and point to the horrid expenditures on the part >of the ALAC for contracted (yet unused) translation >services. >8. The comment "Since as mentioned the At-Large >community has been actively engaged in developing and >implementing new approaches to a working group >modality for policy development, some >of the experiences we have had in that process may >prove salutary", is an insult to the intelligence of >the community. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 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

Re: [At-Large] Not the pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Danny and all, It would be a mistake of huge proportions for ICANN to get involved in the business decisions of sTLD or gTLD registries before or after the fact that such a registry has been established. ICANN simply doesn't have the horses nor the business acumen to do so, and such is not associated with ICANN's mandate. Quite simply, .TRAVEL NEVER had a fighting chance of being a commercial private enterprize success. The travel industry is shrinking due to fuel costs and has been for nerly 10 years, ergo the travel market space represented in a sTLD is up against it, and has been for some time now. Secondly due to the increase of terrorist threats, air travel especially is taking huge hits still and will for the forseeable future. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 8:05 PM >To: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Not the pending death of a registry > >John, > >I spotted two remarks in the slightly earlier 10K >filing at >http://sec.edgar-online.com/2008/03/27/0001144204-08-017833/Section12.asp > >"However, management does not believe that the >consummation of the Proposed Tralliance Transaction >will, in itself, allow the Company to become >profitable and generate operating cash flows >sufficient to fund its operations and pay its existing >current liabilities (including those liabilities >related to its discontinued operations) in the >foreseeable future." > >Also, this phrase (which was repeated in the >subsequent 10Q): "It is our preference to avoid >filing for protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code." > >...which leads us to the gTLD Registry Failover >Exercise After Action Report that stated: > >"The exercise highlighted the difficulty in >implementing portions of the plan when a company has >declared bankruptcy or is in receivership. > >Discussion: Bankruptcy of a Registry/Backend Provider > >Declaration of bankruptcy by a registry or backend >provider could place the company under control of the >courts, and potentially negatively impact registrants >and affect the level/quality of DNS service within the >affected TLD. The exercise highlighted difficulty in >the implementation of portions of the plan when a >company has declared bankruptcy or is in receivership. > >Recommendation: > >ICANN to undertake a more-thorough examination of the >affect of bankruptcy on the draft ICANN gTLD Registry >Failover Plan. Recommend the development of >detailed internal procedures and courses of action to >provide guidance during a registry bankruptcy on >registrants of the affected gTLD." > >Perhaps in view of current circumstances ICANN should >accelerate its proposed more-thorough examination of >the affect of bankruptcy. > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 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

