Hello Milton, On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > One could have perfectly accurate contact details on the whois record, > but if the inquiry went into the spam folder or you are on vacation, or you > don’t know what it is and don’t respond, the domain is suspended. > This is why i suggest we review the process to give adequate room for those kind of reasons you've stated above. > > > The issue is not whether the contact details are not maintained, but > whether the person who has been emailed responds according to an > artificially imposed deadline. > Well i think its known issue that whois contact details are not maintained. However i understand and agree with some of the concerns you have stated which indicates that the process before domain suspension needs to me revised perhaps. As i hope you agree that there has to be one form of penalty for people who don't have a functional whois information. > This test does not really verify accuracy of contact details but just > responsiveness. > I think it should on normal basis do both. If its not then that is a more reason to re-visit the process. > > > All these checks do is to subordinate domain name registrants rights to > the surveillance interests convenience. > > > Hmm....not sure about the surveillance part, but i can say yes to possible spamming. Nevertheless i think we just need to weight the option. Is it better to have an up-to-date whois or not Regards > > > *From:* NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask]] *On Behalf Of > *Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Thursday, July 3, 2014 9:22 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [] Fwd: A million domains taken down > by email checks > > > > Hello Avri, all > > I think this particular issue needs to be addressed carefully. I > personally don't see why a domain owner would not have a valid whois > contact as one cannot overemphasise it's advantage. > I think it's okay to penalise those who don't have valid contact, however > the process that had been taken before arriving at implementing the > penalty is what I suggest we look into. > > There is a whois policy currently under discussion within the AfriNIC > region which has penalty that results to withdrawing member IP resource. > However before such implementation is done, there are series of contacting > options (using different means like phone, email etc, friends, upstream) > that is used by staff to reach the member. Also the proposal indicates > clear timeline on when to withdraw IP resource if no luck on reaching > member. > > So my view is that NCSG looks at the process currently taken to verify > whois contacts with the aim of suggesting better ways and perhaps proposing > longer timeline periods. Nevertheless, I think it's still important to > penalise those who don't maintain their contact details. > > Cheers! > > sent from Google nexus 4 > kindly excuse brevity and typos. > > On 3 Jul 2014 13:56, "Avri Doria" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > > Hi, > > IS this something we are taking a position on? > > I do not know whether at-large will decide that this is a registrant > issue instead of a user issue (leaving aside issues on whether > registrants could be considered a form of user), but it does seem like > it would be an issue for us. > > Do we want to take it up? > > Is it something the GNSO Council should take up? > > avri > > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: A million domains taken down by email checks > Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2014 18:36:55 +0800 > From: Rinalia Abdul Rahim <[log in to unmask]> > Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <[log in to unmask]> > To: ALAC Working List <[log in to unmask]> > CC: At-Large Worldwide <[log in to unmask]> > > Dear ALAC, > > In reference to Joly MacFie's mail to the At-Large (see forwarded), the > topic was also raised by Registrars during their meeting with the ICANN > Board in London. > > Fadi posed a question to the Registrars on whether they have engaged with > the At-Large on the matter. Fadi then raised the issue to the At-Large > during his ATLASII Fayre speech. > > It would be important that the At-Large articulates its position on the > issue (possibly via an ALAC statement) as it is being presented as a > problem for Internet users. > > Best regards, > > Rinalia > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Joly MacFie" <[log in to unmask]> > Date: Jun 26, 2014 1:00 AM > Subject: [At-Large] A million domains taken down by email checks > To: "At-Large Worldwide" <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: > > Fwd over from the NCSG list. I underdtand that this would have been > > discussed in today's EWG and privacy sessions. Any comments? > > > > > > > http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks > > > > A million domains taken down by email checks > > < > > > http://domainincite.com/16963-a-million-domains-taken-down-by-email-checks > > > > > Kevin Murphy <http://domainincite.com/about>, June 24, 2014, 14:34:25 > > (UTC), Domain Registrars > > <http://domainincite.com/category/domain-registrars> > > > > *Over 800,000 domain names have been suspended since the beginning of the > > year as a result of Whois email verification rules in the new ICANN > > Registrar Accreditation Agreement.