<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
- To: <chris@xxxxxx>, "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>, "Elisabeth Porteneuve" <elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
- From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:02:39 -0400
With respect to your first question, registries are not privy to which
names have been tasted, used for spam, etc., so I know of no way for the
registries to accomplish what you have asked,
As far as the second point, I meant no disrespect to those that spend
time participating, but was merely responding to the point you raised
below; namely, you stated:
"The majority of public voice has clearly and explicitly expressed its
desire to eliminate the AGP during the official GNSO survey. This voice
cannot be ignored and must be taken into account."
I was questioning your use of majority of public voice. Just because
quantitatively more people who speak on the GA list favor one solution,
you cannot claim that is a majority of the public.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &
Business Development
NeuStar, Inc.
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From: chris@xxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2008 11:54 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Dominik Filipp; Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal registration
activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
Jeff Said "Most tasting registrars have very few (comparatively) actual
registrations, so your number is quite misleading. Maybe in the
aggregate there could in theory be that many, but your logic is faulty.
I have spoken to a number of the key tasters and according to them at
most 1% of the names tasted are actually registered. Thus, for every
100 names tasted, only 1 is worth paying the registration fee on. Put
another way, under the motion, that taster registrar would still have to
pay full price on 89% of the registrations (100- the 10% (threshold) -
the 1% the would have taken anyway). Assuming 100 registrations and
$6.00 being the price per name (just to pick a round number which is
low), that would mean that for just 1 name that is worth the traffic,
the taster will essentially have to pay 89*6 (or $534). No one name is
worth that amount. Using the AGP to taste will just stop. P.S., I am
not a mathematician so my numbers may be a little off, but the point
remains the same."
If your numbers are correct, then I agree with you. However, there has
already been a lot of damage done to domain names by people who abused
them. Unsuspecting registrants may register names they think have a
clear history, but are in fact already banned by some ISPs and search
engines. Will anyone be addressing this issue? Is there a way to warn
people about domain names that have been previously tasted or domain
names already listed as spam sources, etc.? Would registries and
registrars be willing to put warning labels on those domain names or
will it simply be buyer beware. I hope your solution does work to stop
domain tasting, but I also would like to know if anyone has assessed the
damage that has already been done and proposed doing anything about it?
You also said "Majority of what public? The GA list of which there are
very few members of the public participating?"
This lame duck excuse is used way too often and it is totally
disrespectful of those who have participated in this process for years.
ICANN makes no effort to get more participation from users, therefore
using that only a few participate as an excuse to ignore comments made
to the list is at the very least insulting. If ICANN were to send every
person who registers a domain name an invitation to join the ICANN
process, there would be more participation. This is why ICANN does not
do anything like that. They want the participation limited so that even
when valid arguments are presented on this list they can always fall
back on "Well it's just a few people saying that." So since it is ICANN
and not the list members who are at fault for their not being more
participation, please refrain from using that low participation as an
excuse to ignore the voices of those who do participate.
Chris McElroy
----- Original Message -----
From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: Dominik Filipp <mailto:dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> ;
chris@xxxxxx ; Elisabeth Porteneuve
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:08 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
Thanks for your response. Here is my response to you which
corresponds to your numbers..
1. I never have endorsed the $.20 ICANN tax and it is not
part of the motion.
2. Most tasting registrars have very few (comparatively)
actual registrations, so your number is quite misleading. Maybe in the
aggregate there could in theory be that many, but your logic is faulty.
I have spoken to a number of the key tasters and according to them at
most 1% of the names tasted are actually registered. Thus, for every
100 names tasted, only 1 is worth paying the registration fee on. Put
another way, under the motion, that taster registrar would still have to
pay full price on 89% of the registrations (100- the 10% (threshold) -
the 1% the would have taken anyway). Assuming 100 registrations and
$6.00 being the price per name (just to pick a round number which is
low), that would mean that for just 1 name that is worth the traffic,
the taster will essentially have to pay 89*6 (or $534). No one name is
worth that amount. Using the AGP to taste will just stop. P.S., I am
not a mathematician so my numbers may be a little off, but the point
remains the same.
3. Most phishing attacks to date are from actual registered
names that have been registered for longer than 5 days. I wont go too
deep into it right now, but in order to launch a successful attack,
especially for the dissemination of bots and malware, a period of time
longer than 5 days is generally required. That is not true in all
cases, but in the investigations I have been involved in, that is
generally the case. So, I disagree with your assessment.
