August 2011 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [dns-operations] DNS-EASY 2011 is approaching, registration is open
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

FYI. I'm not aware of any ICANN funding, other than the usual staffing, for this. In the off change that a na-discuss list contributor is in or is near Rome in the middle of October and both technically sophisticated and otherwise idle ... Eric > The 1st DNS Health and Security Workshop, will take place in Rome, Oct. 18 2011. > > The DNS-EASY workshop aims at bringing together researchers and professionals from academia, industry and Governmental Agencies and representatives of DNS ecosystem stakeholder groups (technical development, network operators, enterprise users, and security experts), to discuss all different aspects of the DNS Health and Security and its impact on the modern society. > > The DNS-EASY workshop will be held in conjunction with the 3rd Annual Global DNS-SSR Symposium, 19-20 October 2011 > > DNS-EASY attendance is free but you must register at: > https://www.gcsec.org/workshop/dnseasy2011/registration > > You can find all the information about the workshop and the DNS-SSR Symposium at > http://dnseasy.gcsec.org > > > It's worth to remind that in the weeks following DNS-EASY 2011 will take place the following meetings: > - ICANN 42, 23-28 October 2011 in Dakar, Senegal > - 2011 OARC Workshop 2, 29-30 October, in conjunction with RIPE 63, 31 October - 4 November 2011 in Vienna, Austria. > > > Looking forward to see you in Rome > Best regards > > The program Co-Chairs > Emiliano Casalicchio & Igor Nai Fovino > > > > Emiliano Casalicchio, Ph.D. > Department of Computer Science, > University of Rome Tor Vergata > > Affiliate with GCSEC Global Cyber Security Center > http://www.gcsec.org > > casalicchio(a)ing.uniroma2.it > http://www.ce.uniroma2.it/~casali > > _______________________________________________ > dns-operations mailing list > dns-operations(a)lists.dns-oarc.net > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-operations > dns-jobs mailing list > https://lists.dns-oarc.net/mailman/listinfo/dns-jobs >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

Beau, Since we're not going to have a coordinated statement on "pre-registration" as consumer fraud, contractual non-compliance, or abuse of the application process, let's make the North American Regional Statement on the issue the clear statement that "pre-registration" is not in the public interest. Eric

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: "Domain Protection Racket" Promotion on Network Solutions Home Page
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

> Anybody know these guys? > http://www.pfir.org/index.html#info Yes. Lauren and Peter. I've known Lauren via USENIX, and of course Peter and I were at SRI together, though in different organizations, he on the 2nd floor, I on the 3rd, of E building in Menlo Park. Eric

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: "Domain Protection Racket" Promotion on Network Solutions Home Page
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 29, 2011

Aug. 29, 2011

Joly, There are "skeptics" who view the DNS as less than necessary. Tim Berners-Lee is one. There are "skeptics" who view the policy development process as delegated rulemaking authority as problematic. Michael Froomkin is one. There are "skeptics" who view the specific policies that have been developed since 2004, in particular, the policy that no community, sponsored, municipal, or other experimantal registry shall exist unless registries which lack any discernable purpose other than brand infringment (.biz, .info, ...) or brand promotion (.brand) exist. I am one. I also agree with Michael, though not with Tim. Esther's comments deserve a longer rebuttal than I've time for today. > But aren't they trying to shut the barn door after the horse has bolted? Not necessarily. There's the Beckstrom school of thought, reflected in his initial letter to the NTIA re: the IANA NOI, for which the ALAC offered entheusiastic support, and which Beau, Jacques and I took some pains to oppose, which I summarize here as "I own it", and which the DoC, and the DoJ, obviously declined to credit "I own it" as a necessary, or useful, construction of the the IANA Contract. Under the Beckstrom school of thought, his, and his predecessors', policy is not subject to the review of the United States. I wouldn't bet the farm on the 2012 DNS being a non-policied free-fire zone for the great and the greedy. I think the the lettuce has bolted, not the horses. YMMV, etc. Eric

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration
by Beau Brendler Aug. 26, 2011

