- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

IGF-USA Remote Participation details
by Joly MacFie July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

The second Internet Governance Forum USA (IGF-USA) <http://igf-usa.us/> is taking place today July 21, 2010 in Washington, DC. The one-day event offers expert panels and workshops on important global Internet governance issues, as well as a plenary session on the continuation of the United Nations Internet Governance Forum <http://intgovforum.org/>. More details, including remote participation via webex, on http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=818 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com Secretary - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn July 21, 2010

July 21, 2010

Stacy, I have noted that the two issues concerning A Technology Co. have been technically corrected. Thank you. However, I have some questions about the timeline and circumstances of their re-accreditation. In reading the non-renewal notice dated June 25 I'm finding some issues. First, according to the notice A Technology Co. was issued breach notices on April 29 and May 26 but these notices are not posted along with other breach notices at http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/. Next, it seems that if breach notices were issued on April 29 and May 26 the time to cure would end either on May 14th or June 10th(as indicated in the letter). They were allowed to cure on June 30th which is 47 days after the first deadline and 20 days after the second deadline. Next, while the posting of their contact address is a matter of the 2009 RAA, WHOIS issues are a matter of their old contract. Why were they not issued a breach notice on the manipulation of their WHOIS record the week of June 21st when we filed our complaint about it? Finally, for the two issues we raised with you about their address posting and WHOIS record you apparently "told" them to fix these. I'm concerned about how frequently Registrars are told to fix contract issues without public documentation. Thank you for your attention to this. -Garth > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination > reversed? > From: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette(a)icann.org> > Date: Wed, July 14, 2010 1:06 pm > To: Bob Bruen <bruen(a)coldrain.net>, Garth Bruen at KnujOn > <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, David Giza <David.Giza(a)icann.org>, > "langdonorr(a)gmail.com" <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, > "carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, > "evan(a)telly.org" <evan(a)telly.org> > > > Dear Garth and Bob: > > Thanks for your comments. This registrar recently signed the 2009 RAA, effective 13 July 2010, which includes a "new" requirement that the registrar post a valid address on its website. The registrar was informed of this requirement and advised to make the adjustments to its website ASAP. > > ICANN is reviewing the Whois related complaint you mentioned below and we are in communication with the registrar about the matter. > > We appreciate your interest in making sure registrars comply with the terms of the RAA and we hope that you will continue to work collaboratively with us in the future. Working together with the community has enhanced ICANN's effort to address registrar non-compliance in several areas, such as the UDRP, Whois related provisions and Registrar Data Escrow. Please see our website for details regarding our escalated compliance actions http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/. > > > Sincerely, > > Stacy Burnette > Director > Contractual Compliance > ICANN > 4676 Admiralty Way > Suite 330 > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > +1(310) 301-3860 > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen@coldrain.net] > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:36 AM > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; David Giza; langdonorr(a)gmail.com; carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com; evan(a)telly.org; Stacy Burnette > Subject: Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? > > > They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation > was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. > This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not > good behavior. It's very sad. > > --bob > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination > > was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. > > (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates) > > > > "13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract > > breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation > > was renewed on 13 July 2010." > > > > > > I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons: > > > > 1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their > > website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16 > > > > The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, > > about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents. > > > > AND > > > > 2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and > > Port 43. > > > > Trying to get the record returns one of these statements: > > > > "Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology > > Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp > > > >> From Port 43: > > "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] > > Results: > > Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system." > > > > However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see > > http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain, > > which means what? They are manipulating the search. > > > > > > A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better > > Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve > > consumer disputes! > > > > This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, > > everything else is permissible. > > > > > > I'm shocked. > > > > -Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > Garth Bruen > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > http://www.knujon.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > -- > Dr. Robert Bruen > Knujon > http://knujon.com > http://coldrain.net/bruen > +1.802.579.6288

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to be addressed
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

