- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Will this apply to Registries doing fronrunning:Prison Time for Data Thieves
by Jeffrey A. Williams March 5, 2008

March 5, 2008

All my friends, Will similar charges and resulting resolutions apply to Registries and Registrars engaging in Frontrunning/Domain Name Tasting, registration records, and Whois data? One would hope so, so as to send a message to mismanaged data privacy and security practices which we have seen already a la RegistryFly, ect.. FWIW, it seems likely that in the future, that some SR. Registry and/or Registrar Exec's. will be so punished. For their sake, I hope they have a plentiful supply of soap on a rope, toothbrushes, and cigeretts to trade their future bunk mates in order to avoide a unplesent and undesired social encounter! Will Google be exposed in it's latest bid for managing Health records? One hopes not! Better yet, just say NO to Google storing and managing your health records. See: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5583753.html (March 1, 2008) Two people have received prison sentences for their roles in a data theft scheme that victimized patients of the Kelsey-Seybold Clinic in Houston, Texas. Former insurance analyst Kretia Lutriel Griffin stole personal data belonging to approximately 200 of the clinic's patients. She sold them to Aubry Johnson, who used the information to open charge accounts at various stores. Johnson was sentenced to seven years in prison for access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. Griffin received a two-year sentence for conspiracy. The clinic has notified patients whose data were compromised. A clinic spokesperson said that no medical data were involved. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Motion for ALAC board
by JFC Morfin March 5, 2008

March 5, 2008

At 00:48 05/03/2008, Franck Martin wrote: >I propose the following resolution for the ALAC board. > >Resolution: ALAC will request ICANN to create a mailing list >reserved to the board members of ALS and only the board members of ALS. +1 May I suggest to adapt to the different possible ALS legal structures in saying "to the Chairs of ALS and Members they sponsor and moderate under their personal responsibility"? jfc >-- >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Franck Martin ><mailto:franck.martin@gmail.com>franck.martin(a)gmail.com >http://www.peachymango.org/ >"Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" >G. Bachelard >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org

1 0

NETSOL/ICANN frontrunning lawsuit
by Bill Silverstein March 4, 2008

March 4, 2008

> In the ICANN-NSOL relationship, it's who's the dog and who's > the tail, if you catch my drift. Right now and for some time, it > seems NSOL is the dog wagging the ICANN tail. That's backwards, > IMHO. But you can bet NSOL is going to put up a hell of a fight. Yeah. When lots of money is at risk they will, they did this with the Sex.com case. While Moniker is letter e360's lawyer litigate against me, when they could have saved themselves lots of trouble by cooperating with me. Given the Netsol/ICANN letters regarding Whois accuracy a few years back, it does not give one ANY confidence in the ICANN management. > What ICANN has to decide is whether it's going to fight with > NSOL or seek to weasel out from underneath. My guess is that > ICANN will fold and eventually plead for mercy from the court > so that none of the Board members have to pay any penalties > to registrants out of their personal pockets. I'm not sure if ICANN will be able to be held liable. What I hope is that the powers to be at ICAN will wake up and realize that doing the right thing as a rule is also the best for avoiding lawsuits (though one should do the right thing because it is the right thing). Maybe ICANN's management will reconsider the issue of domain name frontrunning.

6 8

Re: [At-Large] FW: Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi
by carlos aguirre March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

