- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Voting for At-Large Director
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 18, 2009

Dec. 18, 2009

One of the issues that we must address in determining the overall process governing the selection of the At-Large Board Director is the adoption of a voting mechanism. It has been suggested that we use the Instant-Runoff voting as called for in our Rules of Procedure for other elections. I disagree (in fact I disagree that we should use it in the other elections, but that is not the subject of this discussion). I will present several separate arguments. First, I believe that the process is difficult for many people to get their mind around, unless they are VERY used to this process. With an Instant Runoff ballot, you need to rank the candidates in your order of preference. That sounds easy, but understanding HOW the votes will be ranked makes it a lot more difficult. Here is what you need to do: 1. To fill the first ballot position, put in the candidate that you want to win. That is easy. 2. To fill the second candidate position, assume that the candidate that you put in above actually comes in dead last - who would you want to win in that case. 3. To fill the third slot, assume that the after your first candidate came in dead last and was eliminated, your next choice above also came in dead last in the next round. and so forth. I believe that the above process is very hard for people to actually think through. It is difficult to select the 2nd and 3rd candidate, having to accept that the candidate(s) that you REALLY want to win will come in at the bottom of the poll each time. Second, if you look at the current Bylaws for the election of the GNSO and ccNSO Directors, you will find: GNSO: ... any such selection must have affirmative votes compromising sixty percent (60%) of all the respective voting House members. ccNSO: ... any such selection must have affirmative votes of a majority of all the members of the ccNSO Council then in office. Aside from the nicety of having a process which is in line with these two very visible ICANN bodies, I think that it is CRUCIALLY important that everyone and especially the other Board members know that the person put on the Board by At-Large was consciously and actively voted for by at least a majority of those eligible to vote. I do not believe that an Instant Runoff meets these criteria. Third, the Instant Runoff voting method is convenient, but to quote Robert's Rules of Order, one of the authorities on such procedural matters: "...especially useful and fair in an election by mail if it is impractical to take more than one ballot. . . . In such cases it makes possible a more representative result than that under a rule that a plurality shall elect. . . . Preferential voting has many variations. [Instant runoff voting is the example given.] ...Although this type of preferential ballot is preferable to an election by plurality, it affords less freedom of choice than repeated balloting [the exhaustive ballot system], because it denies voters the opportunity of basing their second or lesser choices on the results of earlier ballots, and because the candidate in last place is automatically eliminated and may thus be prevented from becoming a compromise choice." In the case of the vote for At-Large Director, we are NOT under a particularly tight time constraint and we could allow for runoff ballots. Such runoffs not only allow a person to make an enlightened choice in the sure knowledge that their original choice has been disqualified, but ensures that the final choice was THE candidate selected by the majority (or more if we wish) of the voters in the final round. ============================= There will be a presentation and discussion of this at our teleconference - https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?7_december_2009_community_call_at_…. You can find more information on Instant Runoffs at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant_runoff. Note that the link within our Rules of Procedure is incorrect. Alan

21 34

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Dec. 18, 2009

Dec. 18, 2009

Total of 33 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 18 00:53:03 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 18.18% | 6 | 17.35% | 45591 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 15.15% | 5 | 12.09% | 31771 | karl at cavebear.com 15.15% | 5 | 10.79% | 28342 | jmamodio at gmail.com 9.09% | 3 | 9.34% | 24556 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.03% | 1 | 13.64% | 35836 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 6.06% | 2 | 7.52% | 19749 | james at seng.sg 6.06% | 2 | 4.75% | 12485 | krosette at cov.com 6.06% | 2 | 4.14% | 10877 | johnl at iecc.com 3.03% | 1 | 4.22% | 11077 | vanda at uol.com.br 3.03% | 1 | 3.48% | 9150 | fsylla at gmail.com 3.03% | 1 | 3.38% | 8894 | evan at telly.org 3.03% | 1 | 2.99% | 7853 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.03% | 1 | 2.40% | 6302 | lutz at thur.de 3.03% | 1 | 2.01% | 5285 | derek at aa419.org 3.03% | 1 | 1.91% | 5020 | michele at blacknight.ie --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 33 |100.00% | 262788 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Discussion on At-Large Improvement Plan / 17.12.09 at 10:00 UTC
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

