December 2008 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Knujon applies for ALS status
by Danny Younger Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

On 1 December Knujon's application was ALS status was received. What action must we take to expedite this application?

6 5

ALS Application from Knujon
by At-Large Staff Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

Dear all, This is to inform you that we recently received an ALS application from Knujon, an organization based in the United States. Many of you have probably met Dr. Robert Bruen during the Cairo meeting when he gave a presentation on Knujon¹s work on spam prevention (see https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?04_november_2008_knujon) Attached you find the original application. The due diligence review will be sent to the ALAC members and the regional leaders in a separate email. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

CIsco Report on Spam
by Glenn McKnight Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html Canada source of over 9 billion spam messages a day: study 9 in 10 e-mails worldwide are spam, according to Cisco security firm *Last Updated: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 | 12:41 PM ET *Comments*41*<http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html#socialcommen…> Recommend*15*<http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html#> CBC News <http://www.cbc.ca/news/credit.html> Canadian computers — many of them unwittingly — send out over nine billion spam e-mails a day, almost five per cent of all global spam traffic, according to a report from network and internet security firm Cisco. In an annual security report released Monday, Cisco estimated almost 200 billion messages per day, or 90 per cent of all e-mails sent worldwide — can be defined as spam, double the volume of the previous year. E-mail spam is rarely sent from the computers of the spammers themselves, the report said. Instead they use a number of techniques, from phishing scams, to e-mail with attached malware, to hijacking the computers of unwitting people. The spammers then use these networks of computers — called botnets — to send out more spam. While many spammers still send out mass-mailing spam to millions of untargeted recipients, web security software is usually able to filter these messages, the company said. Trickier to handle are "phishing" scams designed to elicit personal or financial information that is often smaller, more targeted and harder to spot, the report said. Botnets are networks of computers that have been hijacked by malicious groups or individuals to do their bidding. Their owners are usually unwitting victims who have no idea their machines have been infected and turned into so-called "zombies" or "bots." The zombie computers are typically used to distribute spam or phishing e-mails, or viruses and Trojans that are used to hijack other computers. Botnet operators often rent time or bandwidth on their networks to spam e-mail marketers and phishing scam artists. The United States was the single largest source of outgoing spam messages, Cisco reported, accounting for 17.2 per cent of all global spam. Canada was the fourth biggest source, with 4.7 per cent of all global spam, behind the U.S., Turkey (9.2 per cent) and Russia (8.0 per cent), and had the highest percentage of spam on a per-capita basis of the 16 top nations. Canada's privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has been pushing for over a year for Canada to enact legislation to fight spam. Canada is the only G8 country without anti-spam legislation, she said when first drawing attention to the issue last year. The federal Conservative party said in its party platform during the fall election that it would introduce legislation to prohibit the use of spam to collect personal information under false pretences and to engage in criminal conduct, establishing new fines for lawbreakers. Last month, a California court ordered Montreal resident Adam Guerbuez and his company Atlantis Blue Capital to pay the popular social networking site $873 million US in damages for spamming registered users on the site. The civil case was filed under the U.S. 2003 anti-spam legislation known as CAN-SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act). -- Glenn McKnight 868 Corbetts Road Oshawa, Ontario L1K 2E1 905-434-6655 mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

8 9

Consensus Policy Compliance Issue
by Danny Younger Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

Dear ICANN Contractual Compliance Department, On today's Radio GoDaddy show, GoDaddy CEO Bob Parsons and his General Counsel Christine Jones discussed GoDaddy's ongoing violation of the ICANN Transfers Consensus Policy. In describing the 60-day lock-down that GoDaddy applies to registrations upon any change in WHOIS data, the point of view was offered that the purpose of the lock-down is to prevent hijacking. While we appreciate hearing this particularly creative spin, a violation of ICANN's contract with GoDaddy is plainly evident. The registrant community has the right to facile domain name portability per the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, and that right is being abridged by the lock-down actions of this particular registrar. At issue is whether your Department will take any action or whether you will continue to give a pass to ICANN's largest domain name registrar that sets its own rules in defiance of ICANN Consensus Policy. Looking forward to seeing how you will deal with this matter. Danny Younger

1 0

Draft ISPCP Comments on the Mid-point consultation report on ALAC Review
by Danny Younger Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

