September 2009 - NA-Discuss

Re: [NA-Discuss] Milton Mueller blasts the proposed Consumer Constituency
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

There is nothing stopping consumer groups from participating in At-Large, and in fact some do. The GNSO has a mandate PURELY on GTLDs and a GNSO Constituency coming into existence presumes that this group wants for focus on GTLD issues (not unreasonable given the likely emergence of many new GTLDs). The difference between At-Large and GNSO is that of focus (All of ICANN vs just GTLDs). Groups may participate in either At-Large or parts of the GNSO depending on their interested and desire for involvement. Alan At 24/09/2009 09:09 AM, Michael Maranda wrote: >It seems to me that a "constituency for consumers" would either fall under >ALAC and would strengthen us, OR if we focused on the organizations that >represent them, those could either be in ALAC or NCUC (i.e. they already >have a place (or choice of places) if they intend to be active). >Is the proposal to establish a third body entirely? if so, that does seem >to water things down for all involved, and risks further confusing potential >participants and even setting us further against each other. > >I'm not averse to protecting our rights as consumers, but I think we ought >to start from a wider frame than consumption. We the people are more >integral than our consuming roles. > >Regards, > >MM > >On Wed, Sep 23, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > Bob Bruen wrote: > > > > > I also would caution against trying to censor information just because > > > one does not it or the source. > > > > I wasn't intending to censor. People post links to things of interest > > here all the time, including items that many might not agree with. I > > objected to Danny's reprinting of the whole thing verbatim, giving a > > "you must read this" air to a piece that certainly doesn't deserve that > > level of attention. > > > > > Mueller may have gone overboard with his statements, but he is still > > > someone other people respect and like. He is not simply a > > > "tinfoil-hat" guy, that should be dismissed. > > > > Convince me. He was one of the founders of NCUC and must be credited for > > that. But he now comes across as a parent who perceives his child is in > > danger, flailing away with any tactic available -- no matter how crude > > or hurtful or false, oblivious of consequence -- to protect. Every time > > he puts finger to keyboard he discredits himself more (as witness by his > > followup replies to Cheryl). > > > > Trouble is ... the more he flails away, the less people will believe > > that the child deserves protection. In Sydney I was relatively neutral > > about Milton, today it seems to me he's a foil wrapper away from total > > nutbar. And every day that the NCUC of today fails to distance itself > > from his words, it is associated a little bit more with his character. > > At this particular point in time, the NCUC can little afford such damage > > to its credibility. > > > > I care about this only because I don't want to see NCUC to descend into > > irrelevance due to its founder's abandonment of civility. It's not in > > ALAC's tactical interest to have NCUC as an impotent laughing stock. > > > > > It is better to know what one is dealing with than not. "Keep your > > > friends close and your enemies closer," Sun Tzu, Art of War. > > > > May be, but I don't consider Milton my enemy. > > The vested interests, domainers, exploiters, phishers, censors and > > overzealous IP interests are (still) my enemies. > > Milton is a distraction, a nuisance. But not more than that. > > > > - Evan > > > > PS: Talking about censorship.... a posting I made on that thread has yet > > to show up on the website.... > > > > > > ------ > > 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 > > ------ > > >------ >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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Milton Mueller blasts the proposed Consumer Constituency
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

Agreed, I don't think Mr. Mueller is a good source. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Milton Mueller blasts the proposed > Consumer Constituency > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Wed, September 23, 2009 5:39 pm > To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Danny Younger wrote: > > http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html > > > > Yes, Danny, by all means let's repeat an article so full of invective, > inaccuracies and tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories that it has the > potential to poison the relationship between ALAC and NCUC for quite a > long time. > > Allow me to remind this list that, at our last regular NARALO meeting > last week, we achieved a consensus to actively oppose the NCUC request > to stall new constituencies. I recall zero dissent in achieving that > consensus. I also do not recall any pressure from Cheryl or Beau to do this. > > I am personally disgusted by the devolution of the NCUC complaint into > petty, nasty attacks on Beau and Cheryl. I am distressed by go-for-broke > tactics that appear to have dispensed with any pretence of rational > debate, resorting to personalizing and vilifying the supporters of what > is, at its core, simply a strong difference in approach. > > Ironically, I see the diatribe having the opposite effect of what was > intended. A casual reader -- let's say an ICANN Board member -- could > easily infer that, given the political tactics demonstrated in Milton's > letter, that NCUC is not competent to fully represent the public > interest within GNSO. Such sentiment, in the appropriate hands, could > easily accelerate the move to dilute NCUC's position by welcoming new > constituencies and the staff charter. > > I will not be contributing any further to this thread, and I urge NARALO > to avoid giving this issue a life of its own. We have too many other > issues which are far worthier of our time. > > - Evan<hr>------ > 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

