April 2009 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Definition of registration abuse
by Brendler, Beau April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009

Greetings. As you know I am on the registration abuse policy working group. Yesterday's teleconference was the first I have been able to attend. I wanted to pass on to you the working definition established for abuse and see if anyone has any comment. Please let me know if you do, and I will pass on to the WG. Beau Brendler ------------------------------- Abuse is an action that: 1. Causes actual and substantial harm, or is a material predicate of such harm, and 2. Is illegal or illegitimate, or is otherwise considered contrary to the intention and design of a stated legitimate purpose, if such purpose is disclosed. Notes: * This is a working definition as per group consensus on April 27, 2009 and may be re-visited should the WG find it inadequate after examining some specific examples. * The party or parties harmed, and the substance or severity of the abuse, should be identified and discussed in relation to a specific proposed abuse. * The term "harm" is not intended to shield a party from fair market competition. * The above definition of abuse is indebted to the definition of "misuse" in the document "Working Definitions for Key Terms that May be Used in Future WHOIS Studies" prepared by the GNSO Drafting Team [18 February 2009, at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-working-definitions-study-terms-18…] ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

8 24

RAA, registrar "best practices, " bill of rights for users, etc.
by Brendler, Beau April 30, 2009

April 30, 2009

Pardon the cross posting but I believe there are a couple of you out there in at-large, Michele Neylon and Evan Leibovitch in particular, who wanted to be involved with developments on RAA, drafting list of registrant rights, etc. Here's where all of that is getting going. Beau Brendler ________________________________ From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:Nick.Ashton-Hart@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 29, 2009 11:47 AM To: Max Senges; William Drake Cc: Vittorio Bertola; Andrea Beccalli; AvriDoria; Bertrand de La Chapelle; Danny Younger; Heike Jensen; kpeters; Meryem Marzouki; Milton L Mueller; nhklein; Olga Cavalli; Robert Guerra; Rodrigo Cetina; Sylvia Caras; Kathy Kleiman; Annette Muehlberg; Thomas.Schneider Thomas; Carlton Samuels; Wolf Ludwig; wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de; ed(a)isoc-au.org.au; js(a)thomsentrampedach.com; salinasporto(a)gmail.com; bogdan.manolea(a)apti.ro; Dharma Dailey; Carlos Affonso Pereira de Souza; izumiaizu(a)gmail.com; sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org; rorenday(a)banxico.org.mx; mperez(a)segob.gob.mx; apisan(a)servidor.unam.mx; Scott Robinson; Robin Gross; Carlos Afonso; rudi.vansnick; margaret.osborne(a)senecac.on.ca; Brendler, Beau Subject: Re: follow up Internet Rights and Principles in the work of ICANN Dear All: For those of you interested in the work on registrant rights and responsibilities associated with the amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement, a mailing list exists in At-large to faciltate this discussion. You may join at this URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… The microsite for the At-Large Registrant - Registrar Relations Policy working group is: https://st.icann.org/raa-policy/index.cgi?at_large_registrar_registrant_rel… The GNSO Council has recently resolved, as a response to the resolution of the Board of ICANN related to this, to convene a working group to define how to proceed in working on this area. On 10/03/2009 14:11, "Max Senges" <maxsenges(a)gmail.com> wrote: Dear all I talked to the folks from .cat and it seems there are some good practices there regarding IDNs and WHOis Jannik sent the following info regarding the best practices in denmark: Chek page 3, section 8 on privacy for individuals: http://en.itst.dk/numbering-issues-and-domain-aspects/domain-aspects/files-… regards Jannik On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 9:18 PM, William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: On Mar 5, 2009, at 10:10 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: William Drake ha scritto: Hence, the "official" charter will be established by representatives from the GNSO community and the ALAC. We did not specify a method for selecting who those reps will be, but presumably they will be nominated by the respective bodies. Hence any separate and parallel initiative would presumably have the status of an input to the work of the designated group. Of course the transmission belt between the two spaces could be strengthened if some of the representatives chosen from the GNSO community and the ALAC are also part of the team copied above. But don't assume that whatever this team might do its own will necessarily be "the" charter that results from the formal process.s I'd rather suggest to the ALAC that the people who already participated in this workshop and shown interest in working upon this matter are the best candidates for being appointed to that working group. Sounds good and not inconsistent with what I said. But what workshop are you referring to? Thanks, Bill -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

