- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Statement on proposed amendments to RAA, version II
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 30, 2008

Aug. 30, 2008

Here's the next version incorporating comments from Danny, Wendy and Carlton. I tried to recast the whole document and added introduction and conclusion, in which some of the more passionate reflections are made, though I modulated those a bit. I believe this needs to be to Tim Cole today. At this point I'm going to ask Nick, who's probably started his weekend by now, to give this a second read and then proceed with Spanish translation (and French if that's now possible). I will cc Tim so he has an idea of what's coming, but that he should be aware the final might not be completed until early next week. I'll be out Monday and with limited time online during the holiday weekend. Thanks for your contributions... Beau **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

3 3

Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Thanks, Carlton, I will make sure those get into the next draft, which I'm working on now -- I erroneously responded to Wendy's last note as if she were responding to the fast flux document, however, it doesn't really change the content, just ignore the reference to Mike O'Connor. Apologies for confusion. BB -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:00 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Brendler, Beau; ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read LACRALO has not returned a consensus position that we can report but I would wish to associate and endorse the document prepared by Beau's team. We believe that any breach of a solemn agreement must identify those that are harmed,set it right and find ways to deter the aggressor. Markets generally recognize these tenets with punitive fines for the culprits and monetary compensation for those harmed. In this context, I fully endorse Wendy's additional comments, especially the call for beneficiary status for all users affected by registrar misbehaviour. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels UWI On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > Thanks Beau, > A few points of question: > >> ICANN should require standardized Acceptable Use Policy in registration agreements to address criminal fraud, when this directly affects the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet. > > I believe it is not ICANN's or registrars' role to address criminal > activity, beyond not knowingly aiding it. > >> Enforce and make public the results of dispute mechanisms in place that obligate registrars to facilitate enforcement of abusive registration policies, such as the UDRP. > > Without endorsing any of those dispute resolution policies, I think > transparency about their effects is useful. ICANN, rather than the > registrars, should be responsible for the enforcement and disclosure, > though. > > I would still prefer to see concrete information-forcing mechanisms, > e.g., requiring prominent notification of deviations from a standard > set of contract terms. Market competition only works when consumers > know they are making a choice and understand the terms of the choice. > > Finally, I'll repeat my call for third-party beneficiary status for > the affected public. > > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > > Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim Cole a couple of weeks ago. >> >> As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a statement as possible regarding the user community's concerns. >> >> The document is brief, and in two parts: The first part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied from "Section F" of the summary document (you can find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing page here: >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa) >> Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and language in here from his own public comment document. I hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this. >> >> The second part revisits some of the initial comments made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable at this point. >> >> If you have anything to add, please do so! This represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of August, and it's here. >> >> Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this together, so please send any additions or comments to this list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the final. >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ******* >> ******** >> SCANNED >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ******* >> ******** >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ic >> ann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: >> http://st.icann.org/alac > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: +1.914.374.0613 > Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica > nn.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > http://st.icann.org/alac > *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

