Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
http://www.come4news.com/domain-names-the-saga-continue-249117.html "This is actually chapter 3 in the domain name saga, the Domain registrars fight back and play dirty. So the ICANN people got involved and forced my registrar (Network solutions) to unblock my domain name and make them ready for transfer. So I was ready to finish the operation when an e-mail from "Network solutions arrived" and suddenly the price for renewal is not $ 34 a year but $ 15 a year. For me it was too late and I started the process, but before that I was required to modify my whois contact details. So I did it, got the confirmation and continued the process. I got all the confirmations I needed, but then an e-mail from Network solutions arrived again saying that because I modifyed my contact details I cannot transfer the domain for 2 months now !!! 2 months ? that force me actually to renew the domain within Network solutions again. and... surprise, surprise 5 minutes later a mail from Network solutions arrived and says that I can renew my domain name for... $ 34 again." Last September, ICANN put out an advisory entitled " Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm Public comments were received (all in favor of the advisory, except for one that came from Network Solutions), and then ICANN proceeded to do... nothing. Obviously, the problem persists and still ICANN does nothing. Perhaps Staff can offer a suitable explanation as to why there has been no follow-through. For domain name registrants, these continuing abuses are just not acceptable. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
Danny and all my friends, It is clear that NSOL is, or was involved in Front Running seemingly to thwart Domain Name Tasting. However as we know, this was admitted on the GA list by a NSOL employee. However after some public exposier by several GA members expressing a strong desire for NSOL to discontnue this practice for obvious good reasons, NSOL subsequently for the time being, discontinued this errant and disgusting practice. It is our members hope that no registry or registrar will enguage in Domain Name Tasting/Front Running ever again, but recognize the financial incentive of such a practice to both, and vigilance by registrants and users/non-registrants to aid in ensuring that such bad practices are publically exposed and thusly act as a means by which such errant practices are curtailed. The success of course largly requires that ICANN itself police it's registrars and registries accordingly and diligantly. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Danny Younger wrote:
http://www.come4news.com/domain-names-the-saga-continue-249117.html
"This is actually chapter 3 in the domain name saga, the Domain registrars fight back and play dirty.
So the ICANN people got involved and forced my registrar (Network solutions) to unblock my domain name and make them ready for transfer.
So I was ready to finish the operation when an e-mail from "Network solutions arrived" and suddenly the price for renewal is not $ 34 a year but $ 15 a year. For me it was too late and I started the process, but before that I was required to modify my whois contact details. So I did it, got the confirmation and continued the process.
I got all the confirmations I needed, but then an e-mail from Network solutions arrived again saying that because I modifyed my contact details I cannot transfer the domain for 2 months now !!! 2 months ? that force me actually to renew the domain within Network solutions again. and... surprise, surprise 5 minutes later a mail from Network solutions arrived and says that I can renew my domain name for... $ 34 again."
Last September, ICANN put out an advisory entitled " Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm
Public comments were received (all in favor of the advisory, except for one that came from Network Solutions), and then ICANN proceeded to do... nothing.
