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

2012-2013 Nominating Committee Chair-Elect
by Sébastien Bachollet May 17, 2012

May 17, 2012

The call for Expressions of Interest for 2012-2013 Nominating Committee Chair-Elect is now available at: http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-4-16may12-en.htm Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Alan Greenberg May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012

At 16/05/2012 04:32 PM, Christopher Wilkinson wrote: ><<excerpt>> > >On the substance, one could write a great deal, but it has all been >said before, repeatedly, during the past 14 years. >In the "RT" report, I noticed in particular: > >" ... 66% of the 21 [ ccTLD] registries surveyed allow the addresses >of private individuals to be hidden from the public WHOIS service. " > >and > >"the ICANN community may be able to benefit from the sharing of good >practices with regard to ccTLD WHOIS, particularly those registries >who operate in a legislated data protection environment." I have been watching the discussion here with some interest. Some gTLD registries requested that their contracts be modified to allow them to hide information about natural persons (ie people and not companies) along with provisions to disclose such information to those with a genuine need to know. These requests were duly approved. I would be greatly surprised if similar requests from other registries would be turned down. If there are those who feel that all gTLD registries should be compelled to follow such a methodology, we have a policy development process which allows ICANN to make such a requirement. If there are those in At-Large who feel that all gTLD registries should be compelled to follow such a methodology, the ALAC has the ability to initiate the investigation of such a policy development process. Perhaps it is time to stop talking and to do some work. Alan

1 0

FW: Traveller complaints - Just to add some levity
by Thompson, Darlene May 15, 2012

May 15, 2012

Subject<mailto:nigandjack@Subject>: Fw: Traveller complaints ________________________________ >From Thomas Cook Holidays - a listing of some guests' complaints during the holiday season 1. "I think it should be explained in the brochure that the local store does not sell proper biscuits like custard creams or ginger nuts." 2. "It's lazy of the local shopkeepers to close in the afternoons. I often needed to buy things during 'siesta' time - this should be banned." 3. "On my holiday to Goa in India, I was disgusted to find that almost every restaurant served curry. I don't like spicy food at all." 4. "We booked an excursion to a water park but no-one told us we had to bring our swimming costumes and towels." 5. A tourist at a top African Game Lodge over looking a water hole, who spotted a visibly aroused elephant, complained that the sight of this rampant beast ruined his honeymoon by making him feel "inadequate". 6. A woman threatened to call police after claiming that she'd been locked in by staff. When in fact, she had mistaken the "do not disturb" sign on the back of the door as a warning to remain in the room. 7. "The beach was too sandy." 8. "We found the sand was not like the sand in the brochure. Your brochure shows the sand as yellow but it was white." 9. A guest at a Novotel in Australia complained his soup was too thick and strong. He was inadvertently slurping the gravy at the time. 10. "Topless sunbathing on the beach should be banned. The holiday was ruined as my husband spent all day looking at other women." 11. "We bought 'Ray-Ban' sunglasses for five Euros from a street trader, only to find out they were fake." 12. "No-one told us there would be fish in the sea. The children were startled." 13. "There was no egg slicer in the apartment..." 14. "We went on holiday to Spain and had a problem with the taxi drivers as they were all Spanish." 15. "The roads were uneven.." 16. "It took us nine hours to fly home from Jamaica to England it only took the Americans three hours to get home." 17. "I compared the size of our one-bedroom apartment to our friends' three-bedroom apartment and ours was significantly smaller.." 18. "The brochure stated: 'No hairdressers at the accommodation'. We're trainee hairdressers - will we be OK staying there?" 19. "There are too many Spanish people. The receptionist speaks Spanish. The food is Spanish. Too many foreigners now live abroad." 20. "We had to queue outside with no air conditioning." 21. "It is your duty as a tour operator to advise us of noisy or unruly guests before we travel." 22. "I was bitten by a mosquito, no-one said they could bite." 23. "My fiancé and I booked a twin-bedded room but we were placed in a double-bedded room. We now hold you responsible for the fact that I find myself pregnant. This would not have happened if you had put us in the room that we booked." They walk among us, they vote and they breed!!! Be careful! Very careful! [FREE Animations for your email - by IncrediMail! Click Here!]<http://www.incredimail.com/?id=619265&did=10500&ppd=2725,201107241501,9,1,6…>

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [lac-discuss-en] GigaOM article : Louis Vuitton asks for SOPA-like seizure of hundreds of websites
by Carlton Samuels May 15, 2012

