January 2010 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

The Future of ICANN by Rod Beckstrom
by Sébastien Bachollet Jan. 31, 2010

Jan. 31, 2010

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box?
by Michael Maranda Jan. 30, 2010

Jan. 30, 2010

If we can address this issue - we'll have taken a great step forward. -Michael Maranda On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>wrote: > Dear At-Large folks, > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > Agreement > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > been amended to include the following language: > “3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > details including a valid email and mailing > address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) > ” > But what constitutes a “valid mailing address” other than it can > accept mail. > This probably would have been better worded as “valid business > address” as we recommended > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > their business is really in Colorado. > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > not even a phone number. > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > has been explained to us multiple times that “all addresses in Caymans > are PO boxes,” but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > And then there are “suites.” Suite is a deceptive address term since > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > true nature of the Registration business > ( > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > ). > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > de-accredited for other contract violations > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > identification. > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > consumers for too long. We’re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > directory. > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN’s pledge of > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > More info: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > ------------------------------------- > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > Garth Bruen > gbruen(a)knujon.com > http://www.knujon.com > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

Total of 23 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 29 00:53:05 EST 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 13.04% | 3 | 11.61% | 22442 | evan at telly.org 8.70% | 2 | 13.59% | 26266 | ocl at gih.com 8.70% | 2 | 11.96% | 23112 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 8.70% | 2 | 9.90% | 19130 | isolatedn at gmail.com 8.70% | 2 | 9.63% | 18606 | info at internautabrasil.org 8.70% | 2 | 9.13% | 17642 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 4.35% | 1 | 4.96% | 9579 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 4.35% | 1 | 4.92% | 9513 | gisella.gruber-white at icann.org 4.35% | 1 | 4.42% | 8552 | heidi.ullrich at icann.org 4.35% | 1 | 3.21% | 6206 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.35% | 1 | 3.16% | 6116 | karl at cavebear.com 4.35% | 1 | 3.14% | 6070 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 4.35% | 1 | 2.79% | 5400 | joly at punkcast.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.73% | 5270 | shearman at victoria.tc.ca 4.35% | 1 | 2.59% | 5010 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.27% | 4384 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 23 |100.00% | 193298 | Total

1 0

DOODLE / Community Call: At-Large Director Selection Process
by At-Large Staff Jan. 27, 2010

Jan. 27, 2010

Dear All, As the next step in the community consultation about the At-Large Director Selection process and to offer a telephonic opportunity to discuss the recently released White Paper on this important issue - see https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper - we invite you to join a conference call to be scheduled at the end of January. A doodle has been set up to assist in the selection of a time for this call that will allow for maximum participation by ALSes, RALO leadership and interested individuals. http://www.doodle.com/5u6dt525n9yin2zf Time-zone active When completing the Doodle poll, please indicate your Yes / No / Maybe options for ALL possible times shown and also indicate any need for interpretation to be made available on this call by indicating FR or ES next to your name please note any other comments on the timing of this community call are also welcome in the comments section. This doodle will close on Thursday 21 January 2010 at 1200 UTC. The call date and time will be announce shortly thereafter. Thank you Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

7 11

[NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: Community Comment Invited on Revised Proposal To Form A New GNSO Consumers Constituency 22 January to 13 February 2010
by Adam Peake Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

