- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Danny and all, You and I know that ICANN has always had trouble maintaining it's own web site let alone provisioning it's DNS or advising on how to do so for or to others. Additionally, until recently ICANN.ORG's own DNS was grossly misconfigured. That does not lend much in terms of creditability to ICANN's ability to manage any resource effectively. Secondly, in either 1999 or 2000, I don't recall offhand at the moment, the than sitting ICANN interim Bod was very emphatic that if any registry failed, ICANN itself would take over so that no registrant would be damaged as a result of such a failure. Ergo you are quite right in being concerned, if not very concerned regarding fail over from http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf slide 13. Seems some backpedalling is in progress, behind the scenes... IMO only, what should be done to address the failure of .Travel is either ICON hire some other entity to temporarily manage the registry, or aid the current registry owners to acquire funding with ICANN itself kicking in about 25%. But frankly, .Travel has little chance of survival unless it receives significant and long term public funding. In the current world economic environment I don't see that happening either... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 12:54 PM >To: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry > >Jefsey, > >Of greater concern to me than the prospect of ALAC >registry management is the current status of the ICANN >Registry failover project -- see >http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/registry-failover-30apr08.pdf > >See also the After Action Report for the gTLD Registry >Failover Exercise conducted 24-25 January >2008http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf > >See also the SSAC Review of the above at >http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac031.pdf > >By the way, on one of the slides from the first >presentation (page 13) there is a bullet point that >states: "Recognition that current process is not >sufficient to reconstitute a registry". This is a >somewhat unsettling remark (unless I am >misunderstanding it). > >Another troubling statement from the After Action >report: "The draft ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan >provides strategic guidance, but (by design) lacks the >detailed internal ICANN event-specific steps for >implementation." > >One has to hope that behind-the-scenes ICANN is >reasonably on top of their responsibilities... the >last thing that we need is a loss of confidence in the >provisioning of DNS services. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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] The pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Danny and all, This is not surprising in any way as other older news on .Travel has been well publicized in the past on the GA, Slashdot, and elsewhere. ICANN's acceptance of .Travel, like .MOBI were based upon personal friendships of the than seated ICANN Bod rather than more reasonable and relevant reasons and was hotly debated at the time, again on the GA forum. Frankly the idea of sTLD's was and remains a very questionable if not outright silly strategy for expanding the TLD name space. But the than sitting ICANN bod thought wrongly, otherwise... Just as frankly, I thought at the time and stated such in no uncertain terms the idea of .Travel was little more than a scam. Seems I was correct... Maybe some day ICANN itself will have honest, accountable, transparent, open and responsible leadership. But that day has not yet come to pass... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 11:10 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> >Subject: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry > >For those of you following the ongoing demise of >.travel, here is its parent corporation's most recent >filing: > >"Based upon the Company's current financial condition, >as discussed above, and without the infusion of >additional capital, management does not believe that >the Company will be able to fund its operations beyond >the end of May 2008." > >Form 10-Q for THEGLOBE COM INC: >http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080509/tglo.ob10-q.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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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] The pending death of a registry
by Patrick Vande Walle May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

JFC Morfin wrote: > This demonstrates what @large people engaged in this business and in > DNS community testing know for years: Registries should be non profit > organisations and the Registrants should be their members. Low > management costs and new services. Verisign is a successful and purely commercial operation. So is Afilias. The failure is not linked to the fact that it was a commercial company. IMHO, the main issue is that the ".travel" string is only meaningful for English speakers, or about 30% of the current Internet users. I cannot see why German, Spanish or French speakers would use such a domain. > PS. By the way how many people on this ALAC list has ever technical > managed DNS zone files and operated a nameserver ? I would be > curiouis to know also how many people among the GNSO and BoD? FWIW, I do. -- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu

2 1

Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry
by Danny Younger May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Jefsey, Of greater concern to me than the prospect of ALAC registry management is the current status of the ICANN Registry failover project -- see http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/registry-failover-30apr08.pdf See also the After Action Report for the gTLD Registry Failover Exercise conducted 24-25 January 2008http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf See also the SSAC Review of the above at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac031.pdf By the way, on one of the slides from the first presentation (page 13) there is a bullet point that states: "Recognition that current process is not sufficient to reconstitute a registry". This is a somewhat unsettling remark (unless I am misunderstanding it). Another troubling statement from the After Action report: "The draft ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan provides strategic guidance, but (by design) lacks the detailed internal ICANN event-specific steps for implementation." One has to hope that behind-the-scenes ICANN is reasonably on top of their responsibilities... the last thing that we need is a loss of confidence in the provisioning of DNS services.