* > > > > That’s according to the Registrars Stakeholder Group, which collected > > suspension data from registrars representing about 75% of all registered > > gTLD domain names. > > > > The actual number of suspended domains could be closer to a million. > > > > The 2013 RAA requires registrars to verify the email addresses listed in > > their customers’ Whois records. If they don’t receive the verification, > > they have to suspend the domain. > > > > The RrSG told the ICANN board in March that these checks were doing more > > harm than good > > < > > > http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-good > > > > > and today Tucows CEO Elliot Noss presented, as promised, data to back up > > the claim. > > > > “There have been over 800,000 domains suspended,” Noss said. “We have > > stories of healthcare sites that have gone down, community groups whose > > sites have gone down.” > > > > “I think we can safely say millions of internet users,” he said. “Those > are > > real people just trying to use the internet. They are our great > > unrepresented core constituency.” > > > > The RrSG wants to see contrasting data from law enforcement agencies and > > governments — which pushed hard for Whois verification — showing that the > > RAA requirement has had a demonstrable benefit. > > > > Registrars asked at the Singapore meeting in March that law enforcement > > agencies (LEA) be put on notice that they can’t ask for more Whois > controls > > until they’ve provided such data and ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade said > > < > > > http://domainincite.com/16375-are-whois-email-checks-doing-more-harm-than-good > > > > > “It shall be done by London.” > > > > Noss implied that the majority of the 800,000 suspended names belong to > > innocent registrants, such as those who had simply changed email > addresses > > since registering their names. > > > > “What was a lovely political win that we said time and time again in > > discussion after discussion was impractical and would provide no benefit, > > has demonstrably has created harm,” Noss said. > > > > He was received with cautious support by ICANN board members. > > > > Chair Steve Crocker wonder aloud how many of the 800,000 suspended > domains > > are owned by bad guys, and he noted that LEA don’t appear to gather data > in > > the way that the registrars are demanding. > > > > “We were subjected, all of us, to heavy-duty pressure from the law > > enforcement community over a long period of time. We finally said, ‘Okay, > > we hear you and we’ll help you get this stuff implemented,’”, he added. > > “That creates an obligation as far as I’m concerned on their part.” > > > > “We’re in a — at least from a moral position — in a strong position to > say, > > ‘You must help us understand this. Otherwise, you’re not doing your part > of > > the job’”, he said. > > > > Chehade also seemed to support the registrars’ position that LEA needs to > > justify its demands and offered to take their data and concerns to the > LEA > > and the Governmental Advisory Committee. > > > > “They put restrictions on us that are causing harm, according to these > > numbers,” he said. “Let’s take this back at them and say, hey, you ask > for > > all these things, this is what happened.” > > > > “If you can’t tell me what good this has done, be aware not to come back > > and ask for more,” he said. “I’m with you on this 100%. I’m saying let’s > > use the great findings you seem to have a found and well-package them in > a > > case and I will be your advocate.” > > > > Director Mike Silber also spoke in support of the RrSG’s position. > > > > “My view is if what you are saying is correct, the LEA’s have blown their > > credibility,” he said. “They’re going to have to do a lot of work before > we > > impose similar disproportional requirements on actors that are not proven > > to be bad actors.” > > > > So what does this all mean for registrants? > > > > I don’t think there’s any ongoing process right now to get the Whois > > verification requirements overturned — that would require a renegotiation > > of the RAA — but it does seem to mean demands from governments and police > > are going to have to be much more substantiated in future. > > > > Noss attempted to link the problem to the recommendations of the Whois > > Expert Working Group (EWG), which propose a completely revamped, > > centralized Whois system with much more verification > > < > http://domainincite.com/16855-whois-killer-is-a-recipe-for-a-clusterfuck> > > and not much to benefit registrants. > > > > To paraphrase: if email verification causes so much harm, what harms > could > > be caused by the EWG proposal? > > > > The EWG was not stuffed with LEA or governments, however, so it couldn’t > > really be characterized as another set of unreasonable demands from the > > same entities. > > > > > > -- > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > [log in to unmask] > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > [log in to unmask] > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>* The key to understanding is humility - my view !