August 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Nominating Committee - African Region Candidatures
by At-Large Staff Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Dear Afralo members: As you will recall, on 19th August we sent a reminder to this list, noting that the 25th August 2008 was the deadline for the ALAC to receive a list of those from your Geographic Region who were to be forwarded to the ALAC to choose from amongst for appointment to the Nominating Committee. As the ALAC have not received any communication from the region, we are writing to advise you (and the ALAC by copy) that we are aware of two persons who have let the region know that they are willing to serve: 1. Khaled Koubaa the incumbent Nominating Commmittee member from Africa 2. Alan Levin, of ISOC South Africa, who is self-nominated with a second from McTim on the list We note that there has not been a recommendation from the regional Secretariat on behalf of the region. Mindful of the fact that the ALAC needs to proceed to selecting the list of Nominating Committee appointments for the coming year (which are actually due on 31 August), it will now be for the ALAC to decide to vote on the above-mentioned persons or to otherwise resolve upon a candidate from the African Geographic Region who shall be appointed to the NomCom for the upcoming year. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Sept. 2, 2008

Sept. 2, 2008

Thanks...we'll get to work with the stuff in the bottom half and get it to Tim Cole today. BB ________________________________________ From: Danny Younger [dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 10:44 PM To: ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; Brendler, Beau Cc: NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read Beau, I must begin by expressing my discomfort with this situation. ICANN Staff graciously extended a courtesy to the ALAC by way of a 30-day time extension on public comments so as to properly accomodate the needs of those that have aggressively petitioned for document translations. ICANN Staff did a superlative job of providing an additional briefing session as well as translations for all of the relevant documents in a very timely fashion, yet with the deadline for comments nigh upon us we have yet to receive within this extended window for comment a single submission in any language (including English) from any other member of the ALAC, from any RALO or from any ALS. This was an opportunity for the ALAC to shine. After the devastation of the Registerfly meltdown, this was ALAC's opportunity to stand up in defense of the user interest, to aggressively act to right the myriad wrongs exposed in that travesty. But instead of setting a shining example, it looks like the ALAC has turned their back on the users, on the very registrants whose fees make possible the travel vouchers the ALAC is so keen to obtain. There are others that can now lay claim to the notion that they represent the user community: those from the Business Constituency that collaborated on a document, those from the International Trademark Association that put together a significant statement, those from the IPC for incredibly well-researched and articulated multiple submissions, those from the domainer community as represented in the efforts of the Internet Commerce Association, and last but not least the Government of the United States that submitted strong focused comments in defense of the consumer interest. They all recognized the need to stand up for the user community, to make their voices heard, to champion necessary change. Yet those that are charged with representing the user interest within ICANN, the ALAC and its gaggle of associate structures, have chosen to be mute, to engage in no discussion of the issues and to contribute nothing. Rest assured, this will be the albatross around the ALAC's neck that will mark its impending demise. Absolutely no one needs "participants" that won't "participate". Absolutely no one needs to actively fund those that will not stand up for their own constituents. That said, let's get on with the task ahead of us... My first observation would be that ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey made a promise to the community: "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA." Thus far we have received the proposed revisions to the RAA but we have yet to hear the results of the comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process. In a posting today, the spam mitigation firm Knujon pointed to the nefarious activities of a single registrar associated with illicit pharmaceuticals that has sponsored 48 phantom accreditations. Extending accreditations to these shell/paper companies that are formed for the express purpose of gaming the system must stop. These phantom registrars are currently being used to game the aftermarket, but as we move into the new gTLD cycle they will next be used to actively game the new gTLD landrush periods. This is simply not acceptable. As a community, we are aware of accredited registrars in North America with officers that have been convicted of mail fraud, that continue to be associated with the deceptive marketing practices employed by the notorious Domain Registry of America. We are not happy about this... Accreditation processes must be reviewed, and that review must be released for public scrutiny. We are aware of registrars that now stand as defendents in courts of law accused of cybersquatting, and yet ICANN lacks the will to suspend their accreditations. We are sick and tired of registrars that refuse to craft a Registrar Code of Conduct, and we would ask the ICANN Board to impose a long overdue Code of Conduct upon that community in much the same fashion as the Eurid Registry imposed such a code upon their registrars. We are disgusted by the fact that while organizations like auDA can responsibly put into place a registrant complaint procedure, ICANN remains intransigent on the point of third-party beneficiary clauses and has no procedures in place whatsoever to remedy legitimate registrant complaints -- this is not how a proper steward of the DNS should be behaving. We are furious that after years of discussion and hundreds upon hundreds of complaints, there has been no change whatsoever to the language of RAA section 3.7.7.2 Finally, as consumers we are astounded by the lack of a requirement that a registrar prominently post its valid email and street address on its website for contact purposes. Beau, that's it for tonight... best wishes, Danny *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

