- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

[Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]
by Dominik Filipp May 6, 2008

May 6, 2008

Danny, I do not think this is necessary. Managing credit card frauds is a technical aspect other businesses are facing and have to be dealing with daily. There are scenarios and/or case-studies available on the Internet describing how to minimize such threat. Just google 'credit + card + fraud' and you'll get many interesting pages addressing this in detail. The simplest solution would be to ask the registrars/registries running non-AGP based ccTLDs. In fact, most registrars run such ccTLDs so they already KNOW how to manage it. I do not see a reason to handle this for them, especially when we are not asked to do that. Furthermore, every registrar might differ in expectations of how such a mechanism should work and suit their needs. Or, we could consider the suggestions in the first paragraph the alternative and suitable way. Dominik Danny Younger wrote: >Let's be clear about something... the Registrar >Constituency's primary argument in favor of retaining >the AGP is for its use as a device within which credit >card fraud may be managed. At the very least, if we >will be arguing to eliminate the AGP, we should be >offering up an alternative and suitable way to >mitigate Registrar fraud concerns if we hope to arrive >at a consensus-based solution. >The only way that I can think of having this >accomplished is via new language in a Credits Section >within the Service Level Agreement that is part of the >relevant Registry-Registrar Agreement -- see for >example http://www.verisign.com/static/002136.pdf >This, of course, will require cooperation from the >Registries who may not be prone to re-drafting their >agreements. >Does anyone else that is advocating AGP elimination >have any concrete suggestions to deal with the fraud >concerns that can be put on the table?

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
by Dominik Filipp May 6, 2008

May 6, 2008

In my opinion, both the proposals somewhat overlap each other. However, 3. group in Danny's proposal is given too much space and power yet partly duplicated in 2. group (Intellectual Property Attorneys) thus diminishing the overall noncom/users outreach in 4. group. I therefore tend to support the current joint statement too. In fact, the more I am looking at it the more I like it. Also the split in the joint statement sounds quite reasonable for the moment. Dominik Danny Younger wrote: > As I look around I see four distinct communities that > have a stake in the process: > > 1. Community: Providers of Registration and > Connectivity Services > a. Registries > b. Registrars > c. Resellers, Hosting Companies/ISPs > > 2. Community: Business > a. Big Business & their Intellectual Property > Attorneys > b. Small Business & domainers > > 3. Community: Law Enforcement & Security Interests > > 4. Community: Public Interest > a. Consumer Groups > b. Civil Society Advocates > i. Privacy > ii. Freedom of Speech, etc. > c. Registrant Rights Advocates > Well, I guess then my ALS has no right to be represented; we fall into none of the above cubbyholes. Neither do most current ALSs. I can't agree at all with the above split. The entire spectrum of "public interest" -- representing the 99.99% of the world that uses the Internet -- gets one-quarter of the total voice. (And I continue to be reminded that NCUC, that shares part of that one-quarter, _defended_ the AGP!) To accept the above grouping is to accept Danny's assertion that the current At-Large process -- that tries to give a voice to public interests that would not otherwise be actively involved -- be totally discarded. I believe he was dead wrong when he first stated that view, and I'm not prepared to go along with it now because GNSO is being reconstituted. I'm not yet ready to give up on ICANN At-Large. Under the above arrangement, the general public is screwed. I can't support it. "Civil society", especially as currently constituted within ICANN, cannot be trusted to advance what I consider to be the public interest. Given a choice, I prefer the current joint statement with the ALAC sidebar. - Evan

1 0

Proposed NARALO Statement - V2
by Evan Leibovitch May 6, 2008

May 6, 2008

Here are my contributions to the statement. I think this time, I may have been even angrier than Danny ;-) [ Note: I will likely not have access to email for the next 24-48 hours -- please work on this in my absense. ] Proposed NARALO Statement -- v.2 The North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) disassociates itself from the document submitted to the ICANN Board Governance Committee entitled "Joint users proposal GNSO structural change". Neither NARALO nor any of its At-Large Structure (ALS) members were consulted, in the development of a document supposedly designed to define At-Large involvement in the GNSO. We were neither participants in the formulation of this document nor afforded the opportunity to comment upon its interim drafts. The document, in its final form, does not address many issues previously identified by At-Large. We see major problems with a recommendation that fails to address the specific issues faced by the broad community of registrants, or to acknowledge the vital role of non-registrant user stakeholders. Furthermore, we are astounded that the ALAC was explicitly exempted from direct participation in the new GNSO formulation, despite the document's preamble which states that "ALAC is critical to ICANN’s external perception". After many years of slow and painful development, the ALAC has finally taken first baby steps towards the fulfilment of its mandate to offer a focus and catalyst for At-Large communications and policy development. To explicitly exclude it from a role in At-Large advocacy within the GNSO at this time is beyond reason. The process used to create this document was highly objectionable. Significant changes in wording that negatively impacted the role of At-Large were made in last-minute revisions, which were not communicated at all -- by ALAC, GNSO or Staff -- to ALSs or RALOs. It was only through the personal diligence of our own members that we were made aware of these changes before the end of the comment period. Therefore it is the view of NARALO that it would be inappropriate for us to signal any support for the specific formulations contained in this document. It does NOT reflect the interests of NARALO or its member ALSs. We ask the Board Governace Committee to respect the principle of representation set out in ICANN's MOU that called for technical management structures to reflect the global and functional diversity of Internet users and their needs