Via the NCUC list. It would be good to know how membership of the constituency is progressing. The notice of intent to create a constituency mentions some, and some outreach that will be done. What progress has been made? The constituency is important. But it needs to meet membership thresholds before launch. Or it'll be a bad precedent (for one thing.) Hopefully they've achieved regional diversity and appropriate level of interest. Adam > > >>From: Glen de Saint Géry <<mailto:Glen@icann.org>Glen(a)icann.org> >>Date: January 24, 2010 10:09:38 AM PST >>To: Avri Doria >><<mailto:avri@ACM.ORG>avri(a)ACM.ORG>, Robin >>Gross >><<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org>, >>"<mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au>rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au" >><<mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au>rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au> >>Cc: Glen de Saint Géry >><<mailto:gnso-secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso-secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >>Subject: FW: Community Comment Invited on >>Revised Proposal To Form A New GNSO Consumers >>Constituency 22 January to 13 February 2010 >> >>Dear Avri, Robin and Rosemary, >> >>FYI >>Thanks >>Glen >> >>Community Comment Invited on Revised Proposal >>To Form A New GNSO Consumers Constituency >>Please note and take some time to submit comments before 13 February 2010! >> >><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22jan10-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22jan10-en.htm >>«»Í íÜï English Français Español êÛÒÒÍËÈ >>ìñ{åÍ Deutsch Português «±¼æÓ Italiano >> >>22 January 2010 >>The ongoing GNSO Improvements process has >>created significant community interest in the >>formation of new GNSO constituencies. One of >>those proposals is for a new Consumers >>Constituency. Proponents of the Consumers >>Constituency originally submitted a New >>Constituency Petition and Charter to the ICANN >>Board on 14 April 2009. A revised version of >>the proposal, responding to several Board >>inquiries was submitted to the Board on 15 >>September 2009. >> >>The Structural Improvements Committee of the >>ICANN Board has directed the Staff to post the >>revised (15 September) version of the proposed >>Consumers Constituency Charter for community >>review and comment. All members of the ICANN >>community and the public are now invited to >>review the petition and charter of the >>Consumers Constituency and share comments with >>the Board through 13 February 2009. >> >>Background and Explanation: >> >>In June 2008, the Board of Directors endorsed a >>series of recommendations on how to improve the >>GNSO's structures and operations. One of the >>significant drivers of those recommendations >>was an interest in maximizing participation in >>the GNSO and its policy development processes. >>Among the various recommendations endorsed by >>the Board was that ICANN take steps to clarify >>and promote the option to self-form new >>constituencies. >> >>The ICANN Bylaws provide that any group of >>individuals or entities may petition the Board >>for recognition as a new or separate >>constituency, in accordance with Section 5(4) >>of Article X. Such a petition must explain (1) >>why "the addition of such a Constituency will >>improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out >>its policy-development responsibilities" and >>(2) why "the proposed new Constituency would >>adequately represent, on a global basis, the >>stakeholders it seeks to represent." Despite >>those Bylaw provisions, it has been many years >>since the organization has had formal requests >>for any new GNSO constituencies. Since the >>Board action last June, however, the Board has >>received four petitions for potential new GNSO >>Constituencies. In December, the Board chose >>not to approve three of those proposals (see >><http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm) >>and the Consumers proposal is still under >>consideration. >> >>The ICANN bylaws do not provide specific >>procedural guidance for how interested parties >>should submit the petitions contemplated in >>Article X. Mindful that explicit steps, >>formats, and/or processes for expansion would >>take some time for the community to develop in >>the implementation of the improvements >>recommendations, the Board directed ICANN Staff >>to provide the community with some initial >>guidance, a structure and a specific procedural >>path for potential new constituencies to >>follow. At its 1 October 2008 meeting, the >>Board acknowledged Staff's development of a >>"Notice of Intent" document for potential new >>constituencies and directed Staff to develop a >>formal petition and charter template to assist >>new constituency applicants in satisfying the >>formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN >>Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of >>petitions to form new constituencies. >> >>The process subsequently developed by the Staff >>required interested groups to first submit a >>Notice of Intent to Form a New Constituency >>(NOIF). The proponents of the Consumers >>Constituency completed that first step on 28 >>February 2009. The second step of the process >>is development of a New Constituency Petition >>and Charter. The proponent of the Consumers >>Constituency completed that effort on 14 April >>2009. >> >>In August 2009 the members of the ICANN Board >>developed a number of questions regarding the >>proposal. In response to those inquiries the >>Consumer Constituency proponents revised their >>original NOIF and updated their proposed >>charter document on 15 September 2009. >> >>Relevant Board Resolution, Bylaws and Constituency Submissions: >> >>Minutes of 1 October 2008 ICANN Board Meeting: >><http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm >> >>ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5, Subsection >>4: >><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm >>- X-5.1 >> >>Copies of the original and Revised Consumers >>Constituency Petition Documents can be found at >>this web page: >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm >> >>Revised (15 Sept) Consumers Constituency NOIF; >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-noif-redacted-…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-noif-redacted-… >> >>Revised (15 Sept) Consumers Constituency >>Charter Document; >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-charter-15sep0…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-charter-15sep0… >> >>Public Comment Forum of this proceeding: >><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco>http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco >>The Process From Here: >> >>At the end of this Public Comment Forum period, >>the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis >>of the comments submitted regarding the revised >>Consumers Constituency petition and charter. >>That summary/analysis will be shared with the >>community and the Board. The Board will >>ultimately make the decision on whether to >>authorize the new constituency. >> >>It should be noted that the GNSO Improvements >>Report approved by the Board in June 2008 has >>additional guidelines and recommendations for >>the ongoing practices and processes of GNSO >>constituencies. This work is ongoing as part of >>the GNSO Improvements implementation efforts >>being coordinated by the GNSO Council (see >><http://gnso.icann.org>http://gnso.icann.org/ >>and >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/) >> >>Deadline and How to Submit Comments: >> >>The Staff is opening a 21-day public >>consultation forum, from 22 January 2009 >>through 13 February 2010, and invites community >>comments on this matter. >> >>The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located >>here: >><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco>http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco >> >>To submit comments: >><mailto:consumers-constituency-petition@icann.org>consumers-constituency-petition(a)icann.org >> >>To view comments: >><http://forum.icann.org/lists/consumers-constituency-petition/>http://forum.icann.org/lists/consumers-constituency-petition/ >> >>Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth >> >>Glen de Saint Géry >>GNSO Secretariat >><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >><http://gnso.icann.org>http://gnso.icann.org >> > > > > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: ><http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org > e: <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

This is a task that could progress well if at Large could reach out to external Rights groups such as the Internet Rights and Principles ( Max Senges, Lisa Horner ) who may be able to involve Civil Society participants with a particular interest in Rights and contribute to this task with expertise and ease. This can also be an opportunity to work together with NCSG as some of the NCSG members including Milton Mueller have a particular interest in Rights. I feel that their involvement in this task would give the proposed Charter a good shape, though I don't agree with many of them on their "Rights-based approach" to Internet Governance. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > Hi, I promised to contribute to the Charter, WG A, yet to date have > contributed zero. The calls have been at times I simply cannot make (and the > next call also not possible.) Still, I should have read and continued to > work online. Apologies. I'll try to get up to date over the coming weeks. > > Adam > > > > > One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft >> some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was >> mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it >> was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done >> properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the >> organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. >> >> So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a >> "Registrant >> Rights Charter< >> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_20… >> >" >> March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. >> However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. >> >> The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the >> charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be >> considered; >> I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, >> dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of >> this >> charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and >> responsibilities) >> *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation >> project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its >> public. >> >> When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a >> declaration >> of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right >> now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and >> considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea >> what >> might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, >> I >> hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe >> Chat. >> (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at >> >> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiratio… >> ). >> >> There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing >> list >> and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff >> has provided a document of this >> nature< >> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201… >> > >> which >> Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with >> understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last >> meeting< >> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_… >> > >> chair >> Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer >> within the scope of the group. >> >> So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of >> what >> registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of >> the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. >> >> Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. >> Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large >> with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied >> at >> meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to >> serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that >> advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one >> would >> think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of >> such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their >> policy >> making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. >> >> What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe >> that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in >> the >> first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a >> statement >> of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to >> ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than >> with registrars and registries, in its development. >> >> Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is >> anyone >> else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was >> envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? >> >> -- >> Evan Leibovitch >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

