June 2017 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

fucked.nyc
by Joly MacFie Sept. 21, 2018

Sept. 21, 2018

I have just been contacted by the former registrant of fucked.nyc. He registered it via namecheap.com on March 3 2015 and renewed it earlier this week. On Feb 18 2017 he received a msg from Neustar informing him that it had been found non-compliant with the "Seven Word Policy" and deleted. Neustar advised him to contact his registrar for any refunds they might care to make. He contacted NameCheap who essentially said "Forgettaboutit'", despite him pointing out that at no time had he been notified about, or agreed to be bound by, any such policy. Here is NameCheap's response: *Recently, you contacted our Live Chat support regarding deletion offucked.nyc <http://fucked.nyc/>. Feel free to use chat ID XQR-359-35382 for reference.We wanted to let you know, that we have forwarded a suggestion about special notices for .NYC domains to the corresponding team.We are really sorry that you faced such a situation and our replies were not so helpful. Different Registry companies can have different policies in regards of registration their domains and they usually reserve a right to change their requirements or delete domains which do not meet them.This does not happen often, still it is not possible to keep customers informed about all the Registry policies or their changes on a contant manner, to our regret.The amount you paid for the domain purchase was used to register/renew the domain at the .NYC Registry. However, the Registry still can delete domains without any refund if they do not meet their requirements. We are working on improving our performance and hopefully special messages on the site can help to avoid such situations in future.If you have questions or require assistance, feel free to contact us at any time.* The registrant did some further research and surmised that Neustar's vigilance could well be due to my Feb 6 letter <http://isoc-ny.org/misc/2017-02-06_isoc-ny_dotnyc.pdf> pointing out they were asleep at the wheel. It appeared to him the relevant page <http://www.ownit.nyc/restricted-reserved> had been hurriedly updated. Since, apparently he has other domains that might also be considered variants on the 7 words, he got back on to Neustar for some clarification, demanded to see a list. 'Guy' at Neustar support informed him that nothing of the like existed - that it was decided on case by case basis - and to add insult to injury sany deleted restricted names might, as policies change, be released and sold to the highest bidder without any recourse for the original registrant. Thus he writes *I have concluded that all of my .nyc domain names (more than 20) were registered without binding terms or a policy of any kind on behalf of Namecheap or Neustar / ownit.nyc <http://ownit.nyc/>, and I suspect that this is a case for a large percentage of sold .nyc domains. Yet my domain name was seized for a breach of policy, a policy I was never introduced to nor agreed to. If any of my other names are added to the list, they can seize it at any time, despite the fact that I've owned them for 2 years now.* *The greatest ethical concern I have is that an entity operating in this way reserves the right to put a domain name on the reserved/restricted list at any point in time, even if it was already sold and owned for 2 years. I was informed by "Guy" at Neustar support that there is a possibility reserved/restricted names will be released in the future, however they are released back to the public (they go back up for sale), not to the original owner. I have many .nyc domain names that appear as variations according to their list.* *Where is the oversight? Who is to prevent Neustar from seizing a domain name for a period of time, then conveniently releasing it later only to buy it themselves using an alias or through a third party?* <snip> *It just doesn't seem right. If Neustar was unable to properly inform name holders on policy creations, changes, and updates in the past 5 years on city tax dollars, I don't think they should operate for another second. It shouldn't take a committee to generate a "no", I think their shady track record in the past 5 years speaks for itself. And this being New York City, we deserve better.* I've responded to him, noting that 7 word policy is in the City's .nyc contract (appears to have been published April 1 2015, and the .nyc Acceptable Use Policy (which doesn't mention that policy but says they can delete at will) has been public since July 2014. Caveat emptor. I noted that Neustar is obligated to file copies of Registrar Registry Agreements with the City, and he could FOIL it to see if NameCheap had met their obligations. I also opined that, in the unlikely event Neustar were to resell a previously deleted name, they would be asking for trouble, However I think he rightfully raises the wider issue of the right of registrants to be properly informed of restrictive gTLD policies before they put their money on the line. Is there something like that in existing policy? And also, to possibly the wider amusement of schoolboys etc, maybe ICANN or somebody should perhaps maintain a definitive reference of unacceptable variants of the 7 words. joly -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

