ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The latest amendment added to the package is this: 3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address. Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address). Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic. Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.
I don't want to question anyone's motives, but I do agree specifically with Danny -- this proposed amendment needs to go further in order to be effective. See Consumer Reports WebWatch's guidelines (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm) for a more detailed variation (guideline one is pasted below), and note more than 300 companies, from Hewlett-Packard to ING to CNN to Earthlink have agreed to abide by these guidelines: 1. Identity: Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location where they are produced, including an address, a telephone number or e-mail address. Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, naming their parent company. Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission. As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam businesses, going the extra mile for physical location where the site is produced is necessary. ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The latest amendment added to the package is this: 3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address. Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address). Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic. Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns. ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------ *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
I agree with Danny, Beau and many other users on these issues. Firstly, as a registrant, I have the right to know who I am dealing with, who will receive my credit card details for a domain payment, who will have my personal details. This is extremely topical, based on the latest EstDomains saga. I will also say it here: I find it ironical that certain internet miscreants go to great lengths to hide their true locality, using maildrops and non-geographical identifying email addresses, even international forwarding telephone numbers hiding their locality. Yet registrars are allowed to do the same? How then can I expect legitimate registrants to supply valid domain registration details? How can I expect registrars to investigate invalid whois complaints if they themselves are trying to hide? Just the past month again I was asked by a supposedly American registrar to lodge a complaint at an online form at an .au domain. I think we each need to ask ourselves: Would I want to do business with a company that deliberately tries to hide it's true locality. If not, why subject registrants to this practice. Deviating slightly: The same can be said for privacy providers. Consider the following appearing in the whois of many domains: CSMJBS Enterprises - Private Registration, 412 Lavender Ct., N. Las Vegas, NV, 89031-0520, US After reading something very disturbing on the web, I had somebody verify this address. It does not exist. Yet this company is providing a private registration to hundreds of registrants. Right now all these registrants are unknowingly in breach of the registrant agreement and theoretically may lose their domains ("willfully supplied inaccurate whois details"), unless the registrars bend the rules! How can we expect to uplift the public image of the domain industry if the proprietors are less than credible and responsible? Brendler, Beau wrote:
I don't want to question anyone's motives, but I do agree specifically with Danny -- this proposed amendment needs to go further in order to be effective. See Consumer Reports WebWatch's guidelines (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm) for a more detailed variation (guideline one is pasted below), and note more than 300 companies, from Hewlett-Packard to ING to CNN to Earthlink have agreed to abide by these guidelines:
1. Identity: Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location where they are produced, including an address, a telephone number or e-mail address. Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, naming their parent company. Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission.
As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam businesses, going the extra mile for physical location where the site is produced is necessary. ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment
ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The latest amendment added to the package is this:
3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address.
Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address).
Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic.
Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ 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
Deviating slightly: The same can be said for privacy providers. Consider the following appearing in the whois of many domains: CSMJBS Enterprises - Private Registration, 412 Lavender Ct., N. Las Vegas, NV, 89031-0520, US
You're right, that address doesn't exist. Look on Google maps and you'll see that Lavender Ct is a one block dead-end residential street where all house numbers are in the 5400 range, and the USPS website at usps.com confirms that there's no number 412. Just for fun, submit a bunch of them to WDPRS and see what happens. FYI, the correct address is almost certainly 5412 Lavender Ct, but it's not our job to fix other registrants' lies. http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=5412+Lavender+Ct.,+N.+Las+V... 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.
Exactly my point - this is not a registrant, rather a registrar using invalid whois details for thousands of domains for their no cost privacy service: http://www.ait.com/fnb/fnbprivatedomainregistration.php They claim to use the registrar's address (confirmed via chat) :) **Derek John L wrote:
....
FYI, the correct address is almost certainly 5412 Lavender Ct, but it's not our job to fix other registrants' lies.
.....
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
Exactly my point - this is not a registrant, rather a registrar using invalid whois details for thousands of domains for their no cost privacy service: http://www.ait.com/fnb/fnbprivatedomainregistration.php
They claim to use the registrar's address (confirmed via chat) :)
That seems rather unlikely -- the address in question is clearly a house, not an office. R's, John
I don't want to question anyone's motives, but I do agree specifically with Danny -- this proposed amendment needs to go further in order to be effective. See Consumer Reports WebWatch's guidelines (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm) for a more detailed variation (guideline one is pasted below), and note more than 300 companies, from Hewlett-Packard to ING to CNN to Earthlink have agreed to abide by these guidelines:
Alan, It seems amendments are still being made. Could you ask staff and GNSO if they will accept the Consumer Reports standard Beau's proposing:
1. Identity: Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location where they are produced, including an address, a telephone number or e-mail address. Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, naming their parent company. Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission.
Adam
As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam businesses, going the extra mile for physical location where the site is produced is necessary. ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment
ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The latest amendment added to the package is this:
3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address.
Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address).
Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic.
Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ 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 will do that. Alan At 16/12/2008 04:15 AM, Adam Peake wrote:
I don't want to question anyone's motives, but I do agree specifically with Danny -- this proposed amendment needs to go further in order to be effective. See Consumer Reports WebWatch's guidelines (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/consumer-reports-webwatch-guidelines.cfm) for a more detailed variation (guideline one is pasted below), and note more than 300 companies, from Hewlett-Packard to ING to CNN to Earthlink have agreed to abide by these guidelines:
Alan,
It seems amendments are still being made. Could you ask staff and GNSO if they will accept the Consumer Reports standard Beau's proposing:
1. Identity: Web sites should clearly disclose the physical location where they are produced, including an address, a telephone number or e-mail address. Sites should clearly disclose their ownership, private or public, naming their parent company. Sites should clearly disclose their purpose and mission.
Adam
As someone who has investigated a number of mail-drop scam businesses, going the extra mile for physical location where the site is produced is necessary. ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger [dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 5:18 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Cc: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] Latest RAA amendment
ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The latest amendment added to the package is this:
3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address.
Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address).
Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic.
Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
*** Scanned
** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.
_______________________________________________ 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 23:18 15/12/2008, Danny Younger wrote:
Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.
Dear Danny, I am afraid you could miss the point. I fear they do not care about users. May be, they only reluctantly give lip service to ALAC as a make believe. They only are interested in customers: ICANN's mission is to address a market. This point was clearly made in Paris by Pault Twomey answering Bertrand de la Chapelle who was reminding him the people who have not access to the Internet yet. Paul said he did not care. Not his job. His job is to those who directly or indirectly pay ICANN. Others had to join first. ICANN raises taxes and will do nothing that might endanger its tax collection priority. We just do not share the same values nor the same understanding of public service, common interest and people. This is the main difference with IGF and its three person bureaucracy. This is why france@large was denied by staff, whi did not even care to answer (so we cannot file a complaint with the Ombudsman). The same here: in the staff proposed way, users will not have any legitimate claim to call on the Ombudsman. This is why we now prepare for 090901. A supposedly "Internet for everyone ICANN" was of interest, a pure "staff controlled Internet for the Rich ICANN" represents no more interest for us. Only a potentional threat justifying for a few of us lurking in here. Actually, relating with it could be forbidden by the French law. No member corporations ("sociétés en main mortes") are considered as robber gangs, since the vote of the night of August 4th, 1789 - these pople has some vision! jfc
participants (7)
-
Adam Peake -
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
Danny Younger -
Derek Smythe -
JFC Morfin -
John L