4. Your statement that you have found no legitimate use for
the AGP is based on what? Certainly not the presentations and other
evidence provided by GoDaddy and other reputable registrars who have
shown they use it for legitimate purposes.
5. Majority of what public? The GA list of which there are
very few members of the public participating? The GNSO survey where
most of the respondents were IP attorneys responding after INTA sent out
a mass e-mailing "urging" its members to reply. That "survey" as you
call it was not a survey at all, but rather a request for information.
I know...I was one of the members of the group that crafted it. If you
re-read what you call the "survey" it will tell you that it was not a
survey and was not intended to be quantified.
I have been reading the e-mails. Perhaps I am one of the few
who have...and I am not even on the council. Dominick, I appreciate
this dialogue, but unfortunately, the registries and registrars (the
overwhelming majority of whom do not profit from tasting despite claims
to the contrary) are not persuaded by those arguments.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &
Business Development
NeuStar, Inc.
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From: Dominik Filipp [mailto:dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:50 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; chris@xxxxxx; Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: AW: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
Jeff,
the problem is that both the current GNSO recommendations or
motions are still insufficient in addressing the effective solution of
domain tasting. You would appreciate some evidence? Ok, I'll provide you
with some.
The AGP is an extremely abusive concept even in smaller volume.
1. The first recommendation adopting the $0.20 fee for deletes
seems to be curbing the practice at first glance. But in fact tasters
can easily recover from the provision and even increase the number of
domains being tastet. Shocked? Read my a bit anecdotical but factual
post explaining and reasoning this modified practice sent to the GA with
subject title "How to Unleash Domain Tasting for $0.20?" Unfortunately,
we are not allowed to cross-link the posts so you will have to find it
manually.
2. The second recommendation adopting 10% free AGP deletion cap
proposed still allows for more than 100,000 domains every single month
to being abused via domain tasting. Due to unclear and vague
formulations in the proposal that raises more questions than answers
this number can be much higher. How is that possible? How did I
calculate the number? Read my post with subject title "Current Drafted
Motion - Another Sort of Speculation?" sent to the GA.
3. Increased danger of domain tasting has also been clearly
recognized in terms of facilitating phishing practice. See recent
comments posted by PayPal and eBay on the domain-tasting comment list.
Needless to say that phishing can operate even on a small number of
abused domains trying to fool large Internet community and can be
gaining remarkable profit out of just few stolen credentials.
4. Large community of users is facing this colossal abuse being
commited on them on daily basis. That is why the AGP, which is the core
of the abuse, is being considered here to be eliminated in the first
place. So far, we have not found ANY legitimate reason for keeping the
AGP, especially when considering the pros and cons viewed from the
perspective of all stakeholders in the Internet community. See Chris's,
my and other's comments on this posted on the GA.
5. The majority of public voice has clearly and explicitly
expressed its desire to eliminate the AGP during the official GNSO
survey. This voice cannot be ignored and must be taken into account.
Please also read other mails posted on domain-tasting comment
forum as well as those related to the issue on the GA. All arguments and
reasoning mentioned there cannot be comprimed and incorporated into this
one mail.
Dominik
P.S. Sorry if I am not able to react in a timely fashion but I
am currently very busy during my business trip.
________________________________
Von: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx im Auftrag von Neuman, Jeff
Gesendet: Mi 02.04.2008 20:57
An: chris@xxxxxx; Jeffrey A. Williams; Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
Chris,
I don't mean to harp on the definition of "kiting", but I feel
like I need to clear up a misconception. Kiting does not really occur
as often as has been represented. I am enclosing an e-mail I sent last
year to the domain tasting group about this issue in which Tim actually
agreed with me. The reason I am doing this is because Kiting is a
loaded term that conjures up such negative emotions and it really
doesn't occur that much. VeriSign has represented that they have
similar stats.
To answer your other point, there are a number of solutions that
would do away with the problem, but that does not mean we should adopt
those. For example, we could do away with registrars, but I am not in
any way advocating that :-) .The point is that I believe you should take
the least restrictive means to solve a problem, rather than a solution
that will likely have other negative effects in addition to solving the
problem. For example, when we were examining transfers years ago, the
transfer process was being abused. We could have solved the problem by
stating that transfers would no longer be allowed. That would have been
ridiculous, but it would have solved the problem. After all, without a
transfer process, the process could not be abused. I know that's an
absurd example, but you get my point.
