- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] A million domains taken down by email checks
by Mike O'Connor July 12, 2014

July 12, 2014

hi Roberto, one advantage of using an IMAP client rather than POP is that the spam filtering is done at the server end. so only the filtered mail travels across the wire to your client when you’re on the road. i’m with John L. on the public WHOIS records and spam. info for this haven2.com domain is out there for all to see and spam isn’t really an issue these days what with all the filtering options. i’m down to about 500 spam messages a week and the filters are wicked accurate. mikey > > From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> > Subject: [At-Large] R: [ALAC] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks > Date: July 11, 2014 at 3:44:58 PM CDT > To: "'John Levine'" <john.levine(a)cauce.org>, "'RJ Glass'" <jipshida2(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > One of the problems that the spam filters does not solve, unless there is a way that I am ignorant about, is that even if the incoming messages are put in a separate folder, I still have to pay for the connection time while the junk is downloaded. > This is not a problem when I am at home, or when I have a WiFi connection, but is a problem indeed when I am travelling to places with slow or/and expensive connection. > Cheers, > R. > > >> -----Messaggio originale----- >> Da: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- >> bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di John Levine >> Inviato: martedì 8 luglio 2014 21:53 >> A: RJ Glass >> Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email >> checks >> >>> Registrants pay money for a service, yet is required to go through >>> EVERYONE having access to the records. So now, the domain owner is >>> spammed by EVERYONE because they can. >> >> Aw, come on. I have put real e-mail addresses on all my domains for over >> 20 years, and those addresses remain completely usable. Feel free to write >> to me at my WHOIS contact addresses if you don't believe me. >> >> I certainly believe that your mail provider has crummy spam filters, but that's >> not an argument for anything other than finding a more competent mail >> provider. >> >> Regards, >> John Levine, john.levine(a)cauce.org >> CAUCE North America > PHONE: 651-647-6109, FAX: 866-280-2356, WEB: www.haven2.com, HANDLE: OConnorStP (ID for Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks
by Alan Greenberg July 11, 2014

