- At-Large - lists.icann.org

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

Robert and all, Nicely stated, and I could not agree more! Well done! -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 10:58 AM >To: ALAC Worldwide <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 > >I would agree with our European colleagues, that being that the >default should be consistent with the high level of privacy mandated >at the EU and Canadian level. > >WHOIS information should should not be seen as a data mine, to be >used by spammers, law enforcement and the Intellectual property >constituency. It is a key database, one that should .. that must.. be >adequately protected against abuse . > >regards > >Robert > >On 7-Apr-08, at 12:45 PM, Blogs.pn wrote: > >> 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@aa419.> >> To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@s org eltzer.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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

1 0

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

April 7, 2008

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 > >

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

John and all, John, you may very well be right, but do you have any hard evidance that clearly substanciates your claim? My guess is you don't. Other reasons for inaccurate Whois data are also evident, such as failing to update registration data for example, for whatever reason. Wendy's point is still well taken. However the better solution is to adjust what information is displayable in a Whois querry other than by LEA, whom should have full Whois data access. Casual Whois lookups from non LEA's should not have access to ALL whois data or data that is personally identifyable, such as a persons home address or phone number. To not protect personal indetifyable information [ known as PII in legal parlences ] is to expose that registrant to stalking, which has already occured, harrassment, fraud scams of various sorts, ID Theft, and other forms of illegal activities as well as ucerping that registrants civil rights in many countries, and a violation of international law. For instance we have already seen recently how access by an FBI agent, whom was a fraud themselves, to PII lead to several illegal immigration activities as well as ID theft. So the price for open access to Whois data that is personally identifyable information, as you seem to proport John, is far to high and for to risky to far too many, way to easily. -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 7:02 PM >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >Speaking for CAUCE, we agree with all of Wendy's comments ... > >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy. > > ... except this one. > >The vast majority of bogus WHOIS info is clearly not there for reasons of >personal privacy, but rather to hide the identities of perpetrators of >phishing, spam, and other kinds of fraud. > >R's, >John 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

GNSO new gTLD session next week
by Wendy Seltzer April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

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/

6 6

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

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

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 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

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

1 0

Draft Statements on Travel Support, Operational Plan leave committee and are available for comment
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

Dear All: As you may recall, the Finance and Budget Subcommittee had decided that its review of the following documents would conclude on 6th April, so that they could be posted for comment by the community until 16th April. You will now find that these drafts are available from the ALAC 8 April agenda at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?8_april_2008. The RALOs will be sent details of these two documents with a request that they provide their comments shortly. ALAC members will also note that there is an additional item on the agenda - a resolution to finish work on a statement on new GTLDs in good time to allow it to be sent to the board by the Paris ICANN meeting. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Election for a Vice-Chair - Nominations Periods ends 2 April
by At-Large Staff April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