Obviously, the problem persists and still ICANN does nothing. Perhaps Staff can offer a suitable explanation as to why there has been no follow-through. For domain name registrants, these continuing abuses are just not acceptable.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Jeff, The article provided for your reference pointed to continued issues with regard to transfers. Front-running is a separate matter, which contrary to your claims has not been discontinued. For reference please see this article posted just two days ago -- http://blogs.computerworld.com/forward/7217/email_ref You may also choose to refer to the extensive commentary on the topic at Slashdot posted yesterday -- see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/15/2121200 and for another twist on NetSol matters, look at http://www.entlawdigest.com/(S(renb53v3amsve145v0aa4r55))/LawReport/ViewRepo... which states: "A federal class action claims Network Solutions makes its customers private email messages publicly available on the Internet through common search engines such as Google, in violation of state and federal laws." While the entire world it seems is talking about NetSol's abusive practices (including the ICANN Board -- see http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23jan08.htm), the ALAC, in its role as the "voice of the individual Internet users" has absolutely nothing to say on the topic... no policy recommendations, no request for an issues report, no request for a PDP, no request to ICANN Staff for feedback as to whether NetSol practices constitute a violation of the RAA -- instead, the ALAC appears to be either totally clueless or horribly irresponsible -- but what can you really expect from a bunch of people that are just pretending to be the at-large so that they can continue to milk the ICANN cash cow? If they really were the at-large, we would have heard their outrage about these situations... instead all we hear are their ongoing requests for even more money while registrants receive no assistance whatsoever from their "Voice" within ICANN. --- "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Danny and all my friends,
It is clear that NSOL is, or was involved in Front Running seemingly to thwart Domain Name Tasting. However as we know, this was admitted on the GA list by a NSOL employee. However after some public exposier by several GA members expressing a strong desire for NSOL to discontnue this practice for obvious good reasons, NSOL subsequently for the time being, discontinued this errant and disgusting practice.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Dear Danny, for nearly eight years I know you, I do not know if you have proposed the text of a motion. I wander what is really your target: you are an informed hard worker, and sometimes extremely good, on occasions really brillant. However, I am afraid that instead of helping the community and ICANN you are fighting both. I opposed you a lot when you were GA Chair because you wanted to be the GA by your own and speak by yourself on our behalf - not because your positions were wrong (just sometimes, at that time, sophomore's positions - but that time is gone). Then you were not really fighting, but not helping us either with the IDNA and ICANN-alarge. Could we not reach a modus vivendi, where we (you and ALAC) mutually take advantage from the other, fight together for the users, rather that you fighting the ALAC. ALAC is not a democratic representative of the users, but certainly a sample of their most motivated ones. If you/we do not teach them, how do you want them to know? jfc At 00:30 17/02/2008, Danny Younger wrote:
the ALAC, in its role as the "voice of the individual Internet users" has absolutely nothing to say on the topic...
no policy recommendations, no request for an issues report, no request for a PDP, no request to ICANN Staff for feedback as to whether NetSol practices constitute a violation of the RAA -- instead, the ALAC appears to be either totally clueless or horribly irresponsible -- but what can you really expect from a bunch of people that are just pretending to be the at-large so that they can continue to milk the ICANN cash cow? If they really were the at-large, we would have heard their outrage about these situations... instead all we hear are their ongoing requests for even more money while registrants receive no assistance whatsoever from their "Voice" within ICANN.
JFC and all my friends, Respectfully, users do not need teaching, we need to learn from them. They are the BOSS! Once each of us recognizes this, the better all of us will be. And I along with our members, are some of those users. All of our members as I have stated many times before are ALSO registrants. We WILL be heard, and when possible, we WILL vote with our $$ and in any other way we legally can. If this is offensive to anyone, than I humbly but without reservation, suggest that they look in the mirror for their recompense... As a matter of example only, I and 91% of our members, users all, have decided/voted today to block the following Domain Names. wanadoo.fr me.wanadoo.fr orange.nl valleybank.com We do so simply because in two instances their DNS's are misconfigured, second all four are purvayors of spam and phishing attempts. To date most of our members are reporting that over 8,000 domain names are currently being blocked for same or similar reasons even though we firmly are against cnesorship. However as ICANN nor the GNSO has seen fit to properly police their registrars, registries, nor have either the hostmasters of postmasters of these domains cleaned up their employees or customers adaquately, in order for our members are left with no other method by which to protect themselves... So for these reasons, the "See no evil" and "Hear no evil" jaundra of the ALAC is inconsistant with reality and/or not giving the main role of ICANN and the GNSO's job it's proper perspective, that being technical managment. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 JFC Morfin wrote:
Dear Danny, for nearly eight years I know you, I do not know if you have proposed the text of a motion. I wander what is really your target: you are an informed hard worker, and sometimes extremely good, on occasions really brillant. However, I am afraid that instead of helping the community and ICANN you are fighting both. I opposed you a lot when you were GA Chair because you wanted to be the GA by your own and speak by yourself on our behalf - not because your positions were wrong (just sometimes, at that time, sophomore's positions - but that time is gone). Then you were not really fighting, but not helping us either with the IDNA and ICANN-alarge.