May 15, 2012

Thanks for this Dev. On the bright side, these fellows are taking action in court and using applicable US law, not the summary extra-judicial seizures of Homeland Security/ICE. A third party must be convinced of the merits of the case. They invoked provisions of Lanham; 15 USC 1125(d), to wit: '(d) *Cyberpiracy prevention* (1) (A) A person shall be liable in a civil action by the owner of a mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section, if, without regard to the goods or services of the parties, that person— (i) has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark, including a personal name which is protected as a mark under this section; and (ii) registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that— (I) in the case of a mark that is distinctive at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to that mark; (II) in the case of a famous mark that is famous at the time of registration of the domain name, is identical or confusingly similar to or dilutive of that mark; or (III) is a trademark, word, or name protected by reason of section 706<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/706> of title 18 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18> or section 220506<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/220506> of title 36 <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36>.' They 'pray' judgment on all counts as well as '*equitable relief against defendants*'. The judge's response to that second part is to be keenly watched. While the counts could be mistakenly conflated and to ICANN's detriment, only one (1) of the four (4) alleged is really germane to ICANN interests; Count III: Claim for Relief of Cybersquatting. Here's what the writ of mandamus prays in respect of the 381 domains: "b. Entry of an order requiring the Subject Domain Names, and any other domain names being used by Defendants to engage in the business of marketing, offering to sell and/or selling goods bearing counterfeits and infringements of the Louis Vuitton Marks to be disabled and/or immediately transferred by Defendants, their Registrars and/or the Registries to Louis Vuitton’s control so they may no longer be used for illegal purposes. c. Entry of an Order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, the top level domain (TLD) Registries for the Subject Domain Names and their administrators place the Subject Domain Names on Registry Hold status, thus removing them from the TLD zone files maintained by the Registries which link the Subject Domain Names to the IP addresses where the associated websites are hosted. d. Entry of an Order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, those in privity with Defendants and those with notice of the injunction, including any Internet search engines, Webhosts, domain-name registrars and domain-name registries or their administrators that are provided with notice of the injunction, cease facilitating access to any or all domain names and websites through which Defendants engage in the sale of counterfeit and infringing goods using the Louis Vuitton Marks. e. Entry of an order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) shall take all actions necessary to ensure that the Registrars and the top level domain Registries or their administrators responsible for the Subject Domain Names transfer, change the Registrar of Record, and/or disable the Subject Domain Names as directed by the Court. " Let's see what happens now. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com>wrote: > GigaOM article : Louis Vuitton asks for SOPA-like seizure of hundreds > of websites > > http://gigaom.com/2012/05/11/louis-vuitton-asks-for-sopa-like-seizure-of-hu… > > The injunction order filed in the Florida court > http://www.scribd.com/doc/93228219/Louis-Vuittion-Complaint > > lists the 381 domains and the filed injunction includes "..Entry of an > order that, upon Louis Vuitton’s request, the Internet Corporation for > Assigned Names and Numbers (“ICANN”) shall take all actions necessary > to ensure that the Registrars and the top level domain Registries or > their administrators responsiblefor the Subject Domain Names transfer, > change the Registrar of Record, and/or disable the Subject Domain > Names as directed by the Court." > > --- > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en >

12 27

Re: [At-Large] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Policy Review Team Final Report
by Alan Greenberg May 14, 2012

May 14, 2012

I thought it was a masterful job of side-stepping the controversial issues, placing the blame for past problems right where it belongs and making it clear that ICANN can do a MUCH better job if there is a real will to do so. Alan At 13/05/2012 07:44 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >+1 to all that Carlton said. > >- Evan > > >On 13 May 2012 17:26, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > 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…> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > WHOIS-WG mailing list > > WHOIS-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg > > > > WHOIS WG Wiki: > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Whois+Policy > > > > > >-- >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

2 1

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 11, 2012

May 11, 2012

Total of 13 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 11 00:53:05 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 15.38% | 2 | 16.70% | 21421 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 15.38% | 2 | 13.91% | 17847 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 15.38% | 2 | 12.33% | 15813 | karl at cavebear.com 7.69% | 1 | 10.91% | 13990 | avri at acm.org 7.69% | 1 | 10.58% | 13565 | cdel at firsthand.net 7.69% | 1 | 9.96% | 12782 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 7.69% | 1 | 7.75% | 9940 | vanda at uol.com.br 7.69% | 1 | 6.20% | 7958 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 7.69% | 1 | 6.17% | 7920 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.69% | 1 | 5.49% | 7036 | ocl at gih.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 13 |100.00% | 128272 | Total

