<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Milton is pointing into the right
direction. <br>
<br>
Many of the domain name registrants are not aware what is actually
happens. They can be forgiven to think: "I bought the domain, I
pay for it, so why all this reconfirmation non-sense?".<br>
<br>
I think this points also to a much deeper problem. The domain name
registrants are simply not aware to which forces, political and
governance mechanisms they subject themselves when they register
and buy a domain name. They are not aware that they have not just
bought a convenient product but they also have bought into a
Internet governance Ecosystem which directly influences them and
their interests and needs. They are mostly not even vaguely aware
of Internet governance. Here is the answer to the question why
ICANN needs to be active in end user awareness building and
engagement: it is a major part of ICANN claim for legitimacy. <br>
<br>
In order to avoid millions of domains to be taken down, we need to
make those aware who register them, what governance system they
subject themselves to. Only then can they make an informed choice
and can get engaged if they wish and we avoid todays situation of
a internet governance by the few of the very many. But maybe the
few are not interested that the majority of those concerned and
affected by Internet governance actually know what is going on,
because that might endanger their elitist privileged quasi
monopolistic grip on Internet governance. In the short term they
might get away with it, in the medium and long term, Internet
governance without broad end user awareness building and
engagement can not survive. From this follows what the NCSG's role
is and should do: Empower the many!<br>
<br>
Klaus<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 7/3/2014 8:48 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:7d1bcbe686bd401b9e2bf1f1a5835959@EX13-MBX-13.ad.syr.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p
{mso-style-priority:99;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">One
could have perfectly accurate contact details on the whois
record, but if the inquiry went into the spam folder or you
are on vacation, or you don’t know what it is and don’t
respond, the domain is suspended. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">The
issue is not whether the contact details are not maintained,
but whether the person who has been emailed responds
according to an artificially imposed deadline. This test
does not really verify accuracy of contact details but just
responsiveness.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D">All
these checks do is to subordinate domain name registrants
rights to the surveillance interests convenience.
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a moz-do-not-send="true"
name="_MailEndCompose"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F497D"><o:p> </o:p></span></a></p>
<div style="border:none;border-left:solid blue 1.5pt;padding:0in
0in 0in 4.0pt">
<div>
<div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">From:</span></b><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"">
NCSG-Discuss [<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a>]
<b>On Behalf Of </b>Seun Ojedeji<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, July 3, 2014 9:22 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU">NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU</a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Fwd: A
million domains taken down by email checks<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p>Hello Avri, all<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>I think this particular issue needs to be addressed
carefully. I personally don't see why a domain owner would
not have a valid whois contact as one cannot overemphasise
it's advantage.<br>
I think it's okay to penalise those who don't have valid
contact, however the process that had been taken before
arriving at implementing the penalty is what I suggest we
look into.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>There is a whois policy currently under discussion within
the AfriNIC region which has penalty that results to
withdrawing member IP resource. However before such
implementation is done, there are series of contacting
options (using different means like phone, email etc,
friends, upstream) that is used by staff to reach the
member. Also the proposal indicates clear timeline on when
to withdraw IP resource if no luck on reaching member.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>So my view is that NCSG looks at the process currently
taken to verify whois contacts with the aim of suggesting
better ways and perhaps proposing longer timeline periods.