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Total of 122 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 30 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 1.64% | 2 | 23.39% | 289361 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 12.30% | 15 | 11.27% | 139446 | lists at privaterra.info 10.66% | 13 | 8.89% | 109975 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 10.66% | 13 | 6.91% | 85494 | evan at telly.org 9.02% | 11 | 8.21% | 101551 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 7.38% | 9 | 5.50% | 68098 | jefsey at jefsey.com 6.56% | 8 | 4.00% | 49509 | johnl at iecc.com 4.92% | 6 | 4.91% | 60771 | veni at veni.com 4.10% | 5 | 2.35% | 29102 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 2.46% | 3 | 3.04% | 37650 | roberto at icann.org 3.28% | 4 | 1.93% | 23907 | michele at blacknight.ie 2.46% | 3 | 1.75% | 21592 | wendy at seltzer.com 2.46% | 3 | 1.61% | 19956 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.46% | 3 | 1.61% | 19883 | ross at tucows.com 2.46% | 3 | 1.52% | 18852 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 1.64% | 2 | 1.27% | 15772 | kieren.mccarthy at icann.org 1.64% | 2 | 1.23% | 15190 | matthias.langenegger at icann.org 1.64% | 2 | 1.20% | 14815 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 1.64% | 2 | 1.09% | 13513 | admin at isoc.sd 1.64% | 2 | 0.98% | 12119 | joly at punkcast.com 0.82% | 1 | 0.91% | 11306 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 0.82% | 1 | 0.88% | 10835 | derek at aa419.org 0.82% | 1 | 0.85% | 10576 | dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk 0.82% | 1 | 0.75% | 9250 | shahshah at irnic.ir 0.82% | 1 | 0.67% | 8336 | lbleriot at gmail.com 0.82% | 1 | 0.61% | 7528 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.82% | 1 | 0.61% | 7510 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 0.82% | 1 | 0.61% | 7504 | iza at anr.org 0.82% | 1 | 0.52% | 6430 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.82% | 1 | 0.47% | 5832 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.82% | 1 | 0.45% | 5554 | elisabeth.porteneuve at cetp.ipsl.fr --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 122 |100.00% | 1237217 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Danny and all, You and I know that ICANN has always had trouble maintaining it's own web site let alone provisioning it's DNS or advising on how to do so for or to others. Additionally, until recently ICANN.ORG's own DNS was grossly misconfigured. That does not lend much in terms of creditability to ICANN's ability to manage any resource effectively. Secondly, in either 1999 or 2000, I don't recall offhand at the moment, the than sitting ICANN interim Bod was very emphatic that if any registry failed, ICANN itself would take over so that no registrant would be damaged as a result of such a failure. Ergo you are quite right in being concerned, if not very concerned regarding fail over from http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf slide 13. Seems some backpedalling is in progress, behind the scenes... IMO only, what should be done to address the failure of .Travel is either ICON hire some other entity to temporarily manage the registry, or aid the current registry owners to acquire funding with ICANN itself kicking in about 25%. But frankly, .Travel has little chance of survival unless it receives significant and long term public funding. In the current world economic environment I don't see that happening either... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 12:54 PM >To: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry > >Jefsey, > >Of greater concern to me than the prospect of ALAC >registry management is the current status of the ICANN >Registry failover project -- see >http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/registry-failover-30apr08.pdf > >See also the After Action Report for the gTLD Registry >Failover Exercise conducted 24-25 January >2008http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf > >See also the SSAC Review of the above at >http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac031.pdf > >By the way, on one of the slides from the first >presentation (page 13) there is a bullet point that >states: "Recognition that current process is not >sufficient to reconstitute a registry". This is a >somewhat unsettling remark (unless I am >misunderstanding it). > >Another troubling statement from the After Action >report: "The draft ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan >provides strategic guidance, but (by design) lacks the >detailed internal ICANN event-specific steps for >implementation." > >One has to hope that behind-the-scenes ICANN is >reasonably on top of their responsibilities... the >last thing that we need is a loss of confidence in the >provisioning of DNS services. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 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

Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Danny and all, This is not surprising in any way as other older news on .Travel has been well publicized in the past on the GA, Slashdot, and elsewhere. ICANN's acceptance of .Travel, like .MOBI were based upon personal friendships of the than seated ICANN Bod rather than more reasonable and relevant reasons and was hotly debated at the time, again on the GA forum. Frankly the idea of sTLD's was and remains a very questionable if not outright silly strategy for expanding the TLD name space. But the than sitting ICANN bod thought wrongly, otherwise... Just as frankly, I thought at the time and stated such in no uncertain terms the idea of .Travel was little more than a scam. Seems I was correct... Maybe some day ICANN itself will have honest, accountable, transparent, open and responsible leadership. But that day has not yet come to pass... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 11:10 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> >Subject: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry > >For those of you following the ongoing demise of >.travel, here is its parent corporation's most recent >filing: > >"Based upon the Company's current financial condition, >as discussed above, and without the infusion of >additional capital, management does not believe that >the Company will be able to fund its operations beyond >the end of May 2008." > >Form 10-Q for THEGLOBE COM INC: >http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080509/tglo.ob10-q.html > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 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

Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry
by Patrick Vande Walle May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

JFC Morfin wrote: > This demonstrates what @large people engaged in this business and in > DNS community testing know for years: Registries should be non profit > organisations and the Registrants should be their members. Low > management costs and new services. Verisign is a successful and purely commercial operation. So is Afilias. The failure is not linked to the fact that it was a commercial company. IMHO, the main issue is that the ".travel" string is only meaningful for English speakers, or about 30% of the current Internet users. I cannot see why German, Spanish or French speakers would use such a domain. > PS. By the way how many people on this ALAC list has ever technical > managed DNS zone files and operated a nameserver ? I would be > curiouis to know also how many people among the GNSO and BoD? FWIW, I do. -- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu

