- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 10, 2011

May 10, 2011

Colleagues, I've drafted a comment in response to http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm The comment raises two issues, first, that renewal of legacy monopoly contracts does not achieve a competition policy goal, and second, that the contract could, whether awarded to the legacy monopoly operator or any other party, distinguish between the "registry operator" and "registry technical backend services operator" sets of functions, allowing registrants to select, through their registrars, one of one or more competing registry technical backend services operator(s) for domains in the .NET zone. For those not familiar with the second issue, the original Shared Registry Proposal by Crispin, Gaetano, Langlois and others, developed in the IETF, reduces the registry operator's monopoly power to the few functions of producing (and modernly signing) a unified zone, and coordination among two or more registrars (transfer functions and data pointers where the registry data model is "thin"). If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. Eric

2 1

Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency
by Derek Smythe May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

Hi Folks Here is a more than excellent example of why domain abuse issues belongs at the registrar and why true privacy will not be possible until abusers are taken care of. It all started off with a report of a phishing site. Doing a reverse lookup on the IP the domain was hosted on, we get the list included below. Spending a bit of time on the search engines quickly shows numerous frauds related to the relevant domains. Digging a bit deeper keeps on leading to a specific "hosting provider" with a track record of these type of domains and even SSL certificate abuse. Now, looking a bit closer at them in terms of whois details, we find gross privacy abuse for the domains used in fraud and fraud attempts. For those that know how, looking very closely at them leads to victims to this fraud and details showing them all to be of the same origin as regards certain design elements. Now, considering the background of the hosting provider, he specializes in these. How do we counter the the IP constituency if they throw these examples at us? How do we deal with this form of domain abuse? The authorities are in the know for a more than a while know. The SSL certificate providers are in the know as well. The domain registrars are in the know. Doing a bit of backtracking leads to this post: http://www.jaguarpc.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24529 Now here is the sad part; Since that post, the hosting was terminated and simply moved to another IP at the same hoster, later we have two more more victims in Australia after this move. http://www.rbol-uk.com/INT-UK/ (as I said, those that know how ...) In fact the Nigerian hosting provider is simply moving hosting once caught out. In the meantime the "free one year privacy" is abused to for anonymity and to make tracking more difficult. Without finding, stopping and disabling these domains, the misery they create at the hands of the abusers continues. As you will see, there is no easy way to do a 1-to-1 mapping of domain name against the spoofed domain, so more TLDs will just compound the issue. It also does not help if we claim that domain names have no special meaning, in the eyes of the "ordinary user", how can http://www.barclaysonlineservice.com not be part of Barclays Bank PLC? Just one such IP - 209.217.237.134: adamscolechambers.com airfrcdcuk.com Download your scam kit at https://airfrcdcuk.com/images/intcourier.zip ... or use the online pages: https://airfrcdcuk.com/intcourier/contactus.htm if you search a bit on the contact details, you will see it's a continuation of http://www.complaintsboard.com/?search=Air%20Freight%20Courier%20Delivery%2… albmb-my.com (http://www.albmb-my.com/INT-BANKING/ - initial report) albmb-my.net babaplc.com banquefinamauk.com barbplcuk.com barcba-uk.com barcbplcuk.com barclaysonlineservice.com barristermayallemersonstuart.com bdl-eu.com boabn.com boaplc-online.com cahootbplc.com capitalcrownbplc.com cbplconline.net chelseabuk.com chevronoilcompany-uk.com chmbchina.com ctmfirm.com davidhunterpartnerschambers.com daviesandpartnerschambers.com ddicourier.com dhlhome-uk.com dib-ae.com dislamiconline-ae.net e-alliancetrustsonline.com e-clydesdalebauk.com e-clydesdalebauk.net e-creditalliance.com eu-finciu.com eurolacbn.com expressparceldelivery-ng.com fbi-govs.com fbi-uk.com fbidirect.org fcmbdirect.com fcmbhome.com frontierforwardings.com fsaofficeonline.com fwcdsonline.com g-maildirect.com gainvestmentlimited.com gcc-as.com globalinvestltd.net halimicrofinance.com hlisbs.com ibarclaydirect.com iraqreconstructionjobs.net irsukonline.com katiemarchart.com kayenterprisesinsurance.com kmiexpresscourier.com leighdaysolicitors.com ltsb-official.com macsreview.com milestonemonetaryfirm.com monitoringcommission.org nbgroupplc.com nokiastaff.com norwichcitybn.com ntwstbnplc.com nwsttbplc.com planfslimited.com rbimb.com rbnsplc.net rbosmy.com responsecs.com rrs-asociados.com thehotmailupdate.com thestudenteventhost.com tpcapitallimited.com uknl-office.com ukpdac.com ukworldlinkcourier.com un-worldwide.org upds-ng.com wapblogin.com yahoo-maildirectonline.com zenithb-ng.com zenithoffices.com Note the impunity with which even the FBI, IRS, United Nations is being impersonated, never mind Yahoo, Hotmail and the rest. And this party has been doing it for years now. Now ask yourself: what number of legitimate domain owners are targeted by lack of domain privacy vs what number of the public are victimized by domain "anonymity"? Which is the lesser of the two evils? Just some real world food for thought. Derek Smythe Artists Against 419 http://www.aa419.org