Nevertheless, I think it's still important to penalise those
who don't maintain their contact details.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>Cheers!<o:p></o:p></p>
<p>sent from Google nexus 4<br>
kindly excuse brevity and typos.<o:p></o:p></p>
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 3 Jul 2014 13:56, "Avri Doria" <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:avri@acm.org">avri@acm.org</a>>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #CCCCCC
1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0in">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi,<br>
<br>
IS this something we are taking a position on?<br>
<br>
I do not know whether at-large will decide that this is
a registrant<br>
issue instead of a user issue (leaving aside issues on
whether<br>
registrants could be considered a form of user), but it
does seem like<br>
it would be an issue for us.<br>
<br>
Do we want to take it up?<br>
<br>
Is it something the GNSO Council should take up?<br>
<br>
avri<br>
<br>
<br>
-------- Original Message --------<br>
Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: A million domains taken down
by email checks<br>
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:36:55 +0800<br>
From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com">rinalia.abdulrahim@gmail.com</a>><br>
Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br>
To: ALAC Working List <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org">alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br>
CC: At-Large Worldwide <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br>
<br>
Dear ALAC,<br>
<br>
In reference to Joly MacFie's mail to the At-Large (see
forwarded), the<br>
topic was also raised by Registrars during their meeting
with the ICANN<br>
Board in London.<br>
<br>
Fadi posed a question to the Registrars on whether they
have engaged with<br>
the At-Large on the matter. Fadi then raised the issue
to the At-Large<br>
during his ATLASII Fayre speech.<br>
<br>
It would be important that the At-Large articulates its
position on the<br>
issue (possibly via an ALAC statement) as it is being
presented as a<br>
problem for Internet users.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
<br>
Rinalia<br>
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>
From: "Joly MacFie" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joly@punkcast.com">joly@punkcast.com</a>><br>
Date: Jun 26, 2014 1:00 AM<br>
Subject: [At-Large] A million domains taken down by
email checks<br>
To: "At-Large Worldwide" <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a>><br>
Cc:<br>
<br>
Fwd over from the NCSG list. I underdtand that this
would have been<br>
> discussed in today's EWG and privacy sessions. Any
comments?<br>
><br>
><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks"
target="_blank">
http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks</a><br>
><br>
> A million domains taken down by email checks<br>
> <<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks"
target="_blank">
http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks</a><br>
> ><br>
> Kevin Murphy <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://domainincite.com/about" target="_blank">http://domainincite.com/about</a>>,
June 24, 2014, 14:34:25<br>
> (UTC), Domain Registrars<br>
> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registrars"
target="_blank">http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registrars</a>><br>
><br>
> *Over 800,000 domain names have been suspended
since the beginning of the<br>
> year as a result of Whois email verification rules
in the new ICANN<br>
> Registrar Accreditation Agreement.*<br>
><br>
> That’s according to the Registrars Stakeholder
Group, which collected<br>
> suspension data from registrars representing about
75% of all registered<br>
> gTLD domain names.<br>
><br>
> The actual number of suspended domains could be
closer to a million.<br>
><br>
> The 2013 RAA requires registrars to verify the
email addresses listed in<br>
> their customers’ Whois records. If they don’t
receive the verification,<br>
> they have to suspend the domain.<br>
><br>
> The RrSG told the ICANN board in March that these
checks were doing more<br>
> harm than good<br>
> <<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-good"
target="_blank">
http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-good</a><br>
> ><br>
> and today Tucows CEO Elliot Noss presented, as
promised, data to back up<br>
> the claim.<br>
><br>
> “There have been over 800,000 domains suspended,”
Noss said. “We have<br>
> stories of healthcare sites that have gone down,
community groups whose<br>
> sites have gone down.”<br>
><br>
> “I think we can safely say millions of internet
users,” he said. “Those are<br>
> real people just trying to use the internet. They
are our great<br>
> unrepresented core constituency.”<br>
><br>
> The RrSG wants to see contrasting data from law
enforcement agencies and<br>
> governments — which pushed hard for Whois
verification — showing that the<br>
> RAA requirement has had a demonstrable benefit.<br>
><br>
> Registrars asked at the Singapore meeting in March
that law enforcement<br>
> agencies (LEA) be put on notice that they can’t ask
for more Whois controls<br>
> until they’ve provided such data and ICANN CEO Fadi
Chehade said<br>
> <<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-good"
target="_blank">
http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-good</a><br>
> ><br>
> “It shall be done by London.”<br>
><br>
> Noss implied that the majority of the 800,000
suspended names belong to<br>
> innocent registrants, such as those who had simply
changed email addresses<br>
> since registering their names.<br>
><br>
> “What was a lovely political win that we said time
and time again in<br>
> discussion after discussion was impractical and
would provide no benefit,<br>
> has demonstrably has created harm,” Noss said.<br>
><br>
> He was received with cautious support by ICANN
board members.<br>
><br>
> Chair Steve Crocker wonder aloud how many of the
800,000 suspended domains<br>
> are owned by bad guys, and he noted that LEA don’t
appear to gather data in<br>
> the way that the registrars are demanding.<br>
><br>
> “We were subjected, all of us, to heavy-duty
pressure from the law<br>
> enforcement community over a long period of time.
