November 2011 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 1, 2011

Dec. 1, 2011

One of the recommendations of the IRTP-B Policy Development Process (PDP) was for the GNSO to investigate requiring all gTLD Registries to use a "Thick" Whois. With thick Whois, all of the Whois information related to a registration is maintained by the Registry. With "Thin" Whois, the only information maintained by the Registry is the current status of the registration and identification of who the sponsoring Register is; the rest of the information and specifically that related to the Registrant is kept by the Registrar, making Whois a widely distributed database. Currently most Registries use thick Whois, and thick Whois is required for all gTLDs to be created under the new gTLD program. The only Registries that use thin Whois are operated by Verisign, but these of course include .com and .net which constitute the majority of gTLD registrations. In response to the IRTP-B recommendation, the GNSO requested and Issue Report and a preliminary version is now available and has been posted for public comment. Comments on this document will be received until 30 December, 2011. See http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/thick-whois-preliminary-report-21nov…. The report confirms that the issue is within the scope of ICANN and the GNSO and recommends that the GNSO initiate a Policy Development Process on the issue. The primary purpose of this comment period is to ensure that the Issue Report does indeed address all of the relevant aspects of the issue. However, it will likely also be the only formal opportunity for the ALAC to state whether it recommends that a PDP should be initiated or not. I have not yet reviewed the document in sufficient depth to say whether I feel that it is complete, but on an initial review, it looks fine. My personal belief is that the ALAC should strongly support the initiation of a PDP on this issue.

14 55

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 28, 2011

Nov. 28, 2011

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:04 AM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>wrote: > Hi Alan and Christian > > The first requirement for ANY whois database is accuracy and completeness. > The most recent survey showed that only 8% of entries were complete and > correct and less than 50% of the entries actually enabled the researcher to > find a living person. So before anything else, ICANN should do something > about the vast majority of incomplete/inaccurate entries. > > These are interesting statistics Holly. Is there some sort operational audit mechanism that helps to pick these things up or is it largely self regulatory. From the survey, I am assuming that something exists. I agree that it is critical to ensure that the entries are complete and accurate. Next, what the Whois review team is looking at is to recognise the > existence of privacy servers, have some criteria around them and then > accredit them and ensure that, when necessary law enforcement agencies can > have legitimate access (there are many issues within that sentence, but > that's the direction they were going). No need for proxy servers because - > at law - the registrar is the agent - and arguably therefore responsible > for meeting all of the RAA requirements. > > :) > Finally - the advantage of thick whois is that the local laws/protections > etc apply. Before that, however, another of the Whois review team findings > was that, in way too many cases, it is very hard if not impossible for the > uninitiated to even find it. So one suggestion was that ICANN just provide > a portal that can at least get a person to the database. The next issue > then is whether the data is held centrally or locally (thick or thin) - and > there are arguments for both. > > My suggestion - press the Whois review team for their recommendations and > respond accordingly. > > Holly > > >

1 0

US v John Doe 1 & Others [Defendants]
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Nov. 28, 2011

Nov. 28, 2011

Dear All, Warm Greetings from Fiji! Trusting that you are all well and in excellent health. There was an interesting blog by Milton Mueller that I read today, see: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/11/23/4944811.html The Post Indictment Protective Order pursuant to 21 U.S.C issued by the Honorable William H Pauly III United States District Judge Southern District of New York see para 13, page 7 and 8 http://images.spaceref.com/news/2011/ProtectiveOrder.pdf What is of interest in the Order is that it mentions all the RIRs that are served Notice have to comply with the instructions within the Judgment. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

7 25

Re: [At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 26, 2011

Nov. 26, 2011

Since I have been tasked with summarizing comments on this topic, I do ask that a new thread be started to discuss privacy issues and whether we should have Whois in any form or not. The question here is whether specific registries should move from thin whois (as currently defined) to thick whois (as currently defined). The content is effectively the same regardless of the outcome, and it is all publicly available. Alan

