- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

DNS oddity
by Evan Leibovitch May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

Hello all, The message below appeared in a mailing list from a member of my ALS. I don't myself know enough DNS mechanics to verify what the poster said. There is an allegation of domain hijacking in the mail which raised my attention. Can someone help verify if the complaint is legit? Thanks! - Evan -------- Original Message -------- I check www.infonec.ca for deals every once in a while. This week it hasn't been working reliably for me. Sometimes I get a web page that lets me buy domains from Network Solutions or renew the infonec.ca domain. I decided to track this down today. The status might have been different during the week. - dig www.infonec.ca gives me: ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.infonec.ca. 3548 IN CNAME www.infonec.com. www.infonec.com. 7134 IN A 209.62.72.173 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: infonec.com. 55267 IN NS ns2.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. infonec.com. 55267 IN NS ns1.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. (This data comes from the look.ca name servers. If you walk the tree, the results are different and correct.) pendingrenewaldeletion.com. is a network solutions nameserver. 209.62.72.173 is a network solutions web server that offers domains (as described above). It seems odd to me that an Answer Section would include information about a domain name for which you didn't query (infonec.com) I would have thought that it belonged in the Additional Section. The TTL for the main answers is an hour or two -- reasonable. The TTLs for the authority section is questionable considering the authorities are wrong: over 15 hours. infonec.ca seem to be properly registered. It expires in 2018/02/19 so it is unlikely to have been recently renewed (any renewal would be for an integral number of years). The registrar is "Can Reg (Infinet Communications Group)" (not network solutions). Its name servers are dns0[12].tor.axxent.ca. dig @dns02.tor.pathcom.com. www.infonec.ca +tcp: ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.infonec.ca. 3600 IN CNAME www.infonec.com. www.infonec.com. 3600 IN A 207.188.71.50 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: infonec.com. 3600 IN NS dns01.tor.axxent.ca. infonec.com. 3600 IN NS dns02.tor.axxent.ca. The CNAME says use www.infonec.com. Just like the one I get from look. But the rest is different. infonec.com seems to be properly registered. It expires in 25-apr-2017. The last update date is 02-may-2008 so maybe they let it expire and renewed it (with Network Solutions) yesterday. dig @ns1.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. www.infonec.ca +tcp: ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.infonec.ca. 7200 IN A 209.62.72.173 There was no Authority section. I wonder what that means. Apparently Network Solutions is still hijacking this AFTER they have their money. How is it that Network Solutions can take over a domain like this? If the domain had not expired, surely they would not have hijacked it. If it had expired, how can they legitimately take it over like this? If it is renewed, how can they ethically have a name server continue to hijack it? The offer to "renew this domain" is bogus since the web page was "www.infonec.ca" and not "infonec.com" and the page says on it "infonec.ca", a still-registered domain. Maybe look.ca's DNS is caching improperly. I really don't know/remember all the DNS rules. dig @ns1.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. madeupname73993.ca +tcp: [long pause] ;; ANSWER SECTION: madeupname73993.ca. 7200 IN A 209.62.72.173 (No authority section.) Hmmm. I guess that they hijack all names and give the same answer. That should make for a very fast lookup since no lookup is required. So why the long pause? Perhaps to grab the name I queried about? I guess that the resolver should ignore all answers where the authority section says *.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. Or perhaps where there is no authority section.

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] New CIRA Whois Policy - fear mongering?
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

Ross and all, So corporate registrants are able to opt-out. Really peachy! < sarcasm intended > And for the icing on the cake, third parties whom are not truly accountable to anyone have unrestricted access. Even more peachy! < more sarcasm intended > Seems to me the CIRA made the RCMP job another level of complex as now they have to keep an eye on both the registrants/registrars/ registries AND the new third parties with unrestricted access to Whois data. A master stroke, Genius! < more sarcasm intended > Soon now the sale of registrants whois private data will take a price hike and the bidding will commence, offline of course, or over VPN's, which are virtually impossible to trace. How special! Not only this a new market has been created, that of third party falsely editing CA whois data for a price, without the true registrant knowing of course... Sounds alot like Wikipedia all over again, eh? Now I have to wonder how and if other law enforcement agencies are going to be able to give cart blanche trust to these third parties for .CA domains and Whois data being accurate. I can only say that none of our Canadian members will... -----Original Message----- >From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Sent: May 4, 2008 4:19 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: Bill Silverstein <icann-list(a)sorehands.com>, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] New CIRA Whois Policy - fear mongering? > >Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> Just to be clear... are corporate registrants not able to opt out? > >No. > >> Are these channels limited to law enforcement? > >No. > >/ross > >_______________________________________________ >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] [At-Large] New CIRA Whois Policy - fear mongering?
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 4, 2008

