April 2009 - lac-discuss-en

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =?iso-8859-1?q?Voto_de_ALAC_en_la_gu=EDa_tur=EDs = =?iso-8859-1?q?tica_nueva_V2_del_aspirante_del_gTLD =
by andrespiazzagpj＠hotmail.com April 13, 2009

April 13, 2009

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Voto_de_ALAC_en_la_gu=EDa_tur=EDs = =?iso-8859-1?q?tica_nueva_V2_del_aspirante_del_gTLD = From: andrespiazzagpj(a)hotmail.com (Spanish) Thanks for your answer, Carlton. It is truth that your you have put east subject in the list previously. The only new development happens through the "urgency" in sending to us over this subject. Agreement with you respect to the difference between this Document andthe previous Statement of ALAC. Greetings Andrés Piazza President of LACRALO --- (English) For Thanks your to answer, Carlton. Is true that you posted this issue before to the list. The only new part is that now is "urgent" for U.S. to say something. Is agree with you about the difference between this Document and the previous statement. Greetings Andrés Piazza President of LACRALO > Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:41:34 -0700 > From: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > CC: > Subject: Re: Vote of ALAC in the tour guide new V2 of the aspiring of gTLD > > > [ [ - - Translated text (in - > is)--]] > > > Subject: Re: Vote of ALAC in the tour guide new V2 of the aspiring of gTLD > Of: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > > Dear Chair: > Observe which I endorsed the declaration of the WG according to the amendment previstaen the list of the WG and > deliberately copied him to the previous list of LACRALO. > > Also I observed that the specific declaration of wG on the based objection ignition > the morality and the order of the public [ clause 3.1.2.3 oflaguía tourist V2 of the aspiring ] is much > more declaratory than the original declaration of ALAC. > > Also I have recommended that since the pertinent writing of the WG now is > definitive En-Grande vision, must now replace the previous ALAC > the construc! tion, meaning to our chosen representatives is limited to use it inside > completely. > > Carlton Samuels > the university of Indians of the west > > > Mon, 13 of April of 2009 in 4:53 P.M., <andrespiazzagpj(a)hotmail.com> it wrote: > > > [ [ - - translated text (is - >)--]] of in > > > subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?gTLD_WG=B4s_Statement_-_Lo_apoyem = > =?iso-8859-1?q?os= > of: andrespiazzagpj(a)hotmail.com > > > (English down) > > > considered, > > > > tomorrow > https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s… the period of the voting to emit the following document formally > > > > Carlos and Jose Ovid does not have exact instructions to emit this ignited vote > the part of LACRALO. Recomiento without doubts that > inclines positively LACRALO. document > > > > the members of the WG of the will can surely add a certa! in commentary that > participated > > > > Hot G! reetings > > > > Seat of Andrés > > LACRALOpresident > > > > > > > > Wanted All, > > > > tomorrow begins to the period of voting in ALAC to make to the formal declaration with > thisdocument: > https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld! > _ working_group_statement_on_applicant_guidebook_v2 > > > > Carlos and Jose specific Ovid does not have instruccions of LACRALO to > votes. Doubt I suggests give not to its aid to > document > > > > probably some of the colleagues who participated in the WG and plow tomembers > of the LACRALO dog adds something to the list > > > > Hot Respect, > > > > Seat of Andrés > > President Of the Chair of LACRALO> > > > PICOSECOND: The English translation is mines. The literal one is not, but it has, in my > opinion, the same sense and message to that I wished to provide > > > > > > ____! _____________________________________________________________ > stay until dates in its PC, the Web, and its alive movable telephone with > Windows > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [ [ - - original text (is) > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/b07202f8fe.html > --]] > > > > >_______________________________________________ > li! > sta that sends lacquer-discuss-lac-discuss-in > lac-discuss-en@at! > large-li > sts.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [ [ - - Original text (in) > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/c4ëäb693.html > --]] > > > _________________________________________________________________ See how Windows® connects the people, information, and fun that plows part of your life http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119463819/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/028d24ef46.html --]]

1 0

=?iso-8859-1?q?gTLD_WG=B4s_Statement_-_Lo_apoyem = =?iso-8859-1?q?os =
by andrespiazzagpj＠hotmail.com April 13, 2009

April 13, 2009

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?gTLD_WG=B4s_Statement_-_Lo_apoyem = =?iso-8859-1?q?os = From: andrespiazzagpj(a)hotmail.com (English below) Considered, Tomorrow https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s… in ALAC a period of voting to emit the following document formally Carlos and Jose Ovid do not have instructions precise to emit this vote on the part of LACRALO. Recomiento without doubts that positively leans the document from LACRALO. Surely the members of the WG of will be able to add some commentary which participated. Warm Greetings Andrés Piazza President of LACRALO Dear All, Tomorrow starts to Voting Period in ALAC to make to formal Statement with this Document: https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s… Carlos and Jose Ovid doesnŽt have specific instruccions from LACRALO to votes. Doubt I suggest that they should give not to their support to the Document. Probably some of the colleagues that took part in the WG and plows members of LACRALO dog add something to the list. Warm Regards, Andrés Piazza LACRALO Chair President PS: The english translation is mines. Literal Is not, but there are, in my opinion, the same sense and message that I wanted to provide. _________________________________________________________________ Stay up to dates on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Live Windows http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/b07202f8fe.html --]]

3 2

Re: [lac-discuss-en] ALAC Vote on the New gTLD Applicant Guidebook V2
by Carlton Samuels April 13, 2009

April 13, 2009

Dear Chair: Note that I endorsed the WG statement as amended on the WG list and purposely copied it to the LACRALO list earlier. I also noted that the WG's specific statement on the Objection based on Morality and Public Order [Clause 3.1.2.3 of Applicant Guidebook V2] is much more declarative than the original ALAC statement. I have also recommended that since the pertinent WG writing is now the definitive At-Large view, it must now replace the previous ALAC construction, meaning our elected representatives are bound to support it in full. Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Mon, Apr 13, 2009 at 4:53 PM, <andrespiazzagpj(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] > > > Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?gTLD_WG=B4s_Statement_-_Lo_apoyem = > =?iso-8859-1?q?os = > From: andrespiazzagpj(a)hotmail.com > > > (English below) > > > Considered, > > > > Tomorrow > https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s… ALAC a period of voting to emit the following document formally > > > > Carlos and Jose Ovid do not have instructions precise to emit this vote on > the part of LACRALO. Recomiento without doubts that positively leans the > document from LACRALO. > > > > Surely the members of the WG of will be able to add some commentary which > participated. > > > > Warm Greetings > > > > Andrés Piazza > > President of LACRALO > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > Tomorrow starts to Voting Period in ALAC to make to formal Statement with > this Document: > https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s… > > > > Carlos and Jose Ovid doesn´t have specific instruccions from LACRALO to > votes. Doubt I suggest that they should give not to their support to the > Document. > > > > Probably some of the colleagues that took part in the WG and plows members > of LACRALO dog add something to the list. > > > > Warm Regards, > > > > Andrés Piazza > > LACRALO Chair President > > > > PS: The english translation is mines. Literal Is not, but there are, in my > opinion, the same sense and message that I wanted to provide. > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > Stay up to dates on your PC, the Web, and your mobile phone with Live > Windows > http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/119462413/direct/01/ > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [[--Original text (es) > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/b07202f8fe.html > --]] > > > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… > >

1 0

[Fwd: Re: [GTLD-WG] Proposed revised comment on Application Guidebook V2]
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh April 13, 2009

April 13, 2009

Latest version of At-Large Statement on 2nd draft of the gTLD Application Guidebook : https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s… Dev T -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] Proposed revised comment on Application Guidebook V2 Date: Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:56:04 -0400 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> To: gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> References: <49E0B9A3.7030003(a)telly.org> <54535d540904111800g612954bcm58d22bb86501b846(a)mail.gmail.com><49E1623F.7070602(a)telly.org> Hello everyone, I have made two changes to the the statement, in accordance with Hong's comments. One change is to a sentence in the section on String Contention, the other is the addition of two sentences to the section on Legal Rights. The changes do not significantly alter the position of the document, rather they clarify and strengthen the existing statement. I hope I have expressed Hong's comments appropriately in the new wording, and that the result is acceptable to the WG. Please review as soon as possible. A side-by-side view of the changes is available at this URL <https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_…>: https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_… The newest revision is available at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s… - Evan _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann… Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy

3 3

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =?iso-8859-1?q?=BFTexting_hacia_Utop=EDa_-_el_In = =?iso-8859-1?q?ternet_separa_democracia=3F =
by omar＠kaminski.adv.br April 13, 2009

