- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] ALAC Review / Comment Periods
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 19, 2008

June 19, 2008

JFC and all, It is clear to me, and most of our members that ICANN still does not yet understand or doesn not wish to understand that an @large comprised of users of many sorts is. It is becomming clear that the same is true of the ALAC and seemingly several of the RALO's. What is becoming clear is that the ALAC and the RALO's are willing to do the ICANN staff and Bod's bidding even if that means limiting to a great degree active participation of users from whatever nationality they are from. JFC Morfin wrote: > At 10:56 19/06/2008, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >I thought I would make a point here which might be helpful with > >respect to the timing of making statements about the draft ALAC Review report. > > > >The consultation going on now is so that the draft may be publicly > >discussed in Paris, for those who feel that something is missing (as > >in you said something to the review which you believe has been left > >out), and this text hasn't been reviewed by the Board, the ALAC > >Review Committee, or anyone else. > > > >This is not to say that comments aren't welcome - on the contrary, > >as you know I'm always asking for the community to comment more, not > >less :). I just want to make sure everyone understands that the > >report will have a full comment period after it is finalised. This > >is the first of two comment periods on the report and I'm sure any > >next steps after the report will similarly be posted for public > >comment too, just as you have seen with the GNSO Review. > > Dear Nick, > the document(s) we got are big documents which are not proposed in an > easy to work on way (not a mail, not a wiki). The first thing I used > to do with that kind of document is to port them to a workable format > (which usually means to go line by line from a PDF ASCII copy to a > Open Office text, then to a wiki format if I want to work on it with > other france@large experts or members, as we did for the IDN report I > gave the URL yesterday). > > We are half the way through with many other important things to do, > due to the revamp of our strategy after our non-accreditation and our > recent press-release with a fundamental france@large meeting on July > 2nd. We are extremely attentive to this document we have not yet > started discussing since we will discuss the ATLAX project on July > 2nd, and want to understand how it will stand in comparison to ALAC. > > >I've also made a request that this comment period be lengthened, as > >translations will not be ready until only a few days before the > >present comment period is meant to end, and without translations > >many in AFRALO and LACRALO will be unable to respond on an equal > >basis to everyone else. > > This is a key issue. Comment period should start when all the > material to be considered is available. I do not understand why you > do not mention EURALO, APRALO, NARALO in your comment. When only > considering the French Language, it is an administrative language in > these RALO. > > >If you feel that the comment period is too short - do comment in > >that vein to the comment address and let Westlake know in Paris (for > >those of you who are going to be in Paris). > > We certainly will individually as france@large had adopted that > position. I take the opportunity to underline that we have not > received your answer in French to our accreditation. This language > problem is a way to for ICANN to measure the difficulty of what we > call multilinguistics (the practical support of the linguistic > diversity) they obviously have not fully understood as the IDNC > propositions show it. > > >Of course, the point made that any NARALO perspectives which are > >made clear can only help NARALO members attending Paris is IMHO > >entirely relevant, FWIW. > >I hope these comments are helpful - that's certainly the intent. > > Nick, we take your comment as helpful. We have not even fully read > the main document and just perused the first one. What strikes me is > that it does not interest me. I mean by this that it considers the > interest of ALAC for ICANN, but not for @larges. Most of the ALAC > problem is that participants are "ICANN professionnals". I did not > even found a definition of what is an "@large" and an anlysis of its > different types and motivations. But I may be wrong as, frankly we > had no time to read the document. > > I just regret that ICANN must pay external consultant to explain it > about the @large they throw away seven years ago, and they seem to > want to enregiment into a strategic plan. > > jfc > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org 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

Fw: Re: [ga] .xxx Registry Files for Independent Review
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

