Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #1238
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST            Tuesday, May 28 2002            Volume 01 : Number 1238

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:15:40 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]

Hi Ross,

Thanks for you thoughtful comments, but I did put "forward a plan." See,
www.evil.biz for:

Page One: Introduction
Page Two: The Problem (WLS)
Page Three: The Solution
Page Four: The Comedy (WLS)

In my view you can't define the details until you understand the root cause,
in this discussion "one-party consent" transfers. But the bigger picture is to
define Subscriber Rights. We all know we have them, but nobody really knows
what they are! They must be defined. When you state....

"Registrars acting on what they "think" have not sufficiently fulfilled the
terms of their contract with ICANN. If we want to turn the discussion to what
are the means and scope of enforcement necessary to carry out *any* of these
proposals, then I am all ears ;)"

....You're speaking as a Bureaucrat. Who cares about the contract, ICANN, or
enforcement when MY domain is stolen? In my metaphor, it's like I'm on death
row and you're speaking about due process. Who care about due process when I'm
innocent! 

A one-party consent system can NEVER be safe. A domain Lock forces two-party
consent on a transfer but with the added hassle of a manual un-lock. Fix the
system -- make it two-party consent -- and the locks will serve as an optional
safe guard, not as the Registrants only way to safeguard domains in the midst
of a flawed policy.

I'll give you the last word.

Best, Loren

"Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
> Good comments, Grasshopper. This is "research," I believe.
>

Only insofar as it seems to be indicitative of how much we know about what
we are doing ;)

> Ross, your comments and mine from a different point of view. I'm a
vulnerable
> Registrant and you an eager-to-grow Registrar. We both have good ideas but
> where I want FAILSAFE you want EASY transfers.

I'd characterize that more as a "once-bitten registrant" and a "weary
registrar that has spent more than a year exploring the problem space".

My biggest problem with the current discussion is that they do not have the
benefit of an attendant proposal. It is very easy for me to disagree or
agree with the specific points that you bring forward, but the devil is in
the details - the implementation, best processes, enforcement, remediation,
etc. Perhaps there is a better mechanism than the IRDX, but I have yet to
see it largely due to the fact that *no one* has taken the time to properly
explore their "ideas" and put forward a "plan".

More interspersed below...

>
> You make a dangerous assumption when you say the, "Gaining registrar is a
> representative of the registrant." How can you really know this?

Gaining registrar has an obligation to obtain and demonstrate this. The
Gaining registrar has a contract with this party, etc. For every hijacking
brought about by poor registrar processes, I can show you 10,000 examples
where the Gaining registrar was indeed representative and bound by contract
to the registrant.

> This is the
> essence of the problem and the 80/20 fix. What you are really supporting
is
> one-party consent with NO fail-safes. What good are published guidelines
when
> mistakes lead to disasters?
>

The fail safes are there - both proactive and reactive in nature.

> Having the losing Registrar validate is essentially a double check, or a
> two-party consent model. Inherently, the gaining Registrar validates that
they
> are working with who they think is the Registrant, or they wouldn't
process
> the transfer. Do you agree? The motivation is that they want to remain
> accredited, so they play by the rules.
>
> Then, under my proposal, the losing Registrar agrees to the domain being
> released.

Under the IRDX, the Gaining Registrar requests this approval from the
registrant via data recevied from the losing registrar.

> Of course they check with me. And they don't get to vote! This is
> Two-party consent. It also has a failsafe in that the losing Registrar,
KNOWN
> to be my agent, has a duty to me. I can also ensure that I have legal
recourse
> -- domestic legal recourse -- when I use Bulk Register as my Registrar as
I
> did in this recent fraud (I use and love Tucows too!).
>
> Under the absurd system of today, Registrars have the ungodly powers to
take
> my domain when they THINK they represent the real Registrant. You must
> understand that makes me vulnerable to theft from anywhere on Earth
> -- most of which I have no practical legal recourse!

