On 04/07/2014 6:31 AM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: > Hello Milton, > > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Milton L Mueller <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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 By "the surveillance interests", Milton meant groups like law enforcement agencies, perhaps rights holders, etc. The crux of Milton's point is that whois responsiveness is mainly important for stakeholders that have surveillance as their overriding value. Stakeholders that value privacy and due process and the rule of law may (but there is room to argue of course) disagree with surveillance interests on this as well as on many other things. > > Regards > > *From:*NCSG-Discuss [mailto:[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>] *On Behalf Of *Seun Ojedeji > *Sent:* Thursday, July 3, 2014 9:22 AM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > Reply-To: At-Large Worldwide <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > To: ALAC Working List <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> > CC: At-Large Worldwide <[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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 <http://punkcast.com> > > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > - > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > [log in to unmask] > <mailto:[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] > <mailto:[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-Ekiti > web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng > Mobile: +2348035233535 > //alt email:<http://goog_1872880453>[log in to unmask] > <mailto:[log in to unmask]>/ > > The key to understanding is humility - my view ! > >