All, FYI thanks to Danny. Read and weap or rejoice, depending on your particular bent. -----Forwarded Message----- >From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Sent: Jun 17, 2008 4:28 PM >To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org, denise.michel(a)icann.org, ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov, stacy.burnette(a)icann.org >Cc: aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, jeffrey(a)icann.org, twomey(a)icann.org, robert(a)privaterra.org, vb(a)bertola.eu >Subject: Re: [ga] .xxx Registry Files for Independent Review > >Danny and all, > > Well, well, well... My how the worm turns, eh? > > I for one am not surprised at this perfictly reasonable >filing and the reasons given by ICM, even though I personally >am against their original patition for .XXX. As to competition >in this "Space", no pun intended, I believe that there is >"Plenty" of competition, if you'll pardong the pun, all be >it that in this Market segment that competition is not >as substancial ( Exceptions .org, .com, .info, .ws, .it, >.tk, and the always popular .sl, for somwhat obvious >reasons )at the TLD level, so to speek. > > I am also sure that the Domain Name speculators were >and remain disappointed that .XXX was shot down for >moral reasons, contrary to ICANN's stated reasons >as Danny's provided links falsely indicate. The >permiations for domain names in the proposed .XXX >have rather interesting cultural and denoted meanings >as it were that might have some significant value to >future interested parties. > > However making money in the explotation of persons >of dubious behaviors is not reasonably exceptable, >and should not be. Yet ICANN's reason for rejecting >the patition should have been a completely honest one >from the onstart, which is telling in how ICANN determins >what is and what is not acceptable for a TLD of sTLD in >this case. > > So either ICANN abides by it's own bylaws and policies >or it doesn't. Can we say, "Hoist on it's own patard" >again? > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >>Sent: Jun 17, 2008 10:11 AM >>To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >>Subject: [ga] .xxx Registry Files for Independent Review >> >> >>http://www.icmregistry.com/IRP/Request.pdf >>http://www.icmregistry.com/press.html >> >> >> > >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

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Dominik and all, There has been an effort all be it weak, simply and mostly because the NARALO and the ALAC is seeking funding FROM ICANN. As such being too assertive would not be in the best interests of those in the NARALO or the ALAC that either don't know how to use the internet to generate their own funding, or are too lazy to do so using sweat equity in order to get that ball rolling, as it were... Ergo, the RALO's and the ALAC will either be captured and thereby controled by funding of the hand that feed's it, or never be very effective, if effective at all. Reality has a way of being humbeling. P.S., frankly I cant see how ICANN can fund the RALO's or the ALAC as a 501(c3) corp. anyway. So the NARALO and the ALAC's leadership would be well advised to either demonstrate some REAL leadership or resign and ask the members for someone to step up and provide responsible, REAL leadership. Thankfully, never has, nor does INEGroup suffer from a weak keadership and/or a deficit in behavior that allows for such deficiencies. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 17, 2008 2:09 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >Or, in other words, the NARALO effort was not worthy of any single ALAC >vote in favour of it. From the outside view it seems as though as any >such effort never existed. > >Sad but reality. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik >Filipp >Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 10:16 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch; Bret Fausett >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >Leibovitch >Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:36 AM >To: Bret Fausett >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >> There are voices here who say ALAC was too compromising on tasting >> even _with_ the pressure from NARALO to get rid of the AGP. >> Imagine what the position would have been had the voice of NARALO been > >> further diminished. >> >> - Evan > >I am afraid, the position would be almost the same. The final tasting >proposal was almost completely taken from Jeff Neumans's .BIZ registry >vision just decorated with some cosmetics. The ALAC in fact seconded it >unanimously and did not append any remarkable input. Despite all the >valuable effort coming from the NARALO community. > >Dominik > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org > >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 >.icann.org > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ 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

