.CO user confusion?
Following on a conversation I've had with a concerned user, my eyebrow has been raised by the potential for user confusion in the re-launch of .CO which advertises its use not as a ccTLD, but as a gTLD. Whilst I know that this is not the first time a ccTLD is being marketed as a gTLD and I personally don't mind it at all (some communities have been able to subsidise local Internet access thanks to this), the omission of the last letter in a domain is possibly one of the more common typo errors out there, and since this is a user issue, I ask whether At Large should address this to ask ICANN to make recommendations to the .CO registry to avoid potential phishing? (best practice etc.) Perhaps .CO has already implemented safeguards in the .CO application process which take care of this? Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On 29 Jul 2010, at 17:05, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Following on a conversation I've had with a concerned user, my eyebrow has been raised by the potential for user confusion in the re-launch of .CO which advertises its use not as a ccTLD, but as a gTLD. Whilst I know that this is not the first time a ccTLD is being marketed as a gTLD and I personally don't mind it at all (some communities have been able to subsidise local Internet access thanks to this), the omission of the last letter in a domain is possibly one of the more common typo errors out there, and since this is a user issue, I ask whether At Large should address this to ask ICANN to make recommendations to the .CO registry to avoid potential phishing? (best practice etc.) Perhaps .CO has already implemented safeguards in the .CO application process which take care of this?
Warm regards,
Olivier
Olivier
From what I recall the registry was very careful about how it was pitched ie. that it shouldn't be used by anyone to attract typo traffic. From an interview a few months ago with them:
"" .CO INTERNET: .CO absolutely cannot and will not be marketed as a typo to .COM. In fact, .CO should be marketed as exactly the opposite – as the most exciting TLD launch and the domain name extension that provides exciting new online branding opportunities with a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name extension. In fact, the .CO registry is implementing a Rapid Takedown Process to take action against websites in cases where phishing, pharming, malware, or other significant security threats have been identified. We have also developed policies to quickly suspend domains in instances where serial cyber-squatting can be established. If you do get questions around marketing .CO as a typo we encourage you to share our point of view around .CO of quickly becoming a thriving namespace and a premium domain. Our terms of service with registrars are very strict on this point" Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 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
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:11 PM, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight <michele@blacknight.ie> wrote:
.CO INTERNET: .CO absolutely cannot and will not be marketed as a typo to .COM. In fact, .CO should be marketed as exactly the opposite – as the most exciting TLD launch and the domain name extension that provides exciting new online branding opportunities with a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name extension. In fact, the .CO registry is implementing a Rapid Takedown Process to take action against websites in cases where phishing, pharming, malware, or other significant security threats have been identified. We have also developed policies to quickly suspend domains in instances where serial cyber-squatting can be established. If you do get questions around marketing .CO as a typo we encourage you to share our point of view around .CO of quickly becoming a thriving namespace and a premium domain. Our terms of service with registrars are very strict on this point"
Michele they may not be marketing as a "typo", but I already got email advertising from a registrar talking about the "new dotCOM" ... Cheers
.CO INTERNET: .CO absolutely cannot and will not be marketed as a typo to .COM.
This is what we refer to as "wink, wink, nudge, nudge." If you're not in Colombia, what other plausible reason is there to register a domain there, for three times the price of one in .COM? Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Um, not to put too fine a point on it, from the folks who pay, seems a lot of good reasons apparently. And since the 'real estate' don't have to be in Colombia......well.... FWIW and depending on the point of view, brilliant....or weak-minded.....Germans register with Dotag. for a good euro. And brilliant........or weak-minded Chinese....send their converted yuan to register with Dotpr. Helluva thing when reason meets digital commerce.....and long may it continue! Carlton ================================================================================= On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 5:09 PM, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
.CO INTERNET: .CO absolutely cannot and will not be marketed as a typo
to .COM.
This is what we refer to as "wink, wink, nudge, nudge."
If you're not in Colombia, what other plausible reason is there to register a domain there, for three times the price of one in .COM?
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 29 July 2010 18:09, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
.CO INTERNET: .CO absolutely cannot and will not be marketed as a typo
to .COM.
This is what we refer to as "wink, wink, nudge, nudge."
If you're not in Colombia, what other plausible reason is there to register a domain there, for three times the price of one in .COM?
It can be a duplicate but that doesn't mean it's squatting. It can also mean that one can register a .co that might be held by a speculator under .com Brand owners seem to have little to worry about -- their takedown measures are getting tighter every day. But generic-word owners -- especially speculators -- just found that their "possessions" just got a little less valuable thanks to competition, which is fine with me. Then again, you have many, many business names that end in "co". Ie, texa.co, ntt-domo.co, pet.co, etc. The company that once had to settle for ' thefitco.com' can now try for 'fit.co', I don't see what the fuss is about. The faster that the world sees there's nothing magically special about ".com" the better for all of us, - Evan
+1. Carlton ============================= On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 29 July 2010 18:09, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
.CO INTERNET: .CO absolutely cannot and will not be marketed as a typo
to .COM.
This is what we refer to as "wink, wink, nudge, nudge."
If you're not in Colombia, what other plausible reason is there to register a domain there, for three times the price of one in .COM?
It can be a duplicate but that doesn't mean it's squatting. It can also mean that one can register a .co that might be held by a speculator under .com
Brand owners seem to have little to worry about -- their takedown measures are getting tighter every day. But generic-word owners -- especially speculators -- just found that their "possessions" just got a little less valuable thanks to competition, which is fine with me.
Then again, you have many, many business names that end in "co". Ie, texa.co, ntt-domo.co, pet.co, etc. The company that once had to settle for ' thefitco.com' can now try for 'fit.co',
I don't see what the fuss is about. The faster that the world sees there's nothing magically special about ".com" the better for all of us,
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
.CO INTERNET: .CO absolutely cannot and will not be marketed as a typo to .COM. This is what we refer to as "wink, wink, nudge, nudge."
If you're not in Colombia, what other plausible reason is there to register a domain there, for three times the price of one in .COM?
It can be a duplicate but that doesn't mean it's squatting. It can also mean that one can register a .co that might be held by a speculator under .com
Hey, I never said it was just for squatting. The question was why you'd register a domain in .CO if you weren't in Colombia, and you seem to be agreeing with my point that it's because it looks sort of like .COM. I don't see any reason to tell the Colombians not to do what they're doing, particularly since they are, if anything, being too sympathetic to the arguments from the trademark crowd. R's, John
On 30 July 2010 11:59, John R. Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
Hey, I never said it was just for squatting. The question was why you'd register a domain in .CO if you weren't in Colombia, and you seem to be agreeing with my point that it's because it looks sort of like .COM.
More importantly, it *works* like .com, and sounds less cheezy than .biz - Evan
On 30 Jul 2010, at 17:22, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I don't see what the fuss is about. The faster that the world sees there's nothing magically special about ".com" the better for all of us,
i agree on almost all accounts. i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs. perhaps when we move into the age of Category TLDs based on their type, we may be able to take a new look at ccTLDs that are not restricted to the people (local or diaspora) of that country and treat them as being members of the general category subject to whatever rules (and protections) that are applicable to that category at that point in time.. a.
I don't see what the fuss is about. The faster that the world sees there's nothing magically special about ".com" the better for all of us,
i agree on almost all accounts.
i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs.
I think that's the background issue, each ccTLD supposedly has the right to establish its own policies and name registration process, now if they want to play in the open "domain name market" as Avri says "ala gTLD", the rules should be fair and the same for all. Also some ccTLDs are taking advantage of not having a contractual framework with ICANN so it gets mushy mushy to talk about compliance, accountability and fair use and treatment. And John, it is not like .COM, it is being advertised by some registrars as the "New dotCOM", proof ? here you go, this is one of the mails I received (I removed the information identifying the registrar):
Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:31:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Registrar X To: ME Message-ID: <DONTBESOCLEVER> Subject: .CO domain, the new .COM MIME-Version: 1.0
THE NEW GLOBAL DOMAIN!
Dear Mr. Amodio,
Worldwide .CO registration starts today!
.CO is a new global domain extension - available to every person and every company worldwide.
So for the first time in many years, .CO will provide a significant new opportunity to register a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name extension.
Don't be left out. We've seen what happened with the saturation of .COM. Due to its meaningful and universal appeal, .CO has the potential to become just as popular.
So take advantage of this opportunity now!
Best regards, Your REGISTRAR X Internet Team
- .CO offers great opportunities because it is easily recognized, understood and remembered by end users globally.
- .CO can be used to mean COmpany, COmmunity, COllaboration, COmmerce, COntent, COnnection, etc. as appropriate to your audience.
- .CO is an excellent value for your money - reach customers worldwide for only $29.99 per year!
- With just a few mouse clicks on the X website you can register your .CO Domain today!
Act now to secure the best name options!
REGISTER NOW
As you can see from the text, .CO now means anything but Colombia ... Cheers Jorge
On 30 Jul 2010, at 18:16, Avri Doria wrote:
perhaps when we move into the age of Category TLDs based on their type, we may be able to take a new look at ccTLDs that are not restricted to the people (local or diaspora) of that country and treat them as being members of the general category subject to whatever rules (and protections) that are applicable to that category at that point in time..
Not too fast. Many ccTLDs have much more respect for the privacy of individual domain name registrants. We don't want the ccTLDs to align themselves on the lax policy of gTLDs regarding privacy. We would want the best of both worlds, not a combination of the worst :-( -- Patrick Vande Walle
Patrick: Great comment !! I fully agree Carlos Dionisio Aguirre Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: patrick@vande-walle.eu Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:52:14 +0200 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 30 Jul 2010, at 18:16, Avri Doria wrote:
perhaps when we move into the age of Category TLDs based on their type, we may be able to take a new look at ccTLDs that are not restricted to the people (local or diaspora) of that country and treat them as being members of the general category subject to whatever rules (and protections) that are applicable to that category at that point in time..
Not too fast. Many ccTLDs have much more respect for the privacy of individual domain name registrants. We don't want the ccTLDs to align themselves on the lax policy of gTLDs regarding privacy. We would want the best of both worlds, not a combination of the worst :-(
-- Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
It is good that ccTLDs are not strictly confined to their respective countries. In a scenario of ccTLD being rigidly registered to users / companies belonging to their respective nations, there would be greater room for filtering / discrimination. One country might simply block websites of a certain other country. It would pave the way for a network or national networks which isn't really a good thing to happen. Sivasubramanian M http://turiya.co.in http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:33 PM, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under
the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs.
Seems to me that horse left the barn a very long time ago when .to and .ws and .cc and .cx threw the doors open to all comers.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 30 July 2010 13:21, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
It is good that ccTLDs are not strictly confined to their respective countries. In a scenario of ccTLD being rigidly registered to users / companies belonging to their respective nations, there would be greater room for filtering / discrimination. One country might simply block websites of a certain other country. It would pave the way for a network or national networks which isn't really a good thing to happen.
Well, that is already happening in that some countries block .il Are you suggesting that if .il was to open itself to registrants located outside Israel, the blocking will disappear? I find that doubtful. The blocking may not be a good thing but it's within a country's sovereign right, regardless of what ICANN does or wants. As you can imagine, this "feature" has also become part of the discussion on the Morality and Public Order clauses of the new gTLD process, - Evan
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 10:58 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
On 30 July 2010 13:21, Sivasubramanian M <isolatedn@gmail.com> wrote:
It is good that ccTLDs are not strictly confined to their respective countries. In a scenario of ccTLD being rigidly registered to users / companies belonging to their respective nations, there would be greater room for filtering / discrimination. One country might simply block websites of a certain other country. It would pave the way for a network or national networks which isn't really a good thing to happen.
Well, that is already happening in that some countries block .il
Are you suggesting that if .il was to open itself to registrants located outside Israel, the blocking will disappear? I find that doubtful.
