March 2013 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Name.com hijacking subdomains
by Joly MacFie March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

>From the NYC Tech Meetup ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Anthony Zeoli <az(a)digitalstrategyworks.com> Date: Sun, Mar 3, 2013 at 7:53 PM Subject: [newtech-1] Name.com hijacking subdomains To: newtech-1(a)meetup.com Hi everyone, One of our old NYTM members, Jonathan Vanasco (who doesn't post much anymore, if at all) asked me to report this out to the group. If you're using Name.com, you should be aware that if you have not actively set your subdomains to return null or redirect to your main domain, it seems that Name.com is redirecting all subdomains to their servers. I believe if someone types in a subdomain on your domain and spells it wrong, they're going to get taken to a Name.com page. Jonathan asked me to raise this on the list so everyone is aware. See more on this here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5299534 I'm not 100% clear on this - there's so much in the thread to read, but from my understanding of it, if you have a domain registered at Name.com, they're privately making sure that if anyone types in a subdomain incorrectly, it will revert to them and not you, making people think your site might be down, when it's not. The link may or may not have solutions to this issue. I'm kinda busy tonight, so I haven't vetted this thoroughly enough - but wanted to put it out there so if you're a Name.com customer, you can check into this yourself and see how their redirects on your domain affect you. Digital Strategy Works WordPress | Digital Strategy | IA & UxD ✉ az(a)digitalstrategyworks.com | Visit Our Site<http://www.digitalstrategyworks.com> ☎ 917.705.4700 Twitter: @dswks | Facebook: digitalstrategyworks -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

3 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] IMPORTANT! RE: .HEALTH Objections
by Alan Greenberg March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

My OPINION is that same as Eduardo's. If this is a formal action of the NARALO, I will abstain, since I have not had an opportunity to poll all of the unaffiliated members (I believe that there are 6 of us, only two of which have voice an opinion). I note that Eric Brunner-Williams is an unaffiliated member and not eligible to vote in his own right. Alan At 06/03/2013 06:12 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: >My advice as follows (in red): > > > > DotHealth, LLC: YES/NO/ABSTAIN - YES > > Goose Fest, LLC: YES/NO/ABSTAIN - YES > > dot Health Limited: YES/NO/ABSTAIN - YES > > Afilias Limited: YES/NO/ABSTAIN - YES > > Stable Tone Limited (The IDN): YES/NO/ABSTAIN - Follow APRALO advice, so > > NO with the same caveat as they published > > > > >-ed > >*NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or >subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named >addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, >disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by >mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately. >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

2 1

IMPORTANT! RE: .HEALTH Objections
by Garth Bruen March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

All, As Evan has pointed out three regions have already voted to move 4 of the objections forward. "The deed is done" as they say, but this is a bottom-up community process and our input should matter. Please consider carefully the remaining objection for the IDN Chinese string and send to the list by 6:45PM/2345 UTC your advice on the five applications in the following format: DotHealth, LLC: YES/NO/ABSTAIN Goose Fest, LLC: YES/NO/ABSTAIN dot Health Limited: YES/NO/ABSTAIN Afilias Limited: YES/NO/ABSTAIN Stable Tone Limited (The IDN): YES/NO/ABSTAIN Indicate YES NO or ABSTAIN. A "YES" moves the objection forward to ALAC for review, "NO" does not, "ABSTAIN" is an effective "NO" but with reservations. All advice will be considered up to quarter of the hour of the deadline, but only if it is sent to the list with full transparency. -Garth My advice is as follows: DotHealth, LLC: NO Goose Fest, LLC: NO dot Health Limited: NO Afilias Limited: NO Stable Tone Limited (The IDN): NO ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com