Dear Jef. : the idea, was exactly to share comments and positions in order to show the differents points of view. thank`s for your input Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar ________________________________ Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 18:31:49 +0100 To: carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com; alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org From: jefsey(a)jefsey.com Subject: Re: [At-Large] FW: Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi Dear Carlos, Milton, and all, I do not want to be too blunt, but we have to be clear here not to hurt ourselves. The IDNccTLD issue has been ruled by the WSIS and GAC positions, which are no country (including the USA) has the capacity to interfere with the ccTLDs of other countries. So far ICANN has been delegated the IANA by the NTIA that it reports to. This is an issue, therefore, that is related to the JPA and Net Neutrality, which must includes ideologic and national interest neutrality. As far as ALAC is concerned, its mission should be the smooth interfacing of ICANN with IGF/WSIS enhanced cooperation through its ALSes, which are also active in the IGF and WSIS enhanced cooperation process. Its role here is to help run a technical test, not to contribute to a political issue over who runs a "monopoly" or ensures truly free "competition". "I do not require my telephone to be democratic, but I do require it to work". The world is a 144 country heterarchy that is documented by ISO 3166 and uses approximately 7,500 different languages that deserve equal respect. To go further would only lead to conflicts and would be detrimental to the @large and ICANN interests. The reasons for concern here are the reasons why all of this could lead to an Internet Fast Crack. - inequality in considering who can share in it, based upon ccNSO Membership or not, or relations with ICANN - inequality in languages and scripts treatments - disrespect of ccTLD Management empowerment - forced ICANN directions, procedures and practices at the top of the RFCs - disrepect of the ISO 3166 based multilingual paradigm - technically fixing the current IDNA insufficiency that is documented by IAB RFC 4690 - lack of correlation with ccTLDs already offering IDNs. - lack of anti-phishing solutions (this concerns every 3LD usage of Punycode, whatever the TLD) - lack of a WIPO decision concerning TM conflicts between the Unicode and Punicoded versions (babelnames) etc. At this stage the ALAC should mostly emphasize that the technical conditions for the deployment of a Fast Crack project are definitly met. the priority, therefore, is for: - ICANN to work with the ISO 3166/MA that it is a member of. It had to detail its needs (what it did - but we could also possibly discuss the ICANN request) and to wait for all the concerned parties (regalian domain, civil society, private sector, technical community, and international organizations) to agree. (This was delayed by some confusion that ICANN has clarified). - IETF to decide if they want to set-up a WG-IDNA to address the RFC 4690 identified problems or to endorse the Drafts produced by the idna-udate(a)alvestrand.no mailing list members. ALAC should also be ready for an alternative "Plan (IDN)B" if IETF does not deliver a stable "Plan (IDN)A": - to know how to address existing or possible alternative Multilingual Internet propositions (or local development by some countries). - to obtain a general review by ALAC, GNSO, ccTLDs, GAC, IGF, or WSIS of the Multilingual Internet options and of the technical choice rationale. One has to be fully aware that IDNA is an Internet technology resilience and innovation capacity test. If it fails this test, there will be different Internets developed in order to address the specific needs of an equivalent magnitude (RFID, nanoization, mobility, R&D, and secure control transfers, multilingualization, semantic functions, etc.). The current architecture that remains will mostly stay as the US web/media industry low grade global network along with ICANN as its trade organization. I have no objection to any of these scenarios or others. I have an objection to the indecision/confusion and the technical and operational issues being decided on ideologic grounds. jfc At 13:10 03/03/2008, carlos aguirre wrote: Dear Colleagues: I send to you this e-mail received from Milton Mueller in relation with joint meeting in Delhi, and information refered below. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre. ----- Original Message ----- From: Milton L Mueller To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:19 PM Subject: Re: Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi Robin, Norbert and all: Reading these notes, I think we need to be much clearer with ALAC on what our policy concerns are with respect to fast-track IDN ccTLDs. There are two main concerns: 1) different standards for ccNSO-created IDN TLDs and gNSO-created IDN TLDs. This creates a discriminatory policy environment which might favor one group over the other, or could be gamed by clever participants. 2) competition policy concerns about reinforcing national monopoly registries by giving them one or more new IDNs in advance of new entrants into the market. I did not see those concerns expressed in the ALAC meeting. Hope we can be clearer about this in the future. The first concern has pretty big name space management implications; Avri Doria has expressed a lot of concern about this and I am not sure what her thinking is about how things are going. the second issue is also very important, although those concerns were addressed somewhat by the estimate that country code IDNs might actually take longer to be assigned than generic IDNs. (Why that would be I don't know). Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [ mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin Gross Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:57 PM To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi (provided by Nick Aston Hart of ICANN) https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_12_february_2008_nc Summary Minutes 12 February 2008 NC ALAC/NCUC Joint Meeting 12 February 2008 Summary Minutes NOTE: Meeting Minutes are in draft form until adopted by the Committee Present (ALAC): C Aguirre, J Salgueiro, A Greenberg, V Cretu, X Hong, C Langdon-Orr, B Brendler, V Scartezini, I Aizu, W Ludwig, A Muehlberg Present (NCUC): N Klein, R Gross, Observers: J Morris, E Leibovitch, X Hong, D Farrar The Meeting was brought to order at 16:35 C Aguirre noted that Domain Tasting was a major issue in the GNSO and suggested that we could start with that issue. R Gross noted that it was not expected that a GNSO council vote would be held on the issue during New Delhi, though it was not beyond possibility. A Greenberg provided a brief historical overview of Domain Tasting, current registry proposals related to the AGP, and ICANN activities to date, with particular focus on the latest funnel proposals. He noted that there seemed to be general consensus that Domain Tasting was not beneficial, but there was not consensus on what to do about it. A Liebovitch reinforced the point that NARALO agreed strongly with the perspective that Domain Tasting was harmful. D Farrar endorsed the comments about the AGP. It was a well-intentioned policy which had enormous unintended consequences. Getting rid of the AGP seems more useful than attempting to simply attach more rules to avoid the bad effects. R Gross said that NCUC believes that the AGP needs to be curtailed, as do other constituencies, but there is less clarity on what to do about it. It is thought that complete elimination seems politically impossible due to registrar and registry opposition. A number of comments were received suggesting that a politically possible result that helped resolve the problem was better than purity of purpose with no resolution. C Aguirre asked a question about the NCUC's views on Domain Tasting with respect to trademark protection. R Gross noted that originally NCUC had viewed the elimination of the AGP as a benefit to trademark holders but over time had taken the view that the other aspects of the issue were much more important. D Farrar noted that he was concerned about the use of the grace period by registrars to register a name searched for by a potential customer before the customer could complete the registration. E Leibovitch asked what the defense of the AGP from the NCUC's perspective was. R Gross said that she didn't believe that the NCUC disagreed with the perspective that the AGP should be eliminated. A Muehlberg said she believed that there was a lot of agreement between the At-Large and the NCUC on Domain Tasting. C Aguirre wondered if it was possible to have a joint position on this and asked if the Chair of the GNSO Council wished to speak on the matter. A Greenberg noted the reference to D Farrar's comment and that the NSI implementation is so outrageous it should never had seen the light of day. A Doria noted that she was unclear what question she had been asked to answer. R Gross asked A Doria if there would be a vote on Domain Tasting. A Doria replied that she thinks probably not. R Gross noted that in her experience that the progress on Domain Tasting was far faster than on any previous issue. C Aguirre hoped that we could in future avoid disagreements by continuing to meet and discuss matters regularly. N Klein suggested a discussion of the GNSO Improvements. X Hong asked what the view of the NCUC was on Fast Track IDN introduction. R Gross said the introduction of IDN TLDs was a wonderful thing but there was some NCUC concern about governmental oversight and control. N Klein noted that he thought there would not be large numbers of new registrations for IDN TLDs but just a few. It would be a problem if there were an arbitrary limit of only one TLD per country as some countries have more than one official language and therefore more than one script is possible. X Hong welcomed the positive view expressed. R Gross said that the idea that more people could get online was a persuasive argument for IDN TLDs. X Hong reminded everyone that the point of the fast track process was to move forward with widely recognised TLDs that were in clear demand. She noted that at the IDNC meeting C Disspain said that in a survey of 224 ccTLD managers, only 24 wanted to have an IDN TLD in the fast track. A Muehlberg noted that it was not practical to try and resolve every issue in advance - moving forward and trying a few TLDs was really worthwhile and then it was possible to evaluate whether application-level issues must be taken into account before further IDN TLD implementations. C Aguirre and C Langdon-Orr thanked all for participating. The meeting was adjourned at 17:32 Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > ________________________________ > Ingresá ya a MSN Deportes y enterate de las últimas novedades del mundo deportivo. MSN Deportes _________________________________________________________________ Descargá ya gratis y viví la experiencia Windows Live. http://www.descubrewindowslive.com/latam/index.html _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org _________________________________________________________________ Ingresá ya a MSN en Concierto y disfrutá los recitales en vivo de tus artistas favoritos. http://msninconcert.msn.com/music/archive/es-la/archive.aspx

