If I may be accommodated, I'm not sure that all of the issues Danny proposed should be taken but I certainly endorse the idea of such a workshop. Since the issues are indeed global, I would also suggest that the proposal be sent to all regions for possible endorsement and, thus, a global workshop. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM, <na-discuss-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org>wrote:
Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to na-discuss-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org
You can reach the person managing the list at na-discuss-owner@atlarge-lists.icann.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Eric Brunner-Williams) 2. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Beau Brendler) 3. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Beau Brendler) 4. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Evan Leibovitch) 5. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Chris Grundemann) 6. Response to the ICANN Complaince Letter to Myself (Garth Bruen at KnujOn) 7. NCSG/consumer candidate constituency (Beau Brendler)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:02:54 -0500 From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Message-ID: <4D00C56E.5010006@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Danny,
It is early in the morning, pre-coffee, but I know you appreciate prompt feedback, so I'm just looking at the topics, item 2, bullet items of the final paragraph.
The list offered of topics the proposed workshop will consider is somewhat backwards looking, that is, some of the topics of consideration have been the subjects of past policy making efforts:
o gaming by registrars o vertical integration o domain tasting o speculation and warehousing o front-running
I'd like to cover new ground before the actual transition to delegation period is experienced for the cohort of new applications that will affect North American users of the DNS and the North American public interest.
Eric
------------------------------
Message: 2 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:48:41 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Message-ID: < 14840407.1291898922048.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
I think it's an excellent proposal, well-thought out. To the list of workshop items:
? whether the current process is amenable to gaming by registrars ? the risks to the consumer associated with Vertical Integration ? the possible re-emergence of the domain tasting phenomenon ? risks associated with the current lack of articulated graduated sanctions in the current Applicant Guidebook ? issues associated with the Independent Objector procedures ? the lack of any policy governing domain name speculation and/or warehousing by registrars ? front-running scenarios ? potential issues associated with pre-registration practices
I might add: safety and stability issues potentially incurred by new "holes" in the DNS opened by new gTLD operators.
As far as funding a workshop goes, I'm afraid I have no clue what money is available. Whatever is budgeted, though, should include a substantial amount for publicity, as you will want a strong attendance for a variety of reasons.
Lastly, should the money not be available, we could take the workshop items above and fashion them into a NARALO statement we could present (whether ALAC supports it or not)
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Sent: Dec 9, 2010 12:28 AM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: beaubrendler@earthlink.net, langdonorr@gmail.com Subject: Funded Workshop Proposal
Dear Beau and members of the NARALO:
As I remain troubled by the consumer issues that may arise in conjunction with the launch of an unprecedented amount of new gTLDs, I have attached a proposal for your review.
Feedback will be highly appreciated.
Thanks, Danny Younger
------------------------------
Message: 3 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:50:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net>, na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Message-ID: < 15060822.1291899051372.JavaMail.root@mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
indeed, vertical integration may be off the table at this point. but we have heard several examples already of warehousing -- something Danny and I tried to bring to the attention of ICANN at least two years ago.
there may be a separate PDP process for warehousing
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Sent: Dec 9, 2010 7:02 AM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
Danny,
It is early in the morning, pre-coffee, but I know you appreciate prompt feedback, so I'm just looking at the topics, item 2, bullet items of the final paragraph.
The list offered of topics the proposed workshop will consider is somewhat backwards looking, that is, some of the topics of consideration have been the subjects of past policy making efforts:
o gaming by registrars o vertical integration o domain tasting o speculation and warehousing o front-running
I'd like to cover new ground before the actual transition to delegation period is experienced for the cohort of new applications that will affect North American users of the DNS and the North American public interest.
Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------------------------------
Message: 4 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 08:10:28 -0500 From: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Message-ID: <AANLkTim=P22E246QLhwWkLshDUJZ68hHo0mQV2Sut+Xo@mail.gmail.com<P22E246QLhwWkLshDUJZ68hHo0mQV2Sut%2BXo@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Hi Danny,
This is all extremely useful. However I don't think it's appropriate to keep this within the region. For us to be effective in moving this worward as advice (to both polcy and implementation) it needs to be brought to the wider, global forum of At-Large. There is nothing in the propoal that is limited in scope to North America.
As I hope you are aware, ALAC has already take taken an official (and unanimously endorsed) position that the current Applicant Guidebook is unacceptable and against the public good. As such, an opportunity to address deficiencies is both welcome an appropriate IMO.
- Evan
On 9 December 2010 07:50, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
indeed, vertical integration may be off the table at this point. but we have heard several examples already of warehousing -- something Danny and
I
tried to bring to the attention of ICANN at least two years ago.
there may be a separate PDP process for warehousing
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Sent: Dec 9, 2010 7:02 AM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
Danny,
It is early in the morning, pre-coffee, but I know you appreciate prompt feedback, so I'm just looking at the topics, item 2, bullet items of the final paragraph.