April 13, 2009

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?=BFTexting_hacia_Utop=EDa_-_el_In = =?iso-8859-1?q?ternet_separa_democracia=3F = From: omar(a)kaminski.adv.br Spread = separates? This translator is very bad:) Original Message From: <omar(a)kaminski.adv.br> To: <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2009 21:07 Subject: Texting towards Utopia - the Internet separates democracy? > > [ [ - - Translated text (in - > is)--]] > > > Subject: Texting towards Utopia - the Internet separates democracy? > Of: omar(a)kaminski.adv.br > > http://bostonreview.net/BR34.2/morozov.php > > Worthy of the reading. Of the Happy east! > > Omar > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [ [ - - Original text (in) > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/2d3b6bc9cf.html > --]] > > > > _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/989ef824e5.html --]]

1 0

Fwd: Discussions on ICANN's role in combating Internet Fraud
by Carlton Samuels April 11, 2009

April 11, 2009

See continuing discussion on the RAA WG list. If you wish, you can subscribe directly. See the subscription information below. Carlton Samuels ================================================================================= Send RAA-WG mailing list submissions to raa-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to raa-wg-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at raa-wg-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of RAA-WG digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN (Hugh Dierker) 2. Re: [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN (Vermont Linux) 3. Re: [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN (Vermont Linux) 4. Re: [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN (Hugh Dierker) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 10:24:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN To: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu>, Vermont Linux Gentle folks, ? This is really a very helpful exchange from different perspectives. (I would suggest however that because someone has different life experiences and emphasizes different priorities that we not call them naive, simply because they are not well versed in our experience) ? Criminal Law Enforcement agencies enforce the law. Obviously the law depends on the jurisdiction. Civil courts, tribunals and agencies enforce civil and contractual obligations. Obviously the interpretations of contracts and standards depends on the jurisdiction. Sometimes spam is criminal, sometimes a breach of a civil obligation, and even sometimes perfectly legal and appropriately contracted. ? Providing false information in exchange for a benefit is almost always fraud. Fraud is both criminal and a tort in every jurisdiction I am aware of from Sierra Del Fuego to Inchon to Moscow to Jerusalem to Johannesburg. ? But when this fraud is committed who and how much does it hurt? Negligible at best to any given victim or plaintiff. Therefor not worth going after, further than shutting down the cause of injury. What ICANN can do is to establish standards for establishing?higher per se or "statutory damages". Or in the strictly contractual arena liquidated damage clauses. This would build in real penalties for abuse and give incentive to both civil and criminal prosecutors to go after the bastards. Like a free enterprise system for barristers and solicitors. ? ICANN should not enforce, other than their contracts. But they should aid enforcement. --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> wrote: ======================================================================================== From: Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> Hi, I am a bit surprised at the naivete expressed in this discussion. ICANN does not take down any registrants, that is left to the registrars. ICANN can only deaccredit a registrar for failing to meet its obligations as spelled in the RAA. ICANN's role is to simply oversee the RAA and the registrars. ICANN has recently made significant improvements to the WDPRS. There is an improved one-at-a-time complaint part and the addition of a bulk complaint interface for those who file large numbers of complaints. ICANN is doing better in general and I believe that they will continue to improve. The RAA appears to be just fine as a contract (no, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice) that, in my opinion, would stand up in court. ICANN and the registrars have lawyers who have looked closely at the RAA. If either believed it was not enforcable, I am pretty sure someone would have taken action by now. We at KnujOn have used the whois data accuracy problem to shut down over a 100,000 sites. We target commercial, not individuals, sites that we are sure that are involved in spam and other criminal behavior. We expect to see many more suspension over time. The complaints we file are looked at by ICANN, then passed to the appropriate registrar who then looks at it again. The registrant is notified of the problem and given time to fix it. If is fixed, the site stays up,if not, it is suspended. There are four levels of checks that provide a safety net for registrants, legitimate or not. If a registrant is unjustly suspended, they can be restrored. The sites like McColo have been looked at closely, with all sorts of evidence to show that they were/are criminals. This is not an issue of whois, but rather one where someone says the site is a bad actor, requiring a well documented, detail report showing that they are a bad actor. These reports are public, so if anyone wants to dispute the findings, they can. So far, no one has done so. And McColo was actually taken down by its ISP. One of the problems in the current system is that there are many players, ICANN (and IANA), registries, registrars, resellers, ISPs, hosting companies and some players have more than one role. This provides the ability of any one player to say "It's not me, it's the other guy." The diffusion of responsiblity means that no one is accountable. They only obvious way to handle it is to make sure that each player follows the rules within their own space and to shine a bright light on how they behave. Let me lay to rest the issue of bad actor registrars. Most registarsr are not criminals, some are victims, some are lazy, some do not know what to do and some do not want to spend money on the problem. Many actually cooperate and do their bast to run a clean operation. On the other hand there is a small number which in fact are either criminals or make it easy for the criminals to operate. The .com space in the US is with US jurisdiction as is ICANN (also under the JPA). If you are in Europe, the EU rules apply. If your domain is within a ccTLD, then that country will determine what happens. I believe the crackdown the other day in the US by the FTC and the FBI on mortgage scam websites are just the beginning. The takedowns are not indiscriminate. They are done within existing law, rules, contracts and regulations with documentaton that can be verfied. It has nothing to do with how much you paid for it. A domain name is not like buying fast food. It's more like owning a home or a car or setting up a bank account. Opinions are fine (I have many), but doing one's homework first on a complex and important issue is helpful. - bob =========================================================================== On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > Neil Schwartzman wrote, On 7/4/09 15:15: >> Your argument is a strawman, I too do not advocate ICANN's >> indiscriminate involvement in take-downs because a site collects data >> in an insecure manner, or due to an erroneous postal code, and I don't >> know anyone who advocates for such things. >> >> There is a role to be played in some particularly egregious >> situations, and in fact, all roads lead to Rome. There are, in some >> cases, no-where else to turn BUT ICANN. >> >> What we have seen in the one case of a shut-down last year was >> particularly unsatisfying, when the assets of Registrar owned by a >> criminal were sold to his business associate. >> >> I'm sure ICANN can do better, and certainly from those whom i met in >> Mexico, I got the impression that there is political will to do so. > > The main issue I see is that many of the terms in ICANN contracts, and in this case the RAA terms which refer to whois data, would not stand a court case. > > I have some difficulty thinking that a court would rule that a domain name should be taken down because of invalid whois data, especially if it was paid for in a legimimate way. The remedy (take down) seems disproportionate to the sheer value of the registration (less than USD 10 in most cases). After all, you are not being asked for your address details when ordering at McDonalds, which is in the same price range as a gTLD domain name. There is the added issue that the RAA is between the registrar and ICANN. The customer is a third party. Depending on the local legal context, the customer could validly argue that he is not bound by the terms of the RAA. > > This is yet another example of ICANN drafting rules out of the blue and not testing their validity in the real world. Some would call it arrogance, but I would rather like to think this is idealism in its most naive form. > > > > Patrick Vande Walle > Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu > ====================================================================================== Message: 2 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:25:26 -0400 (EDT) From: Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN To: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> Hi Patrick, My response was to the entire thread, not just you. I am sorry if I did not make that clear enough. My thoughts were a mixture to all that I read and there were references to indiscrimant takedowns by ICANN. The homework reference was for everyone, because a number of statements seemed to be knee jerk reactions and not well thought out. I have not searched for court cases related to this topic because I do not believe that are any. I am aware of a few incidents where a registrar mistakenly took down a legitimate site. The lawyers gathered in a room to determine monetary damage and remedies, no court involvement. This is due to established business practices. Generally these things are settled out of court. If someone wishes to challenge the RAA as registrant, it would be interesting, but I believe futile. The RAA does spell out the registrar's responsibilities involving registrants and the registrar does have the right and obligation (under certain circumstances) to suspend a domain name. Keep in mind, the registrant does not own the domain name, but merely rents/leases/licenses (pick one) it for a specific time period. When it is paid for, you know the registrar checks the credit/debit card and if you pay for your McDonald's meal with one, they will check too, unless they are willing to risk non-payment for that meal. I am not sure how it would matter what country you are in terms of challenging the RAA, unless you mean that no one dares challenge anything in some dictatorship countries. I meant that the registrars as a group push back whenever they can if