Sivasubramanian M http://turiya.co.in http://www.isocmadras.com facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz There are indeed other ways of identifying websites / groups of websites / users for discrimination, but ccTLDs confined to national spaces make it easier for nations to filter out websites. But in a scenario where more and more ccTLDs stretch beyond their geo boundaries, it would become harder to relate a domain name to organizations and individuals of a certain region.
The blocking may not be a good thing but it's within a country's sovereign right,
A unified network of networks could be trans-soverign.
regardless of what ICANN does or wants. As you can imagine, this "feature" has also become part of the discussion on the Morality and Public Order clauses of the new gTLD process,
- Evan _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 30 July 2010 13:03, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under
the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs.
Seems to me that horse left the barn a very long time ago when .to and .ws and .cc and .cx threw the doors open to all comers.
To me the issue is whether it's worth the effort to catch the horse. There is indeed an inherent sense of unfairness that gTLD registries have to play by different rules than CCs that sell to a global market. For example: Currently there is work -- sprouting from the RAA update activity -- on creating a Registrant Bill of Rights (and Responsibilities). It will make little sense to the public if gTLDs may someday be required to honour such rights but ccTLDs are not. - Evan
Avri wrote:
i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs.
It is a gTLD under a law of the corresponding country. We may expect that the corresponding country law will follow the best choice for Internet users, or that users will not be interested in that gTLD. One can see the "distribution" of ISO3166-2 alpha-2 codes representing country names like a distribution of any other natural resources (oil, water, forest, montains, seaside, etc). Not many people knew about Tuvalu before .TV
perhaps when we move into the age of Category TLDs based on their type, we may be able to take a new look at ccTLDs that are not restricted to the people (local or diaspora) of that country and treat them as being members of the general category subject to whatever rules (and protections) that are applicable to that category at that point in time..
The new TLDs to come, to be created under ICANN rules, are very different from the real world mirrored into ccTLDs. It's up to the country to decide who can get domain name under its ccTLD. Actually in France we had very restricted rules ten years ago, and today .FR has to consider how to accomodate Europeans. That exercise per see is extremely interesting challenge. Kind regards, Elisabeth Porteneuve
On 30 July 2010 13:45, Elisabeth Porteneuve < elisabeth.porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> wrote:
Avri wrote:
i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under
the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs.
It is a gTLD under a law of the corresponding country. We may expect that the corresponding country law will follow the best choice for Internet users, or that users will not be interested in that gTLD.
One can see the "distribution" of ISO3166-2 alpha-2 codes representing country names like a distribution of any other natural resources (oil, water, forest, montains, seaside, etc). Not many people knew about Tuvalu before .TV
Sorry, but all that comes to my mind when reading that is the prospect of "ODEC: The Organization of Domain-Exporting Countries". :-P - Evan
here, as usually, money talks Carlos Vera 2010/7/30 Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
Avri wrote:
i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under
the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs.
It is a gTLD under a law of the corresponding country. We may expect that the corresponding country law will follow the best choice for Internet users, or that users will not be interested in that gTLD.
One can see the "distribution" of ISO3166-2 alpha-2 codes representing country names like a distribution of any other natural resources (oil, water, forest, montains, seaside, etc). Not many people knew about Tuvalu before .TV
perhaps when we move into the age of Category TLDs based on their type, we
may be able to take a new look at ccTLDs that are not restricted to the people (local or diaspora) of that country and treat them as being members of the general category subject to whatever rules (and protections) that are applicable to that category at that point in time..
The new TLDs to come, to be created under ICANN rules, are very different from the real world mirrored into ccTLDs. It's up to the country to decide who can get domain name under its ccTLD. Actually in France we had very restricted rules ten years ago, and today .FR has to consider how to accomodate Europeans. That exercise per see is extremely interesting challenge.
Kind regards, Elisabeth Porteneuve
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Oh! So we have passed without comment on .tv, .la, .to, .nu, no doubt among a few others, then why are we piling in on .co, now? Just a thought, CW
.co is cc for colombia.. .tv was paid dozen $illions so money talk.. Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Porta -----Original Message----- From: Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> Sender: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 21:00:14 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? Oh! So we have passed without comment on .tv, .la, .to, .nu, no doubt among a few others, then why are we piling in on .co, now? Just a thought, CW _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 30 July 2010 15:00, Christopher Wilkinson <cw@christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote:
Oh! So we have passed without comment on .tv, .la, .to, .nu, no doubt among a few others, then why are we piling in on .co, now?
There are two quite distinct issues mentioned in this thread: The issue of .co being more confused with .com than other TLDs doesn't concern me. The other topic raised concerns ccTLDs acting like gTLDs without bearing the obligations of gTLDs (and more generally, my observation that the CCs appear to exist in a parallel universe, being involved with ICANN when it suits them and thumbing their nose at ICANN when there's the least irritation). This has been a constant source of concern to me, and is no stronger or weaker because of the action of .CO (and less recently, .ME, and other others before it). The seeds of today's situation were planted long before the start of my involvement with ICANN, and I can't speak of why the public advocates of the day didn't press the issue back then. To me, this particular point of real unfairness seems like one of the nastier of ICANN's many unspoken issues. And indeed, here is Christopher objecting to the very discussion of the issue -- I consider that truly offensive. The fact that a poor state of affairs was allowed to happen in the past does not make the situation less poor now. And it certainly does not give anyone the right to object to the mere discussion of the how bad it is, simply because it wasn't discussed before. - Evan
The other topic raised concerns ccTLDs acting like gTLDs without bearing the obligations of gTLDs (and more generally, my observation that the CCs appear to exist in a parallel universe, being involved with ICANN when it suits them and thumbing their nose at ICANN when there's the least irritation).
Yup.
The fact that a poor state of affairs was allowed to happen in the past does not make the situation less poor now. And it certainly does not give anyone the right to object to the mere discussion of the how bad it is, simply because it wasn't discussed before.
The countries involved consider it to be a point of national sovereignty, so there's no way it's going to change. Despite the leverage it via its various contracts, the US government has conspicuously refrained from telling IANA how to manage ccTLD entries, even for Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and other countries the government doesn't like. They're certainly not going to care that .CO is going commercial. R's, John
If by "universe" you mean legislation, that is correct, CCs do exist in parllel universe. The CCs bear enormous obligations within their countries - in general those obligations are different to ICANN gTLD's ones. Those parallel universes challenge one another, and that is a Good Thing. Just imagine: withing their own ccTLDs many countries have various nationals, including those speaking up and demanding fair procedures and transparency. They also have a mirror - that ICANN gTLDs, debates, and international standards. You cannot "surrender" CCs to ICANN, but ICANN is precisely the place many CCs come to exchange practices on how it works elswhere. That is a perfect win-win situation. And yes, the USG has been very wise. Kind regards, Elisabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2010 10:01 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
The other topic raised concerns ccTLDs acting like gTLDs without bearing the obligations of gTLDs (and more generally, my observation that the CCs appear to exist in a parallel universe, being involved with ICANN when it suits them and thumbing their nose at ICANN when there's the least irritation).
Yup.
The fact that a poor state of affairs was allowed to happen in the past does not make the situation less poor now. And it certainly does not give anyone the right to object to the mere discussion of the how bad it is, simply because it wasn't discussed before.
The countries involved consider it to be a point of national sovereignty, so there's no way it's going to change.
Despite the leverage it via its various contracts, the US government has conspicuously refrained from telling IANA how to manage ccTLD entries, even for Cuba, North Korea, Iran, and other countries the government doesn't like. They're certainly not going to care that .CO is going commercial.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Makes for a hmmmmmmm.... Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Christopher Wilkinson < cw@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote:
Oh! So we have passed without comment on .tv, .la, .to, .nu, no doubt among a few others, then why are we piling in on .co, now?
Just a thought, CW
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
my reason? becasue i wasn't on this list back then. but you should have heard me in private. all i am saying that if we go into the category process some day in the future as more and more people are advocating, we should consider looking at the whole stable of names. i don't hold it against them that they are doing what they are doing. fair by the rules. but some people argue that there are more than two kinds of names, and if that is the case, the reshuffle should probably be a fair reshuffle that does not a-prioiri choose some names for special privilege. a. On 30 Jul 2010, at 21:00, Christopher Wilkinson wrote:
Oh! So we have passed without comment on .tv, .la, .to, .nu, no doubt among a few others, then why are we piling in on .co, now?
Just a thought, CW
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I fail to see why names that are sold to a willing public should be subject to schemes of segregation, classification, and categorization, with all the regulations and restrictions that come with them. As Elisabeth has pointed out, referencing the history of .fr, many categorization schemes have been tried, and have been found wanting by the public. The disdain I see dripped onto open ccTLDs that are marketing themselves to the world for their own profit and (in almost every case) to the benefit of the Internet community in those countries and territories, not to mention the users who happily register those names, would be more usefully channeled into outrage at the neglect, desuetude, and mismanagement of ccTLDs where users cannot obtain a name except at great expense, time, and red tape -- if they are allowed to get them at all. Let's not forget that the ccTLD world is more than a few TLDs that market themselves to the world. The 250-odd ccTLDs consist of the following types: - Open TLDs (no residency requirement) that don't do much marketing, period - Open TLDs that market within their country, but not internationally - Closed TLDs (restricted to residents of the country or territory) that are run efficiently and fairly, such as several European TLDs - Closed TLDs that are run arbitrarily and capriciously, such as .zw. - TLDs that restrict registrations only to businesses, depriving natural persons of the right to an online identity, such as .hk - TLDs that are so closed that they can hardly be said to be running at all, as is the case with far too many African TLDs - TLDs that are not even in the root due to political squabbles, such as .eh - TLDs that are in the root but are kept closed by their colonial owners, such as .bv These last five types are the problem TLDs, not those that venture out into the world and make their services available to everyone. The last five types are those that exclude, gouge, paralyze, spurn, humiliate and frustrate Internet users. If anyone is looking for ccTLDs that need some scrutiny, there they are -- hiding in plain sight. Sometimes I feel as if ICANN is filled with old scolds who frown and cluck when the children dare to speak without permission, as if it were their right and duty to correct and chastise -- and if the rest of us were children. Even after all the hierarchies and categories and segregations that have been tried and been found wanting (see the history of .fr, .es, .se, etc.), and even after all the experience of closed and restricted ccTLDs that have earned the hatred of their local Internet communities, the impulse to restrict, control, and supervise seems never to disappear -- especially when someone else is doing well. The confusion caused by .CO seems to be entirely within ICANN. I haven't heard a single report of a user having any trouble at all. Antony
+1 Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 5:23 PM, Antony Van Couvering <avc@namesatwork.com>wrote:
I fail to see why names that are sold to a willing public should be subject to schemes of segregation, classification, and categorization, with all the regulations and restrictions that come with them. As Elisabeth has pointed out, referencing the history of .fr, many categorization schemes have been tried, and have been found wanting by the public.
The disdain I see dripped onto open ccTLDs that are marketing themselves to the world for their own profit and (in almost every case) to the benefit of the Internet community in those countries and territories, not to mention the users who happily register those names, would be more usefully channeled into outrage at the neglect, desuetude, and mismanagement of ccTLDs where users cannot obtain a name except at great expense, time, and red tape -- if they are allowed to get them at all.
Let's not forget that the ccTLD world is more than a few TLDs that market themselves to the world. The 250-odd ccTLDs consist of the following types:
- Open TLDs (no residency requirement) that don't do much marketing, period - Open TLDs that market within their country, but not internationally - Closed TLDs (restricted to residents of the country or territory) that are run efficiently and fairly, such as several European TLDs - Closed TLDs that are run arbitrarily and capriciously, such as .zw. - TLDs that restrict registrations only to businesses, depriving natural persons of the right to an online identity, such as .hk - TLDs that are so closed that they can hardly be said to be running at all, as is the case with far too many African TLDs - TLDs that are not even in the root due to political squabbles, such as .eh - TLDs that are in the root but are kept closed by their colonial owners, such as .bv
These last five types are the problem TLDs, not those that venture out into the world and make their services available to everyone. The last five types are those that exclude, gouge, paralyze, spurn, humiliate and frustrate Internet users. If anyone is looking for ccTLDs that need some scrutiny, there they are -- hiding in plain sight.
