Marc, I know everyone tries their best in these situations, but your story is classic. I am saving it as a "must-read" for newcomers to the field. Tx, Kathy <<It's interesting that Kathy mentioned Godaddy and take down requests. I have a personal story about what happened with Godaddy taking out an entire data center due to a spam complaint. I was hosted at the data center and a friend of mine owns it and he had me make the call knowing that I'm good at getting results. The data center was called nectartech.com. > > What happened was that some customer got hacked and was sending spam. > The customer was using nectartech.com name servers as was most of > their customers. On Friday January 13th around 5:00pm Godaddy > suspended the nectartech.com domain. And it was a 3 day weekend. What > happened then was a legendary story about how I managed to get > nectartech.com back online in spite of Godaddy's suspention. > > This is a great anecdotal story about what can happen when registrars > go wild with domain suspension. You can read about it all over the > internet by googling godaddy and nectartech. What I did was to record > the phone call with Godaddy support and post it on the Internet/ About > 18 hours later, service was restored. > > The thread starts here: > > http://www.webhostingtalk.com/showthread.php?t=477562 > > And the recording with Godaddy is here: > > http://marc.perkel.com/audio/godaddy.mp3 > > It speaks to the problem Kathy talks about when it comes to due > process. In this case it was resolved due to some unique skills that > aren't available to most people. But if anyone needs an example of > what happens when a registrar wrongly suspends a domain, is one says > it all. > > On 6/28/2010 1:33 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: >> Carlos, >> >> Would you be in a position to assert our voices on this WG? >> >> kindly, >> >> Alex >> >> On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 9:21 PM, Kathy Kleiman >> <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Hi Carlos and All, >> I attended the same session and had similar concerns to those of >> Carlos. On the good side, for the first time in my recollection >> of these discussions, law enforcement at least discussed and >> answered questions about the importance of due process and data >> protection/privacy laws. >> >> on the downside, the road to registrars (and their RAA contract >> changes) is being paved with a request for every sort of >> monitoring and takedown request. Christine Jones, the respected >> General Counsel of GoDaddy, complained bitterly about this in the >> Public Forum. >> >> The other downside is that, in such an important Working Group, >> there is no NCUC representative. I know there are too many things >> going on, and too many important issues, but this one is central. >> If you can put someone on the WG (which has much more work to >> go), then NCUC's insights, understandings, and concerns for due >> process and the limits of the scope and mission of ICANN will >> have a much stronger voice than comments alone. >> >> Best, >> Kathy >> >> >> I will be happy to try and help. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> On 06/24/2010 07:28 AM, Alex Gakuru wrote: >> >> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 1:13 PM, Wendy >> Seltzer<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: >> >> Thanks Carlos, >> We should include you in drafting public comments on >> the RAA report which >> attached the law enforcement recommendations. >> >> >> I second Carlos inclusion on the drafters team. >> >> >> I think at least some of the law enforcement >> representatives are concerned >> about balance, and perhaps we can acknowledge their >> concerns while >> recommending safeguards and due process requirements >> to oppose many of their >> specific recommendations. >> >> >> >> Absolutely! On our comments, please call for privacy law >> enforcement >> representatives also? >> >> kindly, >> >> Alex >> >> >> >> Best, >> --Wendy >> >> >> On 06/24/2010 06:06 AM, Carlos A. Afonso wrote: >> >> I have just read the transcript of the panel >> "Law Enforcement >> Amendments to the RAA ", held on 21 June, 2010 >> during the Brussels ICANN >> meeting. The panel was chaired by ALAC's Cheryl >> Langdon-Orr. Everyone >> seemed to be sort of happy of sharing a >> discussion room full of police :) >> >> I do not understand the role law enforcers are >> supposed to play in >> defining ICANN policies. >> >> Law enforcers such as the FBI, Interpol etc work >> on a very simple >> paradigm: they follow orders, and the more >> information they get, the >> better to fulfill the orders they ought to >> follow. So they will always >> defend the idea that all private data should be >> recorded and made >> available to them whenever they deem necessary. >> It simply makes their >> job easier, and this is enough for them, and is >> all we will hear from >> them, whatever the nice dressing of their discourses. >> >> However, ICANN should be looking for appropriate >> policies which abide by >> internationally recognized human rights >> principles. This is the realm of >> legislators, policy-makers, regulators -- not law >> enforcers -- and these >> are the organizations ICANN should be talking to >> in deciding policies >> regarding balancing privacy rights with security. >> >> If decisions regarding the users' / consumers' >> rights to privacy are >> going to be taken on the advice of the police, I >> do not think we will >> arrive at a good end of this story. >> >> --c.a. >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Wendy Seltzer -- [log in to unmask] >> <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of >> Colorado Law School >> Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet& Society at >> Harvard University >> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >> http://www.chillingeffects.org/ >> https://www.torproject.org/ >> >> >>