2 1

Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Danny Younger May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Wendy, Thank you for your comment on this topic. I am sure that if asked you will indicate that: 1. The ALAC never took a formal vote on the Statement 2. No members of the ALAC from regions other than NA expressed any views whatsoever on the topic on the at-large discussion list (which is not surprising as they rarely express any opinions on anything). 3. The work of the ad-hoc GNSO Improvements Working Group was totally non-transparent (not even an archived discussion list). 4. The broad At-Large community was not afforded an opportunity to discuss the Joint document prior to its release. 5. There are those in the at-large that do not support the concept of eliminating Non-Com representation in the GNSO. 6. Some in the at-large view the statement that "At-Large would not accept anything less than 50% of the voting power of the Non-Commercial Interest Group", as ludicrous. 7. Some regard the ALAC push for a multilingual approach within the GNSO to be a foolish waste of money and point to the horrid expenditures on the part of the ALAC for contracted (yet unused) translation services. 8. The comment "Since as mentioned the At-Large community has been actively engaged in developing and implementing new approaches to a working group modality for policy development, some of the experiences we have had in that process may prove salutary", is an insult to the intelligence of the community.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Wendy Seltzer May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Hi Cheryl, Apology accepted. I fully intend to put forward the views of ALAC, and not my own. To the extent that I can get the ALAC reasoning supporing those views, I can make a stronger case than if I'm simply left to rely on adherence to a joint statement. As is, I suspect my sole contribution to what may be a heated debate, will have to be "ALAC supports the joint user statement, specifically expressing concern that there be strong and equitable individual user representation in the GNSO." --Wendy Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > Wendy, > > With from the ridiculous number of glitches, technical issues and > interventions / interruptions with the French Chanel interpreter last night > I felt that the ALAC may perhaps not have yet made itself clear to you on > what we desire to have you as Board Liaison impart to the Board regarding > the status of ALAC support and endorsement for the Joint UC statement and > the proposed tripartite model... > > I apologise for the delay in sending this to you but it should arrive in > time for you to read *before* the Board meeting and I am in a national > conference yesterday and today (not able to connect other than in a break > and this has been my first chance)... > > If I understood and interpreted you correctly, then you may be planning to > not simply forward in addition to our May ALAC statements/position pieces > and further the argument for full,(and within the User Constituencies mix) > an equitable part for Internet users, (including DNS Registrants and non > registrants) i.e. the At-Large Community in a a redesigned GNSO structure, > but perhaps to indicate that this overarching principle is a modification of > / alteration to / or new view separate from, that which is outlined in the > Joint UC Proposal... If am wrong or misinterpreting your intent here then > I do most humbly apologise. > > I therefore as Chair, write to you to state that, whilst your personal > opinion will naturally be transmitted to the Board in your personal > capacity the ALAC view is as we have recently described and reviewed at > considerable length in several documents and messages. You are required to " to > put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. (ROP > 4.8) *and *"To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to [the > Board]..." (ROP 5.7). > > Any indication by you as an ALAC Liaison, that the Joint UC is not endorsed > or that we have moved back from our position of support of its proposal on > structure to the Board, would be a matter in our opinion of you 'not acting > in the best interests of the ALAC'. > > An example of a suitable and non personally compromising statement to the > Board would be along the lines of what Vanda as ALAC Vice Chair, recently > sent to The Board Chair in response to a question on this matter to the GNSO > improvements BGC which I have copied below... > > <snip>Para: 'Peter Dengate Thrush' > Assunto: RES: Future Board discussion and resolution on the matter of GNSO > Improvements - Specifically GNSO structure. > > Peter, being with ALAC, I should not have other comments than ALAC's > position already stated. > Best, > Vanda <end snip> > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Extent of ALAC responsibilities
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Jefsey and all, I personally have no problem with any membership organization of users of or at any level to assist in the development, advancement, deployment and implimentation of any technical advancements that are of use in any way to the larger internet community. This has after all been going on for many years now, and INEGroup has in some areas lead the way. First I would strongly suggest however that France@large consider getting it's DNS for Franceatlarge.org cleaned up if any reasonable credability of france@large is to be recognized. See: http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&tok… -----Original Message----- >From: jefsey <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: May 28, 2008 6:53 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] Extent of ALAC responsibilities > >Dear friends, >The debate on the extent of ICANN responsibilities, raises the >question of the extent of ALAC reponsibilities. I have touched on >that question several times on this list without any reaction. I >will, therefore, pose it plainly. > > >1) france@large understands "@large" (ad largum, in latin) as the >pilots (kubernetes) of Plato's cybernetics paradigm. The people who >freely steer "in altum", or independently throughout the global >distributed network. > >We translate it as the people that feel that they are the co-owners >of the nets, wherein they apportion their resources, time, ideas, and >money. They, therefore, are