Sometimes I feel as if ICANN is filled with old scolds who frown and cluck when the children dare to speak without permission, as if it were their right and duty to correct and chastise -- and if the rest of us were children. Even after all the hierarchies and categories and segregations that have been tried and been found wanting (see the history of .fr, .es, .se, etc.), and even after all the experience of closed and restricted ccTLDs that have earned the hatred of their local Internet communities, the impulse to restrict, control, and supervise seems never to disappear -- especially when someone else is doing well.
The confusion caused by .CO seems to be entirely within ICANN. I haven't heard a single report of a user having any trouble at all.
Antony
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Very well said, Anthony! Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible. On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Antony Van Couvering <avc@namesatwork.com> wrote:
I fail to see why names that are sold to a willing public should be subject to schemes of segregation, classification, and categorization, with all the regulations and restrictions that come with them. As Elisabeth has pointed out, referencing the history of .fr, many categorization schemes have been tried, and have been found wanting by the public.
The disdain I see dripped onto open ccTLDs that are marketing themselves to the world for their own profit and (in almost every case) to the benefit of the Internet community in those countries and territories, not to mention the users who happily register those names, would be more usefully channeled into outrage at the neglect, desuetude, and mismanagement of ccTLDs where users cannot obtain a name except at great expense, time, and red tape -- if they are allowed to get them at all.
Let's not forget that the ccTLD world is more than a few TLDs that market themselves to the world. The 250-odd ccTLDs consist of the following types:
- Open TLDs (no residency requirement) that don't do much marketing, period - Open TLDs that market within their country, but not internationally - Closed TLDs (restricted to residents of the country or territory) that are run efficiently and fairly, such as several European TLDs - Closed TLDs that are run arbitrarily and capriciously, such as .zw. - TLDs that restrict registrations only to businesses, depriving natural persons of the right to an online identity, such as .hk - TLDs that are so closed that they can hardly be said to be running at all, as is the case with far too many African TLDs - TLDs that are not even in the root due to political squabbles, such as .eh - TLDs that are in the root but are kept closed by their colonial owners, such as .bv
These last five types are the problem TLDs, not those that venture out into the world and make their services available to everyone. The last five types are those that exclude, gouge, paralyze, spurn, humiliate and frustrate Internet users. If anyone is looking for ccTLDs that need some scrutiny, there they are -- hiding in plain sight.
Sometimes I feel as if ICANN is filled with old scolds who frown and cluck when the children dare to speak without permission, as if it were their right and duty to correct and chastise -- and if the rest of us were children. Even after all the hierarchies and categories and segregations that have been tried and been found wanting (see the history of .fr, .es, .se, etc.), and even after all the experience of closed and restricted ccTLDs that have earned the hatred of their local Internet communities, the impulse to restrict, control, and supervise seems never to disappear -- especially when someone else is doing well.
The confusion caused by .CO seems to be entirely within ICANN. I haven't heard a single report of a user having any trouble at all.
Antony
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Good point! Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible, Free. On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:27 AM, Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com> wrote:
Jacqueline A. Morris Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible.
Why not free too ?
Cheers J
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
As the old joke about optimists goes, there must be one in here somewhere! One note, when i say that anything that acts like a gTLD should be under the same set of rules, I am not necessarily specifying what that set of rules is. Though I guess I still am too much of a Barlowite, to accept the notion of sovereignty over domain names as natural law. Next thing you know there will be claims of sovereignty over oxygen. a. On 31 Jul 2010, at 12:38, John R. Levine wrote:
Technology should be like oxygen: Ubiquitous, Necessary, Invisible, Free.
I want a pony.
R's, John
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
One note, when i say that anything that acts like a gTLD should be under the same set of rules, I am not necessarily specifying what that set of rules is.
Agreed, the rules should be fair and the same for all players. I don't yet even see listed any agreement or MoU for several of the ccTLDs in question (ex. .tv, .me, .co) in http://www.icann.org/en/cctlds/agreements.html.
Though I guess I still am too much of a Barlowite, to accept the notion of sovereignty over domain names as natural law. Next thing you know there will be claims of sovereignty over oxygen.
I'll dig later for some specific historic references, During the transition to the DNS after the creation of initial TLDs, there was general consensus around the idea of and country TLDs and Jon Postel liked it, but there was a heated discussion because he didn't like end being responsible to decide what constituted or not a country. While .UK was started to being used for Great Britain (notice that the actual ISO-3166 is .GB) and .US for United States, some folks suggested to take a look at what ISO was doing and that ended with the adoption of ISO-3166 alpha2 and later on the following statement in RFC1591. "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list." After the use of ISO-3166 was settled, Jon just looked for people willing and able to act as volunteers to handle and manage each of the ccTLDs, it was first come first serve basis, that's how ccTLDs ended in the hands of primarily universities, research projects, some forgotten govt office, individuals or small companies. In the case of .AR (where I was the tech/admin for several years since we assumed that role ~1987) it landed on a small project sponsored by UNDP that was responsible for the implementation of modern IT and communications infrastructure for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we were like external contractors and there was not much clue about what role we assumed being the ccTLD manager, it took until 2005 for the AR govt to put in writing the role of the Ministry in relation to the .AR ccTLD. Besides the reactions to avoid the politiks of defining what is or not a country, I don't remember any original discussions about sovereignty but RFC1591 included another important sentence about the designated manager of a TLD: "The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community." It is a shame that in the epoch of ICANN, the original spirit and the sentence that follows the one mentioned above has apparently been lost ... "Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community." I'm sorry, but somebody ate your pony ... Regards Jorge
Besides the reactions to avoid the politiks of defining what is or not a country, I don't remember any original discussions about sovereignty ...
Early on there was an issue about running the .HT domain, between an incumbent operator, and one endorsed by the government who appeared less competent. Jon decided in favor of the government candidate, and that's set the precedent ever since. Based on discussion here a few months ago and reading between the lines, IANA would never directly refuse a ccTLD change from a government, but if they ask for something foolish IANA will try to persuade them not to. At this point, there are only four undelegated ccTLDs: .UM is deliberately undelegated because nobody lives there .BL and .MF are deliberately undelegated because they're administratively part of .GP .EH has two competing governments and probably no networks IANA has accepted even very poor requests from governments like the one from .SO last year. Really, it's 15 years too late to change the rules on ccTLDs. R's, John
On 1 Aug 2010, at 11:21, John R. Levine wrote:
Really, it's 15 years too late to change the rules on ccTLDs.
It certainly is the current reality. It is of course the status quo. But, and this was part of my original point, as the claims for various categorization regimes increases, including that of geoTLDS (city, state, region, continent) that may also see claims of sovereignty, it may be reasonable to open up the entire conversation of categories and the regimes under which they are governed. As you as we said, under the dichotomy of G and CC, yes, there is nothing to talk about. But as we reopen the subject and no longer de-facto accept the status quo legitimacy of the original diremption, we may indeed have something we should talk about. Perhaps it is a failing of mine, but I never believe that the status quo is something we should just accept without discussions that review the appropriateness of that status quo, especially in the face of changing circumstances. a.
Really, it's 15 years too late to change the rules on ccTLDs.
You are certainly right, but it is not for the registrars selling the names under ccTLDs ...
I don't understand why that would be. Registrars deal directly with the ccTLDs. The ICANN agreement only applies to gTLDs. With respect to Avri's point, it's true, a domain like .BERLIN or .NYC might claim some political immunity, but we have the precedents of .CAT and .POST, both of which have agreed to gTLD rules. R's, John
Really, it's 15 years too late to change the rules on ccTLDs.
You are certainly right, but it is not for the registrars selling the names under ccTLDs ...
Follow up, I clicked on send too fast ... It is not fuss, it is real abuse based on confusion and misinformation from some registrars which are taking advantage of some "packaged deal schemes" offering registrar services for names that are based on some ccTLDs, including particular ones that do not have agreements or MoUs or even recognize the figure of a registrar, and never delegated the authority or responsibility of registration services to a third party, public or private. I'll not make names at this moment but I'll be more than happy to provide detailed information if such a program to report abuse from a registrar exists. I guess the compliance office has to pay a much closer look at some of these folks which are by the way listed on the independent audit of June 2010 from KnuJon. Just to cite one case, this particular registrar plays a game combining the Intellectual Property and Trademarks market (no wonder why the IP and TM lawyers make so much noise and even sponsor ICANN meetings), plus domain registration services and web hosting, etc., interesting biz model and one would say 100% legit. The company is registered in the US, but all the addresses belong to locations (typically used by spammers and fraudsters) such as UPS Stores or SkyBox services, and their phone number belongs to a VoIP service, still dubious but 100% legit. Now, among several of the classic TLDs in the market, this company offers to register names under several ccTLDs, and their biz model obviously include trademark and patent filing in several countries, still 100% legit. The issue is that some of the ccTLDs on the list do not offer registration through third parties, and in some cases the registration is free, one could say that this company is offering some sort of "agent" service and charges for it, 100% legit no ? Well, what about the company claiming to have the registration done in 24hrs when the ccTLD policies say that there is a minimum wait period of 48 ? and when they offer you to register the name for a given number of years (discounts included) obviously paying in advance, when the ccTLD does only yearly registrations ? The biggest issue is, IMHO, that this registrar obviously promotes itself as an "ICANN accredited registrar", when ICANN has nothing to do accrediting registrars for ccTLD names, and on top of that they claim that in case of conflicts the UDRP is used even when the ccTLD never agreed to that and probably don't even like the UDRP. Then, who is defending the interests of the end user ? if the company goes belly up and engulfs all the pre-paid fees for multiyear registrations ? and the end user lose the name because incompetence of this company to timely handle renewals ? or if there is any other conflict with the name ? The end user has no recourse since it will not justify for the loss of few bucks to sue a well oiled network of experienced attorneys with the backing of some IT guys that are presenting a 100% legit biz facade. After all besides improperly claiming being "official" registers of something or being borderline in compliance with the registrar agreement with ICANN, all they do seems to be legal. That's how the DNS became the land of the modern con artists, with a higher degree of sophistication... Regards Jorge
It is not fuss, it is real abuse based on confusion and misinformation from some registrars which are taking advantage of some "packaged deal schemes" offering registrar services for names that are based on some ccTLDs, including particular ones that do not have agreements or MoUs or even recognize the figure of a registrar, and never delegated the authority or responsibility of registration services to a third party, public or private.
I think we can agree that we are all opposed to fraud. But if they're not abusing domains that ICANN controls, how is this ICANN's problem, as opposed to the consumer regulators in the countries where the registrars operate? R's, John
On 1 Aug 2010, at 17:38, Jorge Amodio wrote:
and when they offer you to register the name for a given number of years (discounts included) obviously paying in advance, when the ccTLD does only yearly registrations ?
Jorge I've seen this several times in the past. In some cases I've seen co.uk offered for 1 year, in others I've seen .eu offered for up to 10 The silly and annoying thing is that users believe that these registration periods are valid (which is understandable), but then don't understand why companies like ourselves won't offer them *sigh* Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
On 08/01/2010 08:21 AM, John R. Levine wrote:
IANA has accepted even very poor requests from governments like the one from .SO last year.
ICANN or IANA? Several years back it was ICANN that transferred a ccTLD (I think it was Sudan or Afghanistan) based on nothing but a single sheet of non-letterhead paper with a few handwritten sentences and an unverified signature of an unknown person. (I think I was on the ICANN board when it happened.) I don't remember the details but didn't the the US gov't transfer .us without even bothering with ICANN or IANA? --karl--
IANA has accepted even very poor requests from governments like the one from .SO last year.
ICANN or IANA?