9 24

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 6, 2008

May 6, 2008

Louis and all, I also agree that the format was difficult to read in a side by side method. Better would be new over old. Evan, I have already sent in our members response to the GNSO improvements we believe are necessary, none of which by the way were listed in Nicks revision. -----Original Message----- >From: Louis Houle <louis.houle(a)oricom.ca> >Sent: May 5, 2008 1:43 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits > >So am I. Quite better. > >It would be nice to receive it in a «more» readable format. :-) > >Louis Houle >ISOC Québec > >Evan Leibovitch a écrit : >> Brendler, Beau wrote: >> >>> I'm closer to supporting this than anything else I've seen yet. >>> >>> Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm referring to Nick's revisions on the right). >>> >>> >> It is a massive step in the right direction, specifically in suggesting >> that ALAC may still play a role in GNSO while drafters are aware of its >> flowchart-rewriting consequences. >> >> I hope that there are lessons learned going forward -- certainly >> mistakes were made to get us to this point -- but on the immediate issue >> of "what do we send regarding the GNSO improvements" I like Nick's >> draft. Please -- especially amongst those who took issue with the >> original "final" versions -- if anyone has suggestions to make please >> offer them now. >> >> - Evan >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >> >> > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ 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] Transparency & the ICANN Contractual Compliance Newsletter
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 6, 2008

May 6, 2008

Stacy and all, I for one thank you for your response to Danny's inquiry, although your answer seems to be a deflection of what Danny was asking regarding the 164 breaches. When will these breaches of contract be shared with the public? It also seems that you Stacy are implying all of the breaches deal with failure to pay fees by registrars primarly. I for one could care less if ICANN got it's fees or not from any registrar as such is not a direct impact on users or registrants. I and all of our members are primarly interested in those breaches that are not fee's to ICANN related. If ICANN espouses to be open and transparent, it is very difficult given Danny's request and a host of others, that what ICANN espouses is in any reasonable way related to what ICANN practices. Ergo and again, please publish ALL 164 breaches in detail immediately. -----Original Message----- >From: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette(a)icann.org> >Sent: May 5, 2008 4:39 PM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Transparency & the ICANN Contractual Compliance Newsletter > >Dear Mr. Younger: > >Thanks for writing me regarding your transparency concerns relative >to ICANN's contractual compliance activities. Specifically, in your >correspondence to me on 3 April 2008, you requested information >regarding ICANN's decision not to publish breach notices referenced >in ICANN's 3 April 2008 Contractual Compliance Newsletter. > >ICANN has a significant interest in sharing information with the >public regarding registrar noncompliance. ICANN evaluates publication >of breach notices on a case by case basis, with the exception of breach >notices related to failure to pay ICANN fees. We think that breach >notices related to the collection of unpaid fees are an extension of our collections >efforts. Such breaches are routinely cured by registrars with no >tangible impact to registrants, registries or third parties. The >breach notices referenced in the 3 April 2008 Contractual Compliance >Newsletter concerned registrar failure to pay fees. However, the >concerns you expressed in your correspondence to me and during the >recent NARALO meeting have been raised with ICANN's executive >management and our current practice of not publishing breach notices >related to failure to pay ICANN fees is under review. > >We appreciate your interest in this important matter and we >encourage you to continue to provide comments to assist us in better >understanding community concerns. > >Sincerely, > >Stacy Burnette >Director Contractual Compliance >ICANN >(310) 301-3860 > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2008 4:54 AM >To: Stacy Burnette >Cc: At-Large Worldwide >Subject: RE: Transparency & the ICANN Contractual Compliance Newsletter > >Dear Ms. Burnette, > >Thank you for your response. We look forward to your >participation on the upcoming NARALO monthly >teleconference and to a frank discussion on the state >of negotiations as they pertain to the planned >registrar sanctions program (first described in the >"Improved Contractual Compliance Enforcement Tools" >proposed amendment to the RAA). > >Best wishes, >Danny Younger > > > >--- Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> Dear Mr. Younger: >> >> Thank you for writing me regarding your concerns >> related to transparency. ICANN is committed to >> transparency and accountability. >> >> To ensure that you are provided complete >> information, I need additional time to respond to >> the questions posed below. On or before 30 April >> 2008, I will respond to all of the questions >> presented in your electronic mail message dated 3 >> April 2008. >> >> Thanks for your support. >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Stacy Burnette >> Director >> Contractual Compliance >> ICANN >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] >> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 1:34 PM >> To: Stacy Burnette >> Cc: At-Large Worldwide >> Subject: Transparency & the ICANN Contractual >> Compliance Newsletter >> >> Dear Ms. Burnette, >> >> I am appreciative of the fact that ICANN has >> generated >> this newsletter, but I have a number of concerns >> related to transparency. >> >> We are told that during 2007 a total of 164 breach >> of >> contract notices were sent to registrars. While >> this >> effort is to be commended, users would assuredly >> want >> to know which registrars are in breach of contract >> (and for what reason) at any given point in time so >> that they can make informed choices regarding which >> registration providers to use. >> >> Hiding this valuable information from consumers is >> not >> what I would deem to be a public service, rather, I >> view it as a profound disservice. While it does >> serve >> to protect the interest of registrars, it most >> certainly doesn't serve to properly protect the >> public. >> >> May I ask why ICANN has chosen to conceal this >> information? Is this behavior owing to a deliberate >> policy decision that has been made by ICANN Staff? >> Does Staff intend to continue concealing registrar >> contract breaches at the expense of the registrant >> community, or can we expect this situation to change >> in the immediate future? >> >> Hopefully you can help us to better understand the >> situation and the Staff perspective on transparency. >> >> best regards, >> Danny Younger >> >> >> >> >> >____________________________________________________________________________________ >> You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one >> month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. >> http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com >> > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com > >_______________________________________________ >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

