January 2010 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Feb. 1, 2010

Feb. 1, 2010

Well, I plan on making a formal request for ICANN to acknowledge OnlineNIC's real address and update the directory tomorrow. If anyone wants to digitally sign onto the letter or sponsor pushing it as a constituency, I'm ready to go! As for the PO box issue, I'm also ready work on this officially. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Date: Sun, January 31, 2010 3:45 pm > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > The global At-Large constituency assembled at Mexico City declared its > position very clearly on this matter. I suspect Ray Charles would have seen > the essence of our concerns, even if an ICANN lawyer couldn't. It is this > kind of unseemly dithering that leads some very reasonable people to believe > ICANN is hostage to a particular constituency. > > Carlton Samuels > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:00 PM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > wrote: > > > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box? > > (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > > 2. Re: Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box? > > (Michael Maranda) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:17:15 -0700 > > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO > > Box? > > Message-ID: > > < > > 20100130081715.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.b1feb56e43.wbe(a)email.secureserver.net > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Dear At-Large folks, > > > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > > Agreement > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > > been amended to include the following language: > > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > > details including a valid email and mailing > > address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3 > > )? > > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can > > accept mail. > > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business > > address? as we recommended > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > > their business is really in Colorado. > > > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > > not even a phone number. > > > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans > > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since > > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > > true nature of the Registration business > > ( > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > > ). > > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > > de-accredited for other contract violations > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > > identification. > > > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > > directory. > > > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of > > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > > > More info: > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > Garth Bruen > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > http://www.knujon.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:49:05 -0600 > > From: Michael Maranda <tropology(a)gmail.com> > > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO > > Box? > > Message-ID: > > <3feff8d61001300749k1cf0352bya7c60407a1517710(a)mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > > > If we can address this issue - we'll have taken a great step forward. > > > > -Michael Maranda > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Dear At-Large folks, > > > > > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > > > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > > > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > > > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > > > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > > > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > > > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > > > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > > > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > > > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > > > Agreement > > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > > > been amended to include the following language: > > > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > > > details including a valid email and mailing > > > address.( > > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) > > > ? > > > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can > > > accept mail. > > > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business > > > address? as we recommended > > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > > > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > > > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > > > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > > > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > > > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > > > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > > > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > > > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > > > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > > > their business is really in Colorado. > > > > > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > > > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > > > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > > > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > > > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > > > not even a phone number. > > > > > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > > > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > > > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > > > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > > > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans > > > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > > > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > > > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > > > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > > > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > > > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > > > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > > > > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since > > > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > > > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > > > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > > > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > > > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > > > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > > > true nature of the Registration business > > > ( > > > > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > > > ). > > > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > > > > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > > > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > > > de-accredited for other contract violations > > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > > > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > > > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > > > identification. > > > > > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > > > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > > > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > > > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > > > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > > > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > > > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > > > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > > > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > > > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > > > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > > > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > > > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > > > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > > > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > > > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > > > directory. > > > > > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of > > > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > > > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > > > > > More info: > > > > > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > > > Garth Bruen > > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > > http://www.knujon.com > > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > > > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > 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… > > > > > > End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 > > ****************************************** > > > ------ > 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] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 31, 2010

Jan. 31, 2010

The global At-Large constituency assembled at Mexico City declared its position very clearly on this matter. I suspect Ray Charles would have seen the essence of our concerns, even if an ICANN lawyer couldn't. It is this kind of unseemly dithering that leads some very reasonable people to believe ICANN is hostage to a particular constituency. Carlton Samuels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:00 PM, <na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > wrote: > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box? > (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > 2. Re: Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box? > (Michael Maranda) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:17:15 -0700 > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO > Box? > Message-ID: > < > 20100130081715.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.b1feb56e43.wbe(a)email.secureserver.net > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear At-Large folks, > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > Agreement > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > been amended to include the following language: > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > details including a valid email and mailing > address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3 > )? > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can > accept mail. > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business > address? as we recommended > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > their business is really in Colorado. > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > not even a phone number. > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > true nature of the Registration business > ( > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > ). > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > de-accredited for other contract violations > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > identification. > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > directory. > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > More info: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > ------------------------------------- > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > Garth Bruen > gbruen(a)knujon.com > http://www.knujon.com > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:49:05 -0600 > From: Michael Maranda <tropology(a)gmail.com> > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO > Box? > Message-ID: > <3feff8d61001300749k1cf0352bya7c60407a1517710(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > If we can address this issue - we'll have taken a great step forward. > > -Michael Maranda > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com > >wrote: > > > Dear At-Large folks, > > > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > > Agreement > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > > been amended to include the following language: > > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > > details including a valid email and mailing > > address.( > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) > > ? > > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can > > accept mail. > > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business > > address? as we recommended > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > > their business is really in Colorado. > > > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > > not even a phone number. > > > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans > > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since > > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > > true nature of the Registration business > > ( > > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > > ). > > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > > de-accredited for other contract violations > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > > identification. > > > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > > directory. > > > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of > > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > > > More info: > > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > Garth Bruen > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > http://www.knujon.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > > > ------ > > 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… > > > End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 > ****************************************** >