Both, really. IANA handles plenty of requests to change servers and such without redelegation.
I don't remember the details but didn't the the US gov't transfer .us without even bothering with ICANN or IANA?
It's hard to see how they could have moved the servers to Neustar without telling IANA. There's nothing in the board minutes, but since it was under control of the DOC before and after the Neustar contract, if I were DOC, I wouldn't have asked ICANN either. R's, John
----- Original Message ----- From: "John R. Levine" <johnl@iecc.com>
.BL and .MF are deliberately undelegated because they're administratively part of .GP
No, they are no longer part of Guadeloupe. The French law changed in 2007 http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/html/Guide_legistique_2/367.htm Otherwise neither the UN statistical division nor the ISO 3166/MA would record new entities and new alpha-2 codes. Look on http://www.comstbarth.fr/, Collectivité de Saint-Barthélemy Université Laval in Canada has, as usual, excellent papers in French http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/amsudant/st-barth.htm Wiki in English http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_collectivity Kind regards, Elisabeth
.BL and .MF are deliberately undelegated because they're administratively part of .GP
No, they are no longer part of Guadeloupe.
Oh, look at that. ISO 3166 assigned the cods BL and MF in September 2007. So I guess that since all of their web sites are in .FR, nobody's bothered to claim the country codes. If they did, it'd just be like .PM and .TF, operated by AFNIC with little or nothing in it. In any event, my main point stands, all the two-letter country codes are delegated to whoever the national governments said to delgate them to, with the exceptions being unimportant. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
Oh, look at that. ISO 3166 assigned the cods BL and MF in September 2007. See <http://www.iso.org/iso/newsletter_vi-1.pdf> jaap
+ 1 :) Carlos Dionisio Aguirre Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: avri@acm.org Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2010 18:16:38 +0200 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 30 Jul 2010, at 17:22, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I don't see what the fuss is about. The faster that the world sees there's nothing magically special about ".com" the better for all of us,
i agree on almost all accounts.
i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs.
perhaps when we move into the age of Category TLDs based on their type, we may be able to take a new look at ccTLDs that are not restricted to the people (local or diaspora) of that country and treat them as being members of the general category subject to whatever rules (and protections) that are applicable to that category at that point in time..
a. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Once upon a time, there was the DNSO. Then the ccTLD community decided that they were something different, that they were related to local authorities and communities, and therefore they needed to play with a different set of rules, therefore they needed a different regime, hence the decision to have a separate Supporting Organization. In a perfect world, one of the two will happen: either the ccTLDs have their raison d'être in the local community and under the local authority, and hence they will not be subject to the general ICANN rules but to the local jurisdiction, or they are operating in the global market, and therefore they will be subject to the same rules that the other global players will have. This said, since the horses have already left the barn, and since we all acknowledge that this world is far from perfect, we should not be crying foul if a ccTLD operates as if it was a gTLD (but without the constraints thereof). However, as I have tried to explain to the GAC in many occasions when I was on the Board, we need to have a mechanism by which the global community is not impacted by a possible misbehaviour of a ccTLD. The example I often make is the wildcard, that was stopped in .com because Verisign had a contract with ICANN, and that was not stopped in .cm, because this was not the case. The wildcard is just one example. We should not forget that potentially more problems will come with IDNs, and to have "global" IDN-TLDs run under a different regime and set of rules then the "simil-cc" (fast track or not) IDN-TLDs is a serious risk. IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN. Cheers, Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Friday, 30 July 2010 18:17 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 30 Jul 2010, at 17:22, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
I don't see what the fuss is about. The faster that the world sees there's nothing magically special about ".com" the better for all of us,
i agree on almost all accounts.
i guess i worry about what is effectively a gTLD not being governed under the same rules as the rest of the gTLDs.
perhaps when we move into the age of Category TLDs based on their type, we may be able to take a new look at ccTLDs that are not restricted to the people (local or diaspora) of that country and treat them as being members of the general category subject to whatever rules (and protections) that are applicable to that category at that point in time..
a. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN.
Amen. In some other fora I was raising that point, I know that in the current state of affairs will be difficult to find what can be done, but it is an issue that affects the end user, then those who claim to represent them can not stay in mute and must speak up, if not their representativeness will be under big scrutiny. I spent many years explaining to a lot of people that the DNS is a shared resource, which includes the ccTLDs. ccTLDs are not for internal use, yes they play with a different set of rules in regards to how the name is managed, what policies apply, and who/how can get names in that space, but they also serve the entire Internet community, if .XY goes down it not only affects people in XY, it affects the rest of the Internet community, if .XY policies facilitate for spammers, fraudsters, criminals to obtain names, that affects everybody. The fuss is not about if .CO can exploit their goldmine, is how that gold is being promoted and sold by some registrars that are misleading the end user to register a name claiming that this is the new dotCOM or that if you have a dotCOM name you MUST have dotCO too to protect your brand, yada, yada. Funny thing is that the registrar I was making reference to in a previous email didn't get his name.co and now is for sale at SEDO :-), as probably many of the new .co names recently registered, have an extra $500 ? you can get oprahwinfrey.co. ICANN may not be able to do something specific without a contract, but it can certainly as a community set the tone and provide guidelines where misbehavior gets exposed for the rest of the community. My .02 Jorge
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:43 PM ...
However, as I have tried to explain to the GAC in many occasions when I was on the Board, we need to have a mechanism by which the global community is not impacted by a possible misbehaviour of a ccTLD. The example I often make is the wildcard, that was stopped in .com because Verisign had a contract with ICANN, and that was not stopped in .cm, because this was not the case. The wildcard is just one example. We should not forget that potentially more problems will come with IDNs, and to have "global" IDN-TLDs run under a different regime and set of rules then the "simil-cc" (fast track or not) IDN-TLDs is a serious risk. IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN. Cheers, Roberto
That is extremelly important.. While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything? Kind regards, Elisabeth
With the GAC, making demands on ICANN is de rigueur, asking a fellow government to lift even a little finger to help the Internet, or prevent abuses, is beyond the pale. An insult to their sovereignty, it seems. Notice that the famous GAC principles, in all their permutations, never once require the slightest good behavior on the part of governments. They are not even required to engage a ccTLD operator in dialog -- they simply have the right to do so. When it comes to state actors, the GAC will always be very good at enumerating rights, and absolutely silent when it comes to discussing responsibilities. One state simply cannot bind another state to any action whatsoever. I suppose this arrangement is useful for preventing wars, but it is frustrating when dealing with Internet issues. Antony On Aug 2, 2010, at 10:39 AM, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@icann.org> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 1:43 PM
...
However, as I have tried to explain to the GAC in many occasions when I was on the Board, we need to have a mechanism by which the global community is not impacted by a possible misbehaviour of a ccTLD. The example I often make is the wildcard, that was stopped in .com because Verisign had a contract with ICANN, and that was not stopped in .cm, because this was not the case. The wildcard is just one example. We should not forget that potentially more problems will come with IDNs, and to have "global" IDN-TLDs run under a different regime and set of rules then the "simil-cc" (fast track or not) IDN-TLDs is a serious risk. IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN. Cheers, Roberto
That is extremelly important..
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
Kind regards, Elisabeth
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this. I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD. I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image. As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies. -- Patrick Vande Walle
Contrary to Antony, you misunderand my questions.
a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image
Many governments are happy with misbehaving Internet Service Providers, because it gives them power. It allows them to divert traffic, analyse content, put in place tracability, and to blame others. Kind regards, Elisabeth ----- Original Message ----- From: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick@vande-walle.eu> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Monday, August 02, 2010 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this. I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD. I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
-- Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Mon, 2 Aug 2010 22:10:30 +0200, "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <elisabeth.porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> wrote:
Contrary to Antony, you misunderand my questions.
a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image
Many governments are happy with misbehaving Internet Service Providers, because it gives them power. It allows them to divert traffic, analyse content, put in place tracability, and to blame others.
Dear Elisabeth, While I certainly do not disagree with you there are misbehaving ISPs, I would like to point out that ISPs and content are beyond the scope of ICANN. At the TLD level, the possible actions are quite limited. A TLD operator could purposely place wrong NS records in their zone file, perhaps pointing to some government controlled DNS server. If this had happened on a large scale, we would know by now. As for traceability: the DNS servers of a TLD operator are generally queried by resolvers, operated by companies or ISPs. It is the IP address of the resolvers that the TLD servers gets to see, not the one of the final user. The average Internet user does not run his/her own DNS resolver, unless he/she is a geek. Traceability down to the individual is thus unlikely, and further mitigated by the fact the resolvers cache the most common queries. In short, interception, diversion, censorship, etc are more efficient when done at the edge, not at the core. Patrick Vande Walle
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this. I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation. But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation. a.
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy. In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist. To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks. Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space. We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged. Eduardo -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies. That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation. But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation. a. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Excelente catedra mi amigo!! carlos 2010/8/2 Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co>
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
:) a los años... Un gusto, espero verte en Cartagena!! Slds -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Carlos Vera Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 09:21 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? Excelente catedra mi amigo!! carlos 2010/8/2 Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co>
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists .icann .org<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann%0A.org>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists .icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I was waiting to hear Eduardo´s voice before I comment. I believe that .CO has the right to commercialize their cc as they deem necessary. Is good to know that they are taking action to prevent well known bad practices in the domain name ambient. It is perfectly understandable that .CO wants to make money and as long as it is following the rules like many other ccTLDs we have nothing to complain about. I fully support Eduardo and the .CO people José Ovidio Salgueiro A. salgueiro.jo@gmail.com -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Eduardo Santoyo Enviado el: martes, 03 de agosto de 2010 07:18 a.m. Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? :) a los años... Un gusto, espero verte en Cartagena!! Slds -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Carlos Vera Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 09:21 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? Excelente catedra mi amigo!! carlos 2010/8/2 Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co>
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists .icann .org<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- lists.icann%0A.org>
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists .icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I believe that .CO has the right to commercialize their cc as they deem necessary. Is good to know that they are taking action to prevent well known bad practices in the domain name ambient.
You mean .CO Internet SAS/Neustar. The IANA delegation record for .CO says: "Country-code top-level domain designated for Colombia" .CO Internet SAS website says about What is .CO: "CO is the new domain extension that offers a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name for individuals and organizations to build their businesses and brands. It’s the online space where possibility meets opportunity; where people can fulfill their dreams and the world’s next great enterprises will have a home. " AFAIK, it is not a "new domain extension" and IANA/ICANN still considers it the ccTLD for Colombia. Then if it is no longer used and promoted as the domain designated for Colombia (given that the Colombian government is not even listed as sponsoring organization), there is no sovereignty claims that apply and the name should be considered as a gTLD.
It is perfectly understandable that .CO wants to make money and as long as it is following the rules like many other ccTLDs we have nothing to complain about. I fully support Eduardo and the .CO people
When making money is the top priority, the end user gets always screwed up. Regards Jorge
What Jorge says is one of the issues and that is still running. To be honest, my position around .CO has some coincidences with Jorge. But this reading Eduardo´s explanation was also good, particularly regarding confusion, security matters, etc. Regards, Andrés
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 12:11:56 -0500 From: jmamodio@gmail.com To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
I believe that .CO has the right to commercialize their cc as they deem necessary. Is good to know that they are taking action to prevent well known bad practices in the domain name ambient.
You mean .CO Internet SAS/Neustar.
The IANA delegation record for .CO says: "Country-code top-level domain designated for Colombia"
.CO Internet SAS website says about What is .CO: "CO is the new domain extension that offers a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name for individuals and organizations to build their businesses and brands. It’s the online space where possibility meets opportunity; where people can fulfill their dreams and the world’s next great enterprises will have a home. "
AFAIK, it is not a "new domain extension" and IANA/ICANN still considers it the ccTLD for Colombia.
Then if it is no longer used and promoted as the domain designated for Colombia (given that the Colombian government is not even listed as sponsoring organization), there is no sovereignty claims that apply and the name should be considered as a gTLD.