8 21

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
by Beau Brendler May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

I support this also. We can bring it up for possible wider support in the NARALO meeting in an hour or so if that would help. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: May 9, 2011 12:17 PM >To: Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NARALO Discussion List <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms > >Hello all, > >We don't get around it. We can't.We have no effect on the GNSO. > >But under the authority mandated in the ICANN bylaws, ALAC has the ability >-- arguably an obligation -- to communicate to the Boards directly when it >encounters ICANN activity that goes against the public good. > >And in perfect bottom-up fashion, this is how it's supposed to work. >Discussions happening in the regions that percolate up to become global >assertions of the public interest. Especially in a case in which Avri and >Eric find common ground. :-) > >I would fully support ALAC's escalation if it can be suitably informed of >the issues by those here who are knowledgeable on it. > >- Evan > > > > > > > >On 9 May 2011 10:03, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> wrote: > >> Hi Eric, >> >> On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: >> >> > If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom >> > of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in >> > the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. >> >> >> Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be >> interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made. >> >> My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions >> recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it >> in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). >> How do we get around that? >> >> a. >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Comment on the .NET auto-renew and contract terms
by Evan Leibovitch May 9, 2011

May 9, 2011

Hello all, We don't get around it. We can't.We have no effect on the GNSO. But under the authority mandated in the ICANN bylaws, ALAC has the ability -- arguably an obligation -- to communicate to the Boards directly when it encounters ICANN activity that goes against the public good. And in perfect bottom-up fashion, this is how it's supposed to work. Discussions happening in the regions that percolate up to become global assertions of the public interest. Especially in a case in which Avri and Eric find common ground. :-) I would fully support ALAC's escalation if it can be suitably informed of the issues by those here who are knowledgeable on it. - Evan On 9 May 2011 10:03, Avri Doria <avri(a)ella.com> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > On 9 May 2011, at 09:46, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote: > > > If there is anyone who wishes to go on record questioning the wisdom > > of auto-renewal for Verisign's franchises, and/or ending monopoly in > > the registry function, drop me a line today as comments close tomorrow. > > > Not that we have a great record of working together, but I would be > interested in seeing some telling and convincing comment made. > > My problem is that the contract itself and the contractual conditions > recommended by the GNSO give a presumption of renewal (I argued against it > in the Task Force but as usual, was not successful it getting it removed). > How do we get around that? > > a. > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Depository (was Re: Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency)
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 8, 2011