Could we not reach a modus vivendi, where we (you and ALAC) mutually take advantage from the other, fight together for the users, rather that you fighting the ALAC. ALAC is not a democratic representative of the users, but certainly a sample of their most motivated ones. If you/we do not teach them, how do you want them to know? jfc
At 00:30 17/02/2008, Danny Younger wrote:
the ALAC, in its role as the "voice of the individual Internet users" has absolutely nothing to say on the topic...
no policy recommendations, no request for an issues report, no request for a PDP, no request to ICANN Staff for feedback as to whether NetSol practices constitute a violation of the RAA -- instead, the ALAC appears to be either totally clueless or horribly irresponsible -- but what can you really expect from a bunch of people that are just pretending to be the at-large so that they can continue to milk the ICANN cash cow? If they really were the at-large, we would have heard their outrage about these situations... instead all we hear are their ongoing requests for even more money while registrants receive no assistance whatsoever from their "Voice" within ICANN.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Jefsey, Let's be clear about something -- I joined neither the IDNO nor the icannatlarge.com organization because they chose to do nothing more than wrangle about process, process, process. These organizations didn't spend a single moment on policy development, policy analysis, policy review or policy implementation initiatives on behalf of either their members or those that they purported to represent. The bulk of their time was spent on who gets elected to what seat, on motions to remove or censor other members, and on continuous in-fighting until they both self-destructed. The organizations that manage to survive in the ICANN ambit are the ones that make the defense of the interests of their constituents their number one priority, like the IPC. The ALAC has not done that. When registrants pounded at ICANN's door in the wake of the RegisterFly disaster, did we see the ALAC do anything? When registrants can no longer successfully transfer their domains owing to the behaviors of rogue registrars, does the ALAC do anything? When NetSol's front-running captures the attention of both the media and the tech community, do we hear of the ALAC rising up forcefully to do something about it? No, all we hear about is the ALAC asking for more money. The ALAC after six years is now nothing more than a monolithic single point of failure that plays at process, does nothing more than suck travel dollars out of ICANN and helps to swell an already bloated budget. The ALAC never had the gumption to stand up for their own representational rights, so how do you expect them to have the tenacity or interest to fight for anyone else? All they seem to be able to do is issue milktoast "Statements" and elect suppliers instead of users to the NonCom. Even when the NonCom Review recommended that the ALAC seat two members on the ICANN board, this useless group of noncommercial orgs did absolutely nothing to push the point on behalf of their own community -- this is a body that has become less than useless. --- JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Dear Danny, for nearly eight years I know you, I do not know if you have proposed the text of a motion. I wander what is really your target: you are an informed hard worker, and sometimes extremely good, on occasions really brillant. However, I am afraid that instead of helping the community and ICANN you are fighting both. I opposed you a lot when you were GA Chair because you wanted to be the GA by your own and speak by yourself on our behalf - not because your positions were wrong (just sometimes, at that time, sophomore's positions - but that time is gone). Then you were not really fighting, but not helping us either with the IDNA and ICANN-alarge.
Could we not reach a modus vivendi, where we (you and ALAC) mutually take advantage from the other, fight together for the users, rather that you fighting the ALAC. ALAC is not a democratic representative of the users, but certainly a sample of their most motivated ones. If you/we do not teach them, how do you want them to know? jfc
At 00:30 17/02/2008, Danny Younger wrote:
the ALAC, in its role as the "voice of the individual Internet users" has absolutely nothing to say on the topic...
