- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Fake blog / WHOIS question
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Feb. 9, 2010

Feb. 9, 2010

<<Does WHOIS info have to be valid?>> Has to be valid for every domain, regardless of content or use > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Fake blog / WHOIS question > From: Joly MacFie <joly(a)punkcast.com> > Date: Mon, February 08, 2010 2:56 am > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > I've recently come a cross a case where a videoblogger had his entire > site scraped and put up by someone else, presumably to reap the > rewards of google adsense. The copier just global replaced the title > of the site, otherwise everything is the same. > > I, and others, recommended the blogger DMCA the offender's host, which > he duly did, and the account was indeed suspended. > > He now reports that the copy site appears to be in the process of > moving to a new host. > > The WHOIS (via GoDaddy) is evidently fake, going to a non-existent address. > > I have suggested that if the content returns on the new host he move > to get google to suspend the perp's adsense account via the DMCA > https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=9894 > > Question: > > Does he have any recourse to the DMCA, UDRP or similar process to get > GoDaddy to suspend the registration if the abuse continues? There are > no trademarks involved. Does WHOIS info have to be valid? > > > > > Details: > Original blog: http://www.eevblog.com > > The copy: http://www.warvideoblog.com/ > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > ------ > 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

Fake blog / WHOIS question
by Joly MacFie Feb. 8, 2010

Feb. 8, 2010

I've recently come a cross a case where a videoblogger had his entire site scraped and put up by someone else, presumably to reap the rewards of google adsense. The copier just global replaced the title of the site, otherwise everything is the same. I, and others, recommended the blogger DMCA the offender's host, which he duly did, and the account was indeed suspended. He now reports that the copy site appears to be in the process of moving to a new host. The WHOIS (via GoDaddy) is evidently fake, going to a non-existent address. I have suggested that if the content returns on the new host he move to get google to suspend the perp's adsense account via the DMCA https://www.google.com/adsense/support/bin/answer.py?answer=9894 Question: Does he have any recourse to the DMCA, UDRP or similar process to get GoDaddy to suspend the registration if the abuse continues? There are no trademarks involved. Does WHOIS info have to be valid? Details: Original blog: http://www.eevblog.com The copy: http://www.warvideoblog.com/ -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Public Comment on the Proposed Process for the At-Large Board Selection now open
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 6, 2010

Feb. 6, 2010

*La version française est ci-dessous *La versión española está abajo Dear All, At the request of Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Chair of ALAC, and the At-Large Board Selection Design Team <https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?at_large_board_selection_design_te…> (ABSdt), we have the privilege to inform you that the Public Comment on the Proposed Process for the 2010 Selection of an ICANN At-Large Board Member <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-05feb10-en.htm> is now open (in English, French and Spanish) through 6 March 2010. This public comment is not only a tremendous step forward in the process to select an At-Large voting Board Member, but also is the first public comment posted on behalf of ALAC. Many thanks to the members of the ABSdt for their tireless efforts in preparing the slightly updated White Paper and the accompanying announcement text. The comments received from this public comment will be preliminarily analyzed prior to the Nairobi meeting. Regards, * Cher tous, Sur demande de Cheryl Langdon-Orr, présidente d'ALAC, et l’At-Large Board Selection Design Team <https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?at_large_board_selection_design_te…> (ABSdt), nous avons le privilège de vous informer que le commentaire public sur le procédé proposé pour le choix 2010 d'un membre du conseil At-Large d'ICANN <http://www.icann.org/fr/announcements/announcement-2-05feb10-fr.htm> est maintenant ouvert (en anglais, français et espagnol) jusqu'au 6 mars 2010. Ce commentaire public est non seulement un énorme pas en avant dans le processus de selection d’un membre du conseil d’adminstration At-Large, mais est également le premier commentaire public d'ALAC. Merci beaucoup aux membres de l'ABSdt pour leurs efforts inlassables de rédaction du livre blanc légèrement mis à jour et le texte d'annonce. Les commentaries publics reçus seront l’objet d’une analyse preliminaire avant la réunion de Nairobi. Cordialment, * Estimado todos, A petición de Cheryl Langdon-Orr, presidente de ALAC, y el At-Large Board Selection design team <https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?at_large_board_selection_design_te…> (ABSdt), tenemos el privilegio de informarle que el comentario público sobre el proceso propuesto para la selección 2010 de un miembro del Consejo At-Large de ICANN <http://www.icann.org/es/announcements/announcement-2-05feb10-es.htm> está abierto ahora (en inglés, francés y español) hasta el 6 de marzo de 2010. Este comentario público es no sólo un enorme paso adelante en el proceso para seleccionar a un miembro del Consejo de votación At-Large, pero también es el primer comentario público fijado a nombre de ALAC. Muchas gracias a los miembros del ABSdt por sus esfuerzos incansables en la preparación del Libro Blanco levemente actualizado y del texto de acompañamiento del aviso. Los comentarios recibidos de este comentario público serán analizados preliminar antes de la reunión de Nairobi. Respetos, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>

