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

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
by Danny Younger April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Carlos, Re-read the first two sentences written by ICANN Staff: "As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, THE WORKING GROUP WAS ALSO ENGAGED IN NEGOTIATIONS (*emphasis mine*) with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies." Staff is saying that your group negotiated with the other constituencies. Apparently, you are denying that claim. So, who is speaking the truth? --- carlos aguirre <carlosaguirre62(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Sorry Danny. please, when you inform about > something, try to inform yourself first. > > this group was wich made a GNSO improvement`s > document from ALAC, but not wich made a last joint > document with other constituencies neither negotiate > secretly nothing. > > In fact, your atitude make me feel very upset. I > hope to have the opportunity to talk with you > personally in the next meeting. > > Carlos Dionisio Aguirre > abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

1 0

Mailing list administrative action
by Evan Leibovitch April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Hello everyone, This is to let you know that Jeffrey Williams has been suspended from posting to the na-discuss list for a period of one week, effective immediately. According to the NARALO Code of Conduct, > The NARALO Chair is empowered to suspend or restrict a person's > posting rights when the content that person has posted is > inappropriate and represents a pattern of abuse. The Chair defines and > determines what is inappropriate content on a case-by-case basis. Our > definitions are not limited to this list. If the Chair suspends > posting rights or deletes a comment or link, he will say so and > explain why. When determining the duration of the suspension, the > Chair is encouraged to take into account the overall nature of the > postings by an individual and whether particular postings are an > aberration or typical. I have determined that the volume, personal baiting, and unsubstantiated claims made in Jeffrey Williams posts have constituted a pattern of abuse. I have taken into account similar patterns exhibited on other mailing lists. I do not take such action lightly, but I have little tolerance for activity that impedes the ability of NARALO to carry out its mandate. While I take responsibility for this action, it has the support and agreement of the Secretariat and many NARALO members that this is a matter of abuse. One's freedom of speech does not obligate others to provide a forum, especially if that forum is abused. Evan Leibovitch NARALO Chair

1 0

New Spam Site Found Every Three Seconds
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