Well, if no one has any objections I will ask Stacy to clarify the timeline on A Technology Co in this thread and send a memo to Pam Little about the other items. Still trying to get to the bottom of the Giza issue > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to be > addressed > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 12:03 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > Hi Garth, > > On 19 July 2010 11:02, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > > > I was really hoping to push forward on this with David Giza’s input. His > > departure may signal a set-back but I’m hoping this is not the case. While > > I’m determined to get these issues addressed I am open to suggestions as to > > how to get ICANN compliance moving again on them. > > > > Engagement with current staff and pressure at the Board level may be the > only way we can persist on this. > > Obviously with staff movement the newcomers will require time to come to > speed, and that is time lost in our attempts to resolve these issues. > > > > In general I think it is imperative that ICANN disclose what happened here > > with Giza. There are rumors circulating that David was pushed out for saying > > he didn’t have enough staff or for actually doing his job and enforcing the > > RAA. If this is true, it represents a serious breach of trust with the > > community and an undeserved turn for someone trying to do the right thing. > > > > ICANN is at its most opaque (and that's a high bar) on personnel issues of > any kind. Part of the reason At-Large has so much trouble knowing its budget > is because so much of our budget is support staff costs and ICANN seems > loathe to give us any idea what the staff expenses really are (lest the > community dare to think it might have a better idea than senior staff of how > to allocate resources). > > Unfortunately, this is one area -- coming clean on the backstory to a staff > departure -- in which we will never be told the real goings-on unless David > goes public himself. There is some precedent -- Kieren McCarthy has arguably > offered more insight as an ex-employee than while working at ICANN. But that > has been the exception. > > > > > -Info and utility for At-Large Members: > > > > I promised to post a utility and WHOIS address list for all Registrars > > and all ccTLDs, but I want the list to be as complete as possible before > > sending it out, and also to supply a location for updates. The remaining > > Registrars who wont disclose their Port 43 address are delaying the > > final list, but I’ll get all the information soon. > > > > > You could always put out an interim list with "pending" located where the > yet-to-be-collected info is supposed to go. > > > > -Unresponsive Registrars > > > > As noted above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their > > Port 43 address. Some have supplied it after we published our report, > > but others remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue us > > to get us to stop asking: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html > > > > In the chat referenced, there's an insinuation claiming you use "sloppy > research methods". I'd like to get that allegation investigated. Is there > anything constructive this guy Volker can offer? Or does he think that > "sloppy" means anything that produces results he doesn't like? > > > > > But the question is: what to do here? Is there any recourse against a > > Registrar who wont answer questions about their contracted obligations? > > They may claim the RAA requires them to have a Port 43 address but does > > not require them to tell anyone. > > > > > That is a flaw in the RAA and indeed worth taking up with ICANN. This is > *abosolutely* an accountability/transparency issue. > > > -AIT’s Hidden WHOIS > > > > Another question that is emerging is the way WHOIS is accessed. In one > > example AIT “has” a web WHOIS but finding it is a challenge. On > > their main page they have a “domain lookup” which will tell you if > > the domain is taken. If you happen to accidentally click on the little > > red star next to the domain name it will launch a CAPTCHA window, and > > once you enter the code correctly it will present the WHOIS data. But is > > this really compliant? > > > > IMO, if the CAPTCHA is legit then I would suggest this is OK. It's > reasonable that someone would not want bits vacuuming that data as a matter > of course. At very least they could argue that it's a bandwidth issue (the > claim could be BS, but it's superficially legit). > > > > > -Registrar Complaint Process > > > > Unlike the WDPRS system, the complaint interface > > (http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi) for > > filing a complaint against a Registrar has no ticket, no confirmation > > email, no time-frame, no feedback, and no official resolution from > > compliance staff. In fact, to view the brief overview of the process: > > http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/compliance-flowchart.htm, one will > > see there is no space for responding to the complainant. The first step > > in the process is “Investigation or Dismissal” but no where is there > > feedback for the user as to why the complaint would be dismissed. We > > have, in fact, never received a response for a complaint filed through > > this interface. > > > > > Also an A&T issue. > > I'm really looking forward to seeing you on that commitee. > > - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to be addressed
