- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

"Domain Protection Racket" chain
by Beau Brendler Sept. 1, 2011

Sept. 1, 2011

As long as this discussion remains cordial and informative, it's useful to all of us. May it continue as such. As NA RALO chair and admin of the list, however, I want to remind everyone that the NA-discuss list is just that, a discussion list for members of the NA-RALO (North American at-large regional organization). Those who are, by employment or ownership, a member of a contracted party to ICANN, should not use this list to attempt to silence or harass the volunteer members of NA-RALO in the process of carrying on reasonable discussions. (I am not saying anyone involved in this discussion has done this, but it has occurred in the past.) In other words, we need oxygen in this room. So please be aware that members of the NA RALO are not accountable to contracted parties for the substance of their discussions. Please do trust that we are responsible enough in the NA RALO to challenge erroneous or inappropriate claims made during the course of a discussion -- if and when we see fit to do so. If you are a contracted party and want to see methodology or research behind a statement or claim made by a member of the NA RALO on this list, I ask that you contact that person off-line outside the discussion (please let me know if you need contact info). Newcomers to this list and to the at-large need to feel comfortable asking questions and communicating freely here without being "challenged" by contracted parties, even if that is not the intent. Thanks Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- >From: Volker Greimann <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> >Sent: Sep 1, 2011 1:11 PM >To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: "Domain Protection Racket" Promotion on Network Solutions Home Page > >Garth, >>> The URS sounds interesting and I'll admit I have not studied it in >>> dept yet. >You should, it is going to be an integral part of the new gTLD program >and a huge relief for brand owners. >>> I have attached a screenshot from eNom's site which not only lists >>> bulk options by dynamically suggests domains with related keywords >>> and trademarks of competitors. >OK, I see your point, but do you know how these results are generated? >They may just be generating Key-Words for any given search term >automatically using Google. There are also registry operators pushing a >name generation tool. Basically, I don't think the results you posted >are necessarily generated due to bad will. It is more likely a result of >an automated process which does not in any way differentiate between >trademarked terms and terms that are not trademarked. > >Having to integrate a trademark checking script for all possible >jurisdictions that checks any search terms (and resulting keywords) if >they are trademarked, sounds like a nightmare. Especially since many >trademarked terms or brand names may have a legitimate alternative >use/meaning. > >>> Not saying this is all Registrars, I did not find the same issue at >>> Key-Systems. >Well, this is mainly because we have not implemented any such tool at >this time. We may do so at a later stage, after a relaunch we are >currently preparing, but I am not sure how we could prevent the problem >you are describing. Any name suggestion tool will in my view produce >unforseeable and potentionally questionable results, no matter how it is >designed. > >Volker >>> >>> -Garth >>> >>> -------------------------------------------------- >>> From: "Volker Greimann" <vgreimann(a)key-systems.net> >>> Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 9:08 AM >>> To: "Garth Bruen at Knujon.com" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >>> Cc: <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Fwd: "Domain Protection Racket" Promotion >>> on Network Solutions Home Page >>> >>>> Garth, >>>> >>>> I think you overlooked the URS, which is specifically tailored to >>>> the issue you mention. The trademark holder is not forced to take >>>> over the domain name, but his main issue (the infringing use) is >>>> resolved. Costs should be substantially under those of the UDRP as >>>> well, but we will have to see what prices the URS providers will >>>> arrive at. >>>>> And for all the prostrations, Registrars are not blameless in this >>>>> as they have developed special search engines which make >>>>> cybersquatting in bulk easy. >>>> Can you give an example? I have not seen registrars providing search >>>> engines specifically tailored to enable cybersquatting. >>>> >>>> Best, >>>> >>>> Volker >>> >>> ------ >>> NA-Discuss mailing list >>> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >>> >>> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>> ------ >> > > >-- >Bei weiteren Fragen stehen wir Ihnen gerne zur Verfügung. > >Mit freundlichen Grüßen, > >Volker A. Greimann >- Rechtsabteilung - > >Key-Systems GmbH >Im Oberen Werk 1 >66386 St. Ingbert >Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > >Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > >Folgen Sie uns bei Twitter oder werden Sie unser Fan bei Facebook: >www.key-systems.net/facebook >www.twitter.com/key_systems > >Geschäftsführer: Alexander Siffrin >Handelsregister Nr.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >Umsatzsteuer ID.: DE211006534 > >Der Inhalt dieser Nachricht ist vertraulich und nur für den angegebenen Empfänger bestimmt. Jede Form der Kenntnisgabe, Veröffentlichung oder Weitergabe an Dritte durch den Empfänger ist unzulässig. Sollte diese Nachricht nicht für Sie bestimmt sein, so bitten wir Sie, sich mit uns per E-Mail oder telefonisch in Verbindung zu setzen. > >-------------------------------------------- > >Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. > >Best regards, > >Volker A. Greimann >- legal department - > >Key-Systems GmbH >Im Oberen Werk 1 >66386 St. Ingbert >Tel.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 901 >Fax.: +49 (0) 6894 - 9396 851 >Email: vgreimann(a)key-systems.net > >Web: www.key-systems.net / www.RRPproxy.net >www.domaindiscount24.com / www.BrandShelter.com > >Follow us on Twitter or join our fan community on Facebook and stay updated: >www.key-systems.net/facebook >www.twitter.com/key_systems > >CEO: Alexander Siffrin >Registration No.: HR B 18835 - Saarbruecken >V.A.T. ID.: DE211006534 > >This e-mail and its attachments is intended only for the person to whom it is addressed. Furthermore it is not permitted to publish any content of this email. You must not use, disclose, copy, print or rely on this e-mail. If an addressing or transmission error has misdirected this e-mail, kindly notify the author by replying to this e-mail or contacting us by telephone. > > > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