May 4, 2008

Bill and all, I am not going to comment on your case in particular, but I can contest and would be more than willing to sware under oath myself that no matter how many times anyone reports spaming, phishing, or other fraudulent uses of Whois acquired data, if those companies or organizations are of a significant stature, they are rarely pursued by law enforcment. One has to wonder why. I myself have reported some 99 such incidents in less than a year now, and not one as far as I know or can determine are being pursued by law enforcment. I find such extrodinary if not entirely disreputable of law enforcment, sad to say... Further still it seems odd that CIRA and ICANN have not taken the lead here in addressing these inadaquacies and inconsistancies as well. -----Original Message----- >From: Bill Silverstein <icann-list(a)sorehands.com> >Sent: May 4, 2008 10:16 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] New CIRA Whois Policy - fear mongering? > >> There's simply no basis for your fear mongering. > >There is no fear mongering. I am litigating against e360Insight and >included Moniker as Defendant for providing anonymous whois service to >spammers. Moniker has not identified or terminated the spammers, either >e360 or on the original registrant of domain names that they claim do not >belong to e360) > >Of course, I provided Moniker with copies of the spam (under oath) which >Moniker admits that some of that spam are using BagainDepot's (sister >company/co-defendant) anonymously registered domain names. > >I am not law enforcement. Just one of the people who tired of spammers >using his servers as a using his inbox as a garbage can. Even is law >enforcement was provided this information, there still need to be >additional steps taken which will slow down the identification process. Do >you think the FTC will start investigating a spammer that only sent 100 >spams? Anonymous domain name registrations also prevent one from >identifying how many are tied to a single spammer. > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008

Dominik and all, Personally, I agree that there is no real NEED for the AGP. But the majority of the Registrars and registries perfer it. Our members solution, was a way in which addressing Domain Name Tasting that is effective and will eliminate Domain Name Tasting while at the same time keeping the AGP. However as you rightly point out, I as well as most of our members are very doubtful that either the registrars or ICANN can effectively do the necessary oversight our solution requires, but does offer them an oppertunity to demonstrate their interest in keeping it for whatever reasons they believe the AGP is useful. So if indeed ICANN is to fulfil it's mission, than it must take responsibility for doing so in a active and tangable way or it has and is still failing to do so. Remember ICANN introduced the Accreditation program to give confidance to the marketplace of Domain Name registration as safe and secure. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 3, 2008 8:01 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input] > >Jeff, > >The thing is that AGP as a concept has no and never has had any >legitimate reason for existence whatsoever. It is a flawed concept from >the ground up allowing for comfortable life of registrars and perhaps >with speculative intentions from the very beginning. Any prospective >ICANN oversight related to it thus makes no sense either. Other >businesses must live without such a prerogative and they live well. > >I am still impressed by your persisting, though sometimes implicit, >trust towards ICANN oversight. ICANN is not even able to oversee much >more developed policies such as domain renewals (RegisterFly) or >transfers (complaints being reported and ignored on daily basis), which >is an evident and easily provable breach of existing contracts. How >could you then expect ICANN to oversee such a jungle like AGP is with >all the possible unexpected or yet unknown side effects it might bring? > >By the way, Evan Leibovitch is one of the very few guys at ALAC who is >doing something meaningful and who is able to loudly and firmly defend >his position. NARALO was/is the only RALO explicitly supporting the AGP >elimination. > >Have a nice weekend > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 5:56 AM >To: John Levine; Evan Leibovitch; dt-motion-21may08(a)icann.org; >aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov >Cc: NA Discuss; Dominik Filipp >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on >GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input] > >John, Evan, and all, > > "Everyone", which in the NARALO is a paltry few already spoke before >the mis-communicated ALAC motion was submitted. >So I can only guess that someone is not reading their Email fully. The >consensus, although unmeasured, was actually that the AGP needed to go >and/or be eliminated. > > INEGroup's members had determined a more reasoned and practical >solution that would allow for the AGP to remain, but eliminate Domain >Name Tasting, not limit it. That solution is short, would require >registrars to modify their registration software to only allow for 10 >registrations/month per registrant, and if any were requested to be >dropped during the AGP, those registrants would be banned from >registering any domains for a set period of time or only allowed to >register one Domain name per month for a period no less than one month >and no more than two years. If that same registrant a second time >registered domain names in any name space and again let any of them drop >during the AGP he/she/it would be banned for a period of one year from >registering any domain names. If that same registrant or registrar a >third time registered any number of domain names in any name space and >again let any of them drop or be placed in a "Parking status" would be >banned permanently from ever registering any Domain names indefinitely >AND the registrar or registrars involved would have their Accreditation >revoked for a period of no less than 30 days and possibly indefinitely >and would release all domain names in those name spaces to the pool for >re-registration immediately. > > The ICANN staff itself would be responsible for oversight and >compliance of this policy and report all incidents publicly for the >publics review and notice. All or any of the ICANN staff members >assigned to doing said oversight that failed to do it's duty accordingly >would be subject to retraining in good customer relations at ICANN's and >the registrars associated expense or be summarily and immediately >dismissed. > > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >>Sent: May 2, 2008 7:47 PM >>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments >on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS >input] >> >>> What says everyone? Do we make a statement as NARALO, or leave the >GNSO >>> doc to go to the board without comment? >> >>Assuming the members of the NARALO still feel that the AGP would go, I >>think we owe the GNSO a comment. >> >>Regards, >>John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for >Dummies", >>Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, >ex-Mayor >>"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. >> >>------ >>NA-Discuss mailing list >>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list >s.icann.org >> >>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>------ > Always diligent, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008