I will not be on the call, but I thought I would offer a few thoughts here. First, I really like the new Google docs format with multiple tabs. I can see the entire width at once (in a font I can read!) and the larges one is just a bit over two screens long. There is one bug however - I don't know if it is a Google Spreadsheets feature or we did something wrong, but if a section number is 4-deep (such a 4.3.1.1) Google thinks that it is an IP address and tried to go there if you click on it. Probably not in conformance with some RFC. Substance 1.1 (Bylaws) The note says that the Bylaws should, among other things, clarify roles of Liaisons. I note that the trend in re-writing the GNSO Bylaws was to keep to a minimum what is in the Bylaws to allow things to evolve over time without the significant complexity of having to revise Bylaws. I would suggest that we do the same. 1.3 (ALAC involvement IIC/Post-JPA) The note talks about At-Large having an effective voice in various forums (fora?). I hypothesize that we will accomplish this not by simply getting slots allocated to us, but by identifying (and perhaps grooming) people who can speak eloquently and knowledgeably on behalf of Users. Without such people, we do ourselves more harm than good by getting seats on various bodies. 4.5.2 (Sanctions for non-performance) I hope to have a revised version ready for discussion shortly. Although we cannot change the words in the report, I would really like to see the focus of this section be remediation (fixing the problem) and not solely "sanctions". 5.1.1-5.2.2 (Strategic/Operational Planning) I will say what I have said before. It is important that we state our views on these plans, and try to influence them where appropriate. A PART of our work will be driven by the ICANN plans. But a part (perhaps the larger part) will always be driven by the issues of the day. Ultimately, I think that the ICANN plans must be modified to reflect this reality (it is true for all SOs and ACs) but until then, we must continue to address users issues even if the plans do not give them sufficient visibility. 6.1 (Budgets) We really need more granularity here or we will never get pass the impasse we seem to be at. 8 (Public Comments) I don't know if Carlton will be on the call, but I can report that we have started to talk about what the Rapporteur needs to do to get control of the process and start making it more effective. From the initial discussions it is clear that we need some tools (but really simple ones - nothing that will be difficult) and we need to coordinate what staff and volunteer staff are doing. 9 (Translation/Interpretation) The title lists both Translation and Interpretation but the subsequent items only discuss translation. I think that ALAC/At-Large has more experience about the effectiveness of interpretations with teleconferences. I think that we need to have this experience used in how ICANN proceeds in this areas. And to make MY position clear, I think that our experience had NOT been very good in ensuring that we can EFFECTIVELY involve people speaking multiple languages in a single teleconference. I think that our HONEST input is ESSENTIAL if ICANN is to make any head-way in this direction. 12.2 (Consumer Constituency in the GNSO) I note that at the mst recent Board meeting, the Board rejected three of the four petitions for new constituencies, but the Consumer Constituency petition is still pending. 13.2 (Inter AC/SO Policy development) I note that in the GNSO STI, At-Large was a significant player. A good model for going forward. Alan At 15/12/2009 07:07 AM, At-Large Staff wrote: >Dear All, > >This is to remind you of the conference call scheduled to Discuss the >At-Large Improvement Plan on Thursday 17 December at 10:00 UTC. > >The draft agenda, participation instructions and background information are >available under: >https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?17_december_2009_at_large_impr >ovement_plan > >If you require a dial-out for this call, please email >staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >We look forward to having many of you on the call next Thursday. > >Thank you. > >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, >Kristina Nordström >ICANN At-Large Staff

