March 2007 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ICANN IDN Laboratory test results online
by John L March 9, 2007

March 9, 2007

>> The positive IDN Laboratory test results that have just been posted on >> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> - > This is really a good development... I really hope that we can have full > deployment of IDNs as soon as possible. It is very important for many > parts of the world! Honestly, I would have been astonished if this hadn't worked, as would everyeone else in the DNS technical community. All this test verified is that a few widely used pieces of DNS software don't have any lurking code specifically written to break IDNs. I gather that the IETF is reasonably close to a technical hack to deal with Unicode version issues. This leaves the intractible political problems of defining what name strings are "too similar" to register. How are we doing with that? Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://johnlevine.com, Mayor "I dropped the toothpaste", said Tom, crestfallenly.

1 0

ICANN-related News Items
by ICANN At Large Staff March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

I thought many of you would be interested in one or more of these news snippets: 1. ICANN locks down at-risk Registerfly domains ICANN planned to sue Registerfly.com on 6 March according to Computer Business Review Online, “saying the company is putting its customers' estimated 2 million domain names at risk.” The article notes “in an unprecedented move, ICANN has persuaded the four major generic top- level domain registries to lock down all Registerfly's customers' domains for a month, so they cannot expire and then be hijacked by speculators or domain traffic monetization firms.” With a letter to Registerfly last Friday from ICANN noting “Registerfly is refusing to hand over data about its customers' domains, as required by its registrar accreditation agreement, and that it will enforce the contract in court by filing suit on Tuesday.” The article also notes that as ICANN has not been able to get its hands on the registration data, they have got VeriSign, NeuStar and Afilias “to lock all pending-expiration Registerfly domains into a ‘Server-Delete- Prohibited’ status.” http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=80D83445-B5D5-47BC- B74D-D70EA124D72B 2. When Domain Names Bite Back This story on The Motley Fool gives a background on the RegisterFly “debacle” from an investor’s point of view, looking back as far as the dot-com crash where VeriSign's Network Solutions and Register.com were Wall Street darlings”. The article claims “Before the debacle at Registerfly, the industry was coming back into favour” with investors with GoDaddy looking at going public this year. The article concludes “The Registerfly story may still have a happy ending, but the clock on existing annual registrations keeps ticking. Whether the site cleans up its act, is sold off to a rival registrar, or finds ICANN in a more hands-on role, the industry's reputation is at stake. And consumer faith is on the line. In the name of domains, let's hope this nascent industry gets it right.” http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2007/03/07/when-domain-names- bite-back.aspx 3. Porn Industry Against New XXX Domain The Free Speech Coalition released a news release petitioning for help in opposing the .xxx TLD proposal. The Free Speech Coalition is the adult entertainment industry’s professional organisation. Genelle Belmas, professor of communications law, who argued in her dissertation in favour of a xxx TLD says, “The side that does not like pornography argues that if you give it its own domain you're legitimizing the porn. And the pornographers don't like it because they say it 'ghettoizes' the porn." The Executive Director of the FSC is quoted as saying what the adult industry refers to as "ghettoizing," is "making adult entertainment an easy target for anti- industry extremists and government intrusion." Other concerns are the cost of registering domain names ($60/year/domain) and that the TLD could be made “mandatory and subject to trans-Internet filtering that could effectively eliminate much of the adult content currently available on the Web." http://media.www.dailytitan.com/media/storage/paper861/news/ 2007/03/06/News/Porn-Industry.Against.New.Xxx.Domain-2759677.shtml

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Proposed research on registrar transfer-away fees
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