Danny and all, With all due respect, although I, nor any of our members advocate eliminating the AGP, and in that the consensus of the ALAC/ALS'es was to do so, keeping the AGP only serves to exacerbate the Credit Card fraud problem rather than manage it. In fact requiring a credit card to register a domain name in the first place also only exacerbates the credit card fraud problem, rather than manage it, all for what I would think are obvious reasons... Additionally, requiring any potential registrant to use a credit card to register a domain name is decidedly a restraint of trade, as well as a huge potential for exposier of IDtheft. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 3, 2008 8:48 AM >To: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input] > >Let's be clear about something... the Registrar >Constituency's primary argument in favor of retaining >the AGP is for its use as a device within which credit >card fraud may be managed. At the very least, if we >will be arguing to eliminate the AGP, we should be >offering up an alternative and suitable way to >mitigate Registrar fraud concerns if we hope to arrive >at a consensus-based solution. > >The only way that I can think of having this >accomplished is via new language in a Credits Section >within the Service Level Agreement that is part of the >relevant Registry-Registrar Agreement -- see for >example http://www.verisign.com/static/002136.pdf > >This, of course, will require cooperation from the >Registries who may not be prone to re-drafting their >agreements. > >Does anyone else that is advocating AGP elimination >have any concrete suggestions to deal with the fraud >concerns that can be put on the table? > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >Be a better friend, newshound, and >know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ Always diligent, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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] New CIRA Whois Policy Strikes Balance Between Privacy and Access
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008

