July 2010 - lac-discuss-en - lists.icann.org

WHOIS-WG
by Carlos Vera July 26, 2010

July 26, 2010

Is there some rule for the who is info appear as image and not as editable format? Thank you Carlos Vera

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: WHOIS Issues - Tit and Tat
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010

1 0

Fwd: WHOIS Issues - Tit and Tat
by Carlton Samuels July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010

FYI. Message: 1 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 18:01:48 +0200 From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues Hi Garth, > Volker, this is your quote: "still thinking if suing them is the best > way or not" (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html) > You don't like what we have to say, so you want to sue us to stop it. > > Where did I twist? This is an act of intimidation, that follows a > pattern of Registrars trying to intimidate us. We would not sue you to shut you up or stop you from doing your reports, but we may still sue for libellous interference, i.e. spreading untrue and harmful accusations. Even the accusation of potential breach can seriously impact our ability to do business and is damaging to our reputation. After you now know where our whois service is located, a fact which you could have easily found out on your own (and probably did), it is time to correct the report if you want to continue to claim is is accurate in its entirety. > Also reads: "The following 55 Registrars did not respond to our inquiry > about their Port 43 WHOIS" > > Do you dispute this fact? No, but I do not see where there is an obligation to do so. I do wish to point out that we usually do resond even to the most outlandish requests and normally your mail should have received an answer. The fact remains however, that you could have found out the information, if you tried. > Also reads: "Key-Systems GmbH (key-systems.net) ? Reporter commented > that fee policies were not clear" > > We asked a consumer to review your site and this was their response. A bit more detail would be helpful. What about our price list (http://dd24.net/?js=1&page=domains_pricing) is unclear? I admit, due to the large amounts of TLDs on offer, it is a bit long and unwieldy, which may confuse someone who usually only deals with gTLD specialized registrars, but it contains all prices on one easy to use page. I do not know how much clearer we could display our prices. > <<a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net>> > > Wrong. We never failed to find it, you failed to answer a question about > it. All of the comments that follow that are speculation on your part. > We asked what the address was, you never responded. We sent you the > actual email and you won't concede you failed to answer. That's all > sloppiness on your side, not mine. We already knew where your port 43 is > and we told you this, that's not the issue. The issue is that you > wouldn't answer a question about it. Now you are a being dishonest about > a previous conversation. You claim possible breach of the RAA, so the failure to respond to your mail cannot be the issue. The issue in that case can only be the failure to provide the service we are bound to provide. And that simply is not the case. Normally, you should and would have received an answer to your mail. But our failure to respond is not an indication of potential breach. > It's not openly available if it is (1) not posted publicly on your > website and (2) you fail to answer a question about it. You are > expecting someone to hunt and peck for your port 43 location, which they Hunt and peck? A single query of key-systems.net would suffice. No need to seek out any other domain name. Maybe our view of openly available is different, but I see that as very open and very available. Please note that to be able use port 43 whois, you know what you are doing with it and therefore will have a basic idea on how to use it. > would only find if they had one of your illicit pharmacy sites to query > like smartsshealth[dot]com or healthinsurancecapsule[DOT]net which > "looks" suspended by Key-Systems but actually redirects to > bestpillsroom[dot]com, or mybuymeds[DOT]com, or paypill[DOT]net, or any > of the other sites backed by organzied crime you sponsor that we told > you about previously. Regarding the domain names listed: None of them are "our sites". Three were registered through three different resellers, one directly through our customer portal using stolen data. One (of five) was never registered through our service. Three that showed illegal content are now deactivated. But please use our abuse address in the future. > I'll make a deal with you Volker. I'll issue a bleeding apology on this > thread if you take a pledge not to sponsor any more GlavMed pharmacy > domains. While GlavMed and illegal pharmacies were not part of the official report, you are running into open doors here. We have no interest in sponsoring illegally used domain names and will shut them down whenever we find them. It is however impossible for us to check the use of each domain name registered through our service. More sadly, the registrations arrive from various sources, and do not announce themselves to be what they are upon registration. But I do pledge I will deactivate any domain name used for illegal (in Germany) purposes as soon as possible whenever I receive notice. Waiting for the apology, and I would appreciate your issueing it not only here, but everywhere where you espoused your report and thereby accused us of potential breach. > <<If you find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.