someone tries to make them do something they do not want to do. They also have some very good lawyers who have read the RAA very closely looking for loopholes. For example, in the RAA, registrars are given the choice of verifying the whois data when someone registers a domain name OR sending out a periodic email telling the registrant to verify their data and fix it, if it is incorrect. Can you guess which choice they all make? This is why I believe that the RAA would withstand a court case, because I expect that if were possible to invalidate it (or parts of it) one of them would have already done so. cheers, bob On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > > > Vermont Linux wrote, On 9/4/09 16:25: >> I am a bit surprised at the naivete expressed in this discussion. >> ICANN does not take down any registrants, that is left to the registrars. > Hi Bob, > > I never said ICANN was taking down registrants. >> The RAA appears to be just fine as a contract (no, I am not a lawyer, >> this is not legal advice) that, in my opinion, would stand up in >> court. ICANN and the registrars have lawyers who have looked closely >> at the RAA. If either believed it was not enforcable, I am pretty sure >> someone would have taken action by now. > I guess it very much depends in which country you are located. >> Opinions are fine (I have many), but doing one's homework first on a >> complex and important issue is helpful. > My homework did not allow me to identify relevant case courts outside > the USA. I would be most interested if you could share some references. > > Thanks a lot > ======================================================================================= Message: 3 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 13:46:23 -0400 (EDT) From: Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN To: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com> Hi Hugh, I hope this is a helpful discussion. I want everyone to see the wisdom of my perspective :) I did not say that the discussion wa naive because of different life experience, I said t because there were too many statements that apperared to me that lacked an understanding of the RAA and the way all of the players interact. How many of the authors of the emails in this thread have actually read the RAA? The Criminal Law Enforcement statements are generally correct, but can be misleading when applied to specific circumstances. Contract law is pretty much separate from criminal law - it is a separate course from criminal law in most law schools. Registrars often tell complainers to get a court order to shutdown a site because they know it takes a long time to get such an order. It is just a technique to blow off the complainer. Spam is not the only issue here. Spam is generally a gateway in far more nefarious criminal activity. Stopping spam makes it more difficult for criminals to prosper, but that would not stop criminals from trying other means. The fraud statement below is something I would call naive. As I mentioned earlier, the US FBI arrested a bunch of people for mortage fraud the other day (web sites and spam were involved). There were large sums of money stolen, home ownerships were lost, neighborhoods ruined, and so forth. If you step into the world of fake pharmacies, people have died from items purchased from the unlicensed web sites. I think this rises to the level of more than "Negligible at best." The problem that I care about is much bigger than an occasional annoying, unwanted email. However, I am in full agreement with your last statement. ICANN only needs to enforce the RAA and aid lew enforcement under specific circumstances. cheers, bob On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Hugh Dierker wrote: > > Gentle folks, > > This is really a very helpful exchange from different perspectives. (I > would suggest however that because someone has different life > experiences and emphasizes different priorities that we not call them > naive, simply because they are not well versed in our experience) > Criminal Law Enforcement agencies enforce the law. Obviously the law > depends on the jurisdiction. Civil courts, tribunals and agencies > enforce civil and contractual obligations. Obviously the interpretations > of contracts and standards depends on the jurisdiction. Sometimes spam > is criminal, sometimes a breach of a civil obligation, and even > sometimes perfectly legal and appropriately contracted. > Providing false information in exchange for a benefit is almost always > fraud. Fraud is both criminal and a tort in every jurisdiction I am > aware of from Sierra Del Fuego to Inchon to Moscow to Jerusalem to > Johannesburg. > But when this fraud is committed who and how much does it hurt? > Negligible at best to any given victim or plaintiff. Therefor not worth > going after, further than shutting down the cause of injury. What ICANN > can do is to establish standards for establishing higher per se or > "statutory damages". Or in the strictly contractual arena liquidated > damage clauses. This would build in real penalties for abuse and give > incentive to both civil and criminal prosecutors to go after the > bastards. Like a free enterprise system for barristers and solicitors. ? > ICANN should not enforce, other than their contracts. But they should aid enforcement. > > --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> wrote: > > From: Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> > Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN > To: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > Cc: raa-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, "At-Large Worldwide" < at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Thursday, April 9, 2009, 7:25 AM > > Hi, > > I am a bit surprised at the naivete expressed in this discussion. ICANN does > not take down any registrants, that is left to the registrars. ICANN can only > deaccredit a registrar for failing to meet its obligations as spelled in the > RAA. ICANN's role is to simply oversee the RAA and the registrars. > > ICANN has recently made significant improvements to the WDPRS. There is an > improved one-at-a-time complaint part and the addition of a bulk complaint > interface for those who file large numbers of complaints. ICANN is doing better > in general and I believe that they will continue to improve. > > The RAA appears to be just fine as a contract (no, I am not a lawyer, this is > not legal advice) that, in my opinion, would stand up in court. ICANN and the > registrars have lawyers who have looked closely at the RAA. If either believed > it was not enforcable, I am pretty sure someone would have taken action by now. > > We at KnujOn have used the whois data accuracy problem to shut down over a > 100,000 sites. We target commercial, not individuals, sites that we are sure > that are involved in spam and other criminal behavior. We expect to see many > more suspension over time. The complaints we file are looked at by ICANN, then > passed to the appropriate registrar who then looks at it again. The registrant > is notified of the problem and given time to fix it. If is fixed, the site stays > up,if not, it is suspended. There are four levels of checks that provide a > safety net for registrants, legitimate or not. If a registrant is unjustly > suspended, they can be restrored. > > The sites like McColo have been looked at closely, with all sorts of evidence > to show that they were/are criminals. This is not an issue of whois, but rather > one where someone says the site is a bad actor, requiring a well documented, > detail report showing that they are a bad actor. These reports are public, so if > anyone wants to dispute the findings, they can. So far, no one has done so. And > McColo was actually taken down by its ISP. > > One of the problems in the current system is that there are many players, ICANN > (and IANA), registries, registrars, resellers, ISPs, hosting companies and some > players have more than one role. This provides the ability of any one player to > say "It's not me, it's the other guy." The diffusion of > responsiblity means that no one is accountable. They only obvious way to handle > it is to make sure that each player follows the rules within their own space and > to shine a bright light on how they behave. > > Let me lay to rest the issue of bad actor registrars. Most registarsr are not > criminals, some are victims, some are lazy, some do not know what to do and some > do not want to spend money on the problem. Many actually cooperate and do their > bast to run a clean operation. On the other hand there is a small number which > in fact are either criminals or make it easy for the criminals to operate. > > The .com space in the US is with US jurisdiction as is ICANN (also under the > JPA). If you are in Europe, the EU rules apply. If your domain is within a > ccTLD, then that country will determine what happens. I believe the crackdown > the other day in the US by the FTC and the FBI on mortgage scam websites are > just the beginning. > > The takedowns are not indiscriminate. They are done within existing law, rules, > contracts and regulations with documentaton that can be verfied. It has nothing > to do with how much you paid for it. A domain name is not like buying fast food. > It's more like owning a home or a car or setting up a bank account. > > Opinions are fine (I have many), but doing one's homework first on a > complex and important issue is helpful. > > - bob > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >> Neil Schwartzman wrote, On 7/4/09 15:15: >>> Your argument is a strawman, I too do not advocate ICANN's >>> indiscriminate involvement in take-downs because a site collects data >>> in an insecure manner, or due to an erroneous postal code, and I > don't >>> know anyone who advocates for such things. >>> >>> There is a role to be played in some particularly egregious >>> situations, and in fact, all roads lead to Rome. There are, in some >>> cases, no-where else to turn BUT ICANN. >>> >>> What we have seen in the one case of a shut-down last year was >>> particularly unsatisfying, when the assets of Registrar owned by a >>> criminal were sold to his business associate. >>> >>> I'm sure ICANN can do better, and certainly from those whom i met > in >>> Mexico, I got the impression that there is political will to do so. >> >> The main issue I see is that many of the terms in ICANN contracts, and in > this case the RAA terms which refer to whois data, would not stand a court case. >> >> I have some difficulty thinking that a court would rule that a domain name > should be taken down because of invalid whois data, especially if it was paid > for in a legimimate way. The remedy (take down) seems disproportionate to the > sheer value of the registration (less than USD 10 in most cases). After all, you > are not being asked for your address details when ordering at McDonalds, which > is in the same price range as a gTLD domain name. There is the added issue that > the RAA is between the registrar and ICANN. The customer is a third party. > Depending on the local legal context, the customer could validly argue that he > is not bound by the terms of the RAA. >> >> This is yet another example of ICANN drafting rules out of the blue and > not