3 3

Fwd: Re: Re: Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

FYI -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now? Date : Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:57:31 +0100 De : Max Senges <maxsenges(a)gmail.com> Pour : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Copie à : Lisa Horner <lisa(a)global-partners.co.uk> FYI. (please reply CC'ing the at large list too) thanks for sending this That's exactly what I thought, when I read the question (I've kept the full body of the previous discussion below, for Max and Lisa to be able to read through it, if they don't have access to the thread. The IRP coalition is an ALS, isn't it? the IRP is not an ALS - I was there as rep. for the Committee for a Democratization of the United Nations Perhaps its member's experiences in the field could catalyse the crystallisation of such a charter? i very much think that our member are interested to work on this best max Warmest regards, Olivier > This can also be an opportunity to work together with > NCSG as some of the NCSG members including Milton Mueller have a particular > interest in Rights. I feel that their involvement in this task would give > the proposed Charter a good shape, though I don't agree with many of them on > their "Rights-based approach" to Internet Governance. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Adam Peake<ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> <mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > > >> Hi, I promised to contribute to the Charter, WG A, yet to date have >> contributed zero. The calls have been at times I simply cannot make (and the >> next call also not possible.) Still, I should have read and continued to >> work online. Apologies. I'll try to get up to date over the coming weeks. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft >> >>> some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was >>> mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it >>> was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done >>> properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the >>> organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. >>> >>> So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a >>> "Registrant >>> Rights Charter< >>> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_20… >>> >>>> " >>>> >>> March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. >>> However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. >>> >>> The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the >>> charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be >>> considered; >>> I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, >>> dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of >>> this >>> charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and >>> responsibilities) >>> *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation >>> project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its >>> public. >>> >>> When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a >>> declaration >>> of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right >>> now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and >>> considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea >>> what >>> might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, >>> I >>> hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe >>> Chat. >>> (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiratio… >>> ). >>> >>> There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing >>> list >>> and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff >>> has provided a document of this >>> nature< >>> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201… <https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201…> >>> >>>> >>> which >>> Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with >>> understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last >>> meeting< >>> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_… >>> >>>> >>> chair >>> Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer >>> within the scope of the group. >>> >>> So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of >>> what >>> registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of >>> the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. >>> >>> Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. >>> Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large >>> with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied >>> at >>> meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to >>> serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that >>> advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one >>> would >>> think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of >>> such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their >>> policy >>> making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. >>> >>> What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe >>> that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in >>> the >>> first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a >>> statement >>> of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to >>> ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than >>> with registrars and registries, in its development. >>> >>> Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is >>> anyone >>> else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was >>> envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? >>> >>> -- >>> Evan Leibovitch >>> _______________________________________________ >>> At-Large mailing list >>> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >>> >>> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a "Registrant Rights Charter<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_20…>" March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be considered; I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of this charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and responsibilities) *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its public. When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a declaration of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea what might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, I hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe Chat. (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiratio… ). There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing list and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff has provided a document of this nature<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201…> which Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last meeting<https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_…> chair Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer within the scope of the group. So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of what registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied at meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one would think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their policy making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in the first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a statement of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than with registrars and registries, in its development. Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is anyone else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? -- Evan Leibovitch

3 2

Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Beau Brendler Jan. 23, 2010

Jan. 23, 2010

Well, then let's include a third party beneficiary rights statement in the aspirational document. I've heard support for this idea from some people in the community before. -----Original Message----- >From: Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> >Sent: Jan 23, 2010 2:54 PM >To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now? > >On 01/23/2010 06:27 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here... > >It strikes me that there is a small step that can be taken that is not a >"mere aspiration". (As if aspirations were not the atoms from which >concrete policies are constructed.) > >A Charter of Registrants Rights is a nice aspiration, but wouldn't it be >nice if registrants could get even the bare rights that are supposed to >be given to them under the existing ICANN registrar and registry contracts? > >At a bare minimum all ICANN contracts with registrars and registries >ought to be amended to add third party beneficiary rights provisions >that recognize domain name holders as having the power to go to court to >enforce contractual obligations even if ICANN fails to do so. > >As it stands today a registrar or registry can do horrible things to >registrants, things that are clearly in violation of its contract with >ICANN, and the effected domain name registrants can do no more than >watch, endure, and suffer. > >With third party beneficiary rights registrants would have the power to >take action. > >Yes, I know that third party beneficiary rights is a topic listed >somewhere on lists of things to be discussed someday in the future, if ever. > >ICANN has steadfastly over the years refused even to discuss the >possibility that perhaps ICANN might someday want to consider that it >might add third party beneficiary rights to the contracts. > >The reason given by ICANN for this position is that ICANN fears that >registrants might actually try to enforce their rights and that some >cases might succeed and others might fail, creating a patchwork of >decisions. > >However, it seems to me that a patchwork cloth is more protection >against the cold winds of registrar misbehavior and ICANN inaction than >today's nakedness. > > --karl-- > >_______________________________________________ >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

Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Beau Brendler Jan. 23, 2010

Jan. 23, 2010

Evan... I had to bow out of the most recent RAA meeting because of a work conflict that sprang up at the last moment. However, I did have a brief, focused phone conversation with Heidi and Michele earlier in the day, to discuss the agenda. Nowhere was it brought up during that discussion that the "aspirational document" was now out of scope. Further, the "aspirational document" was in the stated scope of Group A in more than one update I have sent to the GNSO. So, a) No one has the authority to simply "rule it out" and b) as co-chair of the group, I didn't agree to any such thing. I haven't spoken to Michele since the day of the meeting, but I would assume there is some miscommunication here. However, what would be great would be that someone other than you, me, Cheryl or the "usual suspects" actually contribute to this process. It would be nice to hear from someone on LACRALO on this topic. It would be great to hear from someone on AFRALO. Or EURALO, for that matter. The more participants we can get from diverse regions to bring forward their aspirations, the more seriously the ICANN community will have to take the process. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Jan 23, 2010 9:27 AM >To: ICANN At-Large list <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now? > >One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft >some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was >mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it >was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done >properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the >organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. > >So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a "Registrant >Rights Charter<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_20…>" >March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. >However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. > >The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the >charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be considered; >I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, >dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of this >charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and responsibilities) >*as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation >project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its >public. > >When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a declaration >of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right >now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and >considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea what >might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, I >hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe Chat. >(Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at >https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiratio… >). > >There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing list >and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff >has provided a document of this >nature<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201…> >which >Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with >understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last >meeting<https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_…> >chair >Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer >within the scope of the group. > >So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of what >registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of >the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. > >Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. >Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large >with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied at >meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to >serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that >advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one would >think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of >such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their policy >making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. > >What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe >that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in the >first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a statement >of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to >ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than >with registrars and registries, in its development. > >Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is anyone >else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was >envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >_______________________________________________ >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

4 3

Nairobi meeting is reaffirmed
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

The ICANN Board has met and decided that the meeting will go on. See http://blog.icann.org/2010/01/icann-remains-committed-to-nairobi-and-africa/. Further details will no doubt be released over the coming days. Alan

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

Total of 32 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 22 00:53:02 EST 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.75% | 6 | 19.14% | 38591 | karl at cavebear.com 15.62% | 5 | 14.14% | 28512 | johnl at iecc.com 9.38% | 3 | 12.07% | 24336 | jmamodio at gmail.com 9.38% | 3 | 8.66% | 17448 | icann-list at sorehands.com 6.25% | 2 | 7.36% | 14834 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 6.25% | 2 | 7.34% | 14802 | derek at aa419.org 6.25% | 2 | 6.31% | 12712 | sebastien at bachollet.com 6.25% | 2 | 5.64% | 11366 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 3.12% | 1 | 3.30% | 6648 | isolatedn at gmail.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.85% | 5749 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.73% | 5498 | gisella.gruber-white at icann.org 3.12% | 1 | 2.66% | 5369 | wendy at seltzer.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.65% | 5333 | michele at blacknight.ie 3.12% | 1 | 2.58% | 5203 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 3.12% | 1 | 2.57% | 5176 | evan at telly.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 32 |100.00% | 201577 | Total

1 0

Strategic Planning 2010-2013 - draft ALAC comments
by Sébastien Bachollet Jan. 21, 2010

Jan. 21, 2010

All, Please find, on the Wiki, a document that assembled comments from the various RALOs (and Vanda) with the objective to have one single document to be commented and validated by ALAC. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_statement_on_icann_draft_strat egic_plan_2010_2013_al_alac_st_0110_1 Your comments (on the Wiki) are welcome. Off course the comments establish by each RALO can be send to ICANN also. All the best Sébastien Bachollet <mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com> sebastien(a)bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33

2 2

ICANN Fellowshiip Applications for Brussels has opened
by carlos aguirre Jan. 20, 2010

Jan. 20, 2010

Dear Collegues around the world. Fulfilling part of my tasks, I want to inform you about the Fellowship program and open applications for Brussels Meeting (june 20 to 25 - 2010). Applications for the meeting in Brussels will be accepted from now until 1200 PDT (UTC -7) on 19 February 2010. More Information: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11jan10-en.htm . Carlos Dionisio AguirreALAC member by LACRALOChair Participation and Engagement in ICANN WG _________________________________________________________________ ¿Querés chatear en todos lados con tu celu? ¡Registrate a SMS Messenger! http://www.somosmessengersiempre.com/?ocid=TWLH

1 0

US court says WHOIS Privacy Considered “Material Falsification”
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 19, 2010

Jan. 19, 2010

Finally, a little common sense and a nice precedent. A US court has determined that the act of spamming, combined with using a whois privacy serve, contravenes the country's "CAN SPAM" laws. It ruled that the use of a whois privacy service constitutes a deliberate attempt to mislead internet users. http://www.domainnamenews.com/legal-issues/whois-privacy-material-falsifica… -- Evan Leibovitch evan(a)telly.org

9 22

FW: Letter from the Chair of the Participation and Engagement WG
by carlos aguirre Jan. 15, 2010

