September 2009 - NA-Discuss

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

Sept. 16, 2009

<<but my understanding is that anyone with a trade-mark to preserve tends to have VERY large portfolio of defensive registrations.>> Yes, but they should not have to. <<And there is no point if irritating constituencies who might otherwise be strong supporters of the type of effort we are discussing.>> I don't think this would irritate the brand owners. Much of their efforts are spent in determining the true ownership of typosquatted domains, this would cut to the chase. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 11:04 am > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > In the interest of not hurting a good argument with bad data, I would > suggest that this statement not be made. I do not have a real clue > how many domains a typical multi-million dollar company owns, but my > understanding is that anyone with a trade-mark to preserve tends to > have VERY large portfolio of defensive registrations. And there is no > point if irritating constituencies who might otherwise be strong > supporters of the type of effort we are discussing. > Alan > At 15/09/2009 10:24 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > >Consider this. How many domains does a multi-million dollar company buy? > >1 maybe 2. Maybe one for each gTLD and ccTLD, that's still less than > >300. > ------ > 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 > ------

3 2

Another registrar bites the dust
by Danny Younger Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

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

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Danny Younger wrote: > I tend to think that most of you that hail from organizational entities rarely (if ever) discuss ICANN matters at the local level. I owe you no justification of what I do at the local level, as in this regard I am accountable to my ALS and not you. Of course you are welcome to engage in ongoing speculation on how little I (or others on this list) do; such speculation will certainly be as unproductive as the rest of this sub-thread has been. Personally, I'd like to spend my efforts here on policy not process. Of course this won't fly with you right now as I'm one of the nasty oppressors who plot in the shadows to silence you ..... as anyone reading this mailing list over the past two years can clearly see. And as you continue to remind us in this email thread. If have a problem with the ALS model used by At-Large, you had your chance to address that during the ALAC Review.That's now done. Unless other NARALO support exists for (what I consider to be) distraction away from policy work, I won't be engaging it any more. I have no (further) interest in using my ICANN time to debate the fine points of representational democracy. Danny, you were supposed to review a document I sent you Friday related to new gTLDs and intellectual property. I still haven't received your review of what I sent. Instead, you spend your energies on this. How unfortunate. - Evan

2 1

Rod Beckstrom responds to comments on the GA list
by Danny Younger Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

As of late the GA list has been aflurry with claims of Staff censorship -- see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg03163.html It is refreshing to see the new ICANN CEO respond to community concerns. One can only hope that going forward Rod Beckstrom will choose to engage himself in discussions on all of the lists in much the same manner as did Vint Cerf (whose contributions were always appreciated).

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Danny Younger wrote: > That's an easy comment for you to make as your vote carries more weight > that ours under this lousy system. Having been raised in the U.S. I tend > to subscribe to the one-man-one-vote principle. I see no merit in > organizational entities having the preponderance of the votes in this body > when rightfully anyone that shows up to participate in the NARALO should be > allowed to vote on an equal basis with their peers. ... and decision-making on US healthcare policy should be limited to those who show up at town hall meetings. - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Beau Brendler Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Yes -- the vote ended at around 3:30 yesterday -----Original Message----- >From: Joly MacFie <joly(a)punkcast.com> >Sent: Sep 15, 2009 2:11 PM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...) > >- In advance of the voting period, Staff will announce the names of all >> unaffiliated members eligible to participate (just as the list of ALSs >> is announced). This list, collectively, will be the Unaffiliated Member >> Caucus (UMC) and have the same voting rights as a NARALO ALS >> > > >Did I miss this? > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast >WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com >http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >--------------------------------------------------------------- >------ >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] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Alan, I've read the proposed studies and reviewed all the previous ones. They are designed to not find anything useful. Their methodology is flawed and the sample sizes too small to reveal anything meaningful. It's just for show. They've never moved on the GAO study or any other recommended fixes, I don't think the new studies will help. -Garth > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:59 am > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Not wanting to splash cold water on this effort, but I need to point > out that at the direction of the Board and with significant input > from the GAC and parts of the GNSO, we have started the (slow?) > process of doing a number of studies regarding whois. > We are not likely to see formal action on any of the traditional > whois-related issues until at least some of those studies are done. > Please note that I am not advocating doing nothing, just telling you > how I am reading the tea-leaves. > Alan > At 15/09/2009 10:43 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > > Great. So how do we get support for this? > > > > >We discuss it and endorse it (or some modified version of it) as a > >NARALO position (together of a detailed account of how the status quo > >damages the public good). > > > >At that point we submit it to ALAC, which will then do one of three things: > > > >1) Endorse it as-is > >2) Endorse it after ALAC modifications > >3) Choose not to endorse it, or to not deal with it. > > > >If ALAC chooses (2) or (3) we can choose to submit this request > >ourselves as a NARALO statement. > >We may also find that we may be able to attract support for this within > >the business and non commercial constituencies of GNSO. > > > >I have indicated to the ALAC Chair our interest in this issue, an she > >has responded that ALAC and other regions share our concerns. It is > >possible that our initiative may achieve global support, which will make > >ICANN rejection of it more difficult. > > > >- 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 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 > ------

