http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html Canada source of over 9 billion spam messages a day: study 9 in 10 e-mails worldwide are spam, according to Cisco security firm *Last Updated: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 | 12:41 PM ET *Comments*41*<http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html#socialcomment...> Recommend*15*<http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html#> CBC News <http://www.cbc.ca/news/credit.html> Canadian computers — many of them unwittingly — send out over nine billion spam e-mails a day, almost five per cent of all global spam traffic, according to a report from network and internet security firm Cisco. In an annual security report released Monday, Cisco estimated almost 200 billion messages per day, or 90 per cent of all e-mails sent worldwide — can be defined as spam, double the volume of the previous year. E-mail spam is rarely sent from the computers of the spammers themselves, the report said. Instead they use a number of techniques, from phishing scams, to e-mail with attached malware, to hijacking the computers of unwitting people. The spammers then use these networks of computers — called botnets — to send out more spam. While many spammers still send out mass-mailing spam to millions of untargeted recipients, web security software is usually able to filter these messages, the company said. Trickier to handle are "phishing" scams designed to elicit personal or financial information that is often smaller, more targeted and harder to spot, the report said. Botnets are networks of computers that have been hijacked by malicious groups or individuals to do their bidding. Their owners are usually unwitting victims who have no idea their machines have been infected and turned into so-called "zombies" or "bots." The zombie computers are typically used to distribute spam or phishing e-mails, or viruses and Trojans that are used to hijack other computers. Botnet operators often rent time or bandwidth on their networks to spam e-mail marketers and phishing scam artists. The United States was the single largest source of outgoing spam messages, Cisco reported, accounting for 17.2 per cent of all global spam. Canada was the fourth biggest source, with 4.7 per cent of all global spam, behind the U.S., Turkey (9.2 per cent) and Russia (8.0 per cent), and had the highest percentage of spam on a per-capita basis of the 16 top nations. Canada's privacy commissioner, Jennifer Stoddart, has been pushing for over a year for Canada to enact legislation to fight spam. Canada is the only G8 country without anti-spam legislation, she said when first drawing attention to the issue last year. The federal Conservative party said in its party platform during the fall election that it would introduce legislation to prohibit the use of spam to collect personal information under false pretences and to engage in criminal conduct, establishing new fines for lawbreakers. Last month, a California court ordered Montreal resident Adam Guerbuez and his company Atlantis Blue Capital to pay the popular social networking site $873 million US in damages for spamming registered users on the site. The civil case was filed under the U.S. 2003 anti-spam legislation known as CAN-SPAM (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act). -- Glenn McKnight 868 Corbetts Road Oshawa, Ontario L1K 2E1 905-434-6655 mcknight.glenn@gmail.com skype gmcknight http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com
Glenn McKnight wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html Canada source of over 9 billion spam messages a day: Hi Glenn,
Please keep in mind that this list is for the discussion of ICANN-specific topics related to domain names and numbers. While this includes a great many issues such as phishing and domain warehousing, there are many Internet governance related issues -- such as spam, freedom of speech and net neutrality -- that are beyond its mandate. There are certainly people on this list with a wide range of interests that certainly include the topics listed above, indeed we even have some ALSs here whose primary mission is spam reduction. However, ICANN lists are not really the appropriate venue for their discussion. Also, when wanting to alert the list to topical news stories, sending the headline and link usually suffices. Copying the whole story can be a waste of bandwidth -- especially for those not interested in the topic -- not to mention possible copyright violation. - Evan
Evan, I read Greg's post last night and had the exact opposite reaction that you had. I thought, "This is an informative, clearly written piece on an important issue that concerns internet users which is understandable for general audience--- a model of what we should be doing on ICANN issues." -and I learned something from it. I respectfully object to your concept of what is appropriate for this list. This list is called "North America DISCUSS." The only constant about internet users is that they are always changing in usage patterns, in demographics, and in expectations. How are we to represent internet users effectively in ICANN or elsewhere if we aren't up to speed on what's going on out there? Glenn posted a message to a discussion list, he wasn't standing in front of the board telling them that ICANN should change it's mission to saving the whales. I don't recall a decision by NARALO to limit topics on the NARALO list. If one exists, can you please reference it? Members of NARALO are intelligent adults, it should be a matter of their discretion what the list