Pre-registrations redux (was Re: Bottom Up Action Procedure - Take 3)
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

Evan, You wrote: > Cynicism? Welcome to the club. > Antagonism? Go away. Could you point the section in the rules that provide for your "go away" authority? > PS: Misspelling my name once is a typo. Repeating the misspelling is > deliberate. I was unaware I'd misspelled your name. Eric

2 1

Bottom Up Action Procedure - Take 3
by Thompson, Darlene Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

OK, I think we now have it: 1. NARALO has a discussion on its mailing list and/or telephone conferences about a policy position it wishes the ALAC to advance. 2. Once consensus is achieved according to the NARALO Operating Procedures, the NARALO Chair sends a request to the Chair of the ALAC clearly stating our intentions and a specific request for action as per the group consensus decision. 3. A person or people from NARALO will be designated as the ALAC liaison for the specific issue and it will be their responsibility to request that the matter be given a place on the ALAC agenda. This person or people will then present the matter to the ALAC during their regularly scheduled conference call. 4. The liaison will then report back to the group. Does anybody oppose that the NARALO adopt this plan of action? Thanks, D ᑕᓕᓐ ᑕᒻᓴᓐ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᕕᖓᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓ 1000, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ 910 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎ: 867 975-5631 ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎ: 867 975-5610 Taliin Taamsan Nunalingni Qaritauyani Atuqtauningitnun Titiraqtia Nunavut Kavamangat Titiraqarvia 1000, Nayugaa 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Hivayautik : 867 975-5631 Kayumiktuk : 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Corporate Services Division Department of Education Government of Nunavut PO Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Ph: 867 975-5631 Fax: 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Administratrice du programme d’accès communautaire Division des services ministériels Ministère de l’Éducation Gouvernement du Nunavut Case postale 1000, Succursale 910 Iqaluit Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Tél. : 867 975-5631 Téléc. : 867 975-5610

3 4

Pre-registrations redux (was Re: Bottom Up Action Procedure - Take 3)
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