We finally said, ‘Okay,<br>
> we hear you and we’ll help you get this stuff
implemented,’”, he added.<br>
> “That creates an obligation as far as I’m concerned
on their part.”<br>
><br>
> “We’re in a — at least from a moral position — in a
strong position to say,<br>
> ‘You must help us understand this. Otherwise,
you’re not doing your part of<br>
> the job’”, he said.<br>
><br>
> Chehade also seemed to support the registrars’
position that LEA needs to<br>
> justify its demands and offered to take their data
and concerns to the LEA<br>
> and the Governmental Advisory Committee.<br>
><br>
> “They put restrictions on us that are causing harm,
according to these<br>
> numbers,” he said. “Let’s take this back at them
and say, hey, you ask for<br>
> all these things, this is what happened.”<br>
><br>
> “If you can’t tell me what good this has done, be
aware not to come back<br>
> and ask for more,” he said. “I’m with you on this
100%. I’m saying let’s<br>
> use the great findings you seem to have a found and
well-package them in a<br>
> case and I will be your advocate.”<br>
><br>
> Director Mike Silber also spoke in support of the
RrSG’s position.<br>
><br>
> “My view is if what you are saying is correct, the
LEA’s have blown their<br>
> credibility,” he said. “They’re going to have to do
a lot of work before we<br>
> impose similar disproportional requirements on
actors that are not proven<br>
> to be bad actors.”<br>
><br>
> So what does this all mean for registrants?<br>
><br>
> I don’t think there’s any ongoing process right now
to get the Whois<br>
> verification requirements overturned — that would
require a renegotiation<br>
> of the RAA — but it does seem to mean demands from
governments and police<br>
> are going to have to be much more substantiated in
future.<br>
><br>
> Noss attempted to link the problem to the
recommendations of the Whois<br>
> Expert Working Group (EWG), which propose a
completely revamped,<br>
> centralized Whois system with much more
verification<br>
> <<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://domainincite.com/16855-whois-killer-is-a-recipe-for-a-clusterfuck"
target="_blank">http://domainincite.com/16855-whois-killer-is-a-recipe-for-a-clusterfuck</a>><br>
> and not much to benefit registrants.<br>
><br>
> To paraphrase: if email verification causes so much
harm, what harms could<br>
> be caused by the EWG proposal?<br>
><br>
> The EWG was not stuffed with LEA or governments,
however, so it couldn’t<br>
> really be characterized as another set of
unreasonable demands from the<br>
> same entities.<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="Skype:punkcast">Skype:punkcast</a><br>
> WWWhatsup NYC - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wwwhatsup.com" target="_blank">http://wwwhatsup.com</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://pinstand.com" target="_blank">http://pinstand.com</a>
- <a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://punkcast.com"
target="_blank">
http://punkcast.com</a><br>
> VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://isoc-ny.org" target="_blank">http://isoc-ny.org</a><br>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> -<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> At-Large mailing list<br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
> <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large"
target="_blank">
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
><br>
> At-Large Official Site: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
At-Large mailing list<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org">At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org</a><br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large"
target="_blank">https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large</a><br>
<br>
At-Large Official Site: <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://atlarge.icann.org" target="_blank">http://atlarge.icann.org</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>