is used for. If you cut off discussion, you cut off fresh ideas, fresh perspectives. I am in favor of a discussion policy that allows for the occasional off-topic topic thus creating a culture where people feel free to put what they feel is important and relevant out there. Who decides what is important and relevant? I shared an empty issue map with blanks for "this is in the ICANN domain, and this is not" "this is important to internet users and this is not" "ICANN can influence this outcome somewhat, solely or not at all" for precisely this reason. My observation is that those most active in At-Large have such conceptual maps in their head, but have not undertaken a systematic process to unpack the assumptions of those models. Instead of taking a step back to do so, we all get front and center seats via our mailbox to non-stop bickering, "YOU should be doing this, YOU should be doing that. Why didn't YOU take my suggestion?" Please don't assume that because you have a conceptual framework for what is in ICANN's domain and what isn't that everyone has that same conceptual framework in their own head. There is both a learning curve AND a gray area. I believe that individual's assumptions about what is important vis a vis ICANN and how to effect change on what is important vis a vis issues concerning internet users is 95% of the bickering that goes on in At-Large. Better to get these things out in the air for discussion with open inquiry than make a declaration which shuts down discussion. Even for issues which are clearly in ICANN's domain, we shouldn't automatically assume that trying to influence the ICANN board or other members of the ICANN community is the most effective way to net a positive outcome for internet users. In my conceptual map, I believe positive change for internet users vis a vis ICANN will be effected by having more internet users know what ICANN is, what decisions fall at it's door, current topics of importance. But no one in ICANN, or At-Large, or anywhere else can dictate to internet users what they believe to be important. In order to create meaningful education on ICANN issues, we have to do come by the work honestly by making logical connections between the concerns of internet users and the role that ICANN plays in those concerns. There is MUCH groundwork to do to make those connections logical for -- I won't say average user b/c I don't know what the average user is these days-- someone in an internet cafe in Bejing? -- but I can say with certainty for the internet users which I am connected to. My day job, in part, entails surveying people to discern their concerns around the internet. By far and away among those that I work with --community based networks, community media outfits, and media policy groups comprised of traditionally marginalized populations---- the absolute number one concern is Access, followed by Net Neutrality -- which they as view as subset of access. Which is why, when I hear the argument -- which I'm sure you've all heard- that ICANN issues doesn't have anything to do with internet users, I don't argue. I am simply in a process of inquiry reserving judgement, trying to probe how internet users concerns and ICANN policy connect with each other. It seems that I am in a minority in believing that educating internet users is at least as important as writing positions to the board on current issues, A position which I cheerfully accept. All I ask is that simple accommodation is made- such as space for discussion on the email list for issues of concern to internet users- which allows that work to progress. Best Regards, Dharma On Dec 17, 2008, at 4:12 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Glenn McKnight wrote:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/12/16/canada-spam.html Canada source of over 9 billion spam messages a day: Hi Glenn,
Please keep in mind that this list is for the discussion of ICANN-specific topics related to domain names and numbers. While this includes a great many issues such as phishing and domain warehousing, there are many Internet governance related issues -- such as spam, freedom of speech and net neutrality -- that are beyond its mandate.
There are certainly people on this list with a wide range of interests that certainly include the topics listed above, indeed we even have some ALSs here whose primary mission is spam reduction. However, ICANN lists are not really the appropriate venue for their discussion.
Also, when wanting to alert the list to topical news stories, sending the headline and link usually suffices. Copying the whole story can be a waste of bandwidth -- especially for those not interested in the topic -- not to mention possible copyright violation.
- Evan
------ 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 ------
Hi Dharma,
I read Greg's post last night and had the exact opposite reaction that you had. I thought, "This is an informative, clearly written piece on an important issue that concerns internet users which is understandable for general audience--- a model of what we should be doing on ICANN issues." -and I learned something from it. That the piece was educational -- or even valuable -- was not the concern of my post.
I respectfully object to your concept of what is appropriate for this list. This list is called "North America DISCUSS." The only constant about internet users is that they are always changing in usage patterns, in demographics, and in expectations. How are we to represent internet users effectively in ICANN or elsewhere if we aren't up to speed on what's going on out there?