All, An industry study FYI that should be helpful to users. New figures suggest that 92.3 percent of all email sent globally during the first three months of 2008 was spam. The data from Sophos also indicated that 23,300 new spam-related web pages were created every day during the period, or http://www.itnews.com.au/News/74071,new-spam-site-found-every-three-seconds… about every three seconds. For the first time Turkey's contribution to the global spam problem puts it in the top three offending countries. Compromised computers in Turkey are now responsible for relaying 5.9 percent of the world's junk email, compared to 3.8 percent in the final quarter of 2007." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Individual users and ALAC
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Evan, Jeanette and all, Jeanette, I an our members largely share you concerns. And of late the NARALO, EURALO, and this global ALAC list have seemingly sought to thwart public participation which is one of several reasons the silent majority to which Evan speaks to, fears to participate actively. I myself have been "Moderated" largely due to a decided lack of interest by others whom control these ALSes public input mechanisms, yet as spokesman for a fair number of users all of whom are also registrants, but yet share significantly the concerns of interests in issues that effect them directly or indirectly. Such is an example of perhaps why individual users are so reluctant, be they silent not due to choice, but due to fear of repudiation, ridicule, or other much more hazardous reprocutions that may be personally damaging and long lasting. As such, other non-ICANN NNW's have formed starting in 2001, such as http://itp.nyu.edu/blogs/ecm292/2008/02/26/nnwkaa-30/ that are decidedly taking things into their own hands with the supprot of other government agencies such as DHS so that some of these concerns can be heard, addressed, and hopefully resolutions effected rather than endlessly discussed amongst a "Chosen" few, decided by that same "Chosen few", and rarely a effective resolution effected, such as Whois privacy, access, and accuracy, phishing, spam, and proliferation of child poronography. Many of these problems have their roots in DNS itself, others are more complicated and complex in nature but almost always revolve around security aspects, or lack there of, imposed or not yet effected by both government and private sector actors, yet with known methods or correction, by such as Google, Wikipedia, registries and registrats, ISP's, IAP's, and other Internet service providers/ecommerce companies of various sorts. Some good examples of the danger that some of these "Chosen few" have already exposed you to are evident in their DNS configurations such as ICANN.ORG, telly.org, which is Evans domain, IETF.ORG, franceatlarge.org, and recently, alvestrand.no whom is taking submittions for their online forum WG if IDN's. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=telly.org&token=251076695… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=ietf.org&token=06706b9b19… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&token=0… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=alvestrand.no&token=07e03… And these are just a few or the tip or the huge iceburg, so to speak... -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 17, 2008 11:35 AM >To: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] Individual users and ALAC > >Hello, Jeanette. >> What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't >> provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are >> affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to >> articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of >> course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there >> on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN >> structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or >> do you expect them to change some time in the future? >Speaking personally and not in my capacity as NARALO Chair: > >I agree fully and passionately with the ICANN _intent_ behind At-Large, >which is to try to extract the view of the general public on its issues. >So far it has heard from vested interests (the business, IP, registry >and registrar communities) as well as those who are paid full time to >think about policy (GAC, NCUC). At-Large is none of that; while I >believe that the "public interest" is the single most important >constituency within ICANN, determining what is the public interest is a >HUGE challenge that At-Large has tried to do. Small steps have been >taken but far more lies ahead. > >So far, all the individuals who I have seen become involved in At-Large >are dedicated to knowing the issues, good at analysis, passionate about >policy, and vocal with their opinions. > >In other words, they have nothing in common with the general public At >Large. > >You only see them as a "large group" because they are the ones already >in front of you, shouting. The silent disinterested ones, the challenges >that we must reach, outnumber the current loud independents by hundreds >of thousands to one. > >The "independent users" are critical in policy building and >opinion-shaping, but they do not themselves resemble the great >disinterested masses that ICANN is trying to reach. These people >_should_ be in leadership or advocacy efforts within larger groups in >order to help achieve ICANN's mandate and affect / survey the greatest >number of public opinions. Having them sit as independents is IMO a >substantial waste of their talent. For this reason, I appreciate >measures that discourage independent participation and encourage >individuals to join (or create!) ALSs that can share their skill and >passion with a wider audience. (NOTE: I said discourage, not disallow). > >There are certainly many existing organizations that SHOULD be ALSs but >have neither the awareness or passion to be involved. The right person >within those orgs could easily change that situation and our individual >members are perfect candidates. Economies of scale -- in terms of >volunteer person-hours even more than money -- suggest that we need more >ALSs reaching the disinterested far more than we need to encourage the >growth of "audiences of one". > >I can say more, but I need to go out. I hope you're not sorry that you >asked. ;-) > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1

Contract compliance and oversight: .EDU TLD
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

