March 2012 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Subscribtion ready
by Wladimir March 11, 2012

March 11, 2012

Tnx Enviado desde mi iPhone

1 0

GNSO Pending Projects List
by Alan Greenberg March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

For those who are interested, you can find the complete list of active GNSO projects (both policy related including, among other things, policy, AC/SO, administrative) at http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/pending-projects-list.pdf.

1 0

Role of ICANN in US/Verisign seizures of .com domains
by Pranesh Prakash March 10, 2012

March 10, 2012

From the easyDNS blog: http://goo.gl/jt3oq ## Verisign seizes .com domain registered via foreign Registrar on behalf of US Authorities. Written by Mark Jeftovic on February 29, 2012 Yesterday Forbes broke [the news that Canadian Calvin Ayre and partners who operate the Bodog online gambling empire have been indicted in the U.S.][], and in a blog post [Calvin Ayre confirmed that their bodog.com domain had been seized by homeland security][]. As reported in Forbes ([hat tip to The Domains][] for the cite), > According to the six-page indictment filed by Rosenstein, Ayre worked with Philip, Ferguson and Maloney to supervise an illegal gambling business from June 2005 to January 2012 in violation of Maryland law. The indictment focuses on the movement of funds from accounts outside the U.S., in Switzerland, England, Malta, and Canada, and the hiring of media resellers and advertisers to promote Internet gambling. > > “Sports betting is illegal in Maryland, and federal law prohibits bookmakers from flouting that law simply because they are located outside the country,” Rosenstein said in a statement. “Many of the harms that underlie gambling prohibitions are exacerbated when the enterprises operate over the Internet without regulation.” That is a truly scary quote but we'll emphasize that: "The indictment focuses on the movement of funds **outside the U.S.**" and that you can't just "flout US law" by *not being in the US*. What also needs to be understood is that the domain bodog.com was registered to via a non-US Registrar, namely [Vancouver's domainclip][]. ## So Here's Where It Get's Scary… We all know that with some US-based Registrars (\*cough\* Godaddy \*cough\*), all it takes is a badge out of a box of crackerjacks and you have the authority to [fax in a takedown request which has a good shot at being honoured][]. We also know that some non-US registrars, i[t takes a lot more "due process-iness" to get a domain taken down.][] But now, none of that matters, because in this case the State of Maryland simply issued [a federal warrant was issued in the State of Maryland][][1] to .com operator Verisign, (who is headquartered in California) who then duly updated the rootzone for .com with two new NS records for bodog.com which now redirect the domain to the takedown page. This is exactly the scenario we were worried about [when Verisign originally tabled their very troubling takedown proposal][]. Said proposal was quickly retracted, but here we have the same situation playing out anyway. Granted, this was an actual court order, to Verisign – not a "request" from a governmental or "quasi-governmental" agency as originally proposed. But at the end of the day what has happened is that US law (in fact, Maryland state law) as been imposed on a .com domain operating outside the USA, which is the subtext we were very worried about [when we commented on SOPA][]. Even though SOPA is currently in limbo, the reality that US law can now be asserted over all domains registered under .com, .net, org, .biz and maybe .info (Afilias is headquartered in Ireland by operates out of the US). This is no longer a doom-and-gloom theory by some guy in a tin foil hat. It just happened. The ramifications of this are no less than chilling and every single organization branded or operating under .com, .net, .org, .biz etc needs to ask themselves about their vulnerability to the whims of US federal and state lawmakers (not exactly known their cluefulness nor even-handedness, especially with regard to matters of the internet). ## The larger picture: root monopolies and the need to replace ICANN The .com root will never be opened to a truly competitive bidding process. Verisign has pretty well ensconced themselves into the .com and .net roots indefinitely with [built-in price hikes baked into the cake][]. I recall a conversation I once had with Tucows CEO Elliot Noss, back when they still owned Liberty RMS (which ran the .info registry and later sold to Afilias) – he lamented that if the .com registry bidding process were *truly* competitive, you would see a registry operator in there doing it for about $2 per domain. At the time the wholesale cost of a .com domain was $6 and is now $7.85 after their latest *annual increase* which is hard-coded into their contract. I mention this because a truly competitive bidding process for the registry operator job would bring out both cost competition and stewardship competition: players who would table proposals on just how they would respect the rights of all their stakeholders, not to mention operators who may operate outside the United States. **Where the fsck is ICANN in all of this?