7 ms·

The ICANN Public Comments on WHOIS Privacy

151 points by ehPReth 11y ago

codezero 11y ago
It's so baffling that they are pushing these changes when only a year or so ago they were preparing to eliminate WHOIS altogether... [1][2] Does anyone know what led to this complete change in direction? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS [2] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06j...
- ademarre 11y ago
  I wouldn't call that a change of direction. More like patching WHOIS to make it more useful until we can replace it with something better.
hellbanner 11y ago
Which comments were "the author doesn't know what they meant"?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- ted0 11y ago
  I'm also curious about this
ted0 11y ago
My team at Namecheap built RespectOurPrivacy.com. In case you were wondering, visitors have dialed ICANN's LA office through our site 1,800 times.
- 27182818284 11y ago
  I have to admit, even though you already have my information as a paying Namecheap customer, I'm weirded about by having you wanting to "call you and guide you through the process." Is it a really hard process? I've talked on the phone with Congressional staffers before in the US--I assumed it was something similar where a bored intern added a tally mark next to a side of the issue and reported to their boss later.
  - ted0 11y ago
    Most people appreciate this because they're not exactly sure what to say when ICANN picks up the phone. We also connect you directly to their office via Twilio after the instructions.
- No1 11y ago
  Have you guys been checking on the functionality of this system? Multiple attempts through the web site yielded a busy signal, but calling directly went through immediately, which makes me think they somehow have your Twilio number blocked. They don't seem to be taking any input via telephone, and instead direct you to Google to find a webpage with an email address. I understand that having the phone ring off the hook could possibly make ICANN take notice, but you're probably losing a good portion of people's feedback being registered due to the hurdles involved with calling.
  - ted0 11y ago
    We definitely have been getting busy signals the past few days but we figured it was multiple callers trying to ring them at once. We'll switch our Twilio number. We've also encouraged people in multiple places that both calling and emailing will make the most impact. Most people have been emailing rather than calling anyway. Thanks for the feedback.
    - toomuchtodo 11y ago
      You may want to setup multiple Twilio DIDs/numbers, and roll through them for outbound calls.
      - ted0 11y ago
        We swapped numbers and it's working flawlessly now. They did indeed block our previous #!
jessaustin 11y ago
The comment period opened on May 5th, but between then and June 22nd there were only seven messages. However, the week of the 22nd brought 10,015 messages. The the week of the 29th brought 995 more. So I think it's clear that, without significant outside promotion of these topics, almost nobody would have noticed this proposal. Does ICANN not want the public to contribute to its process? ISTM they could do a bit more publicity.
- the_ancient 11y ago
  >Does ICANN not want the public to contribute to its process? No, no they do not.. They post "public comment periods" as a smoke screen so they can claim transparency, openness and give the illusion of some kind of democratic process.
  - ted0 11y ago
    I really do think that they tried to sneak this through.
dmschulman 11y ago
"The the week of the 29th brought 995 more. So I think it's clear that, without significant outside promotion of these topics, almost nobody would have noticed this proposal." This sentence makes me seeth. ICANN's proposal affects many millions of people who've chosen to utilize a domain name or will choose to do so in the future. If you asked a majority of these users they'd probably have difficulty placing ICANN as an organization if anything at all yet this unawareness would justify ICANN's position? ICANN certainly hasn't gone out of their way to make the public aware of the situation. The tone of the article suggests the author is ready to disregard the templated responses from Save Domain Privacy and others yet wouldn't these be the main channels for users to become aware of the ICANN proposal and take the opportunity to register their disapproval? One of the few places where one can educate themselves about this secretive ICANN situation is one of the primary sources that can't be trusted for honest comment. It sounds like they've already made up their mind on things. Even sweeping indictments in the last year from an overwhelming portion of the public on similar issues surrounding online privacy and the desire for an open internet don't seem to weigh on ICANN's mind in regards to this decision.
- agl 11y ago
  > The tone of the article suggests the author is ready to disregard the templated responses from Save Domain Privacy and others. I didn't intend to suggest that they be disregard, I just didn't have much to say about them other than their number. Without these efforts to promote opposition, /I/ wouldn't have heard about this proposal I believe. I certainly don't think that the template messages should be ignored just because of their form.
  - ted0 11y ago
    The sheer volume of comments has raised awareness, I think/hope. We've tried to get people to customize the form letter as much as possible.
- Sukotto 11y ago
  Reminiscent of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "But the plans were on display . . ." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a torch." "Ah, well the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."