It is perfectly understandable that .CO wants to make money and as long as it is following the rules like many other ccTLDs we have nothing to complain about. I fully support Eduardo and the .CO people
When making money is the top priority, the end user gets always screwed up.
Regards Jorge
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Jorge While I appreciate the amount of interest and dialogue this topic has generated-- I hope this response will help to allay any concerns you have had about the .CO 2010/8/3 Jorge Amodio <jmamodio@gmail.com>
I believe that .CO has the right to commercialize their cc as they deem necessary. Is good to know that they are taking action to prevent well known bad practices in the domain name ambient.
You mean .CO Internet SAS/Neustar.
The corporate structure of the .CO Registry should not be the cause for any confusion. .CO Internet S.A.S. is a new company that was formed by Arcelandia S.A., a wholly-owned Colombian company, and the U.S. public company Neustar, Inc., for the specific purpose of developing, operating and managing the .CO domain registry. Please note that .CO Internet S.A.S. is an independent Colombian company – and should not under any circumstances be considered synonymous with Neustar, which happens to be one of its shareholders.
The IANA delegation record for .CO says: "Country-code top-level domain designated for Colombia"
Yes, on this point we fully agree! .CO is and will always remain the country-code top-level domain designated for The Republic of Colombia.
.CO Internet SAS website says about What is .CO: "CO is the new domain extension that offers a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name for individuals and organizations to build their businesses and brands. It’s the online space where possibility meets opportunity; where people can fulfill their dreams and the world’s next great enterprises will have a home. "
Yes, this is absolutely all true. When Colombia decided to liberalize its domain policies, after many years of consideration and debate, it was expressly intended that the domain would be opened at the second level to individuals and businesses around the world. Why? Simply stated, because Colombia recognized the fact that the .CO domain is a unique digital resource with broad, global appeal.
CO is being offered in the second level for precisely the reasons you quote: to offer a “truly global, recognizable and credible domain name for individuals and organizations to build their businesses and brands... [and to be] the online space where possibility meets opportunity; where people can fulfill their dreams and the world's next great enterprises will have a home.” AFAIK, it is not a "new domain extension" and IANA/ICANN still
considers it the ccTLD for Colombia.
Again, we agree. .CO is and will always be the ccTLD for Colombia.
However, in taking the ambitious step to liberalize its domain policies and to share its valuable domain asset with the global Internet community, Colombia has for the very first time opened the 2nd level of .CO as a brand “new” name space – one that has never before been available. While distinctions between 2nd and 3rd level domains means a lot in this forum, when we are speaking to consumer audiences (who do not likely know 2nd from 3rd level or gTLD from ccTLD) – these technical distinctions are not meaningful. For that reason, in our commercial outreach (quoted above), we try to keep our communications very simple. To the global domain buying public, “.CO” *IS *“new” – in that it has never before been made available to the public under any circumstances. This is the context in which the word “new” was used in the text above.
Then if it is no longer used and promoted as the domain designated for Colombia (given that the Colombian government is not even listed as sponsoring organization), there is no sovereignty claims that apply and the name should be considered as a gTLD.
.CO is and will continue to used and promoted as the domain designated for Colombia, by Colombia, and made available to the entire world. This is the choice that has been made by the government of the sovereign nation state of the Republic of Colombia.
It is perfectly understandable that .CO wants to make money and as long as it is following the rules like many other ccTLDs we have nothing to complain about. I fully support Eduardo and the .CO people
When making money is the top priority, the end user gets always screwed up.
In the short time since .CO Internet started implementing Colombia’s newly
defined administration policies, end users both within Colombia and around the world can now: · Easily register .CO domain names that were once restricted without burdensome documentation or other requirements; · Quickly register .CO domain names online in just a few minutes - a manual process that took upward of 36 hours to complete just a few short months ago; · Choose to register .CO domain names at both/either the 2nd and/or 3rd levels, depending on their needs; · Pay, on average, half the price that registering a .CO domain name previously cost them prior to the transition; · Shop around to find competitive prices, promotions and offers from the world’s leading domain registrars and resellers; and · Feel confident that the .CO domain is built on a platform of world leading technology, and will enjoy regular product and service enhancements that will keep the domain on the cutting edge; I hope these facts help to clarify the current situation. In the short time since the transition to .CO Internet has taken place, upward of 380,000 domain names have been registered by individuals and entities. Most importantly, there is a true sense of excitement in the air expressed by real end users who are literally thrilled to have access to a short, meaningful, memorable and globally credible domain to build the businesses and brands of their dreams. We are very proud to be able to offer end users this opportunity. Regards Eduardo
Regards Jorge
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Eduardo Santoyo | .CO Internet S.A.S. | VP. ccTLD.CO Manager | 57 (1) 616-91-61 email: eduardo@COinternet.com.co | página web: www.COinternet.com.co | síganos en twitter: @puntoco
Dear Eduardo, thank you for taking the time to provide additional information and clarification about the management and operations of the .CO ccTLD, and again I congratulate you and the rest of the team for this new venture. As you may have noticed the original subject of this thread is about if the existence of .CO is somehow creating or not user confusion, not about how bad or good the ccTLD operations are or if its policies are correct or not. Part of the conversation derived into a parallel discussion about the fact that being a ccTLD you are not bound by the same set of rules as others TLDs, then is it fair to have a ccTLD operate as a gTLD ? even if they follow common or similar globally accepted rules/practices ?
Then if it is no longer used and promoted as the domain designated for Colombia (given that the Colombian government is not even listed as sponsoring organization), there is no sovereignty claims that apply and the name should be considered as a gTLD.
.CO is and will continue to used and promoted as the domain designated for Colombia, by Colombia, and made available to the entire world. This is the choice that has been made by the government of the sovereign nation state of the Republic of Colombia.
Unfortunately this is not entirely true, only two of your registrars listed in your site make a mention to Colombia on the most visible pages promoting .CO, here is what they say: 1and1 says: ".CO is a new global domain extension – available to every person and every company worldwide. So for the first time in many years, .CO will provide a significant new opportunity to register a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name extension. Don’t be left out. We’ve seen what happened with the saturation of .COM. Due to its meaningful and universal appeal, .CO has the potential to become just as popular." dotster says: "Universally recognized as an abbreviation for company, corporation, commerce, and collaboration, .CO domain names are memorable and short. Don’t settle for a long domain name — register a .CO!" enom says: ".CO is the new domain extension that offers people and companies more choice in branding their online presence with a truly global, recognizable, and credible domain name. It's the online space where people can fulfill their dreams and the world’s next great enterprises will have a home." Go Daddy says: Understood around the world as an abbreviation for “Company,” “Corporation” and “Commerce”, .CO is easy to recognize, simple to remember and flexible to use. It offers international recognition in a fresh landscape where you can still choose the name you want, not just settle for what’s available. interNetX says: ".CO is the new domain extension that offers people and companies a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name. InterNetX - one of the largest providers of first-class domain products - has been chosen at the start of the .CO launch to be the only European registrar among ten selected providers worldwide to introduce the promising TLD .CO. Grab the opportunity and start registering these lucrative .CO domains!" Melbourne IT says: ".CO is the country-coded top level domain (ccTLD) for the country of Colombia, and is now available for pre-registration. .CO is uniquely recognisable, simple, and memorable, offering a good alternative to current global domains. Universally understood to mean “company”, “corporation”, and “commerce”. With over 83 million .com domain names currently registered it is getting harder and harder to get the domain that you want. .CO can help you get that global domain you want, and help you build your global brand. Due to the similarity to .COM, .CO is a good opportunity to protect your existing domain investments from potential cybersquatters." register.com says: "Don't hesitate — names are going fast! Here are some of the unique benefits of a .CO name: Only $40 for a one year term and discounts on longer term lengths. .CO is universally recognized as an abbreviation for company. .CO registry is wide open, with almost all names still available for purchase." My.CO says: "My.CO is an independent service, not provided by the Registry itself. The initiative is run by well-renowned industry key players that will strive to bring you into the .CO era. Our only deal is .CO. We have participated in the whole delegation process and have been structuring our services for more than two years. The initiative is part of the business development of Central Comercializadora de Internet, a Colombian company devoted to the success of the .CO CCTLD." Network Solutions says: "Find the domain name you're looking for when you use the newest domain extension. With a .CO domain name you will have more choices in branding your online presence with a truly global, recognizable and credible option for a Web address. With a .CO, the possibilities are endless and new opportunities arise. Associated with the words "COmpany," "COrporation" and "COmmerce," it's the perfect platform for today's socially networked individuals and entrepreneurs to create .COmmunities, share .COntent, and to .COnnect, .COmmunicate and .COllaborate online." I understand your reasoning and marketing approach about .CO being new, but I still disagree given that for the end users it is one of the sources of confusion, it gets more exacerbated when some people refer to it as the "new dotCOM".
· Pay, on average, half the price that registering a .CO domain name previously cost them prior to the transition;
· Shop around to find competitive prices, promotions and offers from the world’s leading domain registrars and resellers; and
Would you care to explain why domains under .CO have a pricing structure about 3 to 4 times more expensive than .COM ?
I hope these facts help to clarify the current situation.
Absolutely, even if there may be some disagreement or different points of view, every time that there is dialog and exchange of opinions and ideas we are making progress, it is a great deal to have you here and share with the rest of the community this information and points of view, it will also serve as a case example on how to establish an open dialog to improve relationships between different stakeholder groups and ccTLD managers.
In the short time since the transition to .CO Internet has taken place, upward of 380,000 domain names have been registered by individuals and entities.
Would you care to provide more detailed statistics about how many of them are new names non-existent in the .COM space or registered by a different registrant from the same name under .COM, how many of them have been registered or reserved for brand protection, and how many of them are clearly from domain investors or speculators ? Last but not least, why you don't have a WHOIS server ? Thanks again for taking the time to be part of this dialog. Regards Jorge
Jorge, Thank you for taking the time to summarize some of the key marketing messages shared by our core registrar partners. Reviewing your summary, I must say that I see absolutely nothing inappropriate, inaccurate, confusing, misleading or incorrect in the text you have shared. In fact, the marketing messages and branding you found are part of the branding guidelines that WE require registrars to use when marketing second-level .CO domains. Our registry-registrar agreement is quite thorough and strict on aspects related marketing. Fortunately, we have found that our limitation to a small number of registrars allows us to monitor and maintain coherent and consistent marketing messages throughout the channel. Colombia has chosen to market its domain extension as a globally available, open, domain. The text you quote is simply marketing copy -- plain vanilla product promotion. I'm not sure what else there is to say on this matter. If people were not interested or moved by these marketing messages, our domain names would not be selling. This is not the case. People are receptive, because they want more options in branding their online presence and .CO is responding to this need. The reality is that the folks buying .CO domains are not confused children who are being duped by unethical registrars. They are educated consumers and early adopters who took the time to learn about our gradual offering plan and our various launch phases; and who made a concerted effort to invest the time, energy and money to buy one or more .CO domain names in the first few days after our launch. If the product we offer fails to deliver what they want, need or expect -- I am quite confident that they will complain, tweet and blog about us (very loudly) -- and refrain from renewing their domain name(s) next year. We will do everything in our power to ensure this will not be the case. As for why .CO domain names are priced at a premium to .COM, the answer is twofold. First, we wanted to create a disincentive to mass speculation. It is much less likely for a single individual or company to buy thousands of domain names when each name is, for example, $25 USD, instead of $8 USD. And second, the price premium reflects the fact that it is difficult, if not impossible, to directly register a meaningful, memorable name to the left of the dot in .COM. .CO is brand new and the opportunity to claim premium keywords, niche topics, and other business relevant terms to the left of the dot is wide open. I can't say so for certain, but I suspect that as we get closer to having 85 plus million domain names registered in .CO, the price point for domain names will come closer to .COM. We hope we will not have to wait for another 25 years for that day to come! Re statistics, the number of .CO domain names that mirror domains existing in the .COM space -- and the number of domains where the .CO and the .COM have the same or different owners -- is not something we track -- nor is it something we consider to be our concern. On the other hand, we do closely monitor and track registrations by brand owners, and know that by the close of our Sunrise phase close to 11,000 domain names were registered. Of this number 92% of the Deloitte Protected Marks List opted to secure their domain names in the .CO extension, among many thousands more through the Landrush phase. In closing, Jorge, yes, an open dialogue is positive for all. I hope this dialogue, again, has allayed your concerns. Kind regards, Eduardo -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Jorge Amodio Enviado el: miércoles, 04 de agosto de 2010 04:25 a.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? Dear Eduardo, thank you for taking the time to provide additional information and clarification about the management and operations of the .CO ccTLD, and again I congratulate you and the rest of the team for this new venture. As you may have noticed the original subject of this thread is about if the existence of .CO is somehow creating or not user confusion, not about how bad or good the ccTLD operations are or if its policies are correct or not. Part of the conversation derived into a parallel discussion about the fact that being a ccTLD you are not bound by the same set of rules as others TLDs, then is it fair to have a ccTLD operate as a gTLD ? even if they follow common or similar globally accepted rules/practices ?