REMINDER: 5 September 1300 UTC: Board Liaison Candidates Presentation
by At-Large Staff Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Dear all, We would like to remind about the presentation of the ALAC Board Liaison candidates next Friday 5 September from 1300 UTC until 1400 UTC. Please find participation instructions for this teleconference and a short biography of the candidates on the meeting page: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?board_liaison_candidates_presentation Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org ------ Forwarded Message From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2008 02:56:28 -0700 To: <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> Subject: [ALAC-Announce] 5 September 1300 UTC: Board Liaison Candidates Presentation Dear all, We would like to invite you to a conference call with the ALAC Board Liaison candidates. Following a short introduction of the candidates, Wendy Seltzer and Beau Brendler will be available to answer your questions. The conference will be Friday September 5th from 1300 UTC to 1400 UTC . There will be simultaneous interpretation into French and Spanish. Participants are requested to provide their comments or questions in advance, to the extent possible, at the following URL by using the ŒComment¹ button at the top of the page: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?board_liaison_candidates_presentation You may also find participation instructions and the curricula vitae of the candidates on this page. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC-Announce mailing list ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists. icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Fast Flux Scoping Poll
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Greetings. I have attached the spreadsheet containing my answers to this questionnaire to help determine how the fast flux working group should proceed. Once again, deadlines are tight, and I had hoped to get to this before today, but: If anyone has any comments or objections to the answers I have put into the spreadsheet, please let me know as soon as possible, since it represents an ALAC position on the matter (though is preliminary to moving forward with this issue; it's more a poll of the working group to figure out how, and even if, to move forward). I will send an accompanying note to Mike describing any differences. As you can see by the note below, he wants to review the results over the weekend this weekend. Personally, I believe the user community is concerned about fraud and abuse issues associated with fast flux, and I think we should encourage this working group to continue. Fast flux is used for criminal activity, so I tend to see this issue in perhaps a more binary fashion than others. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:39 AM To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] here's my little poll -- please try to get them back to me by end-of-day Friday hi all, i humbly submit my little questionnaire and hope that you'll take a moment to fill it out. i've added one question to let people express a view as to whether they would like to focus on Fast Flux, or broaden the scope to include "fraud and abuse". again, let's not belabor the words at this point -- it's just trying to get at a sense of scope. to avoid mailing-list clutter, why don't you send your response files to me directly -- i'll smash them into a single worksheet, do some analysis, and push the whole thing back to the list. i'll finish that over the weekend and put together 3-5 options based on whatever clumps i find in there (plus some Kentucky windage) and try to get those options out to you early next week so you will have some time to look them over before the call next Wednesday. thanks! m voice: 651-647-6109 fax: 866-280-2356 web: www.haven2.com *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Fw: Phantom Registrars, Fake Pharmacies, and the Secret Infrastructure
by Danny Younger Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