bhc 11y ago
If you want to submit comment directly to ICANN, you do so here. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-initial-2015-05-05-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-initial-2015-05-... Scroll down to "Template for Responses (if desired)." (Direct link: https://s.zoomerang.com/s/VTLNGF5 https://s.zoomerang.com/s/VTLNGF5 ) The form asks you to comment on a dozen or so specific parts of the report and the working group proposal. I imagine comments submitted this way will have more impact than a plain letter since you will be guided to address all of the contentious parts.
teraflop 11y ago
A similar discussion got posted to Reddit a while back, and nobody seems to be mentioning that the phrase that has everybody so riled up ("domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for [WHOIS] privacy and proxy registrations") is taken entirely out of context. If you read the actual document, it's clear that this is a suggestion from a few specific parties to the discussion, and it is emphatically not the opinion of the ICANN working group as a whole, much less does it rise to the status of a "proposed rule". From the PDF: (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-e...) > The WG agrees that the status of a registrant as a commercial organization, non-commercial organization, or individual should not be the driving factor in whether P/P services are available to the registrant. Fundamentally, P/P services should remain available to registrants irrespective of their status as commercial or non-commercial organizations or as individuals. ... > As noted above, the WG agrees that the mere fact of a domain being registered by a commercial entity, or by anyone conducting commercial activity in other spheres, should not prevent the use of P/P services. In addition, a majority of WG members did not think it either necessary or practical to prohibit domain names being actively used for commercial activity from using P/P services. ... > the WG does not believe that P/P registrations should be limited to private individuals who use their domains for non-commercial purposes. I think it's telling that the vast majority of feedback came from members of the public who read Namecheap's call-to-action at https://www.respectourprivacy.com/ https://www.respectourprivacy.com/. As an outsider, it looks to me like Namecheap and the EFF are purposely distorting the situation to drum up some positive PR.
- icebraining 11y ago
  I don't see the EFF saying that ICANN is as a whole of that opinion; what they said is that there is such a proposal, and that ICANN is considering it (which they are, and which is why they're asking for external input).
- nitrogen 11y ago
  Didn't ICANN recently introduce a "steal your domain if you fail to click a link in our phishing email" policy? If so, they can't be trusted not to do something else crazy, like enact this other anti-privacy policy being discussed here.
Animats 11y ago
Here's our position as Sitetruth.com: We at Sitetruth.com operate a system which attempts to evaluate the legitimacy of the business behind business web sites. We do this by attempting to link the web site to a real-world business, then obtaining business background information from commercial sources. We thus have an interest in correct ownership data for web sites being easily available. ICANN proposes that "Domain name registrations involving P/P service providers should be clearly labelled as such in WHOIS." We agree, and add that the "clear labeling" should be easily machine-parsable. We would consider this a negative indicator when evaluating business legitimacy. As for the questions presented for public comment: Q: "Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions be prohibited from using, or continuing to use, P/P services?" A: Yes. In many jurisdictions, a business must disclose the actual name and address of the business behind a web site, or be guilty of a criminal offense. See California Business and Professions Code section 17538, which reads: "Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication ... the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3), the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted." Also see The European Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), which is even broader: ... Member States shall ensure that the service provider shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities, at least the following information: (a) the name of the service provider; (b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established; (c) the details of the service provider, including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner; (d) where the service provider is registered in a trade or similar public register, the trade register in which the service provider is entered and his registration number, or equivalent means of identification in that register; (e) where the activity is subject to an authorisation scheme, the particulars of the relevant supervisory authority" The European Union's position is quite clear. While individuals have privacy rights under the European Privacy Directive, businesses do not. Online businesses are subject to stringent disclosure requirements. ICANN should follow that model. Q: "Do you think it would be useful to adopt a definition of "commercial” or “transactional” to define those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? If so, what should the definition(s) be? A: The definition of "commercial" should be that used in the European Directive on Electronic Commerce. That definition works for the EU. Any site which accepts payments, offers items for sale, or engages in transactions of value should be considered commercial. Whether advertising-supported sites should be considered commercial remains an open question. Q: "Would it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to be displayed as a result of distinguishing between domain names used for online financial transactions and domain names that are not?" A: For a domain identified as "commercial" per the previous criteria, the information listed as required by the European Directive on Electronic Commerce should be publicly available. John Nagle Sitetruth.com
