- At-Large - lists.icann.org

{Virus?} Returned mail: Data format error
by Post Office April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (transcript.scr, transcript.zip, the entire message). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

Clarification of SSAC position re Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running"
by Robert Guerra April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

Steve Crocker from SSAC, has ok'd that I forward the following email for ALAC. regards Robert --- Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > Date: April 5, 2008 1:35:58 PM GMT-04:00 > To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, Robert Guerra > <rguerra(a)privaterra.org>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, ICANN SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org>, > ICANN Board of Directors <icann-board(a)icann.org> > Subject: [ssac] Clarification of SSAC position re Board's postion on > ALAC letter on "front-running" > > Avri, > > Thanks for referring your note to me for comment. I'll try to > clarify our thinking on this matter. There are several different > dimensions, each of which deserves a few moments of attention, so > this note is a bit long. I've tried to structure it for easy > navigation. The sections that follow are: > > o Background correspondence > > o Discussion of whether front running exists and SSAC's finding to > date and our next steps > > (Mixed results and lots of controversy. More work needed.) > > o Discussion of whether whether is prohibited, irrespective of > whether it exists > > (Big surprise, at least to me, is that we don't seem to have either > an explicit prohibition nor even a shared ethic within the community.) > > o Discussion of what parts of the ICANN family should be involved, > and a process issue? (And, in particular, what's SSAC's role.) > > (This is a "consumer protection" and, perhaps, a "privacy" issue. > Does this have a distinct and unambiguous home?) > > > I have cc'd the Board and SSAC, and I invite you, Robert Guerra to > share it with the GNSO, the ALAC and the ccNSO, respectively. (I > don't mind if it's shared even more widely, but I think these are > the primary constituencies involved at the moment. ) > > Cheers, > > Steve > > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > ====================================================================== > > BACKGROUND CORRESPONDENCE and DOCUMENTS > > Here's your note to me. > > On Apr 5, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> FYI >> >> Begin forwarded message: >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >>> Date: 5 April 2008 09:46:08 GMT+02:00 >>> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> Subject: [council] Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running" >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have put this on the list of topic for our next agenda. It >>> might be worth having some preliminary discussions on list. >>> >>> References: >>> - ALAC letter: <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04857.html >>> > >>> - Discussion under 11 Other business: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm >>> > Board's Disposition: "The Chair determined that emergency >>> action is not required today but the matter will be referred to >>> the GNSO for additional information or policy development if >>> necessary, but not an emergency action." >>> >>> >>> My first questions: >>> >>> - Do we want/need to request an issues report? >>> - Do we want to request advice from SSAC on the degree to which >>> this is a threat to Stability and Security as stated in the ALAC >>> letter. SAC22 of Oct 07 <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf >>> > spoke of it as being possibly contrary to core values but I do >>> not read their report as calling it a threat. Though the report >>> does seem to indicate that further investigation of issues >>> surrounding the practice could be investigated further. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> a. > > The ALAC letter referred to above asks the Board to take immediate > action to curtail "domain hold," "cart-hold" and/or "cart-reserve" > activities such as Network Solutions and others have recently begun. > > You also reference SSAC report SAC 022. That report is the first of > two of our reports (SAC 022 and SAC 024) so far on front running. See > > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac024.pdf > > In SAC 022, we pointed out that checking the availability of a > domain name can be a sensitive act which may disclose an interest in > or a value ascribed to a domain name and we suggested to potential > registrants that domain name availability lookups should be > performed with care. We also noted there does not appear to be a > strong set of standards and practices to conclude whether monitoring > availability checks is an acceptable or unacceptable practice, and > we called for both public comment and policy development within the > appropriate bodies. > > In SAC 024, we reported that after receiving more than 100 inputs > over a two and half month period, we were unable to develop > definitive evidence that front running is actually taking place. > However, in discussions with Network Solutions regarding their newly > instituted practice of placing a hold on names being checked for > possible registration, Jon Nevett suggested that one or more > registries are possibly selling that information to domain name > tasters. The chain has a couple of steps. When a potential > registrant types in a name at NSI's web site to check for its > availability in one domain, e.g. within .com, NSI, like many other > registrars, automatically checks whether that name is available in > several other domains. They do so by forwarding the name to each of > the respective registries, and this provides an opportunity for one > or more of those registries to pass along that stream of queries to > a business partner who may be interested in registering it while the > original customer is still thinking about it. Here are Mr. Nevett's > comments in the transcript of the SSAC meeting in New Delhi on > February 13, 2008, http://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-WS-SSAC-13Feb08.txt > . > >> So what's been happening -- and we have information about this -- >> is domain name tasters register names in vast bulk and then they >> taste the names and only keep a very small percentage of the names >> that warrant purchasing because of traffic or pay per click. So >> the domain name tasters are looking for various sources of data. >> They look for bulk data wherever they can find it. The theory is >> that there were certain ccTLD registries that because when a >> customer comes to almost all registrars Web sites and asks for a >> name, [the registrar] will look at various dozens of different TLDs >> and see if the name is available. So one of the ccTLDs, for >> example, or maybe a gTLD, will be selling the data to front runners >> and tasters. So the tasting line is probably synonymous with the >> front-runner line. So what happens is they register these names in >> advance of customers, and then they taste it. > > > As you noted in your message, the Board declined to take emergency > action and referred the matter to the GNSO for possible policy > development. (See the last section of this note for a comment on > policy development.) > > > ====================================================================== > > DOES FRONT RUNNING EXIST? > > As noted above, the data is inconclusive. Jay Daley, CTO of > Nominet, reported he had looked closely at this question some time > ago and concluded it simply wasn't happening. Others have suggested > privately that it really does happen on a fairly significant scale. > Because there is a very high level of tasting, it may be hard to > sort out how many instances of apparent front running are just due > to "background radiation." And then we have Mr. Nevett's assertion > that one or TLDs is actively involved in this process. > > We expect to explore this a bit further. We are still formulating > specific plans on how to proceed, and we are open to suggestions and > offers for how to gather information efficiently, effectively, and > accurately. > > ===================================================================== > > IS FRONT-RUNNING PROHIBITED and DOES IT AFFECT SECURITY OR STABILITY? > > As we noted in SAC 022, we do not see any coherent and specific > framework that suggests front-running is prohibited. I believe the > Registrar Accreditation Agreement has language related to the proper > use of registration data, but that applies only after a registration > is complete. > > Practices and expectations vary from field to field. In certain > professions, particularly law and medicine -- and my experience is > primarily in the U.S. -- there are very strong rules governing the > privacy of information provided by a client or patient. There are > also strong rules governing the protection of customer information > among stockbrokers. If I ask my stockbroker about a particular > stock, it's considered unethical for him to use that information to > buy or sell that stock for himself or to help others to do so. > However, in our industry, I have not seen any similar explicit > statement of principle nor an explicit set of rules prohibiting > front-running and related practices. Thus, even if we were to find > reliable, concrete information that front-running is taking place, > it's not clear there is any basis for stopping it. > > "Security and Stability" is a mantra invoked with specialty gravity, > and there is sometime debate about whether a specific issues does or > does not fall into this category. I think it's hard to argue that > front-running, if it exists, is affecting the overall security or > stability of the domain name system, although one might imagine > fairly severe consequences if the practice existed and affected a > very large fraction of the potential registrants instead of only a > relatively small number. I emphasized "system." From any > particular user's perspective, if someone has swiped a name he is > looking at, the impact on him or his business could be very > substantial. Is that a "security" matter or a " consumer > protection" matter, and is there a strict distinction between the two? > > I would argue that if there is a structural bias against consumers, > that it's appropriate to consider that to be a weakness in the > security of the system. On the other hand, if a consumer has been > dealt with unfairly by a particular party, and there's no general > bias built into the system, that's a specific consumer protection > issue. I'm not sure whether everyone else would choose to draw the > lines in the same place. > > There is a secondary and slightly subtle element of security here. > Efficient and effective markets depend on reliable information and > trustworthy behavior. If there is a general perception that a > market is dangerous, the market may shrink and the results for the > buyers and sellers who are in the market may be inequitable. > Building and preserving confidence in a market is thus an important > aspect of "security." > > I don't think we've thought enough about this as a community, and I > would like to see some deeper thought and discussion. > > Returning to the specific matter of front-running, I find it odd and > dangerous that our framework of core values, principles, rules and > contracts does not address such practices explicitly. I think this > is a weakness in our overall framework and should be fixed. > > ===================================================================== > > WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED? > > I don't see any single group as being the sole owner of these > issues. We certainly don't view this as the sole purview of SSAC > and we would be delighted if others are involved. The GNSO has a > natural role because the registrars and registries are primary > actors. At the same time, the people most strongly affected by > weaknesses in the process are potential registrants, and it's not > clear who speaks for them. ALAC, in its letter to Board, is > certainly taking a strong position. And this issue is not limited > to the gTLDs and ICANN-accredited registrars. The ccTLD community > presumably has the same issues. > > In our reports to the Board, we suggested other groups look at these > issues. Dan Halloran recently drew our attention to section 1.c in > By-Laws Annex A: GNSO Policy-Development Process: > > Advisory Committee Initiation. An Advisory Committee may raise an > issue for policy development by action of such committee to commence > the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council. (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA > ) > > With some chagrin, I admit we hadn't realized there was a direct > channel for SSAC to forward to the GNSO a formal request for the > GNSO to commence the PDP. Would you find it helpful for us to send > our recommendations to you in this form? > > Irrespective of whether we send you a formal recommendation, I hope > this note has provided some useful information. We will be happy to > discuss it further if you desire. > > Thanks, > > Steve Crocker > SSAC Chair > > > > > > > >

