Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement
Sorry, I realize this topic has been dormant for a couple of weeks but I'm still a little unsure of ICANN's position. Alan wrote: <<(although not completely sure if this is really ICANN's business).>> Acording to Kim it seems it would be. It has always been my understanding that soverignty trumps all in the ccTLD world, but Kim has been laying out a strucutre that has ICANN and the Internet community have the real say. If this is the case, does ICANN handle abuse issues for ccTLDs? If the answer is "no" then there are no responsibilities along with the rights and that is a problem. Evan has pointed out that "If there is a dispute between community and government, ICANN has ABSOLUTELTY NO business getting in the middle." but Kim has suggested otherwise. I'd like to know if Kim's statements are just his opinion or ICANN policy, and what the official ICANN policy is to ccTLD governance. This needs to be clarified. Also, I'm still deeply troubled by the fact that Kim is saying that ccTLD control comes from the "Internet community", of which many on this thread are suspicious of. The fact that Kim is citing statements no one can read as the basis for policy is, to be quite frank, creepy. Maybe we can discuss this on today's call. ------------------------------------- Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... Garth Bruen gbruen@knujon.com http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 Tentative Presentations: Global Cyber Security Expo http://cyberexpo.memphis.edu/
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] LACTLD Statement From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Date: Tue, October 06, 2009 1:09 pm To: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Evan had earlier said that there was little support on this list for the current collaborative way of working. I was just about to speak up and say that I, for one, support what has been happening. But Antony said it far better, and with more direct knowledge, that I could have. Going into this discussion, I had a fair amount of knowledge, both direct and indirect, of how the process works when there is a "difference of opinion". And I learned more from Kim and Antony's early posts here. The only complaint that I have heard about the process (in the real world, not on this list) is that it can take a LONG time, not that it was not fair or that the outcomes were inappropriate. Yes, there may be glitches along the way. And if the .MD operator says on their home page that only their invoices should be honoured and then immediately redirects any registration requests to a US company, perhaps someone should make sure that this is intentional and not a hijacking (although not completely sure if this is really ICANN's business). Back to the original discussion, having the authority for a ccTLD unilaterally changed on what might be the potentially knee-jerk reaction of a government is potentially VERY harmful to the "operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet" - ICANN's Core Value # 1. Just try to imagine how all of the second level domains (and their associated information) that are currently operating on the ccTLD get migrated to the new authority. I find it hard to imagine that uses within the country or the world would be well served by the authority for a ccTLD being transferred in a disruptive manner. And transfer in a non-disruptive manner requires at least some measure of cooperation. So ICANN's role is not to act as a political arbitrator within sovereign nations. But its role IS is to try to ensure that ccTLDs operate with stability and predictability. To date, it has a pretty good track record of doing this. Although a review and possible change in the process is welcome, I should be done based on careful understanding of the overall environment. Alan At 06/10/2009 12:00 PM, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
Over the last ten years, governments and private enterprise have come together to make workable arrangements on how to manage their ccTLDs. This has been a long and sometimes difficult path, and yet the ccTLD area, once one of the most contentious in ICANN, is now largely quiescent and most people are happy.
Your view of government control is not supported by the U.S. government, nor by any European government that I know of, nor indeed of any government that I've had the pleasure of working with. If you look at the GAC principles, which were composed by the governments of the world, they speak of a tripartite understanding between ccTLD operators, ICANN, and governments. The most extreme authoritarian dictator has not called for the level of totalitarian control that you seem to espouse.
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 ------
Garth, It would be helpful if all parties to this discussion read the following three documents: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt http://www.icann.org/en/committees/gac/gac-cctldprinciples-23feb00.htm http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-klensin-1591-reflections-04 regards, Danny
2009/10/19 Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen@knujon.com> wrote:
Alan wrote: <<(although not completely sure if this is really ICANN's business).>>
Acording to Kim it seems it would be. It has always been my understanding that soverignty trumps all in the ccTLD world, but Kim has been laying out a strucutre that has ICANN and the Internet community have the real say. If this is the case, does ICANN handle abuse issues for ccTLDs? If the answer is "no" then there are no responsibilities along with the rights and that is a problem.