We do have a polling option in the new voting system; we could set one up there and point everyone to it if you like? On 08/03/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > > I think it's good idea to organize this survey. If possible, could we > also do some user survey on the same subject? Ideally, I like to > make an online survey which costs minimum with some automatic > tally feature. > > The challenge may be how to avoid spam or > non-serious responses, etc. > > izumi > > 2007/3/8, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>: > > Thanks to Danny Younger for starting this conversation. > > > > Danny has proposed that the ALAC initiate research on a specific, > > registrant-affecting question: What are the scope and magnitude of > > transfer-away fees among the various registrars? These fees, charged to > > domain-name registrants when they seek to leave one registrar for > > another, can lock registrants in to a registrar who no longer serves > > their needs (as has happened in droves with former Registerfly > > customers). High fees can also contravene the intent of the uniform > > transfers policy. We have seen little public information about these > fees. > > > > So, here is a focused research task: > > For each registrar, ask > > Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names > > to another registrar? > > If so, what is the fee? > > Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of > > registration? > > Where and how is such disclosure made? > > Is the fee subject to change? > > > > After we decide whether these are the relevant questions, we should ask > > staff to contact all registrars for their responses, and/or review > > public information on the registrars' websites. > > > > If you're interested in this research, please respond to this message > > with your thoughts. > > > > --Wendy > > > > -- > > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School > > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > www.alac.icann.org > > www.icannalac.org > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Proposed research on registrar transfer-away fees
by Wendy Seltzer March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

Thanks to Danny Younger for starting this conversation. Danny has proposed that the ALAC initiate research on a specific, registrant-affecting question: What are the scope and magnitude of transfer-away fees among the various registrars? These fees, charged to domain-name registrants when they seek to leave one registrar for another, can lock registrants in to a registrar who no longer serves their needs (as has happened in droves with former Registerfly customers). High fees can also contravene the intent of the uniform transfers policy. We have seen little public information about these fees. So, here is a focused research task: For each registrar, ask Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names to another registrar? If so, what is the fee? Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of registration? Where and how is such disclosure made? Is the fee subject to change? After we decide whether these are the relevant questions, we should ask staff to contact all registrars for their responses, and/or review public information on the registrars' websites. If you're interested in this research, please respond to this message with your thoughts. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

4 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed research on registrar transfer-away fees
by Danny Younger March 8, 2007

March 8, 2007

Aloha Randi, Re: I have never used a registrar that charged a fee for transferring away domains... Consider this article in Slashdot: saikou writes "There were previous reports of GoDaddy, one of the biggest domain name registrars, attacking Bittorrent sites with frivolous interpretation of their own Terms of Service (that story was resolved), and now similar events unfold with clients of one of Russian domain registrars Majordomo.ru -- GoDaddy has informed them that all 1399 client domains are now blocked (story in Russian) due to 'many of your domain names were listed in the Spamhaus.org blacklist or were resolving to a name server or IP address listed in the Spamhaus.org blacklist' with a demand of a neat '$199 non-refundable administration fee to the credit card on file for your account for each domain name you wish to reactivate' or $50 for each domain to be transferred out into another registrar." http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/17/1319233 We know that some registrars are engaged in this practice and that others are contemplating charging such fees: >From the registrars list (comment from Rob Hall) "But on the broader note, I wonder aloud at which point a Registrar can impose it's own contractual provisions that override policies like the transfer policy. It would not be hard for a Registrar to put into place a non-transfer provision that lasts lets say 180 days, or a year after a renewal or other domain event. Or how about we just start charging a $50 admin fee to handle the transfer away. This fee would become due the second the transfer was applied for, so it would be a case of money owing on the existing domain registration which would allow for the transfer to be denied. hmmm." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg04255.html This type of research project will take us out of the anecdotal arena (where we need to rely on third-party allegations that are prevalent on many webmaster forums) and into empirical research. We may be looking at the start of a trend or at a trend that might already be in full blossom or we might find that such fees are in reality somewhat rare. Whatever the case, the domain name registrant can only be helped by such an initiative that might ultimately lead to a policy recommendation along the lines of that which is already in place at auDA: "Neither the losing registrar nor the gaining registrar is permitted to charge a transfer fee." http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-transfers-response.pdf --- RJGlass <jipshida(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > I have never used a registrar that charged a fee for > transferring away domains. Nor would I use that > registrar if i had a choice, even if their annual > registration fees were cheaper. I would think > something like this would fall into monopolistic > practices by registrars. I find that the most > irritating issues with registrars are 1) lack of any > customer service - except Godaddy (I have been > trying to contact a human from enom for 3 days), and > 2) tranferring domains. > > On one hand, the barriers to transferring domains > between registrars enhances security, on the other > hand there seems to be little standardization and > consistency. > > -RJGlass > A@L > > ____________________ > > Domain name services > http://www.Psyberdomain.com > > Help the needy > http://www.DDMF.org > > Help yourself > http://www.AmericaAtLarge.org > ------------------------- > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>; At-Large > Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Sent: Wednesday, March 7, 2007 2:25:42 PM > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Proposed research on registrar > transfer-away fees > > Thanks to Danny Younger for starting this > conversation. > > Danny has proposed that the ALAC initiate research > on a specific, > registrant-affecting question: What are the scope > and magnitude of > transfer-away fees among the various registrars? > These fees, charged to > domain-name registrants when they seek to leave one > registrar for > another, can lock registrants in to a registrar who > no longer serves > their needs (as has happened in droves with former > Registerfly > customers). High fees can also contravene the intent > of the uniform > transfers policy. We have seen little public > information about these fees. > > So, here is a focused research task: > For each registrar, ask > Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take > their domain names > to another registrar? > If so, what is the fee? > Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant > at the time of > registration? > Where and how is such disclosure made? > Is the fee subject to change? > > After we decide whether these are the relevant > questions, we should ask > staff to contact all registrars for their responses, > and/or review > public information on the registrars' websites. > > If you're interested in this research, please > respond to this message > with your thoughts. > > --Wendy > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law > School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