4 6

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 25, 2011

Nov. 25, 2011

Total of 44 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 25 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.45% | 9 | 19.81% | 57330 | evan at telly.org 15.91% | 7 | 16.48% | 47683 | karl at cavebear.com 11.36% | 5 | 10.72% | 31029 | icann-list at sorehands.com 11.36% | 5 | 10.22% | 29578 | lutz at iks-jena.de 9.09% | 4 | 10.09% | 29202 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 9.09% | 4 | 9.54% | 27594 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 4.55% | 2 | 5.87% | 17000 | avc at avc.vc 4.55% | 2 | 3.74% | 10830 | johnl at iecc.com 2.27% | 1 | 2.81% | 8139 | jstyre at jstyre.com 2.27% | 1 | 2.47% | 7139 | neil at cauce.org 2.27% | 1 | 2.27% | 6578 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 2.27% | 1 | 2.22% | 6426 | dogwallah at gmail.com 2.27% | 1 | 2.20% | 6360 | narten at us.ibm.com 2.27% | 1 | 1.56% | 4506 | derek at aa419.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 44 |100.00% | 289394 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Issue Report on Thick Whois
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 22, 2011

Nov. 22, 2011

At 22/11/2011 11:34 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 22 November 2011 11:15, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz(a)iks-jena.de> wrote: > > > In iks.lists.icann.at-large, you wrote: > > > On 22 November 2011 03:25, Lutz Donnerhacke <lutz(a)iks-jena.de> wrote: > > > > > > > No, thin WHOIS provides you the chain of responsibility down to the > > reseller > > which has the real contract with the domain owner. > > >The reseller is merely the provider of the domain. There are very few >industries I can think of in which the reseller is expected to maintain >publicly-accessible information on the owner. Just to be clear, in the current thin Whois model, it is the Registrar that maintains the data about the registrant, not the reseller (if there is one). Alan

1 0

Fake Bank Site Spreads Malware
by Derek Smythe Nov. 18, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011

> The problem in the .com space is that it's pretty much a free for all..... you can buy any available domain name without having to prove you're legitimate. ... and get a proxy to hide the registrant details as well, no real verification required. http://ffiec.bankinfosecurity.com/articles.php?art_id=4257

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 18, 2011

Nov. 18, 2011

Total of 14 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 18 00:53:03 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 28.57% | 4 | 92.32% | 820129 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 28.57% | 4 | 2.96% | 26317 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 7.14% | 1 | 1.19% | 10555 | ocl at gih.com 7.14% | 1 | 0.90% | 8017 | vivekvc2001 at yahoo.co.in 7.14% | 1 | 0.73% | 6504 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.14% | 1 | 0.73% | 6455 | michele at blacknight.ie 7.14% | 1 | 0.64% | 5688 | karl at cavebear.com 7.14% | 1 | 0.53% | 4677 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 14 |100.00% | 888342 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Michael Geist's Article
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 16, 2011

Nov. 16, 2011

Thanks for this, Glenn. I identified this and like issue as a threat to the global public interest when I presented at the Cloud Conference 2011 in KIN - sponsored by the UWI's Mona School of Business and the ITU - 2 weeks ago. The slides that were central to the theme are attached. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 7:00 AM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > wrote: > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Michael Geist Article (Glenn McKnight) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2011 20:05:24 -0500 > From: Glenn McKnight <mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com> > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Michael Geist Article > To: nom-comm-2012(a)icann.org, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > http://www.thestar.com/article/1085475--geist-internet-belongs-to-us-u-s-ar… > > Geist: Internet belongs to us, U.S. argues > Published On Sat Nov 12 2011 > > >

3 7

BBC News: .wales and .cymru internet domain names find support
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Nov. 15, 2011

Nov. 15, 2011

"A survey of Welsh businesses and consumers suggests a majority of both support the nation getting its own domain name. The move would offer website owners the chance to end their address with .wales and .cymru, instead of .uk. Internet regulator ICANN will allow countries and other organisations to apply for the new names from January. Supporters say it could help with branding, but critics warn it may increase the opportunity for fraud. The poll was commissioned by the not-for-profit domain registry service Nominet. It suggests 69% of consumers backed the move and 59% of Welsh businesses and other bodies. The poll used a sample of 1,003 individuals - 21% of whom were Welsh speakers - and 250 senior decision makers in Welsh organisations However the survey suggested splits over which name to take." Read rest of article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-15658689

9 12