July 11, 2014

Evan, one point. It is unclear to me whether the issue is 100% invalid addresses, or as some people have implied, valid addresses where the registrant has not replied in 15 days. The two situations are substantively different, and we need to get a handle on which is the cause of these suspensions, or if mixed, what percentage. If ssomeone on this list *knows* definitively what the answer is, it would be much appreciated. Alan At 06/07/2014 11:57 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I was actually surprised to hear Fadi's comments about this at the Fayre. > >I was both dismayed at the stance he took (I recall him saying the incident >diminished the standing of "law enforcement") and his choice of venues (one >of too many speeches delivered at a social event when many of the >participants were winding down after a day of exhaustion). > >Had the issue been raised at a time where genuine interaction and >thoughtfulness were called for, I suspect Fadi may not have received the >anticipated response, as this incident clearly indicates how out of touch >ICANN is with the rest of the world,. > >*Inside the ICANN bubble:* > >* "We are appalled that 800,000 domains were taken down for having >non-responsive contact info" * >*The rest of the world:* *"Did you just say that 800,000 domains have >non-responsive contact info?"* > > >The methods of verification and the speed of takedown could be tweaked to >ensure that good actors with minor access problems (such as mail going into >spam filters, increasing time to respond, forget to change after moving, >etc) would not be adversely affected. But the end objective is absolutely >welcomed from the non-registrant end-user point of view. > >So I personally have zero ethical qualms about the suspensions, noting that >the issue has already been inflated for dramatic effect. A claim of 800,000 >domains becomes a million in the headlines. And then there was this gem: > >*"We have stories of healthcare sites that have gone down,"*, chimes Elliot >Noss in the CircleID article ><http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks> >. > >I don't know about the rest of you ... but given the sensitivity of >information at healthcare sites regarding privacy and accuracy, that >category of site is amongst those *most* in need of accurate contact info >IMO. So if such sites have non-functional contact info, frankly, I couldn't >suspend them fast enough until things are fixed. This attempt at media >manipulation backfires. > >The salient point is that a contact address is just that, a way to make >contact. If it won't work from the registrant's own registrar or registry >-- a body with which whom the registrant has a contractual and financial >relationship -- it certainly won't work if someone from the public has a >question, complaint, or warrant to serve. If policy indicates that contact >info must be accurate and current, then that is what needs to be enforced. > >When the interests of ICANN and contracted parties are hurt by inaction of >registrants -- notably non-payment -- enforcement such as suspension is >immediate, automated and non-controversial. (Indeed, it was even once gamed >by some contracted parties, which is what led to the PEDNR ><http://icannwiki.com/index.php/PEDNR> debate.) But here, the inaction >indicates harm to the public interest while enforcement threatens financial >loss to ICANN and contracted parties, so all hell breaks loose and Fadi >lectures us at the Fayre. > >This isn't just a matter of law enforcement, and I am puzzled why that >community is being singled out for recrimination. Sure, some chunk of those >800,000 are bad actors in the sense of intending to have unusable contact >info. But how many of the others have bad contact info because the domains >themselves are neglected and unused, squatted or speculated names that >their registrants have just locked away and forgotten? How does that serve >the interest of end users to have so many extant but useless domains? > >So, by all means, let's engage in a proper dialogue -- not one initiated, >almost in passing, at a social event more than halfway into the ICANN >meeting. We may all look at this incident and see within it a deep problem, >but the problems At-Large identifies may be far different from those seen >by the registrars. > >Be careful what you wish for. While registrars complaining loudly may score >power points inside the bubble (at the expense of public-interest >advocacy), outside it just reinforces ICANN's detachment from the rest of >the Internet-using world. If news broke that there were 800,000 cars on the >road with unusable contact info related to their license plates, public >reaction would be loud and ugly no matter what proportion of those cars >belonged to criminals. > >I look forward to any debate going forward on the issue in At-Large's >Regulatory Issues Working Group, which is where I believe any future ALAC >stance must be discussed and first formulated. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

11 18

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 11, 2014

July 11, 2014

Total of 59 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 11 00:53:03 EDT 2014 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 8.47% | 5 | 12.65% | 78522 | aidanoblia at gmail.com 11.86% | 7 | 8.55% | 53084 | john.levine at cauce.org 10.17% | 6 | 8.92% | 55393 | michele at blacknight.com 8.47% | 5 | 7.03% | 43655 | evan at telly.org 6.78% | 4 | 5.90% | 36640 | cdel at firsthand.net 5.08% | 3 | 5.67% | 35206 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 5.08% | 3 | 4.32% | 26824 | brainstreetceo at gmail.com 3.39% | 2 | 5.59% | 34712 | h.raiche at internode.on.net 3.39% | 2 | 4.63% | 28734 | derek at aa419.org 3.39% | 2 | 3.05% | 18959 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.39% | 2 | 2.99% | 18545 | vb at bertola.eu 1.69% | 1 | 3.27% | 20327 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 1.69% | 1 | 2.95% | 18334 | jipshida2 at yahoo.com 1.69% | 1 | 2.69% | 16709 | raf at sasiconsult.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.99% | 12359 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.89% | 11761 | nursesacrosstheborders at yahoo.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.70% | 10563 | lianna at magic.am 1.69% | 1 | 1.65% | 10220 | kerry at kdbsystems.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.60% | 9928 | mail at christopherwilkinson.eu 1.69% | 1 | 1.58% | 9789 | b.schombe at gmail.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.51% | 9404 | huelsmann at datenschutzverein.org 1.69% | 1 | 1.51% | 9344 | salgueiro.jo at gmail.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.37% | 8531 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 1.69% | 1 | 1.32% | 8173 | director at icfoss.in 1.69% | 1 | 1.24% | 7671 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.21% | 7518 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.09% | 6754 | leonfelipe at sanchez.mx 1.69% | 1 | 1.06% | 6602 | avri at acm.org 1.69% | 1 | 1.05% | 6514 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 59 |100.00% | 620775 | Total

