- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - deadline 23 March
by Eric Brunner-Williams March 25, 2011

March 25, 2011

Colleagues, On the subject of the NTIA's NOI for the IANA function, which is available at the following link: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf. The ALAC draft text is available here: Question 1 on the necessity of a single contract for the "IANA function": https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comment+on+NTIA+NOI+Questi… Question 2 on performance metrics in the contract(s) for the "IANA function": https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Question 3 on root zone change requests, a specific function currently carried out within the IANA functions: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Question 4 on the necessity and sufficiency of existing performance and reporting requirements for the IANA function: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Question 5 on improvements or performance enhancements to the IANA function: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Question 6 on security considerations and performance requirements for the IANA function: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+Quest… Some phrases picked more or less at random from the draft ALAC response to Question 1: "The ICANN, as a single entity, has so far lead the IANA functions with all the seriousness possible and has respected the contract with the US Government to the letter." and "ICANN has so far delivered well. Why try to fix something that is not broken?" I ceased attempting to inform the authors of the ALAC draft comments on the 22nd/23rd. It is reasonable to characterize my comments as dissimilar to the comments of the majority of the contributors to the ALAC draft comment, and having no informative effect. Having consulted to the IANA in 2007 on the transformation of the IANA's ticketing and queue management reporting system to the IAB, the anticeedents of the project that began a year later with the replacement of some of the perl-based tools with python-based tools, I have been reluctant to assert a qualitative difference in subject matter knowledge to the authors of the responses linked above based upon personal knowledge. I've tried persuasion rather than authority, to no effect. Today Olaf Kolkman, IAB Chair wrote the IETF-Announce list a request that substantive comments be sent to iab(a)iab.org. I will use that avenue, rather than remain in conflict with the other authors if the ALAC draft comment. Eric

1 0

Comment on the GAC Scorecard (2.2.3)
by Danny Younger March 23, 2011

March 23, 2011

Proposed comment: Regarding the GAC Scorecard point #2.2.3, The ALAC notes the Board’s position that the community objection process is intended to deal with applications where there is substantial opposition to the application from a significant portion of the community. The ALAC views the current stage of the ongoing .xxx drama as illustrative of the community objection process. We encourage the Board to consider whether the type and degree of community objection displayed in San Francisco offers the sufficiency in the new gTLD process to trump the goal of increasing competition and providing additional choice.

6 10

Re: [NA-Discuss] Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - deadline 23 March
by ICANN At-Large Staff March 23, 2011

March 23, 2011

Dear All, This is a friendly reminder that the deadline for comments on the NTIA Notice of Inquiry from the At-Large community is tomorrow, Wednesday, 23 March. Please see the details and the At-Large workspace below. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff From: ICANN At-Large Staff [mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org] Sent: Saturday, March 19, 2011 12:48 PM To: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org'; LACRALO discussion list; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff; 'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' Subject: Call for comments on NTIA NOI for the IANA functions - deadline 23 March Importance: High Dear All, On behalf of Olivier Crépin-Leblond, Chair of the ALAC, a call for comments on the US National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) Notice of Inquiry (NOI) Request for Comments on the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Functions is being made. Information on the NOI is available at: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/frnotices/2011/fr_ianafunctionsnoi_02252011.pdf. An At-Large Workspace has been created to collect comments on the six questions of the NOI from the At-Large community. The Workspace is available at: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Comments+on+NTIA+NOI+-+Marc h+2011. Please either use the edit function on the Workspace or submit comments. As the deadline to submit comments on the NOI is 31 March, the time-line for At-Large comments is as follows: 23 March 2011 - Deadline for At-Large comments 24 March 2011 - ALAC prepares draft statement 25 - 29 March 2011 - 5 day ALAC vote 31 March 2011 - NTIA deadline for comments If you have questions on the NOI, please contact At-Large Staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

3 4

Comment on GAC Scorecard (6.1.1)
by Danny Younger March 21, 2011

March 21, 2011

Proposed comment: With regard to GAC Scorecard point #6.1.1, the ALAC notes the divergent views expressed with regard to the issue of proof of trademark use and reminds the ICANN Board of the comment expressed by Lawrence E. Strickling, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information at the U.S. Department of Commerce during ICANN’s Opening Ceremony: “Choosing between competing interests, rather than insisting on consensus, is destructive of the multistakeholder process because it devalues this incentive for everyone to work together.” The ALAC encourages the ICANN Board to (1) remind the community of the reciprocal obligation on all participants to work together to find solutions that most support and few who are actually impacted vigorously oppose; and (2) to stay a decision on this issue until such time as the consensus process has run its full course.