Aug. 26, 2011

Olivier wrote: "just to let you know that I mentioned it in AOB - but there was little support from Evan, Garth or Alan." Really? Does the NA-RALO need to have a discussion with its >elected< representatives to ALAC about what bottom-up consensus means, and about the importance of listening to your constituency? Thanks for making me aware of this. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> >Sent: Aug 23, 2011 1:15 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration > >Hello Beau, > >just to let you know that I mentioned it in AOB - but there was little >support from Evan, Garth or Alan. >I have left it at that for the time being, saying that the follow-up >will take place on email. >Kind regards, > >Olivier > >On 23/08/2011 15:48, Beau Brendler wrote : >> Hello Olivier... >> >> We got an enthusiastic response from LAC RALO and I believe they are planning to adopt the statement. >> >> Wolf from EURALO likes the statement and he has passed it along to the rest of the members for consideration. >> >> Nothing to my knowledge from AP or AF. >> >> I understand how quickly agendas can fill up. You won't hurt my feelings if it does not find a place. I can't join the call to present it in "other business" but if you have time and interest in doing that, great. >> >> Thanks for your support, >> >> Beau >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> >>> Sent: Aug 22, 2011 7:59 PM >>> To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1(a)gov.nu.ca> >>> Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration >>> >>> Hello Beau, >>> Hello Darlene, >>> >>> just checking what kind of response have you been receiving for this? >>> The ALAC call tomorrow is already way over the usual 90 Minutes, so I >>> could not include this as a standard agenda item. >>> Would you like to include this as an item in "Any Other Business"? >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Olivier >>> >>> On 08/08/2011 20:18, Beau Brendler wrote : >>>> Dear Colleagues, >>>> >>>> The NARALO wants to make a statement warning consumers about the issue of pre-registration. We as a region have developed a text, as follows below. >>>> >>>> I'm writing to ask whether the ALAC would like to endorse this statement and pass it forward to the board. It also occurs to me that it would make an excellent press release in coordination with the appropriate people. I have already done a video spot on the issue for Internet Evolution/Thinkernet, so maybe other press might have some interest. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Beau Brendler >>>> NARALO Chair >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------ >>>> >>>> The NARALO observes that at least one ICANN-accredited registrar, United Domains, is offering what it calls "Free nTLD pre-registration" (see https://www.uniteddomains.com/ntld/pre-register-new-domains) United Domains began the offer in advance of ICANN's new gTLD decision in Singapore, and it continues afterwards, in expectation of greater availability in October 2012. >>>> >>>> United Domains says the pre-registration service is free and non-binding. However, NARALO is concerned the offer of such a service might create consumer confusion and possibly present the opportunity for fraud. In support of this concern, we note that at least one registrar, Blacknight Solutions of Ireland, has issued a press release warning registrants to disregard any such pre-registration offers in new gTLDS, and states that the company "discovered that registrants interested in acquiring domains in rumoured new gTLDs had become confused by these offers, as they are not familiar with how the new TLD implementation might work. This sort of speculative offer is the equivalent of taking a down payment on a concept car that has not been approved for production. It is a false promise." (June 30, 2011, http://www.prlog.org/11565814-blacknight-warn-consumers-against-new-gtld-pr…) >>>> >>>> The NARALO wishes to remind ICANN that approximately 10 years ago, the announcement of pre-registration for new top-level domains (such as .aero, .coop and so-on) prompted the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to issue a consumer alert (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt084.pdf) that said, in part, "Some registration services are guaranteeing new top level domain names or promising preferential treatment in the registration process.... >>>> >>>> "But, the agency cautions, these offers may be misleading. >>>> "The FTC advises consumers to protect themselves by: ...Avoiding any domain name pre-registration service that guarantees particular top level domain names or preferential treatment in the assignment of new top level domain names.." >>>> >>>> The NARALO is aware the situation is different now than it was then, and that United Domains and others provide substantial disclosure information about the nature of the pre-registration program. The NARALO also recognizes the FTC action at the time was thought by some in the Internet community to be excessive and alarmist. >>>> >>>> Therefore, the NARALO recommends that, through ALAC, ICANN undertake public communication that makes clear what, exactly, consumers and others might expect from "pre-registration." It should be the organization that administers the domain name system, not the agents of domain sale, who should be defining the nature of Internet "real estate" in the public interest. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ALAC mailing list >>>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>>> >>>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>>> ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>>> >>> -- >>> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >>> http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >>> >>> >> > >-- >Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD >http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > >

4 3

ICANN fires CEO
by Thompson, Darlene Aug. 26, 2011

Aug. 26, 2011

Of possible interest: http://news.dot-nxt.com/2011/08/16/icann-fires-ceo D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator N-CAP/Department of Education P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

2 1

Congratulations Glenn and Eduardo!
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 26, 2011

Aug. 26, 2011

I am pleased to report that the ALAC has just voted to submit Glenn McKnight's name forward as its selection for North American representative to the ICANN Nominating Committee. I also want to thank Eduardo Diaz for his two terms of service on the Nominating Committee, and to welcome him into the ALAC! Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

3 2

Pre-registration statement and ALAC - update
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 26, 2011