1 0

Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi
by carlos aguirre March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

Dear Colleagues: I send to you this e-mail received from Milton Mueller inrelation with joint meeting in Delhi, and information refered below.Carlos Dionisio Aguirre.----- Original Message -----From: Milton L MuellerTo: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDUSent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:19 PMSubject: Re: Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New DelhiRobin, Norbert and all:Reading these notes, I think we need to be much clearer with ALAC on whatour policy concerns are with respect to fast-track IDN ccTLDs.There are two main concerns:1) different standards for ccNSO-created IDN TLDs and gNSO-created IDN TLDs.This creates a discriminatory policy environment which might favor one groupover the other, or could be gamed by clever participants.2) competition policy concerns about reinforcing national monopolyregistries by giving them one or more new IDNs in advance of new entrantsinto the market.I did not see those concerns expressed in the ALAC meeting. Hope we can beclearer about this in the future. The first concern has pretty big namespace management implications; Avri Doria has expressed a lot of concernabout this and I am not sure what her thinking is about how things aregoing. the second issue is also very important, although those concerns wereaddressed somewhat by the estimate that country code IDNs might actuallytake longer to be assigned than generic IDNs. (Why that would be I don'tknow).Milton MuellerProfessor, Syracuse University School of Information StudiesXS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology------------------------------Internet Governance Project:http://internetgovernance.orgFrom: Non-Commercial User Constituency[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin GrossSent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:57 PMTo: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDUSubject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in NewDelhiMeeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi (provided by Nick Aston Hart of ICANN) https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_12_february_2008_ncSumm… Minutes 12 February 2008 NCALAC/NCUC Joint Meeting12 February 2008Summary MinutesNOTE: Meeting Minutes are in draft form until adopted by the CommitteePresent (ALAC): C Aguirre, J Salgueiro, A Greenberg, V Cretu, X Hong, CLangdon-Orr, B Brendler, V Scartezini, I Aizu, W Ludwig, A MuehlbergPresent (NCUC): N Klein, R Gross,Observers: J Morris, E Leibovitch, X Hong, D FarrarThe Meeting was brought to order at 16:35C Aguirre noted that Domain Tasting was a major issue in the GNSO andsuggested that we could start with that issue.R Gross noted that it was not expected that a GNSO council vote would beheld on the issue during New Delhi, though it was not beyond possibility.A Greenberg provided a brief historical overview of Domain Tasting, currentregistry proposals related to the AGP, and ICANN activities to date, withparticular focus on the latest funnel proposals. He noted that there seemedto be general consensus that Domain Tasting was not beneficial, but therewas not consensus on what to do about it.A Liebovitch reinforced the point that NARALO agreed strongly with theperspective that Domain Tasting was harmful.D Farrar endorsed the comments about the AGP. It was a well-intentionedpolicy which had enormous unintended consequences. Getting rid of the AGPseems more useful than attempting to simply attach more rules to avoid thebad effects.R Gross said that NCUC believes that the AGP needs to be curtailed, as doother constituencies, but there is less clarity on what to do about it. Itis thought that complete elimination seems politically impossible due toregistrar and registry opposition.A number of comments were received suggesting that a politically possibleresult that helped resolve the problem was better than purity of purposewith no resolution.C Aguirre asked a question about the NCUC's views on Domain Tasting withrespect to trademark protection.R Gross noted that originally NCUC had viewed the elimination of the AGP asa benefit to trademark holders but over time had taken the view that theother aspects of the issue were much more important.D Farrar noted that he was concerned about the use of the grace period byregistrars to register a name searched for by a potential customer beforethe customer could complete the registration.E Leibovitch asked what the defense of the AGP from the NCUC's perspectivewas.R Gross said that she didn't believe that the NCUC disagreed with theperspective that the AGP should be eliminated.A Muehlberg said she believed that there was a lot of agreement between theAt-Large and the NCUC on Domain Tasting.C Aguirre wondered if it was possible to have a joint position on this andasked if the Chair of the GNSO Council wished to speak on the matter.A Greenberg noted the reference to D Farrar's comment and that the NSIimplementation is so outrageous it should never had seen the light of day.A Doria noted that she was unclear what question she had been asked toanswer.R Gross asked A Doria if there would be a vote on Domain Tasting.A Doria replied that she thinks probably not.R Gross noted that in her experience that the progress on Domain Tasting wasfar faster than on any previous issue.C Aguirre hoped that we could in future avoid disagreements by continuing tomeet and discuss matters regularly.N Klein suggested a discussion of the GNSO Improvements.X Hong asked what the view of the NCUC was on Fast Track IDN introduction.R Gross said the introduction of IDN TLDs was a wonderful thing but therewas some NCUC concern about governmental oversight and control.N Klein noted that he thought there would not be large numbers of newregistrations for IDN TLDs but just a few. It would be a problem if therewere an arbitrary limit of only one TLD per country as some countries havemore than one official language and therefore more than one script ispossible.X Hong welcomed the positive view expressed.R Gross said that the idea that more people could get online was apersuasive argument for IDN TLDs.X Hong reminded everyone that the point of the fast track process was tomove forward with widely recognised TLDs that were in clear demand. Shenoted that at the IDNC meeting C Disspain said that in a survey of 224 ccTLDmanagers, only 24 wanted to have an IDN TLD in the fast track.A Muehlberg noted that it was not practical to try and resolve every issuein advance - moving forward and trying a few TLDs was really worthwhile andthen it was possible to evaluate whether application-level issues must betaken into account before further IDN TLD implementations.C Aguirre and C Langdon-Orr thanked all for participating.The meeting was adjourned at 17:32 Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar _________________________________________________________________ Ingresá ya a MSN Deportes y enterate de las últimas novedades del mundo deportivo. http://msn.foxsports.com/fslasc/