Registrars acting on what they "think" have not sufficiently fulfilled the
terms of their contract with ICANN. If we want to turn the discussion to
what are the means and scope of enforcement necessary to carry out *any* of
these proposals, then I am all ears ;)

>
> I do not believe that a confirmation e-mail from Verisign is "unintended
> benefit." It is partly due to rampant fraud that they too have had to deal
> with. NSI created two-party consent within the insane system in place
today.
> What's the big deal with confirming a transfer? If I get peace of mind,
it's
> worth it. Why make this safe-guard into an "anti-competitive" villain?
>

There is no evidence of "rampant" fraud. For instance, I personally called
each of the registrants that Verisign claimed last year that "had no
knowledge that their registration had been transferred from VRSN to Tucows".
You know what? Every single one of them that I managed to contact were
indeed aware of who their current registrar (us) was. That's not to say that
mistakes won't happen from time to time. But, that's also not to say that we
should design a system around these mistakes. Rather, we need processes and
policy in place that allows us to pick ourselves up after the mistake is
made, fix the error and move on with as little impact as possible. Under the
current system, this is *not* possible.

> In fact, the real problem here is that bulk transfers -- which I do each
month
> -- lead to dozens of individual confirmations. It's not the confirmation
but
> the inconvenience of the confirmation that I have an issue with. Also the
> speed and accuracy. It seems to take a week or so between submission and
> confirmation. I always confirm twice, because it seems 10% of the
> confirmations get lost. This process can be mandated to be efficient and
safe.
> Within the SMS/800, for example, toll-free numbers are transfer within 48
> hours, given a clean request.
>
> Incidentally, Tucows's does not provide "transfer-away" notice by default.
I
> was walked through the step-by-step procedure to set up "transfer away,"
as
> noted in the e-mail I sent Ross off-list. Bulk for sure didn't provide any
> notice. My domain simply vanished.

Both of the circumstances that you mention are registrar specific
implementations. In the case of our practices, as you are aware, we try to
accomodate as many reseller models as possible - hence a ton of our services
are configurable.

>
> Keep in mind that one-party consent and "notice" are not as safe as
two-party
> consent. It's an improvement, but not as safe. "Locks" are in most cases
> overkill, and inhibit transfer by requiring manual unlocking (see "Domain
Lock
> Downside" on the Opensrs discussion list, today 01:05 PM PDT, 05/27/2002).
>

Locks are no where near as onerous as that thread indicated. The fact is
that it is only the registry-specific information that is locked. All of the
contact information is not. The fact of the matter is that all security
involves trade-off. In this case, you are forgoing the capability to easily
modify your nameservers in exchange for guaranteeing that no one can
transfer your name until you unlock it. Not a bad deal in my books.

<snip>

> Baby-steps are not what's needed here. It is the health of the forest --
not
> the few sick trees we've happened to notice -- that's at stake!

Comprehensive proposals that effectively spell out a solution are what is
needed here.

Thanks again for the time Loren - it is indeed nice to have a substantial
discussion of the issue with someone (finally ;)

Regards,

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:52:11 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Election debate?

Thomas,

It's probably not too early to start planning the GA's agenda for the 
upcoming ICANN meeting.  While the Board has denied us an At-Large election 
process,  I note that CIRA has launched its *second* online election campaign 
for candidates seeking a seat on the CIRA Board of Directors.  Perhaps you 
could organize a debate between a CIRA representative and our Canadian DNSO 
Board representative, Jon Cohen, on the fairness, representativeness, 
validity and affordability of on-line elections.  
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:51:03 +0200 (MET DST)
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

Good evening Roberto,

I very much agree with your contributions concerning the necessity
for Registrants representation.

Why ICANN is called sometimes an experiment ?

In my understanding, the terminology of "ICANN experiment" relates
to the developpment and implementation of extraterritorial
rules in the gTLD space, and to ensure that this gTLD space
may then expand. 

Let me refer to the ccTLD space.
The ccTLDs provide services to their "local Internet communities", 
developing and funding local policies, and are accountable locally. 
The "local Internet communities" (private and public sectors, 
to which government and individuals belong), develop and manage 
policies within a "sovereignty" of the ccTLD space. 