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Thanks for the comments > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to be > addressed > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Date: Mon, July 19, 2010 12:03 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > Hi Garth, > > On 19 July 2010 11:02, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > > > I was really hoping to push forward on this with David Giza’s input. His > > departure may signal a set-back but I’m hoping this is not the case. While > > I’m determined to get these issues addressed I am open to suggestions as to > > how to get ICANN compliance moving again on them. > > > > Engagement with current staff and pressure at the Board level may be the > only way we can persist on this. > > Obviously with staff movement the newcomers will require time to come to > speed, and that is time lost in our attempts to resolve these issues. > > > > In general I think it is imperative that ICANN disclose what happened here > > with Giza. There are rumors circulating that David was pushed out for saying > > he didn’t have enough staff or for actually doing his job and enforcing the > > RAA. If this is true, it represents a serious breach of trust with the > > community and an undeserved turn for someone trying to do the right thing. > > > > ICANN is at its most opaque (and that's a high bar) on personnel issues of > any kind. Part of the reason At-Large has so much trouble knowing its budget > is because so much of our budget is support staff costs and ICANN seems > loathe to give us any idea what the staff expenses really are (lest the > community dare to think it might have a better idea than senior staff of how > to allocate resources). > > Unfortunately, this is one area -- coming clean on the backstory to a staff > departure -- in which we will never be told the real goings-on unless David > goes public himself. There is some precedent -- Kieren McCarthy has arguably > offered more insight as an ex-employee than while working at ICANN. But that > has been the exception. > > > > > -Info and utility for At-Large Members: > > > > I promised to post a utility and WHOIS address list for all Registrars > > and all ccTLDs, but I want the list to be as complete as possible before > > sending it out, and also to supply a location for updates. The remaining > > Registrars who wont disclose their Port 43 address are delaying the > > final list, but I’ll get all the information soon. > > > > > You could always put out an interim list with "pending" located where the > yet-to-be-collected info is supposed to go. > > > > -Unresponsive Registrars > > > > As noted above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their > > Port 43 address. Some have supplied it after we published our report, > > but others remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue us > > to get us to stop asking: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html > > > > In the chat referenced, there's an insinuation claiming you use "sloppy > research methods". I'd like to get that allegation investigated. Is there > anything constructive this guy Volker can offer? Or does he think that > "sloppy" means anything that produces results he doesn't like? > > > > > But the question is: what to do here? Is there any recourse against a > > Registrar who wont answer questions about their contracted obligations? > > They may claim the RAA requires them to have a Port 43 address but does > > not require them to tell anyone. > > > > > That is a flaw in the RAA and indeed worth taking up with ICANN. This is > *abosolutely* an accountability/transparency issue. > > > -AIT’s Hidden WHOIS > > > > Another question that is emerging is the way WHOIS is accessed. In one > > example AIT “has” a web WHOIS but finding it is a challenge. On > > their main page they have a “domain lookup” which will tell you if > > the domain is taken. If you happen to accidentally click on the little > > red star next to the domain name it will launch a CAPTCHA window, and > > once you enter the code correctly it will present the WHOIS data. But is > > this really compliant? > > > > IMO, if the CAPTCHA is legit then I would suggest this is OK. It's > reasonable that someone would not want bits vacuuming that data as a matter > of course. At very least they could argue that it's a bandwidth issue (the > claim could be BS, but it's superficially legit). > > > > > -Registrar Complaint Process > > > > Unlike the WDPRS system, the complaint interface > > (http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi) for > > filing a complaint against a Registrar has no ticket, no confirmation > > email, no time-frame, no feedback, and no official resolution from > > compliance staff. In fact, to view the brief overview of the process: > > http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/compliance-flowchart.htm, one will > > see there is no space for responding to the complainant. The first step > > in the process is “Investigation or Dismissal” but no where is there > > feedback for the user as to why the complaint would be dismissed. We > > have, in fact, never received a response for a complaint filed through > > this interface. > > > > > Also an A&T issue. > > I'm really looking forward to seeing you on that commitee. > > - Evan