Jan. 15, 2010

Dear Mohamed. Excellent like always your participation !!!! thank's Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:21:42 +0300 From: mbashir(a)mbash.net To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com CC: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Letter from the Chair of the Participation and Engagement WG Hi Carlos, Participation & Engagement in ICANN WG Please find bellow my ideas/comments : 1 – Direct communication with each one of ALS leaders, and each end user registered in a data base. ( will be goo ) . 2 – Use of Social Networks, like twitter, facebook, my space and others ( very Important and will enable big out-reach ). 3 – Document Translations in every languaje ( at least in main six : Spanish, French, Chinese, German, Russian & Portuguese) ( Arabic Language need to be included, its a UN official Language and ICANN translate its main Languages to Arabic ) 4 - End User Friendly Document (in different languajes) about tasks and functions and finalities of each one Suporting Organization and Advisory Committees, and any other part of ICANN structure. 5 – Make periodical teleconference with the people who want participate in a WG 6 - Engage, out-reach to different Regional events, ICANN staff can do that reach-out . 8 - Mentoring/Training/Engagement of Universities to encourage its students to conduct projects/researches on ICANN Policy Development area .. Regards, Mohamed On 1/7/10 5:26 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff wrote: Dear All, The following email is transmitted to you on behalf of Carlos Aguirre, Chair of the working group on At-Large Engagement in ICANN. **************** Participation & Engagement in ICANN Working Group. First Letter for the At Large Community Following work started in Mexico Summit by the WG #1, and with the intention to improve this work trying to achieve the objectives fixed in that opportunity, and after to be nominated by ALAC as Chair of this WG, I want to make extensive to every end users around the world the invitation to participate and colaborate in this huge effort. That participation have to do with the engagement in the ICANN task, and with the understanding that the End Users must be involves into the ICANN desitions in order to do a better world for everyone. We need specially ideas of all of you, to give or add our knowledges to who is in charge into the Organization. We are convinced, the participation for End Users is in most of the cases very difficult, and for multiples factors: like different languajes, lack of knowledge, lack of time, priorization of other matters, etc, etc. We are sure, this is not an easy job, but we will try to reduce the gap, with the multiple participation of all of you, and giving a chanel for where this communication could be fluid. That is the intention of this WG. We want, at this moment, add and share with you some new ideas, to the final WG#1 statement (given at the Mexico Summit), to be analized by you, and asking your comments and points of view about this, in principle. After that,Then, the idea is give to you some documents to hear your feedback and opinions and make in this form a shared work in order to improve and make a better and massive participation, generating an brain storming wich could surely help to achive the goals. There are not silly comments nor useless participation, any one of you can do a productive contribution. For that, Could you help us to improve the communication, participation and in definitive our commitment into ICANN ?. We are sure that the response is YES !! We want to receive of any way your participation, trough documents, mails, tweets, messages in any way, in English, Spanish, French or any other languaje. The idea is to have your participation, doesn`t matter how or how much, the important is to do. And we are waiting those comments and points of view. We are waiting your comments, don`t hesitate and GO ahead!! thank`s and best regards, and of course happy new year for all of you. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre ALAC elected member , by LACRALO & chair of Participation and engagement WG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some new ideas in a brain storming method to add the final Mexico Summit statement – Add your idea !!!! will be welcomed !!!.!. 1 – Direct communication with each one of ALS leaders, and each end user registered in a data base. 2 – Use of Social Networks, like twitter, facebook, my space and others. 3 – Document Translations in every languaje ( at least in main six : Spanish, French, Chinese, German, Russian & Portuguese) 4 - End User Friendly Document (in different languajes) about tasks and functions and finalities of each one Suporting Organization and Advisory Committees, and any other part of ICANN structure. 5 – Make periodical teleconference with the people who want participate in a WG 6 - YOUR IDEA... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can download the PDF file of the ALAC statement on At-Large Participation in ICANN, which was drafted by the working group on At-Large Engagement in ICANN during the Mexico Summit under: http://tinyurl.com/yfo7phy _______________________________________________ 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 Con Hotmail, decidí cuáles mails van a correo no deseado: filtros anti-spam, para un inbox más seguro. Ver más. _________________________________________________________________ Todo lo que necesitás para cuidar tu salud está MSN http://salud.latam.msn.com/

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 15, 2010

Jan. 15, 2010

Total of 14 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 15 00:53:03 EST 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 21.43% | 3 | 92.38% | 1060689 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 21.43% | 3 | 2.39% | 27449 | cdel at firsthand.net 14.29% | 2 | 1.66% | 19108 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 14.29% | 2 | 1.39% | 16010 | evan at telly.org 7.14% | 1 | 0.69% | 7920 | elisabeth.porteneuve at cetp.ipsl.fr 7.14% | 1 | 0.50% | 5795 | ocl at gih.com 7.14% | 1 | 0.50% | 5726 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.14% | 1 | 0.48% | 5531 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 14 |100.00% | 1148228 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Director White Paper - Request for Comments
by Elisabeth Porteneuve Jan. 14, 2010