6 7

Fwd: Re: DotHealth Objections
by Eric Brunner-Williams March 7, 2013

March 7, 2013

Forwarded to the NA-Discuss list. -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: DotHealth Objections Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2013 19:48:00 -0400 From: Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee(a)gmail.com> To: DZENOWAGIS, Joan Helen <dzenowagisj(a)who.int> CC: ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net>, newgtldrg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear Joan Dzenowagis, Thanks for your email. By reply I am posting this to other members of the gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) in charge of coordinating the process by which the ALAC can object to new gTLD applications (see PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD for a summary of this process) Currently, 5 objection statements are undergoing Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and all can be viewed at this page : https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg Discussion by the RALOs on the applicants and the objection statements can be viewed on the RALO mailing list archives NARALO : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2013-March/thread.html APRALO : http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/apac-discuss/2013/thread.html LACRALO : https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40931651 (web page) Any comments you wish to send re: objections statements will be uploaded to the appropriate webpages for the objection statements for viewing by the At-Large community as well as the ALAC which will be considering the RALO advice on Friday March 8 2013. Any such comments should be sent before the ALAC call on Friday March 8 2013. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 6:57 PM, DZENOWAGIS, Joan Helen <dzenowagisj(a)who.int> wrote: > Dear Dev, I'm aware that there are questions about the above objections, some of which relate to WHO. We would appreciate the opportunity to address them directly, as some of the assertions by an applicant are inaccurate and/or misleading and this must be corrected. As you know, we have previously written to ICANN about our concerns and we are working within the ICANN process as we understand it. A number of global NGOs also share our concerns and have asked how they can support the objection. I would appreciate your guidance on how they can do this. > I hope you can accommodate the time difference in your deliberations, as it is 24.00hrs in Geneva, to give us the chance to respond. Thank you for your consideration. > Joan Dzenowagis, WHO Geneva

1 0

Idn advice from apralo
by gbruen＠knujon.com March 6, 2013

March 6, 2013

Apralo has clarified its statement in the objected IDN, the intended vote was "NO" on forwarding the IDN objection. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

2 1

gTLD objections -- the story so far
by Evan Leibovitch March 6, 2013

March 6, 2013

According to the defined process, if THREE of the five regions support an objection put forward by Dev's Review Group, that objection gets elevated to ALAC for a vote. Right now, five objections are being considered -- four for the Latin string ".health" and a fifth based on a Chinese-script IDN variant of ".health" (that could also be read as ".healthy") Some other RALOs have already given their direction. - LACRALO has formally advanced all five. - APRALO and AFRALO have advanced the four Latin ones but not the IDN one - EURALO and NARALO have not povided direction. What this means is that: - The objections against the four Latin strings will be advanced to ALAC regardless of what NARALO and EURALO do - The IDN string can only be advanced if *both* EURALO and NARALO choose to do so. Now the debate constinues, as the ALAC must now (at least) consider the four remaining objections. I have been following the discussion here to date and will continue to use the discussion to help determine how to vote, At the beginning of this debate I was truly undecided, so I am prepared to vote in accordance with my reading of the region's preference. - Evan - Evan -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

2 2

Conduct on this list
by Garth Bruen March 6, 2013

March 6, 2013

Folks, This is a reminder that it is neither permitted nor necessary to engage personal comments on this list. This should be a discussion of policy. Thank you

1 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Regional Advice on .HEALTH Objection
by Alan Greenberg March 6, 2013