2 1

Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry
by Danny Younger May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Jefsey, Of greater concern to me than the prospect of ALAC registry management is the current status of the ICANN Registry failover project -- see http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/registry-failover-30apr08.pdf See also the After Action Report for the gTLD Registry Failover Exercise conducted 24-25 January 2008http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf See also the SSAC Review of the above at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac031.pdf By the way, on one of the slides from the first presentation (page 13) there is a bullet point that states: "Recognition that current process is not sufficient to reconstitute a registry". This is a somewhat unsettling remark (unless I am misunderstanding it). Another troubling statement from the After Action report: "The draft ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan provides strategic guidance, but (by design) lacks the detailed internal ICANN event-specific steps for implementation." One has to hope that behind-the-scenes ICANN is reasonably on top of their responsibilities... the last thing that we need is a loss of confidence in the provisioning of DNS services.

2 1

Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Danny Younger May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Wendy, Thank you for your comment on this topic. I am sure that if asked you will indicate that: 1. The ALAC never took a formal vote on the Statement 2. No members of the ALAC from regions other than NA expressed any views whatsoever on the topic on the at-large discussion list (which is not surprising as they rarely express any opinions on anything). 3. The work of the ad-hoc GNSO Improvements Working Group was totally non-transparent (not even an archived discussion list). 4. The broad At-Large community was not afforded an opportunity to discuss the Joint document prior to its release. 5. There are those in the at-large that do not support the concept of eliminating Non-Com representation in the GNSO. 6. Some in the at-large view the statement that "At-Large would not accept anything less than 50% of the voting power of the Non-Commercial Interest Group", as ludicrous. 7. Some regard the ALAC push for a multilingual approach within the GNSO to be a foolish waste of money and point to the horrid expenditures on the part of the ALAC for contracted (yet unused) translation services. 8. The comment "Since as mentioned the At-Large community has been actively engaged in developing and implementing new approaches to a working group modality for policy development, some of the experiences we have had in that process may prove salutary", is an insult to the intelligence of the community.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Wendy Seltzer May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Hi Cheryl, Apology accepted. I fully intend to put forward the views of ALAC, and not my own. To the extent that I can get the ALAC reasoning supporing those views, I can make a stronger case than if I'm simply left to rely on adherence to a joint statement. As is, I suspect my sole contribution to what may be a heated debate, will have to be "ALAC supports the joint user statement, specifically expressing concern that there be strong and equitable individual user representation in the GNSO." --Wendy Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > Wendy, > > With from the ridiculous number of glitches, technical issues and > interventions / interruptions with the French Chanel interpreter last night > I felt that the ALAC may perhaps not have yet made itself clear to you on > what we desire to have you as Board Liaison impart to the Board regarding > the status of ALAC support and endorsement for the Joint UC statement and > the proposed tripartite model... > > I apologise for the delay in sending this to you but it should arrive in > time for you to read *before* the Board meeting and I am in a national > conference yesterday and today (not able to connect other than in a break > and this has been my first chance)... > > If I understood and interpreted you correctly, then you may be planning to > not simply forward in addition to our May ALAC statements/position pieces > and further the argument for full,(and within the User Constituencies mix) > an equitable part for Internet users, (including DNS Registrants and non > registrants) i.e. the At-Large Community in a a redesigned GNSO structure, > but perhaps to indicate that this overarching principle is a modification of > / alteration to / or new view separate from, that which is outlined in the > Joint UC Proposal... If am wrong or misinterpreting your intent here then > I do most humbly apologise. > > I therefore as Chair, write to you to state that, whilst your personal > opinion will naturally be transmitted to the Board in your personal > capacity the ALAC view is as we have recently described and reviewed at > considerable length in several documents and messages. You are required to " to > put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. (ROP > 4.8) *and *"To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to [the > Board]..." (ROP 5.7). > > Any indication by you as an ALAC Liaison, that the Joint UC is not endorsed > or that we have moved back from our position of support of its proposal on > structure to the Board, would be a matter in our opinion of you 'not acting > in the best interests of the ALAC'. > > An example of a suitable and non personally compromising statement to the > Board would be along the lines of what Vanda as ALAC Vice Chair, recently > sent to The Board Chair in response to a question on this matter to the GNSO > improvements BGC which I have copied below... > > <snip>Para: 'Peter Dengate Thrush' > Assunto: RES: Future Board discussion and resolution on the matter of GNSO > Improvements - Specifically GNSO structure. > > Peter, being with ALAC, I should not have other comments than ALAC's > position already stated. > Best, > Vanda <end snip> > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Extent of ALAC responsibilities
