- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

Dominik and all, Exactly my broader point, Dominik! What's much more important is that non-registrant users and independent registrants still have no voice or vote. The capture to which I alluded to and you plainly stated, remains. As such, the ecommerce aspects of economic prosperity will be so limited. Such a limit will be significant and solely or mostly in the hands of large commercial special interest groups. That's not a healthy economic paradigm. It is also a precursor to further fraud and abuse on a huge international scale. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Jeff, > > You are right, however, if we got rid of the percentage (as mentioned in > the Alan's explanation) and kept just raw vote numbers the situation > might get better. I do not see any reason why the contracted parties > should have similar power as the non-contracted parties, for other > reasons than keeping ICANN captured, of course. > > Dominik > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeffrey A. > Williams > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 9:32 AM > To: ALAC; ALAC NA Discuss > Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey(a)icann.org > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG > onGNSOCouncil Restructuring > > Dominik and all, > > If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that > commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of > power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially > commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing > has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific > representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant > representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant > reoresentative/ALAC. > > So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the > bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been > occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more > increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this > proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. > > Dominik Filipp wrote: > > > Cheryl, > > > > After having read the last WG output at > > > > > https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_ > > > > committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd > > > f > > > > it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as > follows > > (Attachment A) > > > > ------------------------------ > > 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted > > parties/constituencies, 2 parties > > in each house > > > > House 1 - Contracted party house consists > > of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies House 2 - > > Non-contracted party house consists > > of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) > > parties/constituencies > > > > that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively. > > > > The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are > > > considered) > > > > House 1 > > Registries - 3 members > > Registrars - 3 members > > > > House 2 > > Commercial - 5 members > > Non-commercial - 5 members > > > > and also > > > > Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. > > Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. > > ------------------------------ > > > > Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl? > > > > If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to. > > > > Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO > > Council parties? > > > > Thanks > > > > Dominik > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl > > Langdon-Orr > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM > > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Cc: 'ALAC internal list' > > Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on > > GNSOCouncil Restructuring > > > > At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our > > representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire > > > to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. > > > > > > > > Please see our Wiki page > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to > find > > a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and > > also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the > > report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our > > sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an > > expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board. > > > > > > > > ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required > for > > a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the > > > next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this > > > statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the > purpose > > of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC > > Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain. > > > > > > > > More in the next 24hrs. > > > > > > > > CLO > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann > > > .org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann > .org > > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Apple Clients Still Vulnerable After DNS Patch
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

All, All is still not well with Apple.com even after Apple finnaly patched the original DNS problem. It seems that industry leaders are again showing their lack of knowledge in IT related issues that effect the security of their clients and who knows how many other unsuspecting users. Shame on Apple! Has the ISC or the SSAC gotten in touch with Apple and expressed that they need to do better? Well I don't know, but it sure doesn't seem so. See: Glenn Fleishman sends word that SANS Institute testing indicates that, even after installing http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/08/01/1215209&tid=172 Apple's latest patch for the DNS vulnerability, http://db.tidbits.com/article/9721 Leopard desktops (not servers) are still vulnerable or at least perpetuate risky behavior that makes exploitation easier. This matters because "With servers rapidly being patched worldwide, it's likely that the low-hanging fruit disappears, and vectors [will be] designed to attack massive numbers of clients on ISP networks." Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Apple finally patches dangerous DNS flaw
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

All, Well finally Apple got off it's A$$! See: http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/080108-apple-finally-patches-dangerou… Lets all hope that this is not previews of coming attractions from Apple. But some how I get a erie feeling that this is becoming the norm. Seems to me that ICANN should have temporarily shut down Apple.com until they had the problem fixed and tested so that the exposure to users would have been better limited. The abuse to users was significant and the aftermath of damage is unknown and will be very hard to fully determine. It is completely irresponsible for Apple's managment to allow this to continue so long without requesting themselves to have their Domain Name suspended. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

[Fwd 6th false reason given to: Request to mailing list NA-Discuss rejected]
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

