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

Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

Not withstanding Stacy's promise, Eduardo has an excellent point > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? > Termination reversed? > From: Eduardo Diaz <eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com> > Date: Wed, July 14, 2010 3:06 pm > To: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette(a)icann.org> > Cc: Bob Bruen <bruen(a)coldrain.net>, Garth Bruen at KnujOn > <gbruen(a)knujon.com>, "carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com" > <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, David Giza <David.Giza(a)icann.org>, > "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > I am concerned about the ASAP date that was given to this company as a > dateline for publishing a valid address. In my experience ASAP means > whenever you want. I recommend that ICANN gives them and specific date, i.e. > let's say...by tomorrow?. It just take a few minutes or less to update a web > page. > > Eduardo Diaz > ISOC-PR > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette(a)icann.org>wrote: > > > Dear Garth and Bob: > > > > Thanks for your comments. This registrar recently signed the 2009 RAA, > > effective 13 July 2010, which includes a "new" requirement that the > > registrar post a valid address on its website. The registrar was informed > > of this requirement and advised to make the adjustments to its website ASAP. > > > > ICANN is reviewing the Whois related complaint you mentioned below and we > > are in communication with the registrar about the matter. > > > > We appreciate your interest in making sure registrars comply with the terms > > of the RAA and we hope that you will continue to work collaboratively with > > us in the future. Working together with the community has enhanced ICANN's > > effort to address registrar non-compliance in several areas, such as the > > UDRP, Whois related provisions and Registrar Data Escrow. Please see our > > website for details regarding our escalated compliance actions > > http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > Stacy Burnette > > Director > > Contractual Compliance > > ICANN > > 4676 Admiralty Way > > Suite 330 > > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > +1(310) 301-3860 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen@coldrain.net] > > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:36 AM > > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn > > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; David Giza; langdonorr(a)gmail.com; > > carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com; evan(a)telly.org; Stacy Burnette > > Subject: Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? > > > > > > They must have paid off their outstanding bills. The loss of accreditation > > was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. > > This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not > > good behavior. It's very sad. > > > > --bob > > > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > > > > Hello all, > > > > > > To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination > > > was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. > > > (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates) > > > > > > "13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract > > > breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation > > > was renewed on 13 July 2010." > > > > > > > > > I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons: > > > > > > 1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their > > > website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16 > > > > > > The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, > > > about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents. > > > > > > AND > > > > > > 2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and > > > Port 43. > > > > > > Trying to get the record returns one of these statements: > > > > > > "Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology > > > Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp > > > > > >> From Port 43: > > > "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] > > > Results: > > > Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system." > > > > > > However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see > > > > > http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain > > , > > > which means what? They are manipulating the search. > > > > > > > > > A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better > > > Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve > > > consumer disputes! > > > > > > This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, > > > everything else is permissible. > > > > > > > > > I'm shocked. > > > > > > -Garth > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Robert Bruen > > Knujon > > http://knujon.com > > http://coldrain.net/bruen > > +1.802.579.6288 > > > > > > ------ > > 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.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
by Beau Brendler July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