March 6, 2013

Well, there is a lively discussion going on within APRALO on how to handle this, with some Chinese speakers (or at least Rinalia) having significant problems with not objecting to the Chinese string. And Cheryl just cross-posted Garth's statement to their list! My personal position is that we should support the objection to 4 .health strings but not to the Chinese string. My rationale is that there clearly IS controversy over what is meant by the string and it is not sufficiently clear-cut for me to support an objection. On the other 4, I believe that we followed our carefully planned processes and I feel that support is reasonable. Alan At 05/03/2013 06:51 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >My initial reaction is to trust our own Chinese-speaking associates on the >IDN health/healthy issue. My smattering of working with other languages is >enough to know that we can't pre-suppose to know whether the applied-for >IDN is *intended* as a category/noun or an adjective. I personally would >consult with APRALO and support their direction over and above the stated >aims of the applicant. If APRALO supports the objection to the IDN, that's >good enough for me. > >As for the other objections -- I disagree that there is no defined >community. Without one the objections would have gone no further in the >process than those against .patagonia. What matters, from our PoV, is >whether objection put forward by this particular community -- health >practitioner professionals -- is sufficient enough to sustain objection as >a matter of public interest. > >I personally don' t have a strong opinion on this and could easily be >persuaded either way. > >- Evan > > >On 5 March 2013 18:33, Garth Bruen <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > Dear NARALO'ers (-ites?), > > > > The region must answer a series of questions (one for each applicant) in > > response to the .HEALTH objection: > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/newgtldrg/Advice+from+the+RALOs+to+the+A > > LAC+regarding+the+objection+statements > > > > My recommendation is to answer "NO" or to abstain in ALL FIVE cases and I > > will explain why. > > > > Some members of the region believed the system had been "gamed" in the > > denial of the .AMAZON, .PATAGOINA, etc. objections. Well, I am concerned > > also about gaming but from a different direction. My first and foremost > > concern is the integrity of At-Large, and I believe that answering "Yes" to > > these objection questions may result in a misuse of our authority in this > > portion of the objection process. I have two concerns: one specific and one > > general. > > > > First, one of the objections is to a Chinese IDN string application. This > > IDN was bundled in the objection with the four Latin-script/English > > Language > > "HEALTH" strings. However, the IDN is variously translated as "HEALTHY" as > > well as "HEALTH." In our Review Group discussions I made the point that > > "HEALTH" is an industry and "HEALTHY" is a general state. In further review > > of the application for the IDN string the applicant marked the translation > > as "HEALTHY" and even more broadly described it as "WELLNESS." The > > objection > > to the .HEALTH applications firmly frames its concerns as the > > medical-industry use of the word "HEALTH." The application for the Chinese > > IDN concerns a much more general category and as such is not factually > > covered by the objection. I lobbied unsuccessfully within the Review Group > > to drop this objection from the list as it does not fit the situation and > > the passing of this objection may appear to be a mistake by members of the > > community who actually speak Chinese. > > > > Second, I am opposed to the other four objections regardless of the > > specific > > problems with the Chinese IDN objection. My opposition stems from the fact > > that this does not appear to be a true community objection. While the > > objector has healthcare related credentials I have significant doubts about > > the sincerity objection. The objection makes the case that .HEALTH needs > > special protections to keep consumers from being abused in terms of > > potentially fraudulent medical websites. While I would agree, the objector > > did not file similar objections to .MEDICAL, .HEALTHCARE, .DENTIST, > > .DENTAL, > > .DOCTOR, .HOSPITAL, .SURGERY or .MED. When the objector was asked why, his > > answer only confirmed my suspicion of his specific objection to the > > "HEALTH" > > string and not new gTLDs potentially impacting the medical or health > > communities. Further, this objection appears in large part to be backed and > > supported by the World Health Organization. While the WHO represents global > > health interests it is my personal belief the objection to this string > > represents a narrow interest in the string itself and not the meaning. It > > is > > my opinion that this objection, if supported by At-Large, in fact > > represents > > a more serious threat to the public interest than deployment of the string > > itself. > > > > Anyone should feel free to disagree or engage in discussion. > > > > Thank you, Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > Garth Bruen > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada > >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

2 1

CALL FOR MEMBERSHIP: At-Large Summit 2 Organizing Committee
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, a call for Membership in the new ad hoc At-Large Summit 2 (ATLAS 2) Organizing Committee<https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=39420675> is being made in anticipation of the second At-Large Summit being held in June 2014. The ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee will work with the ALAC Finance and Budget Sub-Committee on developing the request for the second At-Large Summit. If the request is approved, the members of the ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee will work together with the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) and At-Large Structures (ALSes) to organize the ATLAS 2 meetings, activities, and plan the logistics of the second At-Large Summit. If you are interested in being a member of the ATLAS 2 Organizing Committee, please send an email indicating your interest to Olivier (ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>) and At-Large Staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>) by 23:59 UTC on Friday, 8 March 2013. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