2 1

FYI: Current status of DNSSEC at ICANN level
by Lutz Donnerhacke Dec. 17, 2009

Dec. 17, 2009

Just fyi ... Iran was an interesting point for me. Signed TLDs bg https://www.register.bg/user/app.pl?action_key=ac_go_to_dnssec br http://registro.br/info/dnssec-policy.html ch http://www.nic.ch/dnssec cz http://www.nic.cz/dnssec/ gov http://www.dotgov.gov/dnssecinfo.aspx li http://www.nic.ch/dnssec museum https://ens.museum/dnssec/ na http://www.na-nic.com.na/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&… nu http://www.nunames.nu/about/faq.cfm org http://www.pir.org/dnssec pr http://www.dnssec.nic.pr/ se http://www.iis.se/domaner/dnssec/ th http://www.thnic.co.th/index.php?page=dnssec tm https://www.nic.tm/dnssec/ us http://nic.us/faqs/index.html#dnssec_available_registrants Active Development at http://www.nic.at/uebernic/aktuelles/nicat_und_dnssec/ ca http://www.cira.ca/advisory-dnssec/ com http://www.verisign.com/domain-name-services/domain-information-center/dnss… de http://www.denic.de/domains/dnssec.html edu http://www.educause.edu/About+EDUCAUSE/PressReleases/SecurityofeduInternetD… eu http://www.eurid.eu/en/content/eu-plans-support-dnssec ir https://www.nic.ir/DNSSEC jp http://dnssec.jp/ mx http://www.dnssec.org.mx/ my http://www.dnssec.my/ net http://www.verisign.com/domain-name-services/domain-information-center/dnss… nl http://www.sidn.nl/ace.php/c,728,6208,,,,SIDN_prepares_to_introduce_DNSSEC_… ru http://www.dnssec.ru/ uk http://www.nominet.org.uk/tech/dnssectest/ Signed ARPA Space E164 http://www.ripe.net/enum/update-delegation.html ARIN https://www.arin.net/about_us/dnssec/ APNIC http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy/archive/2009/06/msg00014.… RIPE http://www.ripe.net/rs/reverse/dnssec/ Source http://www.iks-jena.de/Ueber-uns/News/Signierung-des-DNS-schreitet-voran

1 0

Open consultation on the proposed registry agreement for new gTLDs
by At Large Staff Dec. 16, 2009

Dec. 16, 2009

Dear All, Please see a message below and attached from Craig Schwartz, Chief gTLD Registry Liaison at ICANN, regarding an open consultation on the proposed registry agreement for new gTLDs. ** Dear Community Members, ICANN invites community participation in an open consultation regarding the proposed registry agreement for new gTLDs. This meeting is being organized in response to a commitment made by ICANN at its meetings in Seoul to continue discussions with the community about open issues in the agreement, including the process for amending the agreement, aspects of registry services reviews, and restrictions on registry operators' ability to distribute names through affiliated registrars (e.g., vertical separation). The consultation will be held on Thursday, 7 January 2010, from 14:00 to 20:00 UTC <http://timeanddate.com/s/1gwx>. A conference call bridge and Adobe Connect access will be available for this discussion and all interested parties are encouraged to participate. ICANN will facilitate this discussion from Washington, DC and space will be available to accommodate some in-person participation. The reference materials for the consultation include the Registry Agreement published in Draft Applicant Guidebook v3 viewable at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-clean-04oct09-en. pdf, the redline version of the Draft Applicant Guidebook from v2 to v3 viewable at http://icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-redline-04oct09-e n.pdf. If you are interested in participating, please confirm at registry-liaison(a)icann.org by 28 December 2009. Please indicate whether you will attend in-person or remotely. Additional details regarding remote participation will be provided in advance of the consultation. We look forward to your participation in this work. Thank you. Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]
by Beau Brendler Dec. 16, 2009

