September 2009 - NA-Discuss

Re: [NA-Discuss] More information on Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability public comment period
by Edward Hasbrouck Oct. 8, 2009

Oct. 8, 2009

To be clear, my question is not "about the provision of more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the stated needs of the community." Translation is an ongoing issue, but I have not seen any such publicly stated "need" with respect to this issue in particular, any more than dozens or hundreds of other issues. More importantly, my question is *not* about the substance of the decision, which I would not oppose were a proposal properly made to the Board to open a second comment period, but solely about the identity of the decision-maker and the process and authority for their decision. An ongoing problem with ICANN's process has been the confusion of substantive and procedural issues, and the erroneous assumption that a good-faith belief in the merits of the outcome is sufficient to justify any defects in the process by which that outcome was or is reached. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck On 29 Sep 2009 at 11:31, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell <maria.farrell(a)icann.org>> wrote: > Dear Edward, > > The decision to extend the comment period was taken with the agreement of > our legal counsel. I will refer your question to the Office of the General > Counsel since you believe this issue to be primarily about legal authority. > > I must admit this is the first complaint I've had about the provision of > more translated documents or the extension of a comment period to meet the > stated needs of the community. > > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell > > On 9/29/09 2:12 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> wrote: > > While these seem like reasonable grounds for a proposal to the Board for a > second comment period (or for re-opening comment on an almost infinite > number of previous decisions), I'm puzzled as to which member of staff had > this authority, and on what basis. Could you please send me the URL of the > minutes of the Board decision delegating to a member of the staff the > authority to overrule the decision of the Board setting the comment period > at 60 days, or of the provision of the Bylaws you believe gives that member > of the staff the authority to overrule such a Board decision? > > Sincerely, > > Edward Hasbrouck > > On 29 Sep 2009 at 10:47, "Maria Farrell" <Maria Farrell > <maria.farrell(a)icann.org>> wrote: > > > Dear Edward, > > > > The Board has not voted to extend the comment period. The comment period > > has been extended by staff because translations of the proposed bylaws > > were finalised too late to allow non-English language users to > > participate fully in the consultation. The translated versions will be > > posted this week in five other languages, and a further two months of > > consultation time allowed to ensure everyone has the same chance to take > > part. > > > > Yours sincerely, Maria Farrell > > > > > > On 9/29/09 12:52 PM, "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> wrote: > > > > According to an announcement posted 28 september 2009: > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm > > > > "Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this proposed > > bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to > > allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their > > views." > > > > The comment period which expired 25 September 2009 was set by the Board: > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#8 > > > > "Resolved (2009.06.26.24), that the following proposals, including the > > possible Bylaws amendments proposed in the "Improving Institutional > > Confidence: The Way Forward" report, be posted for 60 days for public > > comment:..." > > > > I can't find any record of a vote of the Board re-opening this comment > > period, or delegating authority to do so. > > > > Could you please send me the URL of the minutes recording that vote? > > > > Many thanks, > > > > Edward Hasbrouck ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] "Hello World" from ICANN
by Edward Hasbrouck Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

That still leaves many questions unanswered about the process: "ICANN's New Commitment to Transparency Arrives Via Secret Process" http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/30/165214 On 30 Sep 2009 at 18:03, "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <Elisabeth Porteneuve <elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr>> wrote: > Rod Beckstrom made quite a long comment on the ICANN's website about > Affirmation of Commitments > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-30sep09- en.htm#resolution ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

1 0

US Government and ICANN
by Glenn McKnight Sept. 30, 2009

Sept. 30, 2009

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113338698 US to share Internet review amid worldwide growth by The Associated Press text sizeA <javascript:%20void();>A <javascript:%20void();>A<javascript:%20void();> NEW YORK* September 30, 2009, 11:20 am ET* As Internet use expands worldwide, the United States said Wednesday it will give other governments and the private sector a greater oversight role in an organization whose decisions affect how computers relay traffic such as e-mail and Twitter posts. The move comes after European regulators and other critics have said the U.S. government could wield too much influence over a system used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide. Those critics have complained, among other things, about the slow rollout of Internet addresses in languages other than English. However, the U.S. government stopped short Wednesday of cutting its ties completely with the Internet organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN. The government agreed instead to establish advisory panels made up of government and private-sector representatives around the world. The panels will review how well ICANN decisions are made openly, reflect the public interest, ensure stability and promote competition for domain names, which are the monikers ending in ".com" and other suffixes. ICANN decisions could influence what domain names are available, what languages they are in and how much they cost. "The Internet is on a long-term arch from being 100 percent American to being 100 percent global," said Rod Beckstrom, the former U.S. cybersecurity chief who joined ICANN as chief executive in July. "This is a significant step along that arch to becoming more global." The U.S. Commerce Department has a guaranteed seat on only one of those panels, with the remaining representatives to be picked by leaders from ICANN and its advisory committee of government officials. But the panels' recommendations won't be binding on ICANN. And Commerce retains oversight through a separate contract for ICANN to handle the nuts-and-bolts of domain name administration. That contract runs through 2011; the new one taking effect Thursday covers ICANN's broader role in setting guidelines and policies. ICANN also agreed to remain a nonprofit headquartered in the United States — it's based in Marina del Rey, Calif. — with offices around the world. Beckstrom said some critics abroad might take that to mean Internet governance still isn't truly global, but the arrangement should ultimately bolster ICANN's standing internationally. "The U.S. government is saying, `OK, you have become a multistakeholder body. Congratulations. Now on to the next set of challenges,'" Beckstrom said. Although the United States will be sharing oversight on these review panels, Commerce officials expect to be more active than before. In the past, the U.S. rarely exercised its veto power over ICANN decisions, and it didn't conduct the formal, public reviews envisioned by the new agreement. "In the early years we were focused on building ICANN as an institution," Lawrence E. Strickling, assistant commerce secretary for communications and information, said in an interview. "We now are about to turn our attention to focusing on ICANN's performance." ICANN has had oversight over domain names under a series of loose agreements with the U.S. government, which funded much of the Internet's development. The latest was expiring Wednesday. Many critics of ICANN and its U.S. oversight, including the European Union's Internet chief, Viviane Reding, saw the expiration as an opportunity to revamp Internet governance. Under the compromise in the new agreement, the review panels are to issue reports every three or four years. Their makeup will largely fall on ICANN's chief executive, an American; its chairman, who is from New Zealand; and the chairman of the Governmental Advisory Committee, currently a Latvian. Reding praised the new framework in a statement, and said the governments that now have more of a say in ICANN should take advantage of the opportunity. In the coming months ICANN hopes to revamp procedures for adding domain name suffixes, which likely would spawn hundreds or thousands of new Internet addresses. A launch has been delayed because of objections over such issues as whether trademark owners could wind up having to buy thousands of new domain names simply to protect their intellectual-property rights. ICANN also is close to allowing entire Internet addresses to be in languages other than English for the first time, potentially easing the way online for people who now must type English characters to reach Web sites in their tongues. ICANN officials say they've needed time to come up with ways to reduce fraud and fairly assign new suffixes in other languages. ——— On the Net: New agreement: http://bit.ly/1pbyin -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

1 0

More information on Proposed Bylaw Changes to Improve Accountability public comment period
by Edward Hasbrouck Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

