October 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 15, 2008

Oct. 15, 2008

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Carlton Samuels wrote: > To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. :-) > It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and > usurpations" experienced by registrants; the lack of contract > enforcement by ICANN and the disability/disinclination of some > registrants to access remedies via the UDRP. I would add to "disability/disinclination of registrants", the lack of easy to access information to registrants detailing any recourse they may have. > There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well > dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and > equity. > > So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum > total of which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep > on its own contract enforcement! Do we even need an issues report to enable ALAC to assert this position to the Board? I thought that one of the great things about ALAC (often touted as a reason At-Large doesn't get a seat on the Board) is that we have the ability to advocate user issues and concerns directly to the Board. We should be getting the Board to direct their own resources to confirm the problem (if that is even necessary) and then to itself act. Issues reports appear to be SO mechanisms to which ALAC is not bound. Can we not be more creative -- or at least more direct -- on this issue? - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI9jFHB6WWYxnsgmwRAn8WAJ9OqveDESn/ZkE7DRDwNug6XA/i5ACfUDq/ nKEDSg+Bk35kdlGtIIGnZ6U= =Uef0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DNSSEC
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 15, 2008

Oct. 15, 2008

Dear Members: As you will notice there is a DNSSEC Briefing during the Cairo meeting. It seems that it might be useful to have an additional telephonic briefing, perhaps just after the Cairo meeting, for the community to learn more about the subject. Does this sound like a good idea? I would like to keep organising monthly briefings for the community - so any proposals for new subjects are most welcome :) Perhaps another should be the New GTLD RFP? -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 4