testing their validity in the real world. Some would call it arrogance, but > I would rather like to think this is idealism in its most naive form. >> >> >> >> Patrick Vande Walle ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 4 Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 23:08:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN I have to vehemently disagree with you here. Only on about 2% though. Your knowledge of general principals of law is quite adept. Something I have found only trial lawyers who have danced in both criminal and civil arenas truly grasp is that: All fraud is founded in contract. No tit for tat, no reasonable reliance, no fraud. The fact that I am king of the world is by no means fraud. It is silly. You gave me nothing for that statement and you may not rely upon it. (if you claimed that was legal advice you would likewise fail for generally the same reasons. hihihi) ? Your examples of the horrible losses that ocurr through fraud are very accurate. But measured by occurence they are far less than a percentage. And addressing these issues with those tragedies as a marker?is a Katie bar the door, after the swine did the damage method. We need to stop the massive small in order to prevent the horrendous big. If we prescribe to a butterfly flapping his wings in China effecting Sarkozy's mood in Marseilles theory, even the smallest fraud needs a reckoning. ? Your point about reading, or not, the RAA is correct -- but we should look at it as fact not as a passing judgment thing. It is a "thrust upon us" contract,?with neither options nor negotiations. This allows us to apply adhesion type principals to the beast, which broadens consumer remedies and protection. ? Teeth and 3rd party beneficiary rights are what are most needed here. ? Otherwise we are in complete agreement. Just coming at it a bit differently. ? --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> wrote: From: Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> Subject: Re: [RAA-WG] [At-Large] Open letter to ICANN Hi Hugh, I hope this is a helpful discussion. I want everyone to see the wisdom of my perspective :) I did not say that the discussion wa naive because of different life experience, I said t because there were too many statements that apperared to me that lacked an understanding of the RAA and the way all of the players interact. How many of the authors of the emails in this thread have actually read the RAA? The Criminal Law Enforcement statements are generally correct, but can be misleading when applied to specific circumstances. Contract law is pretty much separate from criminal law - it is a separate course from criminal law in most law schools. Registrars often tell complainers to get a court order to shutdown a site because they know it takes a long time to get such an order. It is just a technique to blow off the complainer. Spam is not the only issue here. Spam is generally a gateway in far more nefarious criminal activity. Stopping spam makes it more difficult for criminals to prosper, but that would not stop criminals from trying other means. The fraud statement below is something I would call naive. As I mentioned earlier, the US FBI arrested a bunch of people for mortage fraud the other day (web sites and spam were involved). There were large sums of money stolen, home ownerships were lost, neighborhoods ruined, and so forth. If you step into the world of fake pharmacies, people have died from items purchased from the unlicensed web sites. I think this rises to the level of more than "Negligible at best." The problem that I care about is much bigger than an occasional annoying, unwanted email. However, I am in full agreement with your last statement. ICANN only needs to enforce the RAA and aid lew enforcement under specific circumstances. cheers, bob On Thu, 9 Apr 2009, Hugh Dierker wrote: > > Gentle folks, > > This is really a very helpful exchange from different perspectives. (I would suggest however that because someone has different life experiences and emphasizes different priorities that we not call them naive, simply because they are not well versed in our experience) > Criminal Law Enforcement agencies enforce the law. Obviously the law depends on the jurisdiction. Civil courts, tribunals and agencies enforce civil and contractual obligations. Obviously the interpretations of contracts and standards depends on the jurisdiction. Sometimes spam is criminal, sometimes a breach of a civil obligation, and even sometimes perfectly legal and appropriately contracted. > Providing false information in exchange for a benefit is almost always fraud. Fraud is both criminal and a tort in every jurisdiction I am aware of from Sierra Del Fuego to Inchon to Moscow to Jerusalem to Johannesburg. > But when this fraud is committed who and how much does it hurt? Negligible at best to any given victim or plaintiff. Therefor not worth going after, further than shutting down the cause of injury. What ICANN can do is to establish standards for establishing higher per se or "statutory damages". Or in the strictly contractual arena liquidated damage clauses. This would build in real penalties for abuse and give incentive to both civil and criminal prosecutors to go after the bastards. Like a free enterprise system for barristers and solicitors. ? > ICANN should not enforce, other than their contracts. But they should aid enforcement. > > --- On Thu, 4/9/09, Vermont Linux <vtlinux(a)coldrain.net> wrote: > > Hi, > I am a bit surprised at the naivete expressed in this discussion. ICANN does > not take down any registrants, that is left to the registrars. ICANN can only > deaccredit a registrar for failing to meet its obligations as spelled in the > RAA. ICANN's role is to simply oversee the RAA and the registrars. > > ICANN has recently made significant improvements to the WDPRS. There is an > improved one-at-a-time complaint part and the addition of a bulk complaint > interface for those who file large numbers of complaints. ICANN is doing better > in general and I believe that they will continue to improve. > > The RAA appears to be just fine as a contract (no, I am not a lawyer, this is > not legal advice) that, in my opinion, would stand up in court. ICANN and the > registrars have lawyers who have looked closely at the RAA. If either believed > it was not enforcable, I am pretty sure someone would have taken action by now. > > We at KnujOn have used the whois data accuracy problem to shut down over a > 100,000 sites. We target commercial, not individuals, sites that we are sure > that are involved in spam and other criminal behavior. We expect to see many > more suspension over time. The complaints we file are looked at by ICANN, then > passed to the appropriate registrar who then looks at it again. The registrant > is notified of the problem and given time to fix it. If is fixed, the site stays > up,if not, it is suspended. There are four levels of checks that provide a > safety net for registrants, legitimate or not. If a registrant is unjustly > suspended, they can be restrored. > > The sites like McColo have been looked at closely, with all sorts of evidence > to show that they were/are criminals. This is not an issue of whois, but rather > one where someone says the site is a bad actor, requiring a well documented, > detail report showing that they are a bad actor. These reports are public, so if > anyone wants to dispute the findings, they can. So far, no one has done so. And > McColo was actually taken down by its ISP. > > One of the problems in the current system is that there are many players, ICANN > (and IANA), registries, registrars, resellers, ISPs, hosting companies and some > players have more than one role. This provides the ability of any one player to > say "It's not me, it's the other guy." The diffusion of > responsiblity means that no one is accountable. They only obvious way to handle > it is to make sure that each player follows the rules within their own space and > to shine a bright light on how they behave. > > Let me lay to rest the issue of bad actor registrars. Most registarsr are not > criminals, some are victims, some are lazy, some do not know what to do and some > do not want to spend money on the problem. Many actually cooperate and do their > bast to run a clean operation. On the other hand there is a small number which > in fact are either criminals or make it easy for the criminals to operate. > > The .com space in the US is with US jurisdiction as is ICANN (also under the > JPA). If you are in Europe, the EU rules apply. If your domain is within a > ccTLD, then that country will determine what happens. I believe the crackdown > the other day in the US by the FTC and the FBI on mortgage scam websites are > just the beginning. > > The takedowns are not indiscriminate. They are done within existing law, rules, > contracts and regulations with documentaton that can be verfied. It has nothing > to do with how much you paid for it. A domain name is not like buying fast food. > It's more like owning a home or a car or setting up a bank account. > > Opinions are fine (I have many), but doing one's homework first on a > complex and important issue is helpful. > > - bob > > On Tue, 7 Apr 2009, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >> Neil Schwartzman wrote, On 7/4/09 15:15: >>> Your argument is a strawman, I too do not advocate ICANN's >>> indiscriminate involvement in take-downs because a site collects data >>> in an insecure manner, or due to an erroneous postal code, and I > don't >>> know anyone who advocates for such things. >>> >>> There is a role to be played in some particularly egregious >>> situations, and in fact, all roads lead to Rome. There are, in some >>> cases, no-where else to turn BUT ICANN. >>> >>> What we have seen in the one case of a shut-down last year was >>> particularly unsatisfying, when the assets of Registrar owned by a >>> criminal were sold to his business associate. >>> >>> I'm sure ICANN can do better, and certainly from those whom i met > in >>> Mexico, I got the impression that there is political will to do so. >> >> The main issue I see is that many of the terms in ICANN contracts, and in > this case the RAA terms which refer to whois data, would not stand a court case. >> >> I have some difficulty thinking that a court would rule that a domain name > should be taken down because of invalid whois data, especially if it was paid > for in a legimimate way. The remedy (take down) seems disproportionate to the > sheer value of the registration (less than USD 10 in most cases). After all, you > are not being asked for your address details when ordering at McDonalds, which > is in the same price range as a gTLD domain name. There is the added issue that > the RAA is between the registrar and ICANN. The customer is a third party. > Depending on the local legal context, the customer could validly argue that he > is not bound by the terms of the RAA. >> >> This is yet another example of ICANN drafting rules out of the blue and > not testing their validity in the real world. Some would call it arrogance, but > I would rather like to think this is idealism in its most naive form. >> >> >> >> Patrick Vande Walle >> Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu >

1 0

[Fwd: [GTLD-WG] Proposed At-Large revised comment on gTLD Application Guidebook V2]
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh April 11, 2009

April 11, 2009

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: [GTLD-WG] Proposed revised comment on Application Guidebook V2 Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 11:39:15 -0400 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> To: gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Hello everyone, Subsequent to the comments made in yesterday's conference call, I have produced wording that I believe conveys the intentions of the changes that were proposed. The revised document is at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s… It *should* be able to compare it directly with the previous version (which is at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_nam…) However when I try to do "compare revisions" (so you could see them side by side), Socialtext crashes. Please comment as soon as possible. The intention is the have this ready to submit to ALAC vote by April 13 which is in two days. - Evan _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann… Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy

1 0

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in the fraud of the Internet and =?x-unknown?Q?laintersecci=F3n = with ICANN
by apisan＠servidor.unam.mx April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in the fraud of the Internet and =?x-unknown?Q?laintersecci=F3n = with ICANN From: apisan(a)servidor.unam.mx Carlton, thousand thanks for your shipment. I believe that there are points that become excellent thanks to your description and they are to debate in community "AT-LARGE" and other communities of ICANN. The discussion between Vittorio Bertola and Derek Smythe shows a species of paradox: On the one hand, for the aims of defense of the consumer, as it can be to avoid and to persecute frauds, one calls to each other: 1. that the data of "WHOIS" are highly precise and comprobables; 2. that ICANN counts on strict mechanisms of monitoring and with possibility of imposing strong penalties to those who (registrars, on everything) does not fulfill them; 3. that ICANN has a fast, independent answer of or jurisdictions in where it had to persecute the crime and to involve a the legal authorities, for the persecution of frauds. On the other hand, in the atmosphere of defense of civil rights, one calls to each other that the "exact WHOIS" is a mechanism that exposes too much to registrantes to diverse violations of its rights. And a third point of view, complementary, considers that it is in opposition to the ICANN mission to create necessary the operative structuresfor cumplimmiento of points 2 and 3 of above. Where it wants to be LACRALO in the coordinates defined by these three points of view? That one is the substantial debate that we would have to be maintaining. Warm greetings, Alexander Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr Alexander Pisanty UNAM, Av. University 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 * My blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com * LinkedIn procases out: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty * Unete to group UNAM in LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/Â106C0C8614 ---->> Unete to ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org It participates in ICANN, http://www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Thu, 9 Apr 2009 carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm wrote: > Date: Thu, 9 Apr 2009 07:52:12 -0700 > From: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > Reply-To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [ lac-discuss-is ] Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in > fraud of the Internet and =?x-unknown?Q?laintersecci=F3n = with ICANN > > > [ [ - - Translated text (in - > is)--]] > > > Subject: Re: Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in the fraud of the Internet and =?x-unknown?Q?laintersecci=F3n = with ICANN > Of: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > > Dear Alexander: > Agradece much by these pensativas interrogations. > > the key question is data of the WHOIS here. The questions inthe discussion are 1) if > ICANN must have of the care to make fulfill a standard of the minimum for that data 2) > if ICANN must have of the care to make fulfill a standard ofquality for that the data > the 3) mechanisms by which ICANN can exercise their duties of the application. > > I am in the file to us! e #1 and # 2. And although I create that > the mechanism for the application will be desafiador to define and to bring in > the operation, the time has come so that this is done. > > In view of ICANN and data of the WHOIS, I carry out the vision that the application begins > with a RAA more robust than indicates the fundamental requirements explicitly > for a valid file of data of the WHOIS with a minimum assembly of elements like a > contractual obligation. I believe that he would be desirableto establish in all > contracts river down that to promote a file of data falsodelWHOIS is a violation > of the contract and the arguments for the abrogation of thatcontract. > > is no doubt that ICANN now does not have nor cochooses > infrastructure to make fulfill and to insist on the integrity of its own contracts. > This weakness really increases the challenges in defining a frame stops > application of the quality of the data of the WHOIS in the context to allow of the data > the! old-fashioned criminal activities have fraud taste. For if th! e data o f the WHOIS of the quality are a > entrance of necessary information to the investigation, the halting and the conviction of criminals, > the question becomes which is to have minimum of the guardians of the data of the WHOIS? > and is forced to attend investigations and criminal processings > and of what ways? > > the conversation of Derek/Vittorio shows a small but important convergence inside > two sequences of the thought - preoccupations of the isolation against the application of law - and really > encapsulates the discussions in En-Grande course and to another one the ICANN parteen > electoral districts around the RAA improvements. > > good Respect, > Carlton Samuels > > In Wed, 8 of April of 2009 in 9:41 P.M., <apisan(a)servidor.unam.mx> it wrote: > > > [ [ - - translated text (is - >)--]] of in > > > subject: Re: Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in the fraud of > Internet and =?x-unknown?Q?laintersecci=F3n = with ICANN > of: apisan@servid! or.unam.mx > > Carlton, > > > why is looked like you interchange of the east interesantepara our list? > we would gain much if you exposed your point of view in the matter > > > for porqué you think east interchange intersting our list? We would gain > much if you extended your point of view in him >> Saludos/Yours, > > Alexander Pisanty > > >. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > Dr Alexander Pisanty > UNAM, Av University. 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 > > * my blog of blog/My: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > * you promarry of LinkedIn towards outside: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > * Unete to group UNAM inLinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/Â106C0C8614<http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/%C3%82106C0C8614> > > ---->> Unete to ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > participates in ICANN, http://www.icann.org &g! t;. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . > >! > in Wed, the 8 of April 2009 carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm wrote: > > date: Wed, The 8 Of April 2009 17:24:48 Of -0700 > Of: > carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > Contestar-A: > lac-discuss-is! > @atlarge-lists.icann.org > a: > lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > subject: Fwd: Derek Smythe and > Vittorio Bertolo in the fraud of the Internet and > laintersección [ x-not known ] > with ICANN > > > [ [ - - text translated (in - > is)--]] > > > subject: > Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in the fraud of the Internet and > laintersección with ICANN > of: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > > here > under very interesting interchange in the security of the Internet and > > opinions of discussants of the paper of ICANN's. In leastmarks for > >interesting reading, in my opinion > > Carlton Samuels > > ========================================================================>> &! gt; 1. Re: ] in ICANN opens to the letter [ En-Grande-Grande (Derek Smythe) > > > > > message: > 1 > date: Tue, The 07 Of April 2009 Of 20:23:13 Of +0200 > Of: Derek Smythe < > derek(a)aa419.org > > tema: Re: ¡[ RAA-WG ] carta abierta! > [ English! > > rande ] to ICANN >: they raa-wg(a)atlarge-lists.ican! > n.org &g > t; cubical centimeter: > Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> > Mensaje-Identificacio'n: < > 49DB9A11.1050303(a)aa419.org > > Contenido-Tipo: text/plain; > charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Vittorio, I differentiate and I am suitable > to understand what > is happening > here depends on the depth to understand > > was troubled, this answer is longer, than muchadvance much more of the length > > tact in some deeper realities known with which > often works > these same editings. > > Vittorio Bertola did not write: > scrittode Derek Smythe has: > > > hello >... >! I think that you are incurring a fundamental error > here ! - you wi shfrauding under > site of the Webtomado by ICANN because > has > incorrect information of the WHOIS what you must wish you you are something that > a site of the Web frauding is closing of tomadoabajo > police of your country because > breaks the laws of its country > > poli! > backs water of what country that > > is? Where? This site of the Web has been > inside! > > > dicated