1 0

Fwd: [IDN-WG] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Universal Acceptance of TLDs Draft Roadmap
by Satish Babu July 9, 2014

July 9, 2014

For information and action... satish ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Wed, Jul 9, 2014 at 6:52 PM Subject: [IDN-WG] CALL FOR COMMENTS: ALAC Statement on the Universal Acceptance of TLDs Draft Roadmap To: "ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: "idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <idn-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear All, Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, has asked that a call for comments be made on the draft ALAC Statement on the Universal Acceptance of TLDs Draft Roadmap<https://community.icann.org/x/FrDhAg> in preparation for the start of the ALAC ratification process. The current drafts, as well as additional information on the Public Comment, can be found on the At-Large Universal Acceptance of TLDs Draft Roadmap Workspace<https://community.icann.org/x/FrDhAg>. Please submit any comments on the workspace using the comments function by 16 July 23:59 UTC. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Terri Agnew ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org <applewebdata://68497759-1B04-4F9B-84B7-B9445B8F305F/Regards,%20Heidi%20Ullrich,%20Silvia%20Vivanco,%20Matt%20Ashtiani,%20Ariel%20Liang,%20Gisella%20Gruber,% 20Nathalie%20Peregrine%20and%20Julia%20Charvolen%20ICANN%20Policy%20Staff%20in%20support%20of%20ALACmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org > Facebook: www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge< https://www.facebook.com/icann.atlarge> Twitter: @ICANN_AtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANN_AtLarge> _______________________________________________ IDN-WG mailing list IDN-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/idn-wg IDN WG Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+IDN+Policy

1 0

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] COORDINATION GROUP UPDATE – ICANN appoints Board of Directors Liaison and IANA Staff Expert
by Carlton Samuels July 8, 2014

July 8, 2014

FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Olive <david.olive(a)icann.org> Date: Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 3:03 PM Subject: [Soac-infoalert] COORDINATION GROUP UPDATE – ICANN appoints Board of Directors Liaison and IANA Staff Expert To: "soac-infoalert(a)icann.org" <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Cc: Jim Trengrove <jim.trengrove(a)icann.org>, Grace Abuhamad < grace.abuhamad(a)icann.org>, Hillary Jett <hillary.jett(a)icann.org>, Duncan Burns <duncan.burns(a)icann.org>, Ergys Ramaj <ergys.ramaj(a)icann.org> COORDINATION GROUP UPDATE – ICANN appoints Board of Directors Liaison and IANA Staff Expert 8 July 2014 ICANN has appointed Kuo-Wei Wu <https://www.icann.org/profiles/kuo-wei-wu> as the ICANN Board of Directors liaison for the NTIA IANAFunctions’ Stewardship Transition Coordination Group. Kuo-Wei has extensive experience in ICT technology, information security, Internet governance and Internet policy, and previously served as Chairman of the now-defunct Board IANA Committee. Additionally, ICANN has appointed Elise Gerich, Vice President of IANA & Technical Operations, as the staff expert to provide information to the Coordination Group as needed. Please see here <https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2014-07-03-en> for the most updated list of confirmed Coordination Group representatives. David A. Olive Vice President, Policy Development Support General Manager, ICANN Regional Headquarters –Istanbul Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Direct Line: +90.212.381.8727 Mobile: + 1. 202.341.3611 <+%201.%20202.341.3611> Email: david.olive(a)icann.org www.icann.org David A. Olive Sent from my iPad