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] dot-mobi policy advisory board positions
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Thank you for your report John... If you agree we will include this text (or you can provide a separate document directly to the ALAC Wiki for the Oct 14th meeting because as you are an ALAC appointment you could and I believe should be reporting their) such text will then be included as part of our annual Working Group, Liaison and general activity reporting at the Cairo meeting (for annual Reporting to ICANN and internally to the One Day workshop where we will be (amongst other things) reviewing all our job descriptions (as currently listed in the ROP's) and any participation requirements (Rule 21 of the ROP's) along with related accountability (reporting KPI's etc.,) that may be associated with all of the ALAC Roles, specifically in relation to whatever recommendations are going to be coming forward from the ALAC Review WG, which will be public by then. The specific matter of next year's dotMobi appointment form the ALAC was on the ALAC Meeting Agenda last night, (as we had received both the request you mentioned and background information from Caroline Greer {which is all appended to the meeting page}) and we agreed that this appointment will be included with the call for nominations for all our ALAC Liaisons and appointments for 2008-2009. It is intended that this call will go out before the end of the week. I trust you will either be nominated or self nominate for this important appointment at that time... It is also intended and I have let Caroline know that the matter of this appointment (and all the other liaison or appointment roles) will be finalized by the ALAC during the Cairo meeting and after the Sunday OneDay workshop. Cheryl (CLO) -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2008 2:05 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] dot-mobi policy advisory board positions Speaking of elections, the .MOBI domain has a policy advisory board which includes a seat selected each year by the ALAC, and it's time to make this year's selection. I've held that seat for the two years that it has existed, and would like another year. The PAB meets quarterly by phone and once a year in person. Its task is to provide policy advice for the management of the .MOBI domain. As you may know, .MOBI is intended for users of mobile devices, and the idea is that content in the .MOBI domain works on your mobile. So far that's been mostly a technical goal, since the state of the mobile web is sort of like the PC web ten years ago, with slow connections, small screens, and browsers with varying and sometimes incompatible features and capabilities. (There is a guy at .MOBI whose full time job is to maintain an encyclopedia of devices and browsers.) This year in the PAB we've addressed a variety of issues that affect users. The biggest problem is that in .MOBI there are a lot of domains owned by domain speculators who care little for the interests of users. In many cases they just leave their domains parked, which isn't great, but at least follows the rules, but sometimes they just point the domain at random parking sites that don't work on mobiles at all, due to large images, frames, etc. The domain has a compliance process so they know which sites don't work, and I've been helping them develop a combination of carrots and sticks to get the sites to do something reasonable on mobile phones. Farther out I'm trying to figure out ways to encourage domains to build useful content rather than link farms, with weather.mobi being a good example of a site that could have been a link farm but instead has useful weather forecasts. Even farther out than that, it seems pretty likely that mobile devices will catch up to PCs in capability, so any site that works on a PC will work on a mobile. At that point the other characteristics of mobiles become more important, that people tend to keep them with them much more than they keep their PCs with them, and that they physically move around so you can do stuff like have a site that uses geolocation to recommend restaurants near where you are right now. It'll still be important for .MOBI content to be good for mobile users, although the issues will be quite different. Anyway, I've enjoyed doing this with .MOBI and would like to keep at it for at least another year. The .MOBI management has sent Cheryl a note explaining when they'd like to hear back (fairly soon). As far as I know I'm the only candidate for this position this year, but the ALAC should set some dates so we can be sure and so if need be there can be a vote. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Documents for the meeting today
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Dear Members: I have made a few updates to the agenda page for today, to incorporate the various documents announced at various points earlier, and also to incorporate into the wiki the changes made by Patrick to the draft Statement on the WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group report. There is also a link which allows you to easily see on the wiki the changes between versions - for those of you who do not like reviewing text in Word, this should prove helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Late for appointment now. Will reply when next have connectivity. Alan At 13/10/2008 08:56 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Alan: >Actually, this issues report might just be doing exactly what you caution me >against; "blow this out of proportion"! > >Plainly put, I'm saying an Issues Report is premature.....at best! And I'm >saying this against the background of the several others that have coursed >themselves through the process with, well, uneven results to date. > >Here's the killjoy. By your own reckoning, "the vast majority are honouring >all contracts and agreements 100%"; presumably, that "vast majority" phrase >refers registrars and/or resellers? > >Which begs the question...... > >Ach...the irony of my response..even by invoking an "Evanism"......got lost >in the shuffle.......... > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 05:31 PM >To: 'ALAC Working List' >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report > >The draft request does allude to some possible violation of >contracts, specifically cases where a registrar or reseller acts in >bad faith by not issuing appropriate notices or honouring >auto-renewal agreements. > >But please do not blow this out of proportion. In my estimation (and >there is no body of actual statistics available), this is a small >fraction of the cases we are talking about in the overall Issues >Report request. The vast majority are honouring all contracts and >agreements 100%. > >We may not like the terms of those agreements, and this is a way to >go about having them unilaterally changed. Even if registrars don't >like it. That is what the concept of consensus policies is all about. >If enough of the community supports a change, it will happen. > >For cases that actually do include a breach of contract, we are also >asking that ICANN ramp up enforcement and provide paths for >registrant complaint. > >Alan > >At 13/10/2008 02:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > >To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. > > > >We believe we have a situation with "Post-expiry Domain Recovery by the > >original registrant" that undermines the interests of users; the > >registrants. The updated draft request document - a well-written tome, in >my > >opinion! - gives chapter and verse, the background to the problem and the > >existing ICANN Registrar/Registry related policies that were intended to > >ameliorate said problem; the RGP and the AGP. > > > >It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and usurpations" > >experienced by registrants; the lack of contract enforcement by ICANN and > >the disability/disinclination of some registrants to access remedies via >the > >UDRP. > > > >There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well > >dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and equity. > > > >So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum total of > >which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep on its own >contract > >enforcement! > > > > > > > >I say again: IMHO, the ALAC pronouncements around contracts of one or other > >kind tends to impairment on the applicability of tort laws to commercial > >transactions. So now, I dare to ask this: "What do we know and when did we > >know it?" > > > >Carlton Samuels > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > >Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 06:47 PM > >To: ALAC Working List > >Subject: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report > > > >A revised draft (based in comments received) is now posted on the > >wiki pointed to from the agenda of our Oct 14 meeting. > > > >Alan > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or >g > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

The draft request does allude to some possible violation of contracts, specifically cases where a registrar or reseller acts in bad faith by not issuing appropriate notices or honouring auto-renewal agreements. But please do not blow this out of proportion. In my estimation (and there is no body of actual statistics available), this is a small fraction of the cases we are talking about in the overall Issues Report request. The vast majority are honouring all contracts and agreements 100%. We may not like the terms of those agreements, and this is a way to go about having them unilaterally changed. Even if registrars don't like it. That is what the concept of consensus policies is all about. If enough of the community supports a change, it will happen. For cases that actually do include a breach of contract, we are also asking that ICANN ramp up enforcement and provide paths for registrant complaint. Alan At 13/10/2008 02:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. > >We believe we have a situation with "Post-expiry Domain Recovery by the >original registrant" that undermines the interests of users; the >registrants. The updated draft request document - a well-written tome, in my >opinion! - gives chapter and verse, the background to the problem and the >existing ICANN Registrar/Registry related policies that were intended to >ameliorate said problem; the RGP and the AGP. > >It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and usurpations" >experienced by registrants; the lack of contract enforcement by ICANN and >the disability/disinclination of some registrants to access remedies via the >UDRP. > >There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well >dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and equity. > >So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum total of >which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep on its own contract >enforcement! > > > >I say again: IMHO, the ALAC pronouncements around contracts of one or other >kind tends to impairment on the applicability of tort laws to commercial >transactions. So now, I dare to ask this: "What do we know and when did we >know it?" > >Carlton Samuels > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 06:47 PM >To: ALAC Working List >Subject: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report > >A revised draft (based in comments received) is now posted on the >wiki pointed to from the agenda of our Oct 14 meeting. > >Alan > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

