Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC board position selection process and Danny Younger
I got one also. He was concerned that we were starting the process without due process and without an opportunity for the community to comment on the process. I assured him that this was being monitored by two Board committees, that ICANN legal counsel had been involved, and that there was a full public comment period (on the White Paper which outlined the process that we are using). For the record, if I remember correctly, we have approval to proceed up until the actual election. Holding the election should not happen until the new Bylaws are in place. Of course, there is always the chance that the Board will decide to rethink the whole thing or alter our process, but the chances are not thought to be high, and if it happens, we have no control over it. Alan At 22/07/2010 04:00 PM, Beau Brendler wrote:
greetings...I got an urgent call from Danny Younger today. Or at least he thought it was urgent. He is concerned about some facet of the approval process for the ALAC board position that I am not familiar with, having to do with the board approving (or failing to approve, if I remember correctly) the position announcement? I told him I did not have familiarity with that process but that others within NA-RALO might, and that I would ask someone to get in touch. If anyone would like to follow up with Danny on this, e-mail me off-list and I will give you his phone number if you don't have it.
Thanks
Beau
-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen@knujon.com> Sent: Jul 22, 2010 10:35 AM To: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette@icann.org> Cc: "carlton.samuels@gmail.com" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
Stacy,
Thank you for the policy verification.
-Garth
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed? From: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette@icann.org> Date: Tue, July 20, 2010 9:07 pm To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen@knujon.com> Cc: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "langdonorr@gmail.com" <langdonorr@gmail.com>, "carlton.samuels@gmail.com" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>, "evan@telly.org" <evan@telly.org>
Garth:
ICANN appreciates your interest in ICANNâs compliance program. I hope the responses below assist you in understanding the facts concerning A Technology Company and how ICANN addresses various compliance matters. It is our aim to work constructively with you and others and consider all reasonable suggestions provided by the community to enhance our compliance program.
Our goal is bringing registrars into compliance with their obligations. Although the transmission of enforcement notices is part of ICANNâs normal escalation process, we often attempt to resolve compliance matters informally. To that end, we send compliance notices via e-mail (and sometimes via fax) or we attempt to contact registrars via telephone to inform them that non-compliance issues need to be addressed within a specific timeframe. In most cases, registrars take corrective action after receiving our informal communications, thus avoiding the need for escalated compliance action by ICANN.
I have embedded responses to your questions below.
If you believe a telephone conversation would be helpful, I would be happy to schedule a mutually convenient time to discuss these matters. Please let me know.
Best,
Stacy Burnette
Director
Contractual Compliance
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way
Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
+1(310) 301-3860
-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn [mailto:gbruen@knujon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:29 AM
To: Stacy Burnette
Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; langdonorr@gmail.com; carlton.samuels@gmail.com; evan@telly.org
Subject: RE: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
Stacy,
I have noted that the two issues concerning A Technology Co. have been
technically corrected. Thank you. However, I have some questions about
the timeline and circumstances of their re-accreditation. In reading the
non-renewal notice dated June 25 I'm finding some issues.
First, according to the notice A Technology Co. was issued breach
notices on April 29 and May 26 but these notices are not posted along
with other breach notices at http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/.
RESPONSE: A Technology Company received breach notices based on failure to pay ICANN fees. Financial breach notices are not posted on our website.
Next, it seems that if breach notices were issued on April 29 and May 26
the time to cure would end either on May 14th or June 10th(as indicated
in the letter). They were allowed to cure on June 30th which is 47 days
after the first deadline and 20 days after the second deadline.
RESPONSE: While compliance activities generally work through a well-defined process at ICANN, a number of factors need to be considered when determining the next appropriate course of action and therefore timeframes for proceeding with escalated compliance actions may vary.
Next, while the posting of their contact address is a matter of the 2009
RAA, WHOIS issues are a matter of their old contract. Why were they not
issued a breach notice on the manipulation of their WHOIS record the
week of June 21st when we filed our complaint about it?
RESPONSE: As stated above, ICANN often attempts to resolve non-compliance issues informally before sending a notice of breach.
Finally, for the two issues we raised with you about their address
posting and WHOIS record you apparently "told" them to fix these. I'm
concerned about how frequently Registrars are told to fix contract
issues without public documentation.
RESPONSE: Informal notices requesting that registrars take corrective action are effective, as they often result in registrars taking corrective action quickly.
-----Original Message-----
From: Garth Bruen at KnujOn [mailto:gbruen@knujon.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 20, 2010 7:29 AM
To: Stacy Burnette
Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; langdonorr@gmail.com; carlton.samuels@gmail.com; evan@telly.org
Subject: RE: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
Stacy,
I have noted that the two issues concerning A Technology Co. have been
technically corrected. Thank you. However, I have some questions about
the timeline and circumstances of their re-accreditation. In reading the
non-renewal notice dated June 25 I'm finding some issues.