3 3

Reminder: Briefing on Proposed Framework for FY10 Operating Plan and Budget 30 April 05:00 UTC
by Heidi Ullrich April 29, 2009

April 29, 2009

Dear All, Kevin Wilson, ICANN Chief Financial Officer, will be giving a briefing on the Proposed Framework for the FY10 Operating Plan and Budget at 05:00 UTC 30 April. Details of this Briefing Session, including agenda, presentation, Adobe Connect link, and participation information are available here: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?budget_ops_meeting_30_april_2009. The session will be open to all members of the At-Large community worldwide. Interpretation into FR and ES will not be available on this call. If you would like to request a dial-out, please inform At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. As background to this call, the Proposed Framework for the FY10 Operating Plan and Budget, which was first presented at the ICANN Meeting in Mexico City, is currently seeking comments from the public. The draft FY10 Operating Plan and Budget is scheduled to be posted by 17 May 2009. The Board Finance Committee is currently scheduled to adopt the FY10 Operating Plan and Budget during the ICANN Meeting in Sydney. The Proposed Framework for the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY10)Operating Plan and Budget is available in the five UN languages here: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-17feb09-en.htm Additional consultation details may be found here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#op-budget-fy2010 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Definition of registration abuse
by Franck Martin April 29, 2009

April 29, 2009

Many social networks take down accounts based solely on report of violations of Terms Of Services. I guess as long as a notice is served (your domain is terminated because violation of TOS, or better your domain will be terminated in 24 hours due to violation of TOS) and the domain owner has a right to answer the allegations or have its day in court, I'm cool with the process. May be a bit like copyright take down notices, once notified, and after say 10 days, the registry becomes responsible for keeping the domain? ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> To: "Karl Auerbach" <karl(a)cavebear.com> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, 29 April, 2009 9:00:36 PM (GMT+1100) Auto-Detected Subject: Re: [At-Large] Definition of registration abuse > As long as it takes. Otherwise we will have a system in which a mere > accusation is sufficient. Do you really think it is a good idea to require a court case and a trial to take down a phish site pretending to be Paypal or the Bank of America? You're quite right that among ICANN's less attractive qualities is its tendency to invent half-assed processes dominated by lobbyists. On the other hand, for every controversial high profile domain takedown, there must be a thousand routine phish squashes. If there's no formal process to do that, there will be informal processes, and they're even more capricious than ICANN. Be careful what you wish for. R's, John _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

ALAC Review Final Comments from the ALAC
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr April 29, 2009

April 29, 2009

Please find attached the ALAC Comments on the ALAC Review -Final document currently under its Public Comment Period. This text was ratified at our ALAC Meeting held earlier today by unanimous vote of all ALAC Members in attendance see https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/index.cgi?28_april_2009 with 11 of the 15 ALAC Members in attendance and no objections or comment not in support of this text being received by those tending their apologies during our online discussion period. This documentation will now have the cover sheet attached to it formalizing it as a Statement of the ALAC and be held in repository in our Statements section of the At-Large Website in the next few days... In closing the ALAC wishes to thank the ALAC Review Working Group, most sincerely for all the efforts they have made to effectively engage with us and the wider At-Large Community in this process and specifically for the extension to the closing date of the Public Comment Period for this documentation to the 30th of April to allow for our vote and discussion to be held at our April monthly ALAC meeting. Kindest regards -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2009

2 1

Draft IRT report
by Alan Greenberg April 25, 2009

April 25, 2009

The draft IRT report on Intellectual Property issues associated with gTLDs was released yesterday. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-24apr09-en.htm http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/irt-draft-report-trademark-protect… Note that although it is posted for a 30 day comment period, the final report is due on 24 May 2009, and comments to be considered in the drafting of the final report must be submitted by 6 May 2009 - 11 days from today. It is clear that the IRT group has done an enormous amount of work in a very short time. I will leave it to experts in the field to comment on the appropriateness of their recommendations. Alan

1 0

First Mac Botnet Detected by Symantec
by Thompson, Darlene April 24, 2009

April 24, 2009

Hi all, I hope this isn't too off topic but I thought it would be of interest because of the reach these cyber criminals have. http://www.slipperybrick.com/2009/04/first-mac-botnet-detected-by-symant ec/ OK, and to anybody that know me AT ALL - its also a slam against Macs. :-) Have a great weekend everybody! D