According to an announcement posted 28 september 2009: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm "Update, September 25, 2009: The public comment period on this proposed bylaw change has been extended by two months, to 27 October 2009, to allow users of the translated versions to prepare and submit their views." The comment period which expired 25 September 2009 was set by the Board: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-26jun09.htm#8 "Resolved (2009.06.26.24), that the following proposals, including the possible Bylaws amendments proposed in the "Improving Institutional Confidence: The Way Forward" report, be posted for 60 days for public comment:..." I can't find any record of a vote of the Board re-opening this comment period, or delegating authority to do so. Could you please send me the URL of the minutes recording that vote? Many thanks, Edward Hasbrouck ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

1 0

Comment period on "accountability" bylaws change re-opened
by Edward Hasbrouck Sept. 29, 2009

Sept. 29, 2009

The comment period on the proposed accountability (not) bylaw revisions, which had closed on Friday with the submitted comments unanimously opposing the proposal, was re-opened today. Announcement: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm My comments: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=09/09/28/2231236 Edward Hasbrouck http://hasbrouck.org/icann

2 1

Milton Mueller blasts the proposed Consumer Constituency
by Danny Younger Sept. 28, 2009

Sept. 28, 2009

http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/9/22/4329523.html Consumer Fraud Two people in ALAC are pushing to create a Consumer constituency within the new Noncommercial Stakeholders Group. While superficially this may seem like a good idea, nothing in ICANN is simple or straightforward. The Board should not recognize a Consumer Constituency now. There are four reasons why the Board must wait until next year before even considering it. 1. The proposed consumer constituency is empty. It has no demonstrable support or official participation from any major consumer organization. When a petition to form it was filed in February, the proposer, Beau Brendler, claimed the support of Consumers Union, Consumers International, Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, and the Australian Consumers Consumer Action Network. But none of these groups filed comments in favor of the petition. And none of them are members now. In fact no consumer organizations filed supporting comments! The only public comment that supported the petition was a business group, the trademark lobbyist association AIM. The proposal for a Consumer Constituency is basically a two person show. Its only backers are Beau Brendler and Cheryl Langdon-Orr, both of whom were appointed (not elected) to ALAC and would like to extend ALAC's remit into the GNSO. Mr. Brendler was employed by the Consumers Union in the U.S. for a while, but the CU was so uninterested in his involvement in ICANN that it laid him off this summer. Mr. Brendler currently does not speak for any consumer organization.. Langdon-Orr claims to speak for an ACCAN – but the ACCAN has nothing about this on its web site and did not file comments in favor of the petition. The simple fact is that this constituency has nothing in it. 2. The move divides and fragments consumer advocacy within ICANN. At this time, there are more active consumer protection advocates in the existing Noncommercial Users Constituency than there are in this proposed new constituency. Consumer advocacy groups like Public Citizen, Free Press and EPIC are currently members of NCUC; moreover, these groups are members of Consumers International and Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue and further linked to them via the OECD civil society advisory council. All of them would be happy to work with new consumer organizations in the flexible, integrated Stakeholder Group structure proposed by the NCUC. But a new constituency under the current charter would create a separate organization, run by Brendler, and so fragment the consumer organizations involved in ICANN. (Fragmentation and division is really the object of this proposal, as explained below.) The charter imposed on the Noncommercial stakeholders by ICANN means that creating a new constituency in the GNSO is a zero-sum game: it takes representation away from one group to and gives it to another. So if this “consumer constituency” is created it means that all existing consumer organizations involved in NCUC get less influence. 3. The most serious problem with this proposal is that it makes it impossible to come to a consensual agreement on the future Noncommercial Stakeholder Group (NCSG) charter. If a new constituency is created, it will be created under the terms and conditions of an interim, temporary charter. That charter was imposed on noncommercial stakeholders and is based on a model of fragmenting civil society into separate constituencies which must always fight with each other over how votes are apportioned. That model was decisively rejected by civil society and constitutes a totally unacceptable way to achieve the goals of the GNSO reforms. Several Board members have questioned it and insisted that it be reviewed after a year. The disagreement over the charter has been recognized by the Board and needs to be negotiated and resolved consensually. But if a new constituency is created now, it would have the effect of making the illegitimate charter a fait accompli, by locking it into place. That is why Brendler and Langdon-Orr are trying to push the Board into recognizing this fake constituency now, before the issue of the charter is settled. That way they won’t have to negotiate in good faith regarding the If their actions have to obtain support and consensus from the broader noncommercial community, they know they will be dead in the water. 4. It makes no sense to rigidly separate “consumer” issues from other noncommercial concerns. Consumer advocacy in communications policy often revolves around economic issues, such as prices, fraud, unfair contracts and business practices – but those concerns are often closely linked to concerns about privacy and freedom of expression. The constituency model forces noncommercial groups into rigidly separate boxes where they discuss issues in isolation from the other perspectives. It is a model that has only one aim: to divide and conquer. That explains why the trademark groups, who are resentful over the redistribution of votes on the GNSO Council, are supporting this Consumer constituency and none of the noncommercial groups are. As we speak, ICANN staff and Langdon-Orr are orchestrating a vote by the ALAC to support the creation of a consumer constituency. She is not telling the At Large members that she is a very interested party in this decision. She is hoping that they will fall prey to the simplistic appeal of being pro-consumer. It is ironic, but very revealing of ICANN politics, that members of ICANN’s policy staff are supporting the creation of a Consumer Constituency, a proposal which did not receive one supportive comment from any consumer organization in the world, but are fighting tooth and nail to implement a NCSG charter that nearly 100 noncommercial organizations opposed. Let’s hope that the Board and new CEO can see through this ploy and respect the request of the noncommercial constituency to wait until the charter issue is resolved before forming any new entities.

5 6

NTIA & State Department Briefing on ICANN
by Danny Younger Sept. 25, 2009

Sept. 25, 2009

The Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee invites you to attend a briefing on "The Future of the U.S. Government's Role in ICANN, Internet Addressing and Internet Governance" Thursday, October 1, 2009 11:45 am - 1:30 pm, Luncheon Briefing and Q&A U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center, Congressional North Meeting Room (CVC-268) Please RSVP to rsvp(a)netcaucus.org. Save the date for an important briefing, "The Future of the U.S. Government's Role in ICANN, Internet Addressing and Internet Governance." The briefing will feature the top government officials responsible for managing the relationship between the U.S. and ICANN, the non-profit body that manages the Internet's domain name system, including IP address space allocation. Presenters will represent the NTIA within the Department of Commerce and the U.S. Department of State respectively. We will include a robust question and answer session as part of the discussion. The briefing is incredibly timely as the current agreement, the Joint Project Agreement (JPA), between the U.S. government and ICANN will expire the day before this briefing on September 30, 2009. There may or may not be a successor agreement to the JPA in place on October 1. Regardless, the U.S. government representatives will discuss the future of Internet addressing and domain name management with or with such an agreement. It promises to be interesting. The presenters will be posted at NetCaucus.org shortly. What: Luncheon Briefing and Q&A (Lunch will be served; this is a widely attended event) Where: U.S. Capitol Visitor’s Center, Congressional North Meeting Room (CVC-268) When: Thursday, October 1, 2009, from 11:45 am to 1:30 pm RSVP: Please send RSVPs to rsvp(a)netcaucus.org or via phone to 202-638-4370. Please send RSVPs to rsvp(a)netcaucus.org. For more information visit www.netcaucus.org or contact Cat Matsuda at 202-638-4370 for more details. This widely attended educational briefing is hosted by the Congressional Internet Caucus Advisory Committee (ICAC), part of a 501 (c)(3) charitable organization. Congressional staff and Members of the press welcome. The ICAC is a private sector organization comprised of public interest groups, trade associations, non-profits, and corporations. More information on the ICAC is available at www.netcaucus.org.

