July 2008 - RegistryService

Re: .info Abuse Policy as a "New Service" might be barred by ICANN's agreement with Afilias
by George Kirikos July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008

Hi again, I forgot to add, that paragraph 3.1.(b)(iv)(F) of the agreement dealing with Consensus Policies specifically mentions: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm "(F)resolution of disputes regarding whether particular parties may register or maintain registration of particular domain names." An allegation of abuse, affecting whether a particular party may maintain a registration of a domain name, clearly falls under that description above. Furthermore the last section of 3.6.5 of the appendix (i.e. registry-registrar agreement) says: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/appendix-08-08dec06.htm "Afilias also reserves the right to place upon registry lock, hold or similar status a domain name during resolution of a dispute." I would suggest that again an allegation of "abuse" is equivalent to a "dispute" in the above language, and that does not permit cancellation, but only registry lock, hold or similar status. 3.6.5 puts law enforcement and government (and courts) above the registry operator. This new proposal makes the registry operator become the policeman, the prosecution, judge, jury and executioner. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ --- George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Hi folks, > > According to paragraph 3.1.(d)(iii) of the .info agreement: > > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm > > "(c) any other products or services that only a registry operator is > capable of providing, by reason of its designation as the registry > operator; > > Obviously the registrar is currently *equally* capable of cancelling > or > removing a domain name from the zone file, and handling abuse issues. > So *by definition* this can't be a product or service that only the > registry operator is capable of providing. > > Furthermore, 3.1.(d)(iv)(G) provides specific definitions of > "Security" > and "Stability" that I do not believe are met by this proposal. > > I believe the proper course forward is for Afilias to cancel its > proposal as a "new service", and instead propose a Consensus Policy > for > review by the GNSO Council. I would invite them to do so, as I'm > against abuse. Through a Consensus Policy we can ensure that the > rights > of registrants to due process will be protected through input from > all > constituencies, and ensure that a policy that has proportionality and > predictability is created. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ >

1 0

.info Abuse Policy as a "New Service" might be barred by ICANN's agreement with Afilias
by George Kirikos July 10, 2008

July 10, 2008

Hi folks, According to paragraph 3.1.(d)(iii) of the .info agreement: http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/info/registry-agmt-08dec06.htm "(c) any other products or services that only a registry operator is capable of providing, by reason of its designation as the registry operator; Obviously the registrar is currently *equally* capable of cancelling or removing a domain name from the zone file, and handling abuse issues. So *by definition* this can't be a product or service that only the registry operator is capable of providing. Furthermore, 3.1.(d)(iv)(G) provides specific definitions of "Security" and "Stability" that I do not believe are met by this proposal. I believe the proper course forward is for Afilias to cancel its proposal as a "new service", and instead propose a Consensus Policy for review by the GNSO Council. I would invite them to do so, as I'm against abuse. Through a Consensus Policy we can ensure that the rights of registrants to due process will be protected through input from all constituencies, and ensure that a policy that has proportionality and predictability is created. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/

1 0

Notice on Cross-Postings and Off-topic email
by Patrick Jones July 9, 2008

July 9, 2008

This forum was created for the community to comment on the implementation of the Registry Services Evaluation Process and proposed new registry services under review during ICANN's 15-calendar day preliminary determination period. Off-topic email and/or cross-postings appearing in other comment forums or lists will be deleted, and repeated offenders will be banned from this list. Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 patrick.jones(a)icann.org

1 0

Massive, Coordinated Patch To the DNS Released
by George Kirikos July 8, 2008

July 8, 2008

Hello, As reported on Slashdot: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/07/08/195225 "Early this year, researcher Dan Kaminsky discovered a basic flaw in the DNS that could allow attackers easily to compromise any name server;" http://securosis.com/publications/DNS-Executive-Overview.pdf "This is the largest synchronized security update in the history of the Internet, and is the result of hard work and dedication across dozens of organizations." "Using this issue, an attacker could easily take over portions of the Internet and redirect users to arbitrary, and malicious, locations. For example, an attacker could target an Internet Service Provider (ISP), replacing the entire web -- all search engines, social networks, banks, and other sites -- with their own malicious content." This is exactly why registry operators should NEVER be judge, jury and executioners when it comes to alleged domain abuse, as they could inflict damage upon innocent victims. Read the advisory --- ANY name server (and thus all the domains on that nameserver) could have been compromised. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/

1 0

Re: [ga] Fwd: Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy
by George Kirikos July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