The BGC ALAC Review WG has offered discussion points regarding their initial thinking on the ALAC. This is a response to those points. First, Terminology: “ALAC” is a 15-person advisory committee to the Board. 2 people from each RALO plus 5 NCAs “At-Large” consists of 110 bodies organized into RALOs; these bodies are termed ALSs (At-Large Structures) “at-large” (lower case) refers to the universe of Internet users. Points for discussion: 1. The ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure. This continuing purpose has three key elements: o providing advice on policy; o providing input into ICANN operations and structure; o part of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms ISPCP Response: The At-Large AC can play a useful role in ICANN as an advisory committee to the Board, just as the other ACs. Organisation 2. At Large should in principle be given two voting seats on the ICANN Board ISPCP Response: This is totally inappropriate. None of the other advisory committees have voting seats on the Board. Advisor committees advise, they do not vote on Board business. 3. The ALAC‐RALO‐ALS structure should remain in place for now ISPCP Response: Not unless it can become useful; otherwise it is a waste of money. ICANN pours a huge amount of funds into the building and maintenance of the ALAC-RALO-ALS structure and gets very little from it. At-Large prefers to retain its advisory status. If At-Large is not going to be involved in making policy, what is its function and why is it in ICANN? ICANN’s sole purpose is to make and enforce Internet policy, manage TLDs and support the root servers. At-Large participates in none of these activities. Policy is made by the SOs, not by the Board. Currently the At-Large has only non-voting liaisons to the SOs. Effectiveness and participation 4. Educating and engaging the ALSs should be an immediate priority; compliance should be a longer term goal ISPCP Response: Engaging the ALSs is a worthwhile goal if ICANN is will derive some benefit in policy making. Otherwise, this is merely replicating the activity of ISOC (indeed, many of the ALSs are simply ISOC chapters). 5. ALAC should develop strategic and operational plans (including performance criteria and cost information) as part of ICANN’s planning process ISPCP Response: Yes, plans based on measurable objectives. These objectives should include direct participation in the policy making process through SOs. 6. More effort needs to be put into developing accurate cost models for At Large activity ISPCP Response: Surely. Again, budget should be tied to useful accomplishments. Right now the At-Large is a total waste of money because it achieves nothing. 7. ALAC should be encouraged to make its own choice of tools for collaborative work ISPCP Response: Certainly they should have this freedom as long as the collaborative work process is public and transparent. 8. The public comment period should be kept at 30 days except in special circumstances, in which case ALAC may request an extension to 45 days ISPCP Response: Retaining the current 30 comment period is preferable as long as necessary language translation can be done speedily. 9. ICANN should strengthen its translation processes ISPCP Response: Agreed, within reasonable budget constraints. Relationship with other ICANN entities 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes ISPCP Response: It (the At-Large structure, not the advisory committee) could be if it would deign to actually participate in the ICANN process instead of just offering advice. 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice ISPCP Response: In fact the At-Large structure (not the advisory committee) is currently ineffective in representing the individual user voice. We recommend that At-Large be reconstituted as a constituency for the individual user. In particular, with regard to the GNSO, we advise that ALAC have voting representation within the non-commercial users stakeholder group. 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues ISPCP Response: It is inappropriate (not to mention ineffectual) for the At-Large to try to function outside of the SOs by providing advice. They should function within the SOs as recommended above as a contributing constituency. Summary ICANN needs to redirect its resources to forming an organization that will actively represent the at-large community in the Internet policy-making process. As presently constituted, At-Large does not serve that purpose. The ALAC (the advisory committee) should continue to be represented on the Board by an non-voting liaison, just as the RSSAC and SSAC are represented. It should not have a voting seat (much less two!) because it should not be involved in the business conducted by the Board (which is, primarily, the running of the Corporation). The At-Large should not have liaisons to SOs. Rather it should take an active part, as appropriate, in the policy making activities of the SOs. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00462.html

2 2

Invitation to discussion on new gTLD Applicant Guidebook 19 December 1400 UTC
by Danny Younger Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

--- On Tue, 12/16/08, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Subject: [GTLD-WG] Invitation to discussion on new gTLD Applicant Guidebook 19 December 1400 UTC > To: "ALAC Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 12:15 PM > Dear all, > > We would like to invite you to a discussion on the At-Large > position on the > new gTLD Applicant Guidebook this coming Friday, 19 > December at 1400 UTC. > > Participation code: 1638. > You can find a list with international toll free phone > numbers under: > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?how_can_i_participate_in_this_meeti > ng > > Please contact us if you would like to request a dial-out > for this call. I > will send out an invitation to the public list shortly. > > Background Information: > > ³Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook² (sent > to At-Large list by > Beau Brendler on December 16th) > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20 > 08q4/005106.html > > Public Comment Forum new gTLD Applicant Guidebook: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-en.htm > > New gTLD Working group page: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène > Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich > ICANN At-Large Staff > email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Motion for the immediate dissolution of the ALAC Executive Committee
by Danny Younger Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

I share Evan's concern: Evan wrote: "It is necessary to request the entire ALAC to take responsibility for its creation. Personally I believe that this document illustrates an *inevitable* tendency for an ExCom to assume -- in the name of expediency -- power it was not authorized to take. As such, it may be justification for immediate dissolution of the Executive Committee." I join Evan and others in expressing my disgust at the situation and call upon the NARALO to consider this resolution: Whereas the ALAC's Executive Committee has forwarded an ALAC Statement prior to its ratification by member vote; Whereas the ALAC's Executive Committee has denied the at-large community a suitable public comment period for this Statement (giving us only two days to comment and no opportunity to propose amendments or changes); Whereas the Executive Committee has engaged in ex-parte non-transparent discussions pertaining to the ALAC agenda that deny members a process by which matters may be placed on the agenda; Whereas the ALAC Executive Committee seeks to usurp powers that it has not been granted; Resolved, the ALAC Executive Committee is to be immediately dissolved.

1 0

Latest RAA amendment
by Danny Younger Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The latest amendment added to the package is this: 3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address. Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address). Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic. Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] CORRECTION: ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

URLs for attachments change. I have learned my lesson and will not do that again. The URL at end of my last message works - <http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html. Once you get there, click on the attachment. Alan At 15/12/2008 02:27 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >URL is bad! >CAS > >On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:57 PM, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >For those who may be interested, I have posted some personal >comments on the Mid-point report. They can be found at ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf>http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf. > >Alan > > >Thanks to Dharma Dailey who pointed out that the attachment has moved. > >That *was* where it lived when I posted the message. But I have seen >attachments on ICANN mail logs move before, so I should have known better. > >It is now at ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfcNsdHX1u56.pdf>http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfcNsdHX1u56.pdf >(tested seconds ago), but in case it moves again, the message >pointing to it (which I don't think moves) is ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html. > >Alan > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: <http://st.icann.org/alac>http://st.icann.org/alac >

1 0

REMINDER: Next NARALO meeting 15 December 2008 1900 UTC
by At-Large Staff Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Dear all, This is to remind you that the next NARALO meeting in on Monday, 15 December at 1900 UTC. An agenda will soon be uploaded to the meeting page: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?15_december_2008 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

5 5