CADNA calls for federal commission to review ICANN governance/policies
by Danny Younger Sept. 23, 2009

Sept. 23, 2009

http://news.prnewswire.com/DisplayReleaseContent.aspx?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/s… [excerpt] CADNA's Top Ten list: 1. ICANN is a captured regulator: ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), which develops ICANN's policy, is aligned with business models such as registrars and registries that stand to profit or lose from ICANN's choices. Counter to what ICANN will attest, they do not fairly and accurately represent the interests and needs of all Internet users. 2. ICANN is not independent: Its Board of Directors is poorly structured, allowing for rulings that align with what the captured policy-making group proposes, and ICANN lacks the internal accountability mechanism found in most private not-for-profit organizations that ensures they are operating honestly. 3. ICANN is not transparent: ICANN refuses to release transcripts of its board meetings, thereby shrouding the rationale behind its policy decisions and avoiding public accountability. 4. ICANN is more interested in making a profit than working for the benefit of Internet users: ICANN's funding structure, which raises revenue through fees on every registered and renewed domain name, creates conflicts of interests and forces ICANN to support policies favoring the sales of domain names. 5. ICANN is not accessible: ICANN lacks an easily understood manual that explains its operations for those that work within it. Clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of staffers and volunteers would allow them to better communicate amongst themselves and to be more effective within the parameters of their positions. In addition, there is no means by which the general public -- Internet users -- is informed about ICANN's operations. Such improved accessibility would increase participation by the Internet community and improve feedback. 6. ICANN is failing to address numerous issues corrupting the Internet: ICANN often ignores issues regarding the safety and stability of the Internet, such as the proliferation of cybersquatting, which can enable phishing, malware deposit schemes, and the sale of unwanted counterfeits. ICANN has also largely ignored the problem of inaccurate WHOIS information, which encumbers the identification and prosecution of bad actors. Rather than helping to make the Web more secure, ICANN is increasing the online risks that businesses and consumers face by irresponsibly releasing new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). 7. ICANN's proposed gTLD rollout is poorly conceived: ICANN has not properly vetted this decision in an objective fashion. This rollout expands the size of the Internet exponentially without first performing a sound cost/benefit and security and risk analysis to determine both desirability among and risk to Internet users. 8. ICANN is not looking at itself critically: Former ICANN CEO, Paul Twomey, made it clear at Congressman Boucher's hearing that even with the renewal of the JPA, it would be business as usual for ICANN. Unfortunately, business as usual would do nothing to improve the domain name space. 9. ICANN is risking cybersecurity, national security, and global security: Expanding the number of gTLDs, the latest of a series of risky policies, will make it easier for those who pose threats to national security to conceal their online operations and identities. 10. ICANN's relationship with the US government does not span all relevant agencies: Given the security implications of ICANN's role in the Internet, the Department of Homeland Security should have joint jurisdiction over the JPA and IANA contract with the Department of Commerce.

1 1

NARALO 'Board Member Selection' meeting results posted
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 22, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

Hello all, I want to thank everyone for an extremely productive meeting on Monday, planned as a single-issue gathering to discover and refine ideas related to the selection of an At-Large representative on the ICANN Board. What was intended as just a place to "brainstorm", in fact resulted in some specific proposals and options, with an unexpectedly high level of consensus for the core process. I have been told that our work has since been discussed and favourably received at the APRALO and ALAC meetings held today. The results of our meeting have been posted in two forms: 1) I have attempted to simplify and explain the proposed NARALO process using a table: https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?draft_procedure_for_appointme… 2) The raw notes/minutes from the meeting are at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?21_09_2009_summary_minutes Please let me know if we have misrepresented either the consensus conclusions or your personal comments. Thanks! - Evan

1 0

Michael Geist: What's wrong at CIRA
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 22, 2009

Sept. 22, 2009

Many people I've spoken to within ICANN think of CIRA as one of the elite ccTLD registries, but not everyone is happy with them. http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/article/698457 - Evan

2 1

FW: [ALAC-Announce] REMINDER / Community Call with Board Liaison Candidates / 20 September 2009 @ 1800 UTC
by At Large Staff Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