Hi again, I'd like to add that the revised policy also makes obvious mistakes and/or is misleading. In the consultation section of the PDF, they state: http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/afilias-abuse-funnel-request-rev-03jul… "Based upon this consultation with the Registrar Constituency members, Afilias has revised its proposed policy to remove from its definition of abusive uses the section titled Other abusive behaviors, which had drawn comments regarding breadth of scope, as well as removing the sentence regarding breach." While it's true that paragraph was removed, take a look at the words in the FIRST SENTENCE of the definition of "abusive use" "Afilias defines abusive use as the wrong or excessive use of power, position or ability, and **includes, without limitation,** the following:" I've added emphasis to the words "includes, without limitation." This means that Afilias is free to expand on their list, without limitation, in the future, as the list they provide is not exhaustive. Removing the section "other abusive behaviors" thus has no impact whatsoever on this poorly thought out policy proposal. This is the kind of open-ended and ambiguous language that registry operators have routinely attempted to sneak into contracts -- hopefully ICANN has learned to read contracts better than previously. Indeed, ICANN's poor past oversight of contracts has perhaps encouraged registry operators to submit these badly worded and flawed contracts/proposals in the hopes that no one notices, or notices when it's too late. If Afilias is truly listening, they would ensure that registrants have the continued right to due process, by removing all the sections that refer to cancellation of the domain names "at its discretion." Removal from the zone file is more than sufficient, without cancellation, to allow for due process. A registry should also not be immune from civil and/or criminal liability, in the event of a false positive (i.e. wrongful termination of a domain). Indeed, if it was to suspend or cancel a domain of an active site such as Amazon.com, Yahoo.com, YouTube.com, Myspace.com or Google.com even for a few hours, the actual damages to these registrants might be in the tens of millions of dollars. A registry operator would exercise far more diligence in its decision-making if it was not immune from civil damages when it inevitably makes incorrect calls --- no system is without false positives. Indeed, as I've stated before, this policy is not needed, given that there already exists a WHOIS accuracy requirement. Most, if not all, truly abusive activity takes place on domains with fake WHOIS. If someone with accurate WHOIS is conducting illegal activity, send in the police to knock on their door! If the WHOIS is not accurate, then the domain is caught by the existing policies, and can be terminated/suspended. If Afilias were to submit a proposal strengthening the WHOIS requirements to encompass registrant verification, they would receive the support from many in law enforcement and others who loathe abusive behaviour like spam, phishing, etc.. For example, they could require WHOIS verification of a new registrant (via a postal mail to the relevant address, for example, like .uk) before allowing the registered domain name to be put into the zone file (the name would be reserved, but would not resolve). (a new domain from an existing registrant could resolve almost instantly, if they use the same PIN code or whatever was used to prove the WHOIS of their first domain, assuming their address or other contact details have not changed) Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/

1 0

Afilias Abusive Use Policy Comments
by Doug Friend July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

Hi, I am writing to you to express my opposition to the proposed Abusive Use Policy proposed by Afilias. The changes proposed by Afilias would give them the power to delete a domain name without due process. We believe these proposed changes would be too open to abuse, and sets a dangerous precedent other registries could potentially follow. Register4Less.com is a reseller for Tucows, and has 57,868 domain names under management. Thanks, Doug. -- doug(a)r4l.com Register4Less.com

1 0

Fwd: Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy
by George Kirikos July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

Hi again, According to: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05146.html we are allowed to make comments at any time on proposed new services. I'd like to put my comments below that I posted on the GA list on the record. I'd oppose setting up registries as judge, jury AND executioner. Even the UDRP has checks and balances. So should any new policy, in order to protect the inherent rights of registrants to due process. Removing a domain name from the zone file, without cancelling the domain, is surely sufficient for even the most urgent cases of abuse. Sincerely, George Kirikos http://www.kirikos.com/ --- George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2008 15:50:19 -0700 (PDT) > From: George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive > Domain Use Policy > To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > > Hi folks, > > ICANN has posted a request by Afilias for a new registry service in > relation to "abusive" domains in dot-info: > > http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007 > http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/afilias-request-20jun08.pdf > > While in general the proposal is motivated by good intentions, the > devil is in the details. While most folks (including myself) probably > care very little about the .info TLD, my concern is that any bad > implementation in .info might be copied or used as a precedent in > other > more important TLDs, in particular .com run by VeriSign. > > In particular: > > > "Pursuant to Section 3.6.5 of the RRA, Afilias reserves the right to > deny, **cancel** or transfer any registration or transaction, or > place > any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it > deems necessary, **in its discretion**;........" > > (emphasis added) > > I would be against giving VeriSign (if the model was copied to .com) > that discretionary power over my company's domains, especially the > "right to cancel." What exactly is "illegal"? In China, I'm sure > there > are many things that are illegal that are perfectly legal in Canada, > the USA or the EU. Suppose a domain name gets hacked for a brief > time, > and is temporarily used to serve up spam or malware, etc. That > company > experiencing bad luck, having their site hacked, can then be put > totally out of business in the event that the registry operator, "in > its discretion," decides to cancel the domain name. > > Thus, I think concern should be raised that any implementation be > very > conservative in order to protect the inherent right of registrants to > due process. The potential for harm in a bad implementation is > enormous, and companies and individuals could be put out of business > if > a valuable domain name is taken from a registrant. > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.kirikos.com/ >