1 0

Call for Nominations - Internet Governance Caucus/Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).
by Robert Guerra April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), 2008 Nominating Committee is issuing a call for nominations for choosing Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the IGF Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG). ----- DEADLINE for submissions is: April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time Where to send nominations - nomcom08(a)lists.privaterra.org ------ Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – for choosing Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the IGF Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG). The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and broadly be in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as adopted by the caucus at different times. 1. In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for her candidature. 2. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person in the IG and information society arena. 3. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person will be a good Civil Society (CS)/ IGC representative on the MAG. 4. Those who are already on the MAG may also briefly mention about how they carried out their responsibilities in the last two terms, in advocating and pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC’s positions. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned. Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG. Anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. Self nominations are invited At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of the following: 1. Name 2. Name of nominator (or self) 3. Nationality 4. Country of Residence 5. Gender 6. Short Bio relevant to IG 7. What specific skills or experiences do you have that make you a good candidate for the MAG Send nominations to the following email address - nomcom08(a)lists.privaterra.org IMPORTANT DATES ---------------------------- Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens- April 6th, 2008 Nomination close - April 13th, 2008 Nomcom confers between 13th and 16th, 2008 Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April 17th, 2008 Please note that DEADLINE for submissions is: April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time

3 3

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Wendy Seltzer April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear Community members: > > [ENGLISH TEXT] > > We have been asked to notify you that two draft statements to the ICANN > Board from the At-Large Advisory Committee are now open for comments from > all members of the At-Large community. Comments will be accepted until 16th > April 2008, at 1200 UTC, after which time comments will be reviewed by the > ALAC Finance and Budget committee before transmitting the final text to the > Board of Directors as an Advisory Committee statement. > > Draft Statement to the ICANN Board on the Budget and Operational Plan > Framework for 2008/2009: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2 The statement, appended below, is completely anodyne. My comments: Drop the "compliments" bs. Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy. Drop the crap about increased working capacity on ALAC - there's no evidence the community is working any better, when these statements come out with little evidence of community input. How about focusing on some things important to end-users? * Getting new gTLDs introduced already to foster market competition; * reforming an intellectual-property-centric UDRP; * introducing DNSSEC so users can verify the accuracy of domain lookup; * protection of Internet users and registrants against abuse of data they send through DNS lookups or registration inquiries. for just a few. --- AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/1/2 STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT: Draft COMMITTE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXT: ALAC Finance and Budget Subommittee DOCUMENT BEGAN COMMUNITY REVIEW ON: 6th April 2008 COMMUNITY REVIEW CONCLUDES ON: 16th April 2008 NEXT STEP AFTER COMMUNITY REVIEW: Committee responsible reviews comments, produces final draft which is transmitted to the Board of Directors of ICANN Community members are invited to use the 'Comment' button to provide their views on the text here until 16th April 2008 at 1200 UTC. At-Large Advisory Committee Statement to the ICANN Board on the Draft Operating Plan for FY 2008/2009 We present our compliments to the Board of Directors of ICANN and welcome the opportunity to make our comments on the Draft Operating Plan and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009. Firstly, please note our endorsement of the change to the budgeting and operational planning process introduced this year. It seems to us that the combination of the consultation on these obviously closely-related issues is eminently sensible. We also welcome the longer public consultation timelines that this allows. As this is the first stage of this process, these comments are introductory. We provide this document so that these preliminary reactions and comments may be taken into account as the Staff prepare the Budget and Operating Plan for its first iteration consultation. Our comments, therefore, are primarily related to the various “Activities/Outcomes by Initiative”. We do not propose to comment on each of these, but on those most important to the At-Large Community. IDN Activities This is a very important area of work for At-Large – and also for all of ICANN. The extra funding and greatly increased ICANN activity in this area is therefore welcomed. We would like to emphasise the element of communications related to IDNs. Fundamental choices that will affect the many communities that do not rely upon the Latin character set will be made in the next few years. For that reason, we believe ICANN, in partnership with other stakeholders of course, needs to make a substantial, sustained, greatly increased effort to communicate with these communities –to ensure that the message about the forthcoming choices to be made related to IDNs reaches a far larger pool of potential contributors to the process than is currently aware and participating. This should not simply take the form of translated press releases but really a well-thought-out media campaign which ‘reaches out’ to the public. We know that efforts to do this work exist – we wish to emphasise that this is extremely important. We note that we have asked the At-Large staff to propose funding in the forthcoming FY to revise and expand the available materials related to outreach to the individual Internet user community and this is just one aspect that such an effort must address. Compliance Activities We note the increase in staffing and staff work related to compliance. We are pleased to see that the budget framework proposes further considerable investment in this area. However we wish to note what we see as two crucial missing major activities in this area related to compliance: * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to make a big problem worse – and the existing reporting system is already not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with respect to WHOIS – fixing this should be a headline compliance activity in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our comments here to compliance activities related to the operational planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid. * Complaints Processing. We note that