Forwarded message. Danny, In our continuing effort to shed light on the dark corners of the Internet we have produced this report on the Directi Group, a fairly large player in the Registrar world. We have highlighted their use of the controversial service PrivacyProtect.org, their continued sponsorship of fake pharmacy domains, and their apparent ability to get Registrar accreditations for 48 Phantom Companies. The full report with documentation, data and links to supporting articles is here: http://www.knujon.com/news.html#directi PDF version: http://www.knujon.com/KnujonReport_directi_fakeRX_privacyprotect082808.pdf ******************************************** 48 Phantom Registrars KnujOn has found at least 48 ICANN-accredited Registrars that do not seem to exist. All of the Registrars in question are affiliated with the Directi Group (Directi, PublicDomainsRegistry, Answerable, LogicBoxes). Our attention was first brought to them when we released our report of the Ten Worst Registrars for illicit domains, spam, and false registrations. At the time, in some records Directi’s address was listed as: “14525 SW Millikan #48732 Beaverton Oregon”. Directi has since denied this and now disclosed its address as being in Mumbai, India. This prompted us to take a closer look at all the Registrars in Internic’s (ICANN) directory affiliated with Directi and presenting themselves as being located in the United States. 8 Directi–affiliated Registrars list their address on the Internic Registrar Directory as: 14525 SW Millikan #48732 Beaverton Oregon. In examining the directory for the other 40 Direct-affiliated Registrars, we find an even more confusing address: 15 West 47th Street New York, NY 10036 Oregon United States +1-650-331-0716 The first line is obviously ambiguous with “Oregon” on the end of a New York address. An additional layer of confusion is added by the fact that “650-331-0716” is a San Mateo, California phone number. So, where are these companies? New York, Oregon, California or Mumbai? There is nothing wrong with having multiple business locations, but this fact is not disclosed on any their websites or at Internic. Next, we set out to verify if any of these companies were real. Because of the confusing addresses we researched the New York, Oregon, California and India business registries. None of the Directi-affiliated companies listed in the Internic Registrar Directory are real licensed companies: Jumbo Name, Inc. Your Domain King, Inc. Fenominal, Inc. Game For Names, Inc. Ever Ready Names, Inc. Find Good Domains, Inc. Go Full House, Inc. Instinct Solutions, Inc. Name Perfections, Inc. Need Servers, Inc. Network Savior, Inc. Power Carrier, Inc. Power Namers, Inc. Super Name World, Inc. Tech Tyrants, Inc. The Registrar Service, Inc. Trade Starter, Inc. Unpower, Inc. Venus Domains, Inc. Yellow Start, Inc. Zone Casting, Inc. Extend Names, Inc. Extremely Wild Key Registrar, Inc. Magic Friday, Inc. Name To Fame, Inc. Net Juggler, Inc. Unified Servers, Inc. Names Bond, Inc. Specific Name, Inc. Genuine Names, Inc. Best Site Names, Inc. Get Real Names, Inc. Global Names Online, Inc. Naming Associate, Inc. The Names Registration, Inc. Cool Ocean, Inc. Names Real, Inc. Big Domain Shop, Inc. Colossal Names, Inc. Click Registrar, Inc. Cotton Water, Inc. Crystal Coal, Inc. Curious Net, Inc. Domain Band, Inc. Domain Mantra, Inc. Platinum Registrar, Inc. There is an expression that a company can “exist only on paper”, but in this case we don’t even have that. ******************************************** The Fake Pharmacies We have collected content and data for the 19,000 plus domains using the PrivacyProtect.org service that have been advertised through spam and narrowed the analysis down to 9,156 domains that are currently active. What has been found is very interesting and helps explain how a rogue Registrar can play a big role in supporting massive fake pharmacy networks. Starting with a list of 1,820 fake pharmacy domains all using PrivacyProtect.org and all registered through Directi/PublicDomainsRegistry we find these sites are all served from 132.206.106.15, an IP at the McGill University (likely a compromised machine, maybe even that of a student). Half of the content for the sites is served from an IP in Austria, the other half from an IP in the UK. (See the full list) We could call McGill today and get this IP closed but it would only be a temporary obstacle for the criminals. In fact, since KnujOn collected this data the sites have already moved to 61.153.209.98, which is Donghai University in China. These networks are very nimble, the content is highly portable and deployed by scripted kits. This is where the Registrar comes in. They have to make the sites resolve at a new location quickly. The IP addresses of the fake pharmacies change, but the Registrar and proxy registration service are constants. The nameservers for these sites are all at Directi/PublicDomainsRegistry and also shielded by PrivacyProtect.org. Their subtle misdirection provides cover. If a consumer complains to Directi/PublicDomainsRegistry about these sites they simply direct them to the ISP host that serves the content. If and when the site content is closed by the ISP host, Directi/PublicDomainsRegistry just helps them set up at a new IP. The true owners are of course shielded by PrivacyProtect.org. It’s a cycle they have adapted to, so the fake online pharmacy business continues with minimal interruptions. (Download full list of Directi/PrivacyProtect Rx domains with most recent IP) ******************************************** Secret Infrastructure The service that shields ownership of the unlicensed pharmacies, PrivacyProtect.org, is itself a phantom with undisclosed ownership. It was revealed in a Washington Post article that the Directi Group actually owns PrivacyProtect.org, a fact they did not deny when they responded to the article. In summary, we have thousands of illicit domains cloaked by a company which is also anonymously owned. The domains are all sponsored by the Directi Group which is affiliated with 48 Registrars that cannot be proven to be real entities. Clearly there are serious problems with oversight, due diligence, and accountability. How can the consumer be protected under these conditions? While Directi claims they will suspend illicit domains, KnujOn has found on many occasions Directi sponsored domains being removed temporarily only to be restored after a brief period with the same content (See "Suspended" Pharmacy Domains Reappear at Same Registrar & Nameserver). The sheer volume of fake pharmacies at Directi is daunting, and given the fact that they can all be traced to one source: PrivacyProtect.org, would it not be time for Directi to reconsider its relationship with PrivacyProtect.org if they are serious about solving the problem? As for ICANN, how is it possible that so many companies can be granted accreditation with unverified credentials? -Garth ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com http://www.knujon.com Presenting at the NYC OWASP 09.24.08 http://www.owasp.org/index.php/OWASP_NYC_AppSec_2008_Conference

1 0

Suspension of Jeff Williams
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