4 4

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Eduardo Diaz Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Then this is what we should do regarding Darlene suggestion. Thanks. -ed On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>wrote: > 16. When an ALS does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not > contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the NARALO > discussion list in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting > rights and active status within the NARALO. > > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO > VotingResult ...) > > To: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)gov.nu.ca> > > Cc: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 1:34 PM > > What's written in our by-laws regarding > > lack of participation by ALS's? > > > > -ed > > > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 1:33 PM, > > Thompson, Darlene <DThompson(a)gov.nu.ca> > > wrote: > > > > I don't understand. WAS > > Beau's vote of less weight than anybody else's? > > > > How could that be? > > > > > > > > On a separate point, we probably do need to do some > > house-cleaning on > > > > ALSs that we haven't heard from in at least a year. > > > > > > > > D > > > > > > > > Darlene A. Thompson > > > > Community Access Program Administrator > > > > Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP > > > > P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 > > > > Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 > > > > Phone: (867) 975-5631 > > > > Fax: (867) 975-5610 > > > > E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] > > On Behalf Of Danny > > > > Younger > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2009 9:44 AM > > > > To: Jean Armour Polly; Evan Leibovitch > > > > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was > > Re: NARALO > > > > VotingResult ...) > > > > > > > > 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). > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > Looking forward to a robust discussion. > > > > > > > > -- Danny -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > 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 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 > > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > -- 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.

2 1

NARALO Voting Result: NARALO Nominees for ALAC Board Liaison 2009/2010
by At-Large Staff Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Dear all, Fourteen out of 22 eligible NARALO Members participated in the recent poll on the NARALO Recommendation for Board Liaison. The vote was conducted using the instant runoff voting system, where voters can rank candidates in order of preference (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting) ********************* NARALO Board Liaison Vote 2009 As at Poll close: Monday 14 September 2009 19:28 UTC Number of voters: 14 · Electorate size: 22 · Percentage voted: 63.64 Showing accumulated votes in each count after distribution of preferences. Rank Elected and Excluded Candidate Count1 Count2 1 Elected in count2 Reiss, Seth 6 8 2 Not elected in count2 Greenberg, Alan 4 6 3 Excluded in count1 Seltzer, Wendy 4 0 You may review the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=2kfGZQB8pr2uIqC5PgHx The results were presented and discussed during yesterday¹s NARALO Teleconference. ******************** NARALO Members who participated in the vote: Monique Chartrand Eduardo Diaz Garth Bruen Michael Maranda Glenn McKnight Randy Glass Gareth Shearman Evan Leibovitch Darlene Thompson Beau Brendler John Levine ALAC Bret Fausett Seth Reiss Robert Guerra ****************** NARALO Members who did not participate in the vote: Bev Collins David Solomonoff Sylvia Caras Stephen Soucy Ted Ernst Zaid Ali Myles Braithwaite Louis Houle -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

9 20

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Again, I was not making a statement on the value of the studies, just how I am reading the politics of the moment. That could of course change. Alan At 15/09/2009 11:22 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: >Alan, > >I've read the proposed studies and reviewed all the previous ones. They >are designed to not find anything useful. Their methodology is flawed >and the sample sizes too small to reveal anything meaningful. It's just >for show. They've never moved on the GAO study or any other recommended >fixes, I don't think the new studies will help. > >-Garth > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:59 am > > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Not wanting to splash cold water on this effort, but I need to point > > out that at the direction of the Board and with significant input > > from the GAC and parts of the GNSO, we have started the (slow?) > > process of doing a number of studies regarding whois. > > We are not likely to see formal action on any of the traditional > > whois-related issues until at least some of those studies are done. > > Please note that I am not advocating doing nothing, just telling you > > how I am reading the tea-leaves. > > Alan > > At 15/09/2009 10:43 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > >Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > > > Great. So how do we get support for this? > > > > > > >We discuss it and endorse it (or some modified version of it) as a > > >NARALO position (together of a detailed account of how the status quo > > >damages the public good). > > > > > >At that point we submit it to ALAC, which will then do one of > three things: > > > > > >1) Endorse it as-is > > >2) Endorse it after ALAC modifications > > >3) Choose not to endorse it, or to not deal with it. > > > > > >If ALAC chooses (2) or (3) we can choose to submit this request > > >ourselves as a NARALO statement. > > >We may also find that we may be able to attract support for this within > > >the business and non commercial constituencies of GNSO. > > > > > >I have indicated to the ALAC Chair our interest in this issue, an she > > >has responded that ALAC and other regions share our concerns. It is > > >possible that our initiative may achieve global support, which will make > > >ICANN rejection of it more difficult. > > > > > >- Evan > > > > > > > > >------ > > >NA-Discuss mailing list > > >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarg > e-lists.icann.org > > > > > >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 > > ------

1 0