Dec. 16, 2009

you wrote: "While somehow I find the Whois issue related to ICANN's agreements with the contracted parties providing name registration services, determining that the use of a domain name is illicit or being used for any illicit purpose is way outside the scope and mandate of ICANN." Maybe you should consider sitting in on a meeting of the registration abuse policies working group, which has been going on almost a year. -----Original Message----- >From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Dec 15, 2009 12:06 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC] > >> "well established legal due processes and protections." >> >> And in the case of a Russian-mob operated chain of sites that sell vicodin (or a version thereof) all over the world to anyone who will pay, using registrations obtained in the US with false WHOIS data, where exactly is the "well established legal due processes and protections"? No-one's talking about medical marijuana in California. This is about (among other types of drugs), Class IV controlled substances. Note that "The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in narcotics, coca leaf, cocaine, and cannabis. A second treaty, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, which entered into force in 1976, is designed to establish comparable control over stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogens. Congress ratified this treaty in 1980." (http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/1-csa.htm) > >Why anyone would care to read all this stuff on a ICANN's email list ? > >While somehow I find the Whois issue related to ICANN's agreements >with the contracted parties providing name registration services, >determining that the use of a domain name is illicit or being used for >any illicit purpose is way outside the scope and mandate of ICANN. > >We should frame the discussion in the appropriate context if there is one. > >My .02 >Jorge > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

4 4

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]
by Beau Brendler Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

You wrote: "If you want to create a system of internet business licenses, feel free to propose it." Good idea. -----Original Message----- >From: Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> >Sent: Dec 15, 2009 11:55 AM >To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC] > >On 12/15/2009 07:51 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> Karl, you wrote: > >> "well established legal due processes and protections." > >> And in the case of a Russian-mob operated chain of sites that sell >> vicodin (or a version thereof) all over the world to anyone who will >> pay, using registrations obtained in the US with false WHOIS data, >> where exactly is the "well established legal due processes and >> protections"? > >If you think the activity is illicit then make a complaint to law >enforcement. > >Don't turn ICANN into the Protocol Police. > >> You also wrote: > >> "ICANN is being used as a private hired gun through which everyone >> from the trademark industry to "consumer advocates" are trying to >> create an e-vigilante shortcut" > >> Nice, though rather dated, rhetorical flourish, > >Should I have said "iVigilante"? > > but I think we are >> talking about encouraging the contracted-party-dominated ICANN >> community to abide by and enforce its own policies or contractual >> provisions on WHOIS data. > >There is certainly no agreement that whois is even a valid system at >all. It is a system that has nearly zero technical operational value >and exists only because it is a carry-forward of the kind of club-roster >that we used back in the early 1970's. > >If you want to create a system of internet business licenses, feel free >to propose it. > > Once you've looked at the umpteenth one of >> these types of sites protected by private proxy registration, you get >> a little bit discouraged. > >That's why law enforcement has investigatory powers, but those powers >are subject to a body of due-process constraints. > >There is much danger is allowing the kind of power to an actor, such as >ICANN, that is not constrained by due process or ill equipped to act as >a private law enforcement body - just look at Xe, nee Blackwater. > >For instance, there are a lot of scientology folks out there who would >love for you to succeed in your endeavor - because next year they will >follow the road you are creating to have ICANN locate and punish noisy >skeptics. > >And some of the highly radical anti-abortion crowd would just love to >use ICANN to find the personal information about certain doctors and >their staff. > >ICANN's role is to assure that the internet domain name system is >stable, meaning that DNS query packets are accurately, quickly, and >reliably turned into DNS response packets. > >We already have law enforcement and consumer protection agencies with >powers and procedures to deal with the issue you raise. > >If they are not solving the problem you perceive, then fix them. But >don't break ICANN. > > --karl-- > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]
by Beau Brendler Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