3 3

ICANN Abu Dhabi alternative Traveller
by Glenn McKnight June 30, 2017

June 30, 2017

Garth Bruen our NARALO ALAC member has informed me this week that he is not going to attend Abu Dhabi and this travel slot will be open to an alternative traveler. I set up a google form for anyone interested in expressing interest in being an alternative for the late October event. Here is the link to the form https://goo.gl/forms/lPdRKCejVdCl7rS42 <https://goo.gl/forms/lPdRKCejVdCl7rS42> ICANN staff establishes the travel list and the timelines for submission of travel preferences so the timelines for the submission has been established. I assume it should be in August sometime. If you have any questions please contact me Thanks Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 .

1 0

June 2017: Input needed for the NARALO newsletter
by Eduardo Diaz June 23, 2017

June 23, 2017

@All: Please send me any images, brief updates, or event information (past, present, or future) that you would like to be featured in the June 2017 newsletter: Due date: 6 /2 8 /17 Updates should be kept down to two or three lines. For event information please send me the pertinent event details or point me to a calendar so that I can pull it from there. I look forward to receiving and sharing all your news. Best, Eduardo -- *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.

1 0

Call for volunteers to take over the work of producing the monthly NARALO Newsletter
by Eduardo Diaz June 14, 2017

June 14, 2017

@ALL: I have been doing the production of the NARALO newsletter for more than two years now. I started this initiative with the pledge to do it for a maximum of three years (36 months) since to me this time is what it will take for people to get accustomed to expect this every month. My three years are almost up and the time is coming to pass this to "new blood". It takes about two hours a month to put it together. In my case, I do it in small steps through the period. I strongly believe the newsletter is a great communication tool to keep the region informed by and for all ALS. So, who I can count on to help in keeping this alive? -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.

1 0

Fwd: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
by Susannah Gray June 13, 2017