For the gTLDs, it is ICANN itself which has to perform the role 
of the "local Internet community", bring users and producers, 
gTLD Registrants, gTLD Registries and gTLD Registrars together, 
and be accountable globaly. 

The DNSO is that place, the place where community meets. 
It is by definition a melting pot. I imagine it in one way
like the creation of United States with all those immigrants
coming from old countries.
Except that here we are all immigrants to the global Internet
space trying to build its extraterritorial rules.
It is of paramount importance that such a place, the DNSO,
the open melting pot, does exist.

The DNSO GA does not "represent" all Registrants from the planet,
it is impossible. The DNSO GA role is to be a place, in the spirit
of openess and IETF-like, when anybody can join, read or bring his 
questions or concerns about Internet domain names, service provider
or end user. The few hundreds of knowledgable people already 
gathered at the DNSO will certainly react if important matters arise.

Elisabeth Porteneuve
- --
NB. The Secretariat kindly accepted to publish my text on 
"Three years of the General Assembly of the DNSO" at 
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/2002.DNSO-3years.html
- --

"Roberto Gaetano" <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Good morning.
> 
> I believe that the points made by Kent should be discussed further.
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> >
> >You are mixing two things: the idea of representation of the interest of
> >individuals, and the idea of an individuals constituency as a practical
> >construct.  There is very wide support for the former, in ICANN, and in
> >the constituencies.
> >
> >However, there is much less support for the latter, and for good reason
> >-- the various activities in that area have been essentially incoherent,
> >and dominated, not by the actual interests of individuals as they
> >pertain to the domain name system, but rather by the interests of
> >zealots and would-be demagogues, advocates of generalized internet
> >democracy, speculators, alt-root proponents, kooks, and other vocal special
> >interests that are in fact a vanishingly small proportion of the real
> >individual users of the Interenet/DNS.
> >
> 
> Let's be clear. We are talking here about the creation of a Constituency for 
> Individual Domain Name Holders.
> There is no doubt that there will be many of the categories you mention, but 
> I do believe that there will be also normal individuals seeking a 
> representation in the grand scheme of things. Maybe they will not be the 
> most vocal participants, but they will be there.
> 
> I think that the assumption that this constituency will be dominated by 
> kooks (in terms of voting weight, not in terms of flooding the list) is not 
> supported by evidence. But even if this were the case, we are speaking of 
> additional three NC seats on a grand total of 24, hardly a possibility of 
> disrupting NC (although I admit that a couple of past NC votes that passed 
> with a tiny majority could have had a different outcome).
> 
> So, on one hand we have a limited risk and the chance of a big improvement 
> in the representativity of the DNSO, on the other hand we have the 
> maintenance of the statu quo, and the legitimate doubt about the claimed 
> willingness to open up to new participants. Maybe the real answer lies 
> exactly in the few cases where the NC votes passed by tiny majority, because 
> that will be the only practical effect?
> 
> My past experience as GA Chair is that a non negligeable number of good 
> contributors got tired of the endless discussions non counterbalanced by any 
> real chance to influence things. These contributors would be still part of 
> the GA now if the situation was different. This, IMHO, means that if a real 
> constituency will be given a chance, there will be many potential good 
> contributors who would participate. Of course there will be kooks, but a 
> constituency would be better equipped to deal with them than the GA, for 
> instance.
> 
> A last comment on representativity. Would this constituency be 
> representative of "all" Individual DN holders? As you said, probably not. 
> Probably the only constituency that enjoyed this global representativeness 
> of its potential membership has been the gTLD Constituency in the old days 
> of NSI's monopoly, but it was so special that ICANN needed a special rule to 
> deal with it.
> Jokes apart, yes, it will not be representative of its potential membership, 
> at least initially. But, as you note, neither the NCC does, nevertheless, it 
> exists and plays a useful role.
> This problem can be cured, if there is real availability and openness at 
> ICANN's and NC's level. What about an initial charter, with a reasonable 
> "evaluation time" and concrete (achievable) targets for representativeness? 
> After this time (one year?) ICANN could revise the situation and 
> definitively endorse the constituency, or disband it.
> I do believe that, given the chance, the Individual DN Holders could make 
> good use of this "probation time" to outreach the potential membership, and 
> get them involved (and eventually outnumber kooks). But if this chance is 
> not given, things will never happen. It is dramatically different to bring 
> people that have a real interest in the issues into a well-formed 
> constituency, with representation at the NC level, and a chance to have its 
> voice heard, and to bring people into a mailing list like the GA.
> 
> Regards
> Roberto
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp.
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
> 
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:06:47 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Stocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; "Loren Stocker" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ari Goldberger" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority
Discussion]]]]