Dear All, At the request of Cheryl Langdon Orr, Chair of ALAC, this message is being sent to encourage all of you to join this very important Community call with the candidates for the position of Board Liaison scheduled for Sunday, 20 September at 18:00 UTC (8 a.m. Honolulu; 11 a.m. PDT; 2 p.m. EDT). The information on this Community call, including how to participate, is available at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/index.cgi?community_call_with_board_liai son_candidates. If you need a dial-out, please let staff know at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Please post your questions for the Board Liaison candidates directly to the agenda page prior to the Community call. To submit your questions, please click on the red "comment" button at the top of the page. As a reminder, the At-Large Election Call wiki is available at: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?at_large_elections_2009. The NARALO Election Call wiki is available at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?2009_election_calls_naralo. We very much look forward to your participation on the call. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org -----Original Message----- From: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Friday, September 18, 2009 7:06 AM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC-Announce] REMINDER / Community Call with Board Liaison Candidates / 20 September 2009 @ 1800 UTC Importance: High Dear All, This is to remind you that the Community Call with the Board Liaison Candidates will be held on: Sunday, 20th September at 18:00 UTC (11:00 PDT/14:00 EDT/15:00 Buenos Aires/20:00 CEST/04:00 Sydney on Monday, 21st September). You will find the meeting information as well as the Draft Agenda at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi/index.cgi?community_call_with_board_liai son_candidates Due to very low interest in a second call from members of the community, we have been asked to inform you that a second call will not be held. However, you can submit your questions directly on the meeting page in English, French or Spanish. To do so, please click on the ³comment² button at the top of the page. We strongly recommend you post your questions PRIOR to the call. The Board Liaison candidates who are not able to participate on this call, will respond to the questions directly on the wiki. To candidates: We remind them to review the questions from the community posted to the Questions Section in advance of the call, and if they are unable to attend the call, to provide answers via the comment feature of the wiki We look forward to hearing as many of you as possible on the call on Sunday! Thank you Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org ------ Forwarded Message From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Tue, 15 Sep 2009 16:52:38 -0700 To: <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Community Call with Board Liaison Candidates Dear All, As set out in the 2009 Board Election Process < https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?board_liaison_process_2009> (EN only), a special purpose teleconference shall be arranged not earlier than Friday, 18th September and not later than Sunday, 20th September at which the candidates for Board Liaison as forwarded from the RALOs to the ALAC shall be provided an equal length of time to speak about their candidature. The ALAC Chair will determine the length of time each candidate will speak prior to the start of the call. This will be followed by a question and answer period during which community members may ask questions of the candidates. The call will also include an explanation of the election process for the board liaison as well as the implications for this position following the Board¹s decision of 27th August 2009 for the At-Large community to select a voting director to the Board. So as to make the call at a time convenient for as many regions as possible, the call is scheduled for Sunday, 20th September at 18:00 UTC (11:00 PDT/14:00 EDT/15:00 Buenos Aires/19:00 CEST/04:00 Sydney on Monday, 21st September). This call shall be recorded and transcribed and conducted in English, Spanish, and French through the use of interpreters. Further call details will be sent out shortly. We recognize that this time may not be suitable for everyone in all regions, especially those in the Eastern hemisphere. Therefore, in order to ensure that as many people within the At-Large community are able to be on a call with the Board Liaison candidates, a Doodle is being offered for a potential additional call on Saturday, 19th September at times more suitable for people living in the Eastern hemisphere if there is sufficient demand. Please only respond to the Doodle if you are unable to participate in the call scheduled for Sunday, 20th September at 18:00 UTC. This call will be recorded and transcribed and conducted in English only. The Doodle is available here: http://www.doodle.com/s7yzrhfdi7t7qkz5. Thank you, Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists. icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Reminder: NARALO Brainstorm call 21 September at 19:00 UTC
by At Large Staff Sept. 18, 2009

Sept. 18, 2009

Dear All, This is a reminder of the NARALO 'Brainstorm' on the development of a procedure for the At-Large community to select a voting Board director. 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

Republicans say TLD expansion serious negative consequences
by Dharma Dailey Sept. 17, 2009