Here is my rationale. Lack of focus is IMO one of the largest impediments to ALAC effectiveness. ALAC, and ICANN in general, are doing a pretty miserable job on the issues that are even within its very limited mandate. ICANN is not the Internet Governance Forum, a place for all kinds of Internet-related discussions including an Internet users Bill of Rights, etc. We are having a hard enough time understanding the complexities of ICANN; in the last call it was clear that matters such as the reconstitution of the GNSO, and its effect on public input, can be complex enough to make peoples' eyes glaze over or -- worse -- tune out. In that regard I am concentrating on that over which NARALO has (or at least is supposed to have) influence. It is important to respect the time of volunteers, and that means limiting the flow of mail to that which is directly relevant. If someone is interested in knowing about news related to spam reduction, there are FAR better places than the NARALO list. As you say, we're intelligent people; most of us are capable of belonging to multiple communities with differing foci. I would rather point people interested in spam to forums in which that is the main point of discussion. I'm sure that most people here, at one time or another, would also want to know what's the best printer for their needs. That awareness would also lead to more effective Internet users, and I'm sure that there are people on this list who might be qualifies to answer that question -- but that too is beyond the scope of this list. Rather than draw an arbitrary boundary about what is relevant *enough*, I have sought to keep a sharp focus on ICANN and matters on which NARALO can directly affect policy.
Glenn posted a message to a discussion list, he wasn't standing in front of the board telling them that ICANN should change it's mission to saving the whales.
Actually, we *did* get close to that in Cairo, with a NARALO member trying extremely hard to get free-speech issues on the conference agenda. In retrospect we found that doing so would have severely damaged ICANN's reputation and effectiveness in that region without giving it any capacity to address the (very real) rights issues. So yes, I do have a concern for things getting out of hand, because in a very real sense it very nearly happened with potentially dangerous consequences. Glenn's message of course was not on that scale, but the Cairo events have sensitized me to some of the potential dangers of going off-topic.
I don't recall a decision by NARALO to limit topics on the NARALO list. If one exists, can you please reference it? Article #1 of the NARALO Operating Principles, to which all the original ALS representatives (including yourself) signed off, states:
"NARALO promotes and assures the North American user participation in the ICANN policy development process." That is why we're here. And since there is only a single NARALO-specific mailing list, I believe that the list serves that specific purpose. Now, if there is interest in a second list with the same initial membership that existed to discuss other Internet-related matters beyond ICANN's mandate, I would not object. Nor do I have any problems with using the NARALO skype channel for any kind of discussions of relevance to its members. I am just suggesting that -- in the interests of maintaining focus and minimizing list traffic (for the benefit of those who are subscribed to dozens of lists) -- we keep this list specific to ICANN-targeted matters. There are far better places for more generalized discussion than this.
Members of NARALO are intelligent adults, it should be a matter of their discretion what the list is used for. If you cut off discussion, you cut off fresh ideas, fresh perspectives.
May be. But right now we have a hard enough time stimulating discussion and getting fresh perspectives on the issues which DO need treatment here. Meanwhile, debating issues over which ICANN has no authority cannot result in followup action that we can implement.
Who decides what is important and relevant? IMO, the ICANN mandate as defined by its Board. It's essentially a naming and numbering organization. The nature of the names, the responsibilities of their buyers and sellers, and the rights of their users are the main focus.
Please don't assume that because you have a conceptual framework for what is in ICANN's domain and what isn't that everyone has that same conceptual framework in their own head.
To me, that domain was fairly well defined before At-Large was created. But my stance isn't based on an anal interpretation of what the bounds should be. It's based on my observation that ICANN can't even execute its existing self-defined mandate. Before we should consider expanding ICANN's vision there's a very large and messy house, already in place, that needs to get in order.
Even for issues which are clearly in ICANN's domain, we shouldn't automatically assume that trying to influence the ICANN board or other members of the ICANN community is the most effective way to net a positive outcome for internet users.