1 0

Travel tip
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía July 8, 2014

July 8, 2014

Dear all, As many of us travel to the U.S. from very diverse origins and for very varied reasons, I thought it would be useful for you to know that enhanced security measures are being put in place by the TSA and now seem to require that all electronic devices are properly powered as powerless devices will not be allowed on board the aircraft. This can be specially important since the next ICANN meeting will take place in Los Angeles. Heres a link to the official statement: http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2014/07/06/enhanced-security-measures-cer… I hope the information is useful. Best regards, León

9 9

Re: [At-Large] Travel tip
by NURSES ACROSS THE BORDERS July 8, 2014

July 8, 2014

This information is most needful and useful. Thanks Leon ------------------------------ On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 11:30 BST Michele Neylon - Blacknight wrote: >Evan > >According to some airlines if the device doesn't switch on / boot not only does it not travel, neither do you .. > >Regards > >Michele > > >-- >Mr Michele Neylon >Blacknight Solutions >Hosting, Colocation & Domains >http://www.blacknight.co/ >http://blog.blacknight.com/ >http://www.technology.ie >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon >------------------------------- >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch >Sent: Monday, July 07, 2014 9:52 PM >To: León Felipe Sánchez Ambía >Cc: At-Large Worldwide >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel tip > >It can be summarized like this: > >If you bring an electronic device onboard, a TSA officer may require that you to demonstrate that you can use the device. This means that when you get to security, either the device must already be on (as most phones are) or can be booted in front of the officer. > >So the warning is to make sure that the battery of your device is charged before you go to security. If you are unable to start your device because of low battery, or if the battery isn't working, the TSA will not allow the device on the aircraft, you will have to leave it behind. > >It appears they are looking for devices that look on the outside like phones and laptops but do not function because they have ... other ... >things inside. > > > > > >On 7 July 2014 15:14, León Felipe Sánchez Ambía <leonfelipe(a)sanchez.mx> >wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> As many of us travel to the U.S. from very diverse origins and for >> very varied reasons, I thought it would be useful for you to know that >> enhanced security measures are being put in place by the TSA and now >> seem to require that all electronic devices are properly powered as >> powerless devices will not be allowed on board the aircraft. >> >> This can be specially important since the next ICANN meeting will take >> place in Los Angeles. >> >> Heres a link to the official statement: >> >> >> http://www.tsa.gov/press/releases/2014/07/06/enhanced-security-measure >> s-certain-airports-overseas >> >> I hope the information is useful. >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> León >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > >-- >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 >_______________________________________________ >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] Travel tip
by Alan Greenberg July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014

Not entirely new, they have done this periodically over the years. I recall that leaving New Delhi in 2008 I had a high fever (and ultimately found out I had pneumonia) and for the life of me I could not get my iPOD to come to life (forgot the lock switch was on). They eventually just told me to board anyway. Alan At 07/07/2014 04:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >It can be summarized like this: > >If you bring an electronic device onboard, a TSA officer may require that >you to demonstrate that you can use the device. This means that when you >get to security, either the device must already be on (as most phones are) >or can be booted in front of the officer. > >So the warning is to make sure that the battery of your device is charged >before you go to security. If you are unable to start your device because >of low battery, or if the battery isn't working, the TSA will not allow the >device on the aircraft, you will have to leave it behind. > >It appears they are looking for devices that look on the outside like >phones and laptops but do not function because they have ... other ... >things inside.

1 0

And off we go
by Lance Hinds July 7, 2014

July 7, 2014

http://itnews.com/privacy/80907/experts-worry-governments-commercial-pressu… -- Lance Hinds Chief Technology Officer BrainStreet Group 287 'C' Albert St. Georgetown Guyana This message contains information that may be privileged and/or confidential and is the property of BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning. The information contained herein is intended only for the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to receive it . If you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to read, print, retain, copy, disseminate, distribute, or take any action in reliance to the contents of this information or any part thereof and it may be unlawful to do so. If you receive this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies of this message from your system. BrainStreet Technologies or BrainStreet Learning are neither liable for the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this communication nor any delay in its receipt.

