Fwd: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the Secrecy

Thu Apr 19 02:27:01 CEST 2012

Question for David: has the SSR-RT asked ICANN for an explanation? It seems to me that this is a sufficiently serious occurrence that it would behoove the RT to do so.

Cheers
Mary

Mary W S Wong
Professor of Law
Chair, Graduate IP Programs
Director, Franklin Pierce Center for IP
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE SCHOOL OF LAWTwo White StreetConcord, NH 03301USAEmail: mary.wong at law.unh.eduPhone: 1-603-513-5143Webpage: http://www.law.unh.edu/marywong/index.phpSelected writings available on the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) at: http://ssrn.com/author=437584>>> 

From: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca at CAFONSO.CA>
To:<NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU>
Date: 4/18/2012 8:15 PM
Subject: Re: [NCSG-Discuss] Fwd: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the Secrecy
I agree, Alan, and this investigator needs to be a systems specialist
and truly independent of board and staff.

I also agree with Maria that we should do whatever we can reasonably to,
how to say it, help protect Icann from itself?

frt rgds

--c.a.

On 04/18/2012 06:24 PM, Alain Berranger wrote:
> Dear friends,
> 
> Indeed, ICANN needs to self-reboot... or else it will have to be
> reinvented... a Multi-stakeholder bottom up process and institution like
> ICANN strives for is the only sane alternative to an international
> government-driven... given the increasing number of rogue or incompetent
> governments we have to put up with, the alternatives are kafkaesque!!!
> 
> The Board needs to appoint an independant investigator with full powers to
> get to the bottom of this. This is the priority of priorities for ICANN and
> a comprehensive independant report must be tabled before Prague.
> 
> Alain
> 
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:01 AM, klaus.stoll <klaus.stoll at chasquinet.org>wrote:
> 
>> Dear Friends
>>
>> Unfortunately all of the below is true. Many questions but little answers.
>> It seems to me the time has come to start a comprehensive re-thinking and
>> re-planning process. If things go on as they are the damage will increase
>> and increase. ICANN is not perfect, ICANN has a lot of problems, ICANN at
>> times is a madhouse of interests and egos, BUT ICANN is the best system for
>> Internet Governance we have, we should be proud for the way it worked so
>> well so far, everything else is even worse. Now it seems that ICANN is
>> under real pressure we need to work twice as hard to protect ICANN and at
>> he same time think twice as hard about possible solutions. Now is the time
>> for self-confidence and innovation, everything else is counter productive.
>> Thinking back over the years we need to look where things started to get
>> seriously wrong and correct the basic mistakes made. Any suggestions where
>> it all went wrong?
>>
>> Does anybody know where the reset button is on that one?
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Klaus
>>
>> -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 2:18 PM
>> To: NCSG-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
>> Subject: Fwd: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the
>> Secrecy
>>
>>
>> Imram pretty much summarizes the extension of the incredible blunder,
>> especially in its liability aspects.
>>
>> At a minimum ICANN will need to hire independent specialist auditors to
>> do a full check on the damage and on who has been affected (although I
>> do not believe in the tale that just a few have been affected). But
>> these auditors would be chosen by staff, so the blunder might rise to
>> new levels. Could the applicants participate in this choice?
>>
>> This is going to escalate, the question now is how far it will go.
>>
>> What should NCSG do about it? I frankly do not know what to propose
>> right now. The IOC/RC process, the refusal by the NTIA to renew the IANA
>> contract, and now this incredible TAS blunder, all in a few months... it
>> seems ICANN is trying hard to burn itself out.
>>
>> I wonder who are the "four candidates" for the post of Beck Rodstrom
>> (sic on purpose :)), the brave individuals who wish to come to ICANN and
>> try and clean up this mess?
>>
>> frt rgds
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: [governance] ICANNLeaks - Loosing Trust to Maintain the Secrecy
>> Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 04:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
>> From: Imran Ahmed Shah <ias_pk at yahoo.com>
>> Reply-To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org,**Imran Ahmed Shah <
>> ias_pk at yahoo.com>
>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org <governance at lists.igcaucus.org**>
>> CC: Imran @IGFPak.org <imran at igfpak.org>
>>
>> Dear
>> All,
>> Security, Stability and Resiliency of the Internet layers was the prime
>> responsibility of the ICANN, but the organization
>> couldn't protect/ secure its latest online application submission system
>> of new
>> gTLDs (TAS). Would it be fair to say the best practices were not followed
>> to
>> design the system which was built to keep the information secure,
>> confidential
>> and protected. This
>> application supported the collection of 850+ applications and over $150m
>> funds.
>>
>> ICANN
>> has been informed about this the glitch on 19th but ICANN did not taken it
>> seriously, decision making took about 23 days.
>> ICANN took its TAS Application
>> offline on 12th April which was the last date when it has to be closed
>> automatically. ICANN has its plan to reopen this TAS system to the
>> public that
>> mean Expansion the 90days window by extension of closing
>> date.
>> "We have learned of a possible glitch in the TLD application system
>> software that has allowed a limited number of users to view some other
>> users' file names and user names in certain scenarios."
>>
>> Technically it was necessary to use the secure method
>> and variables should not be displayed in the URL. According to the
>> policy the
>> information of the applicants will not be disclosed however, the
>> applicant name
>> and the applied for string has to publically announced at a later stage.
>> Many of them may have lost their
>> secrecy& confidentiality. It is next to impossible to discover that who is
>> the beneficiary and who is the looser? However, it will raise the conflicts
>> and bidding values.
>> In
>> short ICANN has lost its trust for maintaining the confidentiality,
>> Integrity and Information Security. ICANN has to re-define its policy or
>> call public comments that how to deal with this scenario.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Imran Ahmed Shah
>> .
>>
> 
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20120418/1f285bff/attachment-0001.html>