2 1

Failure to implement Bylaws
by Edward Hasbrouck Sept. 25, 2009

Sept. 25, 2009

ICANN has requested comments by tomorrow, 25 September 2009, on proposed revisions to the ICANN Bylaws for "Independent Review" of ICANN decisions: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-27jul09-en.htm The fundamental problem with ICANN's current Bylaws for independent review is that those bylaws have never been properly implemented, and that -- despite multiple requests for independent review of ICANN decisions -- no independent review comporting with either the present or the previous independent review Bylaws has ever been conducted. (According to a cursory statement on the ICMRegistry.Com Web site, some sort of "hearing" is being conducted in Washington this week in response to ICM Registry's request for independent review of an ICANN decision. However, whatever is happening in that matter is not in accordance with ICANN's Bylaws on independent review. First, the proceedings are not being conducted with the maximum extent feasible of transparency, as required by the Bylaws. Second, the independent review provider and its procedures were not determined by ICANN in accordance with the procedural rules of ICANN's bylaws for such policy decisions. Instead, ICANN appears to have chosen the independent review provider and allowed it to determine procedures -- which procedures themselves do not comport with ICANN's Bylaws on transparency -- through completely improper secret, ex parte negotiations with the potential independent review provider while independent review requests with other parties were already pending.) Changing the bylaws on independent review will accomplish nothing unless those bylaws are actually implemented (in accordance with, inter alia, the other provisions of the Bylaws with respect to policy development and decision-making procedures and transparency). ICANN has done nothing to give reason for any confidence whatsoever that ICANN will actually implement any accountability mechanisms, current or revised. As I have noted repeatedly in previous comments to ICANN, ICANN has failed to implement any of the three accountability mechanisms required by its current Bylaws. ICANN's Board of Directors has never held a publicly disclosed vote to appoint or reappoint an Ombudsman. The Reconsideration Committee of the Board of Directors has made decisions which, by its own declaration, were based on matters not permitted to be a basis for such decisions. And ICANN has never conducted a policy development process to designate an independent review provider or develop or approve procedures for independent review, just as it never appointed the members of the independent review body provided for by its previous Bylaws. (I also note that the ICANN's request for comments is materially false and misleading in its claim that, "ICANN has an Independent Review Process in place, as established at Article IV, Section 3 (1) of the bylaws". ICANN does not, in fact, have any process in place that has been established in accordance with ICANN's accountability and transparency Bylaws.) ICANN has knowingly and wilfully persisted in this failure, in flagrant violation of its own Bylaws. Members of ICANN's Board of Directors have tolerated this ongoing and flagrant violation of the Bylaws. Given ICANN's failure to establish any other means of accountability, the only remaining mechanisms for calling ICANN to account are for the United States Department of Commerce to revoke its contracts with ICANN for breach of contract (in that ICANN has made contractual commitments to the DOC to observe its Bylaws on accountability), and for the State of California to revoke ICANN's corporate charter for persistent failure to operate in accordance with its Bylaws, as required by that charter. Requests for independent review made under both the previous and present independent review Bylaws remain pending and have not been acted on by ICANN. The proposed revised independent review Bylaws are silent on what action, if any, will ever be taken on these outstanding requests. Rather than revise the independent review Bylaws yet again, ICANN should implement its existing Bylaws on accountability, including independent review, by (1) appointing an Ombudsman, (2)compelling the Reconsideration Committee to act in accordance with the Bylaws in new cases and to properly reconsider those cases previous decided on impermissible grounds, and (3) designating an Independent Review Provider, developing procedures for independent review, and considering the backlog of outstanding requests for independent review, all in accordance with the procedural rules in the Bylaws for such decisions and actions, and the general mandate of the Bylaws for the maximum extent feasible of transparency in the operations of ICANN and its subsidiary bodies. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck edward(a)hasbrouck.org http://hasbrouck.org/icann

1 0

Looks like the JPA will expire next week
by Bob Bruen Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

The Economist is reporting that ICANN will not have the JPA renewed. A 4 page letter has been signed (affirmation of commitments). There is some international oversight committee going in place, with four panels and the US will have reps on only one. ICANN has said nothing about this and there is no word yet on who in the US government sign the letter. http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14517430 -bob

1 0

Consumer Constituency details and documents
by Beau Brendler Sept. 24, 2009

Sept. 24, 2009

I appreciate the earlier questions raised by Michael Maranda, and this is partially in response. I hope the attachments get through, as my mailer often seems to choke when posting to this list. I made a separate post similar to this one to the internal ALAC list, so you can delete this one and you have my apologies for the double post. Here are the actual consumer constituency documents, to help take the mystery out of this. The following people have expressed interest to me about being part of the Consumers Constituency. Whether they are still interested after all this, I cannot tell you, but I am in the process of getting in touch with them. Holly Raiche, ACCAN of Australia Gareth Shearman and his wife and their local consumer org Rudi VanSnick and the users org he is affiliated with, which claims 10,000 members Breda Kutin of the national consumers organization of Slovenia (which, despite the country's size, is one of the most active in Europe) CADNA (they were interested early on, but I was hesitant, given that they are funded by and are a lobby group for corporate IP interests -- however, in the revised charter, they might meet the qualifications, but I would put their request for membership up to a vote). We are seeking the participation of two other consumer groups within the at-large, KEPKA from Greece, and the national consumer organization representing Jamaica, neither of which to my knowledge have been particularly active in at-large matters at all. There are other people on the record in the NCUC as being in support of the consumer constituency. I won't name them here. The original document written back in February, when I was still employed by Consumers Union, implied that we had the support of organizations like the TACD and others. We do not, and Consumers Union is unlikely to want to get involved -- their entire telecom staff has either left or been laid off because of their shift in focus to health care. I should state unequivocally and for the record that there is no ICANN funding being provided for this group, or to me or anyone else. We have had a good deal of help from staff, primarily in writing the charter (and updating the charter) to conform with the events of the last year. However, anything in these documents that bears the slightest controversy, or opinion, or anything else, was written by me, with a few contributions by Holly. Staff did not write these documents. If ICANN staff is saying anything to the contrary, I haven't heard it, but then again, I have been incredibly busy in my personal life and have not paid attention. What was the purpose for creating this constituency? Exactly what is said in these documents, no more, no less. No agenda other than providing a voice for consumer >organizations< in the GNSO [hence the limiting language: "The major areas of consumer interest related to the Internet pertain to transactions of some kind, buying and selling; therefore, issues such as fraud, spam, phishing, identity theft, network neutrality, privacy, WHOIS, and new gTLDs are of major consumer concern. "]. And if we can come to the determination that users are better served in the GNSO by withdrawing this petition and clubbing in with the NCSG, well, hey, I'd be for it if everyone else I mentioned agrees. Here it is in print: "The intended purpose of the Consumers Constituency is to serve as the conduit for consumer interests as they relate to the safety and stability of the Internet at the juncture where they fall into the remit of ICANN. The major areas of consumer interest related to the Internet pertain to transactions of some kind, buying and selling; therefore, issues such as fraud, spam, phishing, identity theft, network neutrality, privacy, WHOIS, and new gTLDs are of major consumer concern. While “cybercrime” issues do not directly fall within ICANN’s remit, none of this activity is possible without using the DNS for abusive and fraudulent activity. Thus, the focus of the Consumers Constituency will be to ensure that consumers’ safety, security and stability concerns regarding the DNS are adequately represented within ICANN policy development."