Karl, you wrote: "How this ties into SSL certificates and how to prevent it from becoming yet another Verisign dominated market (I don't foresee these licenses as being available for free) are matters that I have not thought about." Agree. The challenge is to create something useful that's not a clone of Verisign or TrustE or, for that matter, VIPPS for the pharmacy community or HON for health sites. Recent history is littered with failed (or spoofed) seals; businesses often complain they cost too much, and research I've done for consumer orgs says they don't really notice or understand them, though that was almost eight years ago now. But those things shouldn't stop a few smart people with a bit of capital. -----Original Message----- >From: Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> >Sent: Dec 15, 2009 1:27 PM >To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC] > >On 12/15/2009 09:34 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> You wrote: >> >> "If you want to create a system of internet business licenses, feel free >> to propose it." >> >> Good idea. > >Horray! Out of argument comes agreement. Now we have something on which >we can go forward. > >I *do* support the idea that there be some sort of internet business >license that is coupled to an obligation to have real and meaningful >information about who or what is behind the business, where it legally >exists, and how it may be contacted for both informal and formal >communications. > >To me that would vastly clarify the issue of whois privacy and make it >easier to define the privacy rights and disclosure obligations, if any, >of individuals who are not also acting in a business capacity versus the >obligations of people and aggregate entities that are. > >There are, of course, a few nits - for example, some things that some >countries treat as religious bodies others treat as commercial cults. >(I suspect that we all know who I am referring to.) > >I don't see the need for there to be a single entity that issues these >licenses, not does it have to be a governmental body. And I believe >that ICANN's role would not be that of a licensor but rather to base its >whois policy on whether one has a license or not from a recognized >authority. (We can foresee that there will be fights over who gets that >nod of recognition.) > >I do have concern that there are those, such as the pharmacies you note, >who may be scofflaws and simply not obtain such a license from wherever >such licenses might be obtained. > >On the other hand, I see a pressure that could coerce people to engage >with various business license system - I can readily imagine web browser >plugins that check the various license databases and put up a warning >marker, much as they already do for un-rooted SSL certificates and >passwords over non-HTTPS connections, when someone is interacting with a >website. Doing this so that it isn't as heavy handed as, for instance, >Firefox handling of non-rooted certificates, might take some inventive >thinking. > >How this ties into SSL certificates and how to prevent it from becoming >yet another Verisign dominated market (I don't foresee these licenses as >being available for free) are matters that I have not thought about. > > --karl-- > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] OFF LIST
by Beau Brendler Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

Hi, Kristina... Technically I am on the RAP wg, but it's been going on so long now, I have not been participating much for a while. That said, yes, the group is working on a definition of cybersquatting, and, yes, that description is relatively accurate. The RAP is working to define just about every individual term you can imagine, which is why it's taking so long. -----Original Message----- >From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> >Sent: Dec 15, 2009 12:38 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] OFF LIST > >Beau, > >Are you on the RAP WG? Are you all working on a definition of >cybersquatting? > >During the RAA-2 WG (poss RAA amendments) call yesterday, one amendment >that we discussed was to prohibit registrars from cybersquatting. The >next thing I knew, we were talking about needing to define it, that RAP >WG was working on it, but that status was uncertain. > >K > >-----Original Message----- >From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Beau >Brendler >Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:37 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide; At-Large Worldwide >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce]Meeting >Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names RegisteredUsing Private/Proxy >Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC] > >you wrote: > >"While somehow I find the Whois issue related to ICANN's agreements with >the contracted parties providing name registration services, determining >that the use of a domain name is illicit or being used for any illicit >purpose is way outside the scope and mandate of ICANN." > >Maybe you should consider sitting in on a meeting of the registration >abuse policies working group, which has been going on almost a year. > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Jorge Amodio <jmamodio(a)gmail.com> >>Sent: Dec 15, 2009 12:06 PM >>To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting >Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using >Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC] >> >>> "well established legal due processes and protections." >>> >>> And in the case of a Russian-mob operated chain of sites that sell >>> vicodin (or a version thereof) all over the world to anyone who will >>> pay, using registrations obtained in the US with false WHOIS data, >>> where exactly is the "well established legal due processes and >>> protections"? No-one's talking about medical marijuana in California. > >>> This is about (among other types of drugs), Class IV controlled >>> substances. Note that "The United States is a party to the Single >>> Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, designed to establish effective > >>> control over international and domestic traffic in narcotics, coca >>> leaf, cocaine, and cannabis. A second treaty, the Convention on >>> Psychotropic Substances of 1971, which entered into force in 1976, is > >>> designed to establish comparable control over stimulants, >>> depressants, and hallucinogens. Congress ratified this treaty in >>> 1980." (http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/1-csa.htm) >> >>Why anyone would care to read all this stuff on a ICANN's email list ? >> >>While somehow I find the Whois issue related to ICANN's agreements with > >>the contracted parties providing name registration services, >>determining that the use of a domain name is illicit or being used for >>any illicit purpose is way outside the scope and mandate of ICANN. >> >>We should frame the discussion in the appropriate context if there is >one. >> >>My .02 >>Jorge >> >>_______________________________________________ >>At-Large mailing list >>At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists. >>icann.org >> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i >cann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]
by Beau Brendler Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