All, Again regarding the GNSO improvements report and as a matter of Internet stability and security for users, it recently came to my attention and today was outlined on Slasdot that the .EDU registry managed by Educause.net who's DNS is horribly mis configured, see: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=educause.net&token=052026… and who's sole source contract granted by DOC/NTIA some years ago now has a domain name, pi.edu that is not CHEA accredited institution which is a contracted requirement of the .EDU registry agreement. Seems to me this gives members of the public, especially users a false recognition of this "Organization" as a accredited educational institute. It is not. Nor is the Association of Christian Schools and Colleges (ACSC). This seems perilously close to suborning fraud. Further still a recent practice, that of "Marketing .EDU" has come to the attention of informed users and other members of the public. See:http://www.conversationmarketing.com/2008/04/linkadage-selling-edu-blog… and http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=08/04/15/2228250 It would seem to me and many of our members whom originally reported this, as a significant hood winking of the public that needs addressing soon. respecful regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Evan and all, Doesn't the ALAC have a WG list for Whois issues? I believe it does. The rest of my remarks are interspersed below Evan's... -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 16, 2008 9:58 PM >To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Ross, I'm not so anxious to pick up torches, but there are new people coming on board in the NA RALO community who don't have the benefit of >> your years of experience as a senior executive at a registrar dealing with this issue, so that's why I posted this here -- in hopes of hearing >> something from new faces in the room, groups representing users, consumers, etc. >> >I guess I fit into this category. A little over a year ago I had nothing >to do with ICANN. Thanks to Jacob's initiative, a better (but far from >complete) understanding of the issues, and a knowledgeable and generally >welcoming bunch of colleagues, I'm in a little deeper now. :-) And while >my ALS's membership is reasonably technically inclined, I'd say that the >proportion of them that own domains is definitely a minority (though >higher than the general public). > >We have not done an extensive survey of our ALS's members but the issue >has come up at the executive/board level and some informal user group >discussions. Generally I have heard agreement with what Beau stated as >the Webwatch position: >> Oversimply stated, we are interested in seeing a compromise that would allow a consumer to use accurate WHOIS data to help determine the credibility of a Web site with which the consumer is about to do business, while not compromising, say, the right of Burmese citizens to create Web sites to describe the conditions within their country without fear of being tracked down and harmed by their government via WHOIS data. >> >To be more specific, WHOIS accuracy is a non-issue -- it must exist -- >what is at issue is the level of public access to that accurate >informaion. I would suggest that any domain owned by a government agency >or for-profit corporation must be public (just as corporate registration >information is already public). Non-profits and individuals should be >able to enable some kind of privacy while allowing appropriate >legitimate access (ie, I would not want the above scenario to give said >Burmese citizens the ability to engage in personal libel, or publishing >secrets of others, with impunity). Agreed here. I think that you mean is that the public access to Whois data remain pretty much as it is other than that data or whois listing must be accurate, which at the present time many if not most are not accurate. Too much access such as access to PII is a sure way of enabeling personal libel, Email farming for purposes of phishing, spam and other forms of illegal activity. > >To extend this to the "intended" purpose of TLDs, I could live with all >of .com, .int and .gov being required to be public, while .org could >allow surrogates under proper circumstances. CCTLDs that use .com. or >.org. subdomains an easily make similar distinctions. Could allow yes, will be required to allow such surrogates certain levels of access beyond what is avaliable today, no. The idea of those .org's having an opt-in for such access is a potential good compermise. > >I agree that study at a policy level is pointless -- the facts and >opinions on all sides are well known and it's time for a political >decision that takes a stand with the given information. The only >required further study would IMO be regarding the business and >mechanical implementation of the kinds of proxy / escrow / whatever >models are required to allow a balance of privacy and accountability. >Even unlisted telephone numbers are on record at the telco and are >accessible under certain well-defined legal circumstances. There are >other non-Internet examples -- such as access to auto license-plate >registration information -- that indicate reasonable societal >compromises between privacy and accountability. We're not the first ones >with this dilemma. All true, but not all that information is avaliable to the general public due to certain privacy laws and/or protections even with a subpoena. Even law enforcment cannot without significant cause get some of the information you list above, as I hope and believe you know... Whois was never meant to be a law enforcment tool, nor a tool for the general public to track an Domain Name holder but was intended for network operators to get in contact to Domain Name admins. in the there was a problem of once sort or another. > >- Evan > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Suggested improvments: Stopping censorship
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