1 0

Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box?
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Jan. 30, 2010

Jan. 30, 2010

Dear At-Large folks, In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has been amended to include the following language: “3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid email and mailing address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3)” But what constitutes a “valid mailing address” other than it can accept mail. This probably would have been better worded as “valid business address” as we recommended (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when their business is really in Colorado. Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website not even a phone number. Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It has been explained to us multiple times that “all addresses in Caymans are PO boxes,” but this is only partly true. For the purposes of mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. And then there are “suites.” Suite is a deceptive address term since it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the true nature of the Registration business (http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article…) Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later de-accredited for other contract violations (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is identification. This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead consumers for too long. We’re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the directory. Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN’s pledge of transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used in Registrar accreditation applications. More info: http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… Thanks for your consideration, Garth ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ ICANN¹ s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_Janua ry
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

Thank you! > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ ICANN¹ > s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_Janua ry > From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> > Date: Fri, January 22, 2010 5:54 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "langdonorr(a)gmail.com" > <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > > > Dear Garth, > > > > We apologize for the late notice regarding this particular event. However, as this is the first of what we hope will be many similar events throughout the year, there were some delays due to planning and preparation. It is expected that this will not be the only opportunity for those in the Washington D.C. area to attend such an event, and we anticipate that more advance notice will be provided in the future. > > > > Kind regards > > Heidi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn [mailto:gbruen@knujon.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:47 AM > > To: Heidi Ullrich > > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; langdonorr(a)gmail.com > > Subject: RE: [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ICANN¹ s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_January > > > > Heidi, > > > > While the meeting and invitation sound good, getting the information > > less than a week before the meeting somewhat precludes participation. I > > live in Boston and I would have made this meeting had I more time to > > make arrangements. I'm guessing that some of the core NARALO folks who > > live in Canada also find it difficult. > > > > -Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > Garth Bruen > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > http://www.knujon.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ICANN¹ > > > s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_January > > > From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> > > > Date: Thu, January 21, 2010 5:01 pm > > > To: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, > > > "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > > > <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Cc: Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org> > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Please see the message below from Rod Beckstrom. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Heidi > > > > > > From: Donna Austin > > > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:47 PM > > > To: Heidi Ullrich > > > Subject: Public Meet Up with ICANN¹s CEO in Washington, DC on 27th January > > > > > > > > > Dear Heidi > > > > > > Could you forward this email to Cheryl and members of the At-Large on behalf of Rod Beckstrom please? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Donna > > > > > > _______ > > > > > > Dear Cheryl and members of the At-Large > > > > > > As you know, I believe that ICANN's CEO should be accessible to the community, but also to those who may not regularly participate in ICANN's processes but are interested in the important work we do. > > > > > > As a part of this effort, I've started holding what I call "Meet Ups" where I make myself available in an informal setting when I travel and my schedule allows. To help ensure as many of people as possible are able to attend if they want, we announce these as far in advance as we can. > > > > > > All you need to bring are your thoughts, ideas, or questions and enough coin to buy your favourite form of refreshment. > > > > > > Here are all the details. If you have any questions, please send an email to my Chief of Staff, Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org>. > > > > > > Date: 27th January 2010 > > > > > > 17:00 to 19:00 local time > > > > > > Place: Buffalo Billiards, Victorian Room, 1330 19th Street, Washington DC 20036 > > > > > > Map: http://tinyurl.com/yakmr9t > > > > > > I hope to see you there! > > > > > > Warmly > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > Rod Beckstrom > > > President & CEO > > > ICANN > > > > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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