no policy recommendations, no request for an issues report, no request for a PDP, no request to ICANN Staff for feedback as to whether NetSol practices constitute a violation of the RAA -- instead, the ALAC appears to be either totally clueless or horribly irresponsible -- but what can you really expect from a bunch of people that are just pretending to be the at-large so that they can continue to milk the ICANN cash cow? If they really were the at-large, we would have heard their outrage about these situations... instead all we hear are their ongoing requests for even more money while registrants receive no assistance whatsoever from their "Voice" within ICANN.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Danny and all my friends, Your historical review is essentially correct, as are your conclusions as to what that history clearly indicates. But I believe that JFC has "Hope" that the ALAC will become of great value to users. Hope always springs internal, as the saying goes... I wonder, does the ALAC want to be self financially sufficient? No reason it cannot be. But once and/or if it ever becomes such, than how to use those funds will be the next battle royal... First and foremost the ALAC needs to help itself before it can help others. And to a degree, the ALAC helping itself is helping others... But the ALAC trying to help itself to ICANN's funds freely is a pipe dream and detrimental to it's own cause... ICANN is looking to eventually find a way of making money from the ALAC, not be it's only or main financial supporter... Building a financial footing is a very hard thing to do in the beginning, I know from experience. Continuous or ongoing funding is also not an easy thing to do without very good financial leadership. So far I have not seen or read of the ALAC having either the expertise for building the financial footing, nor the financial leadership to effect continuous or ongoing funding. But remember, ICANN got it's financial shot in the arm from NSOL... One non well thought out idea I have been playing around with is perhaps the ALAC could get a loan [ no interest or very low interest ] from the World Bank as initial funding? After that however the ALAC would be dependent on it's members donations or membership fees, and outside donations for the foreseeable future... This would mean growing the membership quickly, and at the same time those capable members doing funding drives on a fairly regular basis to boot... This means hard WORK and plenty of it! However I freely admit there are many other workable funding models for an organization like the ALAC. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Danny Younger wrote:
Jefsey,
Let's be clear about something -- I joined neither the IDNO nor the icannatlarge.com organization because they chose to do nothing more than wrangle about process, process, process. These organizations didn't spend a single moment on policy development, policy analysis, policy review or policy implementation initiatives on behalf of either their members or those that they purported to represent. The bulk of their time was spent on who gets elected to what seat, on motions to remove or censor other members, and on continuous in-fighting until they both self-destructed.
The organizations that manage to survive in the ICANN ambit are the ones that make the defense of the interests of their constituents their number one priority, like the IPC. The ALAC has not done that.
When registrants pounded at ICANN's door in the wake of the RegisterFly disaster, did we see the ALAC do anything? When registrants can no longer successfully transfer their domains owing to the behaviors of rogue registrars, does the ALAC do anything? When NetSol's front-running captures the attention of both the media and the tech community, do we hear of the ALAC rising up forcefully to do something about it? No, all we hear about is the ALAC asking for more money.
The ALAC after six years is now nothing more than a monolithic single point of failure that plays at process, does nothing more than suck travel dollars out of ICANN and helps to swell an already bloated budget.
The ALAC never had the gumption to stand up for their own representational rights, so how do you expect them to have the tenacity or interest to fight for anyone else? All they seem to be able to do is issue milktoast "Statements" and elect suppliers instead of users to the NonCom. Even when the NonCom Review recommended that the ALAC seat two members on the ICANN board, this useless group of noncommercial orgs did absolutely nothing to push the point on behalf of their own community -- this is a body that has become less than useless.
--- JFC Morfin <jefsey@jefsey.com> wrote:
Dear Danny, for nearly eight years I know you, I do not know if you have proposed the text of a motion. I wander what is really your target: you are an informed hard worker, and sometimes extremely good, on occasions really brillant. However, I am afraid that instead of helping the community and ICANN you are fighting both. I opposed you a lot when you were GA Chair because you wanted to be the GA by your own and speak by yourself on our behalf - not because your positions were wrong (just sometimes, at that time, sophomore's positions - but that time is gone). Then you were not really fighting, but not helping us either with the IDNA and ICANN-alarge.
Could we not reach a modus vivendi, where we (you and ALAC) mutually take advantage from the other, fight together for the users, rather that you fighting the ALAC. ALAC is not a democratic representative of the users, but certainly a sample of their most motivated ones. If you/we do not teach them, how do you want them to know? jfc
At 00:30 17/02/2008, Danny Younger wrote:
the ALAC, in its role as the "voice of the individual Internet users" has absolutely nothing to say on the topic...
no policy recommendations, no request for an issues report, no request for a PDP, no request to ICANN Staff for feedback as to whether NetSol practices constitute a violation of the RAA -- instead, the ALAC appears to be either totally clueless or horribly irresponsible -- but what can you really expect from a bunch of people that are just pretending to be the at-large so that they can continue to milk the ICANN cash cow? If they really were the at-large, we would have heard their outrage about these situations... instead all we hear are their ongoing requests for even more money while registrants receive no assistance whatsoever from their "Voice" within ICANN.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Danny Younger wrote:
The organizations that manage to survive in the ICANN ambit are the ones that make the defense of the interests of their constituents their number one priority, like the IPC. The ALAC has not done that.