2 2

Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi
by carlos aguirre March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

Dear Colleagues: I send to you this e-mail received from Milton Mueller inrelation with joint meeting in Delhi, and information refered below.Carlos Dionisio Aguirre.----- Original Message -----From: Milton L MuellerTo: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDUSent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:19 PMSubject: Re: Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New DelhiRobin, Norbert and all:Reading these notes, I think we need to be much clearer with ALAC on whatour policy concerns are with respect to fast-track IDN ccTLDs.There are two main concerns:1) different standards for ccNSO-created IDN TLDs and gNSO-created IDN TLDs.This creates a discriminatory policy environment which might favor one groupover the other, or could be gamed by clever participants.2) competition policy concerns about reinforcing national monopolyregistries by giving them one or more new IDNs in advance of new entrantsinto the market.I did not see those concerns expressed in the ALAC meeting. Hope we can beclearer about this in the future. The first concern has pretty big namespace management implications; Avri Doria has expressed a lot of concernabout this and I am not sure what her thinking is about how things aregoing. the second issue is also very important, although those concerns wereaddressed somewhat by the estimate that country code IDNs might actuallytake longer to be assigned than generic IDNs. (Why that would be I don'tknow).Milton MuellerProfessor, Syracuse University School of Information StudiesXS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology------------------------------Internet Governance Project:http://internetgovernance.orgFrom: Non-Commercial User Constituency[mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Robin GrossSent: Monday, February 18, 2008 12:57 PMTo: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDUSubject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Meeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in NewDelhiMeeting notes from ALAC-NCUC joint meeting in New Delhi (provided by Nick Aston Hart of ICANN) https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_12_february_2008_ncSumm… Minutes 12 February 2008 NCALAC/NCUC Joint Meeting12 February 2008Summary MinutesNOTE: Meeting Minutes are in draft form until adopted by the CommitteePresent (ALAC): C Aguirre, J Salgueiro, A Greenberg, V Cretu, X Hong, CLangdon-Orr, B Brendler, V Scartezini, I Aizu, W Ludwig, A MuehlbergPresent (NCUC): N Klein, R Gross,Observers: J Morris, E Leibovitch, X Hong, D FarrarThe Meeting was brought to order at 16:35C Aguirre noted that Domain Tasting was a major issue in the GNSO andsuggested that we could start with that issue.R Gross noted that it was not expected that a GNSO council vote would beheld on the issue during New Delhi, though it was not beyond possibility.A Greenberg provided a brief historical overview of Domain Tasting, currentregistry proposals related to the AGP, and ICANN activities to date, withparticular focus on the latest funnel proposals. He noted that there seemedto be general consensus that Domain Tasting was not beneficial, but therewas not consensus on what to do about it.A Liebovitch reinforced the point that NARALO agreed strongly with theperspective that Domain Tasting was harmful.D Farrar endorsed the comments about the AGP. It was a well-intentionedpolicy which had enormous unintended consequences. Getting