Fwd: Planning New York City's dotNeighborhoods - January 26
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 24, 2010

Jan. 24, 2010

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml(a)communisphere.com> Date: 2010/1/24 Subject: Planning New York City's dotNeighborhoods - January 26 To: TOML(a)communisphere.com What: Planning New York City's dotNeighborhoods When: Tuesday, January 26, 2010 6:30 PM Where: Neighborhood Preservation Center, 232 E 11th Street (near Second Avenue) ----------- We've all become familiar with Top Level Domains like .com, .org, .edu, and .gov. New York City will soon have its own, the .nyc TLD. Tuesday's meeting will focus on a special part of the .nyc Top Level Domain, the dotNeighborhood name-set. With .nyc's activation (perhaps as early as next year) 300+ domain names like GreenwichVillage.nyc, BayRidge.nyc, JacksonHeights.nyc, Harlem.nyc, Astoria.nyc, Chelsea.nyc, and Melrose.nyc will become available to serve their neighborhoods. If thoughtfully developed, these dotNeighborhoods will be places where neighbors can connect with one another to address problems and explore opportunities. This is our third dotNeighborhoods meeting and our focus will be on governance and accountability: How do we assure that Corona.nyc serves the needs of Corona residents and not the beer company? See our dotNeighborhoods wiki pages<http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/traditional-neighborhoo…>for background. We'll also hear from the Hunter College Graduate School of Urban Affairs Workshop which just completed a project entitled: *A Case Study - Neighborhoods in a Digital Era*. The researches will describe their process and findings. You can read the report's Executive Summary here<http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/dotneighborhoods-hunter…> . Connecting.nyc Inc. advocates for the .nyc TLD's development as a public interest resource and sees these neighborhood names as perhaps the most significant name-set. For more on this and the other name-sets, see our Domain Name Allocation Plan<http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/the-nyc-namespace> . RSVP to info(a)connectingnyc.org. Best, Tom Lowenhaupt ----------------------------- Thomas Lowenhaupt, Founder & Chair Connecting.nyc Inc. tom(a)connectingnyc.org www.connectingnyc.org 718 639 4222 Wiki <http://bit.ly/OurWiki> Blog <http://bit.ly/OurBlog>

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ICANN¹ s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_January
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Jan. 22, 2010

Jan. 22, 2010

Heidi, While the meeting and invitation sound good, getting the information less than a week before the meeting somewhat precludes participation. I live in Boston and I would have made this meeting had I more time to make arrangements. I'm guessing that some of the core NARALO folks who live in Canada also find it difficult. -Garth ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ICANN¹ > s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_January > From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> > Date: Thu, January 21, 2010 5:01 pm > To: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, > "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org> > > > Dear All, > > Please see the message below from Rod Beckstrom. > > Kind regards, > Heidi > > From: Donna Austin > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:47 PM > To: Heidi Ullrich > Subject: Public Meet Up with ICANN¹s CEO in Washington, DC on 27th January > > > Dear Heidi > > Could you forward this email to Cheryl and members of the At-Large on behalf of Rod Beckstrom please? > > Thanks > > Donna > > _______ > > Dear Cheryl and members of the At-Large > > As you know, I believe that ICANN's CEO should be accessible to the community, but also to those who may not regularly participate in ICANN's processes but are interested in the important work we do. > > As a part of this effort, I've started holding what I call "Meet Ups" where I make myself available in an informal setting when I travel and my schedule allows. To help ensure as many of people as possible are able to attend if they want, we announce these as far in advance as we can. > > All you need to bring are your thoughts, ideas, or questions and enough coin to buy your favourite form of refreshment. > > Here are all the details. If you have any questions, please send an email to my Chief of Staff, Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org>. > > Date: 27th January 2010 > > 17:00 to 19:00 local time > > Place: Buffalo Billiards, Victorian Room, 1330 19th Street, Washington DC 20036 > > Map: http://tinyurl.com/yakmr9t > > I hope to see you there! > > Warmly > > Rod > > Rod Beckstrom > President & CEO > ICANN > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > _______________________________________________ > 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