1 0

NARALO Candidates for the ABSC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 5, 2010

Feb. 5, 2010

Dear All, The At-Large Selection design team is seeking candidatures from NARALO for the At-Large Board Member Selection Committee (ABSC). The ABSC will assist the At-Large Director process by revising the At-Large Board member candidatures and creating a short-list for the At-Large Board Member election. The ABSC will be composed of two representatives from each ICANN region and a Chair. All ABSC members will need to confirm their willingness and ability to dedicate significant time to the process. You may find a list of ABSC candidates from all At-Large regions under https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?at_large_board_selection_committee If you are interested in joining the ABSC, please reply to this message. Thank you. ********* What will the ABSC be doing exactly? The ABSC is tasked with creating a public list of candidates for the At-Large Board member position. To do so, the ABSC will not just passively wait to hear from interested At-Large insiders, but will also identify and solicit candidacies from people who would qualify and may be seen to fulfill the positions. There should be a diversity of choices in the list of candidates for the At-Large Board member, but qualified people should not be excluded because there are "too many" from any one region, gender, or other relevant characteristic. Through a process of questionnaires and/or interviews, the ABSC would reduce the total list of applicants to some “small” number of candidates. All documents and deliberations of the ABSC shall be confidential and this confidentiality shall continue past the existence of any particular ABSC. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO Call Monday, 08 February at 2000 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 5, 2010

Feb. 5, 2010

Dear All, This is to remind you that the next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 08 February 2010 at 2000 UTC. The draft agenda and call details can be found at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?08_february_2010 If you are unable to attend the call please send an email indicating your absence and we will note this information on the agenda. If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Statement of Interest for ICANN positions
by Eduardo Diaz Feb. 3, 2010

Feb. 3, 2010

All: The NomCom is actively looking for qualified candidates to fill the following leading positions withing ICANN: - Board of Directors (3 seats) - At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) (2 seats, North America and Europe regions) - Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO) (1 seat) - Country Code Names Support Organization Council (ccNSO) (1 seat) Please have a look to the attached presentation and the following information located here http://nomcom.icann.org/invitation-2010.htm . I encourage any of you to apply for any of these positions. Also, please distribute this information through your networks. Applications should be submitted not later than 2 April 2010 (23:59 UTC). Contact me if you have any questions regarding this. Warmest “saludos” from Puerto Rico. Eduardo Diaz NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Feb. 1, 2010

