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

Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Carlton Samuels June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012

FYI. IMHO, the Final Report offers improved clarity and crispness in language. A few additions/clarifications from the preliminary report peaks interest: 1. WHOIS must be established as a strategic priority for ICANN. They doubled down by providing some definitive [and guiding!] recommendations to the Board to that objective. 2. Explicitly valorize the finding of widespread interest/convergence of WHOIS matters in the global community by recommending a fulsome outreach initiative. 3. Makes an explicit connection between anticipated improved compliance with a different reporting structure for ICANN Compliance that compels greater accountability from ICANN Board for outcomes, coupled with more transparent operations. 4. Declares in favour of " *a clear, unambiguous and enforceable chain of * *contractual agreements with registries, registrars, and registrants to require the **provision and maintenance of accurate WHOIS data*.". Speaking as Chair of the At-Large WHOIS WG, I shall recommend that the ALAC issue a statement fully endorsing the recommendations of the Final Report - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= ** [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11may12-en.htm ------------------------------ WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report 11 May 2012 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 11 May 2012 * Categories/Tags:* Reviews/Improvements WHOIS Policy Transparency/Accountability *Purpose (Brief):* The WHOIS Policy Review Team, constituted under ICANN's Affirmation of Commitments (AoC) agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce, submitted its *Final Report and Recommendations<http://www.icann.org/en/about/aoc-review/whois/final-report-11may12-en.pdf> * to the ICANN Board and this document has been posted for public comment. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/whois-rt-final-report-11may12-e… This message was sent to carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It Free!]<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22552788&l=6333&s=60BX&m=88…>

20 52

Whois Survey Working Group Draft Survey Now in Public Comment
by Cintra Sooknanan May 31, 2012

May 31, 2012

Dear all,**** ** ** Here is the link to the Public Comment forum for the draft WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey.**** ** ** http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/draft-whois-requirements-survey… **** ** ** Both Avri and I were part of this Working Group and its webinars are scheduled for this Friday at 13:00 and 20:00 UTC. If you cannot attend the sessions please note that they will be recorded. ** ** ** Thank you,**** ** Cintra

1 0

Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- TAS Interruption - Update (29 May 2012)
by Carlton Samuels May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, May 29, 2012 at 9:52 PM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- TAS Interruption - Update (29 May 2012) To: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com ** [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-2-29may12-en.htm ------------------------------ TAS Interruption - Update (29 May 2012) Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 29 May 2012 The TLD Application System, or TAS, is scheduled to close tomorrow, 30 May 2012, at 23:59 GMT/UTC. As of today, over 500 applications remain incomplete in TAS - either a complete application has not been submitted, and/or the full fee has not been paid. If you have not completed your application, we urge you to do so in TAS as quickly as possible. If you are experiencing difficulties in submitting your application, please contact the Customer Service Center for assistance at https://crm-gtld.icann.org/portal-icann/. ICANN has established the following target dates for the New Generic Top-level Domain program. More information on plans for the announcement of applied-for domain names will be provided soon. We appreciate the patience and understanding applicants have shown throughout the application process. TARGET DATE EVENT 30 May 2012 Application window closes 8 June 2012 Batching process begins 13 June 2012 Announcement of applied-for domain names ("Reveal Day") - Application comment period begins - Formal objection period begins 24-29 June 2012 ICANN's 44th Public Meeting; Prague, Czech Republic 28 June 2012 Batching process ends 11 July 2012 Batching results announced 12 July 2012 Initial evaluations begin 12 August 2012 Application comment period ends 14-19 October 2012 ICANN's 45th Public Meeting; Toronto, Canada This message was sent to carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com from: ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 Email Marketing by [image: iContact - Try It Free!]<http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Manage Your Subscription <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=22552788&l=6333&s=60BX&m=88…>

1 0

That UK Cookie Law
by Carlton Samuels May 27, 2012

May 27, 2012

The updated EU e-Privacy Directives came into effect yesterday, 26th May, 2012. UK law requires website operators to ask a website user’s permission when placing certain kinds of cookie on their visiting terminal devices, subject to penalties for infraction. And the UK's Information Commissioner has released updated guidelines. Pickup explanations as well as guidelines from here: http://www.ico.gov.uk/for_organisations/privacy_and_electronic_communicatio… A few observations the law makes no concession to regulations or laws of the physical place where the site is domiciled. Neither does it make distinction for ownership of the terminal device used to access the website. It seems to be silent as well on technical complexities such as cloud computing. The Regulator concedes "*implied consent*" is indeed a valid form of consent even as the law requires “*informed consent*”. Seems they are all over the shop on this one. Regardless, site operators bear the burden of a user with difficulties in understanding the cookie requirement enough to be called 'informed'; The Regulations are not prescriptive about the sort of information that should be provided, but the text should be *sufficiently full and intelligible to allow individuals to clearly understand* the potential consequences of allowing storage and access to the information collected by the device should they wish to do so". Note the term 'clearly understand'. In other words, user ignorance..........or, worse, congenital disability....is not a defense. The law does exempts operators from compliance: 1. When providing purely transit services 2. When providing so-called 'information society' services The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) has also issued a useful UK Cookie [compliance] Guide. See it here: http://www.international-chamber.co.uk/components/com_wordpress/wp/wp-conte… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 24, 2012