> Hi Ross,
>
> Thanks for you thoughtful comments, but I did put "forward a plan." See,
> www.evil.biz for:
>
> Page One: Introduction
> Page Two: The Problem (WLS)
> Page Three: The Solution
> Page Four: The Comedy (WLS)
>
> In my view you can't define the details until you understand the root
cause,
> in this discussion "one-party consent" transfers. But the bigger picture
is to
> define Subscriber Rights. We all know we have them, but nobody really
knows
> what they are! They must be defined. When you state....

The registrars all know the process is ambiguous and most of them are trying
to live within this framework, the real issues in going forward is to come
up with a set of rules that are all adhered to.

The first steps to this process are to document the process of moving a
domain from one registrar to another, and deqailing with the transfer of the
publications agent status for all entities attached to the domain including
both the associated HOSTs, and CONTACTs.

The we can look at building a set of models wherein the process breaks
becuase of...

    Domain's having expired
    Domain's having been deleted
    Domain's failing to qualify for status as a valid domain (bad contact
points is the real reason here)

And build a set of policies around this. The registrars would welcome our
input on this as they are as slammed as we are only a few thousand more
times a day.

>
> "Registrars acting on what they "think" have not sufficiently fulfilled
the
> terms of their contract with ICANN. If we want to turn the discussion to
what
> are the means and scope of enforcement necessary to carry out *any* of
these
> proposals, then I am all ears ;)"
>
> ....You're speaking as a Bureaucrat. Who cares about the contract, ICANN,
or
> enforcement when MY domain is stolen? In my metaphor, it's like I'm on
death
> row and you're speaking about due process. Who care about due process when
I'm
> innocent!
>
> A one-party consent system can NEVER be safe.

Sure it can. Make 'poaching' or 'slamming' as its known in the Telecom Mass
Marketer's biz a serious criminal offense of fraud, since it is exactly
Identity Theft, which is done as the power of atty necessary to switch you
from one carrier to another, and prosecute it vigorously.

The first time some registrar's employee goes to jail for screwing around
with who publishes that domain, will end all forms of poaching.

> A domain Lock forces two-party
> consent on a transfer but with the added hassle of a manual un-lock. Fix
the
> system -- make it two-party consent -- and the locks will serve as an
optional
> safe guard, not as the Registrants only way to safeguard domains in the
midst
> of a flawed policy.
>
> I'll give you the last word.

The problem is that the domain is the IP of the end user and the registrar
is the publications agent and has no ownership of the IP whatsoever. Thus if
they try to prohibit me from removing my own IP's to another registrar that
is not only restraint of trade against the other registrar it is essentially
theft of the ownership of the IP (or marque in this instance) and it is
easily resolved in a court through a demand for a summary judgement. I dont
think it would take any court long to find in favor of the domain owner, and
from that point onward, the registrars would be in a much lessor light I
think.

Becuase they directly depend on the domain operators for their revenues,
they want to make our worlds as rightas possible for all concerned, them and
us. And if they dont, they will just loose custoerms until the are
hemmoraging $$$ to the point iof death.

Which also brings up the point that the transfer of the domains process is a
onesey-twosey version of what needs to happen in an emergency or in a gross
failure of one or more of the registrar's business models. And I personally
think that if people are not hipped to this after watching the turmoil in
Silicon Valley for the last year then they need to wake up. Its only a
matter of time until at least one of the registrars is either hacked and
shut down or goes out of business and wont that be fun since there is no
fail-over process in place now.