1 1

Re: [ga] [Fwd: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed]
by Edmon Chung July 3, 2008

July 3, 2008

Hi Jeffrey, Would like to respond to your comments about DotAsia. Myself and the team at DotAsia has been working very hard since its inception to facilitate a comprehensive Sunrise and Landrush process that balances the interests of the intellectual property rights community and the general public. The .ASIA Sunrise process was developed over multiple public drafts and our team proactively soliciting feedback and improvements from the community. DotAsia is one of the first gTLDs I believe to have publicly sought comments for its Sunrise processes. As a result, we have received high acclaims for our Sunrise process, including the auction process for Landrush which is ongoing. To date, we have had no challenges or disputes for the .ASIA sunrise process, which is compared to hundreds and thousands of disputes experienced by other TLD launches. For trademark Sunrise, each and every application is verified through one of our verification agents (Deloitte or AGIP) to ensure the integrity of the process. Our approach is to allow everyone to participate in the process fairly. Including parties that may be affiliated with us our our partners. Which is why the process was also designed to ensure that even affiliated parties would not gain any advantage over others. Specifically regarding the allegations and accusations you can find our specific comments at: http://www.registry.asia/pressreleases/DotAsia-PR-2008-05-15.html. As a brief note, we have conflict of interest policies in place and our auction structure does not lend itself to favouring anyone. Because the end time extends automatically for 24 hours if a change of lead is experienced in the last 24hours of an auction, timing of bids will not provide any advantage as those trailing will have 24 hours to react. Therefore, unless a party is willing to outbid the others, no additional information can provide an edge. Of course, we believe there is always room for improvement, and look forward to your constructive comments. However, I feel that it is important for my team that I point out our dedication and our achievements to date regarding the launch of .ASIA. Please let us know where we may have done not enough or should have developed our process better? We set out to ensure a stable and orderly introduction of the .ASIA TLD into the social and technical fabric of the Internet. And from the results so far, I truly believe that it has been a success. I believe many others in the community share my view as well. Edmon PS. I am not sure how the allegations relate to "front-running". We are not aware of any of our registrars engaged in front-running. But if there is such an issue, we will continue to monitor and seek to address them. > > From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> > > Date: Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:00 PM > > Subject: [ga] [Fwd: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed] > > To: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ALAC NA Discuss > > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, icann board > > <icann-board(a)icann.org>, DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> > > Cc: yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com, ICANN registry comments > > <registryservice(a)icann.org>, Ga <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > Yehuda, > > > > Done. > > > > Dot.Asia has been a moderately too a very poorly manage > > registry sense it's very conception. It remains so. > > It comes as no surprise that others have finally taken > > note and interest in recognizing this more broadly > > recognized fact. It is rather amazing to me that > > ICANN has not yet redeligated this Registry to more > > a more appropriate party or parties. But this is > > partly due to ICANN itself having glaring and significant > > management and leadership deficiencies that have been > > shown time and time again. > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed > > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:53:39 -0700 (PDT) > > From: "Yehuda Katz" <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> > > Reply-To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org,"Yehuda Katz" > > <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> > > To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > > > > All, > > > > Please (cross-post) run this on the ALAC mail-list. > > > > It looks like there is a 'Front-Running' scheme going on with the .ASIA > > Auctions > > > > http://www.dotasia-complot.org/ > > > > http://www.dotasia-complot.org/cat30.html > > > > The Guy (Thomas Rucker) is doing his homework, its worthy of a ALAC > > probe, > > that may flush out the bushes. > > ____________________________________________________________ > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > Board mailing list > Board(a)dotasia.org > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/board

1 0