Technically, the last regional ALS organization didn't officially join in until last week. This means that, with some validity, ALAC going forward is not the same as the ALAC of the past. ALACv1 was all appointed and had neither a mandate nor _any_ sense of grassroots priorities. Now there are well over 100 ALSs representing memberships in the hundreds of thousands. While this is certainly no guarantee that the composition of these groups -- or the views of their ICANN reps -- completely reflects the public POV, it's much closer than when ALAC had nobody but its own appointees to churn policy. I would not dispute that much of the last six years of ALAC appear to have been wrapped up with process-obsessed navel gazing. Maybe ALACv2 will not turn out as well as was hoped. Events of the past week give me significantly more optimism than I had in the past, though heaven knows there are massive opportunities for improvement. I certainly know that many people -- present company included -- were generous when interviewed by the consultants engaging in the ALAC review. While you are not the only one who has had issues with ALAC's historic tendency to over-process things, I suspect you will find that a greater diversity of public voices will probably make the group's tasks more challenging than they have been. We've already found that out while canvassing constituent opinions on the JPA. It may (or may not) matter to you that the Registerfly issue is not considered a big deal (let alone disaster) outside of the US. But ALAC is a global body, and the fact that its prioroties are not the same as yours does not render it useless.
When registrants pounded at ICANN's door in the wake of the RegisterFly disaster, did we see the ALAC do anything? When registrants can no longer successfully transfer their domains owing to the behaviors of rogue registrars, does the ALAC do anything? Danny, as a part of this mailing list -- as part of this At-Large mechanism -- you share part of the blame for this inaction. Whining from the sidelines, without offering how to be part of the solution, isn't constructive.
The ALAC after six years is now nothing more than a monolithic single point of failure that plays at process, does nothing more than suck travel dollars out of ICANN and helps to swell an already bloated budget.
Given your history with ICANN the sour grapes are understandable. But please, as we go forward, make a choice. Either help fix the problems you describe, or get out of the way and let the rest of us do our best to fix it without the utterly unhelpful sniping. We know how you feel. Repeating your complaint endlessly has no value other than to demoralize people and help realize the failure you bemoan. Indeed, one could easily surmise that you _want_ ALAC to fail, which is good reason to simply ignore anything you contribute.
this is a body that has become less than useless.
And yet... here you still are amongst us, part of this collective. That makes you either a) a masochist b) part of the reason why ALAC is in this sorry state c) one who derives pleasure from making others miserable d) all of the above - Evan
Evan and all my friends, Wow, a rather scathing review and demoralizing take on Danny's mostly helpful and meaningful ideas yet bluntly honest historical review. One learns from the past, and if well learned, doesn't repeat it. I believe and know for a near certainty Danny want's the ALAC or any other AT-Large body within the ICANN structure to be successful and endure. But he is also a realist for the most part. Seeking funds from ICANN will not get the ALSes anywhere of worth to users/stakeholders, which I believe was Danny's main point and one that given his experience as well as mine, is well founded historically. BTW, what did you Evan think of my meager but perhaps useful funding suggestion? It's very grass roots, which should be appealing, but not easy. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
The organizations that manage to survive in the ICANN ambit are the ones that make the defense of the interests of their constituents their number one priority, like the IPC. The ALAC has not done that.
Technically, the last regional ALS organization didn't officially join in until last week.
This means that, with some validity, ALAC going forward is not the same as the ALAC of the past. ALACv1 was all appointed and had neither a mandate nor _any_ sense of grassroots priorities.
Now there are well over 100 ALSs representing memberships in the hundreds of thousands. While this is certainly no guarantee that the composition of these groups -- or the views of their ICANN reps -- completely reflects the public POV, it's much closer than when ALAC had nobody but its own appointees to churn policy. I would not dispute that much of the last six years of ALAC appear to have been wrapped up with process-obsessed navel gazing.
Maybe ALACv2 will not turn out as well as was hoped. Events of the past week give me significantly more optimism than I had in the past, though heaven knows there are massive opportunities for improvement. I certainly know that many people -- present company included -- were generous when interviewed by the consultants engaging in the ALAC review.
While you are not the only one who has had issues with ALAC's historic tendency to over-process things, I suspect you will find that a greater diversity of public voices will probably make the group's tasks more challenging than they have been. We've already found that out while canvassing constituent opinions on the JPA. It may (or may not) matter to you that the Registerfly issue is not considered a big deal (let alone disaster) outside of the US. But ALAC is a global body, and the fact that its prioroties are not the same as yours does not render it useless.