to the authorities more of once > > > would be! >very, sees > relays, very in the editing if the ICANN personnel comenzóposiblemente the taking > > the decisions ignited if a site ofthe Web is "criminal" or no, as soon as a fast look in its Home Page closes > having > or due to the combined assumptions > since then > those did in the complaint, as "frunces of the personal site > > information on uncertain form. The legitimate businesses do not gatherthis > > type of information without the precautions of the security ". ! > > if you > received an email phishing, you would make an assumption around > he if he > solicitd that you opened yourself in a session in your stranger of enuna of the certain account > > location? > > in one of the given examples - seguro-wayonline, is > the assumptions > did not require. The information is not based fast en"vistazos". > > > the official legal organizations publishes more than enough data to > to paraverificar > that this site of the Web is not legitimate. Such resources can be > used to > verifies that company is abusing the record number of another truth >. To > the third civil employee! > > one indicates thatthe other company of the site of the Web is robadoa > registry and abuses > he in its sites, aiming the auctions of the department of thejewelry shop > > than more enough > the information of the proven fraud and the fraud is available > in line > > > Pida a ! battery or a jet of the similar financial services or still of! a > financier > regulating what would happen if he suddenly began to do > > depositingor similar without at least using certain security protocols >! > to please > partly https. > > Convengo - no, > is not task of ICANN's of > taking scam down site from the Web, but according to where > as an older person demonstrates formed > consultative ICANN the 3 of April of 2003 is available, to > this that corrects soon for the action. That responsibility > lies with > secretary. ICANN must assure this becomes > covered under security yes and > stability with the Internet, interior of alsotrusts > the Internet > > until > the mentioned dominions of Godaddy, the true proprietor of the address > >denies any knowledge of registrant. I! > > CANN also was done discovered > this. Other dominions by sa! > still I > existencon registrant to > fictitious addresses; example NATWSECMAIL.INFO. > > > > how you! would judge http://ubsflorida.homelandssecurities.com?> > the answer would be to judge it via the WHOIS and circumstances.In> this > the case this is the history that relaunches by n-th time; > > http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=BHFINDONESIA.COM >.. >to > use the processor of Graphcard.com of the payment in the WHOIS tothe place to > dominion > with 007names.com, in spite of Graphcard that nosido value > the responsibility and > 007Names becomes that > discovered this one > http://forum.aa419.org/viewtopic.php?t=29427 > >there am llamadopor yet personally algunosmeses Joyce telephone > in 007names moves haciaatrás to whom > did not pay to attention > my email where I explained what happened. It then asked for > he shipment> another email. The result is there so that everything considers. We have > > spoofs without the head of the battery that executes conel around placed > proprietor of! the address > not to validate respon! > sabilidad. Unapa! ! > &gt ; ginación ten could probably write > "summary"in this - but I will save to > he;) > > was troubled process by the examples, but the bottom is that > > the judgments is not made slightly. There are many tests that > must to a dominion > fallen before > in fact can fraudulent be declared > many dominions are > watched per months before revealing his > true nature. In order to understand > the situation extremely makes the situation > worthy of confidence > > Deseo to give > kdbuk.com pleasant that was formore cautious that nine > the months. If > outside a better man would have been rich. Without always > showing > contents of the Web, could say to him which were. I observe > the references > NATWSECMAIL.INFO for the email. It is a small world, but once > > again except a summary tohim of ten paginations:) > > nevertheless, > the bottom is these details of the WHOIS of the use of falsi! > fica! cióndel of > the dominions, or > the mechanisms of aisl! > amiento > of the abuse the last example has taste of >. This is covered inside! > > > > RAA. > > > also would be very in the editing if ICANN began! > to inval > dominion to idar of ofthe of the names > being considered that "the postal code introduced > is incorrect". > > according to the explained thing, the postal code is > the smallest part of him. > must > has been verified before November of of 2008 if the system worked. But > raises a red indicator - porqué was not > > investigated? In leastwe > nevertheless must to an answerto the victims passed of this scam. > > > >, I concur with the letter that the WDPRS is to > useless service > that appears to be revealed more like symbolic effort > that stops truth > I think that it must assoon as cáigase - if > of people to that is suspicious the site of the Web of esun > mak! ing fraud, must call to the police, > noncIcann. If > is! the nec essity of the international cooperation, > the cleaningof the vario must as soon as do > its work and obtains ordered to > cooperates the effectiveness of ycon quickly. If > is the countries that make > not cooperate, this one is more ahead definitive > materiapara > > national diplomacies to th! > > class of and towards outside - the E.E.U.U. could impose > their flavor of > the regulationof the intellectual characteristic to the entire world > > with trips and bilateral agreements, do not say to me that enough it noes > > hard to obtain the cooperation in cybercrime. > > the sad fact > is the world has not trained to enough at the clean moment > the resources to > clock each dominion that tries to scam > to utilizadoresdel Internet > the jurisdiction is also a problem. The anonymous powers etc > do not help. Such > the legitimate users of theInternet of theresources provide to > protect his > the! isolation is equal the use of the Internet of ofthe of the criminals. The right > now > final the in advance paid cards of debit/gift American is being sold inside > of Africa (in a > the country nobody wishes to deal with) with > address falseAmerican > and used extensivament! > to eponer dominions > > I am > not saying that the application of the law does not do the best one, of the fact > > > opposed! Dice seriously registr of the Info! > > > and, is making the brightness > when udner you would circunstanciasen spi! > you of the IC > ANA and the secretaries. We found > the doors that pulse with the foot > down in hoursof early theaverage way in the morning > around the world > to the victims. A small example: The Netherlands, laRumania > the etc, but > this one isonly the extremity of iceberg > > some countries tries sadly and > improves its image without the resolution > editings true those t! he rest of > the world affects. This one is areality we &gt! ; must v alidate and construct in > > nevertheless >, the rule of gold of the fraud of the perspective of ofa of the Internet of > the victim: > when the money is lost, is lost by always > > personally I > believes that moremoney is robbed with fraud in > Internet, of which done it surrounds >secretaries and ICANN. Nobody knows to the truth > the fragment deél and from costs > > > > ICANN, in any case, must take! > the care endelInternet of the fraud > and to be more > cooperative more - but referring these (very valid and > important) > complaints for the appropriate agencies of applicationof > > law depending on &g! > > t; the countries possibly implied. The information could act comocámara of compensation of > that one > could be very useful > > agreed. Equal for > secretaries. Something could finally be massive surprise of the inner forums > although > > > > - in "the general opinion o! f the user of the InternetofICANN": > > > "the general opinion of the user of the Internet of not-existing ICANN"is > - the users > do not know that > exists ICANN > > people who know in ICANN and try and use the systems. Hágale > thinks that > Brenda that indicated safe-wayonline.com originally willgive > ICANN > > another occasion? Of her perspective she lost her time > > if you > refer to the "active users" and the groups of the user, nevertheless, the opinion > > is then much different according to the piece from the world. For example, > > in Europe ICANN perceives generally like additional instrument > > the controls in the Internet,for example clear of the United States of > > > Internet the isolation that ISG! > > > uaranteed to the ciudadanoseuropeos by his > the leyesnacionales! > and he > isnot upset please in this - the defense is not >, correct to the cause that > drift of! cultural differences > > Ciao, > > nevertheless, ! if > the WDPRS information were taken to seriouslyby "all the" secretaries and > > processed by them, much of these editings conserve serevitados. > > also the requests > the question; porqué if any specific secretary is satisfied > with the RAA > > and examines otrossecretarios the WHOIS of ofthe of the deceit if > no? > > respect > > > Derek > _______________________________________________> > > > > [ [ - > - original text (inside) > > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/a97d392b69.html > --]] > > > > >> > > > [ [ - - original text (it is) > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/9c186bea47.html > --]] > > > > >_______________________________________________ > list that sends lacquer-discuss-lac-discuss-in > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… > > ___! ____________________________________________ > > > > > [ [ - - Original text (in) > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/07181690å.html > --]] > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/9f236ad384.html --]]