First, according to the notice A Technology Co. was issued breach
notices on April 29 and May 26 but these notices are not posted along
with other breach notices at http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/.
Next, it seems that if breach notices were issued on April 29 and May 26
the time to cure would end either on May 14th or June 10th(as indicated
in the letter). They were allowed to cure on June 30th which is 47 days
after the first deadline and 20 days after the second deadline.
Next, while the posting of their contact address is a matter of the 2009
RAA, WHOIS issues are a matter of their old contract. Why were they not
issued a breach notice on the manipulation of their WHOIS record the
week of June 21st when we filed our complaint about it?
Finally, for the two issues we raised with you about their address
posting and WHOIS record you apparently "told" them to fix these. I'm
concerned about how frequently Registrars are told to fix contract
issues without public documentation.
Thank you for your attention to this.
-Garth
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination
reversed?
From: Stacy Burnette <stacy.burnette@icann.org>
Date: Wed, July 14, 2010 1:06 pm
To: Bob Bruen <bruen@coldrain.net>, Garth Bruen at KnujOn
<gbruen@knujon.com>
Cc: "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org"
<na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>, David Giza <David.Giza@icann.org>,
"langdonorr@gmail.com" <langdonorr@gmail.com>,
"carlton.samuels@gmail.com" <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>,
"evan@telly.org" <evan@telly.org>
Dear Garth and Bob:
Thanks for your comments. This registrar recently signed the 2009 RAA, effective 13 July 2010, which includes a "new" requirement that the registrar post a valid address on its website. The registrar was informed of this requirement and advised to make the adjustments to its website ASAP.
ICANN is reviewing the Whois related complaint you mentioned below and we are in communication with the registrar about the matter.
We appreciate your interest in making sure registrars comply with the terms of the RAA and we hope that you will continue to work collaboratively with us in the future. Working together with the community has enhanced ICANN's effort to address registrar non-compliance in several areas, such as the UDRP, Whois related provisions and Registrar Data Escrow. Please see our website for details regarding our escalated compliance actions http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/.
Sincerely,
Stacy Burnette
Director
Contractual Compliance
ICANN
4676 Admiralty Way
Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
+1(310) 301-3860
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Bruen [mailto:bruen@coldrain.net]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2010 8:36 AM
To: Garth Bruen at KnujOn
Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org; David Giza; langdonorr@gmail.com; carlton.samuels@gmail.com; evan@telly.org; Stacy Burnette
Subject: Re: A Technology Company cured all breaches? Termination reversed?
They must have paid off their outstanding biils. The loss of accreditation
was for not paying their bills, not for any other failure under the RAA.
This offers up evidence for what ICANN believes is important: money, not
good behavior. It's very sad.
--bob
On Wed, 14 Jul 2010, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote:
Hello all,
To my chagrin I just read that that A Technology Company's termination
was reversed and their accreditation renewed under the new 2009 RAA.
"13 July 2010: A Technology Company, Inc. cured all outstanding contract
breaches as of 30 June 2010. A Technology Company, Inc.'s accreditation
was renewed on 13 July 2010."
I'm very confused by this for two specific reasons:
1. A Technology Company does not post their mailing address on their
website as required by the 2009 RAA in section 3.16
The address is not on their home page, contact us, FAQ, company info,
about us, or in any of their agreement or legal documents.
AND
2. They have been manipulating their own WHOIS record in the web and
Port 43.
Trying to get the record returns one of these statements:
"Sorry, Domainname does not exists in our DB" - From A Technology
Company own web WHOIS at https://www.namesystem.com/website/whois.jsp
From Port 43:
"Checking server [whois.namesystem.com]
Results:
Sorry, Domain does not exist in the null system."
However, "NameSystem" is the Registrar for "namesystem.com", see
http://reports.internic.net/cgi/whois?whois_nic=namesystem.com&type=domain,
which means what? They are manipulating the search.
A Technology Company has deeply obfuscated themselves. Even the Better
Business Bureau says "Company Cannot Be Located" when trying to resolve
consumer disputes!
This case would make it seem that as long as a Registrar pays the bills,
everything else is permissible.
I'm shocked.
-Garth
-------------------------------------
Garth Bruen
gbruen@knujon.com
Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205
Twitter: @Knujon
--
Dr. Robert Bruen
Knujon
+1.802.579.6288
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@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@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
participants (1)
-
Alan Greenberg