Based on numerous complaints and a continued insistence on posting personal attacks and irrelevant messages, I have exercised my discretion as Chair to once again suspend postings by Jeff Williams to the NA-Discuss list. As this is his third infraction, the current suspension will last one year and end August 29, 2009. This action is supported by the Secretariat of NARALO as well as many (most?) other participants in the region. While this is an action that I do not take lightly, I have reduced tolerance for efforts which appear designed to provoke and obstruct rather than to inform or engage. - Evan

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

Since I was a part of this group (contributing to its earlier incarnation, but not to the "hypotheses" phase that began June 25 or so), I'd like to volunteer to help facilitate discussion and comment within ALAC. Some of the GAC hypotheses mirror what I believe are user community concerns/perceptions of WHOIS. I think the ALAC should review the whole document, but at minimum focus on what the GAC has put forward. Even if the ALAC can't agree, the user community's voice needs to be heard on this issue. For additional perspective I have attached the final version (in its entirety, no longer preliminary) of the New York state study we conducted that I presented to the ALAC in Paris, including the questions on WHOIS and other ICANN issues (grouped towards the end). The study is statistically significant for New York state only, but I believe the results should encourage us to look beyond the traditional "privacy vs. law enforcement" deadlock. Please do not distribute any of this data outside these groups, as we are planning to release it to the press as part of an anti-fraud campaign in Sept., Oct. and November. BB -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:02 AM To: whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] FW: Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached Dear Working Group Members and At-Large Community Members: Attached please find the report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group to the GNSO Council as requested by the Council in its resolution of 26 June 2008. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

4 10

El documento del procedimiento revisado de apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad para el año fiscal 2009
by At-Large Staff Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