On 30 August 2011 11:21, <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote: > > IMHO, item 4 deals with what happens if the ALAC rejects the proposal. > > The liaison reports back to the group and then we start back on Item #1 > > (wash, lather, repeat as needed). > > As Even's already pointed out, a referal of "pre-registration" to ALAC > is a waste of time. That couldn't be further from an accurate interpretation of what I said. I indicated that my efforts to advance the issue -- at a preliminary level, and with my admittedly limited background in the field -- received pushback. Not outright rejection. Not even the issue coming up as part of an ALAC meeting agenda. Some people pointed out that it would be bad tactics to assert this as an issue of "fraud", which in most parts of the earth has a specific legal definition that would exclude activities for which no money has exchanged hands. This feedback simply indicates that we have a challenge of tactics and information, and that the public-interest component of this issue is not as obvious to all as other issues. You can't have it both ways. One can't bemoan that the ALAC is an uncritical rubber stamp for the agendas of its elite, only to recoil when its members demonstrate either an acknowledged lack of awareness or a critical eye. If we can't convince the members of ALAC that pre-registration is a real problem then, maybe, it isn't. While we in NARALO have been active beyond our numbers in At-Large policy development, we are not the sole sources on Earth of wise judgment regarding what constitutes the public interest. Sulking about the issue is not helpful. Whining about it on Facebook (in a manner that implies members of ALAC are corrupt) is even less so. OTOH, some of us took the opportunity to listen to the pushback and learn from it. - First, to get rid of the "fraud" characterization because that's at best iffy and at worst an excuse for vested interests to dismiss our efforts. An activity need not be legally defined fraud to be against the public interest - Then, it helps to look at a buyer-beware approach -- an education and information tactical solution -- as one that is easier (and certainly faster) compared than regulation or prohibition. In that light, I've been in contact with ICANN's communications folks who have been eyeing the issue and are delighted to have support from within At-Large -- any support -- for their efforts to call attention to this. It's not enough just to be aware of the issue. In ICANN, community-building is an important part of any solution to a problem. Having contrary ideas and opinions are fine, but actively belittling and talking down to others is a speedy way to get ignored regardless of your own personal wisdom. Cynicism? Welcome to the club. Antagonism? Go away. - Evan PS: Misspelling my name once is a typo. Repeating the misspelling is deliberate.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure - Take 3
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

Darlene, I don't think we should undermine the difference between our elected representatives and those appointed by others, or elected by others. So I prefer that "informing" be done by the elected representatives, to the body they are elected to, not as a courtesy between chairs. If you think this is unimportant, that's a reasonable point of view. If you think this is important, but could be worded better, or already is better worded, pointing that out would help me. Similarly, while an issue may be, as Even points out, forwarded by anyone, there is a difference between a regional body informing a coordinating body of a policy decision reached under collegial and transparent process, and anyone advocating that, or any other particular policy. Again, I don't think we should undermine the difference between our elected representatives and anyone else so I prefer that "informing" be done by the elected representatives, to the body they are elected to, not any other person, as the default, from which exceptions may be made. Again, if you think this is unimportant ... point that out would help me. Thank you for pointing out that the composition of the At Large Advisory Committee does not necessarily contain any elected representatives from the North American Region. I missed that. That did help me. Eric

2 1

Bottom Up Action Procedure - Take 2
by Thompson, Darlene Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

OK, I have tried to incorporate all of the comments but still keep this simple and flexible. Again, comments are actively encouraged! 1. NARALO has a discussion on its mailing list and/or telephone conferences about a policy position it wishes the ALAC to advance. 2. Once consensus is achieved according to the NARALO Operating Procedures, the NARALO Chair sends a request to the Chair of the ALAC clearly stating our intentions and a specific request (What do we want them to do?). 3. A person or people from NARALO will be designated as the ALAC liaison for the specific issue and it will be their responsibility to request that the matter be given a place on the ALAC agenda. This person or people will then present the matter to the ALAC during their regularly scheduled conference call. 4. The liaison will then report back to the group. How does this one sound? D ᑕᓕᓐ ᑕᒻᓴᓐ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᕕᖓᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓ 1000, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ 910 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎ: 867 975-5631 ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎ: 867 975-5610 Taliin Taamsan Nunalingni Qaritauyani Atuqtauningitnun Titiraqtia Nunavut Kavamangat Titiraqarvia 1000, Nayugaa 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Hivayautik : 867 975-5631 Kayumiktuk : 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Corporate Services Division Department of Education Government of Nunavut PO Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Ph: 867 975-5631 Fax: 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Administratrice du programme d’accès communautaire Division des services ministériels Ministère de l’Éducation Gouvernement du Nunavut Case postale 1000, Succursale 910 Iqaluit Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Tél. : 867 975-5631 Téléc. : 867 975-5610