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Jefsey and all, I personally have no problem with any membership organization of users of or at any level to assist in the development, advancement, deployment and implimentation of any technical advancements that are of use in any way to the larger internet community. This has after all been going on for many years now, and INEGroup has in some areas lead the way. First I would strongly suggest however that France@large consider getting it's DNS for Franceatlarge.org cleaned up if any reasonable credability of france@large is to be recognized. See: http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&tok… -----Original Message----- >From: jefsey <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: May 28, 2008 6:53 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] Extent of ALAC responsibilities > >Dear friends, >The debate on the extent of ICANN responsibilities, raises the >question of the extent of ALAC reponsibilities. I have touched on >that question several times on this list without any reaction. I >will, therefore, pose it plainly. > > >1) france@large understands "@large" (ad largum, in latin) as the >pilots (kubernetes) of Plato's cybernetics paradigm. The people who >freely steer "in altum", or independently throughout the global >distributed network. > >We translate it as the people that feel that they are the co-owners >of the nets, wherein they apportion their resources, time, ideas, and >money. They, therefore, are very often what Von Hippel introduced as >"lead >users" ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_innovation>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_innovation >- in particular in open source, standard, and architecture areas. > >Is this understanding common on this list and among ALS? > > >2) france@large considers its role to be to facilitate satisfactory >support for these @large people by the different entities of the >political (ICANN), technical (IETF), and their own grassroots >governance, along the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, >in particular in: > >- reporting to the ICANN BoD about the needs, moods, and propositions >of its @large members. >- doing the the same with the IETF Area Directors and WG when their >works impact the @large design, use, and manegement of their own system. >- helping its @large members to study, document, test, deploy, and >operate answers to the needs that they experiment on, which are not >yet addressed elsewhere (which is the way the Internet has evolved >since its inception). > >Are we in agreement? > > >3) to give an example, > >france@large members are generally dissatisfied with the IDN/IDNA >approach as proposed by the IETF. As a result, AFNIC (.fr) has not >yet implemented any lingual support. Several events have led to a >debate on the issue, and to increased attendance of our concerned >members (joined by some ISOC members) to the IETF/WG IDNABIS. > >- the Paris ICANN meeting, where ccNSO should finalise its "Fast Track" project >- the IAB comment that stated the IDNA RFCs needed a refresh before >any further deployment >- the general progress of the digital convergence and semantic emergence >- the R&D exploration over the years by four france@large projects of >expertise (dot-root, AFRAC, MLTF, and 3166-4). > >We identified that IDNA was not going to addres our needs. We asked >Vint Cerf (the Chair of the WG-IDNABIS) if he thought that IDNA could >become the ML-DNS that we need. The resulting debate is posted at ><http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=Is_IDNA_an_ML-DNS_to_be>http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=Is_IDNA_an_ML-DNS_to_be. >It led to the mutual understanding that IDNA and ML-DNS were parallel >efforts to be developed, in parallel, by the ITEF and @large community. > >To support that effort, we started the ><http://ml-dns.org/>http://ml-dns.org site for a general debate >within the @large community, together with ICANN and IETF, as they >deemed it appropriate. Our concern is to help the expediting of IDNA >by the IETF, as a first layer solution that is appropriate for the >Anglo-Saxon users/systems, which have to interoperate with linguistic >interlocutors. While working on a consistent ML-DNS solution (1) >bringing the same QoS to scriptual/lingual users, as the regular DNS >does for English ASCII users (2) having the capacity to transparently >encapsulate the IDNA once it has finalised by the IETF. > >We would adopt the same logic when considering others issues. >Releating with the appropriate Internet technical/political >Governance, such as ICANN/GNSO, ccNSO, GAC. The same as we relate >with IGF, IGF, Intlnet, MAAYA, UNESCO, ITU, etc. and have other >specialized centers of expertise on RFID, local networking, >sociolinguistic TLDs, multilinguistics, etc. > >Are we on the same wavelength? > > >Thank you for your comments. >jfc 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