Ross and all, I respectfully in part disagree with the tenor and tone of your response to Dereks valid concern. He indeed may or should clarify his concern as it is not the privacy of PII data contained in a Whois record that is the acctual problem, but rather the lack of accuracy of non-pii Whois data in a whois record that is essential to be corrected and overseen in an active and expediant manner so that correction of such can be effected appropriately and with all due haste. Secondly, "Abuse" Email contact addresses need to be made manditory in all Whois records, which is clearly not the case today and hasn't been for a very long time now (years), as is phone contact information for the Admin Email contact. -----Original Message----- >From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Sent: May 3, 2008 12:32 PM >To: "derek(a)aa419.org" <derek(a)aa419.org> >Cc: "alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] New CIRA Whois Policy Strikes Balance Between Privacy and Access > >Whois privacy for .ca names is nothing new. Implementation of this >policy will simply standardize it across the namespace. There's simply >no basis for your fear mongering. > >--- >Warm regards, > >-Ross > > > > > >Sent from my iPhone using my DomainDirect.com personalized mobile >email. Ask me how it works! > > > >On 3-May-08, at 2:47 PM, Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org> wrote: > >> Sadly I have to agree with John. >> >> Why, doesn't cxeibbltd.com just host a lovely domain, privacy >> protected and all! >> >> That is until you search on the telephone number given on the contact >> page, 1-800-882-4036 and start digging deeper. >> >> However, all is not bad. The privacy provider for the mentioned domain >> will most likely expose whois since they have a zero fraud tolerance >> and the Registrar as will cancel it. >> >> There is a lesson to learn here: Checks and balances. >> >> Many of these scammers' domains pass our hands regularly, I would like >> to say I live in the real world of the Internet. >> >> However, what is CIRA's policy upon encountering a similar situation? >> If the responses are one of the stock standard: >> - DRP, who will pay for the procedures for all those lovely scam, >> spam, phish domains? >> - Law Enforcement, I can guarantee you once again the process will be >> flawed unless the RCP rapidly expands their forces overnight. >> - Court Order, which court in which country? >> - Will the company vs private registrant rule be enforced? >> >> http://www.cira.ca/en/documents/2007/PRP-rant-agreementv1.7.pdf >> How do you promptly resolve an issue? Evidence of residence faxed is >> as far as your nearest DTP package. I can show you many ID's and >> employee cards published by all but the logos of the institutions they >> claim to represent. Snail mail for a phishing domain? >> >> To spice up the mix, we just add a large known contingent of scammers >> and carders known to live on the Toronto area, some of who have made >> the headlines already recently. >> >> I can show list upon list of registrants that turned out to be the >> same person, all determined by analyzing whois details. This >> information has been used to protect the all internet users time and >> again. Who will do this at CIRA where full whois info is not visible? >> How will they collaborate with other parties? >> >> Pardon me if I sound cynical, but I have seen too many abuse reports >> ignored and too many ordinary internet users suffer the consequences. >> >> I guess history will tell. >> >> Regards >> >> Derek >> >> >> >> John Levine wrote: >>>> kudos to CIRA for not only developing a privacy friendly WHOIS >>>> policy - >>>> but also implementing it. >>> >>> Yes indeed. Every crook, scammer, phisher, and fraudster from St >>> Johns to >>> Victoria really appreciates it. >>> >>> R's, >>> John >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > >_______________________________________________ >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 Always diligent, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
by Evan Leibovitch May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008

Hello all, So... the GNSO statement on domain tasting is up for public review (see below). Is it appropriate for NARALO to take this time to state that its recommendation is acceptable as a partial interim measure but that the ultimate issue is elimination of the AGP? The way I could see us framing things, tasting is a symptom and the AGP is the cause. Leaving the AGP in place may eliminate one specific form of gaming the system, but still encourages bad agents to seek out other ways to use the AGP to screw the public. What says everyone? Do we make a statement as NARALO, or leave the GNSO doc to go to the board without comment? - Evan *From:* (…)* *Denise Michel *Sent:* Saturday, May 03, 2008 8:18 AM *Subject:* Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion To: Supporting Organization and Advisory Committee Chairs (…) From: Denise Michel, VP - Policy Development Subject: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion Please note that a forum for public comments has been opened regarding the recent action by the GNSO Council to approve by super majority vote a motion to discourage use of the current "add grace period" (AGP). The forum can be found at <http://icann.org/public_comment/#dt-motion-21may08>. The motion, which is now pending for Board action, would specifically prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an "add grace period" (AGP) from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations during that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. An exemption could be granted based on extraordinary circumstances, as detailed in the motion. The public and all interested parties are invited to comment on this motion before final consideration by the Board. (…) Regards, Denise Michel Vice President Policy