I can't do anything about your mistrust of ICANN, but I can tell
you that some of us registries and registrars are trying to do the right
thing. NeuStar and Afilias submitted proposals on our own to address
the problem in a manner which we believe will (i) curb the abuses, (ii)
be easily implementable by registrars, and (iii) still allow for the
legitimate uses of the AGP. There is nothing financial in this for us
-- just extra costs in implementation and perhaps the knowledge for
doing what we believe is right. It may not be your perfect solution,
but if it works, then why not try it.
I need to get back to paid work as well.
Thanks.
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &
Business Development
NeuStar, Inc.
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From: chris@xxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Jeffrey A. Williams; Elisabeth Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
Thank you Jeff. FYI, I would really like this to be resolved. I
am not just against registrars, registries, and ICANN. I am simply going
by ICANN's past history and performance when it comes to these type of
issues when referring to it. If there is mistrust, there is good reason.
Actaully what Bob is referring to IS kiting and not tasting.
Tasting is when anyone uses the AGP to try out a domain name. Kiting
happens when they work with others so that person number 2 picks it
right back up for another 5 days, person 3 does the same, and so on and
so on. That domain name is not off the market for 5 days. It is off the
market for an indeterminate amount of time depending on the size of
their network.
Tim is a good guy and I respect his opinion as I do yours Jeff.
However, I have to wonder if he is choosing this because it is at least
a good start or if he actually believes this will solve the problem.
The evidence you ask for cannot exist and I assume that is a
rhetorical question. It's like going into a lab and finding an unlimited
button and someone says I wonder what this does. We cannot know until
you push the button.
However I do know that if the AGP did not exist, it would solve
the problem. That is fact. Indisputable. So choosing that solution will
definitely solve the problem and the other method "might" solve the
problem or at least we do not have proof that it won't solve the
problem, so you would rather choose the "might" method. I would rather
choose the definite method.
You do agree that we can "prove" that the elimination of the AGP
will stop the abuse of same right?
And Jeff, I do appreciate the dialogue. We may disagree, but I
do not mean any of it as a personal attack on anyone. I have to work for
clients who want better domain names and many of those are not available
due to tasting and kiting being allowed for this long.
Chris McElroy
----- Original Message -----
From: Neuman, Jeff <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: chris@xxxxxx ; Jeffrey A. Williams
<mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; Elisabeth Porteneuve
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:06 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
Thank you for this.
FYI, Tim Ruiz, who is in senior management at GoDaddy
was on the drafting committee and supports the motion. The motion
proposes to end the types of abuses Bob is talking about. However, I
will note for the record that what Bob calls kiting is not actually
kiting, but rather tasting. Big difference.
My question still remains. If the motion goes through
and is implemented, what evidence is there that this will not stop the
AGP abuses?
With respect to your questions:
1. There has been very little tasting going on in .biz
or .us. Any tasting that has occurred did not start until last year.
So no, I was not part of anything related to this prior to when the
issues were brought forward by the ALAC in their draft issues report.
2. It is my belief that all known abuses to the AGP
will be eliminated by the proposal. Will tasting be eliminated?
Tougher question, but the answer is the same whether this motion is
adopted or the AGP is eliminated. In other words, eliminating the AGP
will not sole any more problems in my view that the current version. It
will create additional problems with respect to legitimate deletes.
3. Registrars have abused the AGP, however, the
motion should cure the known abuses.
4. And no, I do not believe personally that the
response to the abuses has been as quick as it should have been either
from ICANN or by the Registrars. That said, I believe NeuStar's
implementation will solve the known issues with the AGP.
Also, I believe you asked whether I believe registrars
just made up reasons for legitimately using the AGP to benefit from
tasting or something like that. The answer is no. Most of the reasons
for keeping the AGP were submitted by companies like GoDaddy and others
that do not engage in tasting or have ever abused the AGP.
Sorry if I missed some questions, but I hope I got most
of them. If I did not, feel free to ask again. (Although maybe we can
start a new chain...this one got long and hard to follow).
Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &
Business Development
NeuStar, Inc.
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
________________________________
From: chris@xxxxxx [mailto:chris@xxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 12:50 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Jeffrey A. Williams; Elisabeth
Porteneuve
Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
Here is a letter written to ICANN in 2004 from Bob
Parsons. http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pdf/100804_letter_iyd.pdf
<http://www.godaddy.com/gdshop/pdf/100804_letter_iyd.pdf>
This is from april of 2006
"35 million names registered in April. 32 million were
part of a kiting scheme. A serious problem gets worse.