** ****They are nowhere. They are collecting their fees, pushing their agenda of as many possible new-top-level domains and despite the fact that SOPA, ACTA, PIPA et aim directly at the interests of their core stakeholders, for whom they are supposed to be advocates and stewards. ICANN is conspicuous in their absence from the debate, save for a smug and trite abdication of involvement (i.e. "[ICANN Doesn't Take Down Websites][]") – translation: "This isn't our problem". And therein lies the issue. ***ICANN needs to make this their problem, because it very much is.*** If ICANN isn't going to stand up, and vigorously campaign for **global** stakeholder representation in these matters, than they are not only abdicating any responsibility in the ongoing and escalating crackdown on internet freedom, they are *also* abdicating their right to govern and oversee it. They need to be visible, they need to be loud and they need to come down on the right side of these issues or they need to be replaced. **Of course, the replacement of ICANN will never happen.** At least not by a non-US entity, which means we are once again headed to the unthinkable place that only crackpots and conspiracy theorists think possible: a fractured internet with competing roots. On the bright side, life will go on, and companies like mine will probably become exceedingly wealthy charging every internet user in the world fees to gain and project visibility across all the myriad internet roots that will someday exist because governments will refuse to approach it co-operatively. The only thing that will remain to be seen is whether we'll be deemed "criminals" for doing so. ## Further Reading: - [First They Came For The Filesharing Domains][] - [Verisign Takedown Proposal Very Worrisome][when Verisign originally tabled their very troubling takedown proposal] - [How SOPA Will Destroy The Internet][when we commented on SOPA] - [The Price of Freedom and The Cost of a Domain Name][fax in a takedown request which has a good shot at being honoured] - [The Official easyDNS Takedown Policy][t takes a lot more "due process-iness" to get a domain taken down.] - [Further Ramifications of US Government Domain Takedowns][] ## Footnote [1] I originally was under the impression that the State of Maryland issued the warrant, it has been pointed out to me that this is not the case, the warrant is a federal warrant issued in the State of Maryland. ## Links [the news that Canadian Calvin Ayre and partners who operate the Bodog online gambling empire have been indicted in the U.S.]: http://www.forbes.com/sites/nathanvardi/2012/02/28/feds-indict-former-onlin… [Calvin Ayre confirmed that their bodog.com domain had been seized by homeland security]: http://calvinayre.com/2012/02/28/legal/calvin-ayre-indicted-by-feds-calvin-… [hat tip to The Domains]: http://www.thedomains.com/2012/02/28/feds-not-only-seize-the-domain-name-bo… [Vancouver's domainclip]: http://www.domainclip.com [fax in a takedown request which has a good shot at being honoured]: http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/17/the-price-of-freedom-and-the-cost-of-a-d… "The price of freedom and the cost of a domain name" [t takes a lot more "due process-iness" to get a domain taken down.]: http://blog.easydns.org/2012/02/21/the-official-easydns-domain-takedown-pol… "The Official easyDNS Domain Takedown Policy" [a federal warrant was issued in the State of Maryland]: http://cdn3.bit2host.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/BodogWebsiteSeizureWarr… [when Verisign originally tabled their very troubling takedown proposal]: http://blog.easydns.org/2011/10/11/verisign-domain-takedown-proposal-very-w… "Verisign domain takedown proposal very worrisome." [when we commented on SOPA]: http://blog.easydns.org/2011/12/22/how-sopa-will-destroy-the-internet/ "How SOPA Will Destroy The Internet" [built-in price hikes baked into the cake]: http://blog.easydns.org/2007/04/16/verisign-raises-fees-on-com-and-net-easy… "Verisign raises fees on .COM and .NET, easyDNS…doesn't" [ICANN Doesn't Take Down Websites]: http://blog.icann.org/2010/12/icann-doesn’t-take-down-websites/ [First They Came For The Filesharing Domains]: http://blog.easydns.org/2010/11/27/first-they-came-for-the-file-sharing-dom… "First they came for the file-sharing domains…" [Further Ramifications of US Government Domain Takedowns]: http://blog2.easydns.org/2012/03/05/the-ramifications-of-us-government-doma… -- Pranesh Prakash · Programme Manager · Centre for Internet and Society PGP: 0x1D5C5F07 · @pranesh_prakash · http://cis-india.org