When registrants pounded at ICANN's door in the wake of the RegisterFly disaster, did we see the ALAC do anything? When registrants can no longer successfully transfer their domains owing to the behaviors of rogue registrars, does the ALAC do anything? Danny, as a part of this mailing list -- as part of this At-Large mechanism -- you share part of the blame for this inaction. Whining from the sidelines, without offering how to be part of the solution, isn't constructive.
The ALAC after six years is now nothing more than a monolithic single point of failure that plays at process, does nothing more than suck travel dollars out of ICANN and helps to swell an already bloated budget.
Given your history with ICANN the sour grapes are understandable. But please, as we go forward, make a choice. Either help fix the problems you describe, or get out of the way and let the rest of us do our best to fix it without the utterly unhelpful sniping.
We know how you feel. Repeating your complaint endlessly has no value other than to demoralize people and help realize the failure you bemoan. Indeed, one could easily surmise that you _want_ ALAC to fail, which is good reason to simply ignore anything you contribute.
this is a body that has become less than useless.
And yet... here you still are amongst us, part of this collective. That makes you either a) a masochist b) part of the reason why ALAC is in this sorry state c) one who derives pleasure from making others miserable d) all of the above
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Jeffrey, Your "useful funding suggestion" would mean that ALAC and ALSs would have nothing to so but chase $$. We all have day jobs. So, your suggestion would lead to us doing even less of the work that we are supposed to be doing. Not viable if I have to spend the scare resources of my time in chasing dollars rather than doing the work I am attempting to do for ICANN. D ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Sun 2/17/2008 5:11 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol? Evan and all my friends, Wow, a rather scathing review and demoralizing take on Danny's mostly helpful and meaningful ideas yet bluntly honest historical review. One learns from the past, and if well learned, doesn't repeat it. I believe and know for a near certainty Danny want's the ALAC or any other AT-Large body within the ICANN structure to be successful and endure. But he is also a realist for the most part. Seeking funds from ICANN will not get the ALSes anywhere of worth to users/stakeholders, which I believe was Danny's main point and one that given his experience as well as mine, is well founded historically. BTW, what did you Evan think of my meager but perhaps useful funding suggestion? It's very grass roots, which should be appealing, but not easy. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
The organizations that manage to survive in the ICANN ambit are the ones that make the defense of the interests of their constituents their number one priority, like the IPC. The ALAC has not done that.
Technically, the last regional ALS organization didn't officially join in until last week.
This means that, with some validity, ALAC going forward is not the same as the ALAC of the past. ALACv1 was all appointed and had neither a mandate nor _any_ sense of grassroots priorities.
Now there are well over 100 ALSs representing memberships in the hundreds of thousands. While this is certainly no guarantee that the composition of these groups -- or the views of their ICANN reps -- completely reflects the public POV, it's much closer than when ALAC had nobody but its own appointees to churn policy. I would not dispute that much of the last six years of ALAC appear to have been wrapped up with process-obsessed navel gazing.
Maybe ALACv2 will not turn out as well as was hoped. Events of the past week give me significantly more optimism than I had in the past, though heaven knows there are massive opportunities for improvement. I certainly know that many people -- present company included -- were generous when interviewed by the consultants engaging in the ALAC review.
While you are not the only one who has had issues with ALAC's historic tendency to over-process things, I suspect you will find that a greater diversity of public voices will probably make the group's tasks more challenging than they have been. We've already found that out while canvassing constituent opinions on the JPA. It may (or may not) matter to you that the Registerfly issue is not considered a big deal (let alone disaster) outside of the US. But ALAC is a global body, and the fact that its prioroties are not the same as yours does not render it useless.
When registrants pounded at ICANN's door in the wake of the RegisterFly disaster, did we see the ALAC do anything? When registrants can no longer successfully transfer their domains owing to the behaviors of rogue registrars, does the ALAC do anything? Danny, as a part of this mailing list -- as part of this At-Large mechanism -- you share part of the blame for this inaction. Whining from the sidelines, without offering how to be part of the solution, isn't constructive.