2 1

WHOIS Privacy Considered "Material Falsification" by 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Jan. 21, 2010

Jan. 21, 2010

More info: http://www.circleid.com/posts/whois_privacy_considered_material_falsificati… The CAN-SPAM act states that “registration information is materially falsified if it is altered or concealed in a manner that would impair the ability of a recipient of the message…to identify, locate, or respond to a person who initiated the electronic mail message…” The defendants argued that since the terms “impair”, “materially falsify” and “conceal” are not defined in the statute they should be considered unconstitutionally vague. The court responded to the defendants’ assertion by clarifying that “when Congress does not define a term in a statute, we construe that term according to its ordinary, contemporary, common meaning.” The court then made it clear in their ruling that the defendants’ use of private WHOIS information in this case materially falsified the registration information. The court declared that “It should have been clear to the defendants that intentionally falsifying the identity of the contact person and phone number [through WHOIS privacy] for the actual registrant information constitutes intentionally decreasing the ability of a recipient to locate and contact the actual registrant, regardless of whether a recipient may still be left some avenue to do so. We therefore conclude defendants had notice that their conduct violated the CAN-SPAM act.” ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon

1 0

MIT Spam Conference: 2010 Call for Papers and Participation
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Jan. 20, 2010

Jan. 20, 2010

At-Large, I am proud (or disappointed) to announce the 8th annual MIT Spam Conference (http://projects.csail.mit.edu/spamconf/) March 25th and 26th at MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts. A regular research competition that brings out the best minds in the fight against unsolicited email. At this point it would be helpful to provide a little background on the conference and remind everyone that the Call For Papers (http://projects.csail.mit.edu/spamconf/SC2010/cfp-SC2010.pdf) is still open. Just as the spammers have developed new tools, platforms, and tactics to deliver their message we need to match them and push it back. Spam is still the number one threat on the Internet today as it drives illicit commerce, delivers viruses, opens doorways for intrusions, and tricks the savvy and gullible alike to hand over cash and credentials. To this end, the conference has been broadened in the last two years to include a variety of subjects and revolutionary proposals. This top-talent but low-key session was started in 2003 by Paul Graham, the inventor of Bayesian spam filtering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_spam_filtering) which is the basis for current spam filters, in 1998. After a few years of chairing the Spam Conference Graham moved on to YCombinator (http://ycombinator.com/) Yahoo’s start-up development project. In 2006, William “Bill” Yerazunis (http://www.merl.com/people/yerazunis/) of Mitsubishi Electric Research Labs (MERL) took up the mantle and worked to expand the conference to two days. Yerazunis isn’t just a spam guy, he has worked in a number of technical fields including optics, computer graphics, transplant immunology, artificial intelligence, and other diverse disciplines. Yerazunis, who holds 29 patents, turned the Spam Conference over to University of Akron Computer Science Professor, Kathy Liszka (http://www.cs.uakron.edu/~kliszka/) Last year, Liszka, coordinated and ran one of the most topic diverse conferences yet. Liszka will be accepting research submissions until February 1, 2010 (http://projects.csail.mit.edu/spamconf/SC2010/cfp-SC2010.pdf) For those who do not have research to submit, but are still interested in the subject, the conference is open to the public and usually held in the unique “dancing building” at MIT, the Stata Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stata_Center) designed by Frank Gehry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gehry) There is always a lively debate and discussion as well as a review of shocking developments in spam and predictions for the coming year. All points of view are welcome as some of the brightest minds take a deep look at this ongoing and troubling technology problem. More info: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100119_mit_spam_conference_2010_call_for_pa… Thanks, Garth ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Director White Paper - Request for Comments
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 13, 2010