NARALO Teleconference 12 May 1900 UTC
by Matthias Langenegger May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

Dear all, This is to remind you that the next NARALO teleconference will take place on Monday, 12 May at 1900 UTC. Please find additional information on the meeting page. https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?12_may_2008 Best Regards, Matthias Langenegger At-Large Coordination Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger

1 0

GNSO Improvements Statement Edits
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

Dear All: I have been requested to provide some language which might act as a 'bridge' which could help to reconcile the views expressed about the Joint Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last several days. I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to what is required. As always, whether it is used or not is entirely up to all of you. I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me that this would make it easy for everyone to see the original text of that document and also the changes that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you: 1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and the drafting work just done: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=… 2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=al_… 3. Joint Proposal of Users: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY.doc NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please keep this in mind if you need to reach us. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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

9 12

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] New CIRA Whois Policy Strikes Balance Between Privacy and Access
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

Derek, John, and all, Same is essentially true for Google.com, gmail.com, googlemail.com, and wikipedia.org, as well as 68,000 other Domain names in the US, yet it seems that John is emphisizing Canada in particular? Very odd indeed! -----Original Message----- >From: Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org> >Sent: May 3, 2008 11:47 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] New CIRA Whois Policy Strikes Balance Between Privacy and Access > >Sadly I have to agree with John. > >Why, doesn't cxeibbltd.com just host a lovely domain, privacy >protected and all! > >That is until you search on the telephone number given on the contact >page, 1-800-882-4036 and start digging deeper. > >However, all is not bad. The privacy provider for the mentioned domain >will most likely expose whois since they have a zero fraud tolerance >and the Registrar as will cancel it. > >There is a lesson to learn here: Checks and balances. > >Many of these scammers' domains pass our hands regularly, I would like >to say I live in the real world of the Internet. > >However, what is CIRA's policy upon encountering a similar situation? >If the responses are one of the stock standard: >- DRP, who will pay for the procedures for all those lovely scam, >spam, phish domains? >- Law Enforcement, I can guarantee you once again the process will be >flawed unless the RCP rapidly expands their forces overnight. >- Court Order, which court in which country? >- Will the company vs private registrant rule be enforced? > >http://www.cira.ca/en/documents/2007/PRP-rant-agreementv1.7.pdf >How do you promptly resolve an issue? Evidence of residence faxed is >as far as your nearest DTP package. I can show you many ID's and >employee cards published by all but the logos of the institutions they >claim to represent. Snail mail for a phishing domain? > >To spice up the mix, we just add a large known contingent of scammers >and carders known to live on the Toronto area, some of who have made >the headlines already recently. > >I can show list upon list of registrants that turned out to be the >same person, all determined by analyzing whois details. This >information has been used to protect the all internet users time and >again. Who will do this at CIRA where full whois info is not visible? >How will they collaborate with other parties? > >Pardon me if I sound cynical, but I have seen too many abuse reports >ignored and too many ordinary internet users suffer the consequences. > >I guess history will tell. > >Regards > >Derek > > > >John Levine wrote: >>> kudos to CIRA for not only developing a privacy friendly WHOIS policy - >>> but also implementing it. >> >> Yes indeed. Every crook, scammer, phisher, and fraudster from St Johns to >> Victoria really appreciates it. >> >> R's, >> John >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Always diligent, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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] DNS oddity
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