1 0

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

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

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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

<<a) the status quo is dangerous>> Have plenty of data to support this <<b) the proposed studies will only delay and not sufficiently advance the solution>> Have already writen a memo to David Giza explaining this, will share with the group <<c) our proposal addresses both the needs and the concerns that exist.>> Yup, if we all work together I think we can make a compelling case > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 11:37 am > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, NA Discuss > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > 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. > > > That's fine, but we have to make that case clear in our position. > We need to put forward -- with proof and compelling logic -- that > a) the status quo is dangerous > b) the proposed studies will only delay and not sufficiently advance the > solution > c) our proposal addresses both the needs and the concerns that exist. > - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

I think that is a good idea for bulk buyers. If you are buying only 1 or a handful, that would be a process delay. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 11:18 am > To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > What about requesting to have a certification key in order to register > domains? > -ed > On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Alan Greenberg > <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > > 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 > > ------ > > > -- > 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. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Great. So how do we get support for this? > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:33 am > To: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com>, Garth Bruen at KnujOn > <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Hi Garth, > I have also proposed an almost identical solution in a submission to an earlier WHOIS Task Force entitled "the Natural Persons Proposal" -- you can find a synopsis of it here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06282.html > -- danny -- > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > > To: "Dharma Dailey" <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 10:24 AM > > Dharma, > > > > There's a simple fix that I've proposed many times, and one > > that is > > currently in use in Canada and other countries among some > > ccTLDs. This > > fix would preserve privacy for individuals, allow for > > freedom of > > expression, reduce fraud, help law enforcement, and address > > issues that > > pain brand holders. > > > > Most illicit, spammed, fraudulent domains are used for > > commercial > > purposes, e.i., they sell something. .CA has very strict > > privacy rules > > concerning the disclosure of whois - but only for > > individuals. Domains > > engaged in commercial traffic or conducting transactions > > cannot have > > private Whois. Personal, informational sites found engaging > > commercial > > traffic could be immediately suspended. Likewise, > > commercial domains > > with missing or fake whois would also be terminated. > > > > This system would instantly preclude all software piracy > > sites, fake > > pharmacies, knockoff goods, phony lending institutions, > > fake health care > > companies, and cybersquatting. Obviously it does not > > address all > > domain-related crime but the items I just listed constitute > > 90% of the > > problem. > > > > We often hear that "Europe cares more about privacy that > > America", this > > is a red herring. As an American I cherish my privacy. In > > Germany or > > France you cannot have a pharmacy or bank with secret > > ownership. > > Corporations must publicly disclose their ownership and > > location in lots > > of publicly accessable documents, on their websites, > > etc... > > > > The bulk of domain-related fraud is committed by industry > > insiders often > > with deep connections to the Registrars. So much of the > > non-product spam > > we process promotes domains being sold in bulk at auctions. > > The spam > > pumps up the perceived value of the domain and benefits the > > Registrar > > holding the auction. This is why Registrars do not want > > Whois reform. > > And why I constant get creepy messages telling me to shut > > up. > > > > 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. The average spam campaign uses 5 to 10 thousand > > domains. Because a > > domain name can be anything and the processing is really > > minimal, > > they're not very expensive. This means a Registrar has to > > make money > > either by adding services to a domain sale(like hosting, > > email, > > advertising, web design), OR by selling large amounts of > > domain names > > and hopefully increasing the price of those domains in the > > process. > > > > -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 > > > From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > > > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 9:42 am > > > To: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > > > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > It seems that two important interests for internet > > users are at odds > > > in domain registration- freedom of expression and > > protection from > > > criminals. Is this really the case? > > If so, how could you ever > > > value one more than the other? Is there > > some sort of matrix that > > > lists possible reforms in relations to their impact on > > both of these > > > fronts such as a catalog of methods of verification, > > how each might > > > impact freedom of expression alongside how they might > > impact cyber > > > criminals? For example, if we could > > weigh the likelihood that > > > criminal activity would diminish by x percent from a > > 24 hour delay in > > > getting a domain registration completed versus the > > harm to a concerned > > > public having to wait a day to get their > > > ProtectFlufferNutterSandwichsNow.com, then we can have > > a substantive > > > debate on whether that reform is worth the > > effort. A few cyber- > > > criminals will be able to circumvent anything, just as > > people with a > > > burning issue will find a way to speak regardless of > > the > > > consequences. But it's hard to make sense of the > > trade offs in the > > > abstract. > > > -dharma > > > On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > > > > I would not support any proposal that imposes > > delay on the ability > > > > of an individual to register a domain name. One > > of the strengths of > > > > the Internet is the speed with which users can > > publish and speak. > > > > You see this especially around newsworthy events, > > where minutes > > > > after something important or interesting has > > happened, people are > > > > registering domain names and using the traffic > > that flows in to say > > > > something. > > > > > > > > A postal verification process would add an > > incremental accuracy gain > > > > while burdening the ability to speak and react in > > real time to world > > > > events -- and the "bad guys" would subvert it > > anyway. > > > > > > > > -- Bret > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > > 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 > > > ------ > > > > > > ------ > > 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 > > ------ > >

5 4

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

Sept. 15, 2009

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.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

I don't think paper verification is a bad thing, but I agree with Bret and Alan that we should avoid process changes that slow the system down or add costs. A paper mailing verification could come after registration, say a week? There could be different levels of verification that may still work even if mail gets lost. This would help Eduardo while he's running his website from El Yunque. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:48 am > To: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > 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. > -ed > On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 7:46 PM, John R. Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > I'm simply saying that if you are worried about preventing criminals from > >> registering tons of domains as the article describes, then the policy > >> discussion will have to be broader than what Danny's prescription allows. > >> > > > > Personally, I think that the registrar should send a verification code to > > the paper mailing address provided by the registrant, and not activate the > > domain until the registrant receives the code and shows (probably by web or > > email response) that he or she has received it. > > > > I realize this would make the registration process considerably slower and > > somewhat more expensive, but I see no public interest reason why that's a > > bad thing. > > > > 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 > > ------ > > > -- > 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. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