very often what Von Hippel introduced as >"lead >users" ><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_innovation>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_innovation >- in particular in open source, standard, and architecture areas. > >Is this understanding common on this list and among ALS? > > >2) france@large considers its role to be to facilitate satisfactory >support for these @large people by the different entities of the >political (ICANN), technical (IETF), and their own grassroots >governance, along the principles of proportionality and subsidiarity, >in particular in: > >- reporting to the ICANN BoD about the needs, moods, and propositions >of its @large members. >- doing the the same with the IETF Area Directors and WG when their >works impact the @large design, use, and manegement of their own system. >- helping its @large members to study, document, test, deploy, and >operate answers to the needs that they experiment on, which are not >yet addressed elsewhere (which is the way the Internet has evolved >since its inception). > >Are we in agreement? > > >3) to give an example, > >france@large members are generally dissatisfied with the IDN/IDNA >approach as proposed by the IETF. As a result, AFNIC (.fr) has not >yet implemented any lingual support. Several events have led to a >debate on the issue, and to increased attendance of our concerned >members (joined by some ISOC members) to the IETF/WG IDNABIS. > >- the Paris ICANN meeting, where ccNSO should finalise its "Fast Track" project >- the IAB comment that stated the IDNA RFCs needed a refresh before >any further deployment >- the general progress of the digital convergence and semantic emergence >- the R&D exploration over the years by four france@large projects of >expertise (dot-root, AFRAC, MLTF, and 3166-4). > >We identified that IDNA was not going to addres our needs. We asked >Vint Cerf (the Chair of the WG-IDNABIS) if he thought that IDNA could >become the ML-DNS that we need. The resulting debate is posted at ><http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=Is_IDNA_an_ML-DNS_to_be>http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=Is_IDNA_an_ML-DNS_to_be. >It led to the mutual understanding that IDNA and ML-DNS were parallel >efforts to be developed, in parallel, by the ITEF and @large community. > >To support that effort, we started the ><http://ml-dns.org/>http://ml-dns.org site for a general debate >within the @large community, together with ICANN and IETF, as they >deemed it appropriate. Our concern is to help the expediting of IDNA >by the IETF, as a first layer solution that is appropriate for the >Anglo-Saxon users/systems, which have to interoperate with linguistic >interlocutors. While working on a consistent ML-DNS solution (1) >bringing the same QoS to scriptual/lingual users, as the regular DNS >does for English ASCII users (2) having the capacity to transparently >encapsulate the IDNA once it has finalised by the IETF. > >We would adopt the same logic when considering others issues. >Releating with the appropriate Internet technical/political >Governance, such as ICANN/GNSO, ccNSO, GAC. The same as we relate >with IGF, IGF, Intlnet, MAAYA, UNESCO, ITU, etc. and have other >specialized centers of expertise on RFID, local networking, >sociolinguistic TLDs, multilinguistics, etc. > >Are we on the same wavelength? > > >Thank you for your comments. >jfc Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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] Reframing the rights issue ... Specific Proposal
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Roberto and all, I agree and disagree in part on both sides. ICANN's actions in regards to the Pakistan incident were far to broad and over reaching. However I agree that if an particular organization or individual is negitively and directly impacting the normal and reasonable flow of any legal network traffic than immediate action is called for. This is why in part also why Domain Names whose DNS'es are misconfigured need shutting down temporarly until the offending Domain Name's DNS is cleaned up. These would currently include, but not be limited to the following Domain Names: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=ietf.org&token=06706b9b19… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&token=0… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=alvestrand.no&token=07e03… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=GOV.NU.CA&token=00e04435a… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=ietf.org&token=00d071df45… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=iab.org&token=0030546229e… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=telly.org&token=0660dc539… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=iana.org&token=0080ef377a… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=icann.org&token=10507a047… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=arin.net&token=1060a1c7a8… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=com.lb&token=140020b739e9… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=net.lb&token=14b03dcc6c8c… 019 http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=orange.fr&token=26d05… http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=wanadoo.fr&token=2660… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=graduate.org&token=01504b… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=hansenet.com&token=019026… -----Original Message----- >From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> >Sent: May 28, 2008 9:08 AM >To: 'Robert Guerra' <lists(a)privaterra.info>, 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Reframing the rights issue ... Specific Proposal > >Robert, > >If and when censorship affects security and stability of the Internet, ICANN >has not only the right, but the duty to intervene. The case you quote about >Pakistan was evaluated by SSAC, as I recall Steve Crocker reporting to the >Board, as it was a concrete, practical case of interference with the normal >functioning of the net. >And if you do have practical cases that you are aware of, that are in effect >in Egypt, and that might cause consequences, please let the SSAC know, and >rest assured that they will act (with or without deliberation by ALAC). >If, on the other hand, all is based by unproven allegations, I sincerely >doubt that SSAC will make a