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

Re: [At-Large] At-Large Digest, Vol 34, Issue 24
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 19, 2011

May 19, 2011

I think a point to make is the kinds of "public interest" ... The GAC is capable of representing the public interests of competing, and cooperating, sovereigns. The ALAC is capable of representing the public interests uninformed by sovereigns. ISOC's scope is not specific to the addresses, domain names, and autonomous system numbers, the public end point and resource identifiers and the public routing infrastructure, in its conception of the public interest and promotion of network technology. The W3C is a corporate member organization, with very limited invited expert involvement. The IAB shares the diversity of interest property of the ISOC, and to a very large extent, shares the corporate focus of the W3C. Each of the W3C and the IAB lack the means to organically include substantive participation by populations currently served by "narrow band" or "intermittent" link technologies. So the broadband-is-the-world view of the IAB/W3C/ISOC is defensible for the G8 member states, but it misses what the structure of the ALAC brings to ICANN (whether ICANN cares about narrow-or-no-band or not), and what the rest of the GAC, not just the G8 reps, also bring to ICANN. I spent most of the past 24 hours in transit and not sleeping so I'm not offering a perfect paragraph. But three years off-grid using a VSAT taught me a lot about networking that isn't high-speed and high-capital and high-profile. Eric

1 0

Internet day
by presidencia Internauta Argentina May 17, 2011

May 17, 2011

Today May 17 is celebrated the Day of Internet and communications. In the 74th Plenary Session held on March 27, 2006, the United Nations at the request of the Second World Summit on Information Society in Tunis, approved designating 17 May as World Telecommunication Day and Information Society, sharing the same objectives to the Internet Day. That's why I wish you all a Happy Internet Day! -- *Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org>LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 * * "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano- *

2 1

Re: [At-Large] eG8 Forum
by Christian May 14, 2011

May 14, 2011

Or he believes the problem with the Internet is where it is not like his minitel. Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: >Olivier, thanks. > >But as Izumi mentions, this does not make multistakeholder. Which is >a shame. Particularly as participation of private sector seems to be >tied to sponsorship (pay and you get a chance to speak... really is a >terrible step backwards.) > >The multistakeholder environment has been essential in driving >development of the Internet, particularly in maintiaing openness and >ensuring accountability and transparency. Non-commercial actors have >been crucial to this. Shame on the French Presidency for not >understanding the thing it's proposing pontificate on. > >(this little rant not aimed at the ALAC chair :-)) > >Adam > > > >On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 1:10 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: >> Hello Joly, >> >> On 13/05/2011 23:39, Joly MacFie wrote : >>> Who is attending on behalf of ICANN I wonder. >> >> Rod Beckstrom + Peter Dengate Thrush. Bertrand de la Chapelle also will be. >> There might be others. >> Kind regards, >> >> Olivier >> >> -- >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 13, 2011

May 13, 2011

Total of 50 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 13 00:53:03 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 8.00% | 4 | 36.94% | 186729 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net 22.00% | 11 | 10.25% | 51810 | johnl at iecc.com 12.00% | 6 | 12.71% | 64248 | derek at aa419.org 10.00% | 5 | 6.38% | 32271 | karl at cavebear.com 6.00% | 3 | 6.78% | 34279 | avc at avc.vc 6.00% | 3 | 4.18% | 21122 | dogwallah at gmail.com 6.00% | 3 | 3.66% | 18481 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 4.00% | 2 | 3.10% | 15684 | avc at namesatwork.com 4.00% | 2 | 2.37% | 11969 | evan at telly.org 4.00% | 2 | 2.30% | 11611 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 4.00% | 2 | 2.01% | 10151 | cdel at firsthand.net 2.00% | 1 | 2.38% | 12018 | avri at acm.org 2.00% | 1 | 1.41% | 7149 | franck.martin at gmail.com 2.00% | 1 | 1.32% | 6657 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 2.00% | 1 | 1.23% | 6220 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 2.00% | 1 | 1.15% | 5789 | narten at us.ibm.com 2.00% | 1 | 0.95% | 4805 | joly at punkcast.com 2.00% | 1 | 0.90% | 4546 | ocl at gih.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 50 |100.00% | 505539 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Depository (was Re: Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency)
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

> [snip] > on that note, there IS a "proposal" sent to ICANN (altho not via > normal channels) to create "IP address registrars" AND make them > subject to the same kind of rules that domain registrars must follow: > > > http://icann.org/en/correspondence/statement-ip-address-registrar-accredita… > > Not sent via normal channels, as they don't think they will get a fair > hearing from the ASO: > > http://icann.org/en/correspondence/holtzman-to-jeffrey-02mar11-en.pdf > > I imagine At-Large might want to weigh in on this at some point? > My view, having followed this on the ARIN-PPML list from its inception, is that the substance of this "proposal" is not in the public interest, nor is the process pursued by claimed by its advocates, correctly defined as "getting a fair hearing". Like myself, McTim (<dogwallah(a)gmail.com>) has commented on the thread begun by a "free market, anti-government, anti-pseudo-government" poster Mike Burns (<mike(a)nationwideinc.com>), who in addition to advocacy of this particular issue for frankly ideological reasons, imagines that ICANN is the "higher authority" to which some appeal can be made to overturn the policies of the regional address registries. Of course, the Depository correspondence (David Olive et seq.) does not necessarily share Mr. Burns' motivation, as the pecuniary interest of Depository in acquiring a franchise for address registry services is self-evident. Broadly, Burns, and Depository, seek to replicate the structure of the domain names market in v4 addresses. In my view, this is not a desirable transformation of the management of v4 addresses, which despite significant self-interest advocacy retains "good stewardship" properties absent in almost all* of the domain names market. Eric * The .cat, .coop and .museum name space operators, and perhaps others, and the respective primary registrars exhibit "good stewardship".

