and truly independent of board and staff. I also agree with Maria that we should do whatever we can reasonably to, how to say it, help protect Icann from itself? frt rgds --c.a. On 04/18/2012 06:24 PM, Alain Berranger wrote: > Dear friends, > > Indeed, ICANN needs to self-reboot... or else it will have to be > reinvented... a Multi-stakeholder bottom up process and institution like > ICANN strives for is the only sane alternative to an international > government-driven... given the increasing number of rogue or incompetent > governments we have to put up with, the alternatives are kafkaesque!!! > > The Board needs to appoint an independant investigator with full powers to > get to the bottom of this. This is the priority of priorities for ICANN and > a comprehensive independant report must be tabled before Prague. > > Alain > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM, 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 >> . >> > > > |