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Dominik and all, Domain Name tasting is still with us, and given the non-solution that did NOT enjoy the consensus of the NARALO or the ALAC it shall reamin a problem. Elimination of the AGP would definately have solved the problem IF proper oversight by the registrars was done in addition to oversight by the ICANN staff and insistance of DOC/NTIA of that oversight. But as any reasonably intelegant person whom understands Domain Name Tasting and front running, nither ICANN nor the Registrars want Domain Name Tasting to go away entirely as the loss in fees for such registrations of Domain Names would be lost as well. Lets face it, this is yet again a lack of responsible leadership problem and originally created by the ICANN bod and the GNSO council with being short sighted in crafting the RAA contracts years ago, even though at the time this issue, than unnamed was articulated. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 17, 2008 1:15 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >Leibovitch >Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2008 12:36 AM >To: Bret Fausett >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >> There are voices here who say ALAC was too >> compromising on tasting even _with_ the >> pressure from NARALO to get rid of the AGP. >> Imagine what the position would have been >> had the voice of NARALO been further diminished. >> >> - Evan > >I am afraid, the position would be almost the same. The final tasting >proposal was almost completely taken from Jeff Neumans's .BIZ registry >vision just decorated with some cosmetics. The ALAC in fact seconded it >unanimously and did not append any remarkable input. Despite all the >valuable effort coming from the NARALO community. > >Dominik > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists >.icann.org > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ 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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Dominik and all, My response in interspersed below. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 16, 2008 3:06 AM >To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >Jacqueline A. Morris >Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:03 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris > >> Jacqueline Morris wrote: >> >> yes, the GAC is very powerful without any >> voting Board seat. And one of the reasons >> that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary >> to have a voting seat to have influence. >> I think that there's a concept that the vote >> means something in and of itself - honestly, >> if we have 40% of the Board seats , we can >> still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected, >> and have no influence! Whereas as you see with >> the GAC, you don't need to vote if you can >> persuade the people who have votes to vote your way. > >Jacqueline, do you mean this seriously or is this just a joke? The GAC >as an official governmental body and as such IMHO it has by its nature >an exclusively unique status within ICANN. If At-Large had 40% of the >Board seats and still lost every vote then it would be solely the >problem of At-Large from which it could still recover after making some >necessary internal changes. Without any seat At-Large can be doing its >best and there is no guarantee to achieve anything, that is a >second-class status. I didn't get the impression that Jacque was joking at all, nor was she IMO far off the mark either, dominik. However your point is also well taken as a matter of transparency, openness and accountability as such relates to ICANN and the ICANN bod in particular. Without the majority of the ICANN bod seats populated by user determined/voted upon representatives, ICANN will never achieve it's mandate and government entities independantly will legislate and regulate the Internet as they see fit. Some of this is already underway. So yes, the ALAC and the ALS'es are indeed in second class status. > >And what about to cancel all biased seats so that all the bodies are >given the same chance to persuade an independent group of people with >voting right. And what are the biased seats? The seats that, for >instance, voted for the Verisign agreement, or for the degradation of >the At-Large status to a second-class advisory body. Well from where I and our members sit, as users and user-registrants, we can no only vote with our $$ and business relationship choices. Our members are actively doing so, and will continue to do so until we are fully represented as one voice, one vote per user AND a majority on the ICANN bod. We will continue to oppose abuses as we and the law define them via the court systems if and when necessary or appropriate as some of our members have done in respect to the IPC's RIAA and the EU equivelents. > >A bit shocking for me, Jacqueline > >Dominik > >------ >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 >------ 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

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Bret and all, I know our members will never agree to proportional representation model nor representatives appointed instead of elected to represent their interests and/or issues/concerns. Such a model is by design non-representative and undemocratic. So I myself agree with some of your concerns here Bret. The history of ICANN and so far the ALAC/ALS'es "Appointments" of representatives has been obismal and shown to be less than effectively representing actual user stated issues and concerns. -----Original Message----- >From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Sent: Jun 16, 2008 10:05 AM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >> * Create two new ALAC positions, appointed by the Nominating >> Committee, both from Asia, to reflect that region's increased >> proportion of global Internet users > >I understand the thinking here, but I can see some downside to >"proportional representation," either by absolute population or >population of Internet users. > >First, are you going to take away a representative from Africa under >the same theory? > >Second, even within a region, the ALAC representatives aren't >distributed in accord with the population. If you have proportional >representation across the five regions, don't you then have to do it >within the regions? If the point of increasing the AP ALAC members is >to reflect the population, doesn't same principle dictate that of the >five proposed Asia-Pacific representatives, China always have at least >three and India at least one? I see no real way of making this work in >a manner that reflects the population. Five ALAC representatives from >English-speaking Australia and New Zealand wouldn't really address the >problems the Review Committee is trying to solve. > >Finally, has there been a complaint that some needs are being unmet by >the current representatives? What are those complaints? If there are >none, perhaps we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. > >This is a subject I'd be interesting in hearing more about. > > Bret > > > > > > > > > >------ >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 >------ 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