1 0

French and Spanish Version of NARALO Brochure
by ICANN At-Large Staff July 19, 2010

July 19, 2010

Dear All, The French and Spanish versions of the NARALO Outreach brochure have now been posted to the NARALO website: French: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/fr/naralo/outreach-materials-fr Spanish: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/es/naralo/outreach-materials-es -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Update on A Technology Company
by Beau Brendler July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Garth wrote: "the fact that they did manipulate their WHOIS record for such a long time is a problem. Also, that the Better Business Bureau could not locate the company to resolve disputes is troubling for the domain registrant customer." If ICANN is going to let companies like this call themselves "ICANN accredited registrars," then that accreditation doesn't mean much. In fact, it does more harm than good, since a company that shows obvious signs of being a bad actor can be ICANN accredited. -----Original Message----- >From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Sent: Jul 16, 2010 2:37 PM >To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [NA-Discuss] Update on A Technology Company > >Hello all, > >The two complaints against A Technology Company made by us earlier this >week have been technically fixed. > >But the resolution raises more questions than it addressed. The fact >that they were allowed to re-accredit well beyond the 15 day period of >their initial breach notice is one and the timeline is interesting. > >According to the termination notice sent by ICANN on 25 June 2010 >(http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-prakash-25jun10-en.pdf) >a breach notice was previously sent on 29 April 2010. However, this >breach notice is not posted. > >Fifteen days after 29 April is 14 May. > >According to the termination notice ICANN sent another breach notice 26 >May 2010 specifically giving 10 June 2010 as the deadline for curing the >breach. This notice is not posted either. > >There are 11 days between the previous assumed deadline and the date of >this second notice. > >The termination letter was issued 25 June, 15 days after the second >breach deadline, signaling that the accreditation would expire on 12 >July 2010, 17 days after the date of the letter. > >According to the compliance update on 13 July, one day after the >expected termination date, it is announced that A Technology cured its >breach on June 30, 13 days before the announcement. > >So, it would seem A Technology was allowed to cure its breach 46 days >after the initial breach deadline, or 20 days after the second breach >deadline. In total A Technology was in breach for 61 days. > >It does not seem like the timeframe of the RAA was followed here. > >This is just the timeline issue, there are others. > >ICANN was notified about A Technology’s failure to post their address >by me on 20 June and their WHOIS manipulation issues on 23 June. >According to Stacy A Technology was “told” to correct these issues >ASAP. The WHOIS issue was a violation of their previous contract and the >address posting was a violation of the current RAA. However, they were >not issued a breach notice for either, they were “told” to correct >them. It seems that this was only done because we pushed issue, or at >least only became public because we brought it up. > >This begs the question. How often are Registrars “told” to fix >something without documentation? > >While their WHOIS record is no longer being manipulated, the information >posted in their WHOIS record now matches what is posted in the InterNIC >directory (http://www.internic.org/registrars/registrar-53.html) we >believe the posted address may in fact be a UPS mailbox. They have also >posted another address on their website which appears to be a private >residence and for obvious reasons wont post here. While they may have >technically resolved our complaints, the fact that they did manipulate >their WHOIS record for such a long time is a problem. Also, that the >Better Business Bureau could not locate the company to resolve disputes >is troubling for the domain registrant customer. > >This case continues to be a mystery. > >-Garth > > > >------ >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 >------

1 0

Update on A Technology Company
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Hello all, The two complaints against A Technology Company made by us earlier this week have been technically fixed. But the resolution raises more questions than it addressed. The fact that they were allowed to re-accredit well beyond the 15 day period of their initial breach notice is one and the timeline is interesting. According to the termination notice sent by ICANN on 25 June 2010 (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-prakash-25jun10-en.pdf) a breach notice was previously sent on 29 April 2010. However, this breach notice is not posted. Fifteen days after 29 April is 14 May. According to the termination notice ICANN sent another breach notice 26 May 2010 specifically giving 10 June 2010 as the deadline for curing the breach. This notice is not posted either. There are 11 days between the previous assumed deadline and the date of this second notice. The termination letter was issued 25 June, 15 days after the second breach deadline, signaling that the accreditation would expire on 12 July 2010, 17 days after the date of the letter. According to the compliance update on 13 July, one day after the expected termination date, it is announced that A Technology cured its breach on June 30, 13 days before the announcement. So, it would seem A Technology was allowed to cure its breach 46 days after the initial breach deadline, or 20 days after the second breach deadline. In total A Technology was in breach for 61 days. It does not seem like the timeframe of the RAA was followed here. This is just the timeline issue, there are others. ICANN was notified about A Technology’s failure to post their address by me on 20 June and their WHOIS manipulation issues on 23 June. According to Stacy A Technology was “told” to correct these issues ASAP. The WHOIS issue was a violation of their previous contract and the address posting was a violation of the current RAA. However, they were not issued a breach notice for either, they were “told” to correct them. It seems that this was only done because we pushed issue, or at least only became public because we brought it up. This begs the question. How often are Registrars “told” to fix something without documentation? While their WHOIS record is no longer being manipulated, the information posted in their WHOIS record now matches what is posted in the InterNIC directory (http://www.internic.org/registrars/registrar-53.html) we believe the posted address may in fact be a UPS mailbox. They have also posted another address on their website which appears to be a private residence and for obvious reasons wont post here. While they may have technically resolved our complaints, the fact that they did manipulate their WHOIS record for such a long time is a problem. Also, that the Better Business Bureau could not locate the company to resolve disputes is troubling for the domain registrant customer. This case continues to be a mystery. -Garth

