September 2009 - NA-Discuss

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

That's really cool! I was also reminded of people posting content from Mount Everest, a ship in the middle of the ocean. Seriously, at the moment not everyone really needs a domain but it is conceivable that new devices and technology may include domain registration as part of a service. It's entirely possible that someone could run a whole website from a PDA in the near future, and that someones "everything phone" would include a personal domain that would replace current myspace and twitter pages. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > Date: Wed, September 16, 2009 9:32 am > To: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Let me see... I have a friend that lives in the middle of a mountain here in > Puerto Rico, he does not get postal mail but uses a satellite link to > connect to the Internet. I am pretty sure this is the case in other places > (like I witness in Peru). > -ed > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 7:29 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > So if I live in the middle of nothing (where I can not receive paper mail) > >> I > >> will not be able to register any domains? That effectively will exclude > >> some > >> people of doing legitimate business through the Internet. > >> > > > > Could you identify some places where people live that have ISPs but no > > postal mail? > > > > R's, > > John > > > > > > > -- > NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only > for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If > you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately > by e-mail, and delete the original message. > ------ > 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 NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

My initial comment that spurred Alan's comment is apparently misunderstood. Brands would probably only want or need a handful of domains, they are being FORCED to by bundles of typo-squatted versions of their trademarks. I would like to reduce that need. In regards to whois, many brands have spent considerable time and money to reveal who owned a squatted domain only to find it was a Registrar or someone affiliated with a Registrar. Full disclosure on commercial whois would cut to the chase and make WIPO proceedings a little quicker. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 9:22 pm > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > At 15/09/2009 07:32 PM, John R. Levine wrote: > > > <<but my understanding is that anyone with a trade-mark to preserve > > > tends to have VERY large portfolio of defensive registrations.>> > > > >The brand owners I know would be ecstatic if it were harder and slower to > >register domains. Their trademark portfolio changes over timescales of > >years, and in their perfect world, domains would change just as slowly. > That was not the substance of my comment. My ONLY point was that > saying that TODAY, large companies typically only have 1 or 2 domain > names, or at most one per top-level domain was both inaccurate and > likely to get brand owners and IP people to pounce on you. I > specifically said that these same people would be strong supporters > of many of the ideas we are talking about. > Alan > ------ > 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 NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Brainstorm teleconference on 21 September at 19:00 UTC
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Unfortunately I will have to miss this call, we'll returning from the hospital with out second son, expected tomorrow! My father can't make the call for the same reason. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Brainstorm teleconference on 21 September > at 19:00 UTC > From: At Large Staff <Staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Date: Wed, September 16, 2009 1:47 am > To: <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, "Thompson, Darlene" > <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> > Dear All, > > During the NARALO teleconference of September 14, 2009, it was decided by > consensus to hold a special NARALO conference call on developing a procedure > for the At-Large community to select a voting director to the Board. > > This call is scheduled for Monday, September 21, 2009 at 19:00 UTC (12:00 > p.m. PDT/3 p.m. EDT). > > The meeting will not have an official agenda, rather it will be a > "brainstorming" session to determine ideas, concerns and options. NARALO > members are encouraged to add their questions and issues directly to the > meeting page available at: > https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?21_september_2009 using the red > comment button. Participation instructions for this call are also available > on the meeting page. > > The NARALO generated points derived from this meeting will feed into the > wider At-Large/ALAC development of a mechanism to select a voting director. > > If you require a dial-out for this call, please let At-Large staff know at: > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. > > Regards, > Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White > ICANN At-Large Staff > email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > ------ > 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 NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

2 1

Privacy whois MUST be forbidden
by Danny Younger Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

A comment has recently been posted to the IRTP-B Public Forum by a long-time domainer in support of the elimination of WHOIS privacy services (1). I'm glad to see folks finally stepping up and demanding that we end this practice. I venture that it won't be long before law enforcement and governments also start actively calling for the abolition of these services. You may recall that in late 2005 the NTIA notified Neustar (the company that administers .us) that proxy or private domain registrations will no longer be allowed for .us domain name registrations. We haven't seen any adverse consequences from this decision. The EPIC organization argued on behalf of anonymous interests, but failed to prevail (Peterson v NTIA) -- see http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/061216.P.pdf Likely, a compromise position will be found that protects certain individual rights while ensuring the public interest. The at-large could make a powerful contribution by clearly articulating such a proposal in a discussion paper. (1) http://forum.icann.org/lists/irtp-b/msg00000.html