All, As this report did not address a long standing problem that has plagued ICANN and it's various organs, that of censorship. Recently, in fact even yesterday some members of the NARLO and the ALAC global mailing list have sought to bully others not to make comments, remarks, or present observations that are directly related to the recognized improvements to the GNSO. Eliminating Censorship is a significant one. See:http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann… Those of us whom have long been engaged in ICANN related issues have long realized that Selective Censorship on WG lists, general lists, and the like under ICANN's management has been a problem that has threatened many for years, and stymied input accordingly. This is definitely wrong and wrong headed as has I have stated in representation of our INEGroup members which was formed in 1998 and recognized by DOC/NTIA accordingly. Censorship in any of it's ugly forms is wrong! Let good men and women of good conscience seek to eliminate such plagues and injustice practices... Kindest Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Brendler, Beau April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group with a really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report back to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is needed, along with other issues. I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, which has about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA RALO would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their opinions on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group. This morning, it seemed as though there was consensus that yes, more study (provided it's circumscribed and directed at yielding some sort of action on the issue) is required. Wendy took an opposing view, which I'm sure she would be glad to share with you. WebWatch's view is that more study is needed, and in fact we are studying the issue ourselves. We are about to put a survey into the field that will be statistically representative of New York State only (because it is being funded by the NY State Attorney General's office). The survey is about online fraud in general, but of the 30 questions, I have put in some related to ICANN and WHOIS, for instance, have you ever registered a domain name, have you ever heard of the WHOIS database, have you ever used it to help you make a decision about whether to use a Web site's services or not, was it useful, etc. Below is our (WebWatch's) response, then below that are the action steps for the study group, if you want to use that as a template. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: Brendler, Beau Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:57 PM To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG'; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org Subject: Whois study group -- category rankings >From Beau Brendler and Consumer Reports WebWatch We believe all seven categories are worth further study. Here's how we think they should be ranked in order of priority: 1. (5) Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse. 2. (7) WHOIS data accuracy. 3. (1) WHOIS misuse. 4. (4) Demand and motivation for use of privacy services. 5. (2) Compliance with data protection laws/registrar accreditation agreements. 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement/dispute resolution requests. 7. (3) Availability of privacy services. WebWatch's perspective on WHOIS could be almost characterized as similar to that of law enforcement or the FTC. Oversimply stated, we are interested in seeing a compromise that would allow a consumer to use accurate WHOIS data to help determine the credibility of a Web site with which the consumer is about to do business, while not compromising, say, the right of Burmese citizens to create Web sites to describe the conditions within their country without fear of being tracked down and harmed by their government via WHOIS data. I will also ask the ALAC to weigh in and report back offline with any additional information. The north American region seems to have the strongest feelings on this issue. Beau Brendler ____________________________________________________ From: owner-gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:56 PM To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS study group call Tuesday 8 April 2008 at 15:00 UTC] Thanks to all who could make our short-notice kick-off call on WHOIS studies. We will be meeting on Tuesdays at the same time and we have a short window by which to recommend to the GNSO Council areas for further study (if any) on WHOIS (currently due to the Council by 24 April). Following is a short overview of our call, key deliverables for next week and next steps. 1. Overview The group discussed how to proceed. We first discussed whether studies should be commissioned at all, and confirmed that one option could be deciding to recommend to the GNSO Council that no studies of WHOIS be done. This view was supported by some participants who are skeptical that the outcome of any study would change the views of entrenched parties on WHOIS issues. We also discussed certain areas that might be studied further, such as the potential impact on registrars operating in countries with strict privacy laws if those countries were to begin enforcing those laws (in the gTLD space). There was the concern that new WHOIS-related issues will arise that will require consideration notwithstanding the current WHOIS "stalemate", such as issues related to IDNs, greater privacy enforcement by countries, etc..., that may warrant further study. I described the format and content of the summary "Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS" of Feb. 25, 2008. Note in particular that the study suggestions are grouped into seven topic areas. 1. WHOIS misuse 2. Compliance with data protection laws and registrar accreditation agreements 3. Availability of privacy services 4. Demand and motivation for use of privacy services 5. Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute resolution requests 7. WHOIS data accuracy These seven areas can be thought of as topical questions for further study. If the consensus of the group is to proceed to identify specific areas for further study (meaning rather than recommending that studies not be conducted), the group might find it useful to decide first which of these groupings address questions you think having data about would inform the debate (see Key Deliverables below). There was one question about whether a budget exists to conduct studies. I responded that there is no pre-set budget but there is a place holder in the budget that the policy development group has submitted, and there is the understanding and expectation that the Council may request studies that ICANN would engage in. Also, I noted that there is a gating process -- the Council has specifically noted in its resolutions that it would first identify certain studies that it thought should then be priced out, and then, after those estimates are provided, make any specific requests with those estimates in mind. We also note that costs for various studies could vary significantly based on size, scope, complexity, etc. 2. Key deliverables - Everyone will read the summary "Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS" - link provided by Glen and below - Everyone will consider the threshold question of whether WHOIS should be studied further -- whether any studies of WHOIS would make a meaningful impact. We will discuss this further on the next call. - Everyone will review the suggestions with an eye to whether/or which proposed studies would rise to your short favorites list -- or those you think should not be done. We did not discuss this on the call, but if the group would like to email these to me ahead of time, say by Friday, I could total up the results of this initial view for the call. Again, as I suggested on the call, to approach the question of which of 25 suggestions you might support, you may find it useful to first consider which of the groupings address questions you think that having data about would inform the debate. Once you have identified which questions you want to answer, then you could focus on only those particular groupings and consider which study approach (or combination of approaches) will best answer your questions. In some cases we have indicated that the different study proposals answer slightly different questions. In some cases we indicate that some of the approaches are likely to give better data, or that some of the approaches are likely to be less expensive. When you think about the fundamental questions asked by each grouping, you may find it more useful to consider the questions asked by each grouping as follows: 1. How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be solved? 2. Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws problem that needs to be solved? 3. Are there already market-driven solutions available? 4. Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they being used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? 5. Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse? 6. Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective? 7. Is WHOIS data accurate? - Staff will check on the status of an earlier study on the economics of the DNS that we understand to have been approved by the ICANN Board but not completed to-date. - Recruit ISP representative -- in process 3. Next steps - Next call Tuesday April 15 (a yucky day in the US, I note) - See tasks listed in "key deliverables" above. - Email with any questions. Also, please feel free to correct or add to my summary. Thanks, Liz