In a nutshell, here's how domain kiting works.
Domain kiting registrars put up mini-Web sites - loaded
with search engine links - for domains names for which they never pay.
When people land on these Web sites and click on the links, money is
made. It's easy to spot one of these registrars as the number of total
registrations they make often far exceed the number of permanent
registrations - or names for which they actually pay. This is why during
the month of April 2006, out of 35 million registrations, only a little
more than 2 million were permanent or actually purchased. The vast
majority of the rest were part of the domain kiting scheme.
Now let's drill down a little further into domain kiting
101.
A registrar who participates in this scheme - Go Daddy
and its affiliates do not participate in this scheme - makes a large
deposit - sometimes a huge deposit - at a registry. Then the registrar
registers as many domain names as the deposit will allow. For example,
if the registrar makes a $600,000 deposit at VeriSign Registry, they
could register 100,000 .COM domain names as .COM names cost $6.00 per
year."
Now if registrars are engaged in domain kiting how do
you assume that registrars and registries opinion of how to solve this
issue should carry more weight than any user on this list or any user on
the web for that matter. Since it is the very industry doing the domain
kiting, why should recommendations from that industry be taken seriously
regarding this issue?
It's not like it just now happened and your industry is
taking progressive steps to police it. It was going on since before
2004. So where were the other registries and registrars, excluding Bob
Parsons, who did speak out, when it was going on then? Where was your
outrage at a few rogue registrars abusing the AGP? It was ignored
because there was no public outrage. Now that there is, the registries
and registrars step up and tell us that they will take the lead to solve
this problem and that we should all just trust you. As you said our
mistrust of the registries and registrars and ICANN is no reason to
suggest the elimination of the AGP.
Had all of the "legitimate" registries and registrars
stepped up to solve this issue in 2004, maybe it would be different.
Maybe you could raise the issue that you should be trusted to come up
with a solution. But that did not happen did it? And as far as trusting
ICANN to solve the domain kiting and tasting issue, why are we just now
addressing this? Where were they then? Where have they been on every
single issue? On the side of big business and registrars and registries
and never on the side of users.
The abuse of the AGP has hurt small business owners and
users by creating a false shortage of domain names. The registries and
registrars and ICANN allowed it to happen. Now we should just trust them
to fix it? Why? What evidence or prior good acts can you point to that
suggests that this industry or ICANN deserves that trust?
More from Bob Parsons;
Domain kiting registrars abuse the 5 day refund period
to work their scheme.
After a domain name is registered, a registrar has five
days to cancel a domain name registration - i.e. drop the name - and get
their money back. Domain kiting registrars abuse this rule and cancel
the lion's share of the names they register just before the five day
period expires - so they get their money back. But then something
unexpected happens. After names are cancelled or dropped, the domain
kiting registrar goes out and immediately registers the same names
again. The domain kiting registrar will then put the same simple Web
site back up for each domain name, wait another five days and then
cancel all the names again - just in time to get a full refund. And for
most names caught up in the domain kiting scheme, this process will
repeat itself over and over and over.
Meet DirectNIC.
You might find the registration statistics of DirectNIC
somewhat interesting. DirectNIC <http://www.directnic.com/> registered
more than 8.4 million domain names in April 2006, but only permanently
registered - or paid for - 51.4 thousand of those. The trend was the
same in March, when DirectNIC registered 7.6 million names and only
permanently registered - or paid for - 52.5 thousand. Whatever could
DirectNIC be doing? Why are they dropping and re-registering all those
names - again - and again - and again? And why doesn't ICANN care?
But wait, there's more - many more.
And the list of registrars, that register many more
domain names than they actually purchase, goes on and on.
ICANN fiddles while the Domain system burns.
I will point out that at this time, unlike check kiting
- there is nothing illegal about domain kiting. Of course, domain kiting
should be illegal. ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> is perfectly happy
with the practice. In spite of many complaints they have done nothing to
put an end to it.
ICANN's favorite comment.
Since my last blog article a number of people have
contacted ICANN and quite predictably, but sadly, ICANN has had no
comment.
Domain kiting is out of control and must be stopped.
This domain kiting practice needs to be stopped. It
benefits only those few organizations that are pillaging the domain name
system. It takes millions of good names off the system, and makes them
unavailable for the purposes for which those names were originally
intended. It places an unnecessary burden on every registry.