Jan. 14, 2010

Apparently my email did not reach at-large list - maybe my email subscription ? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <elisabeth.porteneuve(a)latmos.ipsl.fr> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "Marco Lorenzoni" <marco.lorenzoni(a)icann.org>; <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Thursday, January 14, 2010 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] Director White Paper - Request for Comments > Greetings, > > I found this New Year wishes from Rod Beckstrom very scaring: > "May the Internet remain unfettered throughout this new decade 3:10 AM Jan > 2nd " > > It seems to me it fits well into your discussion. > No doubts to me, ICANN's structure is getting more and more into > defense-wall. Why, and what is the end-users place in that? > > Kind regards, > Elisabeth > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Christian de Larrinaga" <cdel(a)firsthand.net> > To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: "Marco Lorenzoni" <marco.lorenzoni(a)icann.org>; > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 11:47 PM > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Director White Paper - Request for Comments > > >> Evan >> >> >> >> >> On 13 Jan 2010, at 20:20, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> >>> >>> With the expiration of the JPA and its replacement by the "Affirmation >>> of >>> Commitments", power evolves from one government to many. But this is >>> still a >>> far far distance from the notion that ICANN gets its mandate from the >>> Internet end-user. >>> >> >> Neither the JPA nor Affirmation of Commitments amended the fundamental >> rationale for ICANN to work from the bottom up for a very limited scope >> of resources including DNS root entries, IP address delegations, AS >> Number delegations, and Port address registry. The point of reference >> remains the Internet user. >> >> Governments all have jurisdiction locally over their territory including >> over any network infrastructure or services and use of trademarks. These >> powers are general and pervasive and subject to both multi and bi lateral >> treaty arrangements. This is not changed with the move from the JPA. >> >> ICANN has nothing like this scope. >> >> >>> I say this not with approval, but as what I believe is a realistic >>> evaluation of what I have encountered. We can't properly plan strategy >>> unless we have a clear picture of what we're dealing with. >> >> Hmm. So what happens when that application service comes through from the >> user edge that provides useful support for trademarks across the world in >> a way that the DNS cannot? >> >> That won't happen at ICANN. No assumption should be made that ICANN is >> the place to control the routing of names more generally on networks. >> >> >> Christian >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

Director White Paper - Request for Comments
by At Large Staff Jan. 13, 2010

Jan. 13, 2010

* La version française est ci-dessous *La versión española está abajo Dear All, At its 22 December 2009 teleconference, the ALAC charged a small group with the task of creating an initial white paper on the proposed process for the selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member to be distributed for wide-spread comment early in January 2010. Please find attached a copy of the Director White Paper in EN and FR for review. The Spanish document will be available in the next few days. The Director White Paper is also available for comment on wiki pages. The portal page is available at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. All members of the At-Large community are encouraged to comment on the Director White Paper prior to the next Community Call on the At-Large Selection Process to be scheduled between 27-29 January 2010 (a Doodle will be sent shortly). Comments will be accepted in any of the six UN languages. Please make your comments directly on the wiki page using the "comment" button. It is additionally requested that At-Large community members forward this message to other relevant lists to distribute the call for comments on the Director White Paper as widely as possible. Regards, ** Cher tous, À sa téléconférence du 22 décembre 2009, l'ALAC a chargé un petit groupe de la tâche de créer un premier livre blanc sur le procédé proposé pour le choix d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN à distribuer pour le commentaire répandu tôt en janvier 2010. Veuillez trouver ci-joint une copie du directeur livre blanc en en et franc pour la revue. Le document espagnol sera disponible en prochains jours. Le directeur livre blanc est également disponible pour le commentaire aux pages de wiki. Le page portique de `est disponible à : https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Tous les membres de la communauté At-Large sont encouragés à présenter leurs observations sur le directeur livre blanc avant le prochain faire appel de la Communauté au processus de sélection At-Large à programmer entre les 27-29 janvier 2010 (un Doodle sera envoyé sous peu). Des commentaires seront acceptés dans des six langues l'unes des de l'ONU. Veuillez formuler vos commentaires directement sur la page de wiki utilisant le " ; comment" ; bouton. On lui demande en plus que membre de la Communauté At-Large font suivre à ce message d'autres listes appropriées pour distribuer l'appel pour des commentaires sur le directeur livre blanc aussi largement comme possible. Cordialment, ** Estimado todos, En su teleconferencia del 22 de diciembre de 2009, el ALAC encargó a un pequeño grupo de la tarea de crear un Libro Blanco inicial en el proceso propuesto para la selección de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN que se distribuirá para el comentario extenso temprano en enero de 2010. Encuentre por favor ató una copia del director Libro Blanco en el EN y el franco para la revisión. El documento español estará disponible en los próximos días. El director Libro Blanco está también disponible para el comentario en las páginas del wiki. El page porta del `está disponible en: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Animan a todos los miembros de la comunidad At-Large a comentar respecto al director Libro Blanco antes de la llamada siguiente de la comunidad en el proceso de selección At-Large que se programará entre el 27-29 de enero de 2010 (un Doodle será enviado pronto). Los comentarios serán aceptados en seis idiomas unas de los de la O.N.U. Haga por favor sus comentarios directamente en la página del wiki usando el " comment" botón. Se pide además que los miembros de la Comunidad At-Large transmiten a este mensaje otras listas relevantes para distribuir la llamada para los comentarios sobre el director Libro Blanco tan extensamente como sea posible. Respetos, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

6 8

Director White Paper: versión español
by At Large Staff Jan. 13, 2010

Jan. 13, 2010

*The English version is available below *La version française est ci-dessous Estimados: Aquí pueden encontrar la versión en español del Libro Blanco en adjunto (los apéndices y glosario se agregarán pronto). Como recordatorio, el Libro Blanco (en inglés, francés y español) está disponible ahora para comentario sobre en este sitio web: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Respetos, ** Dear All, Please find the Spanish version of the Director White Paper attached (appendices and glossary to be added soon). As a reminder, the Director White Paper (in EN, FR and ES) is now available for comment on the portal page available at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Regards, ** Cher tous, Veuillez trouver la version espagnole du directeur livre blanc attachée (les annexes et le glossaire à ajouter bientôt). Comme rappel, le directeur livre blanc (en anglais, français et espagnol) est maintenant disponible pour le commentaire sur le page portique de `disponible à : https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper. Cordialment, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] =?iso-8859-1?q?Nuestros_p=E9sames_a_Sergio_Salin = =?iso-8859-1?q?as_Porto =
by carlos aguirre Jan. 8, 2010