Re: [At-Large] Reframing the rights issue ... Specific Proposal
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Roberto and all, I agree and disagree in part on both sides. ICANN's actions in regards to the Pakistan incident were far to broad and over reaching. However I agree that if an particular organization or individual is negitively and directly impacting the normal and reasonable flow of any legal network traffic than immediate action is called for. This is why in part also why Domain Names whose DNS'es are misconfigured need shutting down temporarly until the offending Domain Name's DNS is cleaned up. These would currently include, but not be limited to the following Domain Names: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=ietf.org&token=06706b9b19… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&token=0… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=alvestrand.no&token=07e03… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=GOV.NU.CA&token=00e04435a… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=ietf.org&token=00d071df45… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=iab.org&token=0030546229e… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=telly.org&token=0660dc539… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=iana.org&token=0080ef377a… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=icann.org&token=10507a047… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=arin.net&token=1060a1c7a8… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=com.lb&token=140020b739e9… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=net.lb&token=14b03dcc6c8c… 019 http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=orange.fr&token=26d05… http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=wanadoo.fr&token=2660… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=graduate.org&token=01504b… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=hansenet.com&token=019026… -----Original Message----- >From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> >Sent: May 28, 2008 9:08 AM >To: 'Robert Guerra' <lists(a)privaterra.info>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Reframing the rights issue ... Specific Proposal > >Robert, > >If and when censorship affects security and stability of the Internet, ICANN >has not only the right, but the duty to intervene. The case you quote about >Pakistan was evaluated by SSAC, as I recall Steve Crocker reporting to the >Board, as it was a concrete, practical case of interference with the normal >functioning of the net. >And if you do have practical cases that you are aware of, that are in effect >in Egypt, and that might cause consequences, please let the SSAC know, and >rest assured that they will act (with or without deliberation by ALAC). >If, on the other hand, all is based by unproven allegations, I sincerely >doubt that SSAC will make a fool of itself by starting a study (with or >without deliberation by ALAC). > >Just my 2c. > >Cheers, >Roberto > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >> Robert Guerra >> Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2008 17:11 >> To: At-Large Worldwide >> Subject: [At-Large] Reframing the rights issue ... Specific Proposal >> >> >> The recent exchange on and about the fall ICANN meeting in >> Egypt was informative and allowed me to see to what extent >> (or not) it is possible to have a larger discussion about the >> broad issue of Internet Freedom affects millions of internet users. >> >> As a more specific - DNS centric focus has been requested, >> then let me >> suggest that Internet Censorship has the unintended consequence of >> affecting the security and stability of the DNS not only at a >> national level, but internationally (see ref below) . >> Researchers and internet experts are of the opinion that >> censorship practices will increase significantly over the >> coming years, as such - let me recommend ALAC propose to the board : >> >> 1. That ICANN should propose a study be conducted by SSAC, in >> collaboration with leading censorship researchers on the >> effects on internet censorship on the operational stability, >> reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. >> >> 2. Should the SSAC report reveal that indeed the security and >> stability of the DNS is affected by censorship, then a policy >> development process (PDP) should be started. >> >> >> I hope this specific proposal can be supported by ALS's and >> the ALAC on or before the Paris ICANN meeting in June. >> >> I look forward to comments. >> >> Yours sincerely >> >> Robert >> --- >> Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> >> Managing Director, Privaterra >> Tel +1 416 893 0377 >> >> >> --- >> Pakistan's Internet has a bad weekend >> (Report by Open Net Initiative) >> http://is.gd/mlo >> >> >> This was a dark weekend for the Internet community in >> Pakistan. A series of unfortunate events started with an >> order for ISPs to block YouTube in Pakistan, which naturally >> riled citizens and advocates of free speech. Making things >> worse, the implementation of the block by one of the ISPs >> made YouTube inaccessible to most of the Internet around the >> world for two hours. Inadvertently, much of the global >> Internet audience has now experienced filtering.. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l >ists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org 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