1 0

A million domains taken down by email checks
by Joly MacFie July 6, 2014

July 6, 2014

Fwd over from the NCSG list. I underdtand that this would have been discussed in today's EWG and privacy sessions. Any comments? http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks A million domains taken down by email checks <http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks> Kevin Murphy <http://domainincite.com/about>, June 24, 2014, 14:34:25 (UTC), Domain Registrars <http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registrars> *Over 800,000 domain names have been suspended since the beginning of the year as a result of Whois email verification rules in the new ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement.* That’s according to the Registrars Stakeholder Group, which collected suspension data from registrars representing about 75% of all registered gTLD domain names. The actual number of suspended domains could be closer to a million. The 2013 RAA requires registrars to verify the email addresses listed in their customers’ Whois records. If they don’t receive the verification, they have to suspend the domain. The RrSG told the ICANN board in March that these checks were doing more harm than good <http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-g…> and today Tucows CEO Elliot Noss presented, as promised, data to back up the claim. “There have been over 800,000 domains suspended,” Noss said. “We have stories of healthcare sites that have gone down, community groups whose sites have gone down.” “I think we can safely say millions of internet users,” he said. “Those are real people just trying to use the internet. They are our great unrepresented core constituency.” The RrSG wants to see contrasting data from law enforcement agencies and governments — which pushed hard for Whois verification — showing that the RAA requirement has had a demonstrable benefit. Registrars asked at the Singapore meeting in March that law enforcement agencies (LEA) be put on notice that they can’t ask for more Whois controls until they’ve provided such data and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade said <http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-g…> “It shall be done by London.” Noss implied that the majority of the 800,000 suspended names belong to innocent registrants, such as those who had simply changed email addresses since registering their names. “What was a lovely political win that we said time and time again in discussion after discussion was impractical and would provide no benefit, has demonstrably has created harm,” Noss said. He was received with cautious support by ICANN board members. Chair Steve Crocker wonder aloud how many of the 800,000 suspended domains are owned by bad guys, and he noted that LEA don’t appear to gather data in the way that the registrars are demanding. “We were subjected, all of us, to heavy-duty pressure from the law enforcement community over a long period of time. We finally said, ‘Okay, we hear you and we’ll help you get this stuff implemented,’”, he added. “That creates an obligation as far as I’m concerned on their part.” “We’re in a — at least from a moral position — in a strong position to say, ‘You must help us understand this. Otherwise, you’re not doing your part of the job’”, he said. Chehade also seemed to support the registrars’ position that LEA needs to justify its demands and offered to take their data and concerns to the LEA and the Governmental Advisory Committee. “They put restrictions on us that are causing harm, according to these numbers,” he said. “Let’s take this back at them and say, hey, you ask for all these things, this is what happened.” “If you can’t tell me what good this has done, be aware not to come back and ask for more,” he said. “I’m with you on this 100%. I’m saying let’s use the great findings you seem to have a found and well-package them in a case and I will be your advocate.” Director Mike Silber also spoke in support of the RrSG’s position. “My view is if what you are saying is correct, the LEA’s have blown their credibility,” he said. “They’re going to have to do a lot of work before we impose similar disproportional requirements on actors that are not proven to be bad actors.” So what does this all mean for registrants? I don’t think there’s any ongoing process right now to get the Whois verification requirements overturned — that would require a renegotiation of the RAA — but it does seem to mean demands from governments and police are going to have to be much more substantiated in future. Noss attempted to link the problem to the recommendations of the Whois Expert Working Group (EWG), which propose a completely revamped, centralized Whois system with much more verification <http://domainincite.com/16855-whois-killer-is-a-recipe-for-a-clusterfuck> and not much to benefit registrants. To paraphrase: if email verification causes so much harm, what harms could be caused by the EWG proposal? The EWG was not stuffed with LEA or governments, however, so it couldn’t really be characterized as another set of unreasonable demands from the same entities. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

4 3