- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Who represents the users?
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

The Registrar Constituency put out a general call to its members for comments on the proposed GNSO reforms. Five responses were received, and a preliminary synopsis was issued for RC consideration. That synopsis paper is to be found as an attachment to this url: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05771.html One interesting comment in the document: "Finally, the RC requests further clarification of the relationship between the non-commercial registrants relationship with the ALAC and the members of the active list of the former General Assembly. Specifically, as each of these groups purportedly represents the individual user, it is unclear to the RC which group actually does represent such interests." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

An Assault on Competition: The Registries Latest Policy Paper
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Repeatedly invoking the interests of the user community, the latest paper from the ICANN Registries Constituency is an attack on the principle of competition. The document, available as an attachment to this URL -- http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04928.html -- seeks to mandate TLD differention in the IDN sphere so that "brand fragmentation" will not occur. These registries seek to avoid IDN equivalents of .com and .net so that the entire world will lose the benefit of .com and .net alternatives. They seek to entrench their monopolies to the nth degree by foisting a policy upon us that would mandate differention. I don't know, about you, but I have no problems with the concept of someone launching .commercial and its equivalent forms in a multitude of scripts -- it sure won't confuse me or any other average user -- we will all understand that the days of VeriSign's market dominance are coming to a fitting end. When the Registry Constituency states: "RyC believes that a key means of avoiding this problem [fragmenting the Internet and isolating users] is to allow all manifestations of a given top level domain to be managed by a single entity", they want nothing less than to stifle competition ensuring North American market dominance for the next century. Here's hoping that the ALAC observers at today and tomorrow's GNSO LA session will choose to fight for a competitive TLD environment. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

3 2

Errant activity by Google: Google Mail Servers Enable Backscatter Spam
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

All, Seems yet again that Google cannot seem to behave in the best interests of the stability of the Internet and has become a purveyor of spam and other forms of harmful activity. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter#Backscatter_of_email_spam Vint, it seems that your "Evangelist" efforts are falling far short of the mark. Please try to improve those efforts with all due haste. Seems to me given Google's recent errant behavior, that it is time to take their domain name down as they represent a clear and present danger to a huge number of users and threaten the stability of the Internet accordingly. 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] Network Solutions not hijacking unassigned sub domains
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

John and all, Weather this action by NSOL was due to malice or incompetence, it remains not excusable. Surely NSOL has test platforms for testing DNS configuration changes. Either way however, NSOL has seemingly corrected the problem, but leaves the user community at all levels at some increased level of doubt as to the creditability of NSOL's management practices. And this in no way addresses the Tasting still being practiced by NSOL, now does it? Frankly, NSOL should pay a price for these sorts of disruptions, and as ICANN is responsible for the oversight of its Registries, it should take immediate and appropriate action accordingly. Instead what is happening is something much different from ICANN which by all appearances is turning a blind eye and as such abrogating it's contracted responsibilities. Looks like RegistryFly all over again... All this seems greatly like the incompetent overseeing the incompetent. Hell of a mess IMO! -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Apr 10, 2008 5:45 PM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Network Solutions not hijacking unassigned sub domains > >> Are you taking the position that it's OK for registrars to populate >> users' unassigned subdomains with their own ads? > >I don't see any evidence that NSI intended to do that. It looks to me >like it was a configuration error. > >This particular domain is hosted on NSI's DNS and web servers. It has a >wildcard DNS entry for *.gotgame.com. There's over a thousand other >domains on the same DNS servers so I spot checked a few of them, and >didn't see any wildcard entries, so I assume that gotgame added that >wildcard themselves. > >When you set up a web server that handles a lot of different domains, one >of the things you configure is what to do when someone points a domain at >other than one of the configured ones. I can easily imagine that someone >at NSI figured that would only happen if an ex-customer left their DNS >pointing at NSI, so it's not NSI's problem and it never occurred to them >that an actual customer would do something as dumb as to set up a DNS >wildcard and not adjust the web config to match. > >If you check random blah.gotgame.com domains now, you see a generic page >not found error. So although I am not a big fan of NSI, we do have to >remember never to attribute to malice things that can be attributed to >incompetence. > >Regards, >John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", >Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor >"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. > 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

Network Solutions hijacking unassigned sub domains?
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Robert, Are you taking the position that it's OK for registrars to populate users' unassigned subdomains with their own ads? You don't see any issue here other than the need for registrant education? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 4

Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
by Roberto Gaetano April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

JFC, > > Correct. We only need to tell registrants to send mails to > Danny and to tell non registrants to send mails to Roberto. > Inputs will be better presented by them to the Board. Next time you want to appoint somebody to do a specific task, would you mind to ask first? Cheers, Roberto