El documento del procedimiento revisado de apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad para el año fiscal 2009 http://www.icann.org/es/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-es.h tm 11 August 2008 1. 0 Antecedentes En varias ocasiones, la comunidad ha solicitado a ICANN que considere el apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad de diversas maneras, y que aporte claridad y transparencia en los procedimientos relacionados con este apoyo. ICANN dispone de un mayor número de recursos que en el pasado y es lógico que en estos momentos se vuelva a considerar el método que emplea ICANN para apoyar los viajes de los integrantes. A medida que madura la institución ICANN, se hace cada vez más importante realizar un análisis correcto del método de apoyo a los viajes y que éste se documente e implemente con transparencia. Muchas personas de la comunidad han solicitado un mayor apoyo para los viajes, aunque evidentemente no todas están de acuerdo. Además de los muchos comentarios anecdóticos que se recibieron de la comunidad, se organizó un foro de debate público durante la reunión de ICANN en Delhi en febrero de 2008. Asimismo, se abrió un foro público entre el 3 de marzo y el 24 de abril de 2008 durante el que se recibieron distintos comentarios. (Para obtener un resumen de estos comentarios, consulte: http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-policy/msg00009.html.) También, el 2 de junio de 2008 se publicó un documento que propone una política específica para viajes. Consulte: http://www.icann.org/topics/travel-support/draft-procedure-22may08.htm . Este documento recibió una importante cantidad de comentarios por escrito, además de otros comentarios que se recibieron durante la reunión de ICANN en París. El resumen de los comentarios del foro se encuentra disponible en: http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-draft/msg00013.html Sobre la base de este amplio debate que comprende dos consultas por escrito y debates públicos, el personal de ICANN propone un procedimiento actualizado para el apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad para las reuniones que ICANN lleva a cabo tres veces al año. (Nota: la palabra ³ procedimiento ² se usa en lugar de ³ política ² para evitar confusiones con el trabajo central de elaboración de políticas de ICANN). Este procedimiento se aplicará a los viajes para asistir a las reuniones de ICANN durante el año fiscal 2009. La eficacia de este procedimiento, incluso la cantidad de financiación o de cobertura de apoyo, procesos, etc., se revisará al final del año fiscal. La revisión se dará a conocer al público, y se considerarán los cambios necesarios para el procedimiento de viajes. 1.1 Propósito del apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad La participación en el modelo multilateral de ICANN implica costos de tiempo, energía, esfuerzo y, a menudo, gastos personales. Es completamente adecuado que los ingresos de ICANN, derivados de las tarifas de los registrantes, compensen una parte de estos costos. Al mismo tiempo, una de las ventajas de ICANN es que enlaza una variedad de intereses bajo el parasol de una comunidad cuya pasión y dedicación no se miden en términos financieros. Durante años, la práctica de ICANN ha sido compensar algunos de los costos de participación. Por ejemplo, la Junta directiva de ICANN y los coordinadores respectivos reciben la compensación de los gastos de viajes relacionados con ICANN. Tanto los miembros del Comité de nominaciones como los del Comité asesor de alcance también han recibido compensación para los gastos de viajes relacionados con las reuniones de ICANN. Evidentemente, existe un punto de equilibro entre propósito y presupuesto que se debe tener en cuenta a la hora de considerar hasta dónde ampliar el método de apoyo a los viajes y según qué principios. Dado que un objetivo principal del modelo multilateral de ICANN es el desarrollo de políticas, parece lógico ampliar el apoyo a los viajes disponibles a las organizaciones de apoyo (SO) que establecen la política de ICANN, ahora que ICANN cuenta con los recursos necesarios para respaldar esta ampliación. En general, el objetivo de financiar el apoyo para viajes debería ser disminuir las barreras para la participación, ampliar el grupo de participantes y adelantar el trabajo de ICANN. Es importante no perder de vista el hecho de que una manera clave de mejorar la participación es seguir mejorando la participación remota y aprovechar al máximo los gastos de viaje; realizando viajes de la manera más económica posible para el beneficio del mayor número de viajantes posible. 1.2 Revisión del apoyo actual a los viajes para las reuniones de ICANN Junta directiva y coordinadores de ICANN : la Junta directiva de ICANN recibe compensación para gastos razonables de viaje y alojamiento con el fin de participar en las reuniones de ICANN. Para los viajes con una duración superior a cinco horas, el viaje del miembro de la Junta directiva se reserva con pasajes en clase Business. Justificación: los miembros de la Junta directiva de ICANN tienen la responsabilidad personal y profesional más importante de la organización ICANN. La intención de este nivel de apoyo es reconocer dicha responsabilidad y proporcionar un mayor nivel de eficacia y comodidad durante sus viajes en nombre de ICANN. ALAC : actualmente, todos los miembros del comité reciben compensación para pasajes en clase Economy y un diario para participar en las principales reuniones de ICANN. Justificación: cuando se estableció la organización de alcance, se determinó la importancia de financiar la participación a través de viajes de todos los miembros del ALAC para respaldar las actividades iniciales. En la reunión de ICANN en París, la Junta directiva adoptó una resolución que afecta a los viajes de la estructura de alcance de dos maneras. En primer lugar, la Junta directiva aprobó una financiación específica para viajes para una sola ocasión, la cumbre de alcance. Esta cumbre se realizará junto con una asamblea de ICANN, y se financiarán los gastos para que un miembro de cada ALS asista a la reunión. En segundo lugar, la Junta directiva reconoció el hito que representa esta cumbre en el proceso de madurez de la organización de alcance, y solicitó que el apoyo futuro para viajes del ALAC coincida con el nivel de apoyo que se brinda al resto de las organizaciones de ICANN (según se documenta en este procedimiento de viajes). Comité de nominaciones : en general, los miembros del Comité de nominaciones no reciben compensación para viajes a las reuniones de ICANN, pero sí se compensan los gastos razonables y los pasajes en clase Economy para todas las reuniones de dicho Comité (el presidente actual, el vicepresidente y el presidente anterior del Comité de nominaciones reciben compensación por la participación en las reuniones de ICANN). Justificación: el trabajo del Comité de nominaciones va más allá del trabajo normal de desarrollo de políticas de ICANN, por lo que los gastos de los participantes se apoyan por completo. Programa de becas : ICANN ha operado durante el último año, aproximadamente, un programa de becas. El objetivo específico de este programa es aumentar la participación de personas y regiones que de otro modo no podrían participar en una reunión de ICANN. Los becarios reciben compensación para pasajes de clase Economy más un diario para participar en las reuniones de ICANN. Justificación : el propósito explícito de este programa es proporcionar apoyo a los viajes con el fin de ampliar la participación. 