>> > > Sure, don't bury the information five-levels deep on your website. Far from me trying to mince words, but neither is the information buried, no is it 5 levels deep. If you look at dd24.net, our retail portal, and click on domains, there will be an entry marked "prices". Click it and you find the prices. It is on the third level, in a logical place. If you want to know the prices for domain names, that is where any sensible person would look. If you try to register a domain name, you will also get the specific annual price of that name, presented clear and obvious. As we offer a wide range of TLDs, the long list of prices may seem confusing to some, but it is the best way to structure the prices so they can be accessed most easily. And you still did not answer the question of what was found to be confusing. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Best regards, Volker A. Greimann >> - legal department - >> >> Key-Systems GmbH >> Im Oberen Werk 1 >> 66386 St. Ingbert >> Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >> Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >> Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net >> >> Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >> www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com >> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:14:52 -0700 From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] List moderation ------------------------------------------- Folks, I noticed my recent response to Volker was blocked, but his emails still come through on the list. As far as I can tell Volker is neither in North America nor is he part of At-Large. -Garth ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 07:36:36 -0700 From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> To: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> Cc: michele(a)blacknight.ie, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, Michele(a)mail.key-systems.net Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues Dear Volker, Dear Evan, Thank you Volker, who brought this to my attention. I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on some issues as Volker tends to twist and misinterpret words intentionally looking for a argument where there is none. <<A wonderful example of the word-twisting and reading a statement out of context, Garth.>> Volker, this is your quote: "still thinking if suing them is the best way or not" (http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html) You don't like what we have to say, so you want to sue us to stop it. Where did I twist? This is an act of intimidation, that follows a pattern of Registrars trying to intimidate us. <<We take any accusation of breach of contract seriously, as such accusations may amount to libellous[sic] interference.>> Volker, the document reads: "Registrars in Potential Breach with Relevant RAA Section" -POTENTIAL- Also reads: "The following 55 Registrars did not respond to our inquiry about their Port 43 WHOIS" Do you dispute this fact? Also reads: "Key-Systems GmbH (key-systems.net) ? Reporter commented that fee policies were not clear" We asked a consumer to review your site and this was their response. <<a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net>> Wrong. We never failed to find it, you failed to answer a question about it. All of the comments that follow that are speculation on your part. We asked what the address was, you never responded. We sent you the actual email and you won't concede you failed to answer. That's all sloppiness on your side, not mine. We already knew where your port 43 is and we told you this, that's not the issue. The issue is that you wouldn't answer a question about it. Now you are a being dishonest about a previous conversation. <<Should we then be required to answer each and every mail requesting information that is already openly available?>> Well, yes. That's what a responsible company would do. It's not openly available if it is (1) not posted publicly on your website and (2) you fail to answer a question about it. You are expecting someone to hunt and peck for your port 43 location, which they would only find if they had one of your illicit pharmacy sites to query like smartsshealth[dot]com or healthinsurancecapsule[DOT]net which "looks" suspended by Key-Systems but actually redirects to bestpillsroom[dot]com, or mybuymeds[DOT]com, or paypill[DOT]net, or any of the other sites backed by organzied crime you sponsor that we told you about previously. I'll make a deal with you Volker. I'll issue a bleeding apology on this thread if you take a pledge not to sponsor any more GlavMed pharmacy domains. <<If you find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve.>> Sure, don't bury the information five-levels deep on your website. -Garth > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: Fwd: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues > From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> > Date: Fri, July 23, 2010 6:53 am > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, gbruen(a)knujon.com, > evan(a)telly.org > Cc: Michele(a)mail.key-systems.net, > "Neylon:"@mail.key-systems.net:Blacknight <michele(a)blacknight.ie> > > > Dear Garth, dear Evan, > > thank you Michele, who brought this to my attention. > > I would like to take the opportunity to set the record straight on some > issues as Garth tends to twist and misinterpret words intentionally > looking for a breach where there is none. > > > -Unresponsive Registrars > > > > > > As noted above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their > > > Port 43 address. Some have supplied it after we published our report, > > > but others remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue us > > > to get us to stop asking: > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html > A wonderful example of the word-twisting and reading a statement out of > context, Garth. Key-Systems has never hidden its port 43 whois address. > In fact, it is listed in _every_ whois query of any one of our domains: > > Domain Name: KEY-SYSTEMS.NET > Registrar: KEY-SYSTEMS GMBH > Whois Server: whois.rrpproxy.net > > Yet Key-Systems is listed as registrar who may be in breach do to > possible failure to provide access to a port 43 whois server. We called > you on that and showed you that we do provide this service and also make > no effort to hide that service. Instead of admitting your error and > removing the false listing of Key-Systems from your report when I > pointed this out and requested you update your "report", you insisted > the report was still correct in all of its claims, even though you were > proven wrong. > > We take any accusation of breach of contract seriously, as such > accusations may amount to libellous interference. That is why we > considered sueing Knujon, and not to get you to stop asking. Asking > questions, based on good research is good and we support that, but > publicly making erroneous claims of contractual breach based on the > failure to do proper research and failure to correct them upon > notification of the error is libel. KnuJon is trying to paint all > registrars with the same brush, instead of singling out the actual bad > actors, not realizing that this weakens the report as a whole. > > In the chat referenced, there's an insinuation claiming you use "sloppy > > research methods". I'd like to get that allegation investigated. Is there > > anything constructive this guy Volker can offer? Or does he think that > > "sloppy" means anything that produces results he doesn't like? > I will always accept constructive criticism based on facts. In this case > however, the listing of Key-Systems in that section of the KnuJon > "report" was based on three things: > a) Failure to find a whois service at whois.key-systems.net > b) Our failure to answer an email request for that address. > c) Failure of Knujon to make even one webbased whois check of any one > of our domain names, which would have immediately revealed the address > KnuJon was unable to find: whois.rrpproxy.net > KnuJon is making false assumptions based on insufficient and inadequate > research. That is what I call sloppy. > To offer anything constructive for future reports: Look, instead of > making assumptions. If you cannot find the whois address at the first > place you consider, try to think how else this information may be reachable. > > > > But the question is: what to do here? Is there any recourse against a > > > Registrar who wont answer questions about their contracted obligations? > > > They may claim the RAA requires them to have a Port 43 address but does > > > not require them to tell anyone. > Interesting point. We answer this question with every whois check done, > as shown above. Should we then be required to answer each and every mail > requesting information that is already openly available? Contractually, > we are not. We are merely required to provide the service (which we do) > in a way that it can be found and used (which we do). Accusing us of > "not telling anyone" is ludicrous, as this services address is provided > with any webbased whois check. > > One thing I have learned from this debate is that KnuJon will always be > the first to publicly accuse others of any perceived breach to further > their interest, but will never admit to an own error. > > As to the other point in the report, confusing prices, I still am not > sure of what that means. Everywhere our customers can actually buy > domain names from us we have a clear chart of prices available. If you > find anything confusing, be specific so we can improve. > > -- > > Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > > Best regards, > > Volker A. Greimann > - legal department - > > Key-Systems GmbH > Im Oberen Werk 1 > 66386 St. Ingbert > Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 > Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 > Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 12:41:34 -0400 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> To: Bob Bruen <naralo(a)coldrain.net> Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Registrar Constituency meeting On 23 July 2010 11:26, Bob Bruen <naralo(a)coldrain.net> wrote: > Hi Volker (and Michele), > > During our debate on CircleID, Jothan Frakes suggested that KnujOn meet > with the registrars. I thought this was a good idea and proposed it to Mason > Cole of the Registrar Constituency. Some registrars told him they were > unwilling to have me come to the upcoming meeting in Cartagena, because we > appear to be too combative. It appears to me that you and