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

Re: [At-Large] Wikileaks.org
by Eric Brunner-Williams Dec. 21, 2010

Dec. 21, 2010

Colleagues, The registrar dynadot, IANA #472, on December 17th, associated the address 64.64.12.170 with the A record for wikileaks.org At some point prior to December 17th, the A record had a different value. Who authorized or performed the update of 17-Dec-2010 01:57:59 UTC is a reasonable question to ask, by ICANN Compliance, of the registrar of record, IANA #472. This morning (EST) a GET / HTTP/1.1 sent to 64.64.12.170 returns a 302 (redirect) to http://mirror.wikileaks.info/. This afternoon (EST) the same query returns a 400 (bad request). IANA #472 should be able to document each change to the A record, and NS records, and demonstrate that only the registrant caused the series of changes to the RRset in December, or, an act for which no liability is incurred by the registrar, due to any one of a number of specific, enumerated circumstances. What a reasonable inquiry should not find is a denial of service to a registrant by an accredited registrar under any but that very specific, enumerated set of circumstances. It is not infrequent for an address block to be recovered and reallocated by an RIR, without third-party coordination. Therefore the association by Spamhaus to the address at which wikileaks.info was associated could have been an artifact of prior, not present, practice that resulted in Spamhaus' characterization of the address as problematic. However, it is more likely that the characterization is "current", not an artifact of recovery & reallocation by the RIR and lack of notice to third-parties such as Spamhaus or a lack of prompt reaction by Spamhaus upon timely notice by the RIR. If, in addition, the effect of redirection, initiated by parties as yet unknown, was to cause browsers to connect to an address, for which other resources are associated, other questions reasonably arise. While synchronous behavior by statistically significant numbers of informed and consenting adults manifests similar to synchronous behavior by distributed systems, including those constructed from assets acquired through latent defects in operating system products or applications, aka "botnets", just as rapid changes to NS records (aka "fast flux hosting") may be implemented to avoid suppression of content by political censors or to avoid suppression by anti-fraud law enforcement, the wisdom of reducing the ability of Spamhaus to conduct its daily operations as an email quality enabler is open to criticism. I look forward to comments from PIR, and from IANA #472, and ICANN Compliance on the issues around wikileaks.org in mid-December. Eric

3 2

Wikileaks.org
by Franck Martin Dec. 21, 2010

Dec. 21, 2010

Anyone has looked at what is happening with the domain wikileaks.org? See Spamhaus.org warning message. Could be the base of some policies between registry registrar and registrant once it is understood what is really happening. Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question

8 11

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Dec. 17, 2010

Dec. 17, 2010

Total of 32 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 17 00:53:02 EST 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 15.62% | 5 | 20.48% | 46885 | isolatedn at gmail.com 12.50% | 4 | 11.46% | 26225 | ocl at gih.com 12.50% | 4 | 10.97% | 25124 | evan at telly.org 9.38% | 3 | 11.10% | 25417 | yrjo_lansipuro at hotmail.com 9.38% | 3 | 8.54% | 19539 | joly at punkcast.com 6.25% | 2 | 5.80% | 13289 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 6.25% | 2 | 5.37% | 12304 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 6.25% | 2 | 5.27% | 12055 | vanda at uol.com.br 3.12% | 1 | 3.97% | 9099 | andrespiazza at gmail.com 3.12% | 1 | 3.74% | 8554 | avc at namesatwork.com 3.12% | 1 | 3.03% | 6946 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.92% | 6689 | iza at anr.org 3.12% | 1 | 2.79% | 6385 | devtee at gmail.com 3.12% | 1 | 2.57% | 5879 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.12% | 1 | 1.98% | 4535 | jmamodio at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 32 |100.00% | 228925 | Total

1 0

Affecting ICANN policy on new gTLDs
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 16, 2010