Again, I'll refer back to NARALO Operating Principle #1. Affecting ICANN policy development is *the* reason NARALO exists. Our diverse mix of members will have numerous motivations and agendas. But the defined role of NARALO -- the one we signed up for -- is neither assumed nor ambiguous. The visionary discussions you describe are happening all the time within areas such as the IGF and ISOC; we need not seek to duplicate their space nor their members' good work. NARALO by contrast has a specific purpose and focus, though the convergence of some interests explains the significant cross-pollenation between IGF, ISOC and At-Large.
In my conceptual map, I believe positive change for internet users vis a vis ICANN will be effected by having more internet users know what ICANN is, what decisions fall at it's door, current topics of importance. But no one in ICANN, or At-Large, or anywhere else can dictate to internet users what they believe to be important.
Agreed. But they can (and do) say "if, upon consideration, what you think is important relates directly to our mission, please come advise us. Otherwise there are better and more effective forums to address your needs."
By far and away among those that I work with --community based networks, community media outfits, and media policy groups comprised of traditionally marginalized populations---- the absolute number one concern is Access, followed by Net Neutrality -- which they as view as subset of access. Which is why, when I hear the argument -- which I'm sure you've all heard- that ICANN issues doesn't have anything to do with internet users, I don't argue. In your context I wouldn't argue that either, because there's little ICANN has to do with those issues. It's a naming and numbering organization, whose issues often affect the public in obscure manner.
(Of course, in other parts of the world, access *is* natively an ICANN concern when people can't use their first language and character set for Internet domain names.)
It seems that I am in a minority in believing that educating internet users is at least as important as writing positions to the board on current issues,
On ICANN issues (as elsewhere), education is a pre-requisite of informed advice; belief in this is hardly a minority stance. But ICANN is in no position to offer -- or even stimulate -- highly relevant education outside of its domains of expertise. It's having a hard enough time providing useful resources on fields which *are* its core mandate.
All I ask is that simple accommodation is made- such as space for discussion on the email list for issues of concern to internet users- which allows that work to progress.
And all I'm saying in reply is that there are many other more-useful spaces than NA-Discuss for topics outside of ICANN's core mandate. Duplicating the good work of others who have provided and populate those existing spaces, while dulling the focus of NARALO discussion, does a disservice to both the generalists and the focused. What do others here think? - Evan
Frankly, endless discussion of purpose is more annoying that a slightly expansive interpretation of the group's mission. Also, and I'd be happy to be correctly if this is wrong, the context is not limited by ICANN's mission as much as it should be expansive from a RALO perspective. Isn't one of the purposes of RALOs in general to represent internet users to ICANN? And how are those user's interests served by fragmenting their representation to various standards and regulatory bodies? Gerry Gleason
Dharma, I hear you. I think your point of view has a lot of merit. I too have been somewhat uncomfortable with the restricted mandate that ICANN has. Our members share the same concerns as yours do. Our current discussions on TC's "advisors" list revolve around telecom policy, rural access issues and community fibre. This is not to say that I don't think ICANN's issues are important - they are, but they are certainly not front and centre with our users. The above paragraph was my immediate reaction to Dharma's post of earlier to day. I have also now read Evan's lengthy response. Of course he is correct too. So, I guess we have to do a better job of being able to interpret the interface between our members concerns and the ICANN mandate. Now of course, all of us being volunteers, I'm not sure how we *do* that, but ...... Gareth On 17-Dec-08, at 12:05 PM, Gleason, Gerald wrote:
Frankly, endless discussion of purpose is more annoying that a slightly expansive interpretation of the group's mission.
Also, and I'd be happy to be correctly if this is wrong, the context is not limited by ICANN's mission as much as it should be expansive from a RALO perspective. Isn't one of the purposes of RALOs in general to represent internet users to ICANN? And how are those user's interests served by fragmenting their representation to various standards and regulatory bodies?
Gerry Gleason
------ 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 ------
Evan, I think you have it pretty well covered. If this were a really active list, perhaps it would be ok to add a side-list on non-ICANN topics. But without such activity, I worry that it would become *the* list, overshadowing things-ICANN, or simply be another dead list. Note that there ARE topics related to spam and phishing that can be viewed as within ICANN's purview, specifically those related to the misuses of domain registrations, but even in that narrow topic, there are questionably issues that are outside of ICANN's range. Alan At 17/12/2008 02:47 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Dharma,
I read Greg's post last night and had the exact opposite reaction that you had. I thought, "This is an informative, clearly written piece on an important issue that concerns internet users which is understandable for general audience--- a model of what we should be doing on ICANN issues." -and I learned something from it. That the piece was educational -- or even valuable -- was not the concern of my post.