Michele are not > afraid of intense debate (Michele once spoke out at a presentation I gave at > RIPE). > > Are you willing to try to change Mason's position, so that I can make an > appearance at the RC meeting - open to any questions, complaints, etc? > > The objective is to start a serious dialogue between KnujOn and the > registrars, beyond the current debate. > I support this and am prepared to ask ALAC to formally endorse this request. You never progress peace by refusing to talk. I myself am not likely on Mr. Cole's Christmas card list; we have already had ... issues ... regarding ICANN's closed regional meetings. I am personally dismayed at ICANN support staff playing the role of registrar spokesperson and gatekeeper; unless ICANN wants to remain to be seen by the public as a trade association for registrars, such coziness between support staff and constituents should really be discouraged. But I digress... As I asked before... I have seen the claims saying that Knujon's methods are sloppy. In this exchange between Volker and Garth I have seen some instances of mis-communications and different interpretations, but zero sloppiness. A meeting would help to reduce the mis-communications, and should provide useful feedback to Garth on how to avoid inadvertently listing registrars who are doing what they should. I note that in one case mentioned there is a distinction made between "letter of the law" (adhering to the absolute wording of the contract) while clearly violating the "spirit of the law" (the behavior the contract is trying the enforce/prevent). This indeed is appropriate in the case of a registrar who has the information on their website but puts it in a place that's very difficult to find (ie, five levels down in the website and/or marked just by an icon with no description). Volker, in those cases I believe that these instances *are* fair game for Garth's attention. If the obfuscation of the contact information is accidental, the registrar can easily correct the situation. If the registrar is made aware of this but ignores it, that registrar *does* deserve to be pointed out. In this case it should be clear that the bad activity is technically within the contact but still bad behavior as a matter of opinion. And Volker, I think you'll agree that expressing an opinion that may be detrimental to a company, if made in good faith (and by someone with zero stake in the company's success or failure) is rarely actionable. This is especially so if the opinion is based on documented and consistent policies. OTOH, I may be siding with Volker on one point of interpretation. I don't expect a personal email response from Google on every possible customer service question that may arise, especially if there's an easily-findable answer on their site. Same with Amazon (except on the specific status of my own transactions with them). Or many other sites. This is the whole point of sites having FAQ areas. Many companies use their websites to provide information that reduces the burden of public-facing support staff. While "how much personal customer service to provide" is a business decision, handling most customer service on the website is IMO a legitimate option. IFF <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/If_and_only_if> a registrar makes their (accurate) WHOIS access information easily available on their website (from a clearly labeled top level menu choice or an FAQ entry) then it may be unnecessarily severe to downgrade them for not personally answering questions that are already (clearly) answered. Individual email service need not be a requirement of good behaviour if the information is easily accessible on the company's site. I say that from the perspective of a small business owner who doesn't have substantial resources. I create a website FAQ section to avoid/reduce individual queries on significant issues. While such a policy may not be as comfortable as someone might want, it is IMO a reasonable approach that should be sufficient (should be clear and accurate) for being seen as a "good player". Considering the confrontational state that exists between Knojon and many registrars, it may even be understandable why some choose not to answer Knujon requests/surveys. However, if these site provide sufficient, accurate and clear information on their websites, they should not be penalised for not providing answers on the same issue by private mail. Just my opinion. - Evan ------------------------------ Message: 5 Date: Fri, 23 Jul 2010 09:48:59 -0700 From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] List moderation Hi Garth, Your message has been released. It was held due to too many recipients. However, given that the ceiling of recipients is five and your message only had four, we are following up with our mailing list host. The NA-Discuss list is an open, public mailing list. Anyone can subscribe to it. Volker subscribed earlier today. Kind regards, Heidi -----Original Message----- From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn [mailto:gbruen@knujon.com] Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 9:15 AM To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff Subject: List moderation Folks, I noticed my recent response to Volker was blocked, but his emails still come through on the list. As far as I can tell Volker is neither in North America nor is he part of At-Large. -Garth ------------------------------