3 3

Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies: Public Comment Extension
by Danny Younger March 19, 2011

March 19, 2011

In light of the two comments submitted to the Public Forum regarding the process to govern the recognition of new GNSO constituencies, the ICANN Board has decided to extend the public comment period (arguing that the community would benefit from additional time to review, discuss and comment on the proposed new process). I authored one of those comments; Alan Greenberg on behalf of the ALAC drafted the other comment. Neither of us had any love for the SIC's proposed new process... and now, the reality is such that unless we offer a reasonable counter-proposal, we will surely have the crippling SIC/Staff proposal foisted upon us. Within the NARALO and the broader at-large community there are members that have had a long history of involvement with new constituency formation efforts. Some of us recall the noble effort of the IDNO to launch a constituency on behalf of the registrant community -- in spite of having over a hundred members, an active mailing list, spirited debates and an on-line voting system, their petition was twice rejected by the ICANN Board. We also recall the recent effort to launch a Consumer Constituency. Why is this important to members of the NARALO? The GNSO is where the heavy lifting gets done. It is where one can find serious working groups attending to major problems that require policy-based solutions... and it remains a private club. Resellers are not represented, the academic community is not represented, law enforcement is not represented, consumers and registrants are not adequately represented, indigenous communities are not represented, nor are special interest groups represented (be it family associations or pornographers). We have a duty to open up this door. Those that want to get the work done, that seek to represent their communities and that currently have no home within the GNSO need to be provided with a gateway to opportunity. The process leading to recognition of new GNSO constituencies should be simple and timely. I disagree with the position taken by the ALAC that the Stakeholder Group should be given the prime responsibility for reviewing and approving new Constituencies. In my experience, I have noted nothing but brutally vicious attacks whenenever a new constituency attempts to enter the GNSO fold. The latest group to attempt to enter the realm of the NCSG was met with a barrage of bitter vitriol and it is a truism that those in power are always reluctant to share the reins. I think that it would be appropriate to begin the discussion with an examination of the question as to whether it is appropriate for the GNSO Stakeholder Group to function in any capacity as a gatekeeper charged with the evaluation of new constituency proposals. Just as I believe that it is inappropriate for one government to meddle in the internal affairs of another government, so too do I believe that it is inappropriate for a Stakeholder Group Executive Committee to have the power to reject a constituency application. That should not be their prerogative - such a decision should remain solely in the hands of the ICANN Board.

2 1

Would NARALO members literate in han, arabic, indic, cyrillic scripts drop me a line?
by Eric Brunner-Williams March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

Colleagues, If there are NARALO members who are paper, or computer literate in Chinese, Arabic or Farsi (or Dari), Hindi (or other Indian languages using Devangari script or other scripts), Russian, or any South East Asian language, please drop me a line? Thanks in advance, Eric

1 0

this has nothing to do with GAC scorecard, but...
by Beau Brendler March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

...I went ahead and ran with the Verizon lawsuit Danny brought up earlier in the week. http://www.walletpop.com/2011/03/17/are-you-safe-on-the-internet-no-but-the… I managed to make it into somewhat of a call for participation and pointed people to the NA RALO and NCUC pages would appreciate feedback Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Mar 18, 2011 1:51 PM >To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [NA-Discuss] GAC Scorecard Comments due by 25 March > >It would be appreciated if we in the community with an interest in this matter could be advised as to how the ALAC intends to proceed. Will a wiki page be set up to collect comments? Is a teleconference scheduled to discuss comments? Who will be the lead to produce the ALAC Statement? Will a note be sent out to all the ALSs by the respective Secretariats calling for rapid input? Will the Ex-Com be coordinating these activities? > >Looking forward to some feedback from those in the know. > > > >------ >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 >------

3 6

Comment on GAC Scorecard (10.1)
by Danny Younger March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

Proposed comment: Regarding the GAC Scorecard point #10.1 (on suitable provisions not to exclude stakeholders from developing countries from participating in the new gTLD process), the ALAC points the ICANN Board to the current level of the Reserve Fund (in excess of $50,000,000) and advises the Board to become the lender of last resort for needy applicants. A loan program coordinated by ICANN would serve to respect the principle of cost recovery, and low or no interest terms for disadvantaged new gTLD applicants would serve the organization’s charitable interest.

