<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues
- To: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@xxxxxxxxx>, lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "<whois-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>" <whois-wg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, icann-board@xxxxxxxxx, rod_beckstrom@xxxxxxxxx
- Subject: [ga] Re: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS Issues
- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:00:01 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
<HEAD>
<STYLE>body{font-family:
Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;font-size:10pt;font-family:arial,sans-serif;background-color:#ffffff;color:black;}p{margin:0px}</STYLE>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18928"></HEAD>
<BODY id=compText>
<P>Carlton and all,</P>
<P> </P>
<P> Thanks for this FWD Carlton.</P>
<P> </P>
<P> FWIW, unresponsive Registrars has been the norm for ICANN Accredited
Registrars</P>
<P>for more than 7 years now. Not much new in that nor likely much change
unless</P>
<P>ICANN's staff starts dis-accrediting some of the bigger Registrars which is
unlikely</P>
<P>as they are the larger/largest source of ICANN's budget.
<BR><BR><BR></P>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 0px">-----Original Message----- <BR>From: Carlton Samuels
<CARLTON.SAMUELS@xxxxxxxxx><BR>Sent: Jul 19, 2010 6:28 PM <BR>To:
lac-discuss-en@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "<WHOIS-WG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>"
<WHOIS-WG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Subject: [WHOIS-WG] Fwd: Roundup of WHOIS
Issues <BR><BR>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>FYI.</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>Carlton </DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV>
<DIV
class=gmail_quote>===============================================================================</DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote>Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 08:02:36 -0700<BR>From: "Garth
Bruen at KnujOn" <<A href="mailto:gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>To: <A
href="mailto:na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Subject: [NA-Discuss]
David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to
be addressed<BR><BR><BR>Folks,<BR><BR>I was really hoping to push forward
on this with David Giza?s input.<BR>His departure may signal a set-back but I?m
hoping this is not the<BR>case. While I?m determined to get these issues
addressed I am open to<BR>suggestions as to how to get ICANN compliance moving
again on them.<BR><BR>In general I think it is imperative that ICANN disclose
what happened<BR>here with Giza. There are rumors circulating that David was
pushed out<BR>for saying he didn?t have enough staff or for actually doing his
job<BR>and enforcing the RAA. If this is true, it represents a serious
breach<BR>of trust with the community and an undeserved turn for someone trying
to<BR>do the right thing.<BR><BR>But to continue, there are a number of
WHOIS-related problems that need<BR>addressing, but I?ll start with immediate
ones brought up in Brussels<BR>and situations that have surfaced
recently.<BR><BR><BR>-Info and utility for At-Large Members:<BR><BR>I promised
to post a utility and WHOIS address list for all Registrars<BR>and all ccTLDs,
but I want the list to be as complete as possible before<BR>sending it out, and
also to supply a location for updates. The remaining<BR>Registrars who wont
disclose their Port 43 address are delaying the<BR>final list, but I?ll get all
the information soon.<BR><BR><BR>-Unresponsive Registrars<BR><BR>As noted
above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their<BR>Port 43
address. Some have supplied it after we published our report,<BR>but others
remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue us<BR>to get us to
stop asking:<BR><A
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html";
target=_blank>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html</A><BR><BR>But
the question is: what to do here? Is there any recourse against a<BR>Registrar
who wont answer questions about their contracted obligations?<BR>They may claim
the RAA requires them to have a Port 43 address but does<BR>not require them to
tell anyone.<BR><BR><BR>-Problem Port 43<BR><BR>ICANN compliance is not being
equal in its dispensing of breach notices.<BR>There are Registrars with poor
WHOIS access that have not been notified,<BR>while others in jeopardy of
loosing their accreditation may have better<BR>access
records.<BR><BR><BR>-?Domain Check?<BR><BR>As noted, many Registrars do not
have a full WHOIS on their website, but<BR>rather a look up that merely tells
you if the domain is taken, not who<BR>owns it. I will ask compliance about
these one more time before filing<BR>individual complaints against
each.<BR><BR><BR>-Bulk Purchases of WHOIS, what?s the story?<BR><BR>There is
much confusion here that needs to be sorted out by compliance.<BR>As part of
our research we asked the 5 largest Registrars about<BR>accessing WHOIS in bulk
as required by RAA 3.3.6. eNom, Dotster, and<BR>Moniker/Oversee/Snapnames did
not respond at all to the request.<BR>NameScout said they did not offer the
service. Network Solutions also<BR>said they did sell access, and then posted
publicly that they were not<BR>required to<BR>(<A
href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_is_blocking_whois_part_2/";
target=_blank>http://www.circleid.com/posts/who_is_blocking_whois_part_2/</A>),
which was<BR>then quickly retracted, but the main question goes
unanswered.<BR><BR><BR>-AIT?s Hidden WHOIS<BR><BR>Another question that is
emerging is the way WHOIS is accessed. In one<BR>example AIT ?has? a web WHOIS
but finding it is a challenge. On<BR>their main page they have a ?domain
lookup? which will tell you if<BR>the domain is taken. If you happen to
accidentally click on the little<BR>red star next to the domain name it will
launch a CAPTCHA window, and<BR>once you enter the code correctly it will
present the WHOIS data. But is<BR>this really compliant?<BR><BR><BR>-Registrar
Complaint Process<BR><BR>Unlike the WDPRS system, the complaint
interface<BR>(<A
href="http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi";
target=_blank>http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi</A>)
for<BR>filing a complaint against a Registrar has no ticket, no
confirmation<BR>email, no time-frame, no feedback, and no official resolution
from<BR>compliance staff. In fact, to view the brief overview of the
process:<BR><A
href="http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/compliance-flowchart.htm";
target=_blank>http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/compliance-flowchart.htm</A>,
one will<BR>see there is no space for responding to the complainant. The first
step<BR>in the process is ?Investigation or Dismissal? but no where is
there<BR>feedback for the user as to why the complaint would be dismissed.