1 0

Online Survey on "Meetings for the Next Decade"
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 23, 2010

July 23, 2010

Dear All, ICANN’s meetings department launched an online survey as part of their public consultation on how to improve ICANN’s international conferences in the coming years. Members of the At-Large community members are invited to participate in this online survey under: https://www.bigpulse.com/33025/register?l=en You can find the complete information on this consultation under http://icann.org/en/meetings2010/ -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

A joint Statement of Support for new gTLD applicants by AFRALO and AfrICANN was presented at their joint meeting in Brussels on June 22 2010 (http://brussels38.icann.org/node/12485) and was submitted to the ICANN Board. The drafting team included several members of the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) including Tijani Ben Jemaa, Dave Kissoondoyal, Fatimata Seye Sylla and Michel Tchonang. You can find additional information about the joint working group tasked with the preparation of this meeting under: https://st.icann.org/afralo/index.cgi?joint_afralo_africann_meeting_in_brus… and read the statement of support for new gTLD applicants at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/statement-support-for-new-gtld-… --- Dev Anand Teelucksingh

1 0

ICANN Policy for comment : Proposed Bylaws Amendment to Add Voting Director from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

On 27 August 2009, the Board approved in principle to add one voting director from the At-Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors and removing the present At-Large Advisory Committee Liaison to the ICANN Board. One item necessary to implement the recommendation is a change to the ICANN Bylaws to recognize the new Seat 15 on the Board and remove the ALAC Liaison position. ICANN General Counsel, in consultation with the SIC and At-Large staff, identified recommended Bylaws amendments necessary to allow the seating of the Director selected by the At-Large Community and have posted the ICANN Bylaw amendments for public comment. The relevant portion of the proposed Bylaws revisions, in redline for ease of review, can be found at http://www.icann.org/en/general/proposed-bylaws-revision-at-large-director-… One of the largest changes to the ICANN bylaws is on Page 4 under Section 8 - Terms of Directors. A new clause 8 (g) has been proposed : The text of 8 (g) : "The first regular term of Seat 15 shall begin on the day six months after the conclusion of ICANN’s annual meeting in 2010 and each ICANN annual meeting every third year after 2010. (Note: In the period prior to the first term, Seat 15 shall remain vacant. At the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2010 the At-Large Community shall, through a process coordinated by the At Large Advisory Council, make the selection of a Director to fill Seat 15, with a term to conclude upon the commencement of the first regular term specified for Seat 15 in accordance with this Section of the Bylaws, and shall give the ICANN Secretary written notice of its Selection. Until the conclusion of the ICANN annual meeting in 2010, there will be a non-voting Liaison appointed by the At Large Advisory Committee who shall participate as specified at Sections 9(3) and 9(5) of this Article.) AFRALO has drafted and submitted a comment regarding 8(g) : http://forum.icann.org/lists/bylaws-amend-al-director/msg00001.html which seems appropriate for LACRALO to support. ---- Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh .

2 1

Re: [lac-discuss-en] [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

1 0

Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues
by Carlton Samuels July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