Dec. 16, 2010

Hello everyone. ICANN has not yet started accepting applications for new gTLDs. To its credit, at its meeting in Cartagena the ICANN Board has been convinced of the seriousness of certain remaining issues enough to delay the launch of the new round despite severe pressure from potential applicants and ICANN's own contracted parties. However, the onus is now back upon us and others who took issue with the proposed creation procedures. We have made it clear what we did not like, in issues such as the Independent Objector (IO), the Dispute Resolution Service Provider (DRSP), and the regressive changes to in trademark-related takedown notices. Now we need to propose what we *do* want, simply and directly. This means, specifically, that we need to create specific wording changes to the new TLD Applicant Guidebook. The goal is to offer to the Board a ready-made set of changes that have: - Community approval as broad as possible - Wording that modifies the existing DAG as little as possible while still accomplishing our goals - Full consistency with existing GNSO policy and existing CWG consensus (on both Rec6 and applicant support) If we are able to do this, we will have presented both a vision for our approach to new gTLDs and a fully-charted method of execution. Doing so will enable us to take initiative, providing a constructive way forward for the Board to speed TLD introduction. This is a significant task. Without enough people to share the load this can't happen ... and if it doesn't, we will have nobody to blame but ourselves for missing this opportunity to get our policy goals across. If you are interested in helping with the background research or the 'wordsmithing' of changes to the Applicant Guidebook, please let me know as soon as possible. -- Evan Leibovitch Chair, At-Large gTLD Working Group

5 4

HAPPY NEW YEAR!!!
by Vanda UOL Dec. 15, 2010

Dec. 15, 2010

Together we will be stronger next year! Happy 2011 full of joy, health, success and fun! Descrição: http://www.brickmann.com.br/releases/img/renas_dancando.gif Vanda Scartezini & Jorge Etges Polo Consultores Associados IT Trend Alameda Santos 1470 1407,8 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil Tel + 5511 3266.6253 Mob + 55118181.1464

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [Chapter-delegates] The Future of the Internet Governance Forum
by Sivasubramanian M Dec. 15, 2010

Dec. 15, 2010

Reposting what I posted in the Governance list here: Is there a possibility that a few powerful Governments instructed their CSTD representatives to cause this sudden shift in thinking across the CSTD and move away from mutli-stakeholder Governance model to an unilateral Governance model whereby Governments take the seats leaving Civil Society out there on the street to hold placards that are ignored? Such instructions could be part of the abrupt reactions on the wake of the Wiki-Leaks issue. Perhaps the Governments want to take total and complete charge of the Internet, to be in a position to wield totalitarian control over what is and what is not on the Internet. Sivasubramanian M On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn(a)gmail.com>wrote: > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> I have signed with this comment (not verbatim) >> >> Internet evolved largely by community participation and it works because >> of its participative and user centric model. A multi-stakeholder approach >> suits Internet Governance for this reason. The idea of reversing this >> approach to an unilateral approach amounts to reversing progress. >> > > and posted Jon McNerney's message with the joint statement in the blog > http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/ > > >> >> >> Sivasubramanian M >> >> http://www.isocmadras.com >> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid(a)sfbayisoc.org> wrote: >> >>> Signed and supported on behalf of San Francisco Bay area chapter. >>> >>> Zaid >>> >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 3:22 AM, Jon McNerney <mcnerney(a)isoc.org> wrote: >>> >>> > >>> > Dear Colleagues, >>> > >>> > In an extraordinary meeting on 6 December the United Nation's >>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) decided to >>> create a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum >>> (IGF) (http://www.intgovforum.org/) with a membership made up only of >>> governments. >>> > >>> > We believe this decision sets back the model of multistakeholder >>> cooperation under which the IGF was established, and contradicts the >>> instructions given to the CSTD for the establishment of the Working Group >>> > >>> > The Internet Society has joined the International Chamber of Commerce - >>> Business Action to Support the Information Society, the Internet Governance >>> Caucus, and many other Internet, business, and civil society organizations >>> in sending a letter to the CSTD, asking them to retract their previous >>> decision and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group that >>> ensures the full and active participation of governments, the private sector >>> and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving >>> relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums. >>> > >>> > Like the Internet, a multistakeholder approach has been at the core of >>> the Internet Governance Forum's formation and success. We hope that Internet >>> Society Chapters and Members, as well as other organizations, will join us >>> in signing the letter. >>> > >>> > You may read the full letter, and see the growing list of signatories, >>> and indicated your own support here: >>> > >>> > http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2710 >>> > >>> > >>> > Sincerely, >>> > >>> > Jon McNerney >>> > Chief Operating Officer >>> > Internet Society >>> > www.isoc.org >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Chapter-delegates mailing list >>> > Chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org >>> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Chapter-delegates mailing list >>> Chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org >>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates >>> >> >> >