fool of itself by starting a study (with or >without deliberation by ALAC). > >Just my 2c. > >Cheers, >Roberto > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >> Robert Guerra >> Sent: Tuesday, 27 May 2008 17:11 >> To: At-Large Worldwide >> Subject: [At-Large] Reframing the rights issue ... Specific Proposal >> >> >> The recent exchange on and about the fall ICANN meeting in >> Egypt was informative and allowed me to see to what extent >> (or not) it is possible to have a larger discussion about the >> broad issue of Internet Freedom affects millions of internet users. >> >> As a more specific - DNS centric focus has been requested, >> then let me >> suggest that Internet Censorship has the unintended consequence of >> affecting the security and stability of the DNS not only at a >> national level, but internationally (see ref below) . >> Researchers and internet experts are of the opinion that >> censorship practices will increase significantly over the >> coming years, as such - let me recommend ALAC propose to the board : >> >> 1. That ICANN should propose a study be conducted by SSAC, in >> collaboration with leading censorship researchers on the >> effects on internet censorship on the operational stability, >> reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. >> >> 2. Should the SSAC report reveal that indeed the security and >> stability of the DNS is affected by censorship, then a policy >> development process (PDP) should be started. >> >> >> I hope this specific proposal can be supported by ALS's and >> the ALAC on or before the Paris ICANN meeting in June. >> >> I look forward to comments. >> >> Yours sincerely >> >> Robert >> --- >> Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> >> Managing Director, Privaterra >> Tel +1 416 893 0377 >> >> >> --- >> Pakistan's Internet has a bad weekend >> (Report by Open Net Initiative) >> http://is.gd/mlo >> >> >> This was a dark weekend for the Internet community in >> Pakistan. A series of unfortunate events started with an >> order for ISPs to block YouTube in Pakistan, which naturally >> riled citizens and advocates of free speech. Making things >> worse, the implementation of the block by one of the ISPs >> made YouTube inaccessible to most of the Internet around the >> world for two hours. Inadvertently, much of the global >> Internet audience has now experienced filtering.. >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l >ists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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] The triple-x issue - Was: RE: Wrapping up the thread/discussion - Apoligies
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Roberto, Darlene and all, The problem here with this debate is first that .XXX is not a Domain Name as Darlene seems to mistakenly believe. It, .XXX is a TLD ( Top level Domain ) which is far different than a Domain Name. Second, the .XXX decision had only somwhat to do with a moral issue. More importantly is that such a TLD could be used for trapping users and registrants in a "Sticky Bun" type sting operation if they moved their previous DN's to this TLD name space, which was part of the reason it was being considered in the first place. Ergo, it would have been a dismal failure and as such was a bad choice for a new TLD on that basis alone... Third, any registry business that seeks to make a profit from the exploitation of women or children directly as the .XXX TLD represented is simply not exceptable ethically and horrific policy not to mention encourages illegal activity... -----Original Message----- >From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> >Sent: May 28, 2008 9:08 AM >To: "'Thompson, Darlene'" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, 'Ross Rader' <ross(a)tucows.com>, 'John Levine' <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] The triple-x issue - Was: RE: Wrapping up the thread/discussion - Apoligies > >Darlene, > >> >> (I really don't have a firm opinion on this) I'm just >> harkening back to the .xxx debate. In my mind, it was a good >> example of ICANN stepping outside of its role and taking part >> in a debate that was completely outside of its mandate. >> IMHO, if the .xxx people had all of their ducks in a row as >> per ICANN's rules, they should have been able to register >> that domain name. Instead there was this huge issue about >> morality (which is totally outside of ICANN's mandate). So, >> how far is this to be taken? > >To set the record straight, I did vote against the delegation of the TLD, >but not at all because of moral issues. >When the story begun, I was still ALAC Liaison. Since I had no precise >mandate to present a specific position, I expressed my own opinion in the >Board discussion, which was that in the case of a sponsored TLD one of the >key element was the consensus of the sponsored community. For a number of >reasons, this was not the case for triple-x. Just consider simply the fact >that most sites with adult content would not go to a specific TLD, exactly >to avoid ghettization, and easy filtering. They want to reach the widest >possible audience, and therefore would not accept being in an easily >identifiable corner. This was my reason since the beginning. Coherently with >this position, expressed over the many months during which this saga >continued, I cast my vote against it when time came, as in the meantime I >have become a voting director. > >This said, I agree completely with you that the matter got politicized, and >ICANN took the risk to act outside of its mandate. But the first move in >this direction was not at all the consideration of moral opportunity, but >the campaign promoted in favour of triple-x, with the (in my opinion bogus) >consideration that delegation was necessary in order to promote free speech. >I don't want to now reopen the debate of free speech vs. TLDs, and repeat >things I have stated so many times, but would like only to note that the >debate was derailed from the simple compliance to the charter to a broader >(out-of-ICANN-scope) issue not by the opponents to the TLD for (in my >opinion bogus) moral reasons, as they came into the picture only later, but >by the folks who favoured the TLD for political reasons, who started >campaigning from day one. > >Best regards, >Roberto Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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