June 13, 2017

Hi all, For those that haven't seen it, Alyssa is asking for more discussion on the community networks proposal on the ARIN PPML list. Now's the time to have your say! Sign up here if you've not already done so: https://www.arin.net/participate/mailing_lists/index.html Susannah -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2017 17:44:02 +0000 From: Alyssa Moore <alyssa(a)alyssamoore.ca> To: Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com>, Jason Schiller <jschiller(a)google.com> CC: arin-ppml(a)arin.net <arin-ppml(a)arin.net> Hello PPML, I’d like to spark more discussion on the Removal of Community Networks proposal. Here’s a brief history again (and thanks, Owen, for the first run at it). The policy was first implemented to 1. Encourage uptake of IPv6 in community networks 2. Reduce the threshold for qualification for community networks on small blocks of IPv6 3. Provide some fee relief As Owen noted, the fees at the time were much higher with a minimum commitment of $2500. The fees now are much more accessible at: 3X-Small * <https://www.arin.net/fees/fee_schedule.html#threex> $250 /24 or smaller /40 or smaller 2X-Small $500 Larger than /24, up to and including /22 Larger than /40, up to and including /36 At the meeting in New Orleans, we heard from a few folks who are involved in Community Nets. At the mic, they expressed concern that: 1. They didn’t know special provisions existed for Community Nets in the first place but were pleased that such provisions do exist 2. The definition in 2.11 is too restrictive. None of the self-identified community networks in attendance would have qualified under the definition - notably, the 100% volunteer-run requirement. In further discussions, I’ve gleaned that the current fees are not a large concern, but that operators of community networks are pleased to be specifically recognized in the policy manual. It is my feeling, from this feedback, that any problem here may be more of an engagement and communications issue with community networks than a qualification and fee problem that can be solved in policy. This, admittedly is a challenge for the network operators with limited resources one one end, and for ARIN to be doing outreach on the other. Look forward to further discussion. Alyssa On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 11:31 AM Owen DeLong <owen(a)delong.com <mailto:owen@delong.com>> wrote: > On Mar 21, 2017, at 12:07 , Jason Schiller <jschiller(a)google.com <mailto:jschiller@google.com>> wrote: > > I would offer a friendly amendment to Scott's request to open the > question up more generally... (we should not confuse if a policy > is being used, with if it is needed). > > Can "Community Networks" please chime into this thread > and explain one (or all) of the following: > > 1. Why are you (or other communities networks in general) > having or had trouble getting resources? This section was put in place to attempt to provide a mechanism by which community networks could gain access to IPv6 resources for the following reasons: 1. Encourage the use of IPv6 by community networks. 2. Provide an avenue by which the board could provide a reduced fee structure for community networks. (The board has, so far, elected not to do so) 3. Lower the barrier to qualification for relatively small blocks of IPv6 address space for operators of community networks. At the time the policy was introduced into the NRPM, the barrier to entry for a community network (which would be treated as an ISP) was a minimum commitment of $2,500 per year (IIRC, possibly even $5,000). Many community networks struggle to fund pizza for a monthly meeting. Several representatives of community networks, myself included, approached the board and were told that “The board would need a definition of community networks in policy before it could provide any fee relief to such organizations.” The policy half was put in place and then the board declined to provide any of the requested fee relief. Since then, several changes (reductions) in fees have occurred. Today, fees are likely no longer a significant barrier to community networks use of this policy. However, that is a very recent event and I would like to see us give community networks some time to determine whether this is a useful avenue or not. Further, since this is an IPv6-only policy, it may well be that most community networks still don’t perceive it as practical to implement an IPv6 based network and so aren’t ready to take advantage of the policy yet, preferring instead to focus on whatever mechanism they are using to deal with IPv4. > 2. Is the current policy is sufficient for you > (and other community networks like you) > to get space without sections 2.11 and 6.5.9? From the perspective of the community networks I’ve been actively involved in, it’s a mixed bag. There are still advantages to preserving these sections in some instances. > 3. Do you (and others like you) believe they should > qualify under "Community Networks" but do not because > the definition is overly narrow? > [explain how we might extend the definition to cover you] From the perspective of the community networks I’ve been actively involved in, policy was not the problem, cost was the problem. The policy as is is helpful, but was not helpful enough. Recent general changes to the fee structure would now make taking advantage of the policy economically viable to some of these networks. > 4. Did you get space under a different policy, > but still believe you would have been better served > if you were able to fit under the "Communities Networks" > definition? From the perspective of the community networks I’ve been actively involved in, no. Economics being the primary barrier, no other policy would work, either. Yes, we would have been better served under the community networks definition _IF_ such service had been economically viable, but that was not the case until recent changes. > Please note if you think you should be considered a community network, > and why. (e.g. I am Your Neighborhood Net. We should be considered a > community network because we offer "free" WiFi to our community. We > hold monthly meetings that cost $10 / person, but half of that covers the > price of the pizza, the rest is a donation for our ISP fees and replacement > equipment. Occasionally, a community member will buy and donate an > access point so they can get better coverage, or speed. Neither > Your Neighborhood Net, nor people associated with it make any money) All of the community networks I’ve been involved in had no cost to attend their monthly meetings, provided free wifi to some service community, depended on donations from local ISPs or other businesses (service donations) for connectivity, and if there was pizza at the meeting, it was funded by everyone chipping in for the pizza. The equipment was generally donated and/or purchased with donations from individual organizers/volunteers involved in the community network. Space and power for the equipment was donated by individuals, companies, and in some cases, civic entities (water districts, police, EMA, etc.). Many of these networks were/are operated by Amateur Radio operators and often had some connection and/or intent to provide services for ARES/RACES and/or local emergency management authorities. > Please ask any community networks you know to chime in on this thread! Though I am no longer directly actively involved in any of these networks, I hope that the above historical and current information is useful to the discussion. Owen _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML(a)arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net>). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact info(a)arin.net <mailto:info@arin.net> if you experience any issues. -- Alyssa Moore 403.437.0601

1 0

ICANN 59 Read Out Webinars
by Joe Catapano June 12, 2017

June 12, 2017

Hi all, This is just a quick note to let you know that the GSE team is planning on piloting ICANN meeting “read out” webinars next month. These will be structured as high-level synopses of what transpired at ICANN 59 – a look at some of the policies discussed, what the different SO/AC s worked on, etc. This is a bit of an experiment; we’ll see how the discussions go and what kind of turn out we get. We are working with ISOC-SFB and ISOC-NY on these sessions. The session in collaboration with ISOC-SFB is scheduled for 7/18 at 3PM ET. The date/time for the ISOC-NY session is still TBD. Stay tuned for more details. Let us know if you have questions. We will also be on the call later today. Thanks, Joe -- Joe Catapano Program Manager, Stakeholder Engagement, North America Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Direct: +1.202.249.7544 Mobile: +1.202.550.6018 Skype: joe.catapano.icann Twitter: @JosephCatapano