Dear Community: This email is to remind you of the formal Election Call¹ issued by the Chair of the ALAC on 19th March, as required by Rule 10.12 of the Rules of Procedure of the ALAC due to a vacancy amongst the Officers of the ALAC. The 14-day nomination period, as provided by Rule 9.2, will end on 2nd April. All nominations must, per that Rule, be received on the ALAC public list at alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org not later than 14 days. I can confirm that to date, no nomincations have been made. Nominations may be made as provided in Rule 9. The Criteria for Officers of the ALAC may be found in Rule 3. Election of Officers is covered by Rules 2, 9, and 10 NOTE: The Election Procedures make clear reference to it being necessary for part of the process to be conducted at an ICANN International Meeting. These provisions are designed to fill regular appointments, and not interim appointments. The Chair intends to present relevant amendments to the Rules of Procedure at the next ALAC Telephonic meeting in April to allow for interim elections to be conducted without the necessity of waiting for the next ICANN International Meeting. The full Rules of Procedure may be found at: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/rules_of_procedure:200 71023183147-0-6223/files/ALAC%20ROP's%20Adopted%20October%202007.doc The Rules above referenced are reproduced below. Rule 2 - Election of Officers 2.1 The ALAC shall elect a Chair, at least two (2) Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur by the mechanism outlined in Rule 10. 2.2 All officers are normally elected at an Annual General Meeting of ICANN . 2.3 The election can take place by electronic mail, online balloting, written balloting, or any other means deemed convenient and accurate 2.4 All officers serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an AGM and ending at the closure of the following AGM. 2.5 Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: 2.6 They shall accept to serve on behalf of the AT LARGE COMMUNITY by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; 2.7 They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, to put the collective views of the Committee always in front of their own. Rule 3 - Qualification Criteria for Officers 3.1 All officers must be members of the ALAC. 3.2 A conflict of interest statement must be filed; 3.3 A person shall not serve, at the same time, in two different officer positions; 3.4 The Chair shall be ineligible to serve on ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which they serve on the ALAC; 3.5 All officers can be removed before the end of their term by a vote of recall according to rule 11. 3.6 All officers have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall. 3.7 Only standing members of the At-Large Advisory Committee are eligible to serve as Chair. If at any point in time the Chair leaves the membership of the ALAC for any reason, he / she shall immediately cease the function of Chair as well. Rule -9 Procedures for the Presentation of Candidatures 9.1 No earlier than one calendar month and no later than three weeks before the beginning of an ICANN Meeting where an ALAC officer has to be elected, the current Chair of the ALAC will send to the public ALAC list an ³election call² message, listing the officers that are to be elected at that ICANN Meeting, asking for nominations, and stating the deadline according to the following paragraph 9.2. 9.2 The deadline for nominations for all open officer positions shall be 14 (fourteen) days after the date of the ³election call². Only delegates can nominate or self-nominate, by posting a message to the public ALAC list. Anyone who will or has a chance to meet eligibility requirements after the next ICANN Annual General Meeting can be nominated; it is not necessary for nominees to meet eligibility requirements at the moment of the nomination, but, if elected, they will have to meet them before taking their position. Nominations of individuals who certainly will not be able to meet the eligibility requirements after the closure of the next Annual General Meeting are invalid. 9.3 Nominations must be accepted by the nominee by sending a message of acceptance to the public ALAC list (or to the person who nominated them, who will then forward it to the public ALAC list, if they do not have posting privileges to the public ALAC list at the time) by the deadline of 7 (seven) days after the deadline for nominations. Nominations that are not accepted are invalid. 9.4 After the deadline for nomination acceptance and before the beginning of the ICANN Meeting, the Chair will post to the public ALAC list an ³election summary² message. This message will contain a summary of all valid nominations for any open position. In such message, the Chair will also notify the day and time in which the actual vote will happen; such day and time must be comprised between the beginning and the closure of the ICANN Meeting, except when the Meeting is also the Annual General Meeting. In this latter case, the day and time of the vote must be comprised in the first 48 (forty-eight) hours after the closure of the Annual General Meeting; thus, the electorate will include the delegates whose term starts at the closure of that Annual General Meeting, and will not include the former ALAC members whose term ends at the closure of that Annual General Meeting. 9.5 Nominations shall then be discussed on the public ALAC list and at the physical ALAC meetings during the ICANN Meeting. 9.6 At the day and time of the vote, delegates will be provided (by staff or delegated disinterested third party) with a mechanism for voting that meets the following requirements: o It allows for each delegate to cast their vote in a confidential manner, so that no other delegate or officer shall know it; o It allows for delegates who are not physically present to cast their vote remotely (also in advance of the day and time of the vote, if they are unavailable at that moment o Each delegate can cast up to one preference for each open position, picking among the list of validly nominated individuals published at rule 9.4. Votes for other individuals are considered equivalent to abstention. Rule 10. Procedures for the Candidate Elections 10.1 A quorum must exist for the election to be valid. 10.2 All Voting in Elections will be CONFIDENTIAL 10.3 The ALAC can designate an independent third party to conduct the mechanics of an electoral vote. 10.4 Instant-runoff voting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting> (IRV) will be used as the voting system to determine the winner. (ref - Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting> ) 10.5 Voters rank candidates in order of preference. 10.6 If no candidate receives an overall majority of first preferences the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and their votes transferred according to their second and third preferences (and so on), until one candidate achieves a majority. 10.7 After votes have been collected, a disinterested person¹ will examine them and call the result. 10.8 The newly elected officers assume their position at the closure of the Annual General Meeting. 10.9 In case two or more candidates receive the same, highest number of preferences, a tiebreak vote is to be conducted. 10.9.1 The Chair will select a new date and time for a new vote on that position, at least 7 (seven) days later than the current vote; in such vote, only the candidates that received the same, highest number of preferences will be eligible to receive preferences. The Chair will then immediately send a new ³election summary² message according to rule 9.4, and the procedure will then restart from rule 9.5 10.10 In case no candidate could be elected for any other reason (lack of valid nominations, lack of five valid preferences...), the Chair will immediately post a new ³election call², thus reopening nominations. The procedure will then restart from rule 9.6 10.11 Incumbent officers shall continue to serve in their position in full standing until a valid result is obtained for the election and a new officer is elected. 10.12 If for any reason whatsoever (including lack of quorum, lack or loss of eligibility requirements, resignation, or recall) an officer position becomes vacant before the end of the term, the Chair will promptly start an election to fill it, by sending an ³election call² message and starting the procedure from rule 9.1 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

5 4

Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

Cheryl and all, Sorry to read/hear that Alan nor Beau will be attending. Two or our INEGroup members will be attending. They will be there mostly to listen and report back to our members so that we may gather whatever information from that session and issue a possition statemen and/or directive accordingly. Of course, I shall share that possition statemen and/or directive with all ALAC members accordingly as well. We prefer that all of our positions are in written format for documentation purposes and historical record. -----Original Message----- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> >Sent: Apr 5, 2008 6:23 AM >To: 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: 'At-Large writ small' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week > >Just to let you know Wendy, as we knew Alan would be unable to make this >meeting, I did ask if either Brett of Beau could physically attend on our >behalf, but unfortunately both are otherwise committed... > >I will note however that observers are able to attend and that includes I >assume by phone as well... I will be doing that, (so that we can keep up to >date on these activities) even though we cannot have either our liaison or >another person physically present on the ALAC's behalf... That said if >anyone on this list is planning to attend this meeting as an observer (or >on any other capacity) perhaps they would care to prepare a briefing report >for all our benefit. > > >CLO >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:13 AM >To: Wendy Seltzer >Cc: At-Large writ small >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week > >I am leaving for Central Africa on Friday, and so will not be >attending. There are discussions about sending an alternative rep, >but I have not yet heard the outcome. > >Based on the last missives I have seen, it will primarily be an >update on implementation progress, with some request for feedback >where alternative options seem available (all meeting the >recommendations) and some requests for additional rationale for >specific recommendations. There does will not (as far as I can >understand) be an opportunity to revisit the actual recommendations >in the gTLD report. > >To date, I have received no instructions from ALAC regarding >positions to take on gTLD issues. I am of course aware of work done >on IDN issues with regard to gTLDs. > >Alan > >At 04/04/2008 12:22 PM, Wendy Seltzer 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/ > 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

ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by Danny Younger April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Here's a registrar response to the Advisory clarification: "I do not think that this clarification leads to anything. If you want to charge for transfers during the Auto-renew Grace Period, you simply change the owner on expiration day and charge whatever you think the customer is able to pay." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05748.html These rogues definately need to be reigned in. ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

2 1