May 8, 2011

Karl, I accept that in your view Depository is attempting to innovate and experiment. I don't think it is. Absent the suggestion by McTim that this Advisory Group should form a view on the ASO process, or the appeal to an untested authority inherent in ICANN through "hierarchy" offered by Mike Burns, the substance and process are appropriately addressed on the ARIN-PPML list, in which you are free to participate. Turning to the history of RIRs, two mechanisms intended to scale as the price of network adapters and of network attachment dropped have been adopted. I proposed a regional scheme, based upon the ITU's X.121 Recommendation, specifically the zone, represented as the first octet of a Data Network Identification Code (DNIC) to create a small number of regional registries. The ISO 3166 scheme was adopted instead, creating two orders of magnitude more registries, for name to address mappings. The model of a regional scheme was adopted for address allocation registries, as much in recognition that no specific competency existed in North America which did not also exist in Western Europe and Japan, as for territorial diversity, and the attendant jurisdictional diversity. If consolidation were seriously proposed, it would be as arbitrary now as it was earlier to assert which of {ARIN, RIPE, and APNIC} is the first RIR to be eliminated. I don't think the characterization "For no technical reason, but for every political reason ... created two more RIRs" is correct. There is technically defensible reason for delegation in technical institutional development, a course pursued with diligence by the Network Startup Resource Center, and others. There is technically defensible reason for non-revocable delegation of address resources, as Geoff Huston's projections show, the AFNIC and LACNIC regions will be capable of general allocating v4 resources for several years after the APNIC, ARIN and RIPE regions transition to exhaustion allocation policies. The aggregation is an enemy of regional registries claim would be more credible if, as a general rule, access networks were predominantly trans-regional. As they are not, for pricing and tariff and other jurisdictionally scoped policy reasons, this is a weak claim of non-necessity or inefficiency. Finally, assuming all of the initial claims of Depository for the purposes of argument, there is the specific choice of replicating the domain market structure, in the address market. There are two final claims to consider: first, that the domain market structure is good, and the second, that innovation and experiment are actually less useful than replication of an existing structure. I don't think either of those are reasonable claims, or capable of proof, though I understand they are offered as proved by assertion by Depository, in its own pecuniary interest. Eric

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Privacy and domain abuse vs the IP constituency
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 8, 2011

May 8, 2011

In the context of the Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Process (PDDRP), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) made a comment (attached) which, while registry operator specific, has a bearing upon the issue. The WIPO proposal, if adopted, would hold a registry operator accountable for trademark infringement that occurs within a TLD if it "knowingly permitted, or could not have reasonably been unaware of" infringing domain names within the TLD. This is sometimes referred to as "Willful Blindness" and is used by trademark owners to hold third parties liable for contributory trademark infringement. Support for this proposal came from the International Trademark Association, the Intellectual Property Constituency of ICANN, the International Olympic Committee and other trademark owners and associations. Quoting from Jeff Neuman's note to the Temporary Drafting Group Legal (tdg-legal) mailing list of May 5th, 2010: "In the United States, with respect to whether or not domain name registries and registrars can be liable for contributory trademark infringement is well settled. The 1999 case of Lockheed Martin v. Network Solutions [1] controls. In that case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that Network Solutions was not liable to Lockheed Martin for contributory infringement as a matter of law because it was acting merely as a domain name registrar in registering domain names. More specifically, it found that in order for a service provider to be liable under the doctrine of contributory infringement, the service provider must exercise sufficient control over the infringing conduct itself. See also Tiffany v. Ebay [2] decided on April 1, 2010. If a trademark owner cannot establish that a service provider has sufficient control over the infringing conduct, then whether or not the service provider knew, should have known or turned a blind eye towards the infringing conduct, is irrelevant." I suggest that asking the set of registrars which currently control the Registrar Stakeholder Group's (RrSG) process if they would like a registrar to held accountable for trademark infringement that occurs within the TLDs it provides registrations if it "knowingly permitted, or could not have reasonably been unaware of" infringing domain names for which it is the registrar of record would have a similar outcome to that provided by the set of registries which currently control the RySG process. A defect in the argument offered by NeuStar to the WIPO proposal that wilfull blindness should be the sole basis for direct or contributory infringement was shown by the authors of the .C variant of the Conficker distributed system. The .C variant attempted to create rendezvous points (domain names) in more than one namespace. The proper scope of the issue is not the isolated affirmative acts of any contracted party, but what contracted parties can reasonably know. The NeuStar defense, if applied to the .C fact pattern, would hold a registry operator or registrar immune from any claim arising from the registry operator's or registrar's failure to block the portion of the algorithmically predicted rendezvous point buys over which the registry operator or registrar has control by the .C attack engine for command and control purposes of a botnet consisting of hundreds of thousands of covertly repurposed computors, if the immediate conduct of the .C system was trademark infringement, aka "cybersquatting". What registry operators can reasonably know, having access to their own, and any and all other gTLD zone files through the zone file bulk access right, is patterns of registration utilizing one or more registrars, and one or more namespaces. I believe that that is the expectation of Derek Smythe. The issue of contracted party conduct and liability, under national law or private contract, is not new, and my participation in an ALAC regional organization is a few weeks short of six months, so I have little idea of prior deliberation on the issue by ALAC or its regional organizations. However, the interest of the contracted parties, or rather, those amongst the contracted parties which manage to be influential on issues which potentially affect their pecuniary interests should not be limiting, nor should any particular national law, on the deliberation of what is in the public interest, by the ALAC. I think a useful and interesting "step" to take, one not in the direction of "WHOIS", is determining what pattern(s) of conduct, by a contracted party, rises to the level of "wilfull blindness", where ever there is a public interest. This necessarily includes the area of trademark infringement. This would form a basis for advice the ALAC may provide. Eric [1] http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15162974496362566611&q=194+F.3d… [2] http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/65a5a693-7086-4d06-a0d2-13e…