there is now some information on how registrants can complain on the ICANN website, which is a welcome improvement. We also note that there is a provision as a headline activity in the Operational Plan Framework to “Implement Complaints Process System to address complaints and forward them to correct parties as approved”. This is a start but is not nearly enough – such a system needs to also verify whether or not the forwarded complaints were addressed, and provide options so that the complainant can easily report whether or not they are satisfied with the result. The underlying philosophy should be that, as the contractor, ICANN should ensure that the contractees are living up to their side of the ‘deal’ and completely offloading complaints to the contractee – or anyone else – is in our opinion not satisfactory. Global Outreach This is a particularly important area to us. The various communities in ICANN are not representative of the worldwide Internet-using community. Whilst we appreciate the initial provision of a substantial increase in funds allocated to Global Outreach – we will look forward to seeing more detail about precisely what this consists of when the draft budget is posted. However, we note that on page 23 of the Draft Framework, under Global Outreach, there is a major area of work listed as ‘Implement business engagement outreach’. If this is intended to be outreach only to business communities, this is, in our opinion, clearly far too narrow – outreach efforts and recruitment efforts must be be even-handed, global – and to all communities and potential participant communities, not just ‘business’. We draw the attention of the board to the many comments about the importance of dramatically increasing the outreach and recruitment of ALL stakeholders that was a common theme of the respondents to the JPA review recently; From this we propose that there is broad support for greatly increased work by ICANN in these respects. We welcome the continued support for participation by our community from ICANN. Without it the Internet end-user’s voice will simply not be adequately represented. Facilitation of community participation (and specifically that of volunteers) in ICANN is an extremely important issue and one important aspect of this is covered in greater depth in our statement to you in relation to the development of a volunteer travel and expense support policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 which is accessible at <insert url here>. Policy Development Support We welcome the major theme associated with this area of work on page 25, that ICANN will “provide additional secretariat support to SOs, constituencies and ACs to make volunteer efforts more effective.” We are direct beneficiaries of this, with the addition of two members of staff on the At-Large team. It should be noted that the recent filling of these long-open positions is already beginning to increase our capacity for working with greater efficiency (particularly in the RALO’s), and we hope that the support our community receives of this kind will become generally available across the constituencies and communities and look forward to seeing the detailed plans for how the objective listed in this area is to be achieved. Registrant Protections We welcome the increased activity in this area – however, the board needs to be aware that from our perspecitve, the RAA review process appears to have ceased operation. We hear anecdotally that there is current work in this area inside ICANN, but it is not visible to us (or anyone else from what we can tell). This is a very important area of work for ICANN and to our community. It should not suffer, for example, due to work on new gTLDs taking priority –the priority must be given to the protection of existing registrants and only then worrying about adding many more through new gTLDs. We believe there should be meaningful deadlines set for the concluding of work on the RAA – in a completely open and transparent manner. Transcription and Translation Our community has been calling for ICANN to become a truly multilingual organisation for years now. We appreciate and appplaud the increased budget commitment, draft translation framework, and other moves in this direction but we wish to remind you that ICANN has a very, very long way to go to reach the mission that the translation programme proposes. In our opinion, this area of work is of absolutely central importance to the organisation’s credibility, as we do not believe that any consultation or policy development process conducted entirely in English is globally legitimate. This is especially true with subjects like IDNs that – incredibly –continue to be largely English-only, with multilingual documents provided only in some cases, often far later than the original English versions, and only as an afterthought. Ensuring that the work of ICANN becomes truly multilingual is a core, critical objective. It must not be sidelined, or de-emphasised by other objectives like new gTLDs. Broaden Participation This area is of great importance – not just to our community but to all communities. In particular, whilst the provisions for teleconferences for our community have improved by changing vendors, we do not believe that it makes sense to continue to outsource this core communications function and so we welcome the news that ICANN proposes to purchase a truly fit-for-purpose system to facilitate telephonic interactions. We hope that in doing so choices will be made which truly facilitate equal access and quality for all participants, regardless of where they might be. In particular, the new system must provide for the technical operation of simultaneous interpretation on teleconferences. This is an absolutely essential function, not something that is “nice to have”. Our experience with this has clearly shown that the ability to work, interact and correspond (both face to face and remotely) in the language that is most comfortable and easy to work with greatly increases and enhances effective participation. We would also like to emphasise how important it is to broadening participation of effective remote participation in meetings, of which telephonic two-way participation is only one element. We believe that the current remote participation modalities for ICANN meetings are not fit for purpose. Our statement in relation to the development of a volunteer travel and expense support policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible at <insert url here> also has the elaboration on our views on the subject of remote participation, and meetings. In addition to these points, we wish to emphasise that one of the most important elements of participation is ICANN producing documents in standardised formats which are accessible, written in plain language, with excellent summaries, indices, glossaries, and the like. This is a real shortcoming of present document production at ICANN and it is a real barrier to participation. We also believe that fostering participation actually requires a regionally sensitive approach and often regionally differentiated materials. In developing countries, radio and audiovisual materials, to mention just two formats, are the best way to reach non-traditional ICANN stakeholders. It is understood that this kind of outreach would not be in the nature of general Internet education but should be related to the mission of ICANN and its mandate. In closing, we thank the board in advance for its consideration of our views, and look forward to a response to our concerns and recommendations in due course.