2 1

Proxy-Privacy Use Higher for Illicit Domains
by Garth Bruen at Knujon.com March 18, 2011

March 18, 2011

Hello folks, look forward to seeing you all next week. I have just released a sample of one section of a report to be released next Tuesday: WHOIS issues are looming large for the ICANN meeting next week, starting with an all-day WHOIS Policy Review (http://svsf40.icann.org/node/21983) on Sunday (background https://community.icann.org/display/whoisreview/WHOIS+Background+Information) WHOIS is a subject that has been the recent topic of a number of issues including a debacle over potentially disclosing the identities of compliance reporters to spammers and criminal domainers (http://krebsonsecurity.com/2011/03/whois-problem-reporting-system-to-gain-p…) For those unacquainted with the purpose of WHOIS, I would recommend Paul Vixie's (http://www.circleid.com/members/620/) excellent article (http://www.circleid.com/posts/whois_scared/) One of the controversial sub-issues is privacy-proxy domain registrations which allow a registrant to replace their WHOIS details with the contact information a of privacy shield company. The privacy-proxy business is a nebulous world with no standards and little accountability. Supporters claim it protects victims and political activists from attacks and private citizens from getting spammed or scammed. Critics, like me, contend it is a loose system run on behalf of criminals and spammers. Additionally, the illicit use of privacy-proxy erodes the legitimate use. This is compounded by the fact that many privacy-proxy services are phantom companies themselves. In September of last year ICANN released the results of a study estimating 18% usage of privacy-proxy services in the gTLD(http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-14sep10-en.htm) (full report http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/reports/privacy-proxy-registration-servi…) However, Knujon (http://www.knujon.com) research has revealed that privacy-proxy usage is significantly higher among illicit domain registrations. We looked at two specific categories: spammed domains and illicit pharmacy domains. The conventional logic has always been that spammers and criminals would not waste money on privacy services, that they would simply falsify registration data or use "throw-away" free email addresses. We know this is not the case. One section of a report KnujOn will issue on Tuesday March 15th will show 33% usage of privacy-proxy registrations for domains advertised in spam and 39 to 51% usage among illicit pharmacy domains. KnujOn studied 13,277 repeatedly spammed domains over six months and found that among the general population, most registrants used unmonitored or false yahoo.com, gmail.com, hotmail.com, and other free-email accounts in the registration. However, six out of the top ten spam registrations were through Registrar-sponsored privacy services. Also, 31 of the all the 152 registrant emails domains collected were privacy services. For illicit pharmacy domains, the numbers are even more interesting. Once again gmail, yahoo, hotmail and aol "throw-aways" were most popular but 15 out of the top 20 contact emails used were at privacy services, most were the services offered by the sponsoring Registrar. Among the general population of 27,414 illicit pharmacy domains studied 39% used privacy-proxy. Within the 50th percentile there is 45% privacy usage, in the 25th percentile it is 48%. Among the top 50 contact email domains 51% were privacy services. The most used privacy services had 8,380 illicit pharmacies as customers. For some, the question still remains, why pay for a privacy service when bogus WHOIS information is easy to use? There are a variety of reasons. First, it adds another layer of obfuscation to confound investigators. A separate KnujOn study found over 100 illicit pharmacy domains, that had the privacy service removed after complaints, had false WHOIS underneath. A second reason is that it provides additional cover for illicit registrants by creating an unaccountable phantom third party that is neither completely registrant nor Registrar. This is evidenced in multiple UDPRs where a brand owner eventually wins an infringing domain name through default but the true identity of the original owner is never revealed. There are many more issues including which privacy services are compliant with the ICANN RAA and who owns the privacy services heavily used by illicit domainers. This will be detailed in our full report. -Garth More info: http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110310_proxy_privacy_user_higher_for_illici…

5 8

REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 14 March @ 19:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon March 14, 2011

March 14, 2011

Dear All, The NARALO Teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 14 March 2011 at 19:00 UTC in the Olympic Room. The agenda and remote participation details can be found at: http://svsf40.icann.org/node/22089 If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0