2 1

Keynote Remarks from Larry Strickling - supports multi-stakeholder model
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 8, 2011

May 8, 2011

*Keynote Remarks by Lawrence E. Strickling* *Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information* *Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) * *Washington, DC* *May 5, 2011* http://www.ntia.doc.gov/presentations/2011/Strickling_GigaNet_05052011.html Some of the content might greatly affect that will happen in Singapore. Kind regards, Olivier

6 5

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 6, 2011

May 6, 2011

Total of 15 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 6 00:53:03 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 3 | 18.22% | 16664 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 13.33% | 2 | 17.39% | 15896 | avc at avc.vc 13.33% | 2 | 9.91% | 9062 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net 6.67% | 1 | 9.45% | 8644 | isolatedn at gmail.com 6.67% | 1 | 7.70% | 7045 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 6.67% | 1 | 7.29% | 6668 | joly at punkcast.com 6.67% | 1 | 6.66% | 6087 | avc at namesatwork.com 6.67% | 1 | 6.36% | 5813 | omar at kaminski.adv.br 6.67% | 1 | 6.00% | 5487 | narten at us.ibm.com 6.67% | 1 | 5.82% | 5320 | avri at acm.org 6.67% | 1 | 5.19% | 4749 | karl at cavebear.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 15 |100.00% | 91435 | Total

1 0

ICANN Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Oversight Hearing
by Eric Brunner-Williams May 4, 2011

May 4, 2011

Colleagues, The House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, Competition and the Internet will hold a hearing on: "ICANN Generic Top-Level Domains (gTLD) Oversight Hearing", on Wednesday 5/4/2011 - 10:00 a.m., at 2141 Rayburn House Office Building. There is, as yet, no hearing documentation and no witness list, though these will be forthcoming. http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/hear_05022011.html I'll post a follow-up when either hearings documentation or witnesses are posted at the Subcommittee's web site. Eric

8 10

Tomorrow: Cyrus Farivar – The Internet of Elsewhere - NYU
by Joly MacFie May 4, 2011

May 4, 2011

You may have seen the recent Freedom House report on Internet Freedom that cited Estonia as the most free Internet in the world, and Iran as among the least. As we know Korea has some of the fastest, while Senegal is rapidly developing. SO this should be an interesting talk about the contrasts.. As noted we do intend to webcast live. Please fwd. J On May 4 2011 the Internet Society’s New York Chapter (ISOC-NY) will present broadcaster, author & journalist Cyrus Farivar reading and discussing his imminent (May 8 ) book ‘The Internet of Elsewhere<http://internetofelsewhere.com/blog/>‘ (Rutgers University Press). All welcome. There will be a live webcast. In the book Farivar explores the Internet’s history and effects in four distinct and, to some, surprising societies — Iran, Estonia, South Korea, and Senegal. He profiles Web pioneers in these countries and, at the same time, surveys the environments in which they each work. After all, contends Farivar, despite California’s great success in creating the Internet and spawning companies like Apple and Google, in some areas the United States is still years behind other nations. *What*: Cyrus Farivar – The Internet of Elsewhere *When*: Wednesday 4 May 2011 7pm-9pm EDT (1100-0100 UTC) *Where*: Warren Weaver Hall, rm 201, 251 Mercer Street, NY NY 10012 *Who*: Free. All welcome. Capacity limited. No RSVP reqd. *Webcast*: http://livestream.com/internetsocietychapters *Hashtags*: #isocny <http://search.twitter.com/search?q=isocny>; #farivar<http://search.twitter.com/search?q=farivar> *Back Channel*: http://backchan.nl/meetings/view/786 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- - -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

2 1