Evan has pointed out that "If there is a dispute between community and government, ICANN has ABSOLUTELTY NO business getting in the middle." but Kim has suggested otherwise.
Since engaging in some of my earlier position on this, I've been (virtually) taken aside by people whose opinions I trust. They've made the point that ICANN has been doing a reasonable job of treading the fine line between respecting sovereignty while watching for instances of hasty politics that may lead to genuine instability. At that point ICANN appears to fall back on the RFC that the problems need to get hashed out between the government and local community. This is far from perfect, but it's an approach I can accept. It explains Kim's difficulty in explaining a policy that depends as much as "we'll know problems when we see them" as any hard and fast criteria for determining when to intervene. There continue to be holes in the policy that I can see; Missing are 1) Definitions of "community" in ways that ensure that the voice of public interest is not dominated/gamed by vested interests. 2) A candid explanation of the policy that admits some reliance on human judgment calls 3) Graduated methods of allowing governments to assert control of their ccTLDs (or at least require a formal agreement between registry and government) as states become more Internet-savvy. I still believe that In ongoing, protracted disputes between governments and registries that refuse state oversight, ICANN must eventually cede authority to the state. But as far as I've been told such situations have generally been resolved when when they have arisen. If not, we ought to know. But I've back-tracked on the absolute nature of my earlier comments. ICANN *can* play a role, though it should be as minimal as possible -- and far better explained than has been done so far. - Evan
Khaled Fattal has proposed the creation of a new ICANN Supporting Organization -- the Internationalized Domain Name Supporting Organization (IDNSO) -- see his letter at http://www.icann.org/correspondence/fattal-to-beckstrom-15oct09-en.pdf Khaled indicates that more details on the proposed structure/mode of operation and on the selection/election of future and interim members have been prepared, and he awaits board initiation of consultations on the topic. I see a value in supporting a call for such consultations, and would recommend alerting all regional at-large organizations of this development. regards, Danny Younger
I think we can call this Verizon v. 2Cool Guys The case is two-pronged: 1) concealment of registrant info and 2) cybersquatting: Salient paras: 33. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants also conceal their identities by using the registrar Lead Networks Private Domains Limited ("Lead Networks"). 34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Lead Networks provides a service to assist owners of infringing domain names in concealing their true identities. 35. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Lead Networks provides a service to assist owners of infringing domain names in avoiding the domain name transfers ordered under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP"). 36. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants register and hold the majority of their domain names through the registrar eNom, Inc ("eNom"). 40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that Defendants have registered the domain name virazon.com. A printout of the historic WHOIS ownership record for virazon.com showing IDC and Internet Development Corp as the registrant and listing the email address caramballc@gmail.com is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit F. 41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the domain names varizon.com, vierzon.com, and virazon.com (the "Infringing Domain Names") are identical or confusingly similar to the VERIZON Marks On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com>wrote:
http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/verizon-lawsuit.pdf
------ 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 ------
-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 917 442 8665 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com ---------------------------------------------------------------
The DAG3 includes a draft concept paper designed to improve new gTLD security -- see http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/high-security-zone-verification-04o... The document (on page three) states: "It includes verification of Registry operations and supporting Registrar operations. It also builds upon the assumption that Registrars will be required to perform procedures to authenticate the accuracy of Registrant information at the time of domain registration." This is a significant proposal, but it is also a proposal that will likely gain no immediate traction as currently formulated. If a new gTLD operator were to limit its registrations only to those submitted by registrars that offer time-of-registration authentication services, such a TLD would never initially get off the ground. What's missing in this proposal is either an incentive or a requirement for registrars to do the right thing. As I see it, registrars authenticating new registrants through agreed processes will only happen by way of a consensus policy requirement stipulating that Data must be consistent and correct at the Registrar level.
participants (4)
-
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Garth Bruen at KnujOn -
Joly MacFie