May 24, 2012

Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 25 00:53:04 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 56.53% | 8244 | narten at us.ibm.com 50.00% | 1 | 43.47% | 6340 | ocl at gih.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 14584 | Total

1 0

New GNSO WebSite - Working Groups - new ALAC Web
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 24, 2012

May 24, 2012

Dear all, with the launch of the new GNSO Web Site, there are easy to navigate dedicated pages all linked from a single starting point on: http://gnso.icann.org/group-activities/active-groups.htm You'll find several WGs of particular interest to our community and I invite you to navigate those, reminding you that for the vast majority of them, we are very welcome to take part in the WGs. Indeed, the At-Large community has members in several WGs already. I think you'll all agree that this new Web site is a success already thanks to its ease of navigation. ICANN IT & Web are now working at designing the new At-Large/ALAC Web site. If you would like to be interviewed by the Team, please be so kind to email staff(a)atlarge.icann.org The telephone interview should take no more than around an hour. Best regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

Total of 89 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 18 00:53:05 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 11.24% | 10 | 11.74% | 91488 | evan at telly.org 10.11% | 9 | 11.41% | 88951 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 7.87% | 7 | 9.90% | 77149 | avri at acm.org 10.11% | 9 | 6.86% | 53466 | johnl at iecc.com 6.74% | 6 | 7.76% | 60507 | derek at aa419.org 6.74% | 6 | 5.98% | 46583 | karl at cavebear.com 5.62% | 5 | 5.11% | 39827 | avc at namesatwork.com 5.62% | 5 | 4.89% | 38104 | icann-list at sorehands.com 4.49% | 4 | 5.78% | 45082 | avc at avc.vc 4.49% | 4 | 3.68% | 28669 | lutz at iks-jena.de 2.25% | 2 | 3.56% | 27761 | cdel at firsthand.net 2.25% | 2 | 2.95% | 22953 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 2.25% | 2 | 2.48% | 19342 | wendy at seltzer.com 2.25% | 2 | 2.46% | 19183 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 2.25% | 2 | 2.22% | 17268 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 2.25% | 2 | 2.21% | 17259 | michele at blacknight.ie 2.25% | 2 | 2.18% | 17013 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 2.25% | 2 | 1.74% | 13524 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 2.25% | 2 | 1.60% | 12474 | franck.martin at gmail.com 1.12% | 1 | 1.20% | 9365 | dthompson1 at gov.nu.ca 1.12% | 1 | 0.95% | 7382 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.12% | 1 | 0.88% | 6838 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.12% | 1 | 0.87% | 6780 | omar at kaminski.adv.br 1.12% | 1 | 0.86% | 6684 | ocl at gih.com 1.12% | 1 | 0.73% | 5662 | sebastien at bachollet.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 89 |100.00% | 779314 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Bill Silverstein May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

> > "When you can't control the dissemination of your contact information > through the WHOIS database, you risk becoming a target for those who have > less than the best of intentions. Spammers may infiltrate your business > email system â causing problems for you and your customers. > Telemarketers also have been known to scour the WHOIS database looking for > phone numbers for their own phone lists." > (http://www.networksolutions.com/education/you-need-private-registration/) > The funny part is how these services claim that it prevents spam. I don't know how it can? The e-mail address in the Whois is forwarded to the domain licensee. How does that prevent spam, where everyone uses spam filters now?

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Beau Brendler May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