8 15

Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

Colleagues, I've drafted a comment in response to http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm The comment raises two issues, first, that renewal of legacy monopoly contracts does not achieve a competition policy goal, and second, that the contract could, whether awarded to the legacy monopoly operator or any other party, distinguish between the "registry operator" and "registry technical backend services operator" sets of functions, allowing registrants to select, through their registrars, one of one or more competing registry technical backend services operator(s) for domains in the .NET zone. For those not familiar with the second issue, the original Shared Registry Proposal by Crispin, Gaetano, Langlois and others, developed in the IETF, reduces the registry operator's monopoly power to the few functions of producing (and modernly signing) a unified zone, and coordination among two or more registrars (transfer functions and data pointers where the registry data model is "thin"). If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. Eric

2 1

Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency
by Derek Smythe May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

Hi Folks Here is a more than excellent example of why domain abuse issues belongs at the registrar and why true privacy will not be possible until abusers are taken care of. It all started off with a report of a phishing site. Doing a reverse lookup on the IP the domain was hosted on, we get the list included below. Spending a bit of time on the search engines quickly shows numerous frauds related to the relevant domains. Digging a bit deeper keeps on leading to a specific "hosting provider" with a track record of these type of domains and even SSL certificate abuse. Now, looking a bit closer at them in terms of whois details, we find gross privacy abuse for the domains used in fraud and fraud attempts. For those that know how, looking very closely at them leads to victims to this fraud and details showing them all to be of the same origin as regards certain design elements. Now, considering the background of the hosting provider, he specializes in these. How do we counter the the IP constituency if they throw these examples at us? How do we deal with this form of domain abuse? The authorities are in the know for a more than a while know. The SSL certificate providers are in the know as well. The domain registrars are in the know. Doing a bit of backtracking leads to this post: http://www.jaguarpc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24529 Now here is the sad part; Since that post, the hosting was terminated and simply moved to another IP at the same hoster, later we have two more more victims in Australia after this move. http://www.rbol-uk.com/INT-UK/ (as I said, those that know how ...) In fact the Nigerian hosting provider is simply moving hosting once caught out. In the meantime the "free one year privacy" is abused to for anonymity and to make tracking more difficult. Without finding, stopping and disabling these domains, the misery they create at the hands of the abusers continues. As you will see, there is no easy way to do a 1-to-1 mapping of domain name against the spoofed domain, so more TLDs will just compound the issue. It also does not help if we claim that domain names have no special meaning, in the eyes of the "ordinary user", how can http://www.barclaysonlineservice.com not be part of Barclays Bank PLC? Just one such IP - 209.217.237.134: adamscolechambers.com airfrcdcuk.com Download your scam kit at https://airfrcdcuk.com/images/intcourier.zip ... or use the online pages: https://airfrcdcuk.com/intcourier/contactus.htm if you search a bit on the contact details, you will see it's a continuation of http://www.complaintsboard.com/?search=Air%20Freight%20Courier%20Delivery%2… albmb-my.com (http://www.albmb-my.com/INT-BANKING/ - initial report) albmb-my.net babaplc.com banquefinamauk.com barbplcuk.com barcba-uk.com barcbplcuk.com barclaysonlineservice.com barristermayallemersonstuart.com bdl-eu.com boabn.com boaplc-online.com cahootbplc.com capitalcrownbplc.com cbplconline.net chelseabuk.com chevronoilcompany-uk.com chmbchina.com ctmfirm.com davidhunterpartnerschambers.com daviesandpartnerschambers.com ddicourier.com dhlhome-uk.com dib-ae.com dislamiconline-ae.net e-alliancetrustsonline.com e-clydesdalebauk.com e-clydesdalebauk.net e-creditalliance.com eu-finciu.com eurolacbn.com expressparceldelivery-ng.com fbi-govs.com fbi-uk.com fbidirect.org fcmbdirect.com fcmbhome.com frontierforwardings.com fsaofficeonline.com fwcdsonline.com g-maildirect.com gainvestmentlimited.com gcc-as.com globalinvestltd.net halimicrofinance.com hlisbs.com ibarclaydirect.com iraqreconstructionjobs.net irsukonline.com katiemarchart.com kayenterprisesinsurance.com kmiexpresscourier.com leighdaysolicitors.com ltsb-official.com macsreview.com milestonemonetaryfirm.com monitoringcommission.org nbgroupplc.com nokiastaff.com norwichcitybn.com ntwstbnplc.com nwsttbplc.com planfslimited.com rbimb.com rbnsplc.net rbosmy.com responsecs.com rrs-asociados.com thehotmailupdate.com thestudenteventhost.com tpcapitallimited.com uknl-office.com ukpdac.com ukworldlinkcourier.com un-worldwide.org upds-ng.com wapblogin.com yahoo-maildirectonline.com zenithb-ng.com zenithoffices.com Note the impunity with which even the FBI, IRS, United Nations is being impersonated, never mind Yahoo, Hotmail and the rest. And this party has been doing it for years now. Now ask yourself: what number of legitimate domain owners are targeted by lack of domain privacy vs what number of the public are victimized by domain "anonymity"? Which is the lesser of the two evils? Just some real world food for thought. Derek Smythe Artists Against 419 http://www.aa419.org