2 1

Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

Wendy and all, I disagree that the GA failed. It was unceremoniously abandon during the transition from DNSO to GNSO. What has failed and was domed to failure from the beginning is as you rightly indicate, is/was the GNSO. It remains a dismal failure mainly, but not entirely due to lack of transparency and openness as well as unwillingness on the than sitting ICANN Bod, to be inclusive of any and all stakeholders/users to openly participate unencumbered. Most of this unwillingness by the ICANN Bod remains still harbored by some Bod members to this day. Roberto? >From where I sit this clearly represents a lack of competent leadership on a very fundamental basis. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Apr 10, 2008 2:44 PM >To: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements > >At 15:40 10/04/2008, Ross Rader wrote: >>On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:21 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: >>>Roberto, Danny, >>>I tend to agree with Danny. >> >>Danny's position is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the >>facts. The GA wasn't "shut down" because of the threat it posed with >>the strong positions it took, the GA was shut down because it >>completely failed to organize and produce any coherent results. > >Our problem is precisely here. The GA failed. I do not want to >consider who's fault it is. I just observe it. I also consider the >consistuency system also failed. In a system where Danny Younger can >decide as a non-legitimate NCUC member (as ISOC NY he represents an >individual users organisation) impeach the adhesion of my non-profit >services oriented organisation to its consituency (NCUC) the system >is flawed in terms of democratic representativity. > >BUT, the constituency system failed outside of ICANN. Inside of ICANN >the BoD still receieve advices from constituencies and GNSO. The real >problem for them is just to know if the advices they receives are >pertinent or not. As long as they are, the system is good for them. > >On one side, Danny provides _additional_ inputs, for years on a >stable and pertinent basis. This is something we should make structural. >On another side, Roberto wants non-registants and users to be >represented. He says by a group. But he actually also actually need >pertinent inputs. The "group" is only for legitimacy. > >>My personal belief is that we need to keep the structure of the GNSO >>simple. > >Agree. This means a CNSO + constituencies to make believe the CNSO is >representative (double representativity is even accepted there !) > >>I would like to see a certain number of votes allocated to >>contracting parties (Registrants, Registries and Registrars) and a >>certain number allocated to Users (Commercial, Non-commercial, >>Individual). > >No problem. Give a vote to Danny as a registrant specialist (not a >rep). The same to another for a non-registrants expert (not a rep). >When you want a barrister you select and pay him, you do not vote to >elect him. The fun was to try to see if the USG could organise an >Internet polycracy. That dream is over. It has transfered to the >WSIS/IGF. ICANN is the US International Network Agency. There will be >others (like RIRs) for other areas and interests. Our job is to help >their emergence in best tuning the ICANN to protect the US >International Network's user interests; because we are some of them, >and to serve as a good example to other similar European, Chinse, >Indian, Peruvian, NY, Belin, Paris, etc. agencies. > >>This would allow us to move ahead fairly small, but >>highly representative number of constituencies within the GNSO without >>drastically altering the overall structure and processes that we've >>evolved over the last few years. Current commercial users (ISPC, BC, >>IPC) would have to get used to the fact that their influenced would be >>rightsized, but given the undue influence they've had over the >>processes for the last 7 years, I think its a reasonable step to take. >>My only concern relates to Whether commercial/non-commercial is an >>appropriate distinction to make. I am really trying to make a >>distinction between for-profit and not-for profit institutional >>participation. >> >>I don't think that its appropriate to mix the voices of Registrants >>and Users into the same grouping. > >Correct. We only need to tell registrants to send mails to Danny and >to tell non registrants to send mails to Roberto. Inputs will be >better presented by them to the Board. > >>The needs of each are very different >>and I don't think that jamming it all into one structure will give the >>plurality of those voices proper representation within the structure. >>I do think it is time however to give the "customers" of the DNS much >>more of a voice than they have today - the balance is completely out >>of whack within the current process. > >This is an other problem. You speak of "'customers", I speak of "owners" :-) >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] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
by Ross Rader April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:21 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Roberto, Danny, > I tend to agree with Danny. Danny's position is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the facts. The GA wasn't "shut down" because of the threat it posed with the strong positions it took, the GA was shut down because it completely failed to organize and produce any coherent results. My personal belief is that we need to keep the structure of the GNSO simple. I would like to see a certain number of votes allocated to contracting parties (Registrants, Registries and Registrars) and a certain number allocated to Users (Commercial, Non-commercial, Individual). This would allow us to move ahead fairly small, but highly representative number of constituencies within the GNSO without drastically altering the overall structure and processes that we've evolved over the last few years. Current commercial users (ISPC, BC, IPC) would have to get used to the fact that their influenced would be rightsized, but given the undue influence they've had over the processes for the last 7 years, I think its a reasonable step to take. My only concern relates to Whether commercial/non-commercial is an appropriate distinction to make. I am really trying to make a distinction between for-profit and not-for profit institutional participation. I don't think that its appropriate to mix the voices of Registrants and Users into the same grouping. The needs of each are very different and I don't think that jamming it all into one structure will give the plurality of those voices proper representation within the structure. I do think it is time however to give the "customers" of the DNS much more of a voice than they have today - the balance is completely out of whack within the current process. -ross