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] =?iso-8859-1?q?Derek_Smythe_y_Vittorio_Bertolo_e = =?iso-8859-1?q?n_fraude_del_Internet_y_laintersecci=F3n_con_ICANN =
by asoto＠ibero-americano.org April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: =?iso-8859-1?q?Derek_Smythe_y_Vittorio_Bertolo_e = =?iso-8859-1?q?n_fraude_del_Internet_y_laintersecci=F3n_con_ICANN = From: asoto(a)ibero-americano.org Considered and flaming President Andrés Piazza: in order to beable to fulfill good intentions, it is necessary before to count on some things. For example: I have knowledge on security of the information, and in individual on Internet, but I cannot participate, due to the very bad one automatic translation that receipt of any mail originated in English. If well my English is bad, could register to me in the list in English, but it he would weaken the objective of the translation. You would have some solution for the subject of the translations, nonsingle for this subject, but for all the subjects? Thank you very much. Warm greetings. Dr Alberto Grove Director IIISI www.ibero-americano.org Original Message From: <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm> To: <lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 9:24 P.m. Subject: Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in fraud of the Internet and laintersección with ICANN > > [ [ - - Translated text (in - > is)--]] > > > Subject: Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in fraud of the Internet and > laintersección with ICANN > Of: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > > Here under very interesting interchange in security of the Internet and > opinions of discussants of the paper of ICANN's. He at leastmarks > stops > interesting reading, in my opinion. > > Carlton Samuels > ======================================================================== > > 1. Re: open letter [ En-Grande ] to ICANN (Derek Smythe) > > > > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, The 07 Of April 2009 20:23:13 Of +0200 > Of: Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org> > Subject: Re: [ RAA-WG ] open letter [ En-Grande ] to ICANN >: raa-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > cubical Centimeter: Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> > Mensaje-Identificacio'n: <49DB9A11.1050303(a)aa419.org> > Contenido-Tipo: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Vittorio, I differ and I agree. Understanding what is happenin! g here > depends on the depth to understand. > > Grieved, this answer is longer, than much advance much > more of length. > tact in some not known deeper realities to with which > often works > these same editings. > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > scritto of Derek Smythe has: > > hi >... > I think that you are incurring a fundamental mistake > here - you wish frauding down > Web site taken by ICANN because she has > incorrect information of the WHOIS > what you must wish you are something that > Web site frauding is tomadoabajo close > police of its country because it violates > the laws of its country. > > the police of what country that would be? Where? This Web site has been > indicated to the authorities more of once. > > > would be very, very, very at issue if the ICANN personnel began to take > > > > decisions ignited if a Web site is "criminal" or no, possibly > > > just close > having a fast glance in its Home Page o! r due to > > > the combined assumptions > since thos! e did in the complaint, as > > > "frunces of the site personal > information on uncertainform. > > > legitimate businesses does not collect this > type of information without > > > precautions of the security ". > > If you received an email phishing, you would make an assumption around > he if he requested that you opened to a session to your certain account enuna > strange location? > > In one of the given examples - seguro-wayonline, are no assumptions > required. The information are not based on "fast glances". > > the official legal organizations publish more than enough data > to paraverificar > that this Web site is not legitimate. Such resources can be used a > verifies that it is abusing the record number of another company > true. A > the third civil employee one indicates that other Web site company is robadoa > registry and abuses he in its sites, aiming auctions of the jewelry shop. > > More than enough information of the tried fraud and the! fraud is > available > in line. > > Pida a battery or a supplier of financial services similar or still > a financier > regulating what would happen if he suddenly began to do > depositing or similar without at least using a certain security > protocols pleasure > https. > > Convengo partly - no, it is not task of ICANN's of taking scam down > Web site, but where it demonstrates according to consultative of old fashioned ICANN the 3 of > April of 2003 > is available, a this editing for the action soon. That > responsibility > lies with the secretary. ICANN must assure this becomes yes > covered under security and stability with the Internet, also trusts > inside > the Internet. > > As far as the mentioned dominions of Godaddy, the true proprietor > of the address > denies any knowledge of registrant. ICANN also was done > found out > this. Other dominions by the same still registrant existencon a > fictitious addresses; example NATWSECMAIL.INFO. > > How you would j! udge http://ubsflorida.homelandssecurities.com? > the answer w! ould be to judge it via the WHOIS and the circumstances.In > this case this is history that relaunches by n-th time; > http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=BHFINDONESIA.COM >.. > to use the Graphcard.com processor of the payment in the WHOIS to place > dominion > with 007names.com, in spite of Graphcard that not been worth responsibility and > 007Names that is done found out this. > http://forum.aa419.org/viewtopic.php?t=29427 > > I have telephoned Joyce in 007names Yet personally algunosmeses back > who > did not pay attention to my email where I explained what happened. She then > requested > Him shipment another email. The result is there so that everything considers. > Tenemos > spoofs without head of the battery that executes conel around > registered proprietor of the address > not to validate responsibility. Unapaginación could probably write > ten > "summary" in this - but I will save to him;) > > Grieved by the processed examples, but the bottom is that > the! judgments are not made slightly. There are many tests that must > dominion > fall before it can fraudulent be declared. > > In fact many dominions are watched per months before revealing his > true nature. To understand the situation makes the situation > extremely > trustworthy. > > Deseo to give the welcome kdbuk.com that it was watched formore than nine > months. If outside a better man would have been rich. Without always > showing the content of the Web, could say to him which were. I observe it > references NATWSECMAIL.INFO for the email. It is a small world, but one > time > I will again save a summary to him of ten paginations:) > > Nevertheless, the bottom is these details of the WHOIS of falsificacióndel > use of the dominions, or > the mechanisms of the isolation of the abuse have taste of the example > happened. This is covered in > RAA. > > > also would be very at issue if ICANN began to invalidar names of > > > dominion > considering that! "the introduced postal codeis > > > incorrect ". > > A! ccording to the explained thing, the postal code is the smallest part of him. It must > has been verified before November of of 2008 if the system worked. > But > raises a red indicator - why was not investigated? At least > we > must an answer to the last victims of this scam. > > > nevertheless, I concur with the letter that the WDPRS is a useless service > > > > that appears to be unfolded more like symbolic effort than stops > > > true > I think that it must as soon as be fallen - if suspicious of > > > people who esun Web site > making fraud, must call to the police, no > > > ICANN. If the necessity of the international cooperation, the vario is > > > > clean must as soon as to do > its work and obtains ordered to cooperate > > > quickly ycon effectiveness. If > are the countries thatthey do not cooperate, later > > > this one is definitively to > matter for national diplomacies a > > > the cla! ss towards outside - the E.E.U.U. could impose >their flavor of > > > regulation of the intellectual characteristic to the entire world > with > > > bilateral trips and agreements, does not say to me thathe is not > enough strong > > > to obtain the cooperation in cybercrime. > > the sad fact is the world has not trained enough at the moment > cleans the resources to watch each dominion that tries to scam > users of the Internet. The jurisdiction is also a problem. Powers > anonymous etc > does not help. Such legitimate users of the Internet of theresources > provides a > protects its isolation are same the use of the criminals ofthe Internet. > the right > now the in advance paid cards of the American debit/gift > is selling in Africa (in a > the country nobody wishes to deal with) finishes with American address > false > and used extensively to place dominions. > > I am not saying that application of law does not do the best one, of the ! fact > opposed! Given badly the Info registry, they are making! shining > to udner the circumstances in spite of ICANN and the secretaries. We found > doors that are struck with the foot down on the early hoursof > average way in the morning > around the world to the victims. A small example: The Netherlands, > Rumania > the etc, but this one is only the extremity of iceberg. > > Some countries sadly try and improve their image without the resolution > true editings that the rest of the world affects. This is areality > we > must validate and construct on. > > Nevertheless, the gold rule of the fraud of the Internet ofa perspective of > the victim: > When the money is lost, is lost by always. > > Personally I believe that more money is robbed with fraud in > Internet, that done by secretaries and ICANN. Nobody knows the truth > fragment of him and costs. > > > ICANN, in any case, must take care of more on fraud delInternet and > > > to be more > cooperative - but referring these (possibly very valid > > > and importan! t) > complaints to the appropriate agenciesof the application of > > > law depending on > the countries implied. It could act like camera > > > of compensation of the information that one > could be very useful. > > Agreed. Equal for the secretaries. Some could be inside > for a massive surprise > although. > > > finally - on "the general opinion of the user of the Internet of > > > ICANN ": > > "the general opinion of the user of the Internet of ICANN" > > > is not-existing - the users > does not know that ICANN exists. > > the people who know on ICANN and try and use the systems. Hágale > thinks that Brenda that indicated safe-wayonline.com originally will give > ICANN another occasion? Of her perspective she lost her time > > if > you refer to "active users" and groups of user, without > embargo, the opinion > is then much different according to the part from > world. For example, > in Europe ICANN is pe! rceived generally like > additional instrument to > the Un! ited Sta tes controls on the Internet, by > example clearing of > Internet the isolation that is guaranteed to > ciudadanoseuropeos by his > national laws. And it is not upset by > favor on this - defense is not >, is right a cause that derives from > cultural differences > > Ciao, > > Nevertheless, if the WDPRS information were taken seriouslyby "all > the "secretaries and > processed by them, many of these editings can serevitados. > > Also requests the question; porqué if any secretary is satisfied > specific > with the RAA and examines otrossecretarios the deception ofthe WHOIS if > no? > > Respect > > Derek > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [ [ - - Original text (in) > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/a97d392b69.html > --]] > > > > _______________________________________________ [[--Original text (es) http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/28f58fbab7.html --]]

