September 2009 - NA-Discuss

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue registrars turn a blind eye
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 14, 2009

Sept. 14, 2009

Then maybe we can all agree that a set of proposed fixes to the registration system be drafted, which includes WHOIS accuracy as a main component. Maybe an expanded set of RAA amendments. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue > registrars turn a blind eye > From: Gareth Shearman <shearman(a)victoria.tc.ca> > Date: Mon, September 14, 2009 2:10 pm > To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > I certainly agree with Danny, Garth and Evan that the Whois issue > needs to be addressed, but I also agree with Ross that we need to > address the larger policy issues as well. > Gareth > On 14-Sep-09, at 9:10 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > Ross Rader wrote: > >> An exchange of two or three emails doesn't lead to "a really good > >> idea > >> of what needs to be done". > > > > And At-Large has been at this for a very long time. > > > > I believe that it has already identified WHOIS accuracy as a necessary > > -- if not complete -- part of the solution. Danny's original question > > was on tactics, not strategy. > > > > If we stay in the theoretical forever we get nothing done -- which is > > what's been happening. Eventually we need to define specific fixes. > > > > - 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 > ------

1 0

NARALO Voting Open: NARALO Nominees for ALAC Board Liaison 2009/2010
by At-Large Staff Sept. 14, 2009

Sept. 14, 2009

Dear Community: In accordance with the NARALO process for selecting those persons whom the region will forward to the ALAC for inclusion on the ALAC ballot for ALAC Board Liaison 2009/2010, we can confirm that a vote has just been opened. All authorised voters - that being the same list of persons who participated in the balloting for NomCom delegate names for 2009/2010 from NARALO - will receive voting credentials by mail in the next few minutes. If you do not receive the message due to spam filtering or for some other technical reason, you may access the poll at this URL: https://www.bigpulse.com/24535/signin. Note that if you do not have a voting account for this vote, you will be unable to make use of this URL. The vote will close at 19:30 UTC on 14th September. This is one half hour after the start of the regional teleconference at 19:00. Evan and Darlene will receive a list of those who have not voted as at the opening of the conference so that any who have not yet voted can do so at the beginning of the teleconference. At the same time, the Staff will remind those who have not voted on the 13th by email. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 4

Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue registrars turn a blind eye
by Danny Younger Sept. 14, 2009

Sept. 14, 2009

Yet another article on domain name abuses (1). At one point the article quotes Ram Mohan as saying, "ICANN, which has overall responsibility for the Whois database of registration information, has to find a way to validate the entries." Perhaps Ram wasn't aware that the very first RAA (1999) contained this language: "Registrar shall abide by any ICANN-adopted policies requiring reasonable and commercially practicable (a) verification, at the time of registration, of contact information associated with an SLD registration sponsored by Registrar or (b) periodic re-verification of such information." Time-of-registration-whois-verification is a policy that is long overdue. Is the at-large prepared to bring this issue forward? (1) http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=B809FA70-1A64-67EA-E4B5B30FF36D196B

3 5

NARALO Teleconference and Adobe Connect Training - Sept. 14
by At Large Staff Sept. 11, 2009

Sept. 11, 2009

Dear All This is a friendly follow up reminder that the next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 14 September at 19:00 UTC (12:00 p.m. PDT/3 p.m. EDT). Participation information as well as the proposed agenda can found on the following page: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14%20September%202009. For those of you are would like to increase your Adobe Connect skills, there will be a NARALO Adobe Connect Training session 30 minutes prior to the start of the NARALO teleconference beginning at 18:30 UTC (11:30 a.m. PDT/2:30 p.m. EDT). To participate in the audio portion of this meeting, please dial into to the same Adigo telephone number as for the NARALO teleconferences (North America toll-free: 1-800-550-6865 - dial in: 1638). The link to the Adobe Connect Training room as well as questions that will be answered during the call are available at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14_september_2009_adobe_connect_briefi ng_session. Please feel free to add your questions to the wiki by using the comments section. If you require a dial-out for either call, please let us 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] Followup -- secret meetings, ombudsman, etc.
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 11, 2009