>
> Best, Loren

Todd

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:02:24 -0700
From: Loren Stocker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]]

"todd glassey" <[email-masked]> wrote:

"The problem is that the domain is the IP of the end user and the registrar is
the publications agent and has no ownership of the IP whatsoever. Thus if they
try to prohibit me from removing my own IP's to another registrar that is not
only restraint of trade against the other registrar it is essentially theft of
the ownership of the IP (or marque in this instance) and it is easily resolved
in a court through a demand for a summary judgement. I dont think it would
take any court long to find in favor of the domain owner, and from that point
onward, the registrars would be in a much lessor light I think."

Todd, did you realize that by "two-party consent" I mean BOTH my agents, the
old and the new? It's ME moving my domain through agents. No one else has
authority. This gives me better assurance me that the gaining Registrar is not
just representing an imposter and the domain doesn't just vanish!

As to ANY legal recourse, your comments have no pratical application when I am
subject to a global, international legal action by no choice of mine. It's
just unaffordable. All this for a $15 domain? Why? 

Just make it fail-safe and forget this crazy, unworkable,
subject-to-unrevolkable-fraud system in place today. All it takes is mutual
approval by both my agents. When they both agree it's me, the domain is moved.
Even this system can be spoofed, but it is far harder. And, I can choose my
legal venue by working only with domestic agents, i.e. Registrars. 

Best, Loren

What do you think about the sudden 30-day policy of NSI?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Stocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; "Loren Stocker" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ari Goldberger" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority
Discussion]]]]

> Hi Ross,
>
> Thanks for you thoughtful comments, but I did put "forward a plan." See,
> www.evil.biz for:
>
> Page One: Introduction
> Page Two: The Problem (WLS)
> Page Three: The Solution
> Page Four: The Comedy (WLS)
>
> In my view you can't define the details until you understand the root
cause,
> in this discussion "one-party consent" transfers. But the bigger picture
is to
> define Subscriber Rights. We all know we have them, but nobody really
knows
> what they are! They must be defined. When you state....

The registrars all know the process is ambiguous and most of them are trying
to live within this framework, the real issues in going forward is to come
up with a set of rules that are all adhered to.

The first steps to this process are to document the process of moving a
domain from one registrar to another, and deqailing with the transfer of the
publications agent status for all entities attached to the domain including
both the associated HOSTs, and CONTACTs.

The we can look at building a set of models wherein the process breaks
becuase of...

    Domain's having expired
    Domain's having been deleted
    Domain's failing to qualify for status as a valid domain (bad contact
points is the real reason here)

And build a set of policies around this. The registrars would welcome our
input on this as they are as slammed as we are only a few thousand more
times a day.

>
> "Registrars acting on what they "think" have not sufficiently fulfilled
the
> terms of their contract with ICANN. If we want to turn the discussion to
what
> are the means and scope of enforcement necessary to carry out *any* of
these
> proposals, then I am all ears ;)"
>
> ....You're speaking as a Bureaucrat. Who cares about the contract, ICANN,
or
> enforcement when MY domain is stolen? In my metaphor, it's like I'm on
death
> row and you're speaking about due process. Who care about due process when
I'm
> innocent!
>
> A one-party consent system can NEVER be safe.

Sure it can. Make 'poaching' or 'slamming' as its known in the Telecom Mass
Marketer's biz a serious criminal offense of fraud, since it is exactly
Identity Theft, which is done as the power of atty necessary to switch you
from one carrier to another, and prosecute it vigorously.

The first time some registrar's employee goes to jail for screwing around
with who publishes that domain, will end all forms of poaching.

> A domain Lock forces two-party
> consent on a transfer but with the added hassle of a manual un-lock. Fix
the
> system -- make it two-party consent -- and the locks will serve as an
optional
> safe guard, not as the Registrants only way to safeguard domains in the
midst
> of a flawed policy.
>
> I'll give you the last word.