Jan. 8, 2010

Dear Silvia.: Thank`s for the information. Privately I sent to Sergio a mail trying to share with him in this moment. Carlos Dionisio Aguirreabogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.derechoytecnologia.com.ar http://ar.ageiadensi.org > Date: Fri, 8 Jan 2010 10:34:16 +0000 > From: sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org > To: lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > CC: > Subject: [lac-discuss-en] =?iso-8859-1?q?Nuestros_p=E9sames_a_Sergio_Salin = =?iso-8859-1?q?as_Porto = > > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > > Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?Nuestros_p=E9sames_a_Sergio_Salin = =?iso-8859-1?q?as_Porto = > From: sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org > > Dear Compañeros of LACRALO; > I write to them to communicate to them that today, 8-01-2010 to the morning, has passed away > the father of our companion and queridísimo friend Sergio. > We are without words by this sudden loss! > What Saline Mr. Carlos rests peacefully! > > sylvia > _________________________________________________________ > Sylvia Herlein Leite > LACRALO-ALAC Liaison > Latin America & Regional Caribbean AT-Large Organization > sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > [[--Original text (es) > http://mm.icann.org/transbot_archive/8f93ca1f21.html > --]] > > > _________________________________________________________________ ¿Querés chatear en todos lados con tu celu? ¡Registrate a SMS Messenger! http://www.somosmessengersiempre.com/?ocid=TWLH

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 8, 2010

Jan. 8, 2010

Total of 12 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 8 00:53:03 EST 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 25.00% | 3 | 25.01% | 23649 | baptista at publicroot.org 16.67% | 2 | 23.22% | 21955 | langdonorr at gmail.com 16.67% | 2 | 12.14% | 11474 | jmamodio at gmail.com 8.33% | 1 | 11.20% | 10585 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 8.33% | 1 | 8.48% | 8019 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 8.33% | 1 | 7.42% | 7017 | patrick at isoc.lu 8.33% | 1 | 6.66% | 6299 | narten at us.ibm.com 8.33% | 1 | 5.87% | 5551 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 12 |100.00% | 94549 | Total

1 0

Letter from the Chair of the Participation and Engagement WG
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 8, 2010

Jan. 8, 2010

Dear All, The following email is transmitted to you on behalf of Carlos Aguirre, Chair of the working group on At-Large Engagement in ICANN. **************** Participation & Engagement in ICANN Working Group. First Letter for the At Large Community Following work started in Mexico Summit by the WG #1, and with the intention to improve this work trying to achieve the objectives fixed in that opportunity, and after to be nominated by ALAC as Chair of this WG, I want to make extensive to every end users around the world the invitation to participate and colaborate in this huge effort. That participation have to do with the engagement in the ICANN task, and with the understanding that the End Users must be involves into the ICANN desitions in order to do a better world for everyone. We need specially ideas of all of you, to give or add our knowledges to who is in charge into the Organization. We are convinced, the participation for End Users is in most of the cases very difficult, and for multiples factors: like different languajes, lack of knowledge, lack of time, priorization of other matters, etc, etc. We are sure, this is not an easy job, but we will try to reduce the gap, with the multiple participation of all of you, and giving a chanel for where this communication could be fluid. That is the intention of this WG. We want, at this moment, add and share with you some new ideas, to the final WG#1 statement (given at the Mexico Summit), to be analized by you, and asking your comments and points of view about this, in principle. After that,Then, the idea is give to you some documents to hear your feedback and opinions and make in this form a shared work in order to improve and make a better and massive participation, generating an brain storming wich could surely help to achive the goals. There are not silly comments nor useless participation, any one of you can do a productive contribution. For that, Could you help us to improve the communication, participation and in definitive our commitment into ICANN ?. We are sure that the response is YES !! We want to receive of any way your participation, trough documents, mails, tweets, messages in any way, in English, Spanish, French or any other languaje. The idea is to have your participation, doesn`t matter how or how much, the important is to do. And we are waiting those comments and points of view. We are waiting your comments, don`t hesitate and GO ahead!! thank`s and best regards, and of course happy new year for all of you. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre ALAC elected member , by LACRALO & chair of Participation and engagement WG. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some new ideas in a brain storming method to add the final Mexico Summit statement – Add your idea !!!! will be welcomed !!!.!. 1 – Direct communication with each one of ALS leaders, and each end user registered in a data base. 2 – Use of Social Networks, like twitter, facebook, my space and others. 3 – Document Translations in every languaje ( at least in main six : Spanish, French, Chinese, German, Russian & Portuguese) 4 - End User Friendly Document (in different languajes) about tasks and functions and finalities of each one Suporting Organization and Advisory Committees, and any other part of ICANN structure. 5 – Make periodical teleconference with the people who want participate in a WG 6 - YOUR IDEA... -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can download the PDF file of the ALAC statement on At-Large Participation in ICANN, which was drafted by the working group on At-Large Engagement in ICANN during the Mexico Summit under: http://tinyurl.com/yfo7phy

4 4

an interesting article that shows people know very little about the Internet. especially the history
by Joe Baptista Jan. 3, 2010