Matthias and all, Ok Matthias, et., al., as I have already said, there were only 4 recipients, ergo less than 5. So this rejection notice is false/untrue. Can you count to 4? -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Request to mailing list NA-Discuss rejected Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2008 06:44:39 -0400 From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org To: jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com Your request to the NA-Discuss mailing list Posting of your message titled "GOOGLE SUED FOR SELLING INADEQUATE ADS" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "Too many recipients to the message" Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at: na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] Re: Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

George and all, Good point and nicely attributed as well. Now if only ICANN could get the hint, eh?! George Kirikos wrote: > Hello, > > To elaborate on "due process." There's a famous award-winning film, "A > Man for All Seasons" from the 1960s, based on the play, that had a > memorable scene: > > ---- start quote -------- > "William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law! > > Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the > law to get after the Devil? > > William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that! > > Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil > turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being > flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, > Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the > man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds > that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my > own safety's sake!" > ------ end of quote -------- > > "For my own safety's sake" what is the protective language in the > Afilias policy? In the rush to label some domains as "abusive" in the > name of "security," due process is eliminated. Even the Devil (real > abusers, spammers, etc.) deserves the benefit of law (and due process), > in order to protect everyone else from the anarachy that would result > without laws and due process. > > "Where would you hide" (what language in the contract do you rely > upon), when "the Devil turned 'round on you?" (when the registry > operator summarily finds your domain to be "abusive" in its own > discretion, its own definition of "abuse" and cancels it) > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] Notice: Another DNS security hole recognized
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 31, 2008

July 31, 2008

Dr. Joe and all, Thanks for your input and opinion. Most of it I fully agree with. Indeed true that this problem isn't DNS itself, but how NAT is using randomizing port use. I also to a degree that DNSSEC can be a problem and if not fully implimented properly, can, and likely will be a significant maintanance as well as administration problem. But that is not a DNSSEC problem unto itself. I've done several DNSSEC implimentations that have low or no maint problems. Joe Baptista wrote: > Just to make things clear. > > 1) The DNS is not the issue here. The issue is servers / firewall / > NAT devices where the ports are not properly randomized for UDP. And > the problems can be fixed. > > 2) This is not a new vulnerability. Its one vulnerability with many > potential attack scenarios. I've considered that even authoritative > servers can be exploited if one understands the attack vectors to > deploy. > > If people want to fix this the only real solution is to install a > server that works - Bersteins DNS server is the only one I would > guarantee to clients works well for recursive and authoritative DNS. > Separate servers - separate level of DNS services. > > People who use recursive name servers for authoritative traffic are > begging trouble to pay them a visit. i.e. you get your servers high > jacked. And you won't even know it. > > What pisses me off about Vixie is the shitty way he is using a very > scary vulnerability - i.e. potentially 70% (or more) of the internet > can be high jacked - to peddle his shabby wares - i.e. DNSSEC. > > DNSSEC is nothing more then the Verisign/USG/IANA/ICANN disaster > attempting a takeover of the root zone, or at least maintaining the > status quo. Let us not forget that the Chinese now have a > significant market share, then there was Turkey who I got online via > the HEX, and the Arabs have been running their own roots for years, > etc etc. So having lost over 30% market share in root service is not > a success. > > DNSSEC is nothing more then a trap that will delay is for a few > months. It is also a significant inconvenience and will require an IT > infrastructure devoted to its administration and maintenance. i.e. > big expenses to all when the problem is and always has been the > software - i.e. BIND and all its variants. > > Fix the software - fix the problem today. Install DNSSEC - ensure a > make work project for DNS experts - and increase IT expenses > significantly. > > anyway - thats my two cents. > > regards > joe baptista > > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Jeffrey A. > Williams <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > All, > > As if one was not enough, eh! Well like I have been > harping > on, here is another that has finally been recognized that > has > been around for awhile as well... > > Seems that the ISC hasn't fixed or reported this one > either... >:( > > Here also is a new tool for users or admins. to check with: > > https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy > > > 08.31.22 CVE: CVE-2008-1447 > Platform: Cross Platform > Title: Multiple Vendor DNS Protocol Insufficient Transaction > ID > Randomization DNS Spoofing > Description: Multiple vendors' implementations of the DNS > protocol are > exposed to a DNS-spoofing issue because the software fails > to securely > implement random values when performing DNS queries. > Microsoft Windows > DNS Clients and Servers, ISC BIND 8 and 9, and multiple > Cisco IOS > releases are affected. > Ref: http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/494716 > > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k > members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with > what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the > burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied > by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. > 1947] > ===== > ========================================================= > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data > security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > > > > > -- > Joe Baptista > www.publicroot.org > PublicRoot Consortium > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, > Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) > Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 > > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Notice: Another DNS security hole recognized
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 31, 2008