More like accountability than enforcement. I always like to say that if the police are handling something every other layer of policy has failed. If we can set up a policy structure that initially lets good people in and keeps bad people out, that is much better than cleaning up after. I don't really see a need to slow the process down. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:49 am > To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, NA Discuss > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Thanks Garth and Danny for filling in some blanks. Both of these > proposals would not prevent people for registering domain names, but > set up the door for an enforcement action to be carried out by > registrars? Is that right? > -dharma > On Sep 15, 2009, at 10:33 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > Hi Garth, > > > > I have also proposed an almost identical solution in a submission to > > an earlier WHOIS Task Force entitled "the Natural Persons Proposal" > > -- you can find a synopsis of it here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06282.html > > > > -- danny -- > > > > --- On Tue, 9/15/09, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > >> From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > >> To: "Dharma Dailey" <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > >> Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> Date: Tuesday, September 15, 2009, 10:24 AM > >> Dharma, > >> > >> There's a simple fix that I've proposed many times, and one > >> that is > >> currently in use in Canada and other countries among some > >> ccTLDs. This > >> fix would preserve privacy for individuals, allow for > >> freedom of > >> expression, reduce fraud, help law enforcement, and address > >> issues that > >> pain brand holders. > >> > >> Most illicit, spammed, fraudulent domains are used for > >> commercial > >> purposes, e.i., they sell something. .CA has very strict > >> privacy rules > >> concerning the disclosure of whois - but only for > >> individuals. Domains > >> engaged in commercial traffic or conducting transactions > >> cannot have > >> private Whois. Personal, informational sites found engaging > >> commercial > >> traffic could be immediately suspended. Likewise, > >> commercial domains > >> with missing or fake whois would also be terminated. > >> > >> This system would instantly preclude all software piracy > >> sites, fake > >> pharmacies, knockoff goods, phony lending institutions, > >> fake health care > >> companies, and cybersquatting. Obviously it does not > >> address all > >> domain-related crime but the items I just listed constitute > >> 90% of the > >> problem. > >> > >> We often hear that "Europe cares more about privacy that > >> America", this > >> is a red herring. As an American I cherish my privacy. In > >> Germany or > >> France you cannot have a pharmacy or bank with secret > >> ownership. > >> Corporations must publicly disclose their ownership and > >> location in lots > >> of publicly accessable documents, on their websites, > >> etc... > >> > >> The bulk of domain-related fraud is committed by industry > >> insiders often > >> with deep connections to the Registrars. So much of the > >> non-product spam > >> we process promotes domains being sold in bulk at auctions. > >> The spam > >> pumps up the perceived value of the domain and benefits the > >> Registrar > >> holding the auction. This is why Registrars do not want > >> Whois reform. > >> And why I constant get creepy messages telling me to shut > >> up. > >> > >> 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. The average spam campaign uses 5 to 10 thousand > >> domains. Because a > >> domain name can be anything and the processing is really > >> minimal, > >> they're not very expensive. This means a Registrar has to > >> make money > >> either by adding services to a domain sale(like hosting, > >> email, > >> advertising, web design), OR by selling large amounts of > >> domain names > >> and hopefully increasing the price of those domains in the > >> process. > >> > >> -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 > >>> From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > >>> Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 9:42 am > >>> To: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > >>> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >>> It seems that two important interests for internet > >> users are at odds > >>> in domain registration- freedom of expression and > >> protection from > >>> criminals. Is this really the case? > >> If so, how could you ever > >>> value one more than the other? Is there > >> some sort of matrix that > >>> lists possible reforms in relations to their impact on > >> both of these > >>> fronts such as a catalog of methods of verification, > >> how each might > >>> impact freedom of expression alongside how they might > >> impact cyber > >>> criminals? For example, if we could > >> weigh the likelihood that > >>> criminal activity would diminish by x percent from a > >> 24 hour delay in > >>> getting a domain registration completed versus the > >> harm to a concerned > >>> public having to wait a day to get their > >>> ProtectFlufferNutterSandwichsNow.com, then we can have > >> a substantive > >>> debate on whether that reform is worth the > >> effort. A few cyber- > >>> criminals will be able to circumvent anything, just as > >> people with a > >>> burning issue will find a way to speak regardless of > >> the > >>> consequences. But it's hard to make sense of the > >> trade offs in the > >>> abstract. > >>> -dharma > >>> On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > >>>> I would not support any proposal that imposes > >> delay on the ability > >>>> of an individual to register a domain name. One > >> of the strengths of > >>>> the Internet is the speed with which users can > >> publish and speak. > >>>> You see this especially around newsworthy events, > >> where minutes > >>>> after something important or interesting has > >> happened, people are > >>>> registering domain names and using the traffic > >> that flows in to say > >>>> something. > >>>> > >>>> A postal verification process would add an > >> incremental accuracy gain > >>>> while burdening the ability to speak and react in > >> real time to world > >>>> events -- and the "bad guys" would subvert it > >> anyway. > >>>> > >>>> -- Bret > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> ------ > >>>> 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 > >>> ------ > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> 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. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Dharma, There's a simple fix that I've proposed many times, and one that is currently in use in Canada and other countries among some ccTLDs. This fix would preserve privacy for individuals, allow for freedom of expression, reduce fraud, help law enforcement, and address issues that pain brand holders. Most illicit, spammed, fraudulent domains are used for commercial purposes, e.i., they sell something. .CA has very strict privacy rules concerning the disclosure of whois - but only for individuals. Domains engaged in commercial traffic or conducting transactions cannot have private Whois. Personal, informational sites found engaging commercial traffic could be immediately suspended. Likewise, commercial domains with missing or fake whois would also be terminated. This system would instantly preclude all software piracy sites, fake pharmacies, knockoff goods, phony lending institutions, fake health care companies, and cybersquatting. Obviously it does not address all domain-related crime but the items I just listed constitute 90% of the problem. We often hear that "Europe cares more about privacy that America", this is a red herring. As an American I cherish my privacy. In Germany or France you cannot have a pharmacy or bank with secret ownership. Corporations must publicly disclose their ownership and location in lots of publicly accessable documents, on their websites, etc... The bulk of domain-related fraud is committed by industry insiders often with deep connections to the Registrars. So much of the non-product spam we process promotes domains being sold in bulk at auctions. The spam pumps up the perceived value of the domain and benefits the Registrar holding the auction. This is why Registrars do not want Whois reform. And why I constant get creepy messages telling me to shut up. 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. The average spam campaign uses 5 to 10 thousand domains. Because a domain name can be anything and the processing is really minimal, they're not very expensive. This means a Registrar has to make money either by adding services to a domain sale(like hosting, email, advertising, web design), OR by selling large amounts of domain names and hopefully increasing the price of those domains in the process. -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 > From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 9:42 am > To: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> > Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > It seems that two important interests for internet users are at odds > in domain registration- freedom of expression and protection from > criminals. Is this really the case? If so, how could you ever > value one more than the other? Is there some sort of matrix that > lists possible reforms in relations to their impact on both of these > fronts such as a catalog of methods of verification, how each might > impact freedom of expression alongside how they might impact cyber > criminals? For example, if we could weigh the likelihood that > criminal activity would diminish by x percent from a 24 hour delay in > getting a domain registration completed versus the harm to a concerned > public having to wait a day to get their > ProtectFlufferNutterSandwichsNow.com, then we can have a substantive > debate on whether that reform is worth the effort. A few cyber- > criminals will be able to circumvent anything, just as people with a > burning issue will find a way to speak regardless of the > consequences. But it's hard to make sense of the trade offs in the > abstract. > -dharma > On Sep 15, 2009, at 12:25 AM, Bret Fausett wrote: > > I would not support any proposal that imposes delay on the ability > > of an individual to register a domain name. One of the strengths of > > the Internet is the speed with which users can publish and speak. > > You see this especially around newsworthy events, where minutes > > after something important or interesting has happened, people are > > registering domain names and using the traffic that flows in to say > > something. > > > > A postal verification process would add an incremental accuracy gain > > while burdening the ability to speak and react in real time to world > > events -- and the "bad guys" would subvert it anyway. > > > > -- Bret > > > > > > > > ------ > > 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 > ------

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Thanks Evan. Obviously we need to make it clear from the get-go that this is not an "American plan" but rather a comprehensive one that is actually in-line with various international standards. ------------------------------------- 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 > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 10:43 am > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, NA Discuss > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > 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