2 1

Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 13, 2008

Oct. 13, 2008

A revised draft (based in comments received) is now posted on the wiki pointed to from the agenda of our Oct 14 meeting. Alan

2 1

Board liaison report: October
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 13, 2008

Oct. 13, 2008

Colleagues, As you can see from the preliminary report from the October Board meeting, GNSO restructuring continues to be a major subject for the board: <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm> DNSSEC, new gTLDs, and "Institutional Confidence"/President's Strategy Committee also face ongoing discussion. I have not received responses to requests for information on the ALAC submissions. Agenda has not yet been set for the Cairo meetings, so we should add items, such as Registrar contract enforcement to the list if we'd like to see them. I will be able to join the upcoming ALAC call only part-way through. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Result of Voting for ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN, 2008-2009
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Thank you for your continued confidence in me. I look forward to working with you to serve the ALAC and At-Large public in the coming year. --Wendy At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear Community: > > With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the balloting to appoint the > ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN, we can confirm that the > vote is quorate. > > The results are as follows: > > Question: Who shall serve as ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN > for the > 2008-2009 period? > > As at poll close: Thu 02 Oct 2008 23:59 UTC > Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 > Ranked by votes > > Rank Candidate Votes % > 1 Wendy Seltzer 9 64.29 > 2 Beau Brendler 5 35.71 > 3 Abstain 0 0.00 > > We can therefore declare that the incumbent, Wendy Seltzer, shall be > returned as the Liaison with a term from the end of the ICANN AGM in 2008 > (the Cairo meeting) until the close of the AGM in 2009. The Secretary of the > Board of ICANN, John Jeffrey Esq., has been copied on this message. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

New gTLD Update
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Additional information related to the use of geographic names in new GTLDs (further to my GNSO report included in our upcoming ALAC meeting agenda) Alan >Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:06:55 -0700 >From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Council meeting: New gTLD Update >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Council Members: > >Thank you for the opportunity on last week's Council call to provide >information regarding the current state of implementation planning >for the GNSO's new gTLD policy recommendations. I thought I would >take few minutes of your time to reiterate some of the points made >during our discussion and indicate possible paths for Council and >community discussion. > >As you may recall, one of the items described during the Council >call was a recent discussion with the GAC to obtain a better >understanding of the issues raised in their policy advice to the >ICANN Board: "GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs." In that meeting >(and earlier ones in Delhi and Paris), GAC members provided some >detail as to the expectations of >governments and the possible protections to be afforded to >geographical names in the new gTLD application and evaluation process. > >As a result of those consultations, ICANN will post two documents. >The first will be a letter from Paul Twomey to GAC Chair Janis >Karklins that: (1) repeats back the meeting discussion points in >order to ensure understanding; (2) provides a potential model for >going ahead with some of the protections the government >representatives are requesting; and (3) describes areas where >requested protections would be problematic to implement or enforce. >The second document, for public comment, review and modification, >is the upcoming draft of the new gTLD "RFP" - the guidebook that >will be provided to potential applicants. The RFP will also describe >some of those potential protections. > >Those documents are being presented for public discussion and do not >represent a final implementation model. > >The documents are intended to highlight discrepancies between the >report of the GNSO Reserved Names working group and the GAC advice >to the Board by describing potential implementation details. I.e., >creating potential operational processes brings to light more >clearly issues for implementation discussion. They will inform a >discussion in Cairo where there will be opportunity for additional >consultations with the GAC and the GNSO. > >The draft RFP will be posted and discussed in Cairo, and will be >modified through public dialogue. It is planned that the draft RFP >will be revised and posted again before a final version is posted >for ICANN Board approval. The Board will be informed by this >upcoming dialogue as it considers the final implementation model of >the completed and approved GNSO policy recommendation for approval. > >Sorry this took so long to describe (I thought the note would be >shorter.) I hope the intent and meaning are clear. Denise or I would >be happy to answer any questions you might have. > >Thanks for your time & regards, > >Kurt > > >Kurt Pritz

1 0