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

Resend of: GOOGLE SUED FOR SELLING INADEQUATE ADS
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

All, Seems yet again Google has decided to hoist upon users more nonsense/shanagans. Vint, perhaps in your evanglissm role, you can impress upon Mr. Schmidt that such behavior is not a healthy thing and should be discontinued forthwith. Thank you for your efforts in this regard in advance, and I am hopeful that you will be succesful in addressing this problem with a cease of these activities as the only vaable and proper resolution. See: On July 11th, attorney Hal K. Levitte sued Google for selling low-quality advertisements on parked domains and error pages. Levitte advertised his legal services using Googles programs last year. 15.3% of his ad campaign was taken up by parked domains, which are web pages with automated links related to a predetermined search keyword. Levitte had 202,528 impressions on parked domain pages, with 668 clicks and zero conversions. For the lack of results, Levitte sued Google for fraud, business code violations, and unjust enrichment. The lawsuit was filed as a class action, as Levittes attorneys hope to represent others in the same situation. Just six days later, on July 17th, RK West, a company that does business as Malibu Sales, sued Google for the same reasons as Levitte. The second complaint alleges that Google uses ads on parked domains to launder invalid clicks on websites that have no content. The complaint claims that because Google charges customers for every click, regardless of validity, it benefits from the ads on parked domains while the customer does not. The RK West complaint may be found at http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:20… The Levitte complaint may be found at http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/5:20… 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] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

Dominik and all, Exactly my broader point, Dominik! What's much more important is that non-registrant users and independent registrants still have no voice or vote. The capture to which I alluded to and you plainly stated, remains. As such, the ecommerce aspects of economic prosperity will be so limited. Such a limit will be significant and solely or mostly in the hands of large commercial special interest groups. That's not a healthy economic paradigm. It is also a precursor to further fraud and abuse on a huge international scale. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Jeff, > > You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in > the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation > might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties > should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other > reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course. > > Dominik > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. > Williams > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM > To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss > Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG > onGNSOCouncil Restructuring > > Dominik and all, > > If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that > commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of > power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially > commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing > has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific > representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant > representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant > reoresentative/ALAC. > > So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the > bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been > occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more > increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this > proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. > > Dominik Filipp wrote: > > > Cheryl, > > > > After having read the last WG output at > > > > > https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_ > > > > committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd > > > f > > > > it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as > follows > > (Attachment A) > > > > ------------------------------ > > 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted > > parties/constituencies, 2 parties > > in each house > > > > House 1 - Contracted party house consists > > of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - > > Non-contracted party house consists > > of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) > > parties/constituencies > > > > that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively. > > > > The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are > > > considered) > > > > House 1 > > Registries - 3 members > > Registrars - 3 members > > > > House 2 > > Commercial - 5 members > > Non-commercial - 5 members > > > > and also > > > > Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. > > Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. > > ------------------------------ > > > > Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl? > > > > If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to. > > > > Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO > > Council parties? > > > > Thanks > > > > Dominik > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl > > Langdon-Orr > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM > > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Cc: 'ALAC internal list' > > Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on > > GNSOCouncil Restructuring > > > > At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our > > representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire > > > to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. > > > > > > > > Please see our Wiki page > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to > find > > a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and > > also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the > > report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our > > sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an > > expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board. > > > > > > > > ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required > for > > a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the > > > next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this > > > statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the > purpose > > of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC > > Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain. > > > > > > > > More in the next 24hrs. > > > > > > > > CLO > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

Apple Clients Still Vulnerable After DNS Patch
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

All, All is still not well with Apple.com even after Apple finnaly patched the original DNS problem. It seems that industry leaders are again showing their lack of knowledge in IT related issues that effect the security of their clients and who knows how many other unsuspecting users. Shame on Apple! Has the ISC or the SSAC gotten in touch with Apple and expressed that they need to do better? Well I don't know, but it sure doesn't seem so. See: Glenn Fleishman sends word that SANS Institute testing indicates that, even after installing http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/01/1215209&tid=172 Apple's latest patch for the DNS vulnerability, http://db.tidbits.com/article/9721 Leopard desktops (not servers) are still vulnerable or at least perpetuate risky behavior that makes exploitation easier. This matters because "With servers rapidly being patched worldwide, it's likely that the low-hanging fruit disappears, and vectors [will be] designed to attack massive numbers of clients on ISP networks." 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 Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

Total of 42 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 1 00:53:01 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 42.86% | 18 | 47.23% | 156437 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 7.14% | 3 | 7.38% | 24451 | dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk 7.14% | 3 | 6.84% | 22670 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 7.14% | 3 | 6.82% | 22582 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 7.14% | 3 | 6.33% | 20980 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 4.76% | 2 | 3.48% | 11515 | michele at blacknight.ie 2.38% | 1 | 3.29% | 10902 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.38% | 1 | 2.77% | 9164 | annette.muehlberg at web.de 2.38% | 1 | 2.31% | 7644 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 2.38% | 1 | 2.31% | 7641 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.38% | 1 | 2.14% | 7102 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 2.38% | 1 | 2.09% | 6937 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 2.38% | 1 | 1.97% | 6515 | narten at us.ibm.com 2.38% | 1 | 1.76% | 5832 | jefsey at jefsey.com 2.38% | 1 | 1.69% | 5610 | veni at veni.com 2.38% | 1 | 1.58% | 5241 | evan at telly.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 42 |100.00% | 331223 | Total

1 0