Feb. 1, 2010

Well, I plan on making a formal request for ICANN to acknowledge OnlineNIC's real address and update the directory tomorrow. If anyone wants to digitally sign onto the letter or sponsor pushing it as a constituency, I'm ready to go! As for the PO box issue, I'm also ready work on this officially. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > Date: Sun, January 31, 2010 3:45 pm > To: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > The global At-Large constituency assembled at Mexico City declared its > position very clearly on this matter. I suspect Ray Charles would have seen > the essence of our concerns, even if an ICANN lawyer couldn't. It is this > kind of unseemly dithering that leads some very reasonable people to believe > ICANN is hostage to a particular constituency. > > Carlton Samuels > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:00 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. Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box? > > (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > > 2. Re: Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box? > > (Michael Maranda) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:17:15 -0700 > > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO > > Box? > > Message-ID: > > < > > 20100130081715.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.b1feb56e43.wbe(a)email.secureserver.net > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Dear At-Large folks, > > > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > > Agreement > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > > been amended to include the following language: > > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > > details including a valid email and mailing > > address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3 > > )? > > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can > > accept mail. > > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business > > address? as we recommended > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > > their business is really in Colorado. > > > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > > not even a phone number. > > > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans > > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since > > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > > true nature of the Registration business > > ( > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > > ). > > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > > de-accredited for other contract violations > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > > identification. > > > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > > directory. > > > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of > > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > > > More info: > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > 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: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:49:05 -0600 > > From: Michael Maranda <tropology(a)gmail.com> > > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO > > Box? > > Message-ID: > > <3feff8d61001300749k1cf0352bya7c60407a1517710(a)mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > > > If we can address this issue - we'll have taken a great step forward. > > > > -Michael Maranda > > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com > > >wrote: > > > > > Dear At-Large folks, > > > > > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > > > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > > > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > > > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > > > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > > > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > > > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > > > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > > > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > > > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > > > Agreement > > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > > > been amended to include the following language: > > > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > > > details including a valid email and mailing > > > address.( > > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) > > > ? > > > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can > > > accept mail. > > > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business > > > address? as we recommended > > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > > > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > > > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > > > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > > > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > > > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > > > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > > > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > > > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > > > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > > > their business is really in Colorado. > > > > > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > > > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > > > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > > > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > > > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > > > not even a phone number. > > > > > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > > > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > > > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > > > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > > > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans > > > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > > > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > > > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > > > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > > > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > > > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > > > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > > > > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since > > > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > > > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > > > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > > > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > > > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > > > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > > > true nature of the Registration business > > > ( > > > > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > > > ). > > > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > > > > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > > > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > > > de-accredited for other contract violations > > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > > > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > > > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > > > identification. > > > > > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > > > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > > > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > > > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > > > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > > > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > > > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > > > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > > > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > > > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > > > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > > > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > > > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > > > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > > > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > > > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > > > directory. > > > > > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of > > > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > > > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > > > > > More info: > > > > > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > 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… > > > > > > End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 > > ****************************************** > > > ------ > 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] NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 31, 2010

Jan. 31, 2010

The global At-Large constituency assembled at Mexico City declared its position very clearly on this matter. I suspect Ray Charles would have seen the essence of our concerns, even if an ICANN lawyer couldn't. It is this kind of unseemly dithering that leads some very reasonable people to believe ICANN is hostage to a particular constituency. Carlton Samuels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:00 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. Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box? > (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) > 2. Re: Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box? > (Michael Maranda) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 08:17:15 -0700 > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO > Box? > Message-ID: > < > 20100130081715.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.b1feb56e43.wbe(a)email.secureserver.net > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Dear At-Large folks, > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > Agreement > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > been amended to include the following language: > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > details including a valid email and mailing > address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3 > )? > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can > accept mail. > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business > address? as we recommended > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > their business is really in Colorado. > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > not even a phone number. > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > true nature of the Registration business > ( > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > ). > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > de-accredited for other contract violations > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > identification. > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > directory. > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > More info: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > ------------------------------------- > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > 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: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 09:49:05 -0600 > From: Michael Maranda <tropology(a)gmail.com> > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO > Box? > Message-ID: > <3feff8d61001300749k1cf0352bya7c60407a1517710(a)mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 > > If we can address this issue - we'll have taken a great step forward. > > -Michael Maranda > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com > >wrote: > > > Dear At-Large folks, > > > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > > Agreement > > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > > been amended to include the following language: > > ?3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > > details including a valid email and mailing > > address.( > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) > > ? > > But what constitutes a ?valid mailing address? other than it can > > accept mail. > > This probably would have been better worded as ?valid business > > address? as we recommended > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > > their business is really in Colorado. > > > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > > not even a phone number. > > > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > > has been explained to us multiple times that ?all addresses in Caymans > > are PO boxes,? but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > > > And then there are ?suites.? Suite is a deceptive address term since > > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > > true nature of the Registration business > > ( > > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > > ). > > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > > de-accredited for other contract violations > > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > > identification. > > > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > > consumers for too long. We?re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > > directory. > > > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN?s pledge of > > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > > > More info: > > > > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > ------ > > 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… > > > End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 39, Issue 10 > ****************************************** >