3 3

Re: [At-Large] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

Alan and all, Do we have any difinative evidence that this "Factoring in" was actually done? Do we even have any empirical evidence of such? I haven't seen any and cannot seem to find any either... -----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Sent: Apr 10, 2008 9:34 AM >To: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk>, avri(a)acm.org, krosette(a)cov.com, lgasster(a)gmail.com >Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz>, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, GA <ga(a)gnso.icann.org>, twomey(a)icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April > >There was at least one comment on the At-Large list, and on the LAC >list. There may have been other comments on RALO lists that I don't >see (but were factored in by the ALAC reps). Other comments were in >private e-mail or on non-public lists. > >Alan > >At 10/04/2008 11:08 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote: >>Alan, >> >>Thank you for your response. I am not able to recognize your input >>in the teleconference discussion as your contributions are not >>marked as those of yours anywhere in the transcript. >> >>Yes, I know about the explicit stronger position presented by the >>ALAC in the past. That is why I am so surprised by this quick shift >>in the position. >> >>Could you please send me some hints (mailing lists, forums, docs) >>where I can take a look at the non-dissenting support of the RALOs >>(including NARALO) for the current ALAC's updated statement? >> >>Thank you >> >>Dominik >> >> >>---------- >>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] >>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:45 PM >>To: Dominik Filipp; avri(a)acm.org; krosette(a)cov.com; lgasster(a)gmail.com >>Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey(a)icann.org; At-Large Staff; >>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; GA >>Subject: Re: Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team >>Teleconference held on 1 April >> >>At 10/04/2008 04:15 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote: >> >>>Alan from ALAC joined the teleconference but I have not noticed any >>>input advocating the preferred motion presented by RALOs. This is >>>certainly not the way how public oice should be advocated. >>> >>>Dominik >> >>The statement that I submitted to the report regarding the proposed >>motion was: >>The At Large Advisory Committee has consulted with its constituent >>bodies regarding the proposed GNSO Council motion on Domain Tasting. >>Some constituents would have preferred to see a more aggressive >>recommendation - specifically to eliminate the Add Grace Period >>entirely. However, the ALAC recognizes that compared to some >>alternative suggested ways of addressing domain tasting (such as >>using a 90% threshold instead of 10%, a more modest "restocking >>fee", more studies, or simply letting the domain name market evolve >>without intervention), the proposed action is relatively aggressive. >>Given that the proposed motion includes the requirement to monitor >>the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed limitations on >>the AGP, the ALAC unanimously supports the proposed motion. >>As noted, this was approved by the ALAC with no dissenting opinions, >>including from the NARALO which originally was the strongest group >>to push for complete AGP elimination. The statement was aired on the >>At-Large list with no negative comments. Accordingly I believe that >>my participation in that teleconference was completely in line with >>the current positions taken by the ALAC and RALOs. >> >>The page references in the report pointing to At-Large organizations >>that wanted stronger action came from the INITIAL ALAC statement and >>was included as part of the entire history. Those same organizations >>later agreed that the proposed motion was a reasonable compromise as >>noted above. I note that several other constituencies (including >>NCUC) also supported the motion as written, despite earlier and even >>ongoing concerns. >> >>Alan 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

FW: FYI: Remote participation for the gTLD face to face meeting in LA
by Wendy Seltzer April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

I encourage you to contact Nick if you'd like to participate remotely in this meeting to learn more about the staff's new gTLD implementation work. The GNSO Council will be meeting face-to-face in LA tonight and tomorrow. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ALAC-Internal] FW: FYI: Remote participation for the gTLD face to face meeting in LA Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 12:48:57 -0700 From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> To: ALAC internal list <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Dear All: Below please find the remote participation details for the GNSO meetings in Los Angeles. I have been asked not to forward them to public lists, so I'm sending them to all of you. If you know of someone in your regions who would like to observe these meetings, do let them know what they need to do to connect. ... The New gTLD meeting starts on Friday morning, 11 April 2008, at 08:00am PDT local time, 15:00 UTC and will run all day until the close of the mmeeting at about 17:30 local time. (08:00 PDT, 08:00 Phoenix Arizona, 11:00 EDT, 12:00 Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, 16:00 London, 17:00 Barcelona, Brussels, 23:00 Singapore/Hong Kong)

1 0