The list offered of topics the proposed workshop will consider is somewhat backwards looking, that is, some of the topics of consideration have been the subjects of past policy making efforts:
o gaming by registrars o vertical integration o domain tasting o speculation and warehousing o front-running
I'd like to cover new ground before the actual transition to delegation period is experienced for the cohort of new applications that will affect North American users of the DNS and the North American public interest.
Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
------------------------------
Message: 5 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:03:37 -0700 From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann@coisoc.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Message-ID: <AANLkTi=V_8w5oLNGQSwph-m4G5Sz7U+r8Ytv6MXFDoV7@mail.gmail.com<V_8w5oLNGQSwph-m4G5Sz7U%2Br8Ytv6MXFDoV7@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 06:10, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hi Danny,
This is all extremely useful. However I don't think it's appropriate to keep this within the region. For us to be effective in moving this worward as advice (to both polcy and implementation) it needs to be brought to the wider, global forum of At-Large. There is nothing in the propoal that is limited in scope to North America.
While the scope of the issues are not local to North America, their effects may be best understood from a regional viewpoint. Also, globally scoped workshops can make travel, coordination and cost much more onerous. I support the idea of this being a NARALO workshop and believe that having a regional focus will be beneficial.
~Chris
As I hope you are aware, ALAC has already take taken an official (and unanimously endorsed) position that the current Applicant Guidebook is unacceptable and against the public good. As such, an opportunity to address deficiencies is both welcome an appropriate IMO.
- Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
-- @ChrisGrundemann weblog.chrisgrundemann.com www.burningwiththebush.com www.coisoc.org
------------------------------
Message: 6 Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:09:21 -0700 From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen@knujon.com> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Response to the ICANN Complaince Letter to Myself To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Message-ID: < 20101209120921.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.80a08b7150.wbe@email13.secureserver.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Folks,
I have just sent a response to Stacy Burnette's public letter to me(http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/burnette-to-bruen-08dec10-en.pdf ). As many of you know the issues I have been raising were reported in June to compliance staff. I note that response from Ms. Burnette is welcomed because it is all we asked for originally, a declaration from the department of what is compliant and what is non-compliant.
-Garth
################################################################### Dear Ms. Burnette,
Thank you for your response, albeit in an unexpected location, in the ICANN Compliance pages. To my knowledge, this is the first time a non-contracted party has been admonished within the Compliance area; I will consider it a distinction. While I would encourage a robust debate, a direct response to the report by ICANN press relations or a ?counter-point? rebuttal article at the venue (CricleID) would have been expected. Using the Compliance area to address a public reporter in a similar manner as non-compliant Registrars may set a dangerous precedent for your office. Alternatively, it may provide a path to transparency as more responses to public complaints are posted in this space.
I am disappointed in the fact that only ?nine registrars appeared non-compliant? is being celebrated when all nine violations were reported to compliance staff nearly six months ago. That only now is ICANN following up with the normal process is an embarrassment.
As for some particular items cited in your response, there are problems with what you consider ?inaccurate.? First, the termination COMPANA LLC is not posted publicly within the Compliance area at ICANN.ORG so it would be impossible for us to know it was a moot issue. Additionally, the lack of this public disclosure points to a deficit in transparency.
Until recently, the InterNIC directory listed the home page of YNOT DOMAINS as ?myorderbox.com?, which is still an inoperable site. The clarification is suitable.
As for ONLINENIC, this is a more serious situation. Their address is not readily available on their site, nor is listed at "contact us", "company info", "support" or "about us.? Buried within the site is this address: ?909 Marina Village Pkwy #236 Alameda, CA? which is a UPS box and the third purported California address for ONLINENIC in as many years. ONLINENIC?s first purported address was determined to be an empty lot. The second purported address is associated with a business registration which has been suspended by the California Secretary of State. ONLINENIC?s real address is likely: ?7F International Trade Building, 388 South Hubin Road, Xiamen China? which is far from California?s Bay Area. While ICANN considers this compliance some would call it concealment and others an effort of anti-transparency.
As for the remainder, there is no correction required since they did not display their address. The theme of our article concerns the slow pace of disclosure. The fact that these Registrars, by your admission, are party to a contract ten-year?s out of date and apparently excluded from ICANN consensus policies. Once again, the apparent success touted in your memo is that Compliance has no power over their contracted parties in this area. While it may temporarily be seen a failure of Garth Bruen, it is in fact a serious loss for the whole community.
In response to your question about reinstated Registrars I point to the termination reversal of A Technology Company, of which you are already aware. A Technology co. was issued a non-renewal by ICANN on June 30, 2010 for failure to pay accreditation fees. The termination was reversed thirteen days later after the fee was paid. As you will recall they were still manipulating the WHOIS record for their website and not posting the business address after being accredited under the 2009 RAA. They were in fact non-compliant for a month and this was only corrected because KnujOn raised the issue. Incidentally, A Technology co. was allowed to cure its breaches after approximately 61 days which is well beyond the 15-day period stated in the RAA. As another example I would point to Naugus Limited LLC (naugus.com), a Registrar terminated in 2009 (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-goodwin-09oct09-en.pdf) which has apparently been re-instated and accredited under the new RAA. If they are in fact accredited they are in violation of RAA 3.3.1 for linking their WHOIS to a third-party paid WHOIS service. As you stated all prior to renewal Registrar?s websites are checked for compliance, but this issue was apparently overlooked.