1 0

RegisterFly situation
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 7, 2007

March 7, 2007

Dear Community: I thought you would be interested in seeing the text of emails which ICANN staff are sending to the large numbers of RegisterFly customers who are contacting ICANN directly for help with their domains, as it also provides some information on what actions ICANN is taking to deal with the situation. --- Thank you for your email. ICANN is taking action in relation to RegisterFly. We have found them to be in breach of their Accreditation Agreement and we have demanded that they address these breaches. In addition to this legal action, ICANN convened a telephone conference among those needed to implement a plan that will help cease unintended deletions. The participants were Registries holding RegisterFly names. The Registries involved have agreed to move any RegisterFly names in Redemption Grace Period status into Server-Delete-Prohibited status. This will prevent them from being deleted from the registry and becoming available for re-registration by others. ICANN is also working to copy and protect data regarding registration applications and registered name holders. Our website http://www.icann.org and our blog http://blog.icann.org/ are updated regularly with information about what ICANN is doing to assist people affected and this is the best source for you to get information you need in the future. Information on transfer policy can also be found at http:// www.icann.org/transfers/ I do appreciate how stressful this situation must be for you and hope the information above is of assistance. --- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [EURO-Discuss] [At-Large] Preparing for Lisbon: Resolutions from At-Large to the larger community?
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 2, 2007

March 2, 2007

Not sure what you mean there - you mean the Lisbon agenda? If that is what you mean, that will happen - I have provided information for the Lisbon schedule to the conferences team so it should appear shortly. On the teleconference on the 6th ALAC will decide what to talk about at the two scheduled meetings of the committee, and then that will be on the calendar as well. On 02/03/07, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote: > Dear Nick > > it would be probably helpful to integrate the planned AL-Meeting in Lisbon into the overall agenda on ICANNs website. This would allow also other people to coordinate their calendars. > > Thanlks > > wolfgang > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Gaming the ICANN Whois Data Reminder Policy
by Danny Younger March 1, 2007

March 1, 2007

Domain Name Wire has reported an account of GoDaddy deleting a domain because of an inaccurate WHOIS record -- see http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/27/godaddy-deletes-domain-name-for-inaccu… and http://domainnamewire.com/2007/02/28/godaddy-responds-to-deletion-over-inva… Per ICANN Whois Data Reminder Policy the provision of false Whois information can be grounds for cancellation of a domain name registration. In this particular case it's likely that someone badly wanted this domain name. They probably noted an error in the WHOIS record and doubtless sent an email to registrant which bounced; next they back-ordered the domain name. They then notified GoDaddy of a WHOIS Data Reminder Policy violation and when GoDaddy's email to the registrant also bounced GoDaddy in turn acted to cancel the domain name registration. For a mere $18.99 (the back-order price) anyone can apparently use this method to succesfully game ICANN policy in order to steal someone else's domain. This case illustrates a number of flaws in ICANN's current policy. (1) The transmission of a WHOIS correction request should not solely rely upon email. There are many reasons that would account for a registrant non-response to an email including being on vacation or having such a Registrar message caught in a Spam filter. Most of us regard domains as property, as investments... at the very least we should be contacted by postal mail. (2) Registrants should also have the benefit of a redemption grace period under these circumstances instead of an instant cancellation. It is more appropriate to "turn off the lights on the domain" for a period of time than to outright cancel the domain with the initial registrant likely unaware of his impending doom. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Preparing for Lisbon: Resolutions from At-Large to the larger community?
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 1, 2007