1 0

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

Sept. 14, 2009

ALan, I'd be interested in hearing more about this. I served on the Deletes Task Force once upon a time, and I can share some of our experiences. > As I get deeper into the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery issue, > it is becoming apparent that earlier attempts to address the problem > not only did not fix the problem, but may have in fact worsened it. I > attribute this to some degree because they were trying to fix a > symptom and not address the long-term needs. > > Alan

1 0

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

Sept. 14, 2009

Yes, it's a great tool used by pimps, human traffickers, software pirates, drug-dealers, counterfieters and terrorists the world over. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates; rogue > registrars turn a blind eye > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > Date: Mon, September 14, 2009 2:42 pm > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Alan Greenberg wrote: > > I support this. No one (among us in any case) is likely to advocate > > WHOIS inaccuracy, > You didn't really think I'd let that pass? I do not advocate WHOIS > accuracy, as I believe it focuses on the wrong points in the chain of > accountability. I support "inaccuracy" as one way among many of > maintaining privacy or anonymity in domain registration. > --Wendy > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.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

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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 10, 2009

Sept. 10, 2009

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

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 10, 2009

Sept. 10, 2009

If that is the case, we should also complain to the board about that... > -------- 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 > ------

2 1

7 September election for ALAC liaison to the ICANN Board
by Danny Younger Sept. 10, 2009

Sept. 10, 2009

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?

2 1

Anonymity settings in Board Liaison balloting
by At-Large Staff Sept. 10, 2009

Sept. 10, 2009

Our apologies for leaving out an important point with respect to the balloting. You will notice that the vote settings are 'Not Anonymous'. The reason why the system is set this way is because if it was set to fully anonymous, it would not be possible to see a listing of those who have not voted until the voting was closed, thereby preventing us from reminding those who have not voted to do so. Your vote will not at any point be disclosed to anyone (unless you choose to forward the vote confirmation email the system sends to you after you vote to a third party). -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Resolution 2009.08.27.15
by Danny Younger Sept. 9, 2009

Sept. 9, 2009

Dear all, Most likely you have all now seen this ICANN resolution: Resolved (2009.08.27.15) that the recommendation of the BRWG to add one voting director appointed from the At Large Community to the ICANN Board of Directors, and removing the present ALAC Liaison to the Board, is approved in principle for implementation. Staff is directed to identify all steps required to achieve the implementation of this principle, after issuing of the BRWG Final Report. The resolution is rather ambiguous and vague about what is the "At Large Community" and about who it is that does the appointing, and it says nothing about the process that will be used to arrive at an appointment (other than the fact that ICANN Staff will "identify" all the steps required). We need to start talking about this. Just as there were some problems associated with the original at-large elections, so too are there problems associated with appointment processes currently in use at ICANN -- it's no secret that the Nominating Committee process has resulted in quite a few appointments to the ALAC over the years that have turned out to be total duds. I'm of the view that first we need to have our prior NonCom reps explain to us what went wrong in their process so that we can try to avoid the same set of errors going forward. Secondly, I think that we need to devise mechanisms that are not limited to selecting people from only the existing ALAC and its RALOs but are broader based. Finally, I don't want to leave the process for selecting an At-Large director up to the Staff. We need to be the ones setting forth the plan and all the necessary steps involved. Your comments will be appreciated. regards, Danny

1 0

Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 9, 2009

Sept. 9, 2009

Hello fellow NARALOers, 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. It's regarding the fact that ICANN regional meetings for registrars and registries are closed to the public, specifically the one that was recently held in Toronto. At first I thought this was simply an issue of notification -- that ICANN staff deliberately withheld meeting notice. I sent a message to the ALAC mailing list in this regard -- if you don't have the old mail you can find it archived at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009/… Today I found out that it was worse than that -- that an ICANN-savvy person, Richard Sexton, was at the meeting but forcably removed (ie, ICANN staff called security). The details on this are at Richard's website: http://rs79.vrx.net/works/observations/dns/events/icann/meetings/toronto/ I have received an email from Craig Schwartz, who ran the meeting, with a personal committment to do better in the future. I requested that such a commitment be made public but have not heard any response yet. Repeated emails and phone calls to Stacy -- and even a plea with Nick, when he was down in California, to ask her to call me, have been unanswered. The new knowledge -- that the only member of the public to show up at the meeting was forcably evicted -- makes this more than an error of omission, and significantly more serious than I originally alleged. I would like the input of others here, especially those with some ICANN history who can offer some advice. I'm getting more angry about this rather than less. Right now my intent is to enlist the help of a few people here to help create the complaint, then to get it endorsed by NARALO, and hopefully other regions and/or ALAC. - Evan

7 11

Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Jean Armour Polly Sept. 9, 2009

Sept. 9, 2009

>100% on board with the complaint. Count me in, also Evan. Outrageous.

1 0

Next NARALO call / Monday 14 September 2009 @ 1900 UTC
by At-Large Staff Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Dear All This is to remind you that the next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 14 September at 19:00 UTC (12:00 PDT/3 p.m. EDT). The agenda is currently being updated but participation information can be found on the following page: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?14%20September%202009 Please note that as requested by the NARALO community, 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. Thank you Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

