Tasting and other errant or illegal registration activity, was: Re: [ga] List Rules

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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>
>Sent: Apr 1, 2008 6:45 AM
>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Danny Younger' 
><dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, 'Hugh Dierker' <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>, 
>debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Elisabeth Porteneuve <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>
>To: "'Danny Younger'" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>; "'Hugh Dierker'" 
><hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>; <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <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] On Behalf Of Danny Younger
>>> Sent: Monday, 31 March 2008 21:49
>>> To: Hugh Dierker; debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; 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
>>>
>>> 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> 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
My Phone: 214-244-4827