You said that "There are a lot of conclusory statements
made in the e-mails calling for the abolishment of the AGP. Yet, there
is little evidence behind those conclusions."
When has there not been evidence? None of the above
statements by Bob Parsons refers to evidence of registrars engaging in
domain kiting?
You also said, "evidence was presented by the Registrars
on how the AGP was used for legitimate purposes."
And you do not expect them to come up with reasons to
keep the AGP when some of them benefit from it in non-legitmate ways?
You say "Neither the registries nor the registrars will
support the abolishment of the AGP because of these legitimate
purposes."
Are you sure that is the reason? Do you ask us to
believe that only "legitimate reasons motivate the registrars to keep
the AGP? None of them want to keep it for other reasons? Where does Bob
Parsons stand on the issue?
Then you say "The fact that your gut tells you there
could in theory be issues or that you general distrust registries,
registrars and ICANN is NOT a basis to call for the abolishment of the
AGP, where legitimate uses have been demonstrated."
Questions
Where has this trust been earned in regards to the issue
of domain tasting and domain kiting?
Did you write the proposal you speak of in 2004 or just
recently since this has gotten more public attention?
Do you think domain kiting and domain tasting is a
theory?
Do you think that it is only a theory that registrars
have engaged in this practice?
Do you believe ICANN has addressed these issues in a
timely fashion?
Do you think the registrars and registries have acted to
police their own industry in regards to these issues in a timely
fashion?
I'm really curious as to your answers to those
questions. It may be a matter of perception. If you perceive that ICANN
and the registrars and registries have acted in a timely fashion then
your idea of timely is much different than it is for many of us. Had
those actions in your proposal been suggested when this was first
brought to everyone's attention, then they woiuld definitely have been
taken more seriously and more drastic action might not have been called
for.
Chris McElroy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> >
To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >; "Elisabeth Porteneuve"
<elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 11:29 AM
Subject: RE: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules
>
> I feel an obligation to respond, since my comments are
quoted here.
>
> There are a lot of conclusory statements made in the
e-mails calling for
> the abolishment of the AGP. Yet, there is little
evidence behind those
> conclusions.
>
> I will be the first to state the process followed in
getting this motion
> together has been less than stellar....IN short, there
were lots of
> flaws. I have pointed this out on a number of
occasions. That said,
> evidence was presented by the Registrars on how the
AGP was used for
> legitimate purposes. As a registry, I have personally
seen how the AGP
> has been used in cases where a reseller or registrant
has attempted to
> defraud a registrar. Just because you may not have
personally
> benefitted from the AGP, does not mean that other
registrants have not.
> Neither the registries nor the registrars will support
the abolishment
> of the AGP because of these legitimate purposes. Let
me also state for
> the record, there is no financial or other benefits
NeuStar will receive
> by keeping an AGP. In fact, one might argue that
eliminating the AGP
> will result in NeuStar getting more money because no
refunds will ever
> be issued. However, we do see the benefits of the AGP
if used properly
> and therefore, despite the possibility of making more
money, we do
> support keeping a limited AGP (as you saw in our
proposal).
>
> What I have not seen from anyone in support of
eliminating the AGP is
> evidence as to (i) why the proposed motion will not
solve the abuses of
> the AGP, and (ii) more importantly, if the solution
does solve these
> abuses of the AGP, as NeuStar believes, why is
eliminating the AGP
> necessary. The fact that your gut tells you there
could in theory be
> issues or that you general distrust registries,
registrars and ICANN is
> NOT a basis to call for the abolishment of the AGP,
where legitimate
> uses have been demonstrated.
>
> If you believe I am wrong, please provide
EVIDENCE....not gut feelings,
> disbelief, conjectures, distrust and conspiracy
theories. I really do
> want to see this evidence.
>
> Like Roberto said earlier (or something like this),
why do you need a
> bazooka to kill a mosquito.
>
>
> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.
> Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &
>
> Business Development
>
> NeuStar, Inc.
