- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 25, 2012

May 25, 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 18, 2012

May 18, 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

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