......
What do others here think?
- Evan
Although I can definitely understand where Dharma is coming from, I would have to agree with Evan. I get around 100 e-mails per day off of various discussion lists and such. If discussions get way off topic then it becomes really tedious trying to weed out the wheat from the chaff. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:30 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Discussion Lists are For ICANN Discussion Evan, I think you have it pretty well covered. If this were a really active list, perhaps it would be ok to add a side-list on non-ICANN topics. But without such activity, I worry that it would become *the* list, overshadowing things-ICANN, or simply be another dead list. Note that there ARE topics related to spam and phishing that can be viewed as within ICANN's purview, specifically those related to the misuses of domain registrations, but even in that narrow topic, there are questionably issues that are outside of ICANN's range. Alan At 17/12/2008 02:47 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Dharma,
I read Greg's post last night and had the exact opposite reaction that you had. I thought, "This is an informative, clearly written piece on an important issue that concerns internet users which is understandable for general audience--- a model of what we should be doing on ICANN issues." -and I learned something from it. That the piece was educational -- or even valuable -- was not the concern of my post.
......
What do others here think?
- Evan
------ 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 ------
My point is not a defense of off-topic items- it was that we may not all agree of what is on-topic and what isn't. Whether one particular email is off topic really doesn't deserve much discussion. That's why god made the delete button. The bigger question is the question of efficacy. Clearly, their is a range of opinion on what is relevant what is not, what is effective action, what is not. My read of what is in the purview of "NARALO promotes and assures North American user participation...." is in the inverse of Evan's with hooking issues of concern to internet users to ICANN issues when possible -- and being honest when there is no relationship-- at the top of my list of effective actions. Is there room for that position within NARALO or not?
Although I can definitely understand where Dharma is coming from, I would have to agree with Evan. I get around 100 e-mails per day off of various discussion lists and such. If discussions get way off topic then it becomes really tedious trying to weed out the wheat from the chaff.
D
Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson@gov.nu.ca
-----Original Message----- From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2008 3:30 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ICANN Discussion Lists are For ICANN Discussion
Evan, I think you have it pretty well covered.
If this were a really active list, perhaps it would be ok to add a side-list on non-ICANN topics. But without such activity, I worry that it would become *the* list, overshadowing things-ICANN, or simply be another dead list.
Note that there ARE topics related to spam and phishing that can be viewed as within ICANN's purview, specifically those related to the misuses of domain registrations, but even in that narrow topic, there are questionably issues that are outside of ICANN's range.
Alan
At 17/12/2008 02:47 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Hi Dharma,
I read Greg's post last night and had the exact opposite reaction that you had. I thought, "This is an informative, clearly written piece on an important issue that concerns internet users which is understandable for general audience--- a model of what we should be doing on ICANN issues." -and I learned something from it. That the piece was educational -- or even valuable -- was not the concern of my post.
......
What do others here think?
- Evan
------ 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 ------
Although I can definitely understand where Dharma is coming from, I would have to agree with Evan. I get around 100 e-mails per day off of various discussion lists and such. If discussions get way off topic then it becomes really tedious trying to weed out the wheat from the chaff.
I can tell you from experience that when lists wander away from their nominal topic, people stop reading them. The handful of people doing the wandering rarely notice. ICANN has a long-standing problem with magical thinking, people assuming that ICANN can solve their favorite Internet-related problem even though it has nothing to do with TLDs or IP address allocation. Rural access and the like are real problems, but there's nothing ICANN can do about them. ICANN has enormous trouble dealing with the tiny range of issues it does address, and it would be a really good idea if we tried to keep ICANN lists for ICANN issues so we can have some hope of making progress on those issues. R's, John
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Dharma Dailey -
Evan Leibovitch -
Gareth Shearman -
Gleason, Gerald -
Glenn McKnight -
John L -
Thompson, Darlene