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in fraud of the Internet and =?x-unknown?Q?laintersecci=F3n = with ICANN
by apisan＠servidor.unam.mx April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

[[--Translated text (es -> en)--]] Subject: Re: Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in fraud of the Internet and =?x-unknown?Q?laintersecci=F3n = with ICANN From: apisan(a)servidor.unam.mx Carlton, why it seems to you interesting east interchange for our list? We would gain much if you exposed your point of view on the matter. For Why do you think this exchange is intersting our list? We would gain much if you expanded your point of view on it. Saludos/Yours, Alexander Pisanty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dr Alexander Pisanty UNAM, Av. University 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico Tels. +52-(1)-55-5105-6044, +52-(1)-55-5418-3732 * My blog/My blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com * LinkedIn procases out: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty * Unete to group UNAM in LinkedIn, http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/Â106C0C8614 ---->> Unete to ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org It participates in ICANN, http://www.icann.org . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . On Wed, 8 Apr 2009 carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm wrote: > Date: Wed, 8 Apr 2009 17:24:48 -0700 > From: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > Reply-To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > To: lac-discuss-es(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in fraud of the Internet and > [ x-unknown ] laintersección with ICANN > > > [ [ - - Translated text (in - > is)--]] > > > Subject: Fwd: Derek Smythe and Vittorio Bertolo in fraud of the Internet and laintersección with ICANN > Of: carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm > > Here under very interesting interchange in security of the Internet and > opinions of discussants of the paper of ICANN's. It at leastmarks stops > interesting reading, in my opinion. > > Carlton Samuels > ======================================================================== > > 1. Re: open letter [ En-Grande ] to ICANN (Derek Smythe) > > > > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, The 07 Of April 2009 20:23:13 Of +0200 > Of: Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org> > Subject: Re: [ RAA-WG ] open letter [ En-G! rande ] to ICANN >: raa-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > cubical Centimeter: Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> > Mensaje-Identificacio'n: <49DB9A11.1050303(a)aa419.org> > Contenido-Tipo: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > Vittorio, I differ and I agree. Understanding what is happening here > depends on the depth to understand. > > Grieved, this answer is longer, than much advance much more of length. > tact in some not known deeper realities to with which it often works > these same editings. > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > scritto of Derek Smythe has: > > hi >... > I think that you are incurring a fundamental mistake here - you wish frauding down > Web site taken by ICANN because > has incorrect information of the WHOIS what you must wish you are something that a Web site frauding is tomadoabajo close > police of its country because it breaks the laws of his country. > > the police of what country that would be? Where? This Web site has been > in! dicated to the authorities more of once. > > > would be ! very, ve ry, very at issue if the ICANN personnel began to possibly take > decisions ignited if a Web site is "criminal" or no, just close > having a fast glance in its Home Page or due to the combined assumptions > since those did in the complaint, as "frunces of the site personal > information on uncertain form. The legitimate businesses do not collect this > type of information without precautions of the security ". > > If you received an email phishing, you would make an assumption around > he if it requested that you opened to a session to your account enuna certain strange location? > > In one of the given examples - seguro-wayonline, are no assumptions > required. The information are not based on "fast glances". > > the official legal organizations publish more than enough data to paraverificar > that this Web site is not legitimate. Such resources can be used a > verifies that it is abusing the record number of another true company. A > the third civil employee! one indicates that other Web site company is robadoa > registry and abuses he in its sites, aiming auctions of the jewelry shop. > > More than enough information of the tried fraud and the fraud is available > in line. > > Pida a battery or a supplier of financial services similar or still a financier > regulating what would happen if he suddenly began to do > depositing or similar without at least using a certain security protocols pleasure > https. > > Convengo partly - no, it is not task of ICANN's of taking scam down > Web site, but where it demonstrates according to consultative of old fashioned ICANN the 3 of April of 2003 > is available, a this editing for the action soon. That responsibility > lies with the secretary. ICANN must assure this becomes yes > covered under security and stability with the Internet, alsotrusts inside > the Internet. > > As far as the mentioned dominions of Godaddy, the true proprietor of the address > denies any knowledge of registrant. I! CANN also was done found out > this. Other dominions by the sa! me still registrant existencon a > fictitious addresses; example NATWSECMAIL.INFO. > > How you would judge http://ubsflorida.homelandssecurities.com? > the answer would be to judge it via the WHOIS and the circumstances.In > this case this is history that relaunches by n-th time; > http://db.aa419.org/fakebankslist.php?psearch=BHFINDONESIA.COM >.. > to use the Graphcard.com processor of the payment in the WHOIS to place a dominion > with 007names.com, in spite of Graphcard that not been worth responsibility and > 007Names that is done found out this. > http://forum.aa419.org/viewtopic.php?t=29427 > > I have telephoned Joyce in 007names Yet personally algunosmeses back who > did not pay attention to my email where I explained what happened. She then requested > Him shipment another email. The result is there so that everything considers. We have > spoofs without head of the battery that executes conel around registered proprietor of the address > not to validate responsibility. Unapa! ginación ten could probably write > "summary" in this - but I will save to him;) > > Grieved by the processed examples, but the bottom is that > the judgments are not made slightly. There are many tests that a dominion must > fall before it can fraudulent be declared. > > In fact many dominions are watched per months before revealing his > true nature. To understand the situation makes the situation extremely > trustworthy. > > Deseo to give the welcome kdbuk.com that it was watched formore than nine > months. If outside a better man would have been rich. Without always > showing the content of the Web, could say to him which were. I observe it > references NATWSECMAIL.INFO for the email. It is a small world, but once > I will again save a summary to him of ten paginations:) > > Nevertheless, the bottom is these details of the WHOIS of falsificacióndel use of the dominions, or > the mechanisms of the isolation of the abuse have taste of the last example. This is covered in ! > RAA. > > > also would be very at issue if ICANN began ! to inval idar names ofthe dominion > considering that "the introduced postal code is incorrect". > > According to the explained thing, the postal code is the smallest part of him. It must > has been verified before November of of 2008 if the system worked. But > raises a red indicator - why was not investigated? At leastwe > must an answer to the last victims of this scam. > > > nevertheless, I concur with the letter that the WDPRS is a useless service > that appears to be unfolded more like symbolic effort than for true > I think that it must as soon as be fallen - if suspicious of the people who esun Web site > making fraud, must call to the police, noncIcann. If the necessity of the international cooperation is >, the vario cleaning must as soon as to do > its work and obtains ordered to cooperate ycon quickly effectiveness. If > are the countries that they do not cooperate, later this one is definitively to > matter for the national diplomacies to th! e class towards outside - the E.E.U.U. could impose > their flavor of the regulation of the intellectual characteristic to the entire world > with trips and bilateral agreements, do not say to me that he is not >enough strong to obtain the cooperation in cybercrime. > > the sad fact is the world has not trained enough at the moment > cleans the resources to watch each dominion that tries to scam > users of the Internet. The jurisdiction is also a problem. Anonymous powers etc > does not help. Such legitimate users of the Internet of theresources provide a > protects its isolation are same the use of the criminals ofthe Internet. The right > now the in advance paid cards of the American debit/gift are being sold in Africa (in a > the country nobody wishes to deal with) finishes with falseAmerican address > and used extensively to place dominions. > > I am not saying that application of law does not do the best one, of the fact > opposed! Given badly the Info registr! y, they are making shining > to udner the circumstances in spi! te of IC ANN and the secretaries. We found > doors that are struck with the foot down on the early hoursof the average way in the morning > around the world to the victims. A small example: The Netherlands, Rumania > the etc, but this one is only the extremity of iceberg. > > Some countries sadly try and improve their image without the resolution > true editings that the rest of the world affects. This is areality we > must validate and construct on. > > Nevertheless, the gold rule of the fraud of the Internet ofa perspective of the victim: > When the money is lost, is lost by always. > > Personally I believe that more money is robbed with fraud in > Internet, that done by secretaries and ICANN. Nobody knows the truth > fragment of him and costs. > > > ICANN, in any case, must take care of more on fraud delInternet and to be more > cooperative - but referring these (very valid and important) > complaints to the appropriate agencies of the applicationof law depending on &g! t; the countries possibly implied. It could act as clearing house of the information that one > could be very useful. > > Agreed. Equal for the secretaries. Some could be inside fora massive surprise > although. > > > finally - on "the general opinion of the user of the Internet ofICANN": > > "the general opinion of the user of the Internet of ICANN"is not-existing - the users > does not know that ICANN exists. > > the people who know on ICANN and try and use the systems. Hágale > thinks that Brenda that indicated safe-wayonline.com originally will give > ICANN another occasion? Of her perspective she lost her time > > if you refer to "active users" and groups of user, nevertheless, the opinion > is then much different according to the part from the world. For example, > in Europe ICANN is perceived generally as additional instrument to > the United States controls on the Internet, for example clearing of > Internet the isolation that isg! uaranteed to the ciudadanoseuropeos by his > national laws.! And it isnot upset please on this - defense is not >, is right a cause that derives from cultural differences > > Ciao, > > Nevertheless, if the WDPRS information were taken seriouslyby "all the" secretaries and > processed by them, many of these editings can serevitados. > > Also requests the question; porqué if any specific secretary is satisfied > with the RAA and examines otrossecretarios the deception ofthe WHOIS if > no? > > Respect > > Derek > _______________________________________________ > > > > > [ [ - - Original text (in) > http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/a97d392b69.html > --]] > > > > [[--Original text (es) http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/9c186bea47.html --]]

2 1