Aug. 26, 2011

Evan, Thank you for your summary of the discussion of contracted parties offering some form of rights to domain names under the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreements, and the still draft ICANN Registry Agreement, for some gTLDs which may exist as early as 2013. You point out the following: o if money is not exchanged until a condition is met, that such offers are not consumer fraud, false advertizing, etc. It could be useful to know if this view is informed by competent legal advice, and for which jurisdictions this view is supported by competent legal advice. The broader point I suspect is that while two thirds of all registrars are domiciled in North American region, and less than 1% of all registrars are domiciled in two of the five regions, the decision making structure of the RALOs, as a group, ensures that the view of the regions with less than 9 registrars between them can prevent the publication of bylaws advice reflecting a common policy which views fictive offers as contrary to the public interest. With that I think we're done, as far as a uniform all-RALO statement on a policy issue. Eric

4 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registration statement and ALAC - update
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 26, 2011

Aug. 26, 2011

John, I think there are two issues to consider. Evan relates that someone, elected or appointed to the coordination of the regional organizations, has observed that "pre-registration" is not consumer fraud, somewhere. It may be useful to know where that statement is true, if it is true anywhere. Then there is the relationship of the activity and the contractual obligation of registrars to ICANN (and visa versa). If the first issue exhausts "public interest", then whether the conduct is, or is not, specifically barred by contract, is irrelevant. The Registry Stakeholder Group made just this claim earlier this year when the Intellectual Property SG sought to make registries liable, under the registry agreement (modified, obviously), for "willful blindness" to systematic misconduct by accredited (with ICANN, and with the registry) registrars. The RySG response was that a "willful blindness" standard for liability created liability not in national law, and therefore should be rejected by ICANN as a proposed modification to current and future registry agreements. I suggest that the public interest is not already completely reflected in national law, and that ICANN policy, independent of the public interest, may contain limitations on conduct greater than those that exist in national law. If both of those suggestions are in error, then there is no issue. How important this, or any issue is, is a matter of perspective. Having operated both registries and registrars, I'm sympathetic with applicants for registry agreements attempting to communicate a "future registration and use" message, and concerned that third-parties will interfere with those attempts to communicate, whether for material gain as disinterested registrars, or for relative harm as affiliates of competing existing registries or applicants. I'm also sympathetic with registrars concerned that competitor "vapor suffix" marketing may generally discredit all or most registrars, or become a successful means of acquiring market share, displacing other value-to-registrant propositions. As a registrant, I know that promises now are worthless, but as a policy maker, which is what we all are, I think that some thousands, some hundreds of thousands, or more, of non-sophisticated persons, out of the existing 100 million registrants, or the 1,000 million resolution users, have insufficient information to distinguish between fact and fantesy. Therefore I'd like to qualify, to restrict to the likely, representations made, either about the public routing and naming infrastructure, or with the impremature of ICANN's logo and branding, or at the very least, the North American Regional At Large Organization's tacit endorsement. Eric

1 0

Pre-registration statement and ALAC - update
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 26, 2011

Aug. 26, 2011

Hello all, As previously mentioned, the reason that the issue was not brought up at the last ALAC meeting was because the meeting ran out of time, not because the NA members of ALAC opposed it. Today I raised and spoke in favour of the issue at a meeting of the ALAC executive committee, where the issue did receive ample time for discussion. I received significant push-back on perception of pre-registration as a matter of consumer (in this case, registrant) confusion or fraud. Generally the perception from others is that if a service does not collect any money until it is capable of delivering a domain, it fails a legal test of fraud in most jurisdictions. Furthermore, some actually saw pre-registration as a legitimate service, akin to paying someone to stand in line for you in a queue for concert tickets. So long as the service provider does not misrepresent what they are doing and does not try to identify as registry or registrar, not everyone believes that the service is deserving of regulation or even consumer warnings. In any case, I come back to NARALO with the following comments and suggestions: - The matter may be certainly put in front of the whole ALAC, but if it does we should expect similar or even stronger pushback. Someone with either a deeper understanding and/or more passion on the matter than I would be required at a meeting to sufficiently navigate the questions and objections that we now know will come - Earlier in these email threads was mention that the proposal was received favourably by LACRALO. I was informed today in specific terms that this was not the case. - It might be necessary to consider that this may be a regional statement, adopted by us and maybe a few other regions -- but not all of them. We need to know from staff how the RALOs may distribute policy statements that have regional but not global endorsement ... I don't recall if that has happened before It may be reasonable to ask ALAC to forward the NARALO position through its communications channels without officially endorsing it -- but that would require a specific, tightly worded statement. - It may be worthwhile finding out if any constituencies of the non-contracted hours of GNSO would support the NARALO position - Evan

1 0