rid of the AGPseems more useful than attempting to simply attach more rules to avoid thebad effects.R Gross said that NCUC believes that the AGP needs to be curtailed, as doother constituencies, but there is less clarity on what to do about it. Itis thought that complete elimination seems politically impossible due toregistrar and registry opposition.A number of comments were received suggesting that a politically possibleresult that helped resolve the problem was better than purity of purposewith no resolution.C Aguirre asked a question about the NCUC's views on Domain Tasting withrespect to trademark protection.R Gross noted that originally NCUC had viewed the elimination of the AGP asa benefit to trademark holders but over time had taken the view that theother aspects of the issue were much more important.D Farrar noted that he was concerned about the use of the grace period byregistrars to register a name searched for by a potential customer beforethe customer could complete the registration.E Leibovitch asked what the defense of the AGP from the NCUC's perspectivewas.R Gross said that she didn't believe that the NCUC disagreed with theperspective that the AGP should be eliminated.A Muehlberg said she believed that there was a lot of agreement between theAt-Large and the NCUC on Domain Tasting.C Aguirre wondered if it was possible to have a joint position on this andasked if the Chair of the GNSO Council wished to speak on the matter.A Greenberg noted the reference to D Farrar's comment and that the NSIimplementation is so outrageous it should never had seen the light of day.A Doria noted that she was unclear what question she had been asked toanswer.R Gross asked A Doria if there would be a vote on Domain Tasting.A Doria replied that she thinks probably not.R Gross noted that in her experience that the progress on Domain Tasting wasfar faster than on any previous issue.C Aguirre hoped that we could in future avoid disagreements by continuing tomeet and discuss matters regularly.N Klein suggested a discussion of the GNSO Improvements.X Hong asked what the view of the NCUC was on Fast Track IDN introduction.R Gross said the introduction of IDN TLDs was a wonderful thing but therewas some NCUC concern about governmental oversight and control.N Klein noted that he thought there would not be large numbers of newregistrations for IDN TLDs but just a few. It would be a problem if therewere an arbitrary limit of only one TLD per country as some countries havemore than one official language and therefore more than one script ispossible.X Hong welcomed the positive view expressed.R Gross said that the idea that more people could get online was apersuasive argument for IDN TLDs.X Hong reminded everyone that the point of the fast track process was tomove forward with widely recognised TLDs that were in clear demand. Shenoted that at the IDNC meeting C Disspain said that in a survey of 224 ccTLDmanagers, only 24 wanted to have an IDN TLD in the fast track.A Muehlberg noted that it was not practical to try and resolve every issuein advance - moving forward and trying a few TLDs was really worthwhile andthen it was possible to evaluate whether application-level issues must betaken into account before further IDN TLD implementations.C Aguirre and C Langdon-Orr thanked all for participating.The meeting was adjourned at 17:32 Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar _________________________________________________________________ ¿Aburrido? Ingresá ya y divertite como nunca en MSN Juegos. http://juegos.ar.msn.com/