8 10

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] ready?
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 15, 2010

Dec. 15, 2010

On 14 December 2010 22:15, <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sorry, I did not understand your cryptic message: ready for what? Who is > ready? > Based on the time of year, my guess is that she is referring to Papai Noel. I'm not sure what his connection is to ICANN, though. - Evan

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC] EURALO / At-Large support for an open IGF
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Dec. 14, 2010

Dec. 14, 2010

Dear all, as a follow-up to my earlier email, you might wish to join Wolf's call that he made below on the ALAC list, where he has specifically created a EURALO petition list. This could be signed by ALSes around the world, not only European ones. Warm regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [ALAC] EURALO / At-Large support for an open IGF Date : Mon, 13 Dec 2010 02:39:07 +0100 De : Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net> Pour : ICANN ALAC list <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear all, I hope that all of you had a safe and (more or less) pleasant trip back home. And I want to reaffirm that I spent an exciting week and ICANN meeting with you. Some of us have been at the IGF briefing last Thursday in Cartagena when we heard about the latest news from the devastating decision of the last extraordinary meeting of the United Nation's Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) on 6 December to create a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) with a membership made up *only of governments*. ISOC, the Internet Governance caucus and others have launched a petition in sending a letter to the CSTD, asking them to retract their previous decision and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group that ensures the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums. May be some of you have signed the ISOC petition already. If not, I dared to create a corresponding petition on behalf of EURALO and At Large to be spread in our RALO communities and related networks to collect as much support as possible. As I was told, there will be another CSTD meeting next week in Geneva, and I would like to go there and to manifest our objections on behalf of our At Large community. You can sign out petition here: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/euralo-openigf/ Thanks for your support and kind regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig www.comunica-ch.net Digitale Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

4 3

Re: [At-Large] [Chapter-delegates] The Future of the Internet Governance Forum
by Sivasubramanian M Dec. 11, 2010