1 0

Fwd: US Department of Commerce launches Inquiry on ICANN Joint Project Agreement
by Patrick Vande Walle April 24, 2009

April 24, 2009

FYI The Department of Commerce has now released its notice of inquiry (NOI) "regarding the upcoming expiration of the JPA with ICANN." Comments are due ON OR BEFORE JUNE 8, 2009. The NOI summarizes the history of the JPA and asks eight questions that are very far reaching. They ask about whether the original White Paper principles are still appropriate and whether ICANN has integrated them. They ask if the private sector-led, bottom-up process is still the most appripriate, or if there are better. They ask about ICANN's progress against the JPA core tasks and subsequent commitments made by the ICANN Board. they ask whether progress is sufficient to transition ICANN to full independence, and if not what remains to be done. Then they ask if there enough safeguards in place to ensure continued security and stability of the DNS, and if they can ensure protection of stakeholder interests and the model itself. And finally they ask what the NTIA final report on the JPA should include. It appears they are seeking either oral or written comments, all of which will be put on the public record. -- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu

2 1

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 24, 2009

April 24, 2009

Total of 9 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 24 00:53:03 EDT 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 33.33% | 3 | 37.41% | 22481 | brenbe at consumer.org 22.22% | 2 | 17.65% | 10608 | michele at blacknight.ie 11.11% | 1 | 13.29% | 7987 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 11.11% | 1 | 11.49% | 6903 | derek at aa419.org 11.11% | 1 | 11.22% | 6740 | evan at telly.org 11.11% | 1 | 8.95% | 5376 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 9 |100.00% | 60095 | Total

1 0

Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICA challenge to IRT
by Adam Peake April 24, 2009

April 24, 2009

From the NCUC list (public). Background to the note below is a CricleID article "ICA to ICANN: The IRT Must Open Up Or Be Stripped of Official Status and Support" <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090422_ica_icann_implementation_recommendat…> Adam > >Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:16:37 -0400 >Reply-To: Mary Wong <MWong(a)PIERCELAW.EDU> >Sender: Non-Commercial User Constituency <NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> >From: Mary Wong <MWong(a)PIERCELAW.EDU> >Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICA challenge to IRT >To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII >Content-Description: HTML > >Thanks, Bill - I'd just seen that article too. > >Everyone, as I was asked by the IPC to be on the >IRT, and as I wasn't able during the last NCUC >call to elaborate on what's being done, here's a >quick summary: > >- The Implementation Recommendation Team's (IRT) >initial draft proposals will be released >tomorrow for public comment. I'd encourage >everyone to review the proposals and submit >feedback, as the IRT is due to make its final >recommendations to the Board in late May. > >- the IRT meets weekly via teleconference, and >in two in-person meetings (one in April, one in >May); in between, various work teams that were >formed within the IRT also meet via >teleconference and work on draft proposals for >circulation and comment by other IRT members. > >- the discussions to date include proposals >dealing with both top and second level domains >and regarding both pre-launch and >post-delegation issues. The primary suggestion >is to use an IP Clearinghouse with tiered rights >protection mechanisms (instead of a single >Reserved Names List - this was a non-starter >given the flak the GAC and the Geographic Names >List has been getting); and there may also be a >rapid suspension system for abusive >registrations. > >- contrary to some expectations, the process so >far has not been a whitewash in favor of big >brand owners. There have been compromises, >disagreements and quite a bit of debate over >controversial issues. While the draft report is >unlikely to please everybody, I think it is more >balanced than some had feared and is not, for >example, a back door route to expand the UDRP >(as Phil Corwin alleges in the article). > >- Minutes of previous IRT meetings are available >online at ><https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protec…>https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protec… (if >you have limited time, the more informative >minutes are probably those from April 2 and >April 17). > >So please review the draft proposals when they >are released late tomorrow, and please do make >public comments - and also start a discussion on >this listserv - if you see anything that you >think may impact on non-commercial users and >consumers. > >Thanks, >Mar > >Mary W S Wong >Professor of Law >Franklin Pierce Law Center >Two White Street >Concord, NH 03301 >USA >Email: <mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu>mwong(a)piercelaw.edu >Phone: 1-603-513-5143 >Webpage: ><http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php >Selected writings available on the Social >Science Research Network (SSRN) at: ><http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >y > >>> William Drake <william.drake(a)GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH> 4/23/2009 4:50 PM >>> >If you've not seen >it...http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090422_ica_icann_implementation_recomm…

1 0