The problem is that the domain is the IP of the end user and the registrar
is the publications agent and has no ownership of the IP whatsoever. Thus if
they try to prohibit me from removing my own IP's to another registrar that
is not only restraint of trade against the other registrar it is essentially
theft of the ownership of the IP (or marque in this instance) and it is
easily resolved in a court through a demand for a summary judgement. I dont
think it would take any court long to find in favor of the domain owner, and
from that point onward, the registrars would be in a much lessor light I
think.

Becuase they directly depend on the domain operators for their revenues,
they want to make our worlds as rightas possible for all concerned, them and
us. And if they dont, they will just loose custoerms until the are
hemmoraging $$$ to the point iof death.

Which also brings up the point that the transfer of the domains process is a
onesey-twosey version of what needs to happen in an emergency or in a gross
failure of one or more of the registrar's business models. And I personally
think that if people are not hipped to this after watching the turmoil in
Silicon Valley for the last year then they need to wake up. Its only a
matter of time until at least one of the registrars is either hacked and
shut down or goes out of business and wont that be fun since there is no
fail-over process in place now.

>
> Best, Loren

Todd

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:10:32 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: [ga] Retreating from Transparency

The ICANN Board held a meeting.  Whether you label it a "retreat" or 
something else, it was still a meeting of the Board to discuss ICANN matters. 
 The Internet community was promised that Board meetings would honor the 
principles of openness and transparency, and that minutes of such meetings 
would be provided.

Would anyone care to predict whether such minutes will ever be forthcoming?

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 07:08:27 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] The Real World

On Tue, 28 May 2002 07:35:11 -0400, "James Love"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>I think it is also relevant to mention that for all practical purposes, Kent
>is the only ICANN staff member who regularly engages in these debates on
>ICANN's DNSO listserves.    He is hired as a technical person, but the
>"policy" people on the ICANN staff won't participate.  This is unfortunate.
>I for one was pleased when Joe Sims was posting on this list, and I also
>appreciate the willingness of Vint to post here, and Alejandro to post
>regularly on the NCC list.   I wish that Dr. Lynn and other other "policy"
>people on the ICANN staff, and some other ICANN board members, like Linda
>Wilson, would engage the masses, like Kent, Vint, Alejandro (and sometimes
>Joe Sims) do.

Agreed.  Dialogue with the "decision makers" and key staff is much
appreciated (not as much as nine at large elected directors but better
than being ignored).  Also appreciate that Phil Shepherd and Marilyn
Cade do contribute here from time to time.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 07:13:10 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Request for a Clarifying Vote

On Tue, 28 May 2002 07:46:20 -0400, "James Love"
<[email-masked]> wrote:

>We should probably have a GA vote on different possible consensus positions
>on the issue of elections.
>
>1.   Is there support in the GA for having an At large election system to
>put people on the board of directors.
>2.   Should the ICANN board control (a) the nominations or (b) the elections
>to the ICANN board.

IIRC we have had a formal vote or informal vote in the past on issue
(1) with a huge majority in favour.  I don't think anyone disputes the
GA supports at large elections.

The problem is convincing the Board they are viable.  We know from
Andy that five Board members are against them on principle ever.  The
others claim they are not but believe there are technical challenges
which can not be overcome at this time.

The most useful thing we can do is put forward specific proposals
showing how at large elections could function such as Bret Fausett has
done.  That way when the Board (presumably) decides to not have
elections one has removed the excuse of there was no technically sound
way to do it.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 07:17:49 +1200
From: DPF <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate?

On Tue, 28 May 2002 12:52:11 EDT, [email-masked] wrote:

>Thomas,
>
>It's probably not too early to start planning the GA's agenda for the 
>upcoming ICANN meeting.  While the Board has denied us an At-Large election 
>process,  I note that CIRA has launched its *second* online election campaign 
>for candidates seeking a seat on the CIRA Board of Directors.  Perhaps you 
>could organize a debate between a CIRA representative and our Canadian DNSO 
>Board representative, Jon Cohen, on the fairness, representativeness, 
>validity and affordability of on-line elections.  

A great idea.