Then if it is no longer used and promoted as the domain designated for Colombia (given that the Colombian government is not even listed as sponsoring organization), there is no sovereignty claims that apply and the name should be considered as a gTLD.
.CO is and will continue to used and promoted as the domain designated for Colombia, by Colombia, and made available to the entire world. This is the choice that has been made by the government of the sovereign nation state of the Republic of Colombia.
Unfortunately this is not entirely true, only two of your registrars listed in your site make a mention to Colombia on the most visible pages promoting .CO, here is what they say: 1and1 says: ".CO is a new global domain extension available to every person and every company worldwide. So for the first time in many years, .CO will provide a significant new opportunity to register a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name extension. Dont be left out. Weve seen what happened with the saturation of .COM. Due to its meaningful and universal appeal, .CO has the potential to become just as popular." dotster says: "Universally recognized as an abbreviation for company, corporation, commerce, and collaboration, .CO domain names are memorable and short. Dont settle for a long domain name register a .CO!" enom says: ".CO is the new domain extension that offers people and companies more choice in branding their online presence with a truly global, recognizable, and credible domain name. It's the online space where people can fulfill their dreams and the worlds next great enterprises will have a home." Go Daddy says: Understood around the world as an abbreviation for Company, Corporation and Commerce, .CO is easy to recognize, simple to remember and flexible to use. It offers international recognition in a fresh landscape where you can still choose the name you want, not just settle for whats available. interNetX says: ".CO is the new domain extension that offers people and companies a truly global, recognizable and credible domain name. InterNetX - one of the largest providers of first-class domain products - has been chosen at the start of the .CO launch to be the only European registrar among ten selected providers worldwide to introduce the promising TLD .CO. Grab the opportunity and start registering these lucrative .CO domains!" Melbourne IT says: ".CO is the country-coded top level domain (ccTLD) for the country of Colombia, and is now available for pre-registration. .CO is uniquely recognisable, simple, and memorable, offering a good alternative to current global domains. Universally understood to mean company, corporation, and commerce. With over 83 million .com domain names currently registered it is getting harder and harder to get the domain that you want. .CO can help you get that global domain you want, and help you build your global brand. Due to the similarity to .COM, .CO is a good opportunity to protect your existing domain investments from potential cybersquatters." register.com says: "Don't hesitate names are going fast! Here are some of the unique benefits of a .CO name: Only $40 for a one year term and discounts on longer term lengths. .CO is universally recognized as an abbreviation for company. .CO registry is wide open, with almost all names still available for purchase." My.CO says: "My.CO is an independent service, not provided by the Registry itself. The initiative is run by well-renowned industry key players that will strive to bring you into the .CO era. Our only deal is .CO. We have participated in the whole delegation process and have been structuring our services for more than two years. The initiative is part of the business development of Central Comercializadora de Internet, a Colombian company devoted to the success of the .CO CCTLD." Network Solutions says: "Find the domain name you're looking for when you use the newest domain extension. With a .CO domain name you will have more choices in branding your online presence with a truly global, recognizable and credible option for a Web address. With a .CO, the possibilities are endless and new opportunities arise. Associated with the words "COmpany," "COrporation" and "COmmerce," it's the perfect platform for today's socially networked individuals and entrepreneurs to create .COmmunities, share .COntent, and to .COnnect, .COmmunicate and .COllaborate online." I understand your reasoning and marketing approach about .CO being new, but I still disagree given that for the end users it is one of the sources of confusion, it gets more exacerbated when some people refer to it as the "new dotCOM".
· Pay, on average, half the price that registering a .CO domain name previously cost them prior to the transition;
· Shop around to find competitive prices, promotions and offers from the worlds leading domain registrars and resellers; and
Would you care to explain why domains under .CO have a pricing structure about 3 to 4 times more expensive than .COM ?
I hope these facts help to clarify the current situation.
Absolutely, even if there may be some disagreement or different points of view, every time that there is dialog and exchange of opinions and ideas we are making progress, it is a great deal to have you here and share with the rest of the community this information and points of view, it will also serve as a case example on how to establish an open dialog to improve relationships between different stakeholder groups and ccTLD managers.
In the short time since the transition to .CO Internet has taken place, upward of 380,000 domain names have been registered by individuals and entities.
Would you care to provide more detailed statistics about how many of them are new names non-existent in the .COM space or registered by a different registrant from the same name under .COM, how many of them have been registered or reserved for brand protection, and how many of them are clearly from domain investors or speculators ? Last but not least, why you don't have a WHOIS server ? Thanks again for taking the time to be part of this dialog. Regards Jorge _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
The reality is that the folks buying .CO domains are not confused children who are being duped by unethical registrars.
For the umpteenth time, Colombia can do whatever it wants with its TLD. Nobody is claiming that the registrars are doing anything other than selling .CO domains, and you seem to have set the rules to be similar to those for a gTLD, which should make trademark owners happy. But from a global perspective, the only reason people outside of Colombia are interested in .CO is that it's one letter from .COM. Anyone can register a domain next door in .EC, but in practice nobody outside Ecuador does so. What's the difference? Colombia is a fine place (I've been there) but really, we all know the answer. R's, John
Dear Eduardo, thank you again for taking the time to keep contributing to this interesting dialog. BTW, whoever is your PR person you should give her/him a rise :-). As I said before, I don't have any personal issues with .CO or what the people operating it are doing. I strongly believe that besides previous cases such as .CC, .CM .TV, .ME, and few others, this is the first opportunity that a major ccTLD shoots to reach a competitive market using a name space that was not originally designated as a generic anything goes name, and that is better positioned to make a dent than other previous attempts, due the particular combination of characters and similarity with .COM. It is very interesting to hear (actually read) your point of view and learn more what's cooking in the .CO kitchen, then there is no need for a corporate/PR/marketing response, a more casual tone will work just fine. I'd not judge who is or not buying names in .CO, from your words I now understand that your marketing campaign explicitly tells registrars to market it as the new dotCOM. Then the question of the original subject of this thread remains, is the new existence of .CO as a generic and global name space creating confusion in end users ? I really don't have an answer but I can tell for a fact that more than one, and these are not "confused children", neither ITC experts, asked me if when their .COM name is up for renewal, they have to do it now with .CO. The other topic that remains open for debate (again .CO is just a case example), is how the figure and associated rules of being a ccTLD change when you start to play as something completely different than a ccTLD. I don't have yet an educated answer for this question either. Thanks again for your participation and contributions. Warm Regards Jorge
Interesting: http://domainincite.com/domainers-get-love-but-no-refunds-for-co-cybersquatt... Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
hi, the article refers to a certainty that UDRP is required even in the case of ccTLDs. is that really so? why is it so? I can understand .co indicating it will abide by those rules and think that is a good thing, but what requires them to do so other than their decision to do so? a. On 10 Aug 2010, at 09:42, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
Interesting: http://domainincite.com/domainers-get-love-but-no-refunds-for-co-cybersquatt...
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
the article refers to a certainty that UDRP is required even in the case of ccTLDs.
is that really so?
Nope.
why is it so?
They chose to use UDRP as part of the new rules during the transition to the new ccTLD admin.
I can understand .co indicating it will abide by those rules and think that is a good thing, but what requires them to do so other than their decision to do so?
Nothing. As the article makes reference too, in the world of the DNS (not talking about applicable laws in the Republic of Colombia), IT IS, lawless territory. Regards Jorge
Jorge Amodio wrote:
As the article makes reference too, in the world of the DNS (not talking about applicable laws in the Republic of Colombia), IT IS, lawless territory.
I would argue that in any case the laws of the country where the registry is located should apply. And this is even more true for ccTLDs, who by definition have a well-defined local jurisdiction. Cheers, Roberto
On 10 Aug 2010, at 15:15, Avri Doria wrote:
hi,
the article refers to a certainty that UDRP is required even in the case of ccTLDs.
is that really so? why is it so?
I can understand .co indicating it will abide by those rules and think that is a good thing, but what requires them to do so other than their decision to do so?
The registry operator can choose to use UDRP .. some do.. some don't .. some use their own version of UDRP with WIPO .. others use their own system entirely ..
a.
On 10 Aug 2010, at 09:42, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
Interesting: http://domainincite.com/domainers-get-love-but-no-refunds-for-co-cybersquatt...
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
the article refers to a certainty that UDRP is required even in the case of ccTLDs.
is that really so? why is it so?
I can understand .co indicating it will abide by those rules and think that is a good thing, but what requires them to do so other than their decision to do so?
More about the subject. I don't know if somebody did it before, and if there is an executive summary or report somewhere, but it probably would be interesting to dig into the agreements (aka accountability framework) and the exchange of letters for those ccTLDs that did so with ICANN, to figure out where each stand in regards to UDRP and what (if any) dispute resolution policy each implements. Some of the agreements don't even make an explicit mention to dispute resolution. Regards Jorge
I can understand .co indicating it will abide by those rules and think that is a good thing, but what requires them to do so other than their decision to do so?
It's part of their marketing plan to be a knockoff of .COM. The .US domain has had a dispute policy similar to the UDRP since 2002. It seems to be rarely used, and I only see nine cases, most of which are pretty egregious, like a guy who registered federalrepublicofgermany.us and bundesrepublikdeutschland.us, to which the German government objected in 2005. But .US, unlike .CO, has a nexus requirement so you have to show (or at least claim) a connection to the US, so it's reasonable that US style trademark rules apply. The .CA domain also has a dispute policy somewhat like the UDRP, although the registry assigns the arbitrator. They also have nexus rules, so Canadian law is appropriate. Nominet for .UK has a multi-stage dispute process starting with informal mediation, then an expert decision by one or on appeal three experts from a panel maintained by Nominet. Some parts of .UK have nexus rules, but .CO.UK doesn't. All of these are similar in intent although different in detail, and the latter three are all adapted to local conditions, e.g., the Canadian one addresses language issues. It seems to me that any country with trademark laws is likely to see some friction from trademark claims, but I don't see any reason to use the UDRP to deal with them as opposed something adapted to local law and customs. R's, John
Most ccTLDs have a version of the UDRP implemented. Often it's exactly the same, except with a reference to pertinent national laws. On Aug 10, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
hi,
the article refers to a certainty that UDRP is required even in the case of ccTLDs.
is that really so? why is it so?
I can understand .co indicating it will abide by those rules and think that is a good thing, but what requires them to do so other than their decision to do so?
a.
On 10 Aug 2010, at 09:42, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
Interesting: http://domainincite.com/domainers-get-love-but-no-refunds-for-co-cybersquatt...