Sept. 17, 2009

> Republican lawmakers want answers from ICANN > BY ANDREW NOYES, CONGRESSDAILY 09/16/2009 > Two of the House Judiciary Committee's top Republicans wrote to the > new head of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > on Tuesday to express concerns about the proposed introduction of > many new top-level domains -- such as .biz, .info, and .us -- and > the expiration later this month of a memo formally joining the > Commerce Department and the California-based entity that administers > the world's Web addresses. > > In their letter to ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom, Judiciary ranking member > Lamar Smith and Courts and Competition Subcommittee ranking member > Howard Coble, R-N.C., said they are worried that a vast expansion of > domains will carry "serious negative consequences" for U.S. > businesses and consumers. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National > Association of Manufacturers and others have complained that adding > hundreds of new domains could exacerbate cyber-squatting, fraud, and > overall confusion in the Internet marketplace. > > Smith and Coble said the absence of price caps in the new registry > deals could mean that legitimate businesses could be discriminated > against and asked to pay a premium for each domain they register or > renew. ICANN, which has said it plans to begin accepting > applications for new domains in early 2010, could bring in an > initial $90 million from the plan, according to some estimates. The > letter argued the only economic justification put forth so far is an > ICANN-commissioned report that has been criticized for failing to > include empirical data to support of its claim that the project will > benefit consumers. > > Given the late consideration of intellectual property concerns and > ICANN's "less than stellar track record," Smith and Coble said they > have "serious misgivings" about the scheduled expiration later this > month of a joint project agreement between the U.S. government and > ICANN. ICANN leaders have claimed that, after 10 years in business, > the nonprofit is ready for its independence but a number of > lawmakers -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- aren't so sure. > House Energy and Commerce Chairman Henry Waxman and Communications > Subcommittee Chairman Rick Boucher, D-Va., last month called for the > creation of a permanent relationship. > > Smith and Coble ask Beckstrom to provide detailed answers by Sept. > 22 to several questions about the domain name expansion and the > termination of the joint project agreement. > > Proponents of the domain name expansion take a different view. > Richard Tindal, senior vice president of registry at eNom, argues > that new domains will be safer space for trademarks. As part of the > proposed process, safeguards are being built into the registry > selection process and the registry/registrar contracts. > Additionally, ICANN is likely to adopt significant portions of the > recommendations for trademark protections offered by a committee of > trademark experts, he said. > > Tindal claims the amount of traffic and cyber-squatting won't > increase significantly with new domains and could actually decrease. > "There is only so much Internet traffic and so many cyber-squatter > dollars available at any given point in time. Doubling the number of > [domains] will not double the amount of cyber-squatting," he said. > Furthermore, the recent introduction of country code top-level > domains and vanity names (e.g. Facebook) demonstrates that once new > domains are introduced, "there will be widespread consumer > adoption," he predicted. >

1 0

Letter to Rod Beckstrom
by Danny Younger Sept. 17, 2009

Sept. 17, 2009

http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICANN-smith-coble.pdf ICANN's CEO has been asked to respond by 22 September to three sets of questions posed by the U.S. House Judiciary's subcommittee on Courts and Competition Policy. The following day (23 Sept.) the Committee is holding a hearing on the Expansion of Top Level Domains and its Effects on Competition; the Hearing will be webcast -- see http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/calendar.html Witness Lists have not yet been posted.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue registrars turn a blind eye
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Ross, I have to concur with Danny. This is a significant part of the overall problem and has been pushed to the side over and over, even when true solutions have been offered, solutions that wont increase the cost of domains or the cost of doing business. Your reasoning on this also fails the logic test as if you are suggesting it is pointless also to verify credit card numbers. I can understand why Registrars would not want to verify their customer information because it presents an obstacle to criminals who buy thousands of domains anonymously. Verification complicates their current business model and income flow. However, by dismissing discussion of solution we are catering people who abuse the system. -Garth ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Tentative Presentations: Global Cyber Security Expo http://cyberexpo.memphis.edu/ > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue > registrars turn a blind eye > From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Mon, September 14, 2009 10:55 am > To: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Hi Ross, > I view time-of-registration contact data verification as a matter that is in the public interest. I tend to place the public interest ahead of registrar self-interest. > As a community we have to ask ourselves if ICANN is doing enough to make sure that contact data is reasonably accurate. At the moment such data isn't as accurate as it could be, and clearly more could be done. > This is not an unreasonable step to take, and will certainly result in some degree of improved accuracy. > What harm to the public interest do you believe would accrue if such a policy was put in place? > regards, > Danny > --- On Mon, 9/14/09, Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> wrote: > > From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue registrars turn a blind eye > > To: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Date: Monday, September 14, 2009, 9:44 AM > > > > On Sep 14, 2009, at 9:11 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > > > > Time-of-registration-whois-verification is a policy > > that is long overdue. Is the at-large prepared to > > bring this issue forward? > > > > > > I encourage you to be thoughtful about the issues as you > > bring this forward. > > > > What I mean is, try and take some time to think about the > > actual issue vs. a prescription. Whois data verification > > pre-registration will be exactly as useful as credit card > > billing information verification at the time of registration > > (which is, in my opinion, not very - the bad guys have all > > the data they need to pass most verification schemes). > > > > Framing up the issue in terms of the problem (as opposed to > > the solution) will help focus the discussion on a range of > > outcomes, rather than focusing it on an already overloaded > > and contentious framework (whois). > > > > /r > > > > ------ > 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 > ------

14 28