Sept. 11, 2009

That's great Evan, thanks! > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Followup -- secret meetings, ombudsman, etc. > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Fri, September 11, 2009 10:30 am > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Staff > <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > Thanks for this work Evan, in reference to: > > > > <<staff has said (though not on the record) that he was disruptive to > > the meetings.>> > > > > What is "disruptive" anyway? This is sooooo subjective. > Agreed. But we won't know more until ICANN staff produces an > on-the-record response to his allegations. > In a private followup email, I specifically asked Richard, > "Did you do *anything* that might have been grounds for them to call > security? (ie, physical contact, meeting disruption, etc.)" > His prompt, on-the-record reply was (repeated verbatim), > "fuck no. i was the consumate professional. the only thing stacy > complained to me about was "you came in here and asked when the > meeting was without identifiying yourself!" > As of this moment, this, and Richard's blog entry are the only public > accounts of the ejection. The rebuttals I have heard have all been > hearsay and off-the-record. > > I think the Registrars were disruptive in a number of our working groups and presentations. Disruptive could just mean he asked questions they didn't want to answer. > > > Trying to be fair, it's my understanding that the meeting was about > process and not policy -- "how" rather than "why". If Richard went there > demanding answers to policy related issues, that was unreasonable and > unfair to the participants. However, we won't know the other side until > ICANN gives us one. > I am specifically asking from ICANN staff its on-the-record account of > why Richard Sexton was ejected. > - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Followup -- secret meetings, ombudsman, etc.
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 11, 2009

Sept. 11, 2009

Thanks for this work Evan, in reference to: <<staff has said (though not on the record) that he was disruptive to the meetings.>> What is "disruptive" anyway? This is sooooo subjective. I think the Registrars were disruptive in a number of our working groups and presentations. Disruptive could just mean he asked questions they didn't want to answer. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Followup -- secret meetings, ombudsman, etc. > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Fri, September 11, 2009 1:46 am > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Hello all. > Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I've been both busy and a little ill. > The issue of the secret meetings -- touched off by my anger over the > non-announcement of regional ICANN meetings for contracted parties -- > was raised and significantly debated at the ALAC executive committee > earlier this week. > (There are as yet no minutes or transcripts on the meeting page at > https://st.icann.org/alac-excomm/index.cgi?08_september_2009) > In the discussion, a number points were raised that I found useful: > * There is significant anger over this in ALAC as previous secret > meetings have also been noted and the subject of complaint > * Going to the Ombudsman is seen to be a last-ditch effort which > angers everyone in the process yet will likely change little in itself > * Stories vary dramatically regarding Richard Sexton's behaviour and > subsequent removal from the Toronto meeting. He says he did > nothing wrong; staff has said (though not on the record) that he > was disruptive to the meetings. > * A new CEO and new respect for At-Large may affect the way we are > heard on such matters now > * All meeting issues are now under the watch of CFO Kevin Wilson, > who has been receptive to our issues so far > The ExComm suggested that we draft a letter for transmission to Kevin > and and Rod describing the unacceptable nature of these secret meetings. > Such a letter would have full support of ALAC (and probably other > regions should we want their endorsements). We would then meet with them > in Seoul to obtain an assurance that all ICANN-funded meetings will be > public. > We are also owed a detailed explanation regarding the ejection of > Richard Sexton. If Richard's account is correct, ICANN must be held > accountable. And if Richard's account is wrong, it requires an > on-the-record rebuttal. > (A related issue -- whether such regional meetings should be expanded to > cover At-Large face-to-face meetings -- is still to be dealt with, but > is part of ICANN;'s strategic plan and should not be mixed into the > immediate issue of secrecy and transparency.) > Alan has volunteered to word-craft the letter with my assistance. > The is the situation as I understand it. > - 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 > ------

2 1

Followup -- secret meetings, ombudsman, etc.
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 11, 2009

Sept. 11, 2009

Hello all. Sorry I didn't get to this sooner, I've been both busy and a little ill. The issue of the secret meetings -- touched off by my anger over the non-announcement of regional ICANN meetings for contracted parties -- was raised and significantly debated at the ALAC executive committee earlier this week. (There are as yet no minutes or transcripts on the meeting page at https://st.icann.org/alac-excomm/index.cgi?08_september_2009) In the discussion, a number points were raised that I found useful: * There is significant anger over this in ALAC as previous secret meetings have also been noted and the subject of complaint * Going to the Ombudsman is seen to be a last-ditch effort which angers everyone in the process yet will likely change little in itself * Stories vary dramatically regarding Richard Sexton's behaviour and subsequent removal from the Toronto meeting. He says he did nothing wrong; staff has said (though not on the record) that he was disruptive to the meetings. * A new CEO and new respect for At-Large may affect the way we are heard on such matters now * All meeting issues are now under the watch of CFO Kevin Wilson, who has been receptive to our issues so far The ExComm suggested that we draft a letter for transmission to Kevin and and Rod describing the unacceptable nature of these secret meetings. Such a letter would have full support of ALAC (and probably other regions should we want their endorsements). We would then meet with them in Seoul to obtain an assurance that all ICANN-funded meetings will be public. We are also owed a detailed explanation regarding the ejection of Richard Sexton. If Richard's account is correct, ICANN must be held accountable. And if Richard's account is wrong, it requires an on-the-record rebuttal. (A related issue -- whether such regional meetings should be expanded to cover At-Large face-to-face meetings -- is still to be dealt with, but is part of ICANN;'s strategic plan and should not be mixed into the immediate issue of secrecy and transparency.) Alan has volunteered to word-craft the letter with my assistance. The is the situation as I understand it. - Evan

