[At-Large] Auction Proceeds - where we are and what you can help

Mon May 15 02:17:32 UTC 2017

Sorry for seriously derailing this with examples of what really
happens, so we do not set out expectations too high:

On 2017-05-15 12:53 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

(snip)

>     Otherwise, ICANN will become a DNS industry association and
>     advocator, no longer to be trusted by the public.
>
>
> Some would argue that this has already happened,
(snip)

Count me in there, I argue this has happened. Why should we be
trusting ICANN?

The look at Copenhagen, Joint Meeting ICANN Board & At-Large, Tuesday,
March 14, 2017 – 09:45 to 10:45 CET, with this coming from the ICANN
Board:
> The CCWG -- transition CCWG spent a huge amount of time looking at,
> discussing, and refining ICANN's mission. And making ICANN's mission
> clearer. And ICANN's mission is clearly limited to the DNS and to
> the names and numbers and protocol parameters. And so for me, users
> doesn't mean Internet users. Users means the users of what it is
> that we are in charge of. In other words, it means registrants or --
> I'm not sure if the right term for numbers is registrants, but
> anyway, it means the people who use the names and numbers.
>
> I believe that trying to represent the Internet users is far outside
> of ICANN's mission and scope because we do not, in fact, have -- we
> don't run the Internet. What we run is the domain names system and
> therefore, as I said for me, users are the users of the Domain Name
> System and the numbers and protocol parameters. Thanks.

(Unfortunately I only have a local copy of the document, not the link)

Let's have a look at what Ken wrote:

On 2017-05-13 04:55 PM, Ken Whitehurst wrote:
> While Canada is a G7 country, its record when it comes to consumer
> representation is dismal, well by Canadian democratic standards. ;-)
> So there is a huge need for resources here to engage matters like
> Internet governance. Debates are raging here about many matters
> touched by Internet governance, from privacy to commercial security
> to cultural expression. Our organization will be addressing a
> standing committee of Canada's Parliament around Internet privacy
> and security issues this Tuesday. 
> The consumer perspective does not get the well-rounded discussion
> here it deserves in all these matters because of the limited
> capacity of consumer associations, and by that I mean associations
> of "retail" consumers with an interest in the functioning of the
> Internet. This constituency is not well formed or heard. We have
> become involved in the ICANN process because we think Internet
> governance issues are at the nexus of an unfolding crisis of
> security and authentication breaches that threaten the trust of
> consumers in what has become one of the world's most important
> global institutions, the Internet.
> The resources created by the assignment of Internet identity must be
> used in some measure to increase understanding of Internet
> governance and to facilitate consumer representation and
> understanding, whether through associations or by individuals. But
> we believe associations will be the most capable and effective
> protagonists in this complex area on behalf of the heterogeneous
> consumer constituency that our organization seeks to represent.
> Canada is not the EU and it is not the US and it certainly is not
> China in terms of economic scale and ability to aggregate resources
> for this purpose, and it's people and civil society organizations
> have much in common with many other countries and their citizens
> around the world in requiring resources from the cash flows of the
> system of the Internet itself to participate in global Internet
> governance. 
> So we think this should be on the table in any discussion of the
> dispersement of proceeds of income raised directly or indirectly
> from Internet users, as well as the need to increase the awareness
> of publics around the world about the processes of Internet governance.
> My apologies if I am not on point. But since Internet governance was
> raised as an objective of funding, I am responding to this
> additional point.
>
> -- 
> Ken Whitehurst
> Executive Director
> Consumers Council of Canada

I agree totally with Ken.  Instead we are seeing how consumers are
mere sources to be used by registrants as candy for ICANN's mission.
Never mind the harm done in this mission.

I believe ICANN is consumer hostile a.t.m. I'd even go as far as to
say that ICANN is hostile to registrants with good reason, rather
seeing registrants as sources to exploit with defensive registration
and when that fails as it invariably will, insist on UDRPs etc.

ICANN for the rich jumps to mind. I can demonstrate how ICANN and the
responsible registrar knew about serious issues surround registrations
from the same malicious registrant mentioned here:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-1042

I quote from the findings:
> In addition, the use of a domain name for a site that imitates a
> legitimate pharmaceutical site could pose a public health risk and
> therefore also may be indicative of bad faith

How much does that matter? Nothing.

The same registrant is still serially spoofing pharmaceutical
companies, hospitals, banks, lawyers  - in fact every level of legit
registrant class, from the USA to Japan, from Europe to Africa. All
this with registration details that does not even pass the briefest of
brief scrutiny,  yet saw the registrar ignoring the issue, later 
ICANN Compliance stating  [Ticket ~XFS-327-35074 - rbign.org ]:
> Thank you for submitting a Abuse complaint concerning the registrar
> NameSilo, LLC. ICANN has reviewed and closed your complaint because:
>
> - The registrar demonstrated that it took reasonable and prompt
> steps to investigate and respond appropriately to the report of abuse.
>
> Please note that ICANN may accept the following as steps registrars
> took to investigate and respond to abuse reports:
>
> - Contacting the registrant
> - Asking for and obtaining evidence or licenses
> - Providing hosting provider information to the complainant
> - Performing Whois verification
> - Performing transfer upon request of registrant
> - Suspending domain

In this case we still saw a spoof of the reserve Bank of India merrily
active with totally bogus registration details active well ... AFTER
... ICANN considered this issue closed.
> Registrant Name: mike Chris
> Registrant Organization:
> Registrant Street: no. 5 Benson St
> Registrant City: imc
> Registrant State/Province: imc
> Registrant Postal Code: 23454
> Registrant Country: NG
> Registrant Phone: +234.08098708469
> Registrant Phone Ext:
> Registrant Fax:
> Registrant Fax Ext:
> Registrant Email: mixingcreditb at yahoo.com
> <mailto:mixingcreditb at yahoo.com>

A complaint to the ICANN Ombudsman followed and met a silent death. 
Many repeats of similar mindless situations have convinced me that not
only does ICANN Not really care about consumers, but that ICANN does
not even care about their own legitimate registrants. What ICANN
publishes is not what happens. ICANN Compliance's stance on above issues?
> In this case, because the complaint is about inaccurate whois data,
> I would recommend filing a whois inaccuracy complaint rather than an
> abuse complaint. 
The relevant registrar is allowing patently fake registration details
into the DNS system in volumes, yet ICANN is expecting an accuracy
report must be filed for each and every domain? Obviously the cure is
at the source, not extinguishing the result.

So in term of your proposal Ken, I have strong grounds to suspect your
excellent proposal will not be considered. Until such a time as as
there's a drastic shift in the ICANN Board's views and a willingness
to only see the domain name system used legitimately, the consumer
will always be at risk from much ICANN emanating. For ICANN the
consumer does not count despite what you hear and read. Currently
there is not public trust.

Regards,
Derek Smythe

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large/attachments/20170515/f2f10197/attachment.html>