5 4

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten March 9, 2012

March 9, 2012

Total of 30 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Mar 9 00:53:03 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 6 | 18.43% | 48547 | evan at telly.org 13.33% | 4 | 10.36% | 27296 | avri at acm.org 10.00% | 3 | 9.67% | 25468 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 6.67% | 2 | 7.58% | 19976 | elisabeth.porteneuve at latmos.ipsl.fr 6.67% | 2 | 6.29% | 16557 | jeff.neuman at neustar.us 6.67% | 2 | 5.18% | 13642 | ocl at gih.com 3.33% | 1 | 6.70% | 17644 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 3.33% | 1 | 6.24% | 16426 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 3.33% | 1 | 5.92% | 15596 | pranesh at cis-india.org 3.33% | 1 | 3.70% | 9752 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 3.33% | 1 | 3.29% | 8678 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 3.33% | 1 | 3.15% | 8296 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 3.33% | 1 | 2.99% | 7870 | vanda at uol.com.br 3.33% | 1 | 2.75% | 7254 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.33% | 1 | 2.60% | 6856 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 3.33% | 1 | 2.59% | 6820 | dogwallah at gmail.com 3.33% | 1 | 2.55% | 6720 | karl at cavebear.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 30 |100.00% | 263398 | Total

1 0

IRTP-C Session in CR
by Avri Doria March 7, 2012

March 7, 2012

Hi, The Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part C Policy Development Process Working Group of the GNSO (IRTP-C WG) is doing outreach for its meeting in Costa Rica Date: Wed, 14 March 2012 - 08:30 - 10:00 Room: La Paz B " The IRTP-C WG is tasked to consider the following questions and make recommendations to the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) Council: a) "Change of Control" function, including an investigation of how this function is currently achieved, if there are any applicable models in the country-code name space that can be used as a best practice for the gTLD space, and any associated security concerns. It should also include a review of locking procedures, as described in Reasons for Denial #8 and #9, with an aim to balance legitimate transfer activity and security. b) Whether provisions on time-limiting Form Of Authorization (FOA)s should be implemented to avoid fraudulent transfers out. For example, if a Gaining Registrar sends and receives an FOA back from a transfer contact, but the name is locked, the registrar may hold the FOA pending adjustment to the domain name status, during which time the registrant or other registration information may have changed. c) Whether the process could be streamlined by a requirement that registries use IANA IDs for registrars rather than proprietary Ids. This is an open Working Group meeting and part of the meeting will be dedicated to obtaining community input and feedback on the charter questions under consideration. Agenda Details: See https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/IRTP+Part+C+F2F+Mee… for further details. " This is a 90 minute meeting: - The first hour will be devoted to an open face 2 face meeting of the WG - The last half hour will be a Q&A session. The meeting will have the normal ICANN remote participation capability. While the adobe will be monitored for questions, feel free to ask for the call-in number via the Adobe, if you are remote and want to participate via voice instead of typing. For those traveling to CR - safe journeys all. To others, I hope the Remote Participation works for you. Avri Doria co-chair IRTF-C WG

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross
by Alan Greenberg March 5, 2012

March 5, 2012

At 05/03/2012 02:46 AM, Hong Xue wrote: >Without attempting to say what is right/wrong/good/bad, it might be > > important to remember that the various Red Cross strings and I think > > the IOC ones (but not quite sure about that) are not trademarks. > > Whether they would be handled by WIPO (or UDRP) procedures, I don't > > know, but they are a different sort of beast. The various Red Cross > > symbols are character strings (as it has been explained to me) are > > not actually "owned" by the International Red Cross Movement but are > > protected in accordance with treaties, by individual laws within > > virtually all countries. Moreover, unlike trademark violation, > > improper use of the symbols and strings are protected in most > > countries by criminal code statute, so improper use is actually a > > criminal offence. > > > > I did not join the ALAC call so am not sure whether the following "legal" >or "factual" basis has been addressed or not. > >It is true that RC or IOC emblems are not trademarks and cannot be >"trademarkable" under the relevant international laws. So UDRP that can >only handle disputes between trademarks (service marks) and domain names is >not available proceeding to ICRC or IOC. BUT, within the new gTLD review >process, both sets of symbols can be protected through "objection based on >legal right", which applies to all the IGO names (and other names). Besides >RC and IOC, GAC, ALAC and Independent Objector can all object to the >pertinent applications and bring them to the dispute resolution process. So >it is indeed questionable whether RC and IOC deserves more protection than >the other IGOs. > >It is true that RC and IOC emblems are both protected under the >international treaties. But Geneva Convention (series) and Nairobi Treaty >on the Protection of the Olympic Symbol are actually not on the same page. >While almost all the countries in the world have joined the Geneva >Conventions and should protect RC and the other three equivalent names, >Nairboi Treaty has only 50 member states (as of the end of 2011) and >contains many exceptions (such as non-commercial use and prior use). It is >doubtful whether ICANN's absolute protection for Olympic signs has gone >beyond the Treaty. Interestingly, USA is still not a member state of >Nairobi Treaty. Existence of an international treaty does not entitle >certain signs holly right. > >The preemptive measure is both limited and ineffective. For example, it >cannot exclude Olympik, etc. > >Hong Thanks Hong, I agree that the two cases are quite different and it is unfortunate that they were lumped together. I think that the Board action (aside from being counter to the bottom up process) was probably not needed. The chances of someone other than these organizations spending $185k to register those exact strings is very low, and even lower that they would survive a challenge. But I guess it was a way of addressing the issue and moving forward. Your last comment is quite true. That was one of the motivations for the changes that the DT has recommended. If we are going to have the restriction, make them effective, and also try to ensure that is someone does apply for a "similar but not identical" string, they know earlier in the game whether it sill be successful - challenges happen quite late in th e process. Interestingly, the situation may not be as clear at the second level, but those discussions have not started. Alan