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
I should have said many, not most. I didn't count. Here's a list of ccTLDs that use a version of the UDRP. It's quite extensive: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/cctld/ Antony On Aug 10, 2010, at 12:45 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Most ccTLDs have a version of the UDRP implemented. Often it's exactly the same, except with a reference to pertinent national laws.
On Aug 10, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
hi,
the article refers to a certainty that UDRP is required even in the case of ccTLDs.
is that really so? why is it so?
I can understand .co indicating it will abide by those rules and think that is a good thing, but what requires them to do so other than their decision to do so?
a.
On 10 Aug 2010, at 09:42, Michele Neylon :: Blacknight wrote:
Interesting: http://domainincite.com/domainers-get-love-but-no-refunds-for-co-cybersquatt...
Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co> wrote:
While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state,
The DNS is not the UN, and the UN is not the DNS.
. implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations;
== pete@tango:~$ whois apple.co == This TLD has no whois server, but you can access the whois database at == https://www.nic.co/ ie no thick neither thin. HTTPS to www.nic.co which is a CNAME to cointernet.com.co 205.186.131.224 returns: == There is a problem with this website's security certificate. == == The security certificate presented by this website was not issued by a trusted certificate authority. == The security certificate presented by this website was issued for a different website's address. == == Security certificate problems may indicate an attempt to fool you or intercept any data you send to the server. Seems that the correct URL is http://whois.co/ or http://www.whois.co/. https://whois.co also has a certificate problem.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
You should seriously consider telling your registrars to stop misleading end users by promoting dotCO as the new dotCOM for example. As I said before the fuss is not about the changes and improvements on the .CO ccTLD management and opening of the domain to everybody for which I congratulate you and the rest of the team and people involved in a complicated process that in my personal opinion was fair and transparent. Regards Jorge
Thanks for this intervention. It is very important for our colleagues to know that serious and reasoned decisions were implemented by Colombia to manage this resource. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co>wrote:
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
+1, Carlton. Indeed, Eduardo provided a great explanation and I´m quite satisfied with that. I also want to invite Eduardo to the LACRALO List, in order to have a similar debate in Spanish. I consider that this message would be very useful for people in At Large from our region. Regards, Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair
From: carlton.samuels@gmail.com Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:10:36 -0500 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Thanks for this intervention. It is very important for our colleagues to know that serious and reasoned decisions were implemented by Colombia to manage this resource.
Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co>wrote:
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Than you Andres Pasame el enlace y me inscribo en la lista Un abrazo Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device -----Original Message----- From: Andres Piazza <andrespiazzagpj@hotmail.com> Sender: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:17:37 To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? +1, Carlton. Indeed, Eduardo provided a great explanation and I´m quite satisfied with that. I also want to invite Eduardo to the LACRALO List, in order to have a similar debate in Spanish. I consider that this message would be very useful for people in At Large from our region. Regards, Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair
From: carlton.samuels@gmail.com Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:10:36 -0500 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Thanks for this intervention. It is very important for our colleagues to know that serious and reasoned decisions were implemented by Colombia to manage this resource.
Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co>wrote:
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann... At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo there you go, Eduardo. LAC-Discuss in both languages... Please tell me when you are in the list, so I can open the debate in spanish and you can explain them many issues that would be very interesting. Regards, Andrés
To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org From: eduardo@cointernet.com.co Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:31:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Than you Andres
Pasame el enlace y me inscribo en la lista
Un abrazo Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
-----Original Message----- From: Andres Piazza <andrespiazzagpj@hotmail.com> Sender: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:17:37 To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
+1, Carlton. Indeed, Eduardo provided a great explanation and I´m quite satisfied with that.
I also want to invite Eduardo to the LACRALO List, in order to have a similar debate in Spanish. I consider that this message would be very useful for people in At Large from our region.
Regards,
Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair
From: carlton.samuels@gmail.com Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:10:36 -0500 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Thanks for this intervention. It is very important for our colleagues to know that serious and reasoned decisions were implemented by Colombia to manage this resource.
Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co>wrote:
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Andrés I´m already subscribed Thank you Eduardo -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Andres Piazza Enviado el: martes, 03 de agosto de 2010 09:37 a.m. Para: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo there you go, Eduardo. LAC-Discuss in both languages... Please tell me when you are in the list, so I can open the debate in spanish and you can explain them many issues that would be very interesting. Regards, Andrés
To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org From: eduardo@cointernet.com.co Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:31:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Than you Andres
Pasame el enlace y me inscribo en la lista
Un abrazo Sent from my BlackBerry® wireless device
-----Original Message----- From: Andres Piazza <andrespiazzagpj@hotmail.com> Sender: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 14:17:37 To: <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
+1, Carlton. Indeed, Eduardo provided a great explanation and I´m quite satisfied with that.
I also want to invite Eduardo to the LACRALO List, in order to have a similar debate in Spanish. I consider that this message would be very useful for people in At Large from our region.
Regards,
Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair
From: carlton.samuels@gmail.com Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 08:10:36 -0500 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Thanks for this intervention. It is very important for our colleagues to know that serious and reasoned decisions were implemented by Colombia to manage this resource.
Carlton
============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================
On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 9:13 PM, Eduardo Santoyo <eduardo@cointernet.com.co>wrote:
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-l ists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-l ists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-list s.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists .icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists .icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Dear Eduardo, thank you very much for your time in giving us this explanation. Long ago we were needed to understand certain things in our region. Now, everything is much clearer. Kind regards, Sylvia _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein Leite LACRALO-ALAC Liaison Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization sylvia@internautabrasil.org -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Eduardo Santoyo Enviada em: segunda-feira, 2 de agosto de 2010 23:14 Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' Assunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy. In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist. To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks. Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space. We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged. Eduardo -----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies. That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation. But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation. a. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Unfortunatly, now is more clear than before. But we will have the opportunity to talk with Eduardo in Cartagena and put black over white in this issue. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org
From: info@internautabrasil.org To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org; eduardo@cointernet.com.co Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 16:16:03 -0300 Subject: [At-Large] RES: .CO user confusion?
Dear Eduardo, thank you very much for your time in giving us this explanation. Long ago we were needed to understand certain things in our region. Now, everything is much clearer. Kind regards, Sylvia _________________________________________________________ Sylvia Herlein Leite LACRALO-ALAC Liaison Latin America & Caribbean At-Large Regional Organization sylvia@internautabrasil.org
-----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Eduardo Santoyo Enviada em: segunda-feira, 2 de agosto de 2010 23:14 Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' Assunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
I fully agree with the premise that the ccTLDs have an important role to play within the global Internet community. While, of course, each ccTLD represents the interests of a sovereign nation state, and the local Internet community of each such nation -- the interconnected nature of the Web mandates that ccTLDs fully consider the safety, security and stability of the broader global Internet community when defining and implementing policy.
In the case of .CO, for example, the government of Colombia consulted with international experts and the local Internet community for several years, prior to deciding to change the operational and administrative models by which the country's domain would be managed. Charged with administering Colombia's newly liberalized domain policies, the .CO Registry has sought to implement these new models in accordance with globally recognized "best practices" - to the extent such could be found to exist.
To start, we have taken steps to ensure that our backend registry technology meets the highest standards for security, stability and reliability; and in the implementation of the Registry-Registrar model, the number of distribution partners offering .CO domain names to the public has been limited to only ten core registrars and their reseller networks.
Beyond these basic steps, we: . committed in our proposal to the government that the .CO domain would not implement a Wildcard; . implemented a structured sunrise with trademark validations performed by an independent agent; . implemented a "thick whois" and restricted the availability of proxy Registrations; . adopted the UDRP
The issue that prompted this debate was the potential for confusion and the risk of phishing, pharming and other mis-deeds in the .CO extension. It is important to note that the .CO Registry has taken aggressive steps to monitor the domain for malicious usage and has and will continue to take down domain names in the event phishing, pharming, malware and/or other similar scourges are found in our space. We also continue to study the feasibility of a URS-like initiative to address the issue of serial cyber squatting and to find other mechanisms to mitigate the risk of cybersquatting in the .CO space.
We have and will continue to work hard to ensure that .CO is a good trustee of both the local and global Internet community. Discussions such as these only serve to help us to focus and refine our efforts over time -- and in the spirit of constant and never-ending improvement -- your continued input is welcomed and encouraged.
Eduardo
-----Mensaje original----- De: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de Avri Doria Enviado el: lunes, 02 de agosto de 2010 03:12 p.m. Para: At-Large Worldwide Asunto: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 2 Aug 2010, at 15:38, Patrick Vande Walle wrote:
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local
Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this.
I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
This is a really good approach. How is it working?
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
for those countries that care about global opinion, how is this done? has it ever been attempted in the area of ccTLDs.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name
they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
That US centrism is another problem that needs to be dealt with in the long run. Seems a wonderful area for GAC and ALAC cooperation.
But I think you are right, a lot of topics that may now be blocked from solution or even serious discussion, might loosen up if ICANN wasn't a US corporation.
a.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this. I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
I have been through the mails of this topic just now (still on holiday till 16/8) and I wanted to add to what Patrick just dropped in. The project is based on experiences I personally have with the Belgian ccTLD who is among the 5 most used for malicious registration (see report APWG during Brussels meeting). The Belgian ccTLD refuses participation of civil society in the board as such not giving non commercial registrants a voice. This was for me the reason for trying to identify how ccTLD's across the world are organised, how they work with civil society and this through our channels of ALSes first. Later we would like to have same survey done by ccNSO to compare the results. Final phase would consist in setting up a model of collaboration through both channels : ccNSO and ALAC. At least that's what I'm dreaming of and my colleague at ccNSO Ron Sherwood also. All ideas on this are really welcome. Rudi Vansnick ISOC Belgium ccNSO liaison
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
-- Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Thank you Rudi and Patrick for sharing your thought on this issue. It seems that there is a need to have a joint process to develop a policy (PDP) on this matter. Yassin
From: rudi.vansnick@isoc.be Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 09:45:22 +0200 To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
On 02 Aug 2010, at 16:39, Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
While I like very much the general idea "ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN", I do not see how practicaly this could be achieved with less than an international treaty, and a general strong support from everywhere. Why do we have so many difficulties to preserve whatever remains from the network neutrality? Because good and bad boys might want use similar techniques? Why GAC people did not listen neither do anything?
AFAIK ccTLDs policies are developed at the local level, with the local Internet community. I know several ALSes which are actively involved in this. I would like also to draw your attention to the initiative launched by Rudi Vansnick and Ron Sherwood aiming at building bridges between ALSes and their local ccTLD.
I have been through the mails of this topic just now (still on holiday till 16/8) and I wanted to add to what Patrick just dropped in.
The project is based on experiences I personally have with the Belgian ccTLD who is among the 5 most used for malicious registration (see report APWG during Brussels meeting). The Belgian ccTLD refuses participation of civil society in the board as such not giving non commercial registrants a voice. This was for me the reason for trying to identify how ccTLD's across the world are organised, how they work with civil society and this through our channels of ALSes first. Later we would like to have same survey done by ccNSO to compare the results. Final phase would consist in setting up a model of collaboration through both channels : ccNSO and ALAC. At least that's what I'm dreaming of and my colleague at ccNSO Ron Sherwood also.
All ideas on this are really welcome.
Rudi Vansnick ISOC Belgium ccNSO liaison
I think this is the way to go, and the most pragmatic approach we can have. I think the message that needs to get across to governments is that a misbehaving ccTLD operator is damaging for a country's image.
As long as ICANN will be tied by a MoU, AoC or whatever other clever name they will invent to mean "contract with DoC", many ccTLDs will not want to play the ICANN/USG game, let alone agree to common policies.
-- Patrick Vande Walle
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi Roberto, On 2 August 2010 07:43, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org> wrote: IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against
misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN.