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Roland and all, Thanks for chiming in Roeland. Good to have an old timer like yourself provide historic wisdom of which you are so well known for. I for one fully agree that censoring content itself is a slippery slope and should be avoided for the very reasons you so nicely stated. Additionally Registries and Registrars cannot adaquately oversee their registrants, and ICANN isn't willing to do so. This leaves Government LEA's to perform that function, which also isn't at times a very effective or wise idea. Yet FISA suggests doing just that in the US. And Canada as well as the UK have similar legislation and/or regulation nearing compleation to do likewise. ACTA for instance, a very recently negotiated in secret agreement between the US, Canada, and the EU countries is about to be considered for in part, the purposes of addressing content related issues, including IP interests and Child pornography content. If anyone want's some refrences on ACTA, please contact me off-list, I will be happy to forward them. -----Original Message----- >From: RoelandM(a)RoelandMeyer.Org >Sent: Jun 16, 2008 10:49 AM >To: "'Jeffrey A. Williams'" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, "'Brendler,Beau'" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, bev(a)pcna.ca, icann-list(a)sorehands.com, namecritic(a)blogs.pn, bfausett(a)internet.law.pro, CWallace(a)cygnacom.com, carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm, dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, dave(a)farber.net, denise.michel(a)icann.org, derek(a)aa419.org, dpefeva(a)isoc.bg, dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk, elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr, enoss(a)tucows.com, frederic.teboul(a)icann.org, shearman(a)victoria.tc.ca, cgomes(a)verisign.com, jeffrey(a)icann.org, iza(a)anr.org, jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, jefsey(a)club-internet.fr, baptista(a)publicroot.org, john-ietf(a)jck.com, jpalmer(a)american-webmasters.net, Julie.myers(a)dhs.gov, matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org, mike(a)palage.com, michele(a)blacknight.ie, Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us, jnevett(a)networksolutions.com, nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org, twomey(a)icann.org, rguerra(a)privaterra.org, robert(a)privaterra.org, roberto(a)icann.org, ross(a)tucows.com, stacy.burnette(a)icann.org, sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr, Thomas.E.Wrosch(a)STATE.OR.US, roessler(a)does-not-exist.org, DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA, vb(a)bertola.eu, joly(a)punkcast.com >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study > >I have a difficult time believing that anyone would even consider registries responsible for content. This was a battle that we all fought long and hard over , in 1999. This skates perilously close to the edge of that slippery slope where we start denying domain registrations due to (perceived) content. When you start blocking any of them then the precedent is set and opens DNS registrations up to all sorts of insane censorship issues. The next thing you know, you will have some religious whacktard demanding that breastcancer.org be deleted because it contains the word "breast". > >What needs to happen is that bot-farmers and phishing racketeers need to start doing some serious jail time. International alliances need to be setup to do this, not forcing the registry operators to become unpaid "police". They should not be allowed to volunteer for that role either. > >We can find the bot farmers and we can catch the racketeers. What we can't seem to do is get them to spend more than three months in jail. > >For most of you on this list, yes I am the same rmeyer(a)mhsc.com that was on the IFWP and DNSO. I am currently a director of the TLDA with Joe Baptista. > > >--- >R O E L A N D M J M E Y E R >Nyon, CH >mailto: RoelandM(a)RoelandMeyer.Org >http://www.RoelandMeyer.Org >Mob: +41 79 295 14 68 > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:11 PM >> To: Wendy Seltzer; Brendler,Beau; aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov; >> ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov >> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; bev(a)pcna.ca; icann- >> list(a)sorehands.com; namecritic(a)blogs.pn; Brenbe(a)consumer.org; >> bfausett(a)internet.law.pro; CWallace(a)cygnacom.com; >> carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm; dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; >> dave(a)farber.net; denise.michel(a)icann.org; derek(a)aa419.org; >> dpefeva(a)isoc.bg; dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk; >> elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr; enoss(a)tucows.com; >> frederic.teboul(a)icann.org; shearman(a)victoria.tc.ca; >> cgomes(a)verisign.com; jeffrey(a)icann.org; iza(a)anr.org; >> jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; jefsey(a)club-internet.fr; >> baptista(a)publicroot.org; john-ietf(a)jck.com; jpalmer@american- >> webmasters.net; Julie.myers(a)dhs.gov; matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org; >> mike(a)palage.com; michele(a)blacknight.ie; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; >> jnevett(a)networksolutions.com; nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org; >> twomey(a)icann.org; rguerra(a)privaterra.org; robert(a)privaterra.org; >> roberto(a)icann.org; roelandm(a)roelandmeyer.org; ross(a)tucows.com; >> stacy.burnette(a)icann.org; sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr; >> Thomas.E.Wrosch(a)STATE.OR.US; roessler(a)does-not-exist.org; >> DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA; vb(a)bertola.eu; wendy(a)seltzer.com; >> joly(a)punkcast.com >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study >> >> Wendy and all, >> >> I agree. Registries should not be held accountable for >> "Content". They are in part at least responsible for >> DNS configuration as such is a safty and security issue. >> Which was what this Mcafee study was all about. >> >> From my and our members experiance and to a great extent, >> our independant study, your accurate in that older DN's >> "Tend", but are all not necessarly less "infested" or >> "Dangerous" than newer DN's. Dot info domain names are far >> too often more "Dangerous" from a DNS configuration stand >> point than most, other than .cn .hu, .ca, .it, .co.uk, >> com.za, .com.au, .in and .ru, and more recently, .us. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >> >Sent: Jun 9, 2008 12:23 PM >> >To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study >> > >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >Hash: SHA1 >> > >> >I'm not Afilias, but I'd tend to say that domain name doesn't equal >> >content, and a registry is not and should not be responsible for >> >domains' uses. >> > >> >I'm not sure this study is any more representative or useful than >> "older >> >sites tend to be less infested than newer ones" or "URLs that start >> with >> >WWW differ from those that don't." >> > >> >- --Wendy >> > >> >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> >> Thanks, Jaqueline, that's interesting. I'd also be really interested >> to >> >> hear Afilias' response to this characterization of .info. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 1:33 PM >> >> To: Brendler, Beau >> >> Cc: At-Large Worldwide >> >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study >> >> >> >> Hi Beau >> >> There's been some discussion on the cc lists about this as you can >> >> imagine. >> >> Here's the .hk response to the media: >> >> >> >> We are very surprised to learn about the research findings from >> McAfee. >> >> In fact, in a meeting organized by Anti-Phishing Working Group last >> week >> >> in Tokyo Japan, Hong Kong Domain Name Registration (HKDNR) was >> invited >> >> to present its best practice in combating suspicious websites. We >> are >> >> trying to get in touch with the research author to gain more >> insights >> >> into this research and the findings. The research report shows the >> >> figures and analysis of the whole of last year. In particular, the >> >> report claimed that 9.9 million websites have been tested. It is >> >> suspected that most of the malicious sites were tested several >> months >> >> ago and no long exist. >> >> >> >> HKDNR is committed to providing a safe Internet environment for the >> >> community and has put in place various measures against suspicious >> >> websites. We have been working closely with Office of the >> >> Telecommunications Authority (OFTA), Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong >> >> Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre (HKCERT) to >> monitor >> >> and control the situation. In August last year, in conjunction with >> the >> >> list of suspicious domains provided by OFTA, we suspended over >> 10,000 >> >> domains in regard. Following that initiatives, the situation with >> '.hk' >> >> related suspicious websites has been greatly improved. >> >> >> >> We actively review our systems and domain name registration >> procedures >> >> and policies. Particularly, we have more stringent documentary >> >> requirements to combat suspicious websites registered overseas in >> order >> >> to catch up with the fast-changing Internet world. We also want to >> call >> >> for the general community to be aware of the issue and report to >> related >> >> authorities whenever they have queries accessing a web site. >> >> >> >> >> >> Brendler, Beau wrote: >> >>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24966835?GT1=43001 >> >>> >> >>> "McAfee found the most dangerous domains to navigate to are ".hk" >> >>> (Hong Kong), ".cn" (China) and ".info" (information)." >> >>> >> >>> Apologies if you've seen this already. >> >>> >> >>> BB >> >>> >> > >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) >> >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> > >> >iD8DBQFITYNEuuui10VsrVERAqc+AJ96GWQ9v+NDJWId5c8LWCLnZopX2gCfbMuT >> >bnubsA10ZEEcJI2Fcvya3D8= >> >=q+cj >> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >ALAC mailing list >> >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- >> lists.icann.org >> > >> >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > >-- >All messages scanned with ClamWin anti-virus. >http://www.roelandmeyer.org >Complaints mailto:abuse@roelandmeyer.org > 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

Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Eduardo and all, I believe strongly that we know what the most important issues that users are concerned about. No. 1. on the list is Internet safty. This issue has several parts to it of course, one is DNS security which falls directly withing ICANN perview and remains largely unaddressed presently. The second most inportant issue that users are concerned about, and rightly so, is lack of compliance to the RAA's by registries and registrars as well as recomendations and suggestions put forth as a matter of the RAA-WG. Again and unfortunately according to Roberto the ICANN bod is seemingly unwilling to address those defined suggestions/recomendations vis a vi the RAA contracts. -----Original Message----- >From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz(a)prtc.net> >Sent: Jun 16, 2008 11:47 AM >To: 'Evan Leibovitch' <evan(a)telly.org>, 'NA Discuss' <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >All: > >I have read the document. It seems that the ALAC structure is becoming and >going but there is still much work to do. Count us in for working in >developing the strategic/operational plans for next year. Hopefully , we'll >learn enough about the issues at hand (what's is important and what is not) >and be able to participate more actively. > >-ed > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >Leibovitch >Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:46 AM >To: NA Discuss >Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >Well, folks, here it is. > >Summary of recommendations: >http://icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-draft-summary-recommendations-13jun08.pdf > >Full report: >http://icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-independent-review-final-draft-13jun08.pd >f > >Highlights: > > * Create two new ALAC positions, appointed by the Nominating > Committee, both from Asia, to reflect that region's increased > proportion of global Internet users > * No other structural changes to ALAC composition > * Give the existing structure a chance to work, but review the > effectiveness of the RALO/ALS structure at the next ALAC review > * Status quo regarding Board representation -- liaison with no vote > * ALAC should establish an annual Statement of Intent as well as > Strategic and Operational Plans > * Increase in dedicated staff to one person per region > * Increase the public comment period to allow ALAC more time to > adequately respond to issues > * More effective use of web-based tools to increase user > participation; specifically, preference of wikis over mailing lists > * Staff control over said web-based tools > * Regular ALS compliance reviews > >There will be a workshop on the ALAC review held in the Paris meeting, >and four people (Robert, Beau, Darlene and myself) will be representing >NARALO there. While Wendy and Alan are not specifically there to >represent us, they can still help advance our region's view. > >Comments -- especially specific "deal-breaking" issues -- are not only >welcomed, they're _needed_ for us to play our role in shaping the future >of ALAC. I urge you to read the report -- at very least the summary -- >and at least understand the rationale for their recommendations before >you state your case against them. :-) > >Please... even if you do not contribute regularly here, this is one of >those pivotal times when we really do need to hear from everyone. Love >it, hate it, mixed or neutral, we need your feedback this week! > >- Evan > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica >nn.org > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1505 - Release Date: 6/16/2008 >7:20 AM > > >------ >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 >------ 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