2.0 Procedimiento propuesto para el apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad El procedimiento propuesto para el apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad incluirá elementos de los procedimientos existentes para la Junta directiva y los coordinadores de ICANN, el ALAC y el Comité de nominaciones (se consideran los cambios esperados en los viajes del ALAC). Además, ampliará el apoyo financiero para incluir las organizaciones de apoyo de ICANN. No ofrece apoyo a los viajes a otras organizaciones de ICANN. Se mencionó en la reunión de ICANN en París y, con posterioridad, el presidente del GAC solicitó formalmente que el GAC reciba apoyo adicional para viajes (después del cierre del ciclo presupuestario para el año fiscal 2009). Para el año fiscal 2009, se espera que el programa de becas considere la posibilidad de dar prioridad a la participación del GAC (mientras se cumplan todos los criterios de becas) y que la solicitud del GAC se vuelva a evaluar durante el siguiente ciclo presupuestario, momento en que se revisará la política de viajes en su totalidad. En resumen, el nuevo procedimiento de viajes de la comunidad propone asignar fondos (según una metodología de cálculo transparente) para que cada organización de apoyo pueda destinarlos para asistir a las reuniones de ICANN. Cada organización de apoyo deberá acordar el proceso apropiado para determinar qué miembros de la unidad constitutiva recibirán dicho beneficio. En todos los casos, las solicitudes de apoyo para viajes se darán a conocer al público, y se espera que cada uno de los miembros que reciba el apoyo, presente un informe público de las actividades básicas y el interés de asistir a la reunión. Se diseñará un modelo de este informe en el programa de becas. El personal trabajará con las organizaciones de apoyo para minimizar la carga administrativa de esta actividad. 2.1 Elementos clave del procedimiento para el apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad Proporcionar apoyo financiero a los viajes a todas las organizaciones que participan en la creación de políticas para su participación en las reuniones de ICANN. (Nota: Como política, la ASO no ha aceptado fondos de apoyo para partidas como viajes. Si bien se lo reconoce, no es probable que se modifique, ya que el principio de equidad exige que la ASO sea tratada de la misma manera que otras organizaciones de apoyo en cuanto al método propuesto de apoyo a los viajes). Reservar un monto fijo para la financiación del apoyo a los viajes para cada organización de apoyo según una metodología de cálculo transparente. Cada organización de apoyo adoptará un proceso de selección y asignación para determinar qué persona de dicha organización tendrá el beneficio de la financiación, en función de cómo se satisfacen mejor las necesidades de elaboración de políticas de la entidad; los fondos sólo se pondrán usar para gastos de pasajes aéreos y otros gastos de traslado de los miembros activos de la organización de apoyo para asistir a las reuniones de ICANN. A continuación, se mencionan algunos ejemplos de lo que podría comprender el proceso de selección y asignación: un comité de viajes de la organización de apoyo con miembros de cada unidad constitutiva (o región geográfica) que sigue un proceso público para seleccionar a los miembros de la organización de apoyo que financia ICANN para asistir a cada una de sus reuniones; también dicha organización podría solicitar al personal de ICANN que lleve a cabo un proceso sobre la base de criterios que esta organización identifique. Para maximizar la participación, los viajes se harán en clase Economy. Sin embargo, el presidente de la SO viajará según la misma política que la de la Junta directiva de ICANN. La financiación del presidente con el mismo nivel que el de la Junta directiva reconoce la responsabilidad de los presidentes (similar a la de la Junta directiva) y es un pequeño incentivo para que acepten estos puestos. Un objetivo clave será hacer que la SO pueda implementar la política de apoyo con facilidad (consulte la sección ³Elementos prácticos ² a continuación). Si bien el cálculo de la financiación para el apoyo a los viajes se basa parcialmente en el tamaño de cada consejo y sus coordinadores, la SO puede decidir brindar apoyo a otros miembros representados en función de lo que sería mejor para el trabajo de elaboración de políticas de cada SO. Por ejemplo, se puede brindar apoyo a los miembros del grupo de trabajo. En todos los casos, los miembros designados por el Comité de nominaciones recibirán apoyo para viajes y en el mismo nivel que lo reciben otros miembros (según se describe en este documento de procedimiento de viajes). Los niveles de apoyo a los viajes para cada SO se determinarán del modo siguiente: ICANN asignará fondos suficientes para que el presidente, los miembros designados por el Comité de nominaciones y la mitad de los asesores restantes puedan recibir apoyo a los viajes (nuevamente, el apoyo a los viajes se podría usar para otras personas que no sean asesores). Se supondrá que el presidente viajará en clase Business. Los demás viajes se harán en clase Economy. Se supondrá que el precio medio de los pasajes en clase Economy será de USD 2 000 y en clase Business de USD 6 000. Se supondrá que el total de diarios promedios será de USD 2 800 por reunión. Se publicarán importes de diarios reales para cada reunión, en función de los estándares internacionales. Para el presupuesto del año fiscal 2009, el importe propuesto para viajes es el siguiente: ( http://www.icann.org/es/topics/travel-support/revised-procedure-11aug08-es.h tm) Cada SO y AC que reciba financiación para viajes deberá crear un proceso para la notificación pública con el fin de proporcionar transparencia y responsabilidad, así como para demostrar eficacia. La eficacia global de este nuevo procedimiento de apoyo a los viajes de la comunidad se revisará al final del año fiscal 2009. Debe tenerse en cuenta que este incremento en el presupuesto de explotación se financiará en gran medida porque el personal de ICANN viajará en clase Economy a las reuniones de ICANN. Elementos prácticos Cada organización de apoyo proporcionará al personal de ICANN una lista de los miembros de la SO que deberán recibir apoyo al menos con 60 días de anterioridad a cada reunión de ICANN. Todos los viajes se reservarán a través de una agencia de viajes aprobada por ICANN, a menos que esto no resulte práctico (determinación conjunta con el personal). Los detalles de las reservas se publicarán en el sitio web de ICANN. El personal de ICANN puede presentar excepciones para el método de viaje en clase Economy, en casos de problemas de salud documentados. ICANN pagará directamente los pasajes aéreos, otorgará una compensación razonable para otros métodos de viaje (p. ej. ferrocarril) y abonará un diario para cubrir todos los demás gastos (comidas, alojamiento, gastos varios, taxis, aparcamiento, etc.). Si ICANN paga directamente el hotel de un miembro, las comidas o el transporte, dichos costos se deducirán del diario. Dado que existen varias preguntas e inquietudes de casos especiales con respecto a los viajes, el personal de ICANN publicará y mantendrá un documento de Preguntas más frecuentes relacionado con el apoyo a los viajes. El objetivo será asegurar una buena comunicación de los detalles del apoyo a los viajes, así como una toma de decisiones justa y coherente en el transcurso del tiempo. Los participantes que acepten la financiación para viajes de ICANN deberán comprender y respetar el procedimiento de viajes y las Preguntas frecuentes relacionadas. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