While you consider our claims about Registrar terminations being mostly related to money ?baseless?, I invite you to review the 14 terminations from 2010. Thirteen we terminated chiefly for failure to pay fees. One, as you mentioned, was terminated for insolvency. Insolvency is the inability to pay debts, hence their inability to pay ICANN accreditation fees. Yes, there are other violations cited and breach notices issued for additional problems, but the outcome of these breach notices is not made public regularly which is why the only terminable violation remains failure to pay fees.
Regretfully, I must also cite that address disclosure is but one problem area reported to compliance staff by KnujOn nearly six-months ago. To reiterate some of the issues (sent separately yesterday) we are concerned about:
(A) Registrars without Apparent Functioning Web-Based WHOIS
?3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active Registered Names sponsored by Registrar for each TLD in which it is accredited.?
EnetRegistry, Inc. (enetregistry.net): Website does not resolve New Great Domains, Inc.(newgreatdomains.com): No content VocalSpace LLC (DesktopDomainer.com): ?Login Screen? Only Premium Registrations Sweden AB (premiumregistrations.com): Login screen only Alfena, LLC (alfena.com): Links to Domaintools.com ? a paid WHOIS service
The following Registrars have a ?Domain Look-up? service which only reveals whether or not the domain is available, this is not a WHOIS service: Add2Net Inc. (lunarpages.com) Bottle Domains, Inc. (bottledomains.com.au) Digitrad France (digitrad.com) DomainSpa LLC (domainspa.com) NetRegistry Pty Ltd. (netregistry.com) Nominalia Internet S.L. (nominalia.com) Sedo.com LLC (sedo.com)
We could not locate the web-based WHOIS engine for these Registrars Porting Access B.V. (portingxs.com) VentureDomains, Inc. (upc360.com) Verelink, Inc. (verelink.com) Hosting.com, Inc. (Hosting.com) Zog Media, Inc. (zognames.com)
Domainz Limited (domainz.com): Returns: "Your request could not be completed", see below And Autica Domain Services Inc. (autica.com): Only thin WHOIS.
(B) Registrars Not Displaying Fees and Deletion Policies
?3.7.5.5 If Registrar operates a website for domain name registration or renewal, details of Registrar's deletion and auto-renewal policies must be clearly displayed on the website.?
?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.?
Domain Services Rotterdam BV (tellus.com): Only reseller information available Premium Registrations Sweden AB (premiumregistrations.com): Policies not posted, ?member login? UltraRPM, Inc.(metapredict.com): No conspicuous terms link VentureDomains, Inc. (upc360.com): Policies not posted Zog Media, Inc. (zognames.com): No conspicuous terms/policy link
(C) Terminated Registrars Still Selling gTLD Domains and/or Claiming Accreditation
AfterGen, Inc. dba JumpingDot (jumpingdot.com) was terminated by ICANN June 10, 2009 (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-bourov-10jun09.pdf) but is still claiming ICANN accreditation.
Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd. (leadnetworks.com) was issued a letter of Non-Renewal (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-malik-14jul09-en.pdf) on July 14, 2009. Are they still in court-ordered receivership? They are not listed in the InterNIC directory.
Broadspire Inc. (broadspire.com) has not been listed in the directory for some time and while there is no termination document there is a note on an ICANN page that Broadspire is ?NO LONGER ACCREDITED?. However, this company still sells gTLDs and claims ICANN accreditation.
In conclusion, I also hope this is constructive as I am concerned about what appears, from outside ICANN, to be the disintegration of compliance.
Sincerely and seriously, Garth Bruen
------------------------------
Message: 7 Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:10:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00) From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Subject: [NA-Discuss] NCSG/consumer candidate constituency To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Message-ID: < 8393718.1291925426003.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
FYI
Some forward progress
-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Avri Doria <avri@LTU.SE> Sent: Dec 9, 2010 2:57 PM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Welcoming Beau Brendler
Hi,
The NCSG-EC has unanimously decided to accept Beau Brendler's application for individual membership in the NCSG per the charter approved by the NCSG on 12 June 2010.
Please join me in welcoming Beau to the NCSG. He has been subscribed to this list.
I would also like to take this opportunity to inform you all that Beau and Alex have decided to combine their initiatives, the Consumer Constituency and the Consumer Interest Group, into a single Candidate Constituency. Rosemary,as the vice-chair of the NCSG-EC and the Board Council appointee with responsibility of bringing consumer affairs issues to the GNSO, will be working with them to make this happen as soon and as smoothly as possible.
I must, personally, indicate how very happy I am about this decision on the part of these NCSG members.
Best Regard from Cartagena de Indias.
a.
------------------------------
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 50, Issue 12 ******************************************