2 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 11, 2009

Sept. 11, 2009

I hear you > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Thu, September 10, 2009 11:20 am > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, "John R. Levine" > <johnl(a)iecc.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > There is an old adage about picking one's battles. John is saying > that this may not be a good one to pick. > Alan > At 10/09/2009 10:12 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > >Sure, but allowing this to exist is a problem. Let's document it and > >publish it instead. > > > >------------------------------------- > >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] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > > > From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > > > Date: Thu, September 10, 2009 9:04 am > > > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Evan Leibovitch > > > <evan(a)telly.org> > > > > > > > > > > If that is the case, we should also complain to the board about that... > > > > > > I don't think that would be productive at this point, since Frank serves a > > > useful cover function for them. > > > > > > R's, > > > John > > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > > > >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > > > >> From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > > > >> Date: Wed, September 09, 2009 6:25 am > > > >> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > > > >> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > >>> I would like to ask for the help -- or at least the endorsement -- of > > > >>> others within NARALO regarding the lodging of a complaint > > with the ICANN > > > >>> Ombudsman. > > > >> Don't waste your time. The Ombudsman is a fraud (although he doesn't > > > >> think he is.) Take it directly to the board. > > > >> R's, > > > >> John > > > > > >------ > >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] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 10, 2009

Sept. 10, 2009

There is an old adage about picking one's battles. John is saying that this may not be a good one to pick. Alan At 10/09/2009 10:12 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: >Sure, but allowing this to exist is a problem. Let's document it and >publish it instead. > >------------------------------------- >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] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > > From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > > Date: Thu, September 10, 2009 9:04 am > > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Evan Leibovitch > > <evan(a)telly.org> > > > > > > > If that is the case, we should also complain to the board about that... > > > > I don't think that would be productive at this point, since Frank serves a > > useful cover function for them. > > > > R's, > > John > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > > >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > > >> From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > > >> Date: Wed, September 09, 2009 6:25 am > > >> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > > >> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > >>> I would like to ask for the help -- or at least the endorsement -- of > > >>> others within NARALO regarding the lodging of a complaint > with the ICANN > > >>> Ombudsman. > > >> Don't waste your time. The Ombudsman is a fraud (although he doesn't > > >> think he is.) Take it directly to the board. > > >> R's, > > >> John > > >------ >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] 7 September election for ALAC liaison to the ICANN Board
by Beau Brendler Sept. 10, 2009

Sept. 10, 2009

I guess I would say: The liaison position is, at the moment, a sure thing. The ICANN board position has yet to pass through any stage of implementation. It may take a long time before the ALAC or at-large is even ready to elect its representative to the board. So it would seem to me we should proceed as planned with the liaison election as scheduled, as we don't necessarily know how short the liaison term will end up being. Also, I think we should respond to the enthusiasm of several members of the ALAC (there are other candidates who have declared for the board liaison position in other regions) and hold elections. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Sep 9, 2009 8:06 PM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net >Subject: 7 September election for ALAC liaison to the ICANN Board > >Beau, according to the NARALO's election page: > >(1) "One or more candidates for the position of ALAC liaison to the ICANN Board Election to start 7 September; candidates are Alan Greenberg, Seth Reiss and Wendy Seltzer." > >(2) "Unaffiliated members of NARALO are to achieve consensus regarding how their collective vote is to be cast. Beau Brendler is the representative for unaffiliated members." > >I'd like to ask this preliminary question before we "unaffiliated" members begin to caucus: > >Knowing that the ICANN Board has already decided that in the near future there will no longer be an at-large liason to the board (as we will instead have an at-large director), does it really make sense to elect someone to what will undoubtably be a term of very short duration? Wouldn't it make more sense to simply extend the term of the incumbent in view of these particular and unique circumstances? > > > > >

1 0