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Another registrar bites the dust
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Great, now how about OnlineNIC. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Another registrar bites the dust > From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 8:05 pm > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > ICANN has finally announced the de-accreditation of Daniel Sundin's Red Register (1). One has to again wonder why the process took so long... > To the casual observer it seems quite probable that Red Register's Daniel Sundin is in fact the same Daniel Sundin cited 10 months ago by the FTC (2) for illicit "scareware" activities. He maintains an email address at globedat (another organization similarly charged by the FTC). > An Order of Default was entered against Innovative Marketing and Daniel Sundin on 6 August 2009 “for want of answer or other defense”. They were being fined at the rate of $8000 per day by the FTC (3) > Now it appears that this registrar has "disappeared" with no valid contact address after not paying its bills in over a year. > One would think that ICANN would be reigning in these rogue registrars much quicker (especially if FTC actions had commenced). At last report (May), Red Register had 10317 domains under management in .com. > (1) http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-sundin-11sep09-en.pdf > (2) http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723137/081202innovativemrktgcmplt.pdf > (3) https://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2009/08/12/1714996.aspx > > ------ > 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 NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Beau Brendler Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Beau Brendler Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

3 2

NARALO Brainstorm teleconference on 21 September at 19:00 UTC
by At Large Staff Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Dear All, During the NARALO teleconference of September 14, 2009, it was decided by consensus to hold a special NARALO conference call on developing a procedure for the At-Large community to select a voting director to the Board. This call is scheduled for Monday, September 21, 2009 at 19:00 UTC (12:00 p.m. PDT/3 p.m. EDT). The meeting will not have an official agenda, rather it will be a "brainstorming" session to determine ideas, concerns and options. NARALO members are encouraged to add their questions and issues directly to the meeting page available at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?21_september_2009 using the red comment button. Participation instructions for this call are also available on the meeting page. The NARALO generated points derived from this meeting will feed into the wider At-Large/ALAC development of a mechanism to select a voting director. If you require a dial-out for this call, please let At-Large staff know at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO Voting Result ...)
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Danny Younger wrote: > Evan, thank you for placing this matter on the next Agenda. On top of everything else, I am concerned by voting irregularities (such as the vote by a long-defunct ALS that is given as much weight as the collective vote of the unaffiliated). > The issue of waking up (or eventually purging) non-participating members (both ALS and individual) is certainly one we will inevitably deal with. Given the youth of NARALO I thought it reasonable that we allow some time to pass before dealing with it, and concentrate on growth and being more welcoming rather than looking for ways to contract. But if NARALO believes the issue is more pressing than I do, we are certainly capable of debating it sooner. > I would be pleased to hear your arguments as to why your vote is of greater value (weight) than Beau's vote or my vote or Jean's vote or Wendy's vote. > The short answer is that it's not "my" vote, it's CLUE's. And CLUE -- a membership organisation in which I participate -- entrusts me to do the right thing, but holds me accountable and is free to remove me as its representative at any time. (Besides, given Wendy's role on the Board and Beau's role in ALAC, I would hardly say that my own voice carries more weight than theirs.) This issue was discussed extensively (and intensely) at the time NARALO was formed. As you are well aware, NARALO is the only region within ICANN that affords *any* status to individuals unaffiliated to an ALS. The balance we achieved was, IMO, reasonable, given the desire of ICANN to grown a network of ALSs. > Looking forward to a robust discussion. Given all that is on our plate policy-wise, it would be my preference NOT to burn time and personal cycles revisiting our core principles at this point. What I want to do is to nail down a formal voting process that implements the intent of the ROP... not to dissect the ROP itself. It is notable that this issue is only being raised now, more than two years since NARALO was formed. Since NARALO started we have whenever possible operated on consensus rather than formal vote, and when determining consensus all voices have been equal. The views of participating individuals are clearly more reflected in the results of our consensus decisions than those of non-participating ALSs. Indeed, I would further point out that in this specific case, the BigPulse poll was only *advice*; the ultimate decision of what to send to ALAC was done by a consensus in which you most certainly were an equal participant. I certainly hope that unaffiliated members don't believe that they have been treated like second-class citizens during discussions or consensus-building. If that is the case then I will do what I can to rectify this. - Evan

6 9

More on Red Register
by Danny Younger Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

If you take a close look at the address to which Stacy Burnette has been sending her Red Register breach notices -- 8025 Excelsior Drive Suite 200 Madison WI 53717 -- you will discover that the address corresponds to CT Corporation System (a registered service of process agent)(1) You will also note that the phone and fax numbers provided by Red Register to ICANN are not in the U.S., but rather in the U.K. I think it's time to once again renew our call for accurate and reliable registrar place-of-business particulars as part of the promised-but-not-delivered long-overdue review of the ICANN registrar accreditation procedure. The recent RAA amendment (3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid email and mailing address) remains insufficient. Our interest is not in knowing where the registrar maintains an accurate process of service address, but rather from which real address the registrar is actually conducting its business. Lest anyone forget, Red Register was sued by MicroSoft in late 2007 for cybersquatting activities. (2) (1) http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/assets/pdf/U013999987.PDF (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/24/AR200712240…

2 2