1 0

USG's Evans says feds steaming ahead on cybersecurity plan, but with privacy in mind
by Jeffrey A. Williams March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

All my friends, Key words here are "privacy in mind" and "Einstein". What one may want to wonder is are they mutually exclusive? Answer: No, but are configurable. How can users protect themselves from "Einstein" if agencies are looking into your Internet [ Email or P2P or web space files ] content of sensitive information should such agencies be so curious? Suggestions: Encrypt your email, P2P transmissions with strong encryption, and preferably non-standard encryption. Rotate keys frequently, and never keep keys on your hard drive, memorize them! If information is on a web page/web space, also use strong encryption of those files as well as files on your hard drive, and again rotate keys frequently as well as consider double encryption of those files. Again do not keep keys on your web site or hard drive, memorize them! See: http://www.ipv6tf.org/index.php?page=news/newsroom&id=3629 and more to the point: http://computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonom… Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

[Fwd: [CRIS Info] CFP - Computers, Freedom, & Privacy: Technology Policy '08]
by Jeffrey A. Williams March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

All my friends, Forwarding this FYI... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [CRIS Info] CFP - Computers, Freedom, & Privacy: Technology Policy '08 Date: Sat, 1 Mar 2008 16:41:54 -0500 From: Eddan Katz <eddank(a)aya.yale.edu> To: Crisinfo(a)comunica.org References: <5AD97007-B65C-4B6D-AA90-CABEA3945EAF(a)aya.yale.edu> COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, AND PRIVACY: TECHNOLOGY POLICY '08 http://cfp2008.org/ 18th Annual CFP conference May 20-23, 2008 Omni Hotel New Haven, CT CALL FOR PROPOSALS This election year will be the first to address US technology policy in the information age as part of our national debate. Candidates have put forth positions about technology policy and have recognized that it has its own set of economic, political, and social concerns. In the areas of privacy, intellectual property, cybersecurity, telecommunications, and freedom of speech, an increasing number of issues once confined to experts now penetrate public conversation. Our decisions about technology policy are being made at a time when the architectures of our information and communication technologies are still being built. Debate about these issues needs to be better-informed in order for us to make policy choices in the public interest. This year, the 18th annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference will focus on what constitutes technology policy. CFP: Technology Policy '08 is an opportunity to help shape public debate on those issues being made into laws and regulations and those technological infrastructures being developed. The direction of our technology policy impacts the choices we make about our national defense, our civil liberties during wartime, the future of American education, our national healthcare systems, and many other realms of policy discussed more prominently on the election trail. Policies ranging from data mining and wiretapping, to file-sharing and open access, and e-voting to electronic medical records will be addressed by expert panels of technologists, policymakers, business leaders, and advocates. Open participation is invited for proposals on panels, tutorials, speaker suggestions, and birds of a feather sessions through the CFP: Technology Policy '08 submission at http://www.cfp2008.org/submissions/. Suggested topics for discussion include: * Information Privacy * Anonymity Online * Government Transparency * Voting Technology * Online Campaigning * Social Networks * Citizen Journalism * Cybercrime & Cyberterrorism * Digital Education * Copyright and Fair Use * Patent Reform * Open Access * P2P Networks * Information Policy and Free Trade * Media Concentration * Genes & Bioethics * Electronic Medical Records * Web Accessibility * Open Standards * Network Neutrality * High-Speed Internet Access Policy * Freedom of Information * Technology Policy Administration Submission Deadlines: Panel, Tutorial, and Speaker proposals: March 21, 2008. Birds of a Feather Session (BoFs) proposals: April 21, 2008. Panel, Tutorial, and Speaker proposals accepted by the Program Committee will be notified by April 7, 2008. Registration available online at http://www.regonline.com/Checkin.asp?EventId=193762. ------ Eddan Katz International Affairs Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/ Senior Fellow, Yale Information Society Project Lecturer and Associate Research Scholar, Yale Law School http://isp.law.yale.edu/ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 _______________________________________________ Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS) For more information see http://www.crisinfo.org/ act(a)crisinfo.org CRIS Info is a public list for information and questions about the campaign for Communication Rights in the Information Society (CRIS). CRIS also has a Latin American regional list at: http://comunica.org/mailman/listinfo/crisal_comunica.org ________________________________________ Crisinfo mailing list Send contributions to Crisinfo(a)comunica.org CRIS Info archives are at: http://comunica.org/mailman/listinfo/crisinfo_comunica.org This list is provided courtesy of Comunica - http://comunica.org