With all due respect intended, that's not an answer. -----Original Message----- >From: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette(a)icann.org> >Sent: Jul 14, 2010 3:23 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>, Bob Bruen <bruen(a)coldrain.net>, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Cc: "carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, David Giza <David.Giza(a)icann.org>, "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? > >All: > >ICANN renewed A Technology Company's accreditation. We will continue to review the compliance allegations in an expeditious manner. As previously stated, community input is very appreciated and we will consider your recommendations. > >Thanks for your support. > >Sincerely, > >Stacy Burnette >Director >Contractual Compliance >ICANN >4676 Admiralty Way >Suite 330 >Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >+1(310) 301-3860 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Beau Brendler [mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net] >Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 10:56 AM >To: Stacy Burnette; Bob Bruen; Garth Bruen at KnujOn >Cc: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com; David Giza; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? > >So their contract was terminated for non-payment. In addition, they were out of compliance with the current (new) RAA provision on address transparency. They paid up. But why, then, did ICANN sign a new RAA contract with them while they were out of compliance? Shouldn't they have been told, "please post your address on your Web site and then ICANN will sign the agreement"? Why would ICANN, in effect, accredit a registrar that was out of compliance with the rules of accreditation? > >Am I missing something here? > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette(a)icann.org> >>Sent: Jul 14, 2010 1:06 PM >>To: Bob Bruen <bruen(a)coldrain.net>, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >>Cc: "carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, David Giza <David.Giza(a)icann.org>, "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? >> >>Dear Garth and Bob: >> >>Thanks for your comments. This registrar recently signed the 2009 RAA, effective 13 July 2010, which includes a "new" requirement that the registrar post a valid address on its website. The registrar was informed of this requirement and advised to make the adjustments to its website ASAP. >> >>ICANN is reviewing the Whois related complaint you mentioned below and we are in communication with the registrar about the matter. >> >>We appreciate your interest in making sure registrars comply with the terms of the RAA and we hope that you will continue to work collaboratively with us in the future. Working together with the community has enhanced ICANN's effort to address registrar non-compliance in several areas, such as the UDRP, Whois related provisions and Registrar Data Escrow. Please see our website for details regarding our escalated compliance actions http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/. >> >> >>Sincerely, >> >>Stacy Burnette >>Director >>Contractual Compliance >>ICANN >>4676 Admiralty Way >>Suite 330 >>Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >>+1(310) 301-3860 >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen@coldrain.net] >>Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:36 AM >>To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn >>Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; David Giza; langdonorr(a)gmail.com; carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com; evan(a)telly.org; Stacy Burnette >>Subject: Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? >> >> >>They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation >>was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. >>This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not >>good behavior. It's very sad. >> >> --bob >> >>On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: >> >>> Hello all, >>> >>> To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination >>> was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. >>> (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates) >>> >>> "13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract >>> breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation >>> was renewed on 13 July 2010." >>> >>> >>> I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons: >>> >>> 1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their >>> website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16 >>> >>> The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, >>> about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents. >>> >>> AND >>> >>> 2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and >>> Port 43. >>> >>> Trying to get the record returns one of these statements: >>> >>> "Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology >>> Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp >>> >>>> From Port 43: >>> "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] >>> Results: >>> Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system." >>> >>> However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see >>> http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain, >>> which means what? They are manipulating the search. >>> >>> >>> A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better >>> Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve >>> consumer disputes! >>> >>> This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, >>> everything else is permissible. >>> >>> >>> I'm shocked. >>> >>> -Garth >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------- >>> >>> 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 >>> >>> >> >>-- >>Dr. Robert Bruen >>Knujon >>http://knujon.com >>http://coldrain.net/bruen >>+1.802.579.6288 >> >> >>------ >>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] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
by Stacy Burnette July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

Dear Garth and Bob: Thanks for your comments. This registrar recently signed the 2009 RAA, effective 13 July 2010, which includes a "new" requirement that the registrar post a valid address on its website. The registrar was informed of this requirement and advised to make the adjustments to its website ASAP. ICANN is reviewing the Whois related complaint you mentioned below and we are in communication with the registrar about the matter. We appreciate your interest in making sure registrars comply with the terms of the RAA and we hope that you will continue to work collaboratively with us in the future. Working together with the community has enhanced ICANN's effort to address registrar non-compliance in several areas, such as the UDRP, Whois related provisions and Registrar Data Escrow. Please see our website for details regarding our escalated compliance actions http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/. Sincerely, Stacy Burnette Director Contractual Compliance ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1(310) 301-3860 -----Original Message----- From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen@coldrain.net] Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:36 AM To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; David Giza; langdonorr(a)gmail.com; carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com; evan(a)telly.org; Stacy Burnette Subject: Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not good behavior. It's very sad. --bob On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > Hello all, > > To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination > was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. > (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates) > > "13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract > breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation > was renewed on 13 July 2010." > > > I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons: > > 1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their > website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16 > > The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, > about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents. > > AND > > 2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and > Port 43. > > Trying to get the record returns one of these statements: > > "Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology > Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp > >> From Port 43: > "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] > Results: > Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system." > > However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see > http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain, > which means what? They are manipulating the search. > > > A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better > Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve > consumer disputes! > > This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, > everything else is permissible. > > > I'm shocked. > > -Garth > > > ------------------------------------- > > 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 > > -- Dr. Robert Bruen Knujon http://knujon.com http://coldrain.net/bruen +1.802.579.6288