>This is the reality. I cannot imagine why people are making the same >arguements that were an insult to our intelligence in 1998, and haven't >improved with time. Because private registration is a lucrative business. Otherwise registrars such as NetSol would not be trying so hard to make it an upsell for new domain buyers at $10 a year per domain. One million privately registered domains = $9,990,000 annual revenue. I tried to look up how much money NetSol actually makes from this service, but they are privately held. GoDaddy, which claims to have invented private registration with its Domains By Proxy subsidiary (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/MONEY/2011-11-06-PNI1106biz-private-domain…) is also private (Parsons withdrew from an IPO in 2006). Domains by Proxy charges a buck less than NetSol. GoDaddy has 50 million plus registrations, let's say 10 percent of those register for privacy via Domains by Proxy = $44,950,000 annual revenue. Or 5 percent: $22,475,000. Even at 1 percent it's a nice side business. Where have you heard this argument before?: "When you can't control the dissemination of your contact information through the WHOIS database, you risk becoming a target for those who have less than the best of intentions. Spammers may infiltrate your business email system – causing problems for you and your customers. Telemarketers also have been known to scour the WHOIS database looking for phone numbers for their own phone lists." (http://www.networksolutions.com/education/you-need-private-registration/) I do give them credit for not bringing up stalkers and pedophiles. Substitute "Tibetan freedom fighters," "Chinese government" and "death" in the right places, tidy the grammar and you have a nice human rights argument. And we all love those human rights arguments! It would be nice to see the results of this study: http://blog.icann.org/2012/04/national-physical-laboratory-of-the-uk-select… And, once published, see who steps forward and says that study is inconclusive and needs further study. -----Original Message----- >From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: May 17, 2012 2:15 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report > >> Unfortuantely far too many people come from states where whois >> information freely avaialble on the net can cost them and their families >> their well being or their lives. > >There are certainly countries with oppressive governments. But anyone who >would ask a person in a situation like that to depend on some random >registrar or registry's privacy policy to keep them from being disappeared >would be an idiot. > >As has been noted about a zillion times before, people in such a situation >would need to find a trusted intermediary to arrange for web or mail >hosting and internet access, and if they want a domain, the intermediary >can arrange for that, too. > >Unlike many (perhaps all) of the other people in this argument, I'm not >speaking hypothetically. There is a widely used spam blacklist called the >CBL at cbl.abuseat.org, which criminal spammers dislike enough to have >made death threats against the person who operates it. Real, no kidding, >law enforcement investigated death threats. > >If you check the WHOIS info for abuseat.org, you will find actual contact >information. If you call the phone number, which is in California, a >polite person will answer. If you ask nicely, she will take a message for >the CBL. The person who runs the CBL is in a different country, and she >most definitely will not provide the person's name or what country it is. > >This is the reality. I cannot imagine why people are making the same >arguements that were an insult to our intelligence in 1998, and haven't >improved with time. > >R's, >John >_______________________________________________ >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] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Beau Brendler May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

>>>This is the reality. I cannot imagine why people are making the same arguements that were an insult to our intelligence in 1998, and haven't improved with time. Because private registration is a lucrative business. Otherwise registrars such as NetSol would not be trying so hard to make it an upsell for new domain buyers at $10 a year per domain. One million privately registered domains = $9,990,000 annual revenue. I tried to look up how much money NetSol actually makes from this service, but they are privately held. GoDaddy, which claims to have invented private registration with its Domains By Proxy subsidiary (http://www.usatoday.com/USCP/PNI/MONEY/2011-11-06-PNI1106biz-private-domain…) is also private (Parsons withdrew from an IPO in 2006). Domains by Proxy charges a buck less than NetSol. GoDaddy has 50 million plus registrations, let's say 10 percent of those register for privacy via Domains by Proxy = $44,950,000 annual revenue. Or 5 percent: $22,475,000. Even at 1 percent it's a nice side business. Where have you heard this argument before?: "When you can't control the dissemination of your contact information through the WHOIS database, you risk becoming a target for those who have less than the best of intentions. Spammers may infiltrate your business email system – causing problems for you and your customers. Telemarketers also have been known to scour the WHOIS database looking for phone numbers for their own phone lists." (http://www.networksolutions.com/education/you-need-private-registration/) I do give them credit for not bringing up stalkers and pedophiles. Substitute "Tibetan freedom fighters," "Chinese government" and "death" in the right places, tidy the grammar and you have a nice human rights argument. And we all love those human rights arguments! It would be nice to see the results of this study: http://blog.icann.org/2012/04/national-physical-laboratory-of-the-uk-select… And, once published, see who steps forward and says that study is inconclusive and needs further study. -----Original Message----- >From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: May 17, 2012 2:15 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report > >> Unfortuantely far too many people come from states where whois >> information freely avaialble on the net can cost them and their families >> their well being or their lives. > >There are certainly countries with oppressive governments. But anyone who >would ask a person in a situation like that to depend on some random >registrar or registry's privacy policy to keep them from being disappeared >would be an idiot. > >As has been noted about a zillion times before, people in such a situation >would need to find a trusted intermediary to arrange for web or mail >hosting and internet access, and if they want a domain, the intermediary >can arrange for that, too. > >Unlike many (perhaps all) of the other people in this argument, I'm not >speaking hypothetically. There is a widely used spam blacklist called the >CBL at cbl.abuseat.org, which criminal spammers dislike enough to have >made death threats against the person who operates it. Real, no kidding, >law enforcement investigated death threats. > >If you check the WHOIS info for abuseat.org, you will find actual contact >information. If you call the phone number, which is in California, a >polite person will answer. If you ask nicely, she will take a message for >the CBL. The person who runs the CBL is in a different country, and she >most definitely will not provide the person's name or what country it is. > >This is the reality. I cannot imagine why people are making the same >arguements that were an insult to our intelligence in 1998, and haven't >improved with time. > >R's, >John >_______________________________________________ >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