Karl, you wrote: "well established legal due processes and protections." And in the case of a Russian-mob operated chain of sites that sell vicodin (or a version thereof) all over the world to anyone who will pay, using registrations obtained in the US with false WHOIS data, where exactly is the "well established legal due processes and protections"? No-one's talking about medical marijuana in California. This is about (among other types of drugs), Class IV controlled substances. Note that "The United States is a party to the Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs of 1961, designed to establish effective control over international and domestic traffic in narcotics, coca leaf, cocaine, and cannabis. A second treaty, the Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971, which entered into force in 1976, is designed to establish comparable control over stimulants, depressants, and hallucinogens. Congress ratified this treaty in 1980." (http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/abuse/1-csa.htm) You also wrote: "ICANN is being used as a private hired gun through which everyone from the trademark industry to "consumer advocates" are trying to create an e-vigilante shortcut" Nice, though rather dated, rhetorical flourish, but I think we are talking about encouraging the contracted-party-dominated ICANN community to abide by and enforce its own policies or contractual provisions on WHOIS data. Once you've looked at the umpteenth one of these types of sites protected by private proxy registration, you get a little bit discouraged. I don't know if the trademark industry is paying ICANN's "hired gun" fee, but I can assure you we "consumer advocates" ain't got the money between us to rent a margarita machine for an afternoon. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> >Sent: Dec 14, 2009 6:47 PM >To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC] > >On 12/14/2009 03:05 PM, James Seng wrote: >> Sorry for not able to attend the call (its 2am on my side) but is >> there a summary of the meeting or transcript available? I am >> interested in the ALAC position on privacy statement. > >>>>> -------- Original Message -------- >>>>> Subject: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain >>>>> Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC >>>>> From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn"<gbruen(a)knujon.com> >>>>> Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 1:55 pm > >>>>> In advance of today's policy discussion I have prepared this brief >>>>> report of abuse of privacy/proxy services by illicit pharmacies. > > >I find this jump-to-conclusion approach to be very disturbing. > >What criteria are used to say that a pharmacy is "illicit"? > >Here in Santa Cruz there are "medical marijuana" clinics that are 100% >lawful under California State law but 100% unlawful under US Federal >law. ICANN is in no position to undertake to distinguish "licit" from >"illicit". > >And what criteria is used to say that a business is in "abuse of >privacy/proxy services"? > >It is often 100% lawful for people and corporations to not hang the >identities of their operators on a shingle beyond a minimal contact for >the receipt of legal process. > >It really concerns me that ICANN is being used as a private hired gun >through which everyone from the trademark industry to "consumer >advocates" are trying to create an e-vigilante shortcut past well >established legal due processes and protections. > > --karl-- > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 2