[Fwd: Toronto Regional Registry/Registrar Event]
by At-Large Staff Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Dear NARALO and ALAC Members: The email below may be of interest. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Toronto Regional Registry/Registrar Event Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 16:25:22 -0700 From: Craig Schwartz <craig.schwartz(a)icann.org> To: evan(a)telly.org <evan(a)telly.org> CC: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Tim Cole <Tim.Cole(a)icann.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, Stacy Hoffberg <stacy.hoffberg(a)icann.org> Dear Evan, Stacy Hoffberg shared with me your email about the recent gTLD Registry/ICANN-Accredited Registrar event in Toronto that included your request for a response from ICANN staff about the nature of the event. I hear your concerns and frustrations and agree that ICANN could have done a better job of sharing this information with the community. In the future, ICANN will post an announcement on our website with specifics about dates, times and locations of the regional events and make it clearer what purposes the meetings serve. The genesis of these events was the need for ICANN to share with its contracted parties information about how they could better understand different aspects of their agreements, to help ensure contractual compliance by them. The meetings don’t serve a policy-making function like the international ICANN meetings, a fact that may not be obvious from the postings made about them. These events involve a narrowly targeted audience and are not intended to be secret. As such, and in the spirit of transparency, the materials presented at the event have been posted for public information. May I say, perhaps belatedly but nevertheless sincerely, that we’re sorry we didn’t close the loop with you about your request to attend, especially after you helped provide advice on the venue for the meeting. We really do appreciate the help! If I may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me at 202.429.2703; if you’d rather I call on ICANN’s dime, let me know and I’ll ring you. Sincerely, Craig _______________________ Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN 1875 I Street, NW, Suite 501 Washington, DC 20006 Office +1 202.429.2703 www.icann.org -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Beau Brendler Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Not good. Count me in. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Sep 8, 2009 12:09 PM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: DarleneThompson <DThompson(a)gov.nu.ca>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > >Thanks for the quick answers from Danny, Darlene and Eduardo. I still >hope to hear from more of you. > >I've removed Stacy from the Cc list. She's now well aware of what's >going on. > >I've been to the Ombudsman's complaint form >(https://omb.icann.org/portal/complaint.php) It appears intended to >accept complaints from individuals, not organized bodies. And its form >doesn't seem to allow more than small spaces for details, so I might >just mail it to Frank directly. > >- 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 >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman (previous attempt blocked by moderator)
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Evan, We were promised change. It seems NOTHING has changed. I am personally offended by this due the treatment Rudi and I received during our presentation in Mexico city. Our presentation was disrupted by Registrars who at first refused to identify themselves. When one finally did identify himself he did so as "Rob Hall of Momentus." It was only after the meeting I discovered Rob Hall is the CEO of NameScout(why did he leave that detail out?) which has at least 93 accreditations (again, WHY?). Mr. Hall accused Rudi and I of not being constructive or not working with the Registrars. Mr. Hall said we could have come to ANY Registrar meeting to discuss our problems. We knew then it wasn't true and now we are sure of it. If I'm not mistaken Danny Younger questioned the many many accreditations of NameScout and never got an answer. We still have many unanswered questions about "Acquire This Name, INC.", an apparent shell company controlled by eNom acting as a reseller with anonymous ownership (http://www.knujon.com/Acquire_This_Name.pdf) We've been told many times to "back off" the Registrars, apparently so this business can continue in secret. 100% on board with the complaint. -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: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Tue, September 08, 2009 11:12 am > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Stacy Hoffberg > <stacy.hoffberg(a)icann.org> > Hello fellow NARALOers, > 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. > It's regarding the fact that ICANN regional meetings for registrars and > registries are closed to the public, specifically the one that was > recently held in Toronto. > At first I thought this was simply an issue of notification -- that > ICANN staff deliberately withheld meeting notice. I sent a message to > the ALAC mailing list in this regard -- if you don't have the old mail > you can find it archived at > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009/… > Today I found out that it was worse than that -- that an ICANN-savvy > person, Richard Sexton, was at the meeting but forcably removed (ie, > ICANN staff called security). The details on this are at Richard's > website: > http://rs79.vrx.net/works/observations/dns/events/icann/meetings/toronto/ > I have received an email from Craig Schwartz, who ran the meeting, with > a personal committment to do better in the future. I requested that such > a commitment be made public but have not heard any response yet. > Repeated emails and phone calls to Stacy -- and even a plea with Nick, > when he was down in California, to ask her to call me, have been unanswered. > The new knowledge -- that the only member of the public to show up at > the meeting was forcably evicted -- makes this more than an error of > omission, and significantly more serious than I originally alleged. > I would like the input of others here, especially those with some ICANN > history who can offer some advice. I'm getting more angry about this > rather than less. Right now my intent is to enlist the help of a few > people here to help create the complaint, then to get it endorsed by > NARALO, and hopefully other regions and/or ALAC. > - 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 > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Or, we could all file our own > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Tue, September 08, 2009 12:09 pm > To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Cc: DarleneThompson <DThompson(a)gov.nu.ca>, NA Discuss > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Thanks for the quick answers from Danny, Darlene and Eduardo. I still > hope to hear from more of you. > I've removed Stacy from the Cc list. She's now well aware of what's > going on. > I've been to the Ombudsman's complaint form > (https://omb.icann.org/portal/complaint.php) It appears intended to > accept complaints from individuals, not organized bodies. And its form > doesn't seem to allow more than small spaces for details, so I might > just mail it to Frank directly. > - 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 > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

Evan, We were promised change. It seems NOTHING has changed. I am personally offended by this due the treatment Rudi and I received during our presentation in Mexico city. Our presentation was disrupted by Registrars who at first refused to identify themselves. When one finally did identify himself he did so as "Rob Hall of Momentus." It was only after the meeting I discovered Rob Hall is the CEO of NameScout(why did he leave that detail out?) which has at least 93 accreditations (again, WHY?). Mr. Hall accused Rudi and I of not being constructive or not working with the Registrars. Mr. Hall said we could have come to ANY Registrar meeting to discuss our problems. We knew then it wasn't true and now we are sure of it. If I'm not mistaken Danny Younger questioned the many many accreditations of NameScout and never got an answer. We still have many unanswered questions about "Acquire This Name, INC.", an apparent shell company controlled by eNom acting as a reseller with anonymous ownership (http://www.knujon.com/Acquire_This_Name.pdf) We've been told many times to "back off" the Registrars, apparently so this business can continue in secret. 100% on board with the complaint. -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: [NA-Discuss] Lodging a complaint with the ICANN Ombudsman > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Tue, September 08, 2009 11:12 am > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Stacy Hoffberg > <stacy.hoffberg(a)icann.org> > Hello fellow NARALOers, > 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. > It's regarding the fact that ICANN regional meetings for registrars and > registries are closed to the public, specifically the one that was > recently held in Toronto. > At first I thought this was simply an issue of notification -- that > ICANN staff deliberately withheld meeting notice. I sent a message to > the ALAC mailing list in this regard -- if you don't have the old mail > you can find it archived at > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2009/… > Today I found out that it was worse than that -- that an ICANN-savvy > person, Richard Sexton, was at the meeting but forcably removed (ie, > ICANN staff called security). The details on this are at Richard's > website: > http://rs79.vrx.net/works/observations/dns/events/icann/meetings/toronto/ > I have received an email from Craig Schwartz, who ran the meeting, with > a personal committment to do better in the future. I requested that such > a commitment be made public but have not heard any response yet. > Repeated emails and phone calls to Stacy -- and even a plea with Nick, > when he was down in California, to ask her to call me, have been unanswered. > The new knowledge -- that the only member of the public to show up at > the meeting was forcably evicted -- makes this more than an error of > omission, and significantly more serious than I originally alleged. > I would like the input of others here, especially those with some ICANN > history who can offer some advice. I'm getting more angry about this > rather than less. Right now my intent is to enlist the help of a few > people here to help create the complaint, then to get it endorsed by > NARALO, and hopefully other regions and/or ALAC. > - 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 > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: ALAC Vote on the Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013
by Beau Brendler Sept. 8, 2009

Sept. 8, 2009

I voted against it in something of a bureaucratic protest, in that, when I went in to read the vote language, I couldn't understand it. I made this comment in the vote comment field, and by the time I voted I saw that it was going to pass. -----Original Message----- >From: "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA >Sent: Sep 4, 2009 10:25 AM >To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [NA-Discuss] FW: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: ALAC Vote on the Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013 > >Hi there, > >I must be the first to admit that I haven't been following the whole Meeting Dates thing. I was just wondering, Beau, why you voted against it? Is this something that our region needs to be concerned about (like being missed again)? > >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: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff >Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:49 AM >To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: ALAC Vote on the Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013 > >Dear all, > >With 11 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent vote on the >Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013, we can >confirm that the result is quorate. > >******************** >Motion: Do you support the ratification of the Advisory on ICANN Meeting >Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013 for communication to the Board of ICANN? > >As at Poll close: Wednesday 02 September 2009 23:59 UTC >Number of voters: 11 · Electorate size: 15 · Percentage voted: 73.33 > >Yes: 9 (81.82%) >Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, >Vanda Scartezini, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, VC Vivekanadan, Gareth Shearman, Thu >Hue Nguyen > >No: 1 (9.09%) >Beau Brendler > >Abstain: 1 (9.09%) >Hawa Diakite > >******************** >You may verify the results independently under: >https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=CvDk4wwNR9B6c7u7pTC4 > >When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair >to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can >confirm that the following ALAC members did not participate in the >balloting: > >Carlos Aguirre >Mohamed El Bashir >Alan Greenberg >Fatimata Seye Sylla > >As per decision of the ALAC during its August 25th meeting, the Board >Advisory has already been transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors >accompanied by a note indicating that the ratification was still pending. > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff at 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… > >At-Large Official Site: http://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 >------