1 0

Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box?
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Jan. 30, 2010

Jan. 30, 2010

Dear At-Large folks, In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has been amended to include the following language: “3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid email and mailing address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3)” But what constitutes a “valid mailing address” other than it can accept mail. This probably would have been better worded as “valid business address” as we recommended (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when their business is really in Colorado. Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website not even a phone number. Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It has been explained to us multiple times that “all addresses in Caymans are PO boxes,” but this is only partly true. For the purposes of mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. And then there are “suites.” Suite is a deceptive address term since it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the true nature of the Registration business (http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article…) Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later de-accredited for other contract violations (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is identification. This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead consumers for too long. We’re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the directory. Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN’s pledge of transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used in Registrar accreditation applications. More info: http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… Thanks for your consideration, Garth ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... 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

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ ICANN¹ s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_Janua ry
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

Thank you! > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: RE: [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ ICANN¹ > s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_Janua ry > From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> > Date: Fri, January 22, 2010 5:54 pm > To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > Cc: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "langdonorr(a)gmail.com" > <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > > > Dear Garth, > > > > We apologize for the late notice regarding this particular event. However, as this is the first of what we hope will be many similar events throughout the year, there were some delays due to planning and preparation. It is expected that this will not be the only opportunity for those in the Washington D.C. area to attend such an event, and we anticipate that more advance notice will be provided in the future. > > > > Kind regards > > Heidi > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn [mailto:gbruen@knujon.com] > > Sent: Friday, January 22, 2010 8:47 AM > > To: Heidi Ullrich > > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; langdonorr(a)gmail.com > > Subject: RE: [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ICANN¹ s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_January > > > > Heidi, > > > > While the meeting and invitation sound good, getting the information > > less than a week before the meeting somewhat precludes participation. I > > live in Boston and I would have made this meeting had I more time to > > make arrangements. I'm guessing that some of the core NARALO folks who > > live in Canada also find it difficult. > > > > -Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > > > 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 > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] FW:_Public_Meet_Up_with_ICANN¹ > > > s_CEO_in_Washington,_DC_on_27th_January > > > From: Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> > > > Date: Thu, January 21, 2010 5:01 pm > > > To: 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, > > > "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > > > <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Cc: Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org> > > > > > > > > > Dear All, > > > > > > Please see the message below from Rod Beckstrom. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Heidi > > > > > > From: Donna Austin > > > Sent: Thursday, January 21, 2010 1:47 PM > > > To: Heidi Ullrich > > > Subject: Public Meet Up with ICANN¹s CEO in Washington, DC on 27th January > > > > > > > > > Dear Heidi > > > > > > Could you forward this email to Cheryl and members of the At-Large on behalf of Rod Beckstrom please? > > > > > > Thanks > > > > > > Donna > > > > > > _______ > > > > > > Dear Cheryl and members of the At-Large > > > > > > As you know, I believe that ICANN's CEO should be accessible to the community, but also to those who may not regularly participate in ICANN's processes but are interested in the important work we do. > > > > > > As a part of this effort, I've started holding what I call "Meet Ups" where I make myself available in an informal setting when I travel and my schedule allows. To help ensure as many of people as possible are able to attend if they want, we announce these as far in advance as we can. > > > > > > All you need to bring are your thoughts, ideas, or questions and enough coin to buy your favourite form of refreshment. > > > > > > Here are all the details. If you have any questions, please send an email to my Chief of Staff, Donna Austin <donna.austin(a)icann.org>. > > > > > > Date: 27th January 2010 > > > > > > 17:00 to 19:00 local time > > > > > > Place: Buffalo Billiards, Victorian Room, 1330 19th Street, Washington DC 20036 > > > > > > Map: http://tinyurl.com/yakmr9t > > > > > > I hope to see you there! > > > > > > Warmly > > > > > > Rod > > > > > > Rod Beckstrom > > > President & CEO > > > ICANN > > > > > > ------ End of Forwarded Message > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC-Announce mailing list > > > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > > > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0