10 11

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Michele and all, No, it's only Belgium. -----Original Message----- >From: Michele Neylon <michele(a)blacknight.ie> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 2:59 PM >To: >Cc: "alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >> Rudi and all, >> >> The reason why we shouldn't do as you and Belgium government >> suggests is that the whole world doesn't live in Belgium, and >> because such would violate many other countires national >> laws. > >It's not just the Belgian government. It's EU-wide as far as I know. > > > > >-- >Mr Michele Neylon >Blacknight Solutions >Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection >http://www.blacknight.com/ >http://blog.blacknight.com/ >Tel. 1850 929 929 >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 >------------------------------- >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > 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

3 2

WHOIS and at-large
by Wendy Seltzer April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Thanks to several people for jumping into an actual substantive discussion on WHOIS. I think it's clear from that discussion that there is not unanimity among us -- nor should we expect there to be. Internet users have a variety of interests, and at times the interests of some users will conflict with those of others. Some are bound by differing legal regimes, some have different value priorities, some weigh risks and benefits differently. Instead of trying to reach a unitary position, then, I suggest that we try to articulate the range of different views individuals have with respect to identification of domain registrants. Those could include: privacy, accountability, verifiability, traceability, anonymity, legal enforcement, directory lookup, name availability lookup, etc. Some of these conflict, some can coexist, but all have been heard in the debate. I am no more comfortable putting out a statement that says "Internet users want accurate WHOIS" than some others are with "Internet users want privacy of domain registration." So if we want to speak for a consensus of at-large, we should ensure that our documents represent all the relevant Internet user views. --Wendy -- 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] Accuracy of WhoIs?
by Yassin Mshana April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