Qantourisc 11y ago
Anyone else getting a fork/replace itch from ICANN lately ?
- dlitz 11y ago
  With what, though? ITU-T wants to take over their role, but I can't imagine that being anything but worse.
alkimie2 11y ago
I found it odd that the author used the personal pronoun 'I' and felt free to apply her own evaluation of comments as the final word. ICANN is a public trust, not a personal fiefdom.
- pascal_cuoq 11y ago
  Why would a person who isn't a member of ICANN not be free to comment personally on publicly available information using as medium their personal blog?
  - geofft 11y ago
    That said, I for one support dissolving ICANN and replacing it with agl's free time....
digital-rubber 11y ago
Eeeww getting things to hard as a non profit, did you ICANN boys started to have to do some work? Looking up registration data for law enforcement making you too tired? Do something for your fees, and keep those registrations private. Banks and a like will demand a public whois registration for your domains if you want a merchant account for cc processing already, why you bother ICANN? Why you bother...
yc1010 11y ago
Knowing ICANN they will just want to make yet another .tld called .dissident or something retarded like .sucks for all those who want their privacy and also make it easy to block those who want privacy by authoritarian governments worldwide.
ecaron 11y ago
The public "You should go voice your complaint" campaigns do more harm than good as far as ICANN goes. In the end, it all comes down to ICANN typically just has one person review all the feedback - and when there's a mass write-in those typically get dismissed in bulk. If you want a good example, check out how ICANN handled the .jobs adjustment in 2010 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jobs-phased-allocation/pdfDrGz87sHKK.pdf http://forum.icann.org/lists/jobs-phased-allocation/pdfDrGz8...). Heartbreaking.
arca_vorago 11y ago
The changes ICANN seems to be making these days worry me, mostly because I don't see a clear explanation of the reasoning behind their recent moves. When I got the email from namecheap, I did use their template, but I immediately assumed it would be tossed into /dev/null. If you aren't aware, ICANN has recently been pushing to remove themselves from their US contract, supposedly at the behest of other countries who don't like the idea of US governance of the system. My problem though is that I don't see any clear explanation of why this is actually needed, and I see plenty of reasons why keeping it under US oversight is a good thing. For example, has ICANN formed an independent outside auditor or oversight body to replace the functions the US has traditionally performed? Good luck wading through their website to figure that out. I've even heard ICANN members say that it's merely "symbolic", so that other countries will trust ICANN more. That doesn't make sense though, when there are some quantifiable differences in operation and oversight under the new governance model. From PcWorld http://www.pcworld.com/article/2142460/us-ntias-plan-to-end-icann-contract-puts-internet-freedom-at-risk-critics-say.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2142460/us-ntias-plan-to-end-... "Without the NTIA contract, there’s no limit on ICANN’s ability to raise fees on its domain-name system services, added Daniel Castro, senior analyst at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a tech-focused think tank. “Without U.S. oversight, ICANN has the potential to grow into the world’s largest unregulated monopoly,” he said. “We should be very mindful of creating a global organization with little accountability that can effectively tax the Internet.” The participants in ICANN would not allow the organization to become an unregulated monopoly, Strickling countered. That view “totally disregards the presence of hundreds of stakeholders, thousands of stakeholders, who actually set the policies for ICANN,” he said. “If you’re saying [the groups involved] are all going to allow that to happen, then you’re basically saying you don’t believe in the multistakeholder model.”" Links for the curious: ICANN Resources Page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreements-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreements-en ICANN contract: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-contract-14aug06-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-contract-14... ICANN Board: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors-2014-03-19-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors-201... If anyone has a good explanation of what they mean, in detail, by "global multistakeholder community", and how those "stakeholders" will actually be able to influence ICANN, I would really like to see it.
coldcode 11y ago
I sent ICANN a direct email without a template and received an automated acknowledgment. Does this mean they care what I said? I have no way to know.

