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

[Michael Palage <michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

So what was so bad with the original safegaurds in the 1999 NSI/VRSN  
agreement that resulted in NSI going from 100% market share to under  
40%  in like three years. The GoDaddys, eNoms and 1 and 1s of the  
world have done well from my perspective.
I think Milton, Jeff E and I are looking for actual harms, so that we  
can address them. Prior to Seoul I supported Afilias/Neustar/PIR's  
position because DemandMedia opposed any audit. Given that they have  
made an important concession on this point, let's talk about how to  
give the audit teeth instead of those that oppose an idea without  
providing any specific examples of harm that cannot be addressed  
through an audit/complaince program.
Best regards,

Michael

Sent from my iPhone

On Apr 15, 2010, at 10:32 AM, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  
wrote:
> 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