The more I think about the reasons given for no elections the more I
get madder because it is obvious they are just an excuse to cover up
the real reason that some people do not want the Board to be
accountable to the internet community but a self appointing body like
the IOC.

The main reason against the elections seems to be variants on we can't
make them 100% fraud free.  Well what country in the world boasts 100%
fraud free elections - none - yet they do not cancel elections.

In New Zealand one doesn't even have to show ID when you turn up to
vote.  One can register to vote off the Internet with the only thing
extra needed is to sign the form they post you.  This is open to
obvious fraud.  In Australia they found a cat registered as a voter.
This doesn't mean Australia and NZ abandon elections.

DPF
- --
[email-masked]
ICQ 29964527
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:31:43 EDT
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Election debate?

David writes:  The main reason against the elections seems to be variants on 
we can't make them 100% fraud free. 

That's just the ICANN spin... the real reason against elections is that we 
would be electing ICANN's most vocal critics.  ICANN incumbents don't want 
half the Board populated with the likes of Karl and Andy.  It's that simple.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:30:48 -0700
From: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers:  Apparent Authority Discussion]]]]]

Loren - let me answer the last question first - It sucks. That is the 30 day
policy. I think its a very bad idea.

As to the rest of the letter here is my response.

- --------------------

That's the whole problem Loren, there is no need for a multiparty consent
process, it will only confuse the actual ownership of the IP.  What
Registrar #1 in its transfer process has to authenticate  is that I am the
'legal person' or 'person who contracted with them' for the publishing of
this "Internet Marque", this Domain Name. That's all the receiving domain
likewise has the same responsibility to authenticate that you are "the
person" so to speak. But a mechanical authorization process between the
losing registrar and the winning registrar should only be there to retrigger
their own local refreshing of the DNS Data.

The IP is owned by the person (theoretically at least) that registers it as
theirs. With that said, also deleting a domain name should not stop you from
owning a domain name. Further there is an issue with the WLS since the
Registrar becomes and active coconspirator in the stealing of my ability to
use the marque.

One solution I think might make sense is to carve the Internet into
Country's surrounded by eBorders and within each eBoarder allow the
registrars to register all their domains... this would take a minor revision
to DNS to provide prefix type zones for addresses and then all the world
could have their own dot.com's. The we could  add a universal domain zone
for those critical trademarked domain names that are going to be the same no
matter what country's zone they are registered in.

Then with NAT gateways at the eBorders as well, this would eliminate the
need for complex retooling to make IPv6 work. Each country zone would have
the save IPv4 slices...

I don't know, maybe I am just too spun, but this seems simple to me, and why
fight about who gets which instance of a domain name. Geez the Registrars
will love us for this. We just expanded their business by orders of
magnitude and removed and sense of pain they may be having on replication
and running out of domains.

Todd

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Stocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "todd glassey" <[email-masked]>; "Loren Stocker"
<[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 12:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority
Discussion]]]]]

"todd glassey" <[email-masked]> wrote:

"The problem is that the domain is the IP of the end user and the registrar
is
the publications agent and has no ownership of the IP whatsoever. Thus if
they
try to prohibit me from removing my own IP's to another registrar that is
not
only restraint of trade against the other registrar it is essentially theft
of
the ownership of the IP (or marque in this instance) and it is easily
resolved
in a court through a demand for a summary judgement. I dont think it would
take any court long to find in favor of the domain owner, and from that
point
onward, the registrars would be in a much lessor light I think."

Todd, did you realize that by "two-party consent" I mean BOTH my agents, the
old and the new? It's ME moving my domain through agents. No one else has
authority. This gives me better assurance me that the gaining Registrar is
not
just representing an imposter and the domain doesn't just vanish!

As to ANY legal recourse, your comments have no pratical application when I
am
subject to a global, international legal action by no choice of mine. It's
just unaffordable. All this for a $15 domain? Why?

Just make it fail-safe and forget this crazy, unworkable,
subject-to-unrevolkable-fraud system in place today. All it takes is mutual
approval by both my agents. When they both agree it's me, the domain is
moved.
Even this system can be spoofed, but it is far harder. And, I can choose my
legal venue by working only with domestic agents, i.e. Registrars.