8 12

Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Steve and all, Thank you for the notification all be it a bit bland and relitively non-informative in nature. If you don't mind, I'll be the judge if I believe any further interaction is required. That decision will largely be based upon the cleaning up of ICANN.ORG's DNS. -----Original Message----- >From: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> >Sent: Apr 16, 2008 11:06 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Cc: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, "Brendler,Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >Mr. Williams, > >We have received your message and are giving it appropriate >attention. No further interaction is required. > >Steve Crocker > >On Apr 16, 2008, at 12:24 AM, Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: > >> Beau and all, >> >> I think it is painfully obvious that the SSAC would >> far better serve the ICANN participants, and the far larger >> internet community, if it first cleaned up it's own DNS >> configuration so as not to expose us all to dangerous >> malware and spyware. >> See:http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch? >> domain=icann.org&token=254021463ea049153ef50b820f412019 >> >> But again, perhaps this is wishful thinking on my part. >> Yet hope springs eternal... >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >>> Sent: Apr 15, 2008 12:38 PM >>> To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >>> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? >>> >>> The scary thing, though, is if the policies sunset, maybe the risk is >>> losing WHOIS data or an analogue to it, altogether? Or do you >>> think if a >>> public outcry were to ensue, that would encourage re-addressing the >>> issue via a different protocol, such as the one the SSAC is >>> looking at? >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >>> Wendy >>> Seltzer >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 3:33 PM >>> Cc: NA Discuss >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? >>> >>> My personal viewpoint, after seven years of WHOIS task forces and >>> working groups, is that more studies will not be useful in policy >>> development, but rather are proposed by several constituencies to >>> justify further delay with the status quo. >>> >>> I see WHOIS as a political problem at this point, not a problem of >>> lack >>> of facts. GNSO constituencies have been wedded to positions based on >>> their own interests, and they're unlikely to change those >>> positions even >>> with new studies. So studies won't change anything in policy >>> development. Without assurance that constituencies will change their >>> policy recommendations if shown new facts, I don't see that >>> registrant-fee-funded studies serve any ICANN purpose. >>> >>> For that reason, I have recommended against ICANN funding any new >>> WHOIS >>> studies. I'd rather see pressure to reach consensus based on a >>> sunsetting of policies that no longer command consensus. >>> >>> --Wendy >>> >>> >>> Ross Rader wrote: >>>> The problem with more study on this issue is that it is only a >>>> delaying tactic intended to preserve the status quo. The issue has >>>> been studied to death. The proposed studies will not be well >>>> bounded, >>>> nor geared towards action. They will be intentionally broad and the >>>> analysis, if any is done, will be purposely weak and obtuse. >>>> >>>> I have no doubt that there will be many people that sign onto the >>>> notion of further studies with the best of intentions, but I >>>> strongly >>>> doubt that the results will point us in any different direction than >>>> what we've already discussed and described over the past ten years. >>>> Worse still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of >>>> individuals for their own gain will enjoy another few years free >>>> pass >>>> to this open database as we study the nooks and crannies of this >>>> issue >>> even further. >>>> >>>> /ross >>>> >>>> Brendler, Beau wrote: >>>>> Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group >>>>> with a >>>>> really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report >>>>> back to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is >>>>> needed, >>> >>>>> along with other issues. >>>>> >>>>> I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, >>>>> which has >>> >>>>> about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA >>>>> RALO >>> >>>>> would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their >>>>> opinions on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group. >>>>> >>> >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- >>> lists >>> .icann.org >>> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >>> ------ >>> >>> *** >>> Scanned >>> Always diligent, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Internet Censorship, shame and/or necessity?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