Jan. 13, 2010

2010/1/13 Christian de Larrinaga <cdel(a)firsthand.net> > ICANN is chartered to co-ordinate the management of a few of the Internet's > unique resources. > Above all ICANN does not own any of these resources. So it operates > through rough consensus of the community at hand. > As a personal observation based on my relatively short time as an At-Large participant, I'd say that this view of ICANN's mandate ("rough consensus of the community at hand") is -- and has probably been for a long time -- a romantic myth. The experience with .xxx demonstrated that -- community and common sense be damned -- ICANN has operated mostly through the consent of the US Department of Commerce. Recent pressures brought to bear on ICANN by the DoC related to intellectual proprerty protection have simply re-enforced that reality. The experience of my own (so far unsuccessful) efforts to get the "Morality and Public Order" clause purged from the new gTLD creation process has further reminded how little the end-user is in control. The denial of the ALAC Review request for two At-Large-appointed directors is another example. Many others within the At-Large Community have their own stories of frustration. With the expiration of the JPA and its replacement by the "Affirmation of Commitments", power evolves from one government to many. But this is still a far far distance from the notion that ICANN gets its mandate from the Internet end-user. I say this not with approval, but as what I believe is a realistic evaluation of what I have encountered. We can't properly plan strategy unless we have a clear picture of what we're dealing with. - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Director White Paper - Request for Comments
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 12, 2010

Jan. 12, 2010

Hello Christian, 2010/1/12 Christian de Larrinaga <cdel(a)firsthand.net> > A lot of work has gone into this document but I could not get through even > the executive summary which is impenetrable due to an exceptionally deep > sprinkling of acronyms. It is obvious that there is a hardening of the veins > of who is involved at ICANN and where these terms are presumably obvious. > > Some are clearly new even to the authors as they do get explained in the > text. But the bulk are left to the Glossary (which is excellent). But a > Glossary is a poor excuse for an over exuberance of new building of stuffing > in ICANN over recent years whose purposes is not clear nor unambiguous. > Your message is heard loud and clear (by me at least). In my (relatively short) time working within ICANN as a volunteer I have found its processes to be extremely complex to navigate. At times, ICANN presents the facade of a purely technical body, or a trade association, or an international treaty organization, or bits and pieces of all three. This fact has produced in ICANN an extremely unusual corporate culture that takes considerable effort to penetrate. And given the various competing interests of governments, business users, sellers of Internet services, community groups, would-be registries, domainers and others, it's unlikely that the structure is easily simplified. One need go no further than the attempted re-organization of the non-commercial constituencies within the powerful GNSO to see how -- even within the end-user community -- change is difficult and simplification doubly so. > One important role At LARGE should have is to keep policies over unique > Internet resources accessible to users. This means pruning the profusion of > committees, structures, boards and complexity of interactions and politics > between them across ICANN by demanding that only entities that have a clear > unambiguous and practical role following the Internet model are continued > and all such activities have a limited lifespan. > Half the trick is knowing what needs to be dismantled. Indeed most of the committees within ICANN have fixed mandates and dissolve after their work is done; however for each one that has completed its task, another one rises up to address a new issue. Part of the purpose of At-Large (ie, the formally defined infrastructure) is to try to offer a gateway between the complexity of ICANN and the simplicity required by the global community of Internet users. > I am very worried by the way users are increasingly isolated by the growing > over complexity in structure, language and difficulty to judge relevance and > usefulness. How are users who have deep stake in the ultimate outcomes at > ICANN to get meaningfully involved when they can spend only a small amount > of time and resource on keeping 'au fait'? > > At Large must focus on keeping ICANN down to size and can start doing this > on itself. > The ALAC (and overall At-Large infrastructure) recently went through a formal review that involved third-party consultants, members of the ICANN board and a global public consultation process. The report and recommendations of that Review are, in part, why we are here -- because it is that review that recommended that At-Large be able to appoint directors to the ICANN board. (That report is referenced in the Background section of the White Paper, which provides a link to it.) In other words, At-Large has already (and very recently) been involved in an extensive process of evaluation by itself and the rest of ICANN. Given that we are fairly stressed for human resources (and most of those are volunteers with day jobs), it has been a choice by most of us to spend our energies observing and trying to affect ICANN policy that effects end-users. I personally believe that having ICANN do the Right Thing (from the public point of view) is more important than the size of the organization. But you're welcome to disagree, and to get involved to advocate the change you want to see. As with any group of volunteers, At-Large is driven by the efforts of people who do the work, (in our case, guided by the ALSs and regional participants that get involved). Talk is cheap. If you're interested in streamlining ICANN and At-Large, you are invited to get involved and help to do that. - Evan

1 0