I have followed the discussion thread and do respect all views aired in this forum. However, I am disturbed by the way professionalism and ethics are taken lightly. IMHO, I think that WhoIs? should give accurate information. Why? Taking that analogy of "Yellow Pages" can you imagine how the scenario would be if there were multiple inaccurate Yellow Pages in one city? It is presumed and expected that the Directory(ies) should contain accurate information and should be transparent enough to ensure that they serves the intended purpose to the User; I wonder why should one seek to be annonymous - is being annonynmous ethical? Iam not sure. It is like having an business whereby the ownership is fixtituous....... My humble opinon. Yassin (my true name) > From: alac-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: ALAC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:15:36 -0400> > Send ALAC mailing list submissions to> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> alac-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > You can reach the person managing the list at> alac-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of ALAC digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board (Blogs.pn)> 2. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board (Jeffrey A. Williams)> 3. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board (Jeffrey A. Williams)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:45:00 -0400> From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic(a)blogs.pn>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To: <derek(a)aa419.org>, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Message-ID: <013701c898ce$ba502a80$0301a8c0@namecritic>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";> reply-type=original> > I say leave privacy as an option for each individual user and enforce the > accuracy of the information either way.> > Chris McElroy> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derek Smythe" <derek(a)aa419.org>> To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> Cc: <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:29 PM> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft > Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> > > > Wendy Seltzer wrote:> >> >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to> >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> > ...> > ...> >>> >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very> >> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs> >> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to> >> make a big problem worse ? and the existing reporting system is already> >> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >> respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational> >> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >>> > Wendy> >> > I respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in> > enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective .> >> > I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is> > submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused> > to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by> > design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3> > April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm ,> > which is sadly hardly ever enforced.> >> > I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are> > being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent domain's existence> > endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy protection we> > find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS privacy is a> > very sharp two sided sword.> >> > As an example of why we need whois details currently: Right now a big> > corporate is giving away free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a> > disproportionate large number of registrants from small towns across> > America shown in domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other> > businesses. We contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had> > no knowledge of these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents> > etc. We have contacted the big corporate and registrar in an attempt> > to address this issue. The domains are "disabled" in the corporate's> > system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS> > without the victims' permission. Without verifiable whois this problem> > would have been denied (as was originally attempted) and the problem> > invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking far in excess> > of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip of the> > iceberg ...> >> > To really represent end users, current issues and procedures should be> > fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised and we would all> > be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact that much more> > money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being> > visible.> >> > Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price> > of partially disarming those currently doing what they do to make the> > Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to,> > though they would have the same problem.> >> > Personally I have numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois> > details are 100% correct for those domains and I am using an available> > acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them.> > These mechanisms are available to other users as well, if privacy is a> > concern to them - with the exception of the initially much abused .us> > TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices.> >> > In a nutshell, there is also a reason why whois is sometimes not> > accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility illegal activities.> > How do you protect against that?> >> > To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each action.> > Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would wish.> > Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.> >> > Best regards,> >> > Derek Smythe> > http://www.aa419.org> >> >> > _______________________________________________> > 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 > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:26:53 -0700 (GMT-07:00)> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To: derek(a)aa419.org, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID:> <32195901.1207524414028.JavaMail.root(a)elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8> > Derek, Wendy and all,> > No offense to you Derek, but I believe you and Wendy> are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.> As one that has lead the charge regarding Whois privacy> AND Accuracy sense 2002, I can attest personally and> professionally to both your and Wendy's contentions.> > What astonishes me is that the ICANN staff and Bod> cannot seem to come to terms with the reality of the> mess that they originally created, when at one time there> was ONE Whois [ centralized model ]. Now there are > many and none are accurate/up to date. such is not> excusable nor in any way acceptable to have gone on for> so long now... From where I sit anyway this clearly points> to a lack of competent leadership on the part of ICANN.> > Your issue with Whois seems to focus on security related> aspects as they relate to accuracy. And I agree, those> elements are interwoven. So is however privacy. Without> registrants Whois and registration data being private to> a degree and that degree limits only LEA's having unrestricted> access to the full Whois record of any registration, than> the security of the registrant is in jeopardy as may be the> security of any of that registrants business customers including> governments or other government agencies. therefore I don't> believe we want to take that much of a risk with a completely> open Whois structure or access. Nor do I believe that LEA's> or governments and/or government agencies desire such a potential> security risk either.> > -----Original Message-----> >From: Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org>> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 3:29 PM> >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> >> > Wendy Seltzer wrote:> >> >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to> >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> >...> >...> >> > >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very> >> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs> >> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to> >> make a big problem worse ? and the existing reporting system is already> >> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >> respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational> >> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >> > >Wendy> >> >I respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in > >enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective .> >> >I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is > >submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused > >to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by > >design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3 > >April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm , > >which is sadly hardly ever enforced.> >> >I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are > >being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent domain's existence > >endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy protection we > >find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS privacy is a > >very sharp two sided sword.> >> >As an example of why we need whois details currently: Right now a big > >corporate is giving away free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a > >disproportionate large number of registrants from small towns across > >America shown in domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other > >businesses. We contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had > >no knowledge of these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents > >etc. We have contacted the big corporate and registrar in an attempt > >to address this issue. The domains are "disabled" in the corporate's > >system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS > >without the victims' permission. Without verifiable whois this problem > >would have been denied (as was originally attempted) and the problem > >invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking far in excess > >of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip of the > >iceberg ...> >> >To really represent end users, current issues and procedures should be > >fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised and we would all > >be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact that much more > >money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being > >visible.> >> >Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price > >of partially disarming those currently doing what they do to make the > >Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to, > >though they would have the same problem.> >> >Personally I have numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois > >details are 100% correct for those domains and I am using an available > >acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them. > >These mechanisms are available to other users as well, if privacy is a > >concern to them - with the exception of the initially much abused .us > >TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices.> >> >In a nutshell, there is also a reason why whois is sometimes not > >accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility illegal activities. > >How do you protect against that?> >> >To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each action. > >Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would wish. > >Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.> >> >Best regards,> >> >Derek Smythe> >http://www.aa419.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> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:38:03 -0700 (GMT-07:00)> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>,> aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID:> <12301735.1207525083681.JavaMail.root(a)elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8> > Wendy and all,> > Frankly I couldn't agree more with your comments> and your tone as well, Wendy. Well done! The ALAC> seems more interested in curring favor for financial> support from ICANN, than it does being interested in> the input from users, IMO thus far... Hopefully that> will change. But it will only change when censorship> is eliminated and no longer allowed, when openness and> transparency aren't just words but are demonstrated> and fully recognized. > > -----Original Message-----> >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 1:52 PM> >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> >> >At-Large Staff wrote:> >> Dear Community members:> >> > >> [ENGLISH TEXT]> >> > >> We have been asked to notify you that two draft statements to the ICANN> >> Board from the At-Large Advisory Committee are now open for comments from> >> all members of the At-Large community. Comments will be accepted until 16th> >> April 2008, at 1200 UTC, after which time comments will be reviewed by the> >> ALAC Finance and Budget committee before transmitting the final text to the> >> Board of Directors as an Advisory Committee statement.> >> > >> Draft Statement to the ICANN Board on the Budget and Operational Plan> >> Framework for 2008/2009:> >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2> >> >The statement, appended below, is completely anodyne. My comments:> >> >Drop the "compliments" bs.> >Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to> >preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> >Drop the crap about increased working capacity on ALAC - there's no> >evidence the community is working any better, when these statements come> >out with little evidence of community input.> >> >How about focusing on some things important to end-users?> >* Getting new gTLDs introduced already to foster market competition;> >* reforming an intellectual-property-centric UDRP;> >* introducing DNSSEC so users can verify the accuracy of domain lookup;> >* protection of Internet users and registrants against abuse of data> >they send through DNS lookups or registration inquiries.> >for just a few.> >> >---> >> >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/1/2> >> >STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT: Draft> >COMMITTE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXT: ALAC Finance and Budget Subommittee> >DOCUMENT BEGAN COMMUNITY REVIEW ON: 6th April 2008> >COMMUNITY REVIEW CONCLUDES ON: 16th April 2008> >> >NEXT STEP AFTER COMMUNITY REVIEW: Committee responsible reviews> >comments, produces final draft which is transmitted to the Board of> >Directors of ICANN> >> >Community members are invited to use the 'Comment' button to provide> >their views on the text here until 16th April 2008 at 1200 UTC.> >At-Large Advisory Committee Statement to the ICANN Board on the Draft> >Operating Plan for FY 2008/2009> >> >We present our compliments to the Board of Directors of ICANN and> >welcome the opportunity to make our comments on the Draft Operating Plan> >and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009.> >> >Firstly, please note our endorsement of the change to the budgeting and> >operational planning process introduced this year. It seems to us that> >the combination of the consultation on these obviously closely-related> >issues is eminently sensible. We also welcome the longer public> >consultation timelines that this allows.> >> >As this is the first stage of this process, these comments are> >introductory. We provide this document so that these preliminary> >reactions and comments may be taken into account as the Staff prepare> >the Budget and Operating Plan for its first iteration consultation.> >> >Our comments, therefore, are primarily related to the various> >?Activities/Outcomes by Initiative?. We do not propose to comment on> >each of these, but on those most important to the At-Large Community.> >> >IDN Activities> >> >This is a very important area of work for At-Large ? and also for all of> >ICANN. The extra funding and greatly increased ICANN activity in this> >area is therefore welcomed. We would like to emphasise the element of> >communications related to IDNs.> >> >Fundamental choices that will affect the many communities that do not> >rely upon the Latin character set will be made in the next few years.> >For that reason, we believe ICANN, in partnership with other> >stakeholders of course, needs to make a substantial, sustained, greatly> >increased effort to communicate with these communities ?to ensure that> >the message about the forthcoming choices to be made related to IDNs> >reaches a far larger pool of potential contributors to the process than> >is currently aware and participating. This should not simply take the> >form of translated press releases but really a well-thought-out media> >campaign which ?reaches out? to the public. We know that efforts to do> >this work exist ? we wish to emphasise that this is extremely important.> >We note that we have asked the At-Large staff to propose funding in the> >forthcoming FY to revise and expand the available materials related to> >outreach to the individual Internet user community and this is just one> >aspect that such an effort must address.> >> >Compliance Activities> >> >We note the increase in staffing and staff work related to compliance.