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 3, 2008

May 3, 2008

John, Evan, and all, "Everyone", which in the NARALO is a paltry few already spoke before the mis-communicated ALAC motion was submitted. So I can only guess that someone is not reading their Email fully. The consensus, although unmeasured, was actually that the AGP needed to go and/or be eliminated. INEGroup's members had determined a more reasoned and practical solution that would allow for the AGP to remain, but eliminate Domain Name Tasting, not limit it. That solution is short, would require registrars to modify their registration software to only allow for 10 registrations/month per registrant, and if any were requested to be dropped during the AGP, those registrants would be banned from registering any domains for a set period of time or only allowed to register one Domain name per month for a period no less than one month and no more than two years. If that same registrant a second time registered domain names in any name space and again let any of them drop during the AGP he/she/it would be banned for a period of one year from registering any domain names. If that same registrant or registrar a third time registered any number of domain names in any name space and again let any of them drop or be placed in a "Parking status" would be banned permanently from ever registering any Domain names indefinitely AND the registrar or registrars involved would have their Accreditation revoked for a period of no less than 30 days and possibly indefinitely and would release all domain names in those name spaces to the pool for re-registration immediately. The ICANN staff itself would be responsible for oversight and compliance of this policy and report all incidents publicly for the publics review and notice. All or any of the ICANN staff members assigned to doing said oversight that failed to do it's duty accordingly would be subject to retraining in good customer relations at ICANN's and the registrars associated expense or be summarily and immediately dismissed. -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: May 2, 2008 7:47 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input] > >> What says everyone? Do we make a statement as NARALO, or leave the GNSO >> doc to go to the board without comment? > >Assuming the members of the NARALO still feel that the AGP would go, I >think we owe the GNSO a comment. > >Regards, >John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", >Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor >"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ Always diligent, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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] New CIRA Whois Policy Strikes Balance Between Privacy and Access
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 2, 2008

May 2, 2008

Danny and all, I don't read or interprate the link below in quite the same way you do Danny, but also I think given some other of CIRA's statements they pander regarding privacy yet allow third party access to PII in Whois. Ergo, I see, as doe our members especially those in Canada, that CIRA is playing both ends against the middle. This is of course an old and well known political stratagy that usually ends up creating more disharmony, significant lack of accountability, and serious damage to stakeholders, whomever they may be or in which juandra is involved. ICANN, GNSO, and the GAC's desire for more studies is seemingly seeks to break the privacy issues instead of stalling, by continuing to have more Working groups, studies, ect., ect. This also is yet another old and failed political stratagy that also largely and usually serves no harmonious of productive ends due to the lack of creditable means. The only primary ligitimate concern is once or accuracy in Whois data, not one of whom has access to PII in whois. Yet the accuracy problem is being used as a wedge issue to rehash the latter privacy issue. Very childish in my and many of our members opinion. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 2, 2008 1:09 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] New CIRA Whois Policy Strikes Balance Between Privacy and Access > >http://www.circleid.com/posts/85210_cira_whois_policy_privacy_access/ > >P.S. > >... While Canada's CIRA respects WHOIS privacy >concerns, ICANN's GNSO and GAC play the "we need more >studies" game in order to stall responsible policy development. > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >Be a better friend, newshound, and >know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > >_______________________________________________ >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

FYI: Tech Priority for next US administration? Early bird Deadline Friday for CFP TECH POLICY '08
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 2, 2008