The ALAC after six years is now nothing more than a monolithic single point of failure that plays at process, does nothing more than suck travel dollars out of ICANN and helps to swell an already bloated budget.
Given your history with ICANN the sour grapes are understandable. But please, as we go forward, make a choice. Either help fix the problems you describe, or get out of the way and let the rest of us do our best to fix it without the utterly unhelpful sniping.
We know how you feel. Repeating your complaint endlessly has no value other than to demoralize people and help realize the failure you bemoan. Indeed, one could easily surmise that you _want_ ALAC to fail, which is good reason to simply ignore anything you contribute.
this is a body that has become less than useless.
And yet... here you still are amongst us, part of this collective. That makes you either a) a masochist b) part of the reason why ALAC is in this sorry state c) one who derives pleasure from making others miserable d) all of the above
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org <http://www.alac.icann.org/> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org <http://www.icannalac.org/>
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org <http://www.alac.icann.org/> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org <http://www.icannalac.org/>
Darlene and all my friends, Respectfully I disagree because once you have some $$ in the kitty, so to speak [ no sexual overtones intended, BTW ] and donations with good outreach associated, chaseing $$ will not be a full time effort. Public radio and Television do things this way and do it quite well. And also BTW, I also have a full time job and I can even part time generate a significant amount of money for our members, and do so reguarly with some extra of my free time. And ICANN should be doing for you/us/users, not the other way around. Remember, ICANN is a public SERVICE corporation, not a private sector corporation. Doing for users is what your, my and everyones focus should be, not doing for ICANN. We should be hitting up ICANN to do for us and all users! However if you don't like my one suggested funding model, I can advance several others which I have used or am familiar with that have enjoyed great success. Just don't expect ICANN to fund the Summit or the ALAC in any way or to any amount, not going to happen. In conclusion, does the ALAC have an account yet with any financial institution? Wendy, do you know? Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 "Thompson, Darlene" wrote:
Jeffrey,
Your "useful funding suggestion" would mean that ALAC and ALSs would have nothing to so but chase $$. We all have day jobs. So, your suggestion would lead to us doing even less of the work that we are supposed to be doing. Not viable if I have to spend the scare resources of my time in chasing dollars rather than doing the work I am attempting to do for ICANN.
D
----------------------------------------------------------------------- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jeffrey A. Williams Sent: Sun 2/17/2008 5:11 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] [Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
Evan and all my friends,
Wow, a rather scathing review and demoralizing take on Danny's mostly helpful and meaningful ideas yet bluntly honest historical review. One learns from the past, and if well learned, doesn't repeat it. I believe and know for a near certainty Danny want's the ALAC or any other AT-Large body within the ICANN structure to be successful and endure. But he is also a realist for the most part. Seeking funds from ICANN will not get the ALSes anywhere of worth to users/stakeholders, which I believe was Danny's main point and one that given his experience as well as mine, is well founded historically.
BTW, what did you Evan think of my meager but perhaps useful funding suggestion? It's very grass roots, which should be appealing, but not easy.
Regards,
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln
"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Danny Younger wrote:
The organizations that manage to survive in the ICANN ambit are the ones that make the defense of the interests of their constituents their number one priority, like the IPC. The ALAC has not done that.
Technically, the last regional ALS organization didn't officially join in until last week.
This means that, with some validity, ALAC going forward is not the same as the ALAC of the past. ALACv1 was all appointed and had neither a mandate nor _any_ sense of grassroots priorities.
Now there are well over 100 ALSs representing memberships in the hundreds of thousands. While this is certainly no guarantee that the
composition of these groups -- or the views of their ICANN reps -- completely reflects the public POV, it's much closer than when ALAC had nobody but its own appointees to churn policy. I would not dispute that much of the last six years of ALAC appear to have been wrapped up with process-obsessed navel gazing.
Maybe ALACv2 will not turn out as well as was hoped. Events of the past week give me significantly more optimism than I had in the past, though heaven knows there are massive opportunities for improvement. I certainly know that many people -- present company included -- were generous when interviewed by the consultants engaging in the ALAC review.
While you are not the only one who has had issues with ALAC's historic tendency to over-process things, I suspect you will find that a greater diversity of public voices will probably make the group's tasks more
challenging than they have been. We've already found that out while canvassing constituent opinions on the JPA. It may (or may not) matter to you that the Registerfly issue is not considered a big deal (let alone disaster) outside of the US. But ALAC is a global body, and the fact that its prioroties are not the same as yours does not render it useless.
