From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #23 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, March 2 2000 Volume 01 : Number 023 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:16:35 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 29-Feb-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > Data is always valuable: Ok, I'll answer inline: > When you say "full team", what does that mean > precisely? How many people? full-time or part-time? volunteers or paid? All volunteers. Roughly 20 people. > did you proactively search for bad guys, or did you operate from > complaints? Already answered in the post. Complaints were so high, would never got a chance to do proactive searches. > did you have a policy requiring positive identification, or > did you have lots of anonymous users? Identification was limited to verification of listed contact's email address, > did you have repeat offenders? Absolutely. > when someone was accused of something, what "due process" did you have? The process was : 1. Complaint received, ticketed and logged, and assigned a sequence number 2. Staff log in, received the next availabel sequence number and its associated ticket 3. Staff checks out the site in question, contacts the complainant, lets them know the complaint is being addressed and asks any questions for clarification. Staff emails the registrant, lets them know there has been a complaint, lets them know their preliminary opinion based on the review of the website, and asks for any clarification. Registrant given the opportunity to "reform" their use, unless they have previously been given such an opportunity, in which case, 4. if in the staff member's opinion, the complaint has merit (purely a judgement call on the staff member's part) the complaint is forwarded to the director (me in this case) for action based on the recommendation. 95% of the time I concur, sometimes I kick one back as being extreme and recommend it be sent back for a LART. Records are updated. Registrant can appeal a decision directly to the Director if they feel they have a reason why they should be granted some leeway. Rarely granted. 5. If the case had legal ramifications (computer/network security issues/attacks, kiddie porn, etc), material and logs generated for possible law enforcement referral. > was there a dispute resolution mechanism of any sort, such as > arbitration etc? See above. >> , and I can say with some authority, if a registry were to run a strict >> enforcement policy, it would cost them a very pretty penny. > > but ml.org was a free registry and didn't have any money worth speaking > of, so how did you afford the cost of enforcement? All volunteer, like everything else with ml.org :) There was funding, however, in the form of advertising deals and other grants. > But you did it at essentially no cost, since ml.org was a free > registry. It was not run as a business -- how is it that you could > speak with authority about the costs of enforcement? Because I am intimately familiar with the amount of man hours spent on a registry that had barely 250,000 registered domains. Imagine policing a registry with 1,000,000 + domains. No thanks. > Don't forget: just because you can't see how to do something does not prove > it > can't be done. I agree. But in my experience, this type of enforcement will not work, will be reactive, and will be very very expensive. Unless you can show a real world case that says otherwise, I'll stand by my experience. > Also, even if it were true in every case, that the cost of enforcement > was very high (note that NSI doesn't spend much money enforcing the .edu > charter), that doesn't mean that such registries are either bad or > economically unviable -- people pay money for vanity license plates on > cars, after all. Yes, they do, but the difference in cost as a result of enforcement processes is going to be a LOT larger than the difference between a regular or vanity license plate, Kent. There is simply no comparison here. >> And it is for >> this primary reason that I oppose any measure that would require ICANN to >> police the registry for enforcement of someone's view of what a "charter" >> should be. > > It is unfortunately a general problem that ICANN will have to police > registries for adherence to technical standards, operational standards, > and policies. Yes, but that doesn't mean ICANN needs to be policing registries to make sure they are enforcing charters. That is excessive. The registry should decide how much or how little, if any at all, is necessary for their operation. For ICANN to MANDATE enforcement is an unnecessary (And expensive) restriction on the ability of the registry to conduct it's business. It would be a great detriment to the end users of the Internet. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4u2RD8zLmV94Pz+IRApwfAKCmTwnRRrBfxG5GgTmAl6khVHVaIACffLRf yxY3DmALO+vS5Ji44isSQEI= =tqth - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 22:51:43 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 On Mon, Feb 28, 2000 at 10:16:35PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote: [info on ml.org's processes] Very interesting, thanks. > reactive, and will be very very expensive. Unless you can show a real world > case that says otherwise, I'll stand by my experience. 1) the ICANN UDRP is largely self-supporting, and does not require the registry or registrar to deal with enforcement. It is currently confined to disputes concerning intellectual property matters, but the same contractural enforcement mechanism could be used for any kind of dispute. So a charter that set up conditions by which a complainent could bring a registrant to task before a UDRP board would impose very little cost on the registry or registrars. 