151 points by ehPReth 11y ago

It's so baffling that they are pushing these changes when only a year or so ago they were preparing to eliminate WHOIS altogether... [1][2] Does anyone know what led to this complete change in direction? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS [2] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06jun14-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/final-report-06j...

ademarre 11y ago
I wouldn't call that a change of direction. More like patching WHOIS to make it more useful until we can replace it with something better.

hellbanner 11y ago

Which comments were "the author doesn't know what they meant"?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
ted0 11y ago
I'm also curious about this

ted0 11y ago

My team at Namecheap built RespectOurPrivacy.com. In case you were wondering, visitors have dialed ICANN's LA office through our site 1,800 times.

27182818284 11y ago
I have to admit, even though you already have my information as a paying Namecheap customer, I'm weirded about by having you wanting to "call you and guide you through the process." Is it a really hard process? I've talked on the phone with Congressional staffers before in the US--I assumed it was something similar where a bored intern added a tally mark next to a side of the issue and reported to their boss later.
- ted0 11y ago
  Most people appreciate this because they're not exactly sure what to say when ICANN picks up the phone. We also connect you directly to their office via Twilio after the instructions.
No1 11y ago
Have you guys been checking on the functionality of this system? Multiple attempts through the web site yielded a busy signal, but calling directly went through immediately, which makes me think they somehow have your Twilio number blocked. They don't seem to be taking any input via telephone, and instead direct you to Google to find a webpage with an email address. I understand that having the phone ring off the hook could possibly make ICANN take notice, but you're probably losing a good portion of people's feedback being registered due to the hurdles involved with calling.
- ted0 11y ago
  We definitely have been getting busy signals the past few days but we figured it was multiple callers trying to ring them at once. We'll switch our Twilio number. We've also encouraged people in multiple places that both calling and emailing will make the most impact. Most people have been emailing rather than calling anyway. Thanks for the feedback.
  - toomuchtodo 11y ago
    You may want to setup multiple Twilio DIDs/numbers, and roll through them for outbound calls.
    - ted0 11y ago
      We swapped numbers and it's working flawlessly now. They did indeed block our previous #!

jessaustin 11y ago

The comment period opened on May 5th, but between then and June 22nd there were only seven messages. However, the week of the 22nd brought 10,015 messages. The the week of the 29th brought 995 more. So I think it's clear that, without significant outside promotion of these topics, almost nobody would have noticed this proposal. Does ICANN not want the public to contribute to its process? ISTM they could do a bit more publicity.

the_ancient 11y ago
>Does ICANN not want the public to contribute to its process? No, no they do not.. They post "public comment periods" as a smoke screen so they can claim transparency, openness and give the illusion of some kind of democratic process.
- ted0 11y ago
  I really do think that they tried to sneak this through.

dmschulman 11y ago

"The the week of the 29th brought 995 more. So I think it's clear that, without significant outside promotion of these topics, almost nobody would have noticed this proposal." This sentence makes me seeth. ICANN's proposal affects many millions of people who've chosen to utilize a domain name or will choose to do so in the future. If you asked a majority of these users they'd probably have difficulty placing ICANN as an organization if anything at all yet this unawareness would justify ICANN's position? ICANN certainly hasn't gone out of their way to make the public aware of the situation. The tone of the article suggests the author is ready to disregard the templated responses from Save Domain Privacy and others yet wouldn't these be the main channels for users to become aware of the ICANN proposal and take the opportunity to register their disapproval? One of the few places where one can educate themselves about this secretive ICANN situation is one of the primary sources that can't be trusted for honest comment. It sounds like they've already made up their mind on things. Even sweeping indictments in the last year from an overwhelming portion of the public on similar issues surrounding online privacy and the desire for an open internet don't seem to weigh on ICANN's mind in regards to this decision.

agl 11y ago
> The tone of the article suggests the author is ready to disregard the templated responses from Save Domain Privacy and others. I didn't intend to suggest that they be disregard, I just didn't have much to say about them other than their number. Without these efforts to promote opposition, /I/ wouldn't have heard about this proposal I believe. I certainly don't think that the template messages should be ignored just because of their form.
- ted0 11y ago
  The sheer volume of comments has raised awareness, I think/hope. We've tried to get people to customize the form letter as much as possible.
Sukotto 11y ago
Reminiscent of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy "But the plans were on display . . ." "On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them." "That's the display department." "With a torch." "Ah, well the lights had probably gone." "So had the stairs." "But look, you found the notice, didn't you?" "Yes," said Arthur, "yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard'."

