Not that there is ever a good time for such a failure!

m

On 18 April 2012 18:26, Maria Farrell <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Dear Klaus,
>
> I'm not close enough to the specifics of this situation to suggest where
> it went wrong, but I do appreciate your approach of criticism from someone
> who ultimately wants ICANN to work rather than to fail.
>
> Clearly, something (things?) has gone horribly wrong, but there is a lot
> more schadenfreude from various quarters than is consistent with detailed
> knowledge or concern for the new gTLD programme more broadly. It really is
> a terrible year - IGF etc - for ICANN to have massively dropped the ball.
>
> Maria
>
>
> On 18 April 2012 16:01, klaus.stoll <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Friends
>>
>> Unfortunately all of the below is true. Many questions but little
>> answers. It seems to me the time has come to start a comprehensive
>> re-thinking and re-planning process. If things go on as they are the damage
>> will increase and increase. ICANN is not perfect, ICANN has a lot of
>> problems, ICANN at times is a madhouse of interests and egos, BUT ICANN is
>> the best system for Internet Governance we have, we should be proud for the
>> way it worked so well so far, everything else is even worse. Now it seems
>> that ICANN is under real pressure we need to work twice as hard to protect
>> ICANN and at he same time think twice as hard about possible solutions. Now
>> is the time for self-confidence and innovation, everything else is counter
>> productive. Thinking back over the years we need to look where things
>> started to get seriously wrong and correct the basic mistakes made. Any
>> suggestions where it all went wrong?
>>
>> Does anybody know where the reset button is on that one?
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:18 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Fwd: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the
>> Secrecy
>>
>> Imram pretty much summarizes the extension of the incredible blunder,
>> especially in its liability aspects.
>>
>> At a minimum ICANN will need to hire independent specialist auditors to
>> do a full check on the damage and on who has been affected (although I
>> do not believe in the tale that just a few have been affected). But
>> these auditors would be chosen by staff, so the blunder might rise to
>> new levels. Could the applicants participate in this choice?
>>
>> This is going to escalate, the question now is how far it will go.
>>
>> What should NCSG do about it? I frankly do not know what to propose
>> right now. The IOC/RC process, the refusal by the NTIA to renew the IANA
>> contract, and now this incredible TAS blunder, all in a few months... it
>> seems ICANN is trying hard to burn itself out.
>>
>> I wonder who are the "four candidates" for the post of Beck Rodstrom
>> (sic on purpose :)), the brave individuals who wish to come to ICANN and
>> try and clean up this mess?
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the Secrecy
>> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah <[log in to unmask]>
>> Reply-To: [log in to unmask],**Imran Ahmed Shah <
>> [log in to unmask]>
>> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]**>
>> CC: Imran @IGFPak.org <[log in to unmask]>
>>
>> Dear
>> All,
>> Security, Stability and Resiliency of the Internet layers was the prime
>> responsibility of the ICANN, but the organization
>> couldn't protect/ secure its latest online application submission system
>> of new
>> gTLDs (TAS). Would it be fair to say the best practices were not followed
>> to
>> design the system which was built to keep the information secure,
>> confidential
>> and protected. This
>> application supported the collection of 850+ applications and over $150m
>> funds.
>>
>> ICANN
>> has been informed about this the glitch on 19th but ICANN did not taken it
>> seriously, decision making took about 23 days.
>> ICANN took its TAS Application
>> offline on 12th April which was the last date when it has to be closed
>> automatically. ICANN has its plan to reopen this TAS system to the
>> public that
>> mean Expansion the 90days window by extension of closing
>> date.
>> "We have learned of a possible glitch in the TLD application system
>> software that has allowed a limited number of users to view some other
>> users' file names and user names in certain scenarios."
>>
>> Technically it was necessary to use the secure method
>> and variables should not be displayed in the URL. According to the
>> policy the
>> information of the applicants will not be disclosed however, the
>> applicant name
>> and the applied for string has to publically announced at a later stage.
>> Many of them may have lost their
>> secrecy& confidentiality. It is next to impossible to discover that who is
>> the beneficiary and who is the looser? However, it will raise the
>> conflicts
>> and bidding values.
>> In
>> short ICANN has lost its trust for maintaining the confidentiality,
>> Integrity and Information Security. ICANN has to re-define its policy or
>> call public comments that how to deal with this scenario.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> .
>
>
>