1 0

Please distribute - Panel on ICTS and SIDS - participate online - March 12, 2012 (2:30pm-4pm eastern standard time)
by Cintra Sooknanan March 4, 2012

March 4, 2012

Of interest Cintra ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Dhanaraj Thakur <pureart100-mail(a)yahoo.com> Date: Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 3:55 PM Subject: [Alumni-ngl] Please distribute - Panel on ICTS and SIDS - participate online - March 12, 2012 (2:30pm-4pm eastern standard time) To: alumni-ngl(a)elists.isoc.org Dear all, this might be on interest to some members. take care, Dhanaraj ------------------------------ * * *Invitation to Participate in a Panel Discussion: Information Communication Technologies (ICTs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS)* We wish to invite you to join us online for a panel discussion on ICTs and SIDS which will take place at the Fifth International Conference on Information and Communication Technologies and Development (ICTD2012), Atlanta, USA, *Monday, March 12, 2012 from 2:30pm to 4pm (eastern standard time).* To follow the discussions live and participate online please join us at: *https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/813799999 * The goal of this panel is to examine the various ways in which ICTs can be used to overcome the unique development challenges that are faced by SIDS. The topic will be addressed by panelists from a variety perspectives including: - Christina Higa, Director, Pan-Pacific Education and Communication Experiments by Satellite (PEACESAT), Hawaii, USA - *“Universal Service and Public Service ICT for Development: Pacific Island Experiences.” * - Ilan Kelman, Senior Research Fellow, Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo, Norway - *"**SIDS and ICTs: Applications for Disaster Risk Reduction, Including Climate Change Adaptation**."* - Dhanaraj Thakur, Lecturer, Department of Government, The University of the West Indies, Jamaica. - *"National ICT Policies in the SIDS Context." * - Elena De Jesus, Associate Sustainable Development Officer, SIDS Unit, United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs - "*ICTs and Coordinating Action across SIDS: SIDS Net"* The panel will be chaired by Prof. Gillian Marcelle (Wits Business School, South Africa). Note that there is no cost to participating online. We look forward to your attendance. https://www4.gotomeeting.com/register/813799999 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Alumni-ngl mailing list Alumni-ngl(a)elists.isoc.org https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/alumni-ngl To unsubscribe: https://elists.isoc.org/mailman/options/alumni-ngl

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Proposed ALAC statement on reserved names for the IOC and Red Cross
by Alan Greenberg March 4, 2012

March 4, 2012

I will be commenting on the specifics of the statement, but to set the record straight, I have told the DT that to the extent that there have been ALAC comments (and Evan has certainly been one of them), the general feeling was that ICANN should not be extending special protection to these two organizations. Some of the members of the DT have been formally representing their constituencies/SGs. That has not been the case for me and I don't think I have ever represented my participation as representing ALAC except at the times that I gave the above disclaimers. My own participation in the DT has been from a perspective of given that the Board *has* extended special protection, how can we make the details of that protection least-onerous to the community in general, to those organizations, and to ICANN (and I have made it clear to the ALAC Executive Committee and others) that this has been my goal. That is quite close, I think, to the position that Jeff has taken. Alan At 04/03/2012 01:34 PM, you wrote: >Hi Jeff, > >I am not sure I can post to this list, but if I can, I just want to note > > for the record that this statement by Evan is completely contrary to the > > position taken by the ALAC member on the Drafting Team. > > >Having spoken to Alan before writing this, I don't believe that to be the >case. > > - Evan >_______________________________________________ >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 March 2, 2012

March 2, 2012

Total of 10 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Mar 2 00:53:03 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 30.00% | 3 | 62.86% | 87243 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 6.91% | 9590 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 10.00% | 1 | 6.20% | 8611 | rgatto at nic.br 10.00% | 1 | 5.57% | 7729 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 5.14% | 7138 | narten at us.ibm.com 10.00% | 1 | 4.83% | 6706 | heidi.ullrich at icann.org 10.00% | 1 | 4.29% | 5960 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 4.19% | 5818 | fatimacambronero at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 10 |100.00% | 138795 | Total

1 0

Dashboard #RALO
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 2, 2012

March 2, 2012

Dear All, Warm Greetings from the Pacific! Can someone please confirm whether the RALO Dashboards are updated, that is February, 2012? I know last time I posed the question, LACRALO was the only one that had their dashboard up to date. This is for some "number crunching". Warm Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0