bhc 11y ago

If you want to submit comment directly to ICANN, you do so here. https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-initial-2015-05-05-en https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-initial-2015-05-... Scroll down to "Template for Responses (if desired)." (Direct link: https://s.zoomerang.com/s/VTLNGF5 https://s.zoomerang.com/s/VTLNGF5 ) The form asks you to comment on a dozen or so specific parts of the report and the working group proposal. I imagine comments submitted this way will have more impact than a plain letter since you will be guided to address all of the contentious parts.

teraflop 11y ago

A similar discussion got posted to Reddit a while back, and nobody seems to be mentioning that the phrase that has everybody so riled up ("domains used for online financial transactions for commercial purpose should be ineligible for [WHOIS] privacy and proxy registrations") is taken entirely out of context. If you read the actual document, it's clear that this is a suggestion from a few specific parties to the discussion, and it is emphatically not the opinion of the ICANN working group as a whole, much less does it rise to the status of a "proposed rule". From the PDF: (https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-en.pdf https://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/raa/ppsai-initial-05may15-e...) > The WG agrees that the status of a registrant as a commercial organization, non-commercial organization, or individual should not be the driving factor in whether P/P services are available to the registrant. Fundamentally, P/P services should remain available to registrants irrespective of their status as commercial or non-commercial organizations or as individuals. ... > As noted above, the WG agrees that the mere fact of a domain being registered by a commercial entity, or by anyone conducting commercial activity in other spheres, should not prevent the use of P/P services. In addition, a majority of WG members did not think it either necessary or practical to prohibit domain names being actively used for commercial activity from using P/P services. ... > the WG does not believe that P/P registrations should be limited to private individuals who use their domains for non-commercial purposes. I think it's telling that the vast majority of feedback came from members of the public who read Namecheap's call-to-action at https://www.respectourprivacy.com/ https://www.respectourprivacy.com/. As an outsider, it looks to me like Namecheap and the EFF are purposely distorting the situation to drum up some positive PR.

icebraining 11y ago
I don't see the EFF saying that ICANN is as a whole of that opinion; what they said is that there is such a proposal, and that ICANN is considering it (which they are, and which is why they're asking for external input).
nitrogen 11y ago
Didn't ICANN recently introduce a "steal your domain if you fail to click a link in our phishing email" policy? If so, they can't be trusted not to do something else crazy, like enact this other anti-privacy policy being discussed here.

Animats 11y ago

Here's our position as Sitetruth.com: We at Sitetruth.com operate a system which attempts to evaluate the legitimacy of the business behind business web sites. We do this by attempting to link the web site to a real-world business, then obtaining business background information from commercial sources. We thus have an interest in correct ownership data for web sites being easily available. ICANN proposes that "Domain name registrations involving P/P service providers should be clearly labelled as such in WHOIS." We agree, and add that the "clear labeling" should be easily machine-parsable. We would consider this a negative indicator when evaluating business legitimacy. As for the questions presented for public comment: Q: "Should registrants of domain names associated with commercial activities and which are used for online financial transactions be prohibited from using, or continuing to use, P/P services?" A: Yes. In many jurisdictions, a business must disclose the actual name and address of the business behind a web site, or be guilty of a criminal offense. See California Business and Professions Code section 17538, which reads: "Before accepting any payment or processing any debit or credit charge or funds transfer, the vendor shall disclose to the buyer in writing or by electronic means of communication ... the legal name under which the business is conducted and, except as provided in paragraph (3), the complete street address from which the business is actually conducted." Also see The European Electronic Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), which is even broader: ... Member States shall ensure that the service provider shall render easily, directly and permanently accessible to the recipients of the service and competent authorities, at least the following information: (a) the name of the service provider; (b) the geographic address at which the service provider is established; (c) the details of the service provider, including his electronic mail address, which allow him to be contacted rapidly and communicated with in a direct and effective manner; (d) where the service provider is registered in a trade or similar public register, the trade register in which the service provider is entered and his registration number, or equivalent means of identification in that register; (e) where the activity is subject to an authorisation scheme, the particulars of the relevant supervisory authority" The European Union's position is quite clear. While individuals have privacy rights under the European Privacy Directive, businesses do not. Online businesses are subject to stringent disclosure requirements. ICANN should follow that model. Q: "Do you think it would be useful to adopt a definition of "commercial” or “transactional” to define those domains for which P/P service registrations should be disallowed? If so, what should the definition(s) be? A: The definition of "commercial" should be that used in the European Directive on Electronic Commerce. That definition works for the EU. Any site which accepts payments, offers items for sale, or engages in transactions of value should be considered commercial. Whether advertising-supported sites should be considered commercial remains an open question. Q: "Would it be necessary to make a distinction in the WHOIS data fields to be displayed as a result of distinguishing between domain names used for online financial transactions and domain names that are not?" A: For a domain identified as "commercial" per the previous criteria, the information listed as required by the European Directive on Electronic Commerce should be publicly available. John Nagle Sitetruth.com

