RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I need to clarify something I said...when I said the old NSI/VeriSign days I 
did not imply that VeriSign or NSI did anything wrong.  My point was that if 
all we had were audit rights, that would not have been sufficient.    In those 
days we had a code of conduct, equal access requirements, audit rights and 
sanctions.  Audit rights without these protections are meaningless.

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 1:32 PM
To: Jeff Eckhaus; 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response


Neustar's proposal also contains audit rights, but audit rights alone is not a 
sufficient safeguard.  If you don't believe me, just ask those that remember 
the old VeriSign/NSI days.  Point being that we need to get the system to one 
where the community trusts both ICANN and the players before we rely on audits 
alone.  We are nowhere near there. 

ICANN has always had audit rights with registrars, but if you ask any IP 
attorney, business and law enforcement person that has followed the ICANN world 
in the last 10 years, whether the audit rights have secured their confidence in 
the registrar system and ICANN's ability to do compliance, I would bet that 9 
out of 10 people say no.

To take another analogy outside of the ICANN world for all the attorneys on the 
list, name me one contract where the only protections built in are audit 
rights?  Audit rights are the belts and suspenders on obligations, roles and 
responsibilities.  They are not the obligations, roles and responsibilities 
themselves.  

Jeffrey J. Neuman 
Neustar, Inc. / Vice President, Law & Policy


The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may contain confidential and/or privileged 
information. If you are not the intended recipient you have received this 
e-mail message in error and any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying 
of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication 
in error, please notify us immediately and delete the original message.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Jeff Eckhaus
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 1:19 PM
To: 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response


Ron,

I have read your points below and believe it or not I think we may be moving 
along the same direction. 

You state that back when the registry misdeeds were happening there was no real 
oversight or compliance and they did not honor its duties and responsibilities. 
They were doing bad things that attempted to harm the consumer. 

Now, what if there was "contractual power"? What if there were audits and 
checks to review the actions of the registry and safeguards in place for 
consumers and penalties in place for the registry? Do you believe that the bad 
activities would have been curbed ? 

Or, were they such bad actors that no amount of sanctions would have stopped 
them? 


My point being that the MMA proposal and my proposal contain audits and checks 
and this is an area I would like to pursue to make sure consumers are not 
harmed while allowing cross ownership.
One of the ways forward is for people with direct experience with these 
exploits and disgraceful actions to list them so we can protect against them.

I just believe it is a more sensible way forward, then saying we need to build 
a moat or a wall around it. 


Jeff Eckhaus





-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx] On 
Behalf Of Ron Andruff
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 7:34 AM
To: 'Michele Neylon :: Blacknight'; 'gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response


In my view, Kathy makes a very persuasive argument.  Having launched a
registry with the same noble intentions ["That's an exclusive and privileged
position, and in our community, it includes duties and responsibilities."] I
saw firsthand how those that took over management of that registry tried --
and continue -- to exploit it in every possible manner solely for their own
personal gain.  So that is one disgraceful and clear example of harm.

If ICANN compliance had enough 'contractual power' today, that registry,
IMHO, would have long ago been put up for re-delegation to a new operator
that would indeed honor its duties and responsibilities to its community and
ICANN.

While some might dismiss PIR's comments as not showing tangible examples of
harm, I and others are well-aware of how badly greedy actors can abuse data,
registrants, and the very communities their TLDs are 'intended to serve'.
Had VI been possible when the current operators took control, the damage
that is being done (both to the affected community as well as to all those
who believe in the institution of ICANN) would have been magnitudes worse
than it is today. 

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Michele Neylon :: Blacknight
Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:36 AM
To: gnso-vi-feb10@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-vi-feb10] RE: Innovative Proposal - Jeff E response



On 15 Apr 2010, at 04:17, Kathy Kleiman wrote:

> 
> Among other forms of valuable domain name data, we have:
> <snip>

Milton's reply addresses this very comprehensively



> Goals of a Registry: Security and Stability of the TLD and the Internet.
> 
> Overall, I find the goals of the registries compelling: it is the
> security and stability of their TLDs and the DNS space. That is the
> passion and preoccupation of PIR, and the whole of the Registry
> Constituency. In a comment to be filed by the Registry Constituency in
> the DNS-Cert proceeding, due tomorrow, the Registry Constituency will
> together submit:
> 
> "TLD Registry Operators play a critical role in the secure and stable
> operation of the DNS and we welcome the opportunity to discuss
> initiatives to improve DNS security, stability, and resiliency.
> Registries' infrastructures, personnel, expertise, technology,
> investments, and operational practices have underpinned the secure and
> stable  functioning of the Internet as it has scaled globally over the
> past two decades.  Indeed, registries are on the "front lines" of
> defense against a variety of security threats that occur on a daily
> basis.  As such, registries have developed expertise in addressing a
> broad range of threats.  Registries have successfully coordinated with
> other actors in the DNS and Internet services spaces to address threats
> ranging from simple operator errors to those caused by sophisticated bad
> actors.  Registries look forward to consulting with ICANN on these
> important issues and to engaging with other actors to further develop
> these initiatives."
> 
> We have a system of separations that works: Registries address the
> security and stability of  their TLD and the Internet. Registrars work
> with registrants - and find the boldest, most innovative ways to connect
> people, organizations and business with the domain names and the domain
> name services they need. The growth, the brilliance and dramatic changes
> of the registrar field are extraordinary.
> 
> But it was done within a DNS system of checks and balances and of
> requirements for equal access, equal treatment, and equal information
> (with a further separation of ownership to back it up). That too has
> served us, and the Internet community, well. Thus, we strongly support
> extending the system of structural separation to the new gTLDs.


Sorry, but I can't see any answer in there at all. 

You (PIR) are saying that stability and security will be harmed. When asked
how, you come back with nothing of any actual consequence that answers the
question.

You instead go on about how wonderful you all are and how much you care
about "stuff".

You don't actually show any clear examples of real, tangible, harm and how
it could be done to anyone if the current status quo were changed.

Regards

Michele

Mr Michele Neylon
Blacknight Solutions
Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection
ICANN Accredited Registrar
http://www.blacknight.com/
http://blog.blacknight.com/
http://mneylon.tel
Intl. +353 (0) 59  9183072
US: 213-233-1612 
UK: 0844 484 9361
Locall: 1850 929 929
Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090
Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon
-------------------------------
Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty
Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland  Company No.: 370845