3 4

ICANN & the theory of contributory liability for trademark infringement
by Danny Younger Sept. 7, 2009

Sept. 7, 2009

I read a recent article entitled "Web hosters ordered to pay $32M for contributing to trademark infringement" (1) that notes a jury award against two hosting companies that knowingly allowed several Web sites they hosted to sell products that infringed Louis Vuitton's copyrights and trademarks. This decision is cited as the first successful application on the Internet of the theory of contributory liability for trademark infringement. Under this theory, companies that know, or should know, that they are enabling illegal activities have an obligation to remedy the situation. This brings me to the topic of registrars and proxy services. It's no secret that some registrars have set up proxy services knowing full well that miscreants often will hide behind such services. At issue then is the nature of a registrar's obligation (and perhaps ICANN's obligation) under law to properly remedy the situation. What are the parameters of that obligation? We are now starting to see this issue play out in other court environments;in the recent lawsuit between TransAmerica and Moniker the following claim has been made: "Plaintiff also alleges that Moniker Online knows or is willfully blind to the fact that its customers are fictitious entities and anonymous individuals engaged in trademark and service mark counterfeiting but, in reckless disregard of that fact, continues to provide registration services to them, to conceal their identities, and to act as their authorized licensee, and/or otherwise in concert with them, in a scheme to “monetize” their counterfeit domain names and profit jointly from the deceptive advertising that appears at these counterfeit websites. The result is a business model that facilitates massive trademark counterfeiting, endangers consumers by concealing the origin and source of financial services advertised and sold on the Internet, and produces a plethora of counterfeit websites.." (2) Without commenting on the specifics of this particular case (IANAL), it does seem to me that as a community we have an obligation to lay out a policy to better govern the proxy registration process. I look forward to your views on the topic. regards, Danny (1) http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9137385/Web_hosters_ordered_to_pay_3… (2) http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/transamerica-amended-complaint.pdf

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] FW: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: ALAC Vote on the Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 4, 2009

Sept. 4, 2009

I missed the vote due to travel, but if I had managed to vote, I would have abstained. The statement included issues that I felt were not relevant to the questions asked. Alan At 04/09/2009 10:40 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >I voted against it in something of a >bureaucratic protest, in that, when I went in to >read the vote language, I couldn't understand >it. I made this comment in the vote comment >field, and by the time I voted I saw that it was >going to pass. -----Original Message----- >From: >"Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA >Sent: >Sep 4, 2009 10:25 AM >To: >na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: >[NA-Discuss] FW: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: >ALAC Vote on the Advisory on ICANN Meeting >Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013 > >Hi >there, > >I must be the first to admit that I >haven't been following the whole Meeting Dates >thing. I was just wondering, Beau, why you >voted against it? Is this something that our >region needs to be concerned about (like being >missed again)? > >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: >alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] >On Behalf Of At-Large Staff >Sent: Thursday, >September 03, 2009 4:49 AM >To: >alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: >[ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: ALAC Vote on the >Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic >Rotation 2011-2013 > >Dear all, > >With 11 out >of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent >vote on the >Advisory on ICANN Meeting >Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013, we >can >confirm that the result is >quorate. > >******************** >Motion: Do you >support the ratification of the Advisory on >ICANN Meeting >Dates/Geographic Rotation >2011-2013 for communication to the Board of >ICANN? > >As at Poll close: Wednesday 02 >September 2009 23:59 UTC >Number of voters: 11 >Â· Electorate size: 15 Â· Percentage voted: >73.33 > >Yes: 9 (81.82%) >Jose Ovidio >Salgueiro, Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, >SÃ©bastien Bachollet, >Vanda Scartezini, Cheryl >Langdon-Orr, VC Vivekanadan, Gareth Shearman, >Thu >Hue Nguyen > >No: 1 (9.09%) >Beau >Brendler > >Abstain: 1 (9.09%) >Hawa >Diakite > >******************** >You may verify >the results independently >under: >https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code >=CvDk4wwNR9B6c7u7pTC4 > >When announcing the >results of voting, we have been requested by the >Chair >to provide a listing of those who have >not voted. Accordingly, we can >confirm that the >following ALAC members did not participate in >the >balloting: > >Carlos Aguirre >Mohamed El >Bashir >Alan Greenberg >Fatimata Seye >Sylla > >As per decision of the ALAC during its >August 25th meeting, the Board >Advisory has >already been transmitted to the ICANN Board of >Directors >accompanied by a note indicating that >the ratification was still >pending. > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi >Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella >Gruber-White >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff >at >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 > >------ >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 ------

1 0

FW: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: ALAC Vote on the Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 4, 2009

Sept. 4, 2009

Hi there, I must be the first to admit that I haven't been following the whole Meeting Dates thing. I was just wondering, Beau, why you voted against it? Is this something that our region needs to be concerned about (like being missed again)? 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: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large Staff Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 4:49 AM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC-Announce] VOTE RESULT: ALAC Vote on the Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013 Dear all, With 11 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent vote on the Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013, we can confirm that the result is quorate. ******************** Motion: Do you support the ratification of the Advisory on ICANN Meeting Dates/Geographic Rotation 2011-2013 for communication to the Board of ICANN? As at Poll close: Wednesday 02 September 2009 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 11 · Electorate size: 15 · Percentage voted: 73.33 Yes: 9 (81.82%) Jose Ovidio Salgueiro, Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, Vanda Scartezini, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, VC Vivekanadan, Gareth Shearman, Thu Hue Nguyen No: 1 (9.09%) Beau Brendler Abstain: 1 (9.09%) Hawa Diakite ******************** You may verify the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=CvDk4wwNR9B6c7u7pTC4 When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC members did not participate in the balloting: Carlos Aguirre Mohamed El Bashir Alan Greenberg Fatimata Seye Sylla As per decision of the ALAC during its August 25th meeting, the Board Advisory has already been transmitted to the ICANN Board of Directors accompanied by a note indicating that the ratification was still pending. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at 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… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

VOTE RESULT: NARALO Vote on Recommended North American NomCom Delegate
by At-Large Staff Sept. 1, 2009

Sept. 1, 2009

Dear all, With 11 out of 20 eligible NARALO Members having voted in the recent vote on the NARALO Recommendation for the North American NomCom delegate, we can confirm that the result is quorate. ********************* Recommended NARALO Delegates to the NomCom: Who should NARALO recommend that the ALAC appoint as the NomCom representative from the North American Region, for a term running from the end of the 2009 AGM to the end of the 2010 AGM? As at Poll close: Monday 31 August 2009 10:00 UTC Number of voters: 11 · Electorate size: 20 · Percentage voted: 55.00 Eduardo Diaz: 8 (72.73%) Glenn McKnight: 3 (27.27%) ********************* You may verify the results independently under: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=rKD5U4qYsdx9q2xsHvsa ******************** NARALO Members who participated in the vote: John Levine Evan Leibovitch Gareth Shearman Seth Reiss Bev Collins Beau Brendler Glenn McKnight Sylvia Caras Randy Glass Eduardo Diaz Darlene Thompson ****************** NARALO Members who did not participate in the vote: Monique Chartrand Robert Guerra Garth Bruen David Solomonoff Stephen Soucy Ted Ernst Bret Fausett Louis Houle Michael Maranda -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

3 2