During the recent discussions on amendments to the RAA, there was talk about registrant rights and responsibilities. I became involved in this because I thought that ICANN was the right forum in which to establish a statement of rights that would guide ICANN -- and ultimately its contracted parties -- in its dealing with registrants and the public. As it turned out, the RAA modification discussion -- which was dominated by contracted parties -- defined its scope to be limited to defining what rights already exist (ie, can be extracted from the wording of the RAA). Thus, it was a task of providing documentation based on existing policy rather that effecting policy to entrench registrant rights. I kept pushing for a "bill of rights" type document, a high-level statement of what rights *should* be regardless of what was in the legal wording. The contracted parties ridiculed this effort, in one meeting challenging me to come up with an idea of what such a document would look like. I hastily came up with a number of items that I thought to be core principles adopted by ICANN. That is, *Registrants should have the rights to:* * 1. have accurate, current and complete contact and locative information regarding their registrar 2. be the sole entity capable of asserting and changing ownership information for their domain 3. have ample opportunity to renew their existing domain(s) at the same rates as new domains 4. protect their trade name against unauthorised use 5. refuse the transfer of their personal information to unauthorised bodies 6. expect ICANN to enforce its agreements with registrars* This became known within the RAA discussion (insultingly, IMO) as the "aspirational charter". While I acknowledged that the list above was hastily done and needed significant additional review (and perhaps complete re-write), the group refused to discuss it further (at least one participant called the effort "silly and a waste of time<http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-improvements2010/msg00000.html>") and decided it was At-Large's sole responsibility to move the idea forward any further. Nonetheless, the aspirational charter became part of the report on the RAA group's activity<http://brussels38.icann.org/meetings/brussels2010/presentation-gnso-raa-improvements-20jun10-en.pdf>at the Brussels meeting, and (IMO) exists as a starting point from which ALAC may be able to start asserting that ICANN's activity should be driven by the needs of the public and domain buyers, not the needs of suppliers. Maybe it was silly. It was not intended as a waste of anyone's time, nor was it intended to be anything beyond an idea of the *type* of statement that could ultimately guide ICANN policy. As a relative newcomer perhaps that was not the right forum to start such an initiative; but if not, then ehwre? At least it was an attempt to provide a way for ALAC to bring the needs and rights of "the bottom of the pyramid" to the forefront if ICANN policy. Done as a high-level document, it can be something that ICANN may not be able to directly enforce on every ccTLD registry. but it could be a set of principles that the GAC could endorse and thus filter its way into national TLD policies. Arguably, if these rights were sufficiently high level and universal, they would apply to *any* TLD (and thus dissection of the "purpose" of any particular TLD, would be irrelevant for this context). - Evan
IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN.
Short of asking IANA to remove the NS for ccTLDs who do naughty things, how do you propse to get from where we are to where you want to be? I agree that allowing random registrants into .CO is of little benefit to anyone but the operators of the .CO registry. But there is no entity with anything like the credibility to persuade ccTLDs to follow its rules. Cutting ICANN free of the US won't make any difference in practice, since it'll just mean that the staff has even less oversight than it does now. R's, John PS: I want two ponies.
Um, what's a "random registrant"? On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:07 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN.
Short of asking IANA to remove the NS for ccTLDs who do naughty things, how do you propse to get from where we are to where you want to be?
I agree that allowing random registrants into .CO is of little benefit to anyone but the operators of the .CO registry. But there is no entity with anything like the credibility to persuade ccTLDs to follow its rules. Cutting ICANN free of the US won't make any difference in practice, since it'll just mean that the staff has even less oversight than it does now.
R's, John
PS: I want two ponies.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Um, what's a "random registrant"?
In the case of .CO, it's one with no connection to Colombia. You know, like they allow in .TO, .WS, .CX, .CC, .LA, .ME, .TK, and other faux gTLDs.
On Aug 2, 2010, at 6:07 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
IMHO, ALAC should demand that user protection is guaranteed against misbehaviour by operators not under contract with ICANN.
Short of asking IANA to remove the NS for ccTLDs who do naughty things, how do you propse to get from where we are to where you want to be?
I agree that allowing random registrants into .CO is of little benefit to anyone but the operators of the .CO registry. But there is no entity with anything like the credibility to persuade ccTLDs to follow its rules. Cutting ICANN free of the US won't make any difference in practice, since it'll just mean that the staff has even less oversight than it does now.
R's, John
PS: I want two ponies.
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
On 08/02/2010 03:07 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Short of asking IANA to remove the NS for ccTLDs who do naughty things, how do you propse to get from where we are to where you want to be?
Might we want to step back and ask, and ask very carefully, do we want to get there (wherever that might be)? The reason that I ask is that I perceive a lot of desire to use ICANN as a policeman to enforce some sort of notion of good behaviour. That would be nice if we all agreed about what good behaviour is. But we do not. Some of us might find images of our prophet to be sacrilege worthy of strong reactions and require them to be totally prohibited. Others of us might find that it's OK to make fun of things. I am sure that some of you out there are saying "but that is entirely different from business practices of ccTLDs." Really, is it? Once we grant the power to ICANN to enforce notions of what are good and bad practices of ccTLDs where is the bright line that says where that power ends? And who or what would prevent ICANN from crossing that line? (As if, particularly in the area of trademark enforcement, it has not already run far past that line.) Might we prefer a small ICANN that stays in its small garden bounded by a clear white picket fence? Or do we want an ICANN that feels that its role is to expand, blob-like, into any and every activity that affronts someone who happens to be an ICANN "stakeholder". Much as many might wish ICANN to be the arbiter of what is nice and what is bad in ccTLDs, I would suggest that such a wish is one of those that afterwords someone might say with heavy irony "you got what you wished for." We have learned through centuries of painful experience that the art of construction of institutions of governance, whether those be internet institutions or otherwise, is largely the art of controlling and limiting their power. --karl--
+1 On Aug 2, 2010, at 11:28 PM, Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 08/02/2010 03:07 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
Short of asking IANA to remove the NS for ccTLDs who do naughty things, how do you propse to get from where we are to where you want to be?
Might we want to step back and ask, and ask very carefully, do we want to get there (wherever that might be)?
The reason that I ask is that I perceive a lot of desire to use ICANN as a policeman to enforce some sort of notion of good behaviour.
That would be nice if we all agreed about what good behaviour is.
But we do not.
Some of us might find images of our prophet to be sacrilege worthy of strong reactions and require them to be totally prohibited. Others of us might find that it's OK to make fun of things.
I am sure that some of you out there are saying "but that is entirely different from business practices of ccTLDs."
Really, is it?
Once we grant the power to ICANN to enforce notions of what are good and bad practices of ccTLDs where is the bright line that says where that power ends?
And who or what would prevent ICANN from crossing that line? (As if, particularly in the area of trademark enforcement, it has not already run far past that line.)
Might we prefer a small ICANN that stays in its small garden bounded by a clear white picket fence?
Or do we want an ICANN that feels that its role is to expand, blob-like, into any and every activity that affronts someone who happens to be an ICANN "stakeholder".
Much as many might wish ICANN to be the arbiter of what is nice and what is bad in ccTLDs, I would suggest that such a wish is one of those that afterwords someone might say with heavy irony "you got what you wished for."
We have learned through centuries of painful experience that the art of construction of institutions of governance, whether those be internet institutions or otherwise, is largely the art of controlling and limiting their power.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
It might be useful also to revise the discussions we had for .cm, in particular wrt the wildcard. Cameroun was used betting on typos on the TLD, using the wildcard to redirect the requests. Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:06 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Following on a conversation I've had with a concerned user, my eyebrow has been raised by the potential for user confusion in the re-launch of .CO which advertises its use not as a ccTLD, but as a gTLD. Whilst I know that this is not the first time a ccTLD is being marketed as a gTLD and I personally don't mind it at all (some communities have been able to subsidise local Internet access thanks to this), the omission of the last letter in a domain is possibly one of the more common typo errors out there, and since this is a user issue, I ask whether At Large should address this to ask ICANN to make recommendations to the .CO registry to avoid potential phishing? (best practice etc.) Perhaps .CO has already implemented safeguards in the .CO application process which take care of this?
Warm regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Well spotted before it becomes an issue. Are we revisiting this ccTLD business that was concluded in year 2005? It was to protect the ccTLD for the sovereign States. What about <.tv> ..? Rgds Yassin
From: roberto@icann.org To: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:35:58 +0200 Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
It might be useful also to revise the discussions we had for .cm, in particular wrt the wildcard. Cameroun was used betting on typos on the TLD, using the wildcard to redirect the requests. Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:06 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Following on a conversation I've had with a concerned user, my eyebrow has been raised by the potential for user confusion in the re-launch of .CO which advertises its use not as a ccTLD, but as a gTLD. Whilst I know that this is not the first time a ccTLD is being marketed as a gTLD and I personally don't mind it at all (some communities have been able to subsidise local Internet access thanks to this), the omission of the last letter in a domain is possibly one of the more common typo errors out there, and since this is a user issue, I ask whether At Large should address this to ask ICANN to make recommendations to the .CO registry to avoid potential phishing? (best practice etc.) Perhaps .CO has already implemented safeguards in the .CO application process which take care of this?
Warm regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_________________________________________________________________ Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969
Sure! But I guess who is running .co has a large experience.. we hope not face it there. Important to pay attention. -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 3:36 PM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] .CO user confusion? It might be useful also to revise the discussions we had for .cm, in particular wrt the wildcard. Cameroun was used betting on typos on the TLD, using the wildcard to redirect the requests. Roberto
-----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sent: Thursday, 29 July 2010 18:06 To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] .CO user confusion?
Following on a conversation I've had with a concerned user, my eyebrow has been raised by the potential for user confusion in the re-launch of .CO which advertises its use not as a ccTLD, but as a gTLD. Whilst I know that this is not the first time a ccTLD is being marketed as a gTLD and I personally don't mind it at all (some communities have been able to subsidise local Internet access thanks to this), the omission of the last letter in a domain is possibly one of the more common typo errors out there, and since this is a user issue, I ask whether At Large should address this to ask ICANN to make recommendations to the .CO registry to avoid potential phishing? (best practice etc.) Perhaps .CO has already implemented safeguards in the .CO application process which take care of this?
Warm regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Nenhum vírus encontrado nessa mensagem recebida. Verificado por AVG - www.avgbrasil.com.br Versão: 9.0.851 / Banco de dados de vírus: 271.1.1/3035 - Data de Lançamento: 07/29/10 03:34:00
I know of at least two (2) ccTLDs in the Caribbean that are beneficiaries of a little serendipity occasioned by language. To their health and profit, too! And one of the few times those of us downwind gets an unintended benefit in this ecosystem. We would not wish to see - and would strongly oppose - anything developed that would deny them this fortuitous windfall. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>wrote:
Following on a conversation I've had with a concerned user, my eyebrow has been raised by the potential for user confusion in the re-launch of .CO which advertises its use not as a ccTLD, but as a gTLD. Whilst I know that this is not the first time a ccTLD is being marketed as a gTLD and I personally don't mind it at all (some communities have been able to subsidise local Internet access thanks to this), the omission of the last letter in a domain is possibly one of the more common typo errors out there, and since this is a user issue, I ask whether At Large should address this to ask ICANN to make recommendations to the .CO registry to avoid potential phishing? (best practice etc.) Perhaps .CO has already implemented safeguards in the .CO application process which take care of this?
Warm regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann...
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
participants (28)
-
Andres Piazza -
Antony Van Couvering -
Avri Doria -
carlos aguirre -
Carlos Vera -
Carlton Samuels -
Christopher Wilkinson -
cveraq＠gmail.com
-
Eduardo Santoyo -
eduardo＠cointernet.com.co
-
Elisabeth Porteneuve -
Evan Leibovitch -
info＠internautabrasil.org -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Jacqueline Morris -
John Levine -
John R. Levine
-
Jorge Amodio -
José Ovidio Salgueiro A. -
Karl Auerbach -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Patrick Vande Walle -
Roberto Gaetano -
Rudi Vansnick -
Sivasubramanian M -
Vanda UOL -
Yassin Mshana