May 2, 2008

All, FYI and for those whom are in touch.. [ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] The early bird registration deadline for CFP '08 is coming up on Friday, please find the latest details below. Please forward it to relevant mailing lists, groups of friends, bloggers you know, and whoever else might be interested. Manon -------- COMPUTERS, FREEDOM, AND PRIVACY: TECHNOLOGY POLICY '08 http://cfp2008.org/ 18th Annual CFP conference May 20-23, 2008 Omni Hotel New Haven, CT Conference Blog: http://cfp08.blogspot.com/ Facebook Group: http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?id=683858084 Conference Wiki: http://cfp.wikia.com/wiki/CFP08 LinkedIn Group: http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/61857/7885844E0F9D Hotel Conference Discount Deadline: May 1, 2008 Early Bird Registration: Fri., May 2, 2008 YJoLT Tech Policy Essay Contest: Mon., May 5, 2008 ABOUT CFP: TECHNOLOGY POLICY `08 What should the technology policy priorities of the next administration be? As the choice of presidential candidates becomes clearer and election year moves towards a comparison of the candidates' platforms on the issues, technology policy is increasingly relevant to the forefront of public debate. In the areas of privacy, intellectual property, cybersecurity, telecommunications, and freedom of speech, topics that were once confined to experts now appear in the mainstream of political issues. We now know that our decisions about technology policy are being made at a time as the architectures of our information and communication technologies are still being built. This year, the 18th annual Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference is focusing on those issues at the forefront of technology policy this election year. With plenary panels on the "National Security State and the Next Administration" and "The 21st Century Panopticon?" the discussions taking place look towards our present and future priorities. CFP: Technology Policy '08 is an opportunity to participate in shaping those issues being made into laws and regulations and those technological infrastructures being developed. Policies ranging from spyware and national security, to ISP filtering and patent reform, e- voting to electronic medical records, and more will be addressed by expert panels of technologists, policymakers, business leaders, and activists. The panel topics are listed below and full panel descriptions are available on the conference website at: http://www.cfp2008.org/wiki/index.php/Program. The CFP: Technology Policy `08 conversation has already begun in the virtual spaces connected to the conference. Even if you are unable to attend the conference this year, there are several opportunities to participate remotely. The guiding principles that ought to guide our policies are being debated on the conference blog. Social networking groups on Facebook and LinkedIn are providing new spaces for the CFP community to meet and discuss. The Yale Journal of Law and Technology is hosting a call for essays, on the priorities of the next administration, with more details below. We look forward to seeing you in New Haven on May 20-23. CONFERENCE PROGRAM Plenary Sessions Presidential Technology Policy: Priorities for the Next Executive The 21st Century Panopticon? The National Security State and the Next Adminstration Tutorials A Short History of Privacy Constitutional Law in Cyberspace e-Deceptive Campaign Practices: Elections 2.0 Maintaining Privacy While Accessing On-line Information Panel Sessions Activism and Education Using Social Networks Breaking the Silence: Iranians Find a Voice on the Internet Charismatic Content: Wikis, Social Networks, and the Future of User-Generated Content Filtering Out Copyright Infringement: Possibilities, Practicalities, and Legalities Filtering and Censorship in Europe Hate Speech and Oppression in Cyberspace Interoperability at the Crossroads?: The "Liberal Order" versus Fragmentation Law, Regulation, and Software Licensing for the Electronic Medical Record Measuring Global Threats to Internet Freedom Network Neutrality: Beyond the Slogans New Challenges for Spyware Policy Patents: The Bleeding Edge of Technology Policy Privacy, Reputation, and the Management of Online Communities Rights & Responsibilities for Software Programs? States as Incubators of Change "The Transparent Society:" Ten Years Later Towards Trustworthy e-Voting: An Open Source Approach? CALL FOR ESSAYS Yale Journal of Law & Technology Call for Essays on the Technology Policy of the New Administration. Deadline: Monday, May 5th The Yale Journal of Law & Technology (YJoLT) is seeking essay-length submissions concerning the technology policy platform of the new American presidential administration. Essays selected for publication will appear in the Fall Issue of YJoLT (publication date November 2008). Ideal submissions will discuss the priorities and guiding principles that American technology policy should follow. Submissions analyzing a particular technology policy issue in depth will also be accepted. Essays of less than 5,000 words are preferred. Please submit all essays to yjolt.submissions(a)gmail.com. Please include the text "CFP Essay" in the subject line of the email. The authors of essays selected for publication will be notified on a rolling basis. Any questions can be directed to Lara Rogers, lara.rogers(a)yale.edu. CONFERENCE FUNDING FOR JOURNALISTS The Yale Law School Law and Media Program (LAMP) announces an opportunity for journalists to receive full funding to attend CFP: Technology Policy 08. CFP: Technology Policy 08 will begin with a full day of tutorials and programming specifically geared toward journalists writing about information technology and policy, followed by a networking reception for journalists and other participants in the Law and Media Program. We invite you to take advantage of this opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of US technology policy in the information age. Journalists writing on privacy, intellectual property, telecommunications and cyberlaw are encouraged to apply for conference funding, which will include travel, hotel, meals and any registration fees for the full conference. To apply, please send a cover letter explaining your interest in the program, along with your resume and three writing samples (by e-mail and hard copy) to Tracey Parr (tracey.parr(a)yale.edu) Yale Law School, P.O. Box 208215, New Haven, CT 06520-8215, by March 31, 2008. Up to twenty journalists will receive conference funding. Applicants accepted for conference funding will be notified by April 4, 2008. -------------- Contact: Eddan Katz CFP: Technology Policy '08 Program Chair http://www.cfp2008.org/ International Affairs Director, Electronic Frontier Foundation http://www.eff.org/ Lecturer and Associate Research Scholar, Yale Law School Senior Fellow, Yale Information Society Project http://isp.law.yale.edu/ 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