1 0

Registrars exploit the lack of ICANN contract enforcement
by Danny Younger March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

Question What is Register.com's Domain Hold service and how much does it cost? Answer Domain Hold is a service that enables you to exclusively reserve domain name(s) for 4 days-preventing registration by others during that period. If you decide to register the domain name during the hold period, you will only be able to register the domain name through Register.com. The Domain Hold service is free, however you will be charged the regular fee for registration when you choose to register the domain name. Please visit our Pricing page for current terms and pricing. How does Register.coms Domain Hold service work? Answer Once you have indicated that you would like to place a domain name on hold, Register.com will hold the domain name on reserve so that you, alone, can register it within the 4 day hold period. Register.com will place the domain name in a special account and you will be emailed instructions and a link explaining how to proceed with your registration and transfer the domain name to your own account. If you do not register the domain name within the 4 day hold period, the domain name will again be available for registration on a first come, first served basis. Question Domain Hold - Why does the WHOIS database show Register.com as the Registrant of the domain name I requested be placed on hold? Answer Register.com is listed as the Registrant of the domain name you requested be placed on hold to enable you, alone, to register the domain name you are interested in during the 4 day hold period. If you have not registered the domain name during the 4 day hold period, on day 5 it will again be available for registration on a first come, first served basis. If you choose to proceed with the registration within the 4 day hold period, the domain name will be transferred to you. [My question] Why isn't this a violation of RAA 3.7.4: 3.7.4 Registrar shall not activate any Registered Name unless and until it is satisfied that it has received a reasonable assurance of payment of its registration fee. For this purpose, a charge to a credit card, general commercial terms extended to creditworthy customers, or other mechanism providing a similar level of assurance of payment shall be sufficient, provided that the obligation to pay becomes final and non-revocable by the Registered Name Holder upon activation of the registration. http://help.register.com/cgi-bin/register_help.cfg/php/enduser/std_adp.php?… ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

4 7

Internet democracy/free speach in Japan to disappear:Japan Seeking to Govern Top News Web Sites
by Jeffrey A. Williams March 2, 2008

March 2, 2008

All, Well well now, seems that free speech is to be seriously encroached upon in Japan by 2010 if the Japanese parliament has it's way. I think Wikipedia, Wikileaks Google, Grudge, Yahoo and Doubleclick are going to have problems here... Will such proposed legislation in Japan facilitate the blocking/censoring of Wikipedia, et., al. in Japan? We'll see... This proposed legislation may make the Great Firewall of China look like a wimpy dragon... http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/technology/wireless28.php A Japanese government panel is proposing to govern " http://www.cosplayers.net/ influential, widely read news-related sites as newspapers and broadcasting are now regulated." The panel, set up by the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, said Internet service providers (ISPs) should be answerable for breaches of vaguer "minimum regulations" to guard against "illegal and harmful content." The conservative government, led by the Liberal Democratic Party, or LDP, is seeking to have the new laws passed by Parliament in 2010." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0