New gTLD Objection to .HEALTH
by Garth Bruen March 5, 2013

March 5, 2013

Dear NARALO, I will be accepting comments on the objections to .HEALTH, please review the information below and related links. For those on this list who are not NARALO At-Large members, please refrain from making comments about this process on the NARALO list. You are free to make comments anywhere else, this process and discussion is for NARALO At-Large ONLY. If any non-At-Large persons comment on this objection process in the NARALO discussion I will request that staff remove you from the list. Also, I will be sending out my own thoughts on the issue, please note this is my OPINION and not instructions. I encourage everyone to make up their own mind on this. -Garth -----Original Message----- From: newgtldrg-bounces(a)icann.org [mailto:newgtldrg-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Dev Anand Teelucksingh Sent: Monday, March 4, 2013 1:45 AM To: afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; newgtldrg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [New gTLD RG] IMPORTANT: At-Large Objection Statements posted for RALO review - deadline for RALO advice to ALAC is now March 6 2013 Dear All, Please note that the objection statement against the applicant "dot Health Limited" for the ".health" string (https://community.icann.org/x/xYxwAg) and the objection statement against the applicant "Stable Tone Limited" for the "健康" ("jiankang") string (https://community.icann.org/x/0YxwAg) was updated on March 1 2013 to remove incorrect references to other applicants in these statements. The updated objection statements can be found on the respective wiki pages. On the gTLD RG call with the RALO officers on February 28 2013, an abstain option was added, instead of just a "Yes" or "No" answer for RALO. The RALO advice to the ALAC requires answers to the 5 questions listed at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg Finally, given clarification by ICANN's new gTLD staff as to the process by which funding from ICANN is made available to the ALAC, the RALO's answers to the 5 questions at https://community.icann.org/x/t45wAg can be sent to the ALAC by March 6 2013, 23:59 UTC. Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:06 PM, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > Please see an important message being sent on behalf of Dev Anand Teelucksingh, Chair of the At-Large new gTLD Review Group: > > ** > Dear All, > > As per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application, (see one page PDF at http://bit.ly/how-ALAC-files-objection-to-new-gTLD ), the new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG) have posted objection statements on community grounds to 5 new gTLD applications for Regional At-Large Organisation (RALO) review and advice to the ALAC. > > The gTLD RG drafted the statements based on the outcomes of its review > and discussion of comments received by February 8, 2013 (see > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/2013q1/009493.html) > > All of the objection statements are on community objection grounds. > The community objection grounds page at https://community.icann.org/x/QgkQAg lists four tests that would enable the Dispute Resolution Service Provider hearing the objection to determine whether there is substantial opposition from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be targeted. Note also that ALL four tests must be met for the objection to prevail. > > The 5 applications and objection statements, including the comments received by the gTLD RG on the applications can be found on the workspace at https://community.icann.org/x/soxwAg with 5 separate wiki pages for each new gTLD application, the objection statement and the comments received by the gTLD RG. Members of At-Large are invited to discuss and post questions or comments on these wiki pages. > > All RALOs must review EACH of the 5 gTLD applications and the associated information (objection statement, comments) on the wiki pages and decide if the objection statement drafted by the gTLD RG group supports the criterion for community objection. > > The RALO cannot modify any of the 5 objection statements, but must advise the ALAC as to whether the RALO EITHER: > 1) supports the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against > the new gTLD application OR > 2) NOT support the objection statement being filed by the ALAC against the new gTLD application. > > This advice for each of the 5 objection statements must be sent to the ALAC by March 5, 2013, 23:59 UTC so that the ALAC can review the RALO advice before the end of the objection period on March 13, 2013. > > A conference call is tentatively scheduled on Thursday, February 28, > 2013 (exact time will be confirmed by At-Large Staff) is being planned for RALO officers with the gTLD RG members to provide an overview of the process and to answer any questions they may have as to what is expected by the RALOs as per the process by which the ALAC can object to a new gTLD application. At-Large members are welcome to attend this call. > > Kind regards, > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > ** > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie > Peregrine, and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of the > ALAC > E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> _______________________________________________ Newgtldrg mailing list Newgtldrg(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/newgtldrg

2 2