Best, Loren

What do you think about the sudden 30-day policy of NSI?

- ----- Original Message -----
From: "Loren Stocker" <[email-masked]>
To: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>; "Loren Stocker" <[email-masked]>;
<[email-masked]>
Cc: "Ari Goldberger" <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2002 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [Re: [ga] Re: Transfers: Apparent Authority
Discussion]]]]

> Hi Ross,
>
> Thanks for you thoughtful comments, but I did put "forward a plan." See,
> www.evil.biz for:
>
> Page One: Introduction
> Page Two: The Problem (WLS)
> Page Three: The Solution
> Page Four: The Comedy (WLS)
>
> In my view you can't define the details until you understand the root
cause,
> in this discussion "one-party consent" transfers. But the bigger picture
is to
> define Subscriber Rights. We all know we have them, but nobody really
knows
> what they are! They must be defined. When you state....

The registrars all know the process is ambiguous and most of them are trying
to live within this framework, the real issues in going forward is to come
up with a set of rules that are all adhered to.

The first steps to this process are to document the process of moving a
domain from one registrar to another, and deqailing with the transfer of the
publications agent status for all entities attached to the domain including
both the associated HOSTs, and CONTACTs.

The we can look at building a set of models wherein the process breaks
becuase of...

    Domain's having expired
    Domain's having been deleted
    Domain's failing to qualify for status as a valid domain (bad contact
points is the real reason here)

And build a set of policies around this. The registrars would welcome our
input on this as they are as slammed as we are only a few thousand more
times a day.

>
> "Registrars acting on what they "think" have not sufficiently fulfilled
the
> terms of their contract with ICANN. If we want to turn the discussion to
what
> are the means and scope of enforcement necessary to carry out *any* of
these
> proposals, then I am all ears ;)"
>
> ....You're speaking as a Bureaucrat. Who cares about the contract, ICANN,
or
> enforcement when MY domain is stolen? In my metaphor, it's like I'm on
death
> row and you're speaking about due process. Who care about due process when
I'm
> innocent!
>
> A one-party consent system can NEVER be safe.

Sure it can. Make 'poaching' or 'slamming' as its known in the Telecom Mass
Marketer's biz a serious criminal offense of fraud, since it is exactly
Identity Theft, which is done as the power of atty necessary to switch you
from one carrier to another, and prosecute it vigorously.

The first time some registrar's employee goes to jail for screwing around
with who publishes that domain, will end all forms of poaching.

> A domain Lock forces two-party
> consent on a transfer but with the added hassle of a manual un-lock. Fix
the
> system -- make it two-party consent -- and the locks will serve as an
optional
> safe guard, not as the Registrants only way to safeguard domains in the
midst
> of a flawed policy.
>
> I'll give you the last word.

The problem is that the domain is the IP of the end user and the registrar
is the publications agent and has no ownership of the IP whatsoever. Thus if
they try to prohibit me from removing my own IP's to another registrar that
is not only restraint of trade against the other registrar it is essentially
theft of the ownership of the IP (or marque in this instance) and it is
easily resolved in a court through a demand for a summary judgement. I dont
think it would take any court long to find in favor of the domain owner, and
from that point onward, the registrars would be in a much lessor light I
think.

Becuase they directly depend on the domain operators for their revenues,
they want to make our worlds as rightas possible for all concerned, them and
us. And if they dont, they will just loose custoerms until the are
hemmoraging $$$ to the point iof death.

Which also brings up the point that the transfer of the domains process is a
onesey-twosey version of what needs to happen in an emergency or in a gross
failure of one or more of the registrar's business models. And I personally
think that if people are not hipped to this after watching the turmoil in
Silicon Valley for the last year then they need to wake up. Its only a
matter of time until at least one of the registrars is either hacked and
shut down or goes out of business and wont that be fun since there is no
fail-over process in place now.

>
> Best, Loren

Todd

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #1238
*************************