5 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] Bottom Up Action Procedure - Take 3
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

Darlene, > IMHO, item 4 deals with what happens if the ALAC rejects the proposal. > The liaison reports back to the group and then we start back on Item #1 > (wash, lather, repeat as needed). As Even's already pointed out, a referal of "pre-registration" to ALAC is a waste of time. There's not a lot to be gained by "wash, lather, repeat without effect". > Please provide specific wording that you would like to see that can be > discussed on the list. So for the purposes of discussion on the list I propose that #2 be changed as follows: Old: > 2. Once consensus is achieved according to the NARALO Operating Procedures, > the NARALO Chair sends a request to the Chair of the ALAC clearly stating > our intentions and a specific request for action as per the group consensus > decision. New: > 2. Once a decison is achieved according to the NARALO Operating Procedures, > the regional Chair instructs the regionally elected member(s) to the > Executive of the At Large Advisory Committee to inform the Executive that > a decision has been made. This change (a) allows "voting" to be the possible means of deciding any particular policy issue, and so will not fail if voting is adopted as a decision making mechanism, for failure to be a "consensus" decision. It also (b) substitutes the rights and responsibilities of any member elected from the region to "inform" for the Chair-to-Chair courtesy. It also (c) does not assume that informing the Executive will have any outcome, as such an assumption is beyond the control of the regional organization. Eric

2 1

Board Resolutions Special Meeting of the ICANN Board, 25 August 2011
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

Colleague, and observers, A link to the corporation board meeting minutes: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-25aug11-en.htm Of some personal relevance is item 1.2, Approval of Recommendation of GNSO Council on IRTP Part B. This policy, which I first encountered advocted by Mike Rodenbaugh in the Fast Flux Hosting PDP, imposes a 240 minute respons duty, at any date or time, on all registrars, to arbitrary third-parties. A significant motivational rational offered by its advocates was the 2003 panix.com transfer. I was involved, having learned of the xfr from Steve Bellovin, a panix (oldest still operating dialup ISP in NYC) subscriber, hours after the xfr, and then calling Marty Hannigan, then a Verisign employee, to brief him on the problem, hours before it was discovered by Melbourne IT, at the start of their business day. No similar event involving the compromise of critical network infrastructure through an unauthorized transfer of registrar is known to me. Therefore this rational is not sufficient for this, or any, policy development. I wrote a draft recommendation advising that this policy not be adopted as it would not be effective in preventing a non-recurring problem. I was also critical of the assumption that all registrants share the vulnerability of targeted loss to third-party actors, and observed the proposed policy could only benefit registrants with "valuable" domains, which is less than 2/3rds of all registrations, when the minimum return for ad word motivated registrations (domain tasting epoch) is assumed as a useful maximal definition of "valuable", or some small multiple of re-registration costs. The actual pool of third-party targeted domains could be much smaller than 30m of the roughly 90m legacy domains, and very few of those in post-ICANN registry registered inventories. I also observed that the 240 minute required response time could become an attack vector on registrars, and on ICANN's compliance function, through the creation of a well-defined breach condition, for which no associated well-defined harm to registrants necessarily exists. The coordination body which solicited the draft declined to use it, a comment, one of few I'm aware of, was that it used the word "stupid" to describe the 240 minute universal obligation and the obvious net effect of driving small, and not necessarily transfer abusive, actors out of the registrar market, that is, more likely to affect registrars who's primary revenue is from hosting and other stable customer-facing relations, than registrars who's primary revenue is from registrations, and for whom transfers, by any means not barred by contract or law, is "good business". Where one assumes that consolidation of the registrar market -- shell registrars ignored as managed properties of large registrars with 24x7x365 staffing -- is in the public interest, or causes no harm -- harm to those fee paying and contract-to-date conformant businesses necessarily ignored -- then the 240 minuted universal obligation is not <insert polite word choice alternative to "stupid" here>. A personal observation: I don't like doing the BC's dirty work. I don't think the issue of using the correct policy tools to adress the actual policy problem should be abandoned to using any tool in all situations because "it might work in some". Eric

