- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] Another registrar bites the dust
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Great, now how about OnlineNIC. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Another registrar bites the dust > From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 8:05 pm > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > ICANN has finally announced the de-accreditation of Daniel Sundin's Red Register (1). One has to again wonder why the process took so long... > To the casual observer it seems quite probable that Red Register's Daniel Sundin is in fact the same Daniel Sundin cited 10 months ago by the FTC (2) for illicit "scareware" activities. He maintains an email address at globedat (another organization similarly charged by the FTC). > An Order of Default was entered against Innovative Marketing and Daniel Sundin on 6 August 2009 “for want of answer or other defense”. They were being fined at the rate of $8000 per day by the FTC (3) > Now it appears that this registrar has "disappeared" with no valid contact address after not paying its bills in over a year. > One would think that ICANN would be reigning in these rogue registrars much quicker (especially if FTC actions had commenced). At last report (May), Red Register had 10317 domains under management in .com. > (1) http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-sundin-11sep09-en.pdf > (2) http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723137/081202innovativemrktgcmplt.pdf > (3) https://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2009/08/12/1714996.aspx > > ------ > 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] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Beau Brendler Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Beau Brendler Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

3 2

NARALO Brainstorm teleconference on 21 September at 19:00 UTC
by At Large Staff Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Dear All, During the NARALO teleconference of September 14, 2009, it was decided by consensus to hold a special NARALO conference call on developing a procedure for the At-Large community to select a voting director to the Board. This call is scheduled for Monday, September 21, 2009 at 19:00 UTC (12:00 p.m. PDT/3 p.m. EDT). The meeting will not have an official agenda, rather it will be a "brainstorming" session to determine ideas, concerns and options. NARALO members are encouraged to add their questions and issues directly to the meeting page available at: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?21_september_2009 using the red comment button. Participation instructions for this call are also available on the meeting page. The NARALO generated points derived from this meeting will feed into the wider At-Large/ALAC development of a mechanism to select a voting director. If you require a dial-out for this call, please let At-Large staff know at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO Voting Result ...)
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

Danny Younger wrote: > Evan, thank you for placing this matter on the next Agenda. On top of everything else, I am concerned by voting irregularities (such as the vote by a long-defunct ALS that is given as much weight as the collective vote of the unaffiliated). > The issue of waking up (or eventually purging) non-participating members (both ALS and individual) is certainly one we will inevitably deal with. Given the youth of NARALO I thought it reasonable that we allow some time to pass before dealing with it, and concentrate on growth and being more welcoming rather than looking for ways to contract. But if NARALO believes the issue is more pressing than I do, we are certainly capable of debating it sooner. > I would be pleased to hear your arguments as to why your vote is of greater value (weight) than Beau's vote or my vote or Jean's vote or Wendy's vote. > The short answer is that it's not "my" vote, it's CLUE's. And CLUE -- a membership organisation in which I participate -- entrusts me to do the right thing, but holds me accountable and is free to remove me as its representative at any time. (Besides, given Wendy's role on the Board and Beau's role in ALAC, I would hardly say that my own voice carries more weight than theirs.) This issue was discussed extensively (and intensely) at the time NARALO was formed. As you are well aware, NARALO is the only region within ICANN that affords *any* status to individuals unaffiliated to an ALS. The balance we achieved was, IMO, reasonable, given the desire of ICANN to grown a network of ALSs. > Looking forward to a robust discussion. Given all that is on our plate policy-wise, it would be my preference NOT to burn time and personal cycles revisiting our core principles at this point. What I want to do is to nail down a formal voting process that implements the intent of the ROP... not to dissect the ROP itself. It is notable that this issue is only being raised now, more than two years since NARALO was formed. Since NARALO started we have whenever possible operated on consensus rather than formal vote, and when determining consensus all voices have been equal. The views of participating individuals are clearly more reflected in the results of our consensus decisions than those of non-participating ALSs. Indeed, I would further point out that in this specific case, the BigPulse poll was only *advice*; the ultimate decision of what to send to ALAC was done by a consensus in which you most certainly were an equal participant. I certainly hope that unaffiliated members don't believe that they have been treated like second-class citizens during discussions or consensus-building. If that is the case then I will do what I can to rectify this. - Evan

6 9

More on Red Register
by Danny Younger Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