2) .edu. NSI spends very little on enforcement of the charter to .edu; compliance isn't 100%, but it is very high. There are also the obvious cases of .gov and .mil, where enforcement is simply delegated to somebody who cares. I imagine this to be a very common case -- the case of "sponsored" TLDs. > > Also, even if it were true in every case, that the cost of enforcement > > was very high (note that NSI doesn't spend much money enforcing the .edu > > charter), that doesn't mean that such registries are either bad or > > economically unviable -- people pay money for vanity license plates on > > cars, after all. > >Yes, they do, but the difference in cost as a result of enforcement processes >is going to be a LOT larger than the difference between a regular or vanity >license plate, Kent. There is simply no comparison here. Once again, look at .edu. Enforcement is not a major expense or concern. Look at the disputes that are being resolved through the UDRP -- there is very little cost to the registry or registrar, and that amortized cost is less than the cost of a vanity plate. Of course one can imagine charters that are arbitrarily difficult to enforce, but one can also imagine charters that are very easy to enforce, as well. >>> And it is for >>> this primary reason that I oppose any measure that would require ICANN to >>> police the registry for enforcement of someone's view of what a "charter" >>> should be. >> >> It is unfortunately a general problem that ICANN will have to police >> registries for adherence to technical standards, operational standards, >> and policies. > >Yes, but that doesn't mean ICANN needs to be policing registries to make sure >they are enforcing charters. That is excessive. There are general techniques that make enforcement not a big issue. They are already being employed. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000 23:39:42 -0800 (PST) From: "William X. Walsh" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 29-Feb-2000 Kent Crispin wrote: > 2) .edu. NSI spends very little on enforcement of the charter to .edu; > compliance isn't 100%, but it is very high. There are also the obvious > cases of .gov and .mil, where enforcement is simply delegated to > somebody who cares. I imagine this to be a very common case -- the > case of "sponsored" TLDs. Yes, but NSI is not in a situation where they are running .EDU as a commercial operation, and they are under no strict contract that if they do not meet ICANN's opinion of what strong enforcement is that they will lose the commercial operation. Big difference there, Kent. - - -- William X. Walsh http://userfriendly.com/ Fax: 877-860-5412 or +1-559-851-9192 GPG/PGP Key at http://userfriendly.com/wwalsh.gpg - -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux) Comment: DSo Networks iD8DBQE4u3e+8zLmV94Pz+IRAqf7AJ45HAf2UDg8/mO7y6/fJYhH/sAv6ACg/jhG jX0QSq4pZZCOm+dNKh0q3aE= =M5Lb - -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 07:36:17 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Principles for domain names v7 Kent, > Data is always valuable: When you say "full team", what does that mean And good data even more so. So far the administrative overhead estimate (not no-of-volunteers, not no-of-registrants, nor their ratio) hasn't surfaced. The peripheral factlets are interesting, but as a proof-of-claim thus far the offering is assertion-plus-circumlocution. The proof-of-claim Walsh could offer is the estimated cost for the administrative function under discussion. That would be in fractional hours per domain, and from a log. Perhaps the labor cost just slipped his mind. He is partisan on the point that no capacity for attempting to exercise any policy ought to exist, so he may just as well have lost sight of the importance of the adminstrative cost for policy functions. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 17:05:46 +0100 From: Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung Subject: [wg-c] .eu Dear Mr Weinberg On checking the European Commission's working paper of the EU we came to the conclusion that it would be better to have a private organisation administering the .eu (or .eur) instead of a governmental institution. After all, that also seems to be the intention of the European Commission. We have the following questions: Who will own the rights of the gTLD .eu, if it is created? What is your opinion on when there will be a decision? Yours sincerly Alexander Edler Edler & Nebel Softwareentwicklung OEG Puntigamerstr. 4 8041 Graz EUROPE en-software@edler.at ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Feb 2000 08:47:58 -0800 (PST) From: Karl Auerbach Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu > ...it would be better to have a private organisation > administering the .eu (or .eur) instead of a governmental institution. > After all, that also seems to be the intention of the European > Commission. How a "country" with a ccTLD administers its TLD is its own choice. But what I am hearing you say is that you want to be more of a gTLD than a ccTLD. If so, your proposal ought to be considered just another gTLD and ought to be given no special regard or priority among any of the other proposals. > We have the following questions: > Who will own the rights of the gTLD .eu, if it is created? > What is your opinion on when there will be a decision? The property right that you are asking about is merely a contractual right - - between you (or whoever) and ICANN that lets you tell ICANN (or its designated registrar/registry) to modify the data associated with your gTLD. And it is useful to remember that the ICANN root system is but one of an infinite number of potential DNS root systems that may be created and operated entirely apart from- and with no coordination with- the ICANN franchise root system. So the contractual right you are getting is merely the right to have .eu in the ICANN telephone directory. You will have to make distinct arrangements with the other directory providers if and as they arise. --karl-- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 08:12:41 +0900 From: "Robert F. Connelly" Subject: [wg-c] WG-B Dear Colleagues: I have asked repeatedly to be added to WG-B. Nothing has been forthcoming. At this moment, I need to have access to the WG's documents to address a situation ACCJ IP Committee is working on in Japan. 1. Can someone tell me where to find the archives? 2. Can I somehow get on the WG-B mailing list? Regards, BobC ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2000 23:15:24 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: [wg-c] Status of WG-C: Cairo Presentation Jon, You wrote up two informal status notes following the close of the public comment period. What formal report do you intend to make at the Cairo ICANN meeting? Eric ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #23 *************************