1 0

Accountability & Transparency - "ATRT" Activities Webinar 31 August, 2011 14:00 -- 15:30 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Aug. 30, 2011

Aug. 30, 2011

Dear All, Please find below an announcement of an upcoming Accountability and Transparency Activities Webinar scheduled to take place Wednesday, 31 August between 14:30-15:30 UTC. ** Are you wondering how ICANN is progressing on its commitments to improve transparency and accountability, and how ATRT improvements will help you? Do you have an opinion to share on the changes made to date by ICANN's Board of Directors, Governmental Advisory Committee, Nominating Committee, and Staff? If so, join the ATRT Activities Webinar on Wednesday, 31 August 2011 from <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Accountability+%26 +Transparency+%E2%80%93+%E2%80%9CATRT%E2%80%9D+%E2%80%93+Activities+Webinar& iso=20110831T07&p1=1240&ah=1&am=30> 14:00 -- 15:30 UTC. The webinar is open to all, and will be conducted in English. If participants find it useful, more sessions will be scheduled. The meeting will be run in Adobe Connect with a slide presentation along with a dial-in conference bridge for audio. No RSVPs are needed. Here's how to connect: * From the US dial Toll Free - 800-550-6865 and enter Participant Code 8752 * From other countries see a list of international numbers posted at <about:blank> http://www.adigo.com/icann/ * To join the Adobe Connect online "room" go to this URL: <about:blank> http://icann.adobeconnect.com/atrtimplementation/ Participants will have opportunities to ask questions after each agenda item presentation. During the course of the webinar, questions may be submitted using the chat function of Adobe Connect (in addition to joining the discussion queue on the conference bridge). The session will be recorded, and the slides and an MP3 will be publicly posted. The webinar agenda is included below. Staff will brief you on <http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/atrt-project-list-workplans-22jun11- en.pdf> 27 ATRT implementation plans that involve a wide cross-section of ICANN's community, and will discuss key deliverables, schedules, opportunities for public input, and end-goals. ICANN's Board directed that implementation move forward on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team's broad-ranging recommendations. Much has been accomplished and much work lies ahead. This webinar will help you get-up-to-speed on all of these efforts, and will enable you to share your input on completed and planned improvements. For example: * To provide better access to, and insight into, Board decisions, ICANN provides a wealth of <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/> Board meeting information online, including briefing materials, expanded minutes, and rationale statements for Board resolutions, as well as conditions for <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/board-briefing-materials-guidelines-21mar11 -en.htm> redaction of posted material. Are you finding these useful? * To help advance the effectiveness of the Governmental Advisory Committee and its interaction with the Board, ICANN increased funding to support government participation in the GAC and multilingual access, and the <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/board-gac-jwg-final-report-07jul11-e n.htm> Board-GAC Joint Working Group recently issued proposed improvements for public comment. Do you have additional suggestions? * To improve the processes ICANN uses to gain public input and develop policy, ICANN's Bylaws have been translated into multiple languages, and ICANN's <http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/> Public Comment Webpage has been redesigned. Is the new structure easier to use and more effective? These are just some examples of ATRT-related activities. You can find more detailed information on ICANN's <http://www.icann.org/en/accountability/overview-en.htm> Accountability & Transparency web page. Accountability & Transparency - "ATRT" Activities Webinar Agenda 1. Introduction and Overview - Denise Michel, Advisor to the President & CEO 2. Board Operations, Composition & Review of Decisions - Samantha Eisner, Senior Counsel - Questions & Comments from participants 3. Governmental Advisory Committee Operations, Engagement, Interaction with Board - Jeannie Ellers, Executive Assistant - Questions & Comments from participants 4. Public input & Multi-lingual Access - Filiz Yilmaz, Senior Director, Participation & Engagement and Christina Rodriguez, Language Services Manager - Questions & Comments from participants 5. Misc., and Measuring Success & Upcoming Activities - Denise Michel 6. General Comments & Questions From Participants ** Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

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

Aug. 29, 2011

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

1 0