Qantourisc 11y ago

Anyone else getting a fork/replace itch from ICANN lately ?

dlitz 11y ago
With what, though? ITU-T wants to take over their role, but I can't imagine that being anything but worse.

alkimie2 11y ago

I found it odd that the author used the personal pronoun 'I' and felt free to apply her own evaluation of comments as the final word. ICANN is a public trust, not a personal fiefdom.

pascal_cuoq 11y ago
Why would a person who isn't a member of ICANN not be free to comment personally on publicly available information using as medium their personal blog?
- geofft 11y ago
  That said, I for one support dissolving ICANN and replacing it with agl's free time....

digital-rubber 11y ago

Eeeww getting things to hard as a non profit, did you ICANN boys started to have to do some work? Looking up registration data for law enforcement making you too tired? Do something for your fees, and keep those registrations private. Banks and a like will demand a public whois registration for your domains if you want a merchant account for cc processing already, why you bother ICANN? Why you bother...

yc1010 11y ago

Knowing ICANN they will just want to make yet another .tld called .dissident or something retarded like .sucks for all those who want their privacy and also make it easy to block those who want privacy by authoritarian governments worldwide.

ecaron 11y ago

The public "You should go voice your complaint" campaigns do more harm than good as far as ICANN goes. In the end, it all comes down to ICANN typically just has one person review all the feedback - and when there's a mass write-in those typically get dismissed in bulk. If you want a good example, check out how ICANN handled the .jobs adjustment in 2010 (http://forum.icann.org/lists/jobs-phased-allocation/pdfDrGz87sHKK.pdf http://forum.icann.org/lists/jobs-phased-allocation/pdfDrGz8...). Heartbreaking.

arca_vorago 11y ago

The changes ICANN seems to be making these days worry me, mostly because I don't see a clear explanation of the reasoning behind their recent moves. When I got the email from namecheap, I did use their template, but I immediately assumed it would be tossed into /dev/null. If you aren't aware, ICANN has recently been pushing to remove themselves from their US contract, supposedly at the behest of other countries who don't like the idea of US governance of the system. My problem though is that I don't see any clear explanation of why this is actually needed, and I see plenty of reasons why keeping it under US oversight is a good thing. For example, has ICANN formed an independent outside auditor or oversight body to replace the functions the US has traditionally performed? Good luck wading through their website to figure that out. I've even heard ICANN members say that it's merely "symbolic", so that other countries will trust ICANN more. That doesn't make sense though, when there are some quantifiable differences in operation and oversight under the new governance model. From PcWorld http://www.pcworld.com/article/2142460/us-ntias-plan-to-end-icann-contract-puts-internet-freedom-at-risk-critics-say.html http://www.pcworld.com/article/2142460/us-ntias-plan-to-end-... "Without the NTIA contract, there’s no limit on ICANN’s ability to raise fees on its domain-name system services, added Daniel Castro, senior analyst at the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, a tech-focused think tank. “Without U.S. oversight, ICANN has the potential to grow into the world’s largest unregulated monopoly,” he said. “We should be very mindful of creating a global organization with little accountability that can effectively tax the Internet.” The participants in ICANN would not allow the organization to become an unregulated monopoly, Strickling countered. That view “totally disregards the presence of hundreds of stakeholders, thousands of stakeholders, who actually set the policies for ICANN,” he said. “If you’re saying [the groups involved] are all going to allow that to happen, then you’re basically saying you don’t believe in the multistakeholder model.”" Links for the curious: ICANN Resources Page: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreements-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/agreements-en ICANN contract: https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-contract-14aug06-en.pdf https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-contract-14... ICANN Board: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors-2014-03-19-en https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/board-of-directors-201... If anyone has a good explanation of what they mean, in detail, by "global multistakeholder community", and how those "stakeholders" will actually be able to influence ICANN, I would really like to see it.

coldcode 11y ago

I sent ICANN a direct email without a template and received an automated acknowledgment. Does this mean they care what I said? I have no way to know.