2 1

A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn July 14, 2010

July 14, 2010

Hello all, To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates) "13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation was renewed on 13 July 2010." I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons: 1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16 The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents. AND 2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and Port 43. Trying to get the record returns one of these statements: "Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp >From Port 43: "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] Results: Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system." However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain, which means what? They are manipulating the search. A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve consumer disputes! This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, everything else is permissible. I'm shocked. -Garth ------------------------------------- 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] 12 July 2010 NARALO Action Items
by Beau Brendler July 13, 2010

July 13, 2010

Sorry I missed this meeting...I have no excuse other than I didn't see the reminder until after the meeting was over (and I had a work commitment anyway, so I wouldn't have been able to make it). I will work on finishing up the database work over the next week or so. If there is anything else I can do to help, coming out of this meeting, let me know. Regards, Beau -----Original Message----- >From: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Sent: Jul 12, 2010 4:22 PM >To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [NA-Discuss] 12 July 2010 NARALO Action Items > >Dear All, > >The action items from today’s NARALO are attached below and linked to agenda page under: >https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?12_july_2010 > >Action Items 12 July 2010 > >AI: Darlene, Evan and Matthias will work together on a process to ask individual NARALO members to submit an SOI and incorporate them in the member database. > >AI: Evan will draft an outreach proposal based on the discussions held during today's call and submit it to the ALAC for discussion during the next meeting. > >AI: Matthias will send out an announcement to the NARALO mailing list once the FR and ES version of the brochures are online. > >AI: Annalisa will draft a NARALO position paper on new gTLD and send it to the NARALO mailing list for comments. > >AI: Annalisa will send her question on the role of registrars in the IPv6 Implementation to the NARALO list > >AI: Annalisa will send the updated contact information for her ALS to Matthias, Evan and Darlene > >AI: Matthias will send the VI Overview document presented in Brussels to the NARALO list > >AI: Matthias will look for the transcription of the VI session in Seoul and send it to the NARALO mailing list. > >AI: Staff will liaise with Evan and Darlene to organize a specific meeting on Vertical Integration > >-- >Regards, > >Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström >ICANN At-Large Staff > >email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org >website: www.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

REMINDER: NARALO Teleconference Today at 1900 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 12, 2010

July 12, 2010

Dear All, This is to remind you about the NARALO teleconference scheduled at 1900 UTC today. The agenda and call details can be found at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?12_july_2010 If you are unable to attend the call please send an email indicating your absence and we will note this information on the agenda. If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Accountability and Transparency Review Team Public Forum Now Open
by At Large Staff July 11, 2010

July 11, 2010

Dear All, Please see below the News Alert regarding the opening of anAccountability and Transparency Review Team public forum for community feedback. *** News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09jul10-en.htm _____ Accountability & Transparency Review – Community Feedback 9 July 2010 Per its Brussels statement, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team (ATRT) <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/review-1-en.htm> now opens a public forum that will enable ‘the Community to provide inputs and suggestions at any point during the ATRT review’. Please submit your comments to the public forum email address: atrt-public-input(a)icann.org All comments sent to atrt-public-input(a)icann.org may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/atrt-public-input/ In addition to the forum, the Accountability and Transparency Review Team resolved to create a private email address where community Members could confidentially provide their input: atrt-private-input(a)icann.org The ATRT also reiterates its wish to receive responses to their questions to the community - http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201007-en.htm#atrt – and feedback on any other issues relevant to the work of the Review Team. Please note that translations of the ATRT questions to the community (EN <http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/activities-1-en.htm> ) are available: <http://www.icann.org/ar/reviews/affirmation/community-questions-18may10-ar.…> العربية <http://www.icann.org/ar/reviews/affirmation/community-questions-18may10-ar.…> [PDF, 88 KB] Español <http://www.icann.org/es/reviews/affirmation/community-questions-18may10-es.…> [PDF, 60 KB] Français <http://www.icann.org/fr/reviews/affirmation/community-questions-18may10-fr.…> [PDF, 60 KB] Русский <http://www.icann.org/ru/reviews/affirmation/community-questions-18may10-ru.…> [PDF, 88 KB] <http://www.icann.org/zh/reviews/affirmation/community-questions-18may10-zh.…> 中文 [PDF, 104 KB] Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0