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company Reinstated
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

And his temporay replacement is in Sydney not L.A., with her own backlog of issues. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company Reinstated > From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)avc.vc> > Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 1:09 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > When I met him in Brussels, he seemed fully engaged. > > Given the importance of the compliance issue at ICANN, both for current TLDs and the new ones, it would be helpful if ICANN could provide the community with an explanation. I notice that, several days later, a replacement hasn't been named. That's a potentially dangerous vacuum. > > Antony > > > On Jul 16, 2010, at 9:52 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > > > Agreed, which is why I see his departure as serious setback. I'll have > > an update on some of these issues shorty. > > > > > >> -------- Original Message -------- > >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company Reinstated > >> From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > >> Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 12:48 pm > >> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > >> > >> ......just on the verifiable information, this appears to be dissolute > >> behaviour, all round. > >> > >> One wonders if actions such as this may have hastened the exit of the head > >> guy in ICANN Compliance. When you look below the PC 'corporate speak', he > >> always seemed like a really conscientious guy to me..... > >> > >> Carlton > >> > >> ============================== > >> Carlton A Samuels > >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > >> ============================= > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:00 PM, < > >> na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: > >> > >>> Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > >>> na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > >>> > >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >>> > >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > >>> na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > >>> You can reach the person managing the list at > >>> na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> > >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > >>> than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > >>> > >>> > >>> Today's Topics: > >>> > >>> 1. A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination > >>> reversed? (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > >>> 2. Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination > >>> reversed? (Bob Bruen) > >>> > >>> > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Message: 1 > >>> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:26:04 -0700 > >>> From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > >>> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, David.Giza(a)icann.org, > >>> langdonorr(a)gmail.com, carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com, evan(a)telly.org, > >>> stacy.burnette(a)icann.org > >>> Subject: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? > >>> Termination reversed? > >>> Message-ID: > >>> < > >>> 20100714082604.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.b28411b357.wbe(a)email00.secureserver.net > >>>> > >>> > >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > >>> > >>> Hello all, > >>> > >>> To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination > >>> was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. > >>> (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates) > >>> > >>> "13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract > >>> breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation > >>> was renewed on 13 July 2010." > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons: > >>> > >>> 1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their > >>> website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16 > >>> > >>> The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, > >>> about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents. > >>> > >>> AND > >>> > >>> 2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and > >>> Port 43. > >>> > >>> Trying to get the record returns one of these statements: > >>> > >>> "Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology > >>> Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp > >>> > >>>> From Port 43: > >>> "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] > >>> Results: > >>> Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system." > >>> > >>> However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see > >>> http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain > >>> , > >>> which means what? They are manipulating the search. > >>> > >>> > >>> A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better > >>> Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve > >>> consumer disputes! > >>> > >>> This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, > >>> everything else is permissible. > >>> > >>> > >>> I'm shocked. > >>> > >>> -Garth > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> Garth Bruen > >>> gbruen(a)knujon.com > >>> http://www.knujon.com > >>> http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > >>> Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > >>> Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > >>> Twitter: @Knujon > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> ------------------------------ > >>> > >>> Message: 2 > >>> Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:00:38 -0400 (EDT) > >>> From: Bob Bruen <naralo(a)coldrain.net> > >>> To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? > >>> Termination reversed? > >>> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007141200050.16199(a)matrix.coldrain.net> > >>> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation > >>> was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. > >>> This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not > >>> good behavior. It's very sad. > >>> > >>> --bob > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> ------ > >> 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 > >> ------ > > > > > > ------ > > 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 > > ------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company Reinstated
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Agreed, which is why I see his departure as serious setback. I'll have an update on some of these issues shorty. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company Reinstated > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Date: Fri, July 16, 2010 12:48 pm > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > ......just on the verifiable information, this appears to be dissolute > behaviour, all round. > > One wonders if actions such as this may have hastened the exit of the head > guy in ICANN Compliance. When you look below the PC 'corporate speak', he > always seemed like a really conscientious guy to me..... > > Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > ============================= > > > On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:00 PM, < > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: > > > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination > > reversed? (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > > 2. Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination > > reversed? (Bob Bruen) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:26:04 -0700 > > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, David.Giza(a)icann.org, > > langdonorr(a)gmail.com, carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com, evan(a)telly.org, > > stacy.burnette(a)icann.org > > Subject: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? > > Termination reversed? > > Message-ID: > > < > > 20100714082604.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.b28411b357.wbe(a)email00.secureserver.net > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Hello all, > > > > To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination > > was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. > > (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates) > > > > "13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract > > breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation > > was renewed on 13 July 2010." > > > > > > I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons: > > > > 1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their > > website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16 > > > > The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, > > about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents. > > > > AND > > > > 2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and > > Port 43. > > > > Trying to get the record returns one of these statements: > > > > "Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology > > Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp > > > > >From Port 43: > > "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] > > Results: > > Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system." > > > > However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see > > http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain > > , > > which means what? They are manipulating the search. > > > > > > A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better > > Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve > > consumer disputes! > > > > This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, > > everything else is permissible. > > > > > > I'm shocked. > > > > -Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > Garth Bruen > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > http://www.knujon.com > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:00:38 -0400 (EDT) > > From: Bob Bruen <naralo(a)coldrain.net> > > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? > > Termination reversed? > > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007141200050.16199(a)matrix.coldrain.net> > > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > > > > > > They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation > > was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. > > This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not > > good behavior. It's very sad. > > > > --bob > > > > > > > ------ > 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 > ------

