ICANN wants to destroy privacy protect services for domain names.

Privacy for Business

Privacy for Business (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And that could be read many times, on tons of websites.

The truth is/was that the workgroup (I am a member of the PPSAI WG) is divided. So a few folks wanted a footnote that said commercial websites could not use P/P services and another group wanted a footnote in the report they opposed to that idea.

All good and fine till social media spun it their way. And now we got over 14k comments to look at. Since most of them where submitted came from SaveDomainPrivacy.org the comments are generic.

Still, we got tons of good comments and will keep us busy.

The report can be read here: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/ppsai-initial-2015-05-05-en

Funny how things went out of control. I am pretty sure we gonna have a hard time when this needs drafting. Currently, I am working on IRTP C, change of control and it has proven to be a nightmare.


Testaments Dark Roots of Earth shares

So earlier this month I bought a share for Testaments album Dark Roots of Earth. As a fan, i liked the album, and the whole package deal for 100 bucks was pretty cheap.

The package includes (well actually it is sold out):

  • Limited ownership of the album “Dark Roots of Earth.”
    Early access to the new Testament album coming in 2015
    Invitation to join Chuck and Eric for an online shareholder meeting
    Print of Chuck Billy’s handwritten “Native Blood” lyrics
    Autographed limited edition certificate of ownership.
    Hand-numbered (of 200) 18″ x 24″ print of Brian Mercer’s “Native Blood” artwork

So today I received the box with the share, and I am rather happy about it, looking forward to that shareholder meeting, wonder what that is going to be about 🙂

The shares itself does not hold a commercial value in the sense that you own any rights to claim any money or anything. But fan wise it holds value, like signed albums or CDs and t-shirts from bands. The native blood art work will be on my wall at some point (got number 59).

Below is the certificate, 59 out of 100, looking forward to the early access album from Testament, hope it is another killer album, like native blood 😉




Comment on the Transition NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions to ICANN

So ICANN wanted comments, we gave them one. While this was being drafted, Javier Rodriguez released a very interesting read, called 2050: The Internet Odyssey – How We Lost It and a Way to Get It Back. Interesting read right? Are we at the crossroads? Looks like it. However, it seems we got the message, yet tons of work ahead.  Guess I better get a few more wifi routers 😉 Cya folks at ICANN 50! Ping me if you want to meet.

Anyways here is our statement, signed by yours truly.

Late edit, I forgot to mention where one can find the comment URL.


Comments on the Call for Public Input: Draft Proposal, Based on Initial

Community Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to
Develop a Proposal to Transition NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions

Date: 8 May 2014

Public Comment URL:

The undersigned registrars (“Registrars”), some of whom may also present
individual comments, respectfully submit the attached comments on the Proposal
for the Call for Public Input: Draft Proposal, Based on Initial Community
Feedback, of the Principles and Mechanisms and the Process to Develop a
Proposal to Transition NTIA’s Stewardship of the IANA Functions

We thank the IANA Team for preparing this proposal.

The Registrar Stakeholder Group is currently reviewing this issue and discussing
the ways in which it may impact the global registrar community. We do, however,
have initial comments on specific points that have arisen as a result of the Call
for Public Input.

Several members of the Registrar Stakeholder Group believe that having two
Steering Group representatives for the GNSO will not be sufficient in ensuring
that the interests of all GNSO stakeholders are properly reflected. As the GNSO
is the largest and most diverse structure within ICANN, we find that a “one size
fits all” approach to delegation is not appropriate. Instead, we propose that each
SO/AC submit a number of representatives that it believes to be sufficiently
representative, but be encouraged to keep the number as small as possible.

With regard to the selection process, we recommend that delegates to The
Steering Group should not be selected, chosen or screened by ICANN Staff, as
we have seen recently with Expert Working Groups and Strategy Panels.

We propose that to ensure the most effective process, The ICANN Staff avoid
top-down engagement with the Steering Group. The Steering Group’s legitimacy
with Registrars and other stakeholders will depend upon its ability to choose its
own path forward (with public input) and need not accept the staff-produced
blueprint for developing a transition proposal. Ideally, the role of ICANN Staff
(particularly Executive Staff) would be limited to supporting this effort.

The Registrar Stakeholder Group would like to note that currently, there are three
issues are intertwined with this effort that must be considered dependent, or even prerequisite, issues:

First, the effort to review/improve Accountability Mechanisms must complete
before any transition can occur. There is a general belief that existing
mechanisms are ineffectual.

Second, we need to understand the technical & operational impacts of this
change. Recent events (CZDS outage, TAS “glitch”, etc.) clearly indicate that
ICANN is not up to the task of operating the Root Zone Maintainer function. Will
VeriSign retain this role? If not, who will fill it?

Third, the role of governments is an essential component of the NTIA plan,
however this presumes that the GAC’s structure and operation will be similar to
how it exists today. The transition proposal should ensure that any potential
structural changes by the GAC or other third-parties would not negatively impact
NTIA’s requirement that IANA control must not transition to a government or
inter-governmental organization.

We respectfully request that the above issues be taken into consideration before
a proposal to transition is completed.

Thank you,

Thomas Barrett, EnCirca
John Berryhill, Uniregistry
James Bladel, GoDaddy
Robert Birkner, 1API
Graeme Bunton, Tucows
Jeffrey Eckhaus, eNom
Theo Geurts, Realtime Register
Rob Golding, Astutium
Frédéric Guillemaut, Mailclub
Rob Hall, Momentous
Thomas Keller, 1&1 Internet
Louise Lentino, Instra Corporation
Michele Neylon, Blacknight
Chris Pelling, NetEarth One
Benny Samuelsen, Nordreg AB
Luc Seufer, EuroDNS
Dr. Michael Shohat, Cronon AG
Bruce Tonkin, Melbourne IT
Bob Wiegand, Web.com

Data & Metrics for Policy Making Drafting Team

Last year I joined my first ICANN workgroup, well, drafting team to be more precise. Being it

ICANN 44 Wednesday 27th June Prague GNSO Council

ICANN 44 Wednesday 27th June Prague GNSO Council (Photo credit: icannphotos)

my first I must say it was interesting and engaging. The charter for the DMPM was approved by the board.

The 2010 Registration Abuse Policies Working Group (RAPWG) identified the Meta Issue: Uniformity of Reporting which it described as “need for more uniformity in the mechanisms to initiate, track, and analyze policy-violation reports.” The RAPWG recommended in its Final Report that “the GNSO and the larger ICANN community in general, create and support uniform problem-reporting and report-tracking processes.”


The GNSO Council recommended the creation of an Issue Report to further research metrics and reporting needs in hopes to improve the policy development process. The report created by ICANN Staff outlined accomplishments regarding reporting and metrics by the Contractual Compliance function and it also reviewed other reporting sources that may be of relevance. The GNSO Council subsequently adopted the recommendation to form this non-PDP Working Group tasked with exploring opportunities for developing reporting and metrics processes and/or appropriate standardized methodologies that could better inform fact-based policy development and decision making.

It’s going to be interesting to see what the workgroup will do with it.  They are currently seeking volunteers, I thought about joining it but the current ICANN workgroup I am currently involved in consumes a lot of time not to mention that the RAA 2013 implementation is time-consuming also, coupled with the fact that Nominet decided to come up with a new RA also.

Request for volunteers :



Full information and charter that was created after some interesting discussions is available here: http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/dmpm-charter-23jan14-en.pdf