Dec. 11, 2010

Dear Fred Baker, On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 1:09 AM, Fred Baker <fred(a)cisco.com> wrote: > There have certainly been governments that have advocated for governmental > control of the network, and there was certainly someone that was in favor of > this particular turn of events (else it would not have happened). I think we > know who the governments with a history of that are. I would at this point > suggest avoiding jumping to conclusions and not throwing aspersions that we > don't know to be correct. > Dear Fred Baker, My question was indeed a leading question :) And there was also a 'perhaps' comment. But I haven't named any Government, so in a sense I have already avoided throwing aspersions. Shiva > On Dec 10, 2010, at 11:07 AM, Sivasubramanian M wrote: > > Reposting what I posted in the Governance list here: > > Is there a possibility that a few powerful Governments instructed their > CSTD representatives to cause this sudden shift in thinking across the CSTD > and move away from mutli-stakeholder Governance model to an unilateral > Governance model whereby Governments take the seats leaving Civil Society > out there on the street to hold placards that are ignored? Such instructions > could be part of the abrupt reactions on the wake of the Wiki-Leaks issue. > > Perhaps the Governments want to take total and complete charge of the > Internet, to be in a position to wield totalitarian control over what is and > what is not on the Internet. > > Sivasubramanian M > > > On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:23 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn(a)gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 12:22 AM, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn(a)gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> I have signed with this comment (not verbatim) >>> >>> Internet evolved largely by community participation and it works because >>> of its participative and user centric model. A multi-stakeholder approach >>> suits Internet Governance for this reason. The idea of reversing this >>> approach to an unilateral approach amounts to reversing progress. >>> >> >> and posted Jon McNerney's message with the joint statement in the blog >> http://isocmadras.blogspot.com/ >> >> >>> >>> >>> Sivasubramanian M >>> >>> http://www.isocmadras.com >>> facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh >>> LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 >>> Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 11:59 PM, Zaid Ali <zaid(a)sfbayisoc.org> wrote: >>> >>>> Signed and supported on behalf of San Francisco Bay area chapter. >>>> >>>> Zaid >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Dec 10, 2010, at 3:22 AM, Jon McNerney <mcnerney(a)isoc.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> > >>>> > Dear Colleagues, >>>> > >>>> > In an extraordinary meeting on 6 December the United Nation's >>>> Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) decided to >>>> create a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum >>>> (IGF) (http://www.intgovforum.org/) with a membership made up only of >>>> governments. >>>> > >>>> > We believe this decision sets back the model of multistakeholder >>>> cooperation under which the IGF was established, and contradicts the >>>> instructions given to the CSTD for the establishment of the Working Group >>>> > >>>> > The Internet Society has joined the International Chamber of Commerce >>>> - Business Action to Support the Information Society, the Internet >>>> Governance Caucus, and many other Internet, business, and civil society >>>> organizations in sending a letter to the CSTD, asking them to retract their >>>> previous decision and to establish an appropriately constituted Working >>>> Group that ensures the full and active participation of governments, the >>>> private sector and civil society from both developing and developed >>>> countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international >>>> organizations and forums. >>>> > >>>> > Like the Internet, a multistakeholder approach has been at the core of >>>> the Internet Governance Forum's formation and success. We hope that Internet >>>> Society Chapters and Members, as well as other organizations, will join us >>>> in signing the letter. >>>> > >>>> > You may read the full letter, and see the growing list of signatories, >>>> and indicated your own support here: >>>> > >>>> > http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2710 >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > Sincerely, >>>> > >>>> > Jon McNerney >>>> > Chief Operating Officer >>>> > Internet Society >>>> > www.isoc.org >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Chapter-delegates mailing list >>>> > Chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org >>>> > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Chapter-delegates mailing list >>>> Chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org >>>> https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates >>>> >>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ > Chapter-delegates mailing list > Chapter-delegates(a)elists.isoc.org > https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/chapter-delegates > > >

1 0

Fwd: [ISOC] The Future of the Internet Governance Forum
by Joly MacFie Dec. 10, 2010

Dec. 10, 2010

FYI - this went out to Internet Society Chapters today. Something At-Large should be concerned about too, perhaps? j ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jon McNerney <mcnerney(a)isoc.org> Date: Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 6:22 AM Dear Colleagues, In an extraordinary meeting on 6 December the United Nation's Commission on Science and Technology for Development (CSTD) decided to create a Working Group on Improvements to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) ( http://www.intgovforum.org/) with a membership made up only of governments. We believe this decision sets back the model of multistakeholder cooperation under which the IGF was established, and contradicts the instructions given to the CSTD for the establishment of the Working Group The Internet Society has joined the International Chamber of Commerce - Business Action to Support the Information Society, the Internet Governance Caucus, and many other Internet, business, and civil society organizations in sending a letter to the CSTD, asking them to retract their previous decision and to establish an appropriately constituted Working Group that ensures the full and active participation of governments, the private sector and civil society from both developing and developed countries, involving relevant intergovernmental and international organizations and forums. Like the Internet, a multistakeholder approach has been at the core of the Internet Governance Forum's formation and success. We hope that Internet Society Chapters and Members, as well as other organizations, will join us in signing the letter. You may read the full letter, and see the growing list of signatories, and indicated your own support here: http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=2710 Sincerely, Jon McNerney Chief Operating Officer Internet Society www.isoc.org -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

6 5