We<BR>have, in fact, never received a response for a complaint filed
through<BR>this
interface.<BR><BR><BR><BR>-Garth<BR><BR><BR>-------------------------------------<BR>What
is the Doomsday Book? <A href="http://knujon.com/doomsday";
target=_blank>http://knujon.com/doomsday</A><BR><BR>Garth Bruen<BR><A
href="mailto:gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx"; target=_blank>gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><A
href="http://www.knujon.com"; target=_blank>http://www.knujon.com</A><BR><A
href="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724";
target=_blank>http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724</A><BR>Linkedin Group: <A
href="http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205";
target=_blank>http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205</A><BR>Blog: <A
href="http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/";
target=_blank>http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/</A><BR>Twitter:
@Knujon<BR><BR> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR><BR> Date:
Mon, 19 Jul 2010 12:03:56 -0400<BR>From: Evan Leibovitch <<A
href="mailto:evan@xxxxxxxxx"; target=_blank>evan@xxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>To: Garth
Bruen at KnujOn <<A href="mailto:gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>Cc: <A
href="mailto:na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Subject: Re:
[NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to be
addressed<BR><BR>Hi Garth,<BR><BR>On 19 July 2010 11:02, Garth Bruen at KnujOn
<<A href="mailto:gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx"; target=_blank>gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx</A>>
wrote:<BR><BR>><BR>> I was really hoping to push forward on this with
David Giza?s input. His<BR>> departure may signal a set-back but I?m hoping
this is not the case. While<BR>> I?m determined to get these issues
addressed I am open to suggestions as to<BR>> how to get ICANN compliance
moving again on them.<BR>><BR><BR>Engagement with current staff and pressure
at the Board level may be the<BR>only way we can persist on
this.<BR><BR>Obviously with staff movement the newcomers will require time to
come to<BR>speed, and that is time lost in our attempts to resolve these
issues.<BR><BR><BR>> In general I think it is imperative that ICANN disclose
what happened here<BR>> with Giza. There are rumors circulating that David
was pushed out for saying<BR>> he didn?t have enough staff or for actually
doing his job and enforcing the<BR>> RAA. If this is true, it represents a
serious breach of trust with the<BR>> community and an undeserved turn for
someone trying to do the right thing.<BR>><BR><BR>ICANN is at its most
opaque (and that's a high bar) on personnel issues of<BR>any kind. Part of the
reason At-Large has so much trouble knowing its budget<BR>is because so much of
our budget is support staff costs and ICANN seems<BR>loathe to give us any idea
what the staff expenses really are (lest the<BR>community dare to think it
might have a better idea than senior staff of how<BR>to allocate
resources).<BR><BR>Unfortunately, this is one area -- coming clean on the
backstory to a staff<BR>departure -- in which we will never be told the real
goings-on unless David<BR>goes public himself. There is some precedent --
Kieren McCarthy has arguably<BR>offered more insight as an ex-employee than
while working at ICANN. But that<BR>has been the exception.<BR><BR><BR><BR>>
-Info and utility for At-Large Members:<BR>><BR>> I promised to post a
utility and WHOIS address list for all Registrars<BR>> and all ccTLDs, but I
want the list to be as complete as possible before<BR>> sending it out, and
also to supply a location for updates. The remaining<BR>> Registrars who
wont disclose their Port 43 address are delaying the<BR>> final list, but
I?ll get all the information soon.<BR>><BR><BR><BR>You could always put out
an interim list with "pending" located where the<BR>yet-to-be-collected info is
supposed to go.<BR><BR><BR>> -Unresponsive Registrars<BR>><BR>> As
noted above, there are many Registrars who would not disclose their<BR>>
Port 43 address. Some have supplied it after we published our report,<BR>>
but others remain silent. One Registrar is grumbling that he may sue us<BR>>
to get us to stop asking:<BR>> <A
href="http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html";
target=_blank>http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg02490.html</A><BR>><BR><BR>In