FYI. Carlton =============================================================================== Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:02:36 -0700 From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to be addressed Folks, I was really hoping to push forward on this with David Giza?s input. His departure may signal a set-back but I?m hoping this is not the case. While I?m determined to get these issues addressed I am open to suggestions as to how to get ICANN compliance moving again on them. In general I think it is imperative that ICANN disclose what happened here with Giza. There are rumors circulating that David was pushed out for saying he didn?t have enough staff or for actually doing his job and enforcing the RAA. If this is true, it represents a serious breach of trust with the community and an undeserved turn for someone trying to do the right thing. But to continue, there are a number of WHOIS-related problems that need addressing, but I?ll start with immediate ones brought up in Brussels and situations that have surfaced recently. -Info and utility for At-Large Members: I promised to post a utility and WHOIS address list for all Registrars and all ccTLDs, but I want the list to be as complete as possible before sending it out, and also to supply a location for updates. The remaining Registrars who wont disclose their Port 43 address are delaying the final list, but I?ll get all the information soon. -Unresponsive Registrars As noted above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their Port 43 address. Some have supplied it after we published our report, but others remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue us to get us to stop asking: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html But the question is: what to do here? Is there any recourse against a Registrar who wont answer questions about their contracted obligations? They may claim the RAA requires them to have a Port 43 address but does not require them to tell anyone. -Problem Port 43 ICANN compliance is not being equal in its dispensing of breach notices. There are Registrars with poor WHOIS access that have not been notified, while others in jeopardy of loosing their accreditation may have better access records. -?Domain Check? As noted, many Registrars do not have a full WHOIS on their website, but rather a look up that merely tells you if the domain is taken, not who owns it. I will ask compliance about these one more time before filing individual complaints against each. -Bulk Purchases of WHOIS, what?s the story? There is much confusion here that needs to be sorted out by compliance. As part of our research we asked the 5 largest Registrars about accessing WHOIS in bulk as required by RAA 3.3.6. eNom, Dotster, and Moniker/Oversee/Snapnames did not respond at all to the request. NameScout said they did not offer the service. Network Solutions also said they did sell access, and then posted publicly that they were not required to (http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_is_blocking_whois_part_2/) which was then quickly retracted, but the main question goes unanswered. -AIT?s Hidden WHOIS Another question that is emerging is the way WHOIS is accessed. In one example AIT ?has? a web WHOIS but finding it is a challenge. On their main page they have a ?domain lookup? which will tell you if the domain is taken. If you happen to accidentally click on the little red star next to the domain name it will launch a CAPTCHA window, and once you enter the code correctly it will present the WHOIS data. But is this really compliant? -Registrar Complaint Process Unlike the WDPRS system, the complaint interface (http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi) for filing a complaint against a Registrar has no ticket, no confirmation email, no time-frame, no feedback, and no official resolution from compliance staff. In fact, to view the brief overview of the process: http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/compliance-flowchart.htm, one will see there is no space for responding to the complainant. The first step in the process is ?Investigation or Dismissal? but no where is there feedback for the user as to why the complaint would be dismissed. We have, in fact, never received a response for a complaint filed through this interface. -Garth ------------------------------------- What is the Doomsday Book? http://knujon.com/doomsday Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:03:56 -0400 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to be addressed Hi Garth, On 19 July 2010 11:02, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > I was really hoping to push forward on this with David Giza?s input. His > departure may signal a set-back but I?m hoping this is not the case. While > I?m determined to get these issues addressed I am open to suggestions as to > how to get ICANN compliance moving again on them. > Engagement with current staff and pressure at the Board level may be the only way we can persist on this. Obviously with staff movement the newcomers will require time to come to speed, and that is time lost in our attempts to resolve these issues. > In general I think it is imperative that ICANN disclose what happened here > with Giza. There are rumors circulating that David was pushed out for saying > he didn?t have enough staff or for actually doing his job and enforcing the > RAA. If this is true, it represents a serious breach of trust with the > community and an undeserved turn for someone trying to do the right thing. > ICANN is at its most opaque (and that's a high bar) on personnel issues of any kind. Part of the reason At-Large has so much trouble knowing its budget is because so much of our budget is support staff costs and ICANN seems loathe to give us any idea what the staff expenses really are (lest the community dare to think it might have a better idea than senior staff of how to allocate resources). Unfortunately, this is one area -- coming clean on the backstory to a staff departure -- in which we will never be told the real goings-on unless David goes public himself. There is some precedent -- Kieren McCarthy has arguably offered more insight as an ex-employee than while working at ICANN. But that has been the exception. > -Info and utility for At-Large Members: > > I promised to post a utility and WHOIS address list for all Registrars > and all ccTLDs, but I want the list to be as complete as possible before > sending it out, and also to supply a location for updates. The remaining > Registrars who wont disclose their Port 43 address are delaying the > final list, but I?ll get all the information soon. > You could always put out an interim list with "pending" located where the yet-to-be-collected info is supposed to go. > -Unresponsive Registrars > > As noted above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their > Port 43 address. Some have supplied it after we published our report, > but others remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue us > to get us to stop asking: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html > In the chat referenced, there's an insinuation claiming you use "sloppy research methods". I'd like to get that allegation investigated. Is there anything constructive this guy Volker can offer? Or does he think that "sloppy" means anything that produces results he doesn't like? > But the question is: what to do here? Is there any recourse against a > Registrar who wont answer questions about their contracted obligations? > They may claim the RAA requires them to have a Port 43 address but does > not require them to tell anyone. > That is a flaw in the RAA and indeed worth taking up with ICANN. This is *abosolutely* an accountability/transparency issue. -AIT?s Hidden WHOIS > > Another question that is emerging is the way WHOIS is accessed. In one > example AIT ?has? a web WHOIS but finding it is a challenge. On > their main page they have a ?domain lookup? which will tell you if > the domain is taken. If you happen to accidentally click on the little > red star next to the domain name it will launch a CAPTCHA window, and > once you enter the code correctly it will present the WHOIS data. But is > this really compliant? > IMO, if the CAPTCHA is legit then I would suggest this is OK. It's reasonable that someone would not want bits vacuuming that data as a matter of course. At very least they could argue that it's a bandwidth issue (the claim could be BS, but it's superficially legit). > -Registrar Complaint Process > > Unlike the WDPRS system, the complaint interface > (http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi) for > filing a complaint against a Registrar has no ticket, no confirmation > email, no time-frame, no feedback, and no official resolution from > compliance staff. In fact, to view the brief overview of the process: > http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/compliance-flowchart.htm, one will > see there is no space for responding to the complainant. The first step > in the process is ?Investigation or Dismissal? but no where is there > feedback for the user as to why the complaint would be dismissed. We > have, in fact, never received a response for a complaint filed through > this interface. > Also an A&T issue. I'm really looking forward to seeing you on that commitee. - Evan ------------------------------ Message: 4 Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:07:24 -0700 From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> To: "Evan Leibovitch" <evan(a)telly.org> Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to be addressed Thanks for the comments