> >We are pleased to see that the budget framework proposes further> >considerable investment in this area. However we wish to note what we> >see as two crucial missing major activities in this area related to> >compliance:> >> > * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very> >inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs> >to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to> >make a big problem worse ? and the existing reporting system is already> >not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >comments here to compliance activities related to the operational> >planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >> > * Complaints Processing. We note that there is now some information> >on how registrants can complain on the ICANN website, which is a welcome> >improvement. We also note that there is a provision as a headline> >activity in the Operational Plan Framework to ?Implement Complaints> >Process System to address complaints and forward them to correct parties> >as approved?. This is a start but is not nearly enough ? such a system> >needs to also verify whether or not the forwarded complaints were> >addressed, and provide options so that the complainant can easily report> >whether or not they are satisfied with the result. The underlying> >philosophy should be that, as the contractor, ICANN should ensure that> >the contractees are living up to their side of the ?deal? and completely> >offloading complaints to the contractee ? or anyone else ? is in our> >opinion not satisfactory.> >> >Global Outreach> >> >This is a particularly important area to us. The various communities in> >ICANN are not representative of the worldwide Internet-using community.> >Whilst we appreciate the initial provision of a substantial increase in> >funds allocated to Global Outreach ? we will look forward to seeing more> >detail about precisely what this consists of when the draft budget is> >posted. However, we note that on page 23 of the Draft Framework, under> >Global Outreach, there is a major area of work listed as ?Implement> >business engagement outreach?. If this is intended to be outreach only> >to business communities, this is, in our opinion, clearly far too narrow> >? outreach efforts and recruitment efforts must be be even-handed,> >global ? and to all communities and potential participant communities,> >not just ?business?. We draw the attention of the board to the many> >comments about the importance of dramatically increasing the outreach> >and recruitment of ALL stakeholders that was a common theme of the> >respondents to the JPA review recently; From this we propose that there> >is broad support for greatly increased work by ICANN in these respects.> >> >We welcome the continued support for participation by our community from> >ICANN. Without it the Internet end-user?s voice will simply not be> >adequately represented. Facilitation of community participation (and> >specifically that of volunteers) in ICANN is an extremely important> >issue and one important aspect of this is covered in greater depth in> >our statement to you in relation to the development of a volunteer> >travel and expense support policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2> >which is accessible at <insert url here>.> >> >Policy Development Support> >> >We welcome the major theme associated with this area of work on page 25,> >that ICANN will ?provide additional secretariat support to SOs,> >constituencies and ACs to make volunteer efforts more effective.? We are> >direct beneficiaries of this, with the addition of two members of staff> >on the At-Large team. It should be noted that the recent filling of> >these long-open positions is already beginning to increase our capacity> >for working with greater efficiency (particularly in the RALO?s), and we> >hope that the support our community receives of this kind will become> >generally available across the constituencies and communities and look> >forward to seeing the detailed plans for how the objective listed in> >this area is to be achieved.> >> >Registrant Protections> >> >We welcome the increased activity in this area ? however, the board> >needs to be aware that from our perspecitve, the RAA review process> >appears to have ceased operation. We hear anecdotally that there is> >current work in this area inside ICANN, but it is not visible to us (or> >anyone else from what we can tell). This is a very important area of> >work for ICANN and to our community. It should not suffer, for example,> >due to work on new gTLDs taking priority ?the priority must be given to> >the protection of existing registrants and only then worrying about> >adding many more through new gTLDs. We believe there should be> >meaningful deadlines set for the concluding of work on the RAA ? in a> >completely open and transparent manner.> >> >Transcription and Translation> >> >Our community has been calling for ICANN to become a truly multilingual> >organisation for years now. We appreciate and appplaud the increased> >budget commitment, draft translation framework, and other moves in this> >direction but we wish to remind you that ICANN has a very, very long way> >to go to reach the mission that the translation programme proposes.> >In our opinion, this area of work is of absolutely central importance to> >the organisation?s credibility, as we do not believe that any> >consultation or policy development process conducted entirely in English> >is globally legitimate. This is especially true with subjects like IDNs> >that ? incredibly ?continue to be largely English-only, with> >multilingual documents provided only in some cases, often far later than> >the original English versions, and only as an afterthought.> >> >Ensuring that the work of ICANN becomes truly multilingual is a core,> >critical objective. It must not be sidelined, or de-emphasised by other> >objectives like new gTLDs.> >> >Broaden Participation> >> >This area is of great importance ? not just to our community but to all> >communities. In particular, whilst the provisions for teleconferences> >for our community have improved by changing vendors, we do not believe> >that it makes sense to continue to outsource this core communications> >function and so we welcome the news that ICANN proposes to purchase a> >truly fit-for-purpose system to facilitate telephonic interactions. We> >hope that in doing so choices will be made which truly facilitate equal> >access and quality for all participants, regardless of where they might be.> >In particular, the new system must provide for the technical operation> >of simultaneous interpretation on teleconferences. This is an absolutely> >essential function, not something that is ?nice to have?. Our experience> >with this has clearly shown that the ability to work, interact and> >correspond (both face to face and remotely) in the language that is most> >comfortable and easy to work with greatly increases and enhances> >effective participation.> >> >We would also like to emphasise how important it is to broadening> >participation of effective remote participation in meetings, of which> >telephonic two-way participation is only one element. We believe that> >the current remote participation modalities for ICANN meetings are not> >fit for purpose. Our statement in relation to the development of a> >volunteer travel and expense support policy, in document> >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible at <insert url here> also has the> >elaboration on our views on the subject of remote participation, and> >meetings.> >> >In addition to these points, we wish to emphasise that one of the most> >important elements of participation is ICANN producing documents in> >standardised formats which are accessible, written in plain language,> >with excellent summaries, indices, glossaries, and the like. This is a> >real shortcoming of present document production at ICANN and it is a> >real barrier to participation.> >We also believe that fostering participation actually requires a> >regionally sensitive approach and often regionally differentiated> >materials. In developing countries, radio and audiovisual materials, to> >mention just two formats, are the best way to reach non-traditional> >ICANN stakeholders. It is understood that this kind of outreach would> >not be in the nature of general Internet education but should be related> >to the mission of ICANN and its mandate.> >> >In closing, we thank the board in advance for its consideration of our> >views, and look forward to a response to our concerns and> >recommendations in due course.> >> >> 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> > > > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > End of ALAC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16> ************************************ _________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx…