> e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf
> Of Jeffrey A. Williams
> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:37 AM
> To: Elisabeth Porteneuve
> Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
dstansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:dstansell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
> aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
; greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:greg.abbott@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ;
> board-review-tor@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:board-review-tor@xxxxxxxxx> ; jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:jeffrey@xxxxxxxxx> ; twomey@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:twomey@xxxxxxxxx>
;
> public.information@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:public.information@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [ga] Tasting and other errant or illegal
registration activity,
> was: Re: [ga] List Rules
>
>
> Elisabeth and all,
>
> Thank you for your thoughtful and somewhat detailed
> response. Very much welcomed by me anyway, and I hope
> by others of the GA members. Perhaps you would be
> so kind as to forward this, your response to the ALAC
as
> well. I am sure it would be of interest to some on
> that forum as well. I shall be sure to forward mine
> in response! >:)
>
> The remainder of my remarks, thoughts, concerns in
> response will be interspersed below elisabeths and
> are intended to be very general and applied to the
> GA members as a whole or other perhaps interested
> parties and addressed to/cc.
>
> -----Original Message-----
>>From: Elisabeth Porteneuve
<elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>>Sent: Apr 1, 2008 6:45 AM
>>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx> >, 'Danny Younger'
> <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> >, 'Hugh Dierker'
<hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> >,
> debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> , ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve
<elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:elisabeth.porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>>Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
>>
>>
>>I went through PPT presentations attached to the
quoted message (via
> Danny)
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html,
>>re-read Jeff Neuman's quotes from New Delhi (via
Dominik)
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01071.html ,
> Ross
>>Rader's note
>>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg01300.html ,
> but
>>also browsed contractual reports ICANN receives from
registries at
>>http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/ ,
especially com-net ones.
>
> I did a quick review of this report and found it very
interesting.
> I would like to ask if it could be acceuented on the
GNSO web
> site more promonantly for others whom have recently
ask, to review.
>>
>>
>>
>>At the end of my reading, I think I understand better.
>>
>>First of all, I understand the AGP serves the large
spectra of non
> written
>>purposes, for the benefit of registrars and their
resellers. My blunt
>>perception from PPTs is that a number of registrars
run insecure
> software,
>>and let their uneducated resellers to do as much mess
as possible - all
> that
>>is on the dark side of the moon, because outside of
ICANN's contracts,
> AGP
>>is a kind of insurance to fix unspoken disasters.
>
> Your first sentance here really get's to the central
aspect of the
> AGP's existance and or need/lack there of. Non
written purposes
> for the existance of the AGP has a "Gaming" aspect
that seems to
> be central to the problem of Tasting, warehousing,
kiting, and
> other related errant registration activity. As such,
the only
> method or means by which those aspects of the AGP can
be addressed
> is to either document what does and does not
constitute the AGP's use
> for those now unwritten benifits to registrants, or
the elimination
> of the AGP, which I Chris, and Dominik
proposals/motions outline
> and call for, becomes necessary. Chris and myself
have doubts as
> to wheather of not such specifics in modification of
the AGP to
> provide for the desired flexability or the now non
written benifits
> can be adaquately accomplished, and I personally am of
the opinion
> the policing of same would be a huge burden of
responsibility on
> the ICANN staff that is obviously desired to be
eliminated. Some
> of those oversite functions I know can be automated
programatically
> in the registration software, but given that less than
secure
> registration software in used a additional security
level requirement
> would than also become necessary. I have frequently
suggested such
> be done long ago, but was sarimoniously ignored. Now
that chicken
> has come home to roost!
>>
>>Secondly, VeriSign's reports clearly indicate that
some registrars -
> very
>>few - delete N (big N) times more domains than add or
renew, and that
> is a
>>permanent situation. VeriSign's benefit is that their
servers'
> performances
>>are permanently benched and able to withstand a lot.
>
> Yes but Verisign in not necessarly respectively
comparative to
> other registries as far as server performance ability
is concerned,
> and does not apply to registrars at all.
>>
>>Third, I do not see much AGP benefit to registrants,
they do not have
> EPP
>>access to anything, and IMHO cannot make many mistakes
(typo happens,
> of
>>course).
>
> I fully agree. What is and has for years now been
necessary is
> that registrants have EPP access to their own
registered domain name
> records at both the registrar level and registry level
so as to
> keep them accurate and up to date. Both registries
and registrars
> have been particularly resistant to providing for this
function,
> and as such errors in both registry/registrar data for
any particular
> Domain name information remain, AND Whois listing
data. This poses at
> least one, and I would be glad to argue at any time in
any setting,
> several other significant legal and criminal activity
directly related
> to this lack of ability and oversite of domain name
registration
> data. As such, ICANN by way of the RAA contracts is
liable to a
> limited degree in complicity of such illegal activity
accordingly.