All, Recently there has been nuanced discussion surrounding the use of censorship in an organized manner and currently is being practiced yet again within the ALAC. Of course I and all of our members have been decidedly against such forms of censorship as it is an abomination of the lowest order. Below I offer a balanced article regarding Internet censorship that hopefully will shed some light on this activity and it's history. A review of Access Denied, edited by Ronald Deibert, John Palfrey, Rafal Rohozinski and Jonathan Zittrain, MIT Press: 2008. In 1993, Internet pioneer John Gilmore said "the net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it", and we believed him. In 1996, cyberlibertarian John Perry Barlow issued his 'Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace' at the World Economic Forum at Davos, Switzerland, and online. He told governments: "You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have true reason to fear." At the time, many shared Barlow's sentiments. The Internet empowered people. It gave them access to information and couldn't be stopped, blocked or filtered. Give someone access to the Internet, and they have access to everything. Governments that relied on censorship to control their citizens were doomed. Today, things are very different. Internet censorship is flourishing. Organizations selectively block employees' access to the Internet. At least 26 countries -- mainly in the Middle East, North Africa, Asia, the Pacific and the former Soviet Union -- selectively block their citizens' Internet access. Even more countries legislate to control what can and cannot be said, downloaded or linked to. "You have no sovereignty where we gather," said Barlow. Oh yes we do, the governments of the world have replied. Access Denied is a survey of the practice of Internet filtering, and a sourcebook of details about the countries that engage in the practice. It is written by researchers of the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), an organization that is dedicated to documenting global Internet filtering around the world. The first half of the book comprises essays written by ONI researchers on the politics, practice, technology, legality and social effects of Internet filtering. There are three basic rationales for Internet censorship: politics and power; social norms, morals and religion; and security concerns. Some countries, such as India, filter only a few sites; others, such as Iran, extensively filter the Internet. Saudi Arabia tries to block all pornography (social norms and morals). Syria blocks everything from the Israeli domain ".il" (politics and power). Some countries filter only at certain times. During the 2006 elections in Belarus, for example, the website of the main opposition candidate disappeared from the Internet. The effectiveness of Internet filtering is mixed; it depends on the tools used and the granularity of filtering. It is much easier to block particular URLs or entire domains than it is to block information on a particular topic. Some countries block specific sites or URLs based on some predefined list but new URLs with similar content appear all the time. Other countries -- notably China -- try to filter on the basis of keywords in the actual web pages. A halfway measure is to filter on the basis of URL keywords: names of dissidents or political parties, or sexual words. Much of the technology has other applications. Software for filtering is a legitimate product category, purchased by schools to limit access by children to objectionable material and by corporations trying to prevent their employees from being distracted at work. One chapter discusses the ethical implications of companies selling products, services and technologies that enable Internet censorship. Some censorship is legal, not technical. Countries have laws against publishing certain content, registration requirements that prevent anonymous Internet use, liability laws that force Internet service providers to filter themselves, or surveillance. Egypt does not engage in technical Internet filtering; instead, its laws discourage the publishing and reading of certain content -- it has even jailed people for their online activities. The second half of Access Denied consists of detailed descriptions of Internet use, regulations and censorship in eight regions of the world, and in each of 40 different countries. The ONI found evidence of censorship in 26 of those 40. For the other 14 countries, it summarizes the legal and regulatory framework surrounding Internet use, and tests the results that indicated no censorship. This leads to 200 pages of rather dry reading, but it is vitally important to have this information well-documented and easily accessible. The book's data are from 2006, but the authors promise frequent updates on the ONI website. No set of Internet censorship measures is perfect. It is often easy to find the same information on uncensored URLs, and relatively easy to get around the filtering mechanisms and to view prohibited web pages if you know what you're doing. But most people don't have the computer skills to bypass controls, and in a country where doing so is punishable by jail -- or worse -- few take the risk. So even porous and ineffective attempts at censorship can become very effective socially and politically. In 1996, Barlow said: "You are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for some time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media." Brave words, but premature. Certainly, there is much more information available to many more people today than there was in 1996. But the Internet is made up of physical computers and connections that exist within national boundaries. Today's Internet still has borders and, increasingly, countries want to control what passes through them. In documenting this control, the ONI has performed an invaluable service. OpenNet Initiative: http://www.opennet.net This was originally published in Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7184/full/452155b.html Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

2 1