When registrants pounded at ICANN's door in the wake of the RegisterFly disaster, did we see the ALAC do anything? When registrants can no longer successfully transfer their domains owing to the behaviors of rogue registrars, does the ALAC do anything? Danny, as a part of this mailing list -- as part of this At-Large mechanism -- you share part of the blame for this inaction. Whining from the sidelines, without offering how to be part of the solution, isn't constructive.
The ALAC after six years is now nothing more than a monolithic single point of failure that plays at process, does nothing more than suck travel dollars out of ICANN and helps to swell an already bloated budget.
Given your history with ICANN the sour grapes are understandable. But please, as we go forward, make a choice. Either help fix the problems you describe, or get out of the way and let the rest of us do our best to fix it without the utterly unhelpful sniping.
We know how you feel. Repeating your complaint endlessly has no value other than to demoralize people and help realize the failure you bemoan. Indeed, one could easily surmise that you _want_ ALAC to fail, which is good reason to simply ignore anything you contribute.
this is a body that has become less than useless.
And yet... here you still are amongst us, part of this collective. That makes you either a) a masochist b) part of the reason why ALAC is in this sorry state c) one who derives pleasure from making others miserable d) all of the above
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
ttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
Danny and all my friends, My response interspersed below... Danny Younger wrote:
Jeff,
The article provided for your reference pointed to continued issues with regard to transfers. Front-running is a separate matter, which contrary to your claims has not been discontinued. For reference please see this article posted just two days ago -- http://blogs.computerworld.com/forward/7217/email_ref
Indeed. But you know as well as I do that Front Running is but another FORM of Domain Name Tasting in another name or label...
You may also choose to refer to the extensive commentary on the topic at Slashdot posted yesterday -- see http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/15/2121200
Did so. Thanks.
and for another twist on NetSol matters, look at http://www.entlawdigest.com/(S(renb53v3amsve145v0aa4r55))/LawReport/ViewRepo...
which states: "A federal class action claims Network Solutions makes its customers private email messages publicly available on the Internet through common search engines such as Google, in violation of state and federal laws."
Yes. And the conclusion of this case will be interesting. Recently Google sent me an email asking me if I wanted any of my postings removed from Google. I replied in the affirmative. Ergo, it seems that Google is finally following through from a few months ago in respecting individual privacy all be in doing so, they are extremely slow... Personally I believe Google's web site should be taken down until or unless they fully respect individuals privacy. But of course that will never happen....
While the entire world it seems is talking about NetSol's abusive practices (including the ICANN Board -- see http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-23jan08.htm), the ALAC, in its role as the "voice of the individual Internet users" has absolutely nothing to say on the topic...
Yes. This is both odd, and perhaps contrived. It appears that those in control of the ALAC mailing list forums are seeking to Censor any remarks or comments which contain any mention of same. See:http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008q1... giving the excuse that when doing so they are mis characterized as "Personal Attacks". Here no evil, see no evil, perhaps?
no policy recommendations, no request for an issues report, no request for a PDP, no request to ICANN Staff for feedback as to whether NetSol practices constitute a violation of the RAA -- instead, the ALAC appears to be either totally clueless or horribly irresponsible -- but what can you really expect from a bunch of people that are just pretending to be the at-large so that they can continue to milk the ICANN cash cow? If they really were the at-large, we would have heard their outrage about these situations... instead all we hear are their ongoing requests for even more money while registrants receive no assistance whatsoever from their "Voice" within ICANN.
Sadly, you have a good point. >:( But of course such a point will be again mis characterized as a "Personal Attack", yet again... And so, the ICANN personal identities saga sadly continues unabated... Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827
--- "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Danny and all my friends,
It is clear that NSOL is, or was involved in Front Running seemingly to thwart Domain Name Tasting. However as we know, this was admitted on the GA list by a NSOL employee. However after some public exposier by several GA members expressing a strong desire for NSOL to discontnue this practice for obvious good reasons, NSOL subsequently for the time being, discontinued this errant and disgusting practice.
participants (5)
-
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jeffrey A. Williams -
JFC Morfin -
Thompson, Darlene