Issues for Paris
by Brendler, Beau June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Greetings, all. As discussed in the call this week, I'm asking for any specific comments or concerns you may have, regarding the issues in which I have some involvement coming up in Paris. Anything you want me to say? In other words. 1. Meeting with registrars/RAA agreement (revisions to the agreement are not yet posted, but staff say they will be available "sometime before Paris.") This is not a perfect choice of background but try reading this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RegisterFly) 2. Meeting with GAC. Actually I think it's less formal than a meeting, more like hors d'oeuvres. 3. New gTLDs. (Note there is an informational briefing scheduled on this for tomorrow, Wednesday, June 11 (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?briefing_session_on_new_gtld_progra m)

8 10

Summary Minutes NARALO Teleconference 09 June
by At-Large Staff June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Dear all, Please find the summary minutes, action items and audio recording of yesterday¹s NARALO teleconference on the meeting page. The minutes are also attached below. https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?09_june_2008 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Summary Minutes 09 June 2008 1. Roll Call As above 2. Review of the Summary Minutes 12 May 2008 N/A 3. Review of the Action Items 12 May 2008 N/A 4. NARALO -- first 12 month review: What did we do well? * Glad that this group did more to include individuals than others. * We seem to do more discussion on policy than other regions. * NARALO has had good interventions with ALAC as a whole. * NARALO has had great energy. * We made a strong statement to the ALAC. * Even though we are rather a small group of people we have been able to make strong points to ALAC. * We reacted well to the ALAC abuse of process in the joint constituency statement. * The group has been more active in the past six months than ever and as compared to other groups. * We were able to be proactive on a couple of issues. * NARALO has been most active on the Adobe Connect policy briefings. * The leadership has been good and our RALO has been very active. What did we do badly? * We didn't make nuisances of ourselves enough and we've let ICANN get away with too much. * We need those short updates on issues and hope that we see them soon. * There is still too much garbage on list but Evan has done well in trying to control this. * RAA revisions. We failed to come together and issue an appropriate statement to the JPA. We haven't done anything to prep our ALAC reps prior to meetings. * Those that are empowered in a group usually take the time to come up to speed with issues and look for solutions. Those that are not elected tend not to participate at a level that would make for valuable input. Its very time consuming to do so. Also, without going to the meetings and interacting on a personal level, its difficult to see where people are coming from. How can we improve? * More discussion on policy. * Its hard to get a handle on all of the various policies in order to provide input. * More outreach. * Develop a strong communications mechanism. * The Staff has done good work with Adobe Connect and we should continue to utilize these tools. * We need to keep a better eye on the calendar. * Better communications and to somehow get those that are not empowered to travel once in a while. * More outreach, more education, more policy discussions. 5. Outreach -- selection of strategic events We need to identify locations far ahead of time so that we can adequately plan and implement them. NTEN - Spring CES - January ICT Summit Vancouver February Consumer Groups events in Washington (there are two coming up) Annual Meeting of the Intellectual Property Lawyers in October Please bring up other ideas on the mailing list and we will add it to the list. 6. July meeting election of one ALAC rep, Chair and Secretariat During the July meeting we will be electing the above. This is a proper election so calls for nomination will be done. Evan, Darlene and Beau have agreed to stand in their positions. When should we do the elections? There were no preferences so we will put it to the list. 7. Priorities for June ICANN meeting Be careful in what meetings we go to in order for us to get the most bang for our buck. There will be an RAA meeting on Monday and Danny will prep some materials for us to be prepared for it. 8. Other Matters If you received an e-mail from Frederic Teboul, please respond ASAP. The more input we have, the better everyone can work together. We now have good support staff for Nick and now that these exist, we need to make better use of it. The Summit proposal is due tomorrow. Maybe we can also kick a copy of it to John (?) Nesbitt. 9. Next Meeting July 14, 2008

7 22