Reframing the rights issue ... Specific Proposal
by Robert Guerra May 28, 2008

May 28, 2008

The recent exchange on and about the fall ICANN meeting in Egypt was informative and allowed me to see to what extent (or not) it is possible to have a larger discussion about the broad issue of Internet Freedom affects millions of internet users. As a more specific - DNS centric focus has been requested, then let me suggest that Internet Censorship has the unintended consequence of affecting the security and stability of the DNS not only at a national level, but internationally (see ref below) . Researchers and internet experts are of the opinion that censorship practices will increase significantly over the coming years, as such - let me recommend ALAC propose to the board : 1. That ICANN should propose a study be conducted by SSAC, in collaboration with leading censorship researchers on the effects on internet censorship on the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet. 2. Should the SSAC report reveal that indeed the security and stability of the DNS is affected by censorship, then a policy development process (PDP) should be started. I hope this specific proposal can be supported by ALS's and the ALAC on or before the Paris ICANN meeting in June. I look forward to comments. Yours sincerely Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 --- Pakistan’s Internet has a bad weekend (Report by Open Net Initiative) http://is.gd/mlo This was a dark weekend for the Internet community in Pakistan. A series of unfortunate events started with an order for ISPs to block YouTube in Pakistan, which naturally riled citizens and advocates of free speech. Making things worse, the implementation of the block by one of the ISPs made YouTube inaccessible to most of the Internet around the world for two hours. Inadvertently, much of the global Internet audience has now experienced filtering..

3 2