The Internet's Biggest Security Hole Revealed
by Jeffrey A. Williams Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

All, As if some of us for years didn't already know... Again this was discussed on several occasions in the old DNSO and some of us felt and likely still feel that the severity of this long known security hole was downplayed or ignored by ICANN and at that time, especially the IANA. Here we are nearly 10 years later, and still ICANN hasn't yet even recognize this security hole as a significant safety and stability issue. One has to wonder why... See: At DEFCON, Tony Kapela and Alex Pilosov demonstrated a http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/08/revealed-the-in.html drastic weakness in the Internet's infrastructure that had long been rumored, but wasn't believed practical. They showed how to hijack BGP (the border gateway protocol) in order to eavesdrop on Net traffic in a way that wouldn't be simple to detect. Quoting: "'It's at least as big an issue as the DNS issue, if not bigger,' said Peiter 'Mudge' Zatko, noted computer security expert and former member of the L0pht hacking group, who testified to Congress in 1998 that he could bring down the internet in 30 minutes using a similar BGP attack, and disclosed privately to government agents how BGP could also be exploited to eavesdrop. 'I went around screaming my head about this about ten or twelve years ago... We described this to intelligence agencies and to the National Security Council, in detail.' The man-in-the-middle attack exploits BGP to fool routers into re-directing data to an eavesdropper's network." Here's the PDF of https://www.defcon.org/images/defcon-16/dc16-presentations/defcon-16-piloso… Kapela and Pilosov's presentation. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Restoring the Safety Net
by Danny Younger Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