Jan. 3, 2010

The article is titled "PC Worlds Top 10 Security Nightmares of the Decade" can be found at the following URL: http://bit.ly/7nxeD4 It's worth a read.There is nothing spectacular about this article. But it is an excellent example of how little experts know on the subjects they are experts on. The author restates common truths. Robert Siciliano tells us the "last decade has seen technological breakthroughs unlike any other". This is true. But Siciliano also reminds us our technological success has result in a tremendous rise in fraud. I completely agree with him. The reason he argues in his article is that the "speed of the conveniences technology" provides has "far outpaced the security" measure in place today. Again very bang on. But this claim could be subject to some interpretation that at one time our security outpaced or was even better then the available technology. The historical truth is that security has alway lagged behind technology. And much of that is due to a lack of education amongst the masses. But the simple truth of it is that much of the insecurity in the Internet is due to a lot of twits who run the Internet and have an interest in maintaining and controlling the status quo. Mr. Siciliano provides an excellent example of this in his article when he discusses the DNS vulnerability alleged to have been discovered by IOActive researcher Dan Kaminisky. Kaminisky is credited with the identification in 2008 of a DNS vulnerability to various forms of attack including cache poisoning. This is a false allegation that the press has repeated without any investigation of the facts. Kaminisky never discovered anything he simply repackaged an existing well known problem as his own. Also the DNS protocol is not vulnerable in itself nor is it a security risk. The security problem is not in the DNS protocol but in the transport protocol used for DNS transactions. In this case it is the UDP protocol that is vulnerable to attack. This problem has existed for at least 15 years. I remember it existed in the 1990's when I was commissioned to investigate vulnerabilities in military DNS servers. So the Kaminisky claim he discovered anything significant is simply untrue. The Kaminisky affair was more a co-ordinated effort to scare business into adopting a protocol that reverse engineers the Internet in a effort to centralize control of the DNS protocol in the root servers operated by the U.S. government through ICANN its contractor. That protocol DNSSEC has been actively marketed as the solution to the Kaminisky cache poisoning problem. DNSSEC addresses the problem by inserting encryption keys into the DNS that establish a chain of trust from domain names to the root servers operated by the U.S. government. This places a significant amount of control in the hands of one government authority. It also will cost business a fortune to adopt. And Internet DNS traffic is also expected to increase exponentially as every DNS answer must contain encryption key information. Furthermore DNSSEC does not actually fix the problem. The issue as mentioned above is a problem with the UDP protocol and verifying that the DNS information your system requested actually coming from the machine you requested it from. The centralization of DNS encryption keys in the root is a very expensive process that is simply not needed. To fix the UDP problem one only has to ensure that the answers come from the server we are communicating with. Since UDP unlike the TCP protocol has no handshaking capabilities one simply fixes the problem by incorporating a handshaking protocol within UDP and DNS that confirms the server we are getting answer from is the server we originally communicated with. A solution to this problem is available and was developed a few years ago by Dr. Bernstein at the University of Illinois at Chicago. It's called DNSCurve and fixes the problem through a simple key exchange between DNS servers without having to hand over control of the DNS to a central authority. regards joe baptista

4 7

The economics of DNScurve vs DNSSEC and the rational mind
by Joe Baptista Jan. 3, 2010

Jan. 3, 2010

OK let's examine the basic economic of DNSSEC vs DNSCurve. We use a number of assumptions to arrive at the economic costs. 1) Both protocols solve the Bernstein/Kaminsky issue with respect to the UDP vulnerability. At least I have faith DNSSEC will eventually work but I'm sure DNScurve is a gurantee. 2) DNSSEC goes further by putting control of the DNS in the root effectively centralizing control in the hands of the people who run the root. 3) Both protocols require DNS server developers to implement them into their software. Most servers in the wild are now DNSSEC aware. 4) DNSSEC requires that hundreds if not thousands of millions of domain owners sign their domains and hand over control to the master DNS key holder Uncle Sam and associated cronies. 5) DNSSEC has already generated hundreds of millions of dollars in economic benefits. Just you wait till you see the U.S. tax bill for implementing DNSSEC for .gov. I'm sure that will be an eye opener. 6) DNScurve will not have much of an economic impact. Users and domain owners won't even notice its there. So to sum up .... 1) They both solve the problem. 2) DNScurve will cost joe public zero $$$ to implement saving them lots of money. But on the downside there are going to be a lot of unemployed DNSSEC consultants. 3) DNSSEC will cost joe public and the business community billions to implement - ICANN will be given a monopoly over the DNS - and an entire new industry is born. In todays economic times I think DNScurve wins the day. Anyone disagree? regards joe baptista

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 1, 2010

Jan. 1, 2010

Total of 29 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 1 00:53:02 EST 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 13.79% | 4 | 14.58% | 29321 | james at seng.sg 13.79% | 4 | 14.22% | 28602 | joly at punkcast.com 6.90% | 2 | 8.55% | 17190 | cdel at firsthand.net 6.90% | 2 | 7.99% | 16062 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 6.90% | 2 | 7.07% | 14222 | baptista at publicroot.org 6.90% | 2 | 6.59% | 13257 | evan at telly.org 6.90% | 2 | 5.85% | 11753 | johnl at iecc.com 6.90% | 2 | 5.73% | 11516 | karl at cavebear.com 3.45% | 1 | 4.23% | 8503 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 3.45% | 1 | 3.95% | 7944 | danielmonastersky at gmail.com 3.45% | 1 | 3.61% | 7249 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 3.45% | 1 | 3.29% | 6621 | derek at aa419.org 3.45% | 1 | 3.25% | 6532 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.45% | 1 | 3.06% | 6151 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.45% | 1 | 2.92% | 5881 | vb at bertola.eu 3.45% | 1 | 2.62% | 5278 | franck.martin at gmail.com 3.45% | 1 | 2.48% | 4995 | jmamodio at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 29 |100.00% | 201077 | Total

1 0