the chat referenced, there's an insinuation claiming you use
"sloppy<BR>research methods". I'd like to get that allegation investigated. Is
there<BR>anything constructive this guy Volker can offer? Or does he think
that<BR>"sloppy" means anything that produces results he doesn't
like?<BR><BR><BR><BR>> But the question is: what to do here? Is there any
recourse against a<BR>> Registrar who wont answer questions about their
contracted obligations?<BR>> They may claim the RAA requires them to have a
Port 43 address but does<BR>> not require them to tell
anyone.<BR>><BR><BR><BR>That is a flaw in the RAA and indeed worth taking up
with ICANN. This is<BR>*abosolutely* an accountability/transparency
issue.<BR><BR><BR>-AIT?s Hidden WHOIS<BR>><BR>> Another question that is
emerging is the way WHOIS is accessed. In one<BR>> example AIT ?has? a web
WHOIS but finding it is a challenge. On<BR>> their main page they have a
?domain lookup? which will tell you if<BR>> the domain is taken. If you
happen to accidentally click on the little<BR>> red star next to the domain
name it will launch a CAPTCHA window, and<BR>> once you enter the code
correctly it will present the WHOIS data. But is<BR>> this really
compliant?<BR>><BR><BR>IMO, if the CAPTCHA is legit then I would suggest
this is OK. It's<BR>reasonable that someone would not want bits vacuuming that
data as a matter<BR>of course. At very least they could argue that it's a
bandwidth issue (the<BR>claim could be BS, but it's superficially
legit).<BR><BR><BR><BR>> -Registrar Complaint Process<BR>><BR>> Unlike
the WDPRS system, the complaint interface<BR>> (<A
href="http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi";
target=_blank>http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi</A>)
for<BR>> filing a complaint against a Registrar has no ticket, no
confirmation<BR>> email, no time-frame, no feedback, and no official
resolution from<BR>> compliance staff. In fact, to view the brief overview
of the process:<BR>> <A
href="http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/compliance-flowchart.htm";
target=_blank>http://www.icann.org/en/compliance/compliance-flowchart.htm</A>,
one will<BR>> see there is no space for responding to the complainant. The
first step<BR>> in the process is ?Investigation or Dismissal? but no where
is there<BR>> feedback for the user as to why the complaint would be
dismissed. We<BR>> have, in fact, never received a response for a complaint
filed through<BR>> this interface.<BR>><BR><BR><BR>Also an A&T
issue.<BR><BR>I'm really looking forward to seeing you on that
commitee.<BR><BR>-
Evan<BR><BR><BR>------------------------------<BR><BR>Message: 4<BR>Date: Mon,
19 Jul 2010 09:07:24 -0700<BR>From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <<A
href="mailto:gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx"; target=_blank>gbruen@xxxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>To:
"Evan Leibovitch" <<A href="mailto:evan@xxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>evan@xxxxxxxxx</A>><BR>Cc: <A
href="mailto:na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx";
target=_blank>na-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR>Subject: Re:
[NA-Discuss] David Giza and Round up of WHOIS issues to<BR>
be addressed<BR><BR>Thanks for the
comments<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV>
<DIV class=gmail_quote><BR></DIV><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px;
MARGIN-LEFT: 0px">Regards,<BR><BR>Jeffrey A. Williams<BR>Spokesman for INEGroup
LLA. - (Over 300+k members/stakeholders and growing, strong!)<BR>"Obedience of
the law is the greatest freedom" -<BR> Abraham
Lincoln<BR><BR>"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what
is very<BR>often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt<BR><BR>"If the
probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability<BR>depends
upon whether B is less than L multiplied by<BR>P: i.e., whether B is less than
PL."<BR>United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir.
1947]<BR>===============================================================<BR>Updated
1/26/04<BR>CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of<BR>Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.<BR>ABA member in good
standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>Phone:
214-244-4827</ZZZBODY><ZZZBASE
target="_self"></ZZZHTML></BLOCKQUOTE></ZZZBODY><BASE
target=_self></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|