Milton is pointing into the right direction. Many of the domain name registrants are not aware what is actually happens. They can be forgiven to think: "I bought the domain, I pay for it, so why all this reconfirmation non-sense?". I think this points also to a much deeper problem. The domain name registrants are simply not aware to which forces, political and governance mechanisms they subject themselves when they register and buy a domain name. They are not aware that they have not just bought a convenient product but they also have bought into a Internet governance Ecosystem which directly influences them and their interests and needs. They are mostly not even vaguely aware of Internet governance. Here is the answer to the question why ICANN needs to be active in end user awareness building and engagement: it is a major part of ICANN claim for legitimacy. In order to avoid millions of domains to be taken down, we need to make those aware who register them, what governance system they subject themselves to. Only then can they make an informed choice and can get engaged if they wish and we avoid todays situation of a internet governance by the few of the very many. But maybe the few are not interested that the majority of those concerned and affected by Internet governance actually know what is going on, because that might endanger their elitist privileged quasi monopolistic grip on Internet governance. In the short term they might get away with it, in the medium and long term, Internet governance without broad end user awareness building and engagement can not survive. From this follows what the NCSG's role is and should do: Empower the many! Klaus On 7/3/2014 8:48 PM, Milton L Mueller 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. > > 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. This test does not really verify > accuracy of contact details but just responsiveness. > > All these checks do is to subordinate domain name registrants rights > to the surveillance interests convenience. > > *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] <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 >