1 0

ICANN Policy out for comment : Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Initial Report
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

The GNSO Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) Working Group (WG) in ICANN was tasked to address questions in relation to what extent registrants should be able to renew their domain names after they expire. At issue is whether the current policies of registrars on the renewal, transfer and deletion of expired domain names are adequate. Registrants are the individuals or organisations who register or license specific domain names for a specific period of time and for a fee from registrars. Registrars are organizations accredited by ICANN that processes the registration for the domain name (once the domain name is available) and transmits the name and registration details to the registry operator which operates the registry (the master database) for the generic Top Level Domain (gTLDs). Currently, there are 21 gTLDs including .com, .net and .org Some in the At-Large community are of the opinion that there is not always adequate notice to registrants whose domain names are expiring. The At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) request (that ultimately resulted in the WG being formed) noted that issues may include a lack of consistent notification standards, undelivered expiration notification emails, or notification rights inadvertently signed away during initial domain name registration. The PEDNR WG has published an initial report at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pednr-initial-report-31may10-en.pdf (in English). An executive summary of the report can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pednr-pdp-initial-report-executive-summa… in English and http://gnso.icann.org/issues/pednr/pednr-pdp-initial-report-executive-summa… in Spanish. In the Initial Report, the WG has reviewed current registrar and ICANN practices regarding domain name expiration, renewal, and post-expiration recovery. Furthermore, in order to assess the views of the WG members and determine where there might be agreement or consensus on a possible approach forward, a survey was conducted amongst the WG membership, details of which are also included in the Initial Report. The WG is now looking for your input on the Initial Report to help inform its deliberations going forward. Comments can be submitted directly to the public comment forum (see http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201008-en.htm#pednr-i…) and/or you can provide your input by responding to the following short survey (see http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4) As prescribed by the ICANN by-laws, the public comment forum will remain open for a period of 20 days until 1 August 2010. ------ Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh

1 0

REMINDER: LACRALO Call Thursday, 15 July 21:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 12, 2010

July 12, 2010

Dear All, This is to remind you that the next LACRALO teleconference is scheduled for Thursday, 15 July 2010 at 21:00 UTC. The agenda and call details can be found at: https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?15_july_2010 If you are unable to attend the call please send an email indicating your absence and we will note this information on the agenda. If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0