8 21

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
by Beau Brendler May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

I support this also. We can bring it up for possible wider support in the NARALO meeting in an hour or so if that would help. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: May 9, 2011 12:17 PM >To: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms > >Hello all, > >We don't get around it. We can't.We have no effect on the GNSO. > >But under the authority mandated in the ICANN bylaws, ALAC has the ability >-- arguably an obligation -- to communicate to the Boards directly when it >encounters ICANN activity that goes against the public good. > >And in perfect bottom-up fashion, this is how it's supposed to work. >Discussions happening in the regions that percolate up to become global >assertions of the public interest. Especially in a case in which Avri and >Eric find common ground. :-) > >I would fully support ALAC's escalation if it can be suitably informed of >the issues by those here who are knowledgeable on it. > >- Evan > > > > > > > >On 9 May 2011 10:03, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eric, >> >> On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >> >> > If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom >> > of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in >> > the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. >> >> >> Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be >> interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made. >> >> My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions >> recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it >> in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). >> How do we get around that? >> >> a. >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >> > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
by Evan Leibovitch May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

Hello all, We don't get around it. We can't.We have no effect on the GNSO. But under the authority mandated in the ICANN bylaws, ALAC has the ability -- arguably an obligation -- to communicate to the Boards directly when it encounters ICANN activity that goes against the public good. And in perfect bottom-up fashion, this is how it's supposed to work. Discussions happening in the regions that percolate up to become global assertions of the public interest. Especially in a case in which Avri and Eric find common ground. :-) I would fully support ALAC's escalation if it can be suitably informed of the issues by those here who are knowledgeable on it. - Evan On 9 May 2011 10:03, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > > > If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom > > of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in > > the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. > > > Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be > interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made. > > My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions > recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it > in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). > How do we get around that? > > a. > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Depository (was Re: Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency)
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 8, 2011

May 8, 2011

Karl, I accept that in your view Depository is attempting to innovate and experiment. I don't think it is. Absent the suggestion by McTim that this Advisory Group should form a view on the ASO process, or the appeal to an untested authority inherent in ICANN through "hierarchy" offered by Mike Burns, the substance and process are appropriately addressed on the ARIN-PPML list, in which you are free to participate. Turning to the history of RIRs, two mechanisms intended to scale as the price of network adapters and of network attachment dropped have been adopted. I proposed a regional scheme, based upon the ITU's X.121 Recommendation, specifically the zone, represented as the first octet of a Data Network Identification Code (DNIC) to create a small number of regional registries. The ISO 3166 scheme was adopted instead, creating two orders of magnitude more registries, for name to address mappings. The model of a regional scheme was adopted for address allocation registries, as much in recognition that no specific competency existed in North America which did not also exist in Western Europe and Japan, as for territorial diversity, and the attendant jurisdictional diversity. If consolidation were seriously proposed, it would be as arbitrary now as it was earlier to assert which of {ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC} is the first RIR to be eliminated. I don't think the characterization "For no technical reason, but for every political reason ... created two more RIRs" is correct. There is technically defensible reason for delegation in technical institutional development, a course pursued with diligence by the Network Startup Resource Center, and others. There is technically defensible reason for non-revocable delegation of address resources, as Geoff Huston's projections show, the AFNIC and LACNIC regions will be capable of general allocating v4 resources for several years after the APNIC, ARIN and RIPE regions transition to exhaustion allocation policies. The aggregation is an enemy of regional registries claim would be more credible if, as a general rule, access networks were predominantly trans-regional. As they are not, for pricing and tariff and other jurisdictionally scoped policy reasons, this is a weak claim of non-necessity or inefficiency. Finally, assuming all of the initial claims of Depository for the purposes of argument, there is the specific choice of replicating the domain market structure, in the address market. There are two final claims to consider: first, that the domain market structure is good, and the second, that innovation and experiment are actually less useful than replication of an existing structure. I don't think either of those are reasonable claims, or capable of proof, though I understand they are offered as proved by assertion by Depository, in its own pecuniary interest. Eric

1 0