Re: [At-Large] The triple-x issue - Was: RE: Wrapping up the thread/discussion - Apoligies
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Roberto, Darlene and all, The problem here with this debate is first that .XXX is not a Domain Name as Darlene seems to mistakenly believe. It, .XXX is a TLD ( Top level Domain ) which is far different than a Domain Name. Second, the .XXX decision had only somwhat to do with a moral issue. More importantly is that such a TLD could be used for trapping users and registrants in a "Sticky Bun" type sting operation if they moved their previous DN's to this TLD name space, which was part of the reason it was being considered in the first place. Ergo, it would have been a dismal failure and as such was a bad choice for a new TLD on that basis alone... Third, any registry business that seeks to make a profit from the exploitation of women or children directly as the .XXX TLD represented is simply not exceptable ethically and horrific policy not to mention encourages illegal activity... -----Original Message----- >From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> >Sent: May 28, 2008 9:08 AM >To: "'Thompson, Darlene'" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, 'Ross Rader' <ross(a)tucows.com>, 'John Levine' <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] The triple-x issue - Was: RE: Wrapping up the thread/discussion - Apoligies > >Darlene, > >> >> (I really don't have a firm opinion on this) I'm just >> harkening back to the .xxx debate. In my mind, it was a good >> example of ICANN stepping outside of its role and taking part >> in a debate that was completely outside of its mandate. >> IMHO, if the .xxx people had all of their ducks in a row as >> per ICANN's rules, they should have been able to register >> that domain name. Instead there was this huge issue about >> morality (which is totally outside of ICANN's mandate). So, >> how far is this to be taken? > >To set the record straight, I did vote against the delegation of the TLD, >but not at all because of moral issues. >When the story begun, I was still ALAC Liaison. Since I had no precise >mandate to present a specific position, I expressed my own opinion in the >Board discussion, which was that in the case of a sponsored TLD one of the >key element was the consensus of the sponsored community. For a number of >reasons, this was not the case for triple-x. Just consider simply the fact >that most sites with adult content would not go to a specific TLD, exactly >to avoid ghettization, and easy filtering. They want to reach the widest >possible audience, and therefore would not accept being in an easily >identifiable corner. This was my reason since the beginning. Coherently with >this position, expressed over the many months during which this saga >continued, I cast my vote against it when time came, as in the meantime I >have become a voting director. > >This said, I agree completely with you that the matter got politicized, and >ICANN took the risk to act outside of its mandate. But the first move in >this direction was not at all the consideration of moral opportunity, but >the campaign promoted in favour of triple-x, with the (in my opinion bogus) >consideration that delegation was necessary in order to promote free speech. >I don't want to now reopen the debate of free speech vs. TLDs, and repeat >things I have stated so many times, but would like only to note that the >debate was derailed from the simple compliance to the charter to a broader >(out-of-ICANN-scope) issue not by the opponents to the TLD for (in my >opinion bogus) moral reasons, as they came into the picture only later, but >by the folks who favoured the TLD for political reasons, who started >campaigning from day one. > >Best regards, >Roberto 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

Reframing the rights issue ... Specific Proposal
by Robert Guerra May 28, 2008

May 28, 2008

The recent exchange on and about the fall ICANN meeting in Egypt was informative and allowed me to see to what extent (or not) it is possible to have a larger discussion about the broad issue of Internet Freedom affects millions of internet users. As a more specific - DNS centric focus has been requested, then let me suggest that Internet Censorship has the unintended consequence of affecting the security and stability of the DNS not only at a national level, but internationally (see ref below) . Researchers and internet experts are of the opinion that censorship practices will increase significantly over the coming years, as such - let me recommend ALAC propose to the board : 1. That ICANN should propose a study be conducted by SSAC, in collaboration with leading censorship researchers on the effects on internet censorship on the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. 2. Should the SSAC report reveal that indeed the security and stability of the DNS is affected by censorship, then a policy development process (PDP) should be started. I hope this specific proposal can be supported by ALS's and the ALAC on or before the Paris ICANN meeting in June. I look forward to comments. Yours sincerely Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 --- Pakistan’s Internet has a bad weekend (Report by Open Net Initiative) http://is.gd/mlo This was a dark weekend for the Internet community in Pakistan. A series of unfortunate events started with an order for ISPs to block YouTube in Pakistan, which naturally riled citizens and advocates of free speech. Making things worse, the implementation of the block by one of the ISPs made YouTube inaccessible to most of the Internet around the world for two hours. Inadvertently, much of the global Internet audience has now experienced filtering..

3 2