<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Sorry for seriously derailing this with examples of what really
happens, so we do not set out expectations too high:<br>
<br>
On 2017-05-15 12:53 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:<br>
<div><br>
(snip)
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)"><br>
</div>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAMguqh1baaLxg70hWYTvVtX64Cq4yS42su=T67w9fUo5=4zifQ@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff">
<div><span style="font-family:宋体">Otherwise, ICANN will
become a DNS industry association and advocator, no
longer to be trusted by the public.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;color:rgb(11,83,148)">Some
would argue that this has already happened,<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
(snip)<br>
<br>
Count me in there, I argue this has happened. Why should we be
trusting ICANN?<br>
<br>
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:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
(Unfortunately I only have a local copy of the document, not the
link)<br>
<br>
Let's have a look at what Ken wrote:<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2017-05-13 04:55 PM, Ken Whitehurst
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:6B229AF5-3722-4D6E-A6A3-1A01893239E6@consumerscouncil.com"
type="cite">
<div>While Canada is a G7 country, its record when it comes to
consumer representation is dismal, well by Canadian democratic
standards. ;-)</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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. </div>
<div>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.</div>
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
<div>--
<div>Ken Whitehurst</div>
<div>Executive Director</div>
<div>Consumers Council of Canada</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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: <br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-1042">http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2016-1042</a><br>
<br>
I quote from the findings:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">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</blockquote>
<br>
How much does that matter? Nothing.<br>
<br>
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 ]:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"
size="2">Thank you for submitting a Abuse complaint concerning
the registrar NameSilo, LLC. ICANN has reviewed and closed your
complaint because: <br>
<br>
- The registrar demonstrated that it took reasonable and prompt
steps to investigate and respond appropriately to the report of
abuse. <br>
<br>
Please note that ICANN may accept the following as steps
registrars took to investigate and respond to abuse reports:<br>
<br>
- Contacting the registrant<br>
- Asking for and obtaining evidence or licenses<br>
- Providing hosting provider information to the complainant<br>
- Performing Whois verification<br>
- Performing transfer upon request of registrant<br>
- Suspending domain</font></blockquote>
<br>
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. <br>
<blockquote type="cite"><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica"
size="2">Registrant Name: mike Chris<br>
Registrant Organization:<br>
Registrant Street: no. 5 Benson St<br>
Registrant City: imc<br>
Registrant State/Province: imc<br>
Registrant Postal Code: 23454<br>
Registrant Country: NG<br>
Registrant Phone: +234.08098708469<br>
Registrant Phone Ext:<br>
Registrant Fax:<br>
Registrant Fax Ext:<br>
Registrant Email: <a href="mailto:mixingcreditb@yahoo.com">mixingcreditb@yahoo.com</a></font></blockquote>
<br>
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?<br>
<blockquote type="cite">In this case, because the complaint is about
inaccurate whois data, I would recommend filing a whois inaccuracy
complaint rather than an abuse complaint. </blockquote>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Derek Smythe<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>