2 2

Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week
by JFC Morfin April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Dear Hong, do you remember where frast-track comes from? It was about the ISO 3166 internationalization NWIP, only UK, IE and US supported. Let be reasonable : Vint Cerf is going to Chair the IETF/WG-IDNABIS to make sure they get the best out of IDNA RFC 4690 reviewed partly negatively. The proposition is IETF Last Call in November. This is why: 1) to best help the IETF process every ccTLD Manager and interested party should join the <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>http://www.alvestand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update mailing list and give their specific requirements and needs for exceptions, in their language of concern. 2) nothing should seriously be expected from IDNA and any further ccNSO testing process before mid-2009, once the real RFCs are produced. They favor but not know for sure yet if they will keep "xn--" domain names. When you consider RFC 5242 recent work by Harald Alvestrand and John Klensin you understand there is still a lot of work to carry in order to stabilize a common understanding of the Multilingual and Semantic Internet requirements. jfc At 06:32 07/04/2008, Hong Xue wrote: >I, personally, am not a fan of any fast-track. I can tell how messy >the fast-track at ccNSO is. However, quite a few raised in many venues >as far as I'm aware of the "unfairness" of letting ccTLDs go first on >IDNs. The term "fast-track" was truthfully used. > >GTLDs might not really need another track but it's got to be really >fast. Given that we cannot even see a reliable timetable of >implementation so far (first June 2008 at IGF 2007 and then October >2008 at ICANN New Delhi), I doubt whether ICANN is running as fast as >it can to meet any deadline. But, of course, after so long time, I >have been long disillusioned. I guess no matter I raise this or that, >I'm only talking to myself. > >Hong > > > > >On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Depends on how you define "possible". If there was a strong will to do it, > > it would probably be possible. But given that: > > - this was not a GNSO recommendation nor has it been raised in other venues > > that I am aware of; > > - that the current plan/estimate is that we call for proposals by October > > 2008; > > - that staff are no doubt running as fast as they can to meet > that deadline, > > > > I find it hard to imagine that there is any possibility that this could > > happen short of a strong Board directive to make it so. And even > then, it is > > not clear how much faster it will be than the generalized process. > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > At 06/04/2008 09:09 PM, Hong Xue wrote: > > > I'd like to know if a fast-track IDN gTLD implementation could be > > > possible. It could only include a few scripts from the language > > > communities with the most pressing need for IDNs. > > > > > > Hong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > > > > > Will you be participating in the GNSO's new gTLD session in LA next > > > > week? > > <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04906.html> > > > > > > > > Do you have the information you need from ALAC, including, I hope, our > > > > strong endorsement of a simple, rapid process to unblock the > addition of > > > > new gTLDs? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Wendy > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Rudi and all, The reason why we shouldn't do as you and Belgium government suggests is that the whole world doesn't live in Belgium, and because such would violate many other countires national laws. -----Original Message----- >From: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 8:52 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >Evan Leibovitch schreef: >> Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> I am quite sure spammers, others trying to con, >>> steal (whatever), abuse WHOIS. But I am equally >>> sure there are many (as many, as few? I am not >>> able to guess) who provide inaccurate (or >>> un-helpful) information for privacy reasons. We >>> are generally advised not to put personal >>> information online. WHOIS is contrary to best >>> practise. >>> >WHOIS information on the registrant should be public in case registrant >is an official organisation, a company, a self-employed or any other >public organisation. In Belgium, you need to publish on any official >document, including your website, your official organisation form, full >address and company registration number. As such, you can always be >identified in an official national database (KBO). Why should we not >apply these rules on registrant information ? > >Rudi Vansnick >ISOC Belgium chair >Board member ISOC-ECC >Board member EURALO >> Well, of course, especially when the "privacy" is desired because you're >> trying to con and steal and WHOIS. >> >> Sorry, but refusing to be identified -- when using a facility primarily >> used to _provide_ identity -- seems absurd. >> >> Registrars can perhaps offer proxy/escrow services, then, as part of >> their arsenal of tools to sell registrants for that kind of thing. You >> can get an unlisted phone number, but you pay for that and the phone >> company still maintains correct records on who owns a certain line. >> >> In other fields of public communications, people who want a buffer >> between themselves and others -- celebrities, victims, whistleblowers -- >> obtain agents to act as that buffer. But they still need to provide >> accurate information to their agent, and the agent is part of a chain of >> responsibility that is not obliged to protect those who use the buffer >> as a means to lie, cheat or misrepresent themselves. >> >> The right to privacy is not an absolute one -- it has numerous limits >> and is often subservient to many other human rights (such as the legal >> right to confront one's accuser). >> >> The right to maintain privacy, while maintaining the freedom to abuse >> the privacy rights of others, is neither best practise nor a suitable >> excuse for maintaining inaccurate information. Many people would >> certainly like to give fake information on their drivers' licenses or >> passports for various privacy-related reasons, and would certainly do so >> if certain laws did not prohibit that form of "privacy". >> >> - Evan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> 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

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Grant Funding to Support ALS Activities
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Danny, Evan, and all, Why should ICANN provide any funding for the ALS, and why would any ALS want funding from ICANN unless for the latter, they are unable or incapable to raise their own funding themselves collectively? Seems to me that if any @large structure or organization is to not be captured it must be independant of ICANN as ICANN is a California public service non-profit corporation. This does not mean that ICANN cannot or should not have it's own individual membership, IMO it should. It is to say that unless any user or independant registrant doesn't want to be in a conflict of interest to it's members, it must be outside of ICANN with independant funding. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 5:54 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Grant Funding to Support ALS Activities > >Interesting that the same language appears on the >Euralo and Afralo websites in the "Why become an >At-Large Structure" section. > > >--- Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > >> Thompson, Darlene wrote: >> > Wow! >> > >> > This is sure news to me. >> Me too, especially considering that ALSs must sign >> an agreement which >> states that they cannot be dependent on ICANN for >> any internal funding. >> My understanding of the process is the same as >> Darlene's. >> >> We're having an ... interesting ... enough time >> getting funding for >> activities _within_ ICANN! >> >> - Evan >> >> > > > > 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