1 0

Public Board Meeting - the Update for Prague
by Carlton Samuels May 10, 2012

May 10, 2012

I'm sure I may be in the minority to bemoan the passing of the usual 'public' Friday morning ICANN Board meeting. Let us be clear I'm not just hopped off the truck here. I'm familiar enough with these matters to recognize it for what it is principally intended; theatre. But in the ICANN context, even crafted theatre has its role. First, I truly believe that for a claimed multistakeholder organisation and while the 'public' board meeting may not have been all it could be, it was an important indicator or attribute of the MSM, especially having regard the global public interest. Secondly, even if the votes are already taken, there existed an outside chance that one may witness truly revealing 'body language' of participants. Maybe its because for most of my life I have always straddled several socio-political realities. But I am socialized to be ever mindful that one may 'feel the hand of Esau even as you hear the voice of Jacob'. I can still hear Susan Crawford's cathartic farewell speech in 2008. It was remarkable, the response in body language of several board members told a story. I will concede it may not mean much, then and there. Aferall, the deed is done and the die is cast. But when the 'fire next time' comes, it is instructive. - Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

16 21

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] Fwd: [policy] Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board | ICANN
by Carlton Samuels May 8, 2012

May 8, 2012

FYI. ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm Approved Board Resolutions | Regular Meeting of the ICANN Board <http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#> ** 6 May 2012 1. Consent Agenda<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1> - 1. Ratification of Global Policy Proposal From ASOfor Post Exhaustion IPV4 Allocation Mechanisms by theIANA<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> - *Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.01<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> * - 2. .CAT RSEPRequest to Allow Whois Changes<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> - *Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.02<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> * - 3. Compensation Committee Charter<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> - *Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.03<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> * - 4. Overall Compensation Framework<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> - *Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.04<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> * - 5. IRTP Part B, Recommendation 8<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> - *Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.05<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> * - 6. APPROVAL OF STRATEGIC PLAN<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> - *Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.06<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> * - 7. CONFLICT OF INTEREST REVIEW<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> - *Rationale for Resolution 2012.05.06.07<http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/resolutions-06may12-en.htm#1…> * ** Sent from my iPhone David A. Olive _______________________________________________ soac-infoalert mailing list soac-infoalert(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/soac-infoalert

1 0

Msgs on GNSO Council list regarding Friday Board meeting
by Alan Greenberg May 7, 2012