July 31, 2008

All, As if one was not enough, eh! Well like I have been harping on, here is another that has finally been recognized that has been around for awhile as well... Seems that the ISC hasn't fixed or reported this one either... >:( Here also is a new tool for users or admins. to check with: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/services/dnsentropy 08.31.22 CVE: CVE-2008-1447 Platform: Cross Platform Title: Multiple Vendor DNS Protocol Insufficient Transaction ID Randomization DNS Spoofing Description: Multiple vendors' implementations of the DNS protocol are exposed to a DNS-spoofing issue because the software fails to securely implement random values when performing DNS queries. Microsoft Windows DNS Clients and Servers, ISC BIND 8 and 9, and multiple Cisco IOS releases are affected. Ref: http://www.securityfocus.com/archive/1/494716 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] NY Times: Domain name system flaw causes security risk
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 31, 2008

July 31, 2008

Beau and all, Interesting article, thank you for pointing it out. Unfortunately Google.com is not human/user-friendly what so ever. Niether is ATT.NET, see: http://private.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=att.net&token=00804ef… Further the responsibility resides with of this long standing DNS security hole has been known for years, nearly a decade, it was right of Mr. Kiminsky to publicize it more forcibly so that users will be more aware and be armed with good and accurate information by which they can take measures to protect themselves accordingly, either independently or through their service providers accordingly. ICANN and the IANA along with ISC through one Paul Vixie could, and should have address this and many other less severe DNS security problems long ago when they were first made aware of the problem, but balked to a great degree in doing so. This was long ago discussed on the old and now defunct DNSO GA ML to which I have repeatedly given a URL link to, and have a retained full independent archive of. Sooner or later ICANN is going to have to face the legal music for this one! I and our members have had, and will always have a zero tolerance policy for those that act irresponsibly, or don't take corrective action for known or suspected technical related security problems when they knew better. Paul Vixie and others knew well in advance of this and other DNS security holes, and Paul is a very sharp fellow, so he knew this problem was there and didn't strongly enough recomend getting it fixed ASAP. I like and respect Paul allot, but he dropped the ball on this, and few others of this nature... "Brendler, Beau" wrote: > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/technology/30flaw.html?em&ex=1217649600&e… > > Excerpt: > > "The flaw that Mr. Kaminsky discovered is in the Domain Name System, a kind of automated phone book that converts human-friendly addresses like google.com into machine-friendly numeric counterparts. > > The potential consequences of the flaw are significant. It could allow a criminal to redirect Web traffic secretly, so that a person typing a banks actual Web address would be sent to an impostor site set up to steal the users name and password. The user might have no clue about the misdirection, and unconfirmed reports in the Web community indicate that attempted attacks are already under way. > > The problem is analogous to the risk of phoning directory assistance at, for example, AT&T, asking for the number for Bank of America and being given an illicit number at which an operator masquerading as a bank employee asks for your account number and password. > > The online flaw and the rush to repair it are an urgent reminder that the Internet remains a sometimes anarchic jumble of jurisdictions. No single person or group can step in to protect the online transactions of millions of users. Internet security rests on the shoulders of people like Mr. Kaminsky, a director at IOActive, a computer security firm, who had to persuade other experts that the problem was real." > > **************************************************************************** > ******** > SCANNED > > **************************************************************************** > ******** > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ga] The NTIA Public Comment
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Danny and all, Thanks Danny! As a side note, I thought the more important and relevant parts of this public comment were as follows: We note that the PSC papers touch on several of the key areas listed above, including long term stability, accountability, responsiveness and stakeholder participation. However, ensuring continued private sector leadership, increased contract compliance and enhanced competition are minimally addressed, if at all, in the Transition Action Plan. The Department believes that these issues require affirmative and concrete actions on ICANNs part, as it seeks to increase the confidence of the ICANN community in its structure, policy and decision-making processes, and, ultimately, its long term stability. In addition, as the PSC papers refer to a root-zone transition agreement the Department believes it is important for its views to be on the record. First, it is important to note that the IANA functions contract was not part of the JPA mid-term review and the Department views these as two discrete instruments. As the community is aware, the IANA functions contract covers the performance of a series of currently interdependent technical functions that enable the continued efficient operation of the Internet, including processing requests to change the authoritative root zone file. Implementation of changes to the authoritative root zone file are performed by VeriSign under the terms of a separate agreement with the Department. Danny Younger wrote: > > [excerpt] "The Department believes strongly that it is important to clarify that we are not in discussions with either party to change the respective roles of the Department, ICANN or VeriSign regarding the management of the authoritative root zone file, nor do we have any plans to undertake such discussions. Consistent with public statements made by the United States government starting in 2000 and reinforced by the 2005 U.S. Principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System, the Department, while open to operational efficiency measures that address governments legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, has no plans to transition management of the authoritative root zone file to ICANN as suggested in the PSC documents." http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_080730.html > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG onGNSOCouncil Restructuring
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 30, 2008