John and all, It's actually worse that you indicate John. See:http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=infonec.com&token=049… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=infonec.ca&token=04308212… -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: May 4, 2008 9:25 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] DNS oddity > >> The message below appeared in a mailing list from a member of my ALS. >> I don't myself know enough DNS mechanics to verify what the poster said. > >He's confused. I can explain in detail if you want, but it's clear that >what happened is that www.infonec.ca is set up as an alias for >www.infonec.com, and they forgot to renew the .com so NSI pointed it at >their expired domain servers until he paid. All the registrars I know >would do the same thing. > >The "suspicious" stuff re authority sections is perfectly normal since the >DNS server for infonec.ca is also the server for infonec.com. > >R's, >John > >PS: The previous claim of NSI hijacking wildcard domains was wrong, too. >The only evil I've seen them do recently is AGP frontrunning of domains >that people ask about but don't buy. > >------ >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

DNS oddity
by Evan Leibovitch May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

Hello all, The message below appeared in a mailing list from a member of my ALS. I don't myself know enough DNS mechanics to verify what the poster said. There is an allegation of domain hijacking in the mail which raised my attention. Can someone help verify if the complaint is legit? Thanks! - Evan -------- Original Message -------- I check www.infonec.ca for deals every once in a while. This week it hasn't been working reliably for me. Sometimes I get a web page that lets me buy domains from Network Solutions or renew the infonec.ca domain. I decided to track this down today. The status might have been different during the week. - dig www.infonec.ca gives me: ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.infonec.ca. 3548 IN CNAME www.infonec.com. www.infonec.com. 7134 IN A 209.62.72.173 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: infonec.com. 55267 IN NS ns2.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. infonec.com. 55267 IN NS ns1.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. (This data comes from the look.ca name servers. If you walk the tree, the results are different and correct.) pendingrenewaldeletion.com. is a network solutions nameserver. 209.62.72.173 is a network solutions web server that offers domains (as described above). It seems odd to me that an Answer Section would include information about a domain name for which you didn't query (infonec.com) I would have thought that it belonged in the Additional Section. The TTL for the main answers is an hour or two -- reasonable. The TTLs for the authority section is questionable considering the authorities are wrong: over 15 hours. infonec.ca seem to be properly registered. It expires in 2018/02/19 so it is unlikely to have been recently renewed (any renewal would be for an integral number of years). The registrar is "Can Reg (Infinet Communications Group)" (not network solutions). Its name servers are dns0[12].tor.axxent.ca. dig @dns02.tor.pathcom.com. www.infonec.ca +tcp: ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.infonec.ca. 3600 IN CNAME www.infonec.com. www.infonec.com. 3600 IN A 207.188.71.50 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: infonec.com. 3600 IN NS dns01.tor.axxent.ca. infonec.com. 3600 IN NS dns02.tor.axxent.ca. The CNAME says use www.infonec.com. Just like the one I get from look. But the rest is different. infonec.com seems to be properly registered. It expires in 25-apr-2017. The last update date is 02-may-2008 so maybe they let it expire and renewed it (with Network Solutions) yesterday. dig @ns1.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. www.infonec.ca +tcp: ;; ANSWER SECTION: www.infonec.ca. 7200 IN A 209.62.72.173 There was no Authority section. I wonder what that means. Apparently Network Solutions is still hijacking this AFTER they have their money. How is it that Network Solutions can take over a domain like this? If the domain had not expired, surely they would not have hijacked it. If it had expired, how can they legitimately take it over like this? If it is renewed, how can they ethically have a name server continue to hijack it? The offer to "renew this domain" is bogus since the web page was "www.infonec.ca" and not "infonec.com" and the page says on it "infonec.ca", a still-registered domain. Maybe look.ca's DNS is caching improperly. I really don't know/remember all the DNS rules. dig @ns1.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. madeupname73993.ca +tcp: [long pause] ;; ANSWER SECTION: madeupname73993.ca. 7200 IN A 209.62.72.173 (No authority section.) Hmmm. I guess that they hijack all names and give the same answer. That should make for a very fast lookup since no lookup is required. So why the long pause? Perhaps to grab the name I queried about? I guess that the resolver should ignore all answers where the authority section says *.pendingrenewaldeletion.com. Or perhaps where there is no authority section.

2 1