For discussion in advance of the NARALO Monthly Meeting -- a proposal to the ALAC: Six years ago the ICANN Board resolved [02.83] to revise agreements with the unsponsored TLD registry operators so as to implement the Redemption Grace Period. The RGP is a time frame in which domain names that expire go into a period of stasis after their deletion so that inadvertent expirations can be corrected; the names are disabled during this stasis period so that the registrant's attention is better drawn to the situation. The Redemption Grace Period was widely heralded as an invaluable protective service with ICANN Director Abril i Abril noting for the record that "that the goal of the Redemption Grace Period is not purely technical or to preserve registrars' businesses, but is centered on preserving the legitimate interests of the registrants by installing a safety net." Unlike other ICANN initiatives, the RGP Safety Net was not established by way of the ICANN Consensus Policy process. The ICANN Staff sentiment at the time was that "Resolving all of the perceived issues surrounding domain-name deletions would likely require lengthy policy-development processes that meet the strict requirements for development of "Consensus Policies" set out in ICANN's various agreements with registrars and registry operators. The Redemption Grace Period proposal, on the other hand, allows a way promptly to solve a specific, pressing problem with the cooperation of the affected registry operators." Six years later, we have ample reason to believe that this error in judgment, the failure to invoke the Consensus Policy process, has led to a serious degradation in the degree of protection currently afforded to the registrant community. Framed as a "registry offering", it has been at the sole discretion of the registrar whether to offer or not to offer the Redemption Grace Period service -- and many do not. We have noted that some that offer the service will still deny the registrant the protections of the RGP in the event that they receive an aftermarket back-order for the expiring domain. What was once widely viewed as an ICANN consumer protection triumph is today little more than a degraded product offering engendering a morass of consumer confusion and aggravation, the situation having been exacerbated by the collusion of aftermarket profiteers and registrars to the point that (as indicated by Rob Hall at the Lisbon Tutorial on Changes in the Expiry Process) domains of value no longer enter the ICANN RGP. >From the very beginning, it was the sentiment of many in ICANN's GNSO community that a consensus policy approach was the best way way forward. The Business Constituency's Marilyn Cade, for one, noted that "consensus policy for RGP seems fully appropriate". We in the NARALO share this point of view and ask the ALAC, in accordance with the ICANN bylaws, to raise the issue for RGP consensus policy development by action of the Committee to commence the Policy Development Process, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council. We further ask that upon requesting the formulation of a Staff Issues Report, that Staff be directed to supply the following within such report: a. a listing of all registrars noting whether they offer or do not offer the RGP service; b. a listing, by registrar, of prices currently charged for the RGP service; c. a listing noting which registries offer or do not offer the RGP; d. an assessment of the impact of aftermarket domain name practices on the RGP e. per the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy 3.7.5.6 "If Registrar operates a website for domain registration or renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its website, any fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period", a listing of all such "statement" URLs of each registrar that offer the RGP; f. the status of the Bucharest recommendation of the Technical Steering Group that "ICANN's President should re-convene this (or a similar) Technical Steering Group to review the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible improvements to the Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification for Stage 2 of the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will enable registrants to choose the “restoring” registrar." g. an assessment as to whether it is now possible to engage in renegotiation of the charges for each restore command -- first set at $85 by ICANN and thereafter at $40, but with development costs long since amortized by the respective registries. We in the North American user community see great value in a universal safety net and in the enhanced registrar competition that will allow RGP prices to fall as consumers choose between the services offered by competing "restoring" registrars. A consensus policy directive should ultimately ensure that all gTLD domain name consumers have the blanket protection that they deserve. We ask the ALAC to set us upon a path that will bring this vision to fruition.

5 6