If you take a close look at the address to which Stacy Burnette has been sending her Red Register breach notices -- 8025 Excelsior Drive Suite 200 Madison WI 53717 -- you will discover that the address corresponds to CT Corporation System (a registered service of process agent)(1) You will also note that the phone and fax numbers provided by Red Register to ICANN are not in the U.S., but rather in the U.K. I think it's time to once again renew our call for accurate and reliable registrar place-of-business particulars as part of the promised-but-not-delivered long-overdue review of the ICANN registrar accreditation procedure. The recent RAA amendment (3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including a valid email and mailing address) remains insufficient. Our interest is not in knowing where the registrar maintains an accurate process of service address, but rather from which real address the registrar is actually conducting its business. Lest anyone forget, Red Register was sued by MicroSoft in late 2007 for cybersquatting activities. (2) (1) http://www.stevenspointjournal.com/assets/pdf/U013999987.PDF (2) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/24/AR200712240…

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

<<but my understanding is that anyone with a trade-mark to preserve tends to have VERY large portfolio of defensive registrations.>> Yes, but they should not have to. <<And there is no point if irritating constituencies who might otherwise be strong supporters of the type of effort we are discussing.>> I don't think this would irritate the brand owners. Much of their efforts are spent in determining the true ownership of typosquatted domains, this would cut to the chase. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Domain-name abuse proliferates > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Date: Tue, September 15, 2009 11:04 am > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > In the interest of not hurting a good argument with bad data, I would > suggest that this statement not be made. I do not have a real clue > how many domains a typical multi-million dollar company owns, but my > understanding is that anyone with a trade-mark to preserve tends to > have VERY large portfolio of defensive registrations. And there is no > point if irritating constituencies who might otherwise be strong > supporters of the type of effort we are discussing. > Alan > At 15/09/2009 10:24 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: > >Consider this. How many domains does a multi-million dollar company buy? > >1 maybe 2. Maybe one for each gTLD and ccTLD, that's still less than > >300. > ------ > 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 > ------

3 2

Another registrar bites the dust
by Danny Younger Sept. 16, 2009

Sept. 16, 2009

ICANN has finally announced the de-accreditation of Daniel Sundin's Red Register (1). One has to again wonder why the process took so long... To the casual observer it seems quite probable that Red Register's Daniel Sundin is in fact the same Daniel Sundin cited 10 months ago by the FTC (2) for illicit "scareware" activities. He maintains an email address at globedat (another organization similarly charged by the FTC). An Order of Default was entered against Innovative Marketing and Daniel Sundin on 6 August 2009 “for want of answer or other defense”. They were being fined at the rate of $8000 per day by the FTC (3) Now it appears that this registrar has "disappeared" with no valid contact address after not paying its bills in over a year. One would think that ICANN would be reigning in these rogue registrars much quicker (especially if FTC actions had commenced). At last report (May), Red Register had 10317 domains under management in .com. (1) http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-sundin-11sep09-en.pdf (2) http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723137/081202innovativemrktgcmplt.pdf (3) https://msmvps.com/blogs/spywaresucks/archive/2009/08/12/1714996.aspx

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Unaffiliated member voting (was Re: NARALO VotingResult ...)
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

Danny Younger wrote: > I tend to think that most of you that hail from organizational entities rarely (if ever) discuss ICANN matters at the local level. I owe you no justification of what I do at the local level, as in this regard I am accountable to my ALS and not you. Of course you are welcome to engage in ongoing speculation on how little I (or others on this list) do; such speculation will certainly be as unproductive as the rest of this sub-thread has been. Personally, I'd like to spend my efforts here on policy not process. Of course this won't fly with you right now as I'm one of the nasty oppressors who plot in the shadows to silence you ..... as anyone reading this mailing list over the past two years can clearly see. And as you continue to remind us in this email thread. If have a problem with the ALS model used by At-Large, you had your chance to address that during the ALAC Review.That's now done. Unless other NARALO support exists for (what I consider to be) distraction away from policy work, I won't be engaging it any more. I have no (further) interest in using my ICANN time to debate the fine points of representational democracy. Danny, you were supposed to review a document I sent you Friday related to new gTLDs and intellectual property. I still haven't received your review of what I sent. Instead, you spend your energies on this. How unfortunate. - Evan

2 1

Rod Beckstrom responds to comments on the GA list
by Danny Younger Sept. 15, 2009

Sept. 15, 2009

As of late the GA list has been aflurry with claims of Staff censorship -- see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg03163.html It is refreshing to see the new ICANN CEO respond to community concerns. One can only hope that going forward Rod Beckstrom will choose to engage himself in discussions on all of the lists in much the same manner as did Vint Cerf (whose contributions were always appreciated).

1 0