March 1, 2007

To the extent that the effort involves purely coordination, I can help with that - chasing people for contributions etc. The development of the draft text is, I would submit, perhaps best done in the first instance by those in ALAC familiar with the issues in question, and only by the staff in the case that nobody has the time to do this work (though, perhaps, as these first drafts are just that - drafts - and completely subject to amendment, perhaps in some ways it is less important who is the first drafter... I have put a first-draft of an Agenda together for the ALAC teleconference on the ALAC Working Wiki. On 01/03/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > Dear All: > > > > May I suggest to you that the At-Large community has a unique > > opportunity at the upcoming Lisbon meeting to agree a few resolutions > > on key issues which are in the public and icann policy 'Eye' at the > > moment. With at least two RALO MoUs being concluded, and likely the > > European one too, the conference will have a big spotlight on the > > community. > > I think that your suggestion is good. > I also think that we desperately need leadership to this effect. > Annette's illness is unfortunate, and we need someone to write down a > todo list with actions and deadlines, force people to sign up for items, > and push them until they deliver on time. And we need it now, if we want > to make it by Lisbon. > As all volunteer groups, this is an individual-driven effort, so I would > suggest that any of us who feels like doing it, and especially those who > would like to serve as Vice Chairs, takes this task upon him/her. > (I mean - I can do it if you wish, but we really need to create new > leadership, not rely on the old one...) > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Preparing for Lisbon: Resolutions from At-Large to the larger community?
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 1, 2007

March 1, 2007

Dear All: May I suggest to you that the At-Large community has a unique opportunity at the upcoming Lisbon meeting to agree a few resolutions on key issues which are in the public and icann policy 'Eye' at the moment. With at least two RALO MoUs being concluded, and likely the European one too, the conference will have a big spotlight on the community. I submit for you all to consider that this spotlight could be used by the community to focus attention on the issues which you care about. There could for example be resolutions on: 1) Domain Tasting - the negative consequences to end-users which many in the community have highlighted and a call for the GNSO and ICANN Board to begin a PDP as an urgent matter; 2) Registry and Registrar performance - the issue of Registerfly has brought to the fore issues of enforcement and the role of ICANN in enforcing these contracts. A resolution could highlight these and call for action; a number of proposed actions have been mooted on community lists. There's also the issue of switching registrars and the difficulty that poses for people which has been brought up in the African discussion lists By resolution, I mean something brief - one page per issue - in the style of a UN resolution with adjectives leading each paragraph of a preamble section, and then a section with specific recommendations for action (not in great detail necessarily but the high-level principles or actions which should be made). At the ALAC monthly teleconference on 6th March, could the committee perhaps propose to discuss this? If one member of the committee could draft a one-page document on the above structure to be completed within a week, then there would be time to send it out to all the regions for their review and comment, and then at Lisbon the two regions present and the ALAC could agree a final text and release it to the rest of ICANN. If nobody on the ALAC is able to do the drafting, I'm happy to do a draft as a "backup drafter" and then forward it to be reviewed. I hope this will not be thought presumptuous. I don't wish to 'take over' the policy work of the community, but I do see a real opportunity for the community to make a big splash of substance at the next meeting and wouldn't like to see that opportunity lost or wasted. At the same time I do understand that people are all volunteers and I'm happy to help in any way I can. There are those - even in the community - who do not believe the At- Large community has the ability to influence ICANN's work. I do not believe they're right, but it seems to me one of the best ways to find out is to take a strong stand and suggest proactive steps to improve things. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0