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

["Ron Andruff" <randruff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeff,

["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 ?"] 

Yes.  

I am not saying that we need to build walls or moats, rather, as you note
(and I agree) we need to include an audit/check system with teeth.  I was
pointing out (and it would be naïve to think otherwise) that there are a
significant number of bright-minds both outside and particularly inside the
ICANN community that are waiting for their opportunity to take advantage of,
and personally gain from, new TLDs rather than respecting the "exclusive and
privileged position" Kathy explained.  (A sad commentary on humanity in the
21st century...)  We are the gatekeepers in this case, so we carry a
specific responsibility as to how many abuses we can negate before they
happen, as a result of this WG.  

I am not stating a position here as much as I am underscoring my concern
that we get this right because as certain as day follows night, the bad
actors are going to flood this space to find the chinks in the armor.  It is
the issue of 'harm' and how we negate it I am struggling with. 

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

Sadly, I suspect the former rather than the latter.

Kind regards,

RA

Ronald N. Andruff
RNA Partners, Inc.



-----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