2 1

10th anniversary of NARALO
by Glenn McKnight June 12, 2017

June 12, 2017

On June 12th, 2017, the North American Regional At Large Organization (NARALO) will be celebrating it’s ten year anniversary of the signing of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers(ICANN) in San Juan Puerto Rico on June 12th 2007. NARALO serves the North American region which exemplifies our slogan, MANY VOICES, ONE INTERNET. It is one of the five Regional At-Large Organizations (RALOs) that makes up the At-Large multi-stakeholder community within ICANN. The North American region encompasess end users in Canada, Puerto Rico, and United States and its other territories. In the ten years, NARALO has grown from 10 to 29 At-Large Structures (ALS) and 19 unaffiliated members with an extensive well of knowledge of its membership on relevant Internet concerns ranging from community access to cybersecurity issues. “Over the past ten years many of our members have been leaders in the ICANN ecosystem proving thought provoking and important policy statements, such as consumer trust and more.” Glenn McKnight, NARALO Chair As the Internet becomes more pervasive in people’s lives we at NARALO aim to reach out and help the end users to help them engage with the key decision makers in making the Internet an open, trustworthy and invaluable community asset. “I am proud of NARALO for having been able to raise the awareness among our constituencies about policies and issues discussed in ICANN that affect end-user communities and shape the global Internet.” Eduardo Diaz, President of ISOC Puerto Rico, one of the original signatories on the MOU and the incoming NARALO Chair. To learn more NARALO please visit www.naralo.org Contact Glenn McKnight.NARALO Chair naralo-leadership(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org -30- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 .

2 1

REMINDER: Meeting Invitation: NARALO Monthly Call on Monday, 12 June 2017 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff June 12, 2017

June 12, 2017

If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file://composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> with your preferred number. Please remember that it is now possible to connect your audio via the AC room, without using your telephone. You need a stable internet connection. If you would like a reminder of how to connect please let staff know. Si vous avez besoin d'un dial-out, merci de le communiquer au personnel At-Large à staff(a)atlarge.icann.org avec votre numéro d'appel préféré. Nous vous rappelons que vous pouvez désormais utiliser l'audio de l'Adobe Connect room afin de vous connecter sans utiliser votre ligne téléphonique. Il vous faut une connexion internet stable. Merci de nous confirmer votre participation et dial-out - si nécessaire - ainsi que votre numéro à: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<file://composeviewinternalloadurl/staff@atlarge.icann.org> Dear All, The next NARALO Monthly Call is scheduled for Monday, 12 June 2017 at 19:00 UTC. For other times: http://tinyurl.com/yd2d2vu4 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/YwzfAw ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll free numbers: <http://adigo.com/icann/> http://adigo.com/icann/ Adobe Connect: <https://participate.icann.org/naralo/> <https://participate.icann.org/naralo/> https://participate.icann.org/naralo/ NARALO Wiki Space: <https://community.icann.org/x/N5Qi> <https://community.icann.org/x/N5Qi> https://community.icann.org/x/N5Qi If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Thank you. Kind Regards, ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: <mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Website: <https://atlarge.icann.org/> atlarge.icann.org Facebook: <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> facebook.com/icann<facebook.com/icannatlarge><https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> @<@ICANNAtLarge><https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<@ICANNAtLarge> [unknown.png]

2 2

E Version of the NARALO GA Report
by Glenn McKnight June 8, 2017

June 8, 2017

Hi All Enclosed is the NARALO GA Report in a EVersion http://online.fliphtml5.com/gnel/vivb/ Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 .

2 1

NARALO CROPP FY 18 Plan Update
by Glenn McKnight June 7, 2017

June 7, 2017

Hi Folks I have deleted Tom's suggestion for CROPP trips for FY 18. We have five trips proposed, we will be discussing the plan on Monday at our normal monthly call Thanks Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight 289-830 6259 .

1 0