>
> However anyone of reasonable sensibilities can
understand a
> typo error, but as Chris has pointed out those should
not occur
> after the second opt-out has been sent to the
registrant and
> recieved accordingly.
>>
>>
>>
>>Eventually I concur with proposed GNSO (Council?)
motion - 50 deletes
> or
>>10% - to discriminate between occasional mistakes or
incompetence of
> the
>>dark side and permanent tasting by some registrars.
>
> Plain and simple, registrars that have shown a short
history
> of Tasting or other errent and possibly illegal
activity should
> immediately have their ICANN accreditation revoked and
their
> Domain Name taken down.
>>
>>Last, I think ICANN's should compile tendencies of
monthly reports to
> show
>>to the Board any new piggyback services happening in
registrations.
>
> I fully agree. Additionally if such activity is
recognized, the
> offender should be immediately notified and given no
longer than
> 10 calender days to correct the problem or face
whatever legal
> consequences that may and should insue.
>
> My final and personal concerns regarding Tasting and
registration
> of Domain Names:
>
> As I have repeatedly stated for a number of years,
along with
> Dr. Joe Baptista, my single biggest concern regarding
the Domain
> name registration is similar to the assingment of IP
addresses,
> that being that many, too many Domain Names that are
registered
> are used for illegal activities, such as spam,
phishing, and
> more importantly Child Ponrnography solicitiation or
direct
> Child Ponography activity. This must be STOPPED and
ICANN
> can and has the direct ability to STOP it if it so
chooses.
> Currently it does not choose to do so, or is unable to
do
> so due to lack of staff and technical ability. Those
are
> not reasonable excuses IMHO! Yet the user, just like
myself,
> cannot by themselves stop this errant or illegal
activity.
> But we can, and I persoanally do, just like Dr. Joe,
Chris,
> and Dominik have, object strongly to this lack of
responsibility
> by ICANN!
>
> As a matter of practicality and legal liability,
passing
> along to LEA's, court systems in any and all
countries,
> judicial systems of same due to a lack of
responsibility
> by the ICANN Bod and legal staff is an unecessary
burden
> upon those LEA's, judicial systems, court systems and
an
> affront to the public that I am sure they do not
appriciate
> at all. Nor do I! >:(
>>
>>
>>
>>My 2 euro-cents
>>
>>Elisabeth Porteneuve
>>
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:roberto@xxxxxxxxx> >
>>To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> >; "'Hugh Dierker'"
>><hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> >; <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >;
> <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >
>>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:04 PM
>>Subject: RE: [ga] List Rules
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Danny, that could be really helpful in
trying to sort this
> issue
>>> out. At least for me.
>>> RG
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Danny
Younger
>>>> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:49
>>>> To: Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ; ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello Eric,
>>>>
>>>> As much as I like motions, we would in a better
position if
>>>> we could draft an issues paper laying out the pros
and cons
>>>> of the AGP. I note that the registrars have
already created
>>>> a powerpoint on the benefits of the AGP -- you can
view it by
>>>> clicking on the attachment at this url:
>>>>
>
http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html
<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html>
>>>>
>>>> By this way, this powerpoint was quite convincing
(at least
>>>> to Board director Steven Goldstein that referenced
this
>>>> presentation at the Washington JPA session), so our
>>>> counterpoint arguments must necessarily be of equal
or
>>>> greater caliber if we are to convince both the GNSO
and the
>>>> Board over the objections of the registrars.
>>>>
>>>> regards,
>>>> Danny
>>>>
>>>> --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx
<mailto:hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > The list has run along very smoothly for several
months. The main
>>>> > reason is voluntary compliance with the rules.
Once this concept
>>>> > breaks down so does the list. We are not talking
about
>>>> individual one
>>>> > time lapses. For constant repeat violations we
must stand
>>>> strong and
>>>> > enforce the rules.
>>>> >
>>>> > We are at a point for the first time in months,
that the list is
>>>> > coalescing into the form of producing a
statement/motion. The AGP
>>>> > issue seems to have come to a head and more
formal resolution
>>>> > procedures may be appropriate. I believe it is at
a motion
>>>> stage with
>>>> > 4 seconds. If the desire is to move forward in a
constructive
>>>> > effective matter, we should hear that from the
members.
>>>> >
>>>> > Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
> Regards,
>
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> My Phone: 214-244-4827
>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|