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company Reinstated
by Carlton Samuels July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

......just on the verifiable information, this appears to be dissolute behaviour, all round. One wonders if actions such as this may have hastened the exit of the head guy in ICANN Compliance. When you look below the PC 'corporate speak', he always seemed like a really conscientious guy to me..... Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:00 PM, < na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> wrote: > Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > na-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > na-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination > reversed? (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > 2. Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination > reversed? (Bob Bruen) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 08:26:04 -0700 > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, David.Giza(a)icann.org, > langdonorr(a)gmail.com, carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com, evan(a)telly.org, > stacy.burnette(a)icann.org > Subject: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? > Termination reversed? > Message-ID: > < > 20100714082604.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.b28411b357.wbe(a)email00.secureserver.net > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hello all, > > To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination > was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA. > (http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/#updates) > > "13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract > breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation > was renewed on 13 July 2010." > > > I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons: > > 1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their > website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16 > > The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info, > about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents. > > AND > > 2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and > Port 43. > > Trying to get the record returns one of these statements: > > "Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology > Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp > > >From Port 43: > "Checking server [whois.namesystem.com] > Results: > Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system." > > However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see > http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain > , > which means what? They are manipulating the search. > > > A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better > Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve > consumer disputes! > > This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills, > everything else is permissible. > > > I'm shocked. > > -Garth > > > ------------------------------------- > > Garth Bruen > gbruen(a)knujon.com > http://www.knujon.com > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2010 12:00:38 -0400 (EDT) > From: Bob Bruen <naralo(a)coldrain.net> > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? > Termination reversed? > Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.1007141200050.16199(a)matrix.coldrain.net> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > > They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation > was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA. > This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not > good behavior. It's very sad. > > --bob > > >

1 0