May 7, 2012

The following two messages from the GNSO Council list address some of the concerns that have been raised with regard to the cancellation of the regular Friday Board meeting. Too bad some of this was not included in the original announcement. Alan =================== >De : Steve Crocker <<mailto:steve@shinkuro.com>steve(a)shinkuro.com> >Objet : Rép : SO and AC plenary time at ICANN meetings >Date : 4 mai 2012 14:49:44 HAEC >À : Stéphane Van Gelder ><<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> > >Stéphane, > >Thanks for your thoughtful note. We're >gathering inputs, getting the Prague meeting >organized and will be sending at least one >additional note to the community to cover these items. > >The Friday Board meetings had been very lightly >attended and didn't really provide either >insight on the Board's thinking or opportunity >for the community to interact with the >Board. The other parts of the Friday schedule, >reports from the Board committees and reports >from the SO and AC chairs do provide a little >bit of room for interaction, mostly around the >SO and AC chair reports. I think that's >something we want to make sure continues in some >fashion, and we will weave this into the overall >schedule. We will also allocate time for >interaction with the Board during the Thursday afternoon session. > >Once in while there are Board actions that have >some content and even a bit of drama. The XXX >decision in San Francisco and the decision in >Singapore to move forward with the gTLD program >are the two recent examples that come to >mind. For matters of this import, we will have >a public Board meeting. In Singapore, we did >this at the beginning of the week. This was a >big improvement and really helped set a positive >tone for the entire week. I think this is a >good pattern, and I'm inclined to follow this >when it's needed. I don't know how often we'll >have to do this; I suspect it will be less than half the time. > >Another element in our thinking is that it's >usually inappropriate to rush through a >resolution at the end of the week based on >developments during the week. We need to take >some time to develop the proper >documentation. So, instead of trying to cap the >week off with resolutions passed on the basis of >the week's work, we will report on what's come >up during the week, what happened between the >last ICANN meeting and this one, and what we >plan to do following this ICANN meeting. > >I look forward to inputs from you and the other chairs of the SOs and ACs. > >Finally, we'll work hard to get this right by >Prague, but if what we do in Prague is not good >enough, we'll keep working on it. > >Thanks, > >Steve >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Regarding improvements in Board processes >Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 18:05:40 +0000 > >Hello All, > >I have been reading the various comments about >the announcement on 30 April 2012 that there >will not be a public board meeting on Friday 29 June in Prague. > >I thought I would set out various improvements >being made in Board processes to set this in context. > >(1) In the past, the Board has typically worked >with staff until midnight, and in some cases >2am, on the Thursday before the public session >to prepare resolutions for voting. This is >after a busy week listening to feedback from the >community, and the end result is often Board >resolutions that are poorly crafted and create problems in future. > >(2) For Prague, the intent is that the Board >will focus on listening to the community, and >then give the community some idea of what future >resolutions will be voted on in response to >feedback. A board meeting will then be held >shortly after Prague to approve those resolutions. > >(3) An example of this approach was on the topic >of Conflicts of interest in Dakar in October >2011. The Board listened to the community >during the week, and then in the public session >on conflicts Board members gave some feedback to >the community on specific measures that would be >taken with respect to new gTLDs. After careful >review by the legal team, and review by Board >members, the Board held a meeting on 8 Dec 2011 >- where a resolution was passed on managing >conflicts for new gTLDs, along with other >resolutions that resulted from the discussions in Dakar. > >(4) The Board has also been working to ensure >that most resolutions at the Board level are >relatively routine. This means that bodies >like the GNSO have already reached consensus on >a topic (e.g the recent work on the transfers >policy), or staff have managed a public comment >process on a topic - and there are no >controversies associated with the matter. For >such routine resolutions - we either have a >short teleconference or we take advantage of >face-to-face time at a Board workshop to pass >these resolutions. For example, at the Board >workshop just concluded in Amsterdam we had a >short Board meeting to pass mostly consent >resolutions. It is likely that in Prague we >will pass resolutions on routine matters in the >Board workshop on the weekend of 23/24 June - if >there are matters submitted by staff for >approval - and can report on them during the >public meetings. If there are controversies on >a matter, the general approach would be to seek >to return the matter to the relevant body or >bodies to reach a stronger consensus. Thus >you will see fewer matters that are not on the >consent agenda at Board meetings. > >(5) Where there is a major policy vote, or where >there are differing views on a major policy, the >Board will continue to schedule such discussions >for the public meetings. Past examples of such >matters include the .xxx decision and the >approval of the new gTLD program in Singapore in June 2011. > >(6) With respect to transparency. the Board has >been publishing rationales for each of its >decisions - including those on the consent >agenda. There are also detailed minutes of >meetings, where contributions from Board members >made during a Board meeting are captured. >For example, from the minutes of the meeting on >8 Dec 2011 >(http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/minutes-08dec11-en.htm) >there is a detailed record of the discussion on >conflicts as well as on batching. > >(7) We are still refining improvements and >certainly welcome feedback from the community. > >Feel free to get in touch with me if you have >any questions or concerns, and certainly feel >free to provide feedback to the Board in the Board/GNSO meeting in Prague. > >Also be aware that I continue to read emails on >this list, and I pass on examples of emails that >raise concerns about Board processes to the >Board list to keep the Board aware as well. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 4, 2012

May 4, 2012

Total of 24 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 4 00:53:03 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 4.17% | 1 | 24.90% | 64177 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 16.67% | 4 | 12.07% | 31104 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 8.33% | 2 | 8.66% | 22326 | dthompson1 at gov.nu.ca 8.33% | 2 | 5.43% | 14009 | avc at namesatwork.com 4.17% | 1 | 5.08% | 13102 | vanda at uol.com.br 4.17% | 1 | 4.30% | 11082 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 4.17% | 1 | 4.00% | 10324 | sebastien at bachollet.com 4.17% | 1 | 3.82% | 9836 | sylvia at prontocl.com.br 4.17% | 1 | 3.74% | 9638 | ocl at gih.com 4.17% | 1 | 3.41% | 8795 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 4.17% | 1 | 3.31% | 8532 | tijani.benjemaa at planet.tn 4.17% | 1 | 3.26% | 8409 | avri at acm.org 4.17% | 1 | 3.16% | 8136 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 4.17% | 1 | 3.03% | 7816 | devtee at gmail.com 4.17% | 1 | 2.60% | 6709 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.17% | 1 | 2.46% | 6331 | lutz at iks-jena.de 4.17% | 1 | 2.42% | 6234 | derek at aa419.org 4.17% | 1 | 2.20% | 5668 | icann-list at sorehands.com 4.17% | 1 | 2.16% | 5557 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 24 |100.00% | 257785 | Total

1 0