July 30, 2008

Dominik and all, If the below outlined report is correct, than it is clear that commercial interests have a significant advantage and the majority of power in the GNSO as Registries and Registrars are essentially commercial entities/businesses. Ergo no balance and essentially nothing has changed in the GNSO other than the "Names" of the specific representative groups. Further there is NO Independent Registrant representative in this proposed structure, and NO user-non-registrant reoresentative/ALAC. So I will now predict that there will be no significant change in the bahavior of Registries or Registrars and the abuses that have been occuring with increasing frequency will continue with even more increasing frequency. I will also predict here and now that with this proposed structure the IPC will get whatever it wants. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Cheryl, > > After having read the last WG output at > > https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/at_large_advisory_ > committee:20080729041513-0-3574/files/FinalReport-GNSO-ImprovementsWG.pd > f > > it seems like the proposed GNSO restructuralization could be as follows > (Attachment A) > > ------------------------------ > 2 houses - contracted and non-contracted > parties/constituencies, 2 parties > in each house > > House 1 - Contracted party house consists > of 2 (registry and registrar) constituencies > House 2 - Non-contracted party house consists > of 2 (commercial and non-commercial) > parties/constituencies > > that is, 4 parties/constituencies in both the houses collectively. > > The GNSO Council (given that the lowest proposed number of members are > considered) > > House 1 > Registries - 3 members > Registrars - 3 members > > House 2 > Commercial - 5 members > Non-commercial - 5 members > > and also > > Equal number of votes between registries and registrars. > Equal number of votes between commercial and non-commercial users. > ------------------------------ > > Do I understand the proposal correctly, Cheryl? > > If so, there is a question I could not find an answer to. > > Q: What is the proposed number of votes for each of the four GNSO > Council parties? > > Thanks > > Dominik > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl > Langdon-Orr > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 7:06 AM > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: 'ALAC internal list' > Subject: [At-Large] Report to the ICANN Board of Directors from WG on > GNSOCouncil Restructuring > > At-Large. please note that earlier today the ALAC Executive and our > representative on this WG Alan Greenberg, met and discussed our desire > to have a formal ALAC Statement to the Board on this matter. > > > > Please see our Wiki page > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?at_large_advisory_committee to find > a link to the report of the WG from this now completed process, and > also under Announcements to find an short background piece from the > report and a note as to the mechanism for the ALAC to review our > sub-committee and Rep statement appended to it, to be endorsed (in an > expanded form if so desired) as an ALAC Statement to the Board. > > > > ALAC this serves as the start of the 7 day minimum notice required for > a formal vote to be taken (between meetings) on this matter and in the > next 24hrs further background documents and proposed expansion of this > statement will be posted and a Big Pulse vote be created for the purpose > of recording your views to 1. Endorse the proposed document an ALAC > Statement, 2. Vote against the proposal or 3. Abstain. > > > > More in the next 24hrs. > > > > CLO > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann > .org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

3 5