2 1

Statement on proposed amendments to RAA, version II
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Here's the next version incorporating comments from Danny, Wendy and Carlton. I tried to recast the whole document and added introduction and conclusion, in which some of the more passionate reflections are made, though I modulated those a bit. I believe this needs to be to Tim Cole today. At this point I'm going to ask Nick, who's probably started his weekend by now, to give this a second read and then proceed with Spanish translation (and French if that's now possible). I will cc Tim so he has an idea of what's coming, but that he should be aware the final might not be completed until early next week. I'll be out Monday and with limited time online during the holiday weekend. Thanks for your contributions... Beau **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Thanks, Carlton, I will make sure those get into the next draft, which I'm working on now -- I erroneously responded to Wendy's last note as if she were responding to the fast flux document, however, it doesn't really change the content, just ignore the reference to Mike O'Connor. Apologies for confusion. BB -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:00 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Brendler, Beau; ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read LACRALO has not returned a consensus position that we can report but I would wish to associate and endorse the document prepared by Beau's team. We believe that any breach of a solemn agreement must identify those that are harmed,set it right and find ways to deter the aggressor. Markets generally recognize these tenets with punitive fines for the culprits and monetary compensation for those harmed. In this context, I fully endorse Wendy's additional comments, especially the call for beneficiary status for all users affected by registrar misbehaviour. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels UWI On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > Thanks Beau, > A few points of question: > >> ICANN should require standardized Acceptable Use Policy in registration agreements to address criminal fraud, when this directly affects the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet. > > I believe it is not ICANN's or registrars' role to address criminal > activity, beyond not knowingly aiding it. > >> Enforce and make public the results of dispute mechanisms in place that obligate registrars to facilitate enforcement of abusive registration policies, such as the UDRP. > > Without endorsing any of those dispute resolution policies, I think > transparency about their effects is useful. ICANN, rather than the > registrars, should be responsible for the enforcement and disclosure, > though. > > I would still prefer to see concrete information-forcing mechanisms, > e.g., requiring prominent notification of deviations from a standard > set of contract terms. Market competition only works when consumers > know they are making a choice and understand the terms of the choice. > > Finally, I'll repeat my call for third-party beneficiary status for > the affected public. > > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > > Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim Cole a couple of weeks ago. >> >> As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a statement as possible regarding the user community's concerns. >> >> The document is brief, and in two parts: The first part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied from "Section F" of the summary document (you can find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing page here: >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa) >> Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and language in here from his own public comment document. I hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this. >> >> The second part revisits some of the initial comments made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable at this point. >> >> If you have anything to add, please do so! This represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of August, and it's here. >> >> Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this together, so please send any additions or comments to this list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the final. >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ******* >> ******** >> SCANNED >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ******* >> ******** >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ic >> ann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: >> http://st.icann.org/alac > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: +1.914.374.0613 > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica > nn.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > http://st.icann.org/alac > *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim Cole a couple of weeks ago. As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a statement as possible regarding the user community's concerns. The document is brief, and in two parts: The first part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied from "Section F" of the summary document (you can find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing page here: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa) Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and language in here from his own public comment document. I hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this. The second part revisits some of the initial comments made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable at this point. If you have anything to add, please do so! This represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of August, and it's here. Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this together, so please send any additions or comments to this list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the final. **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

2 2

Fast Flux Scoping Poll
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Greetings. I have attached the spreadsheet containing my answers to this questionnaire to help determine how the fast flux working group should proceed. Once again, deadlines are tight, and I had hoped to get to this before today, but: If anyone has any comments or objections to the answers I have put into the spreadsheet, please let me know as soon as possible, since it represents an ALAC position on the matter (though is preliminary to moving forward with this issue; it's more a poll of the working group to figure out how, and even if, to move forward). I will send an accompanying note to Mike describing any differences. As you can see by the note below, he wants to review the results over the weekend this weekend. Personally, I believe the user community is concerned about fraud and abuse issues associated with fast flux, and I think we should encourage this working group to continue. Fast flux is used for criminal activity, so I tend to see this issue in perhaps a more binary fashion than others. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:39 AM To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] here's my little poll -- please try to get them back to me by end-of-day Friday hi all, i humbly submit my little questionnaire and hope that you'll take a moment to fill it out. i've added one question to let people express a view as to whether they would like to focus on Fast Flux, or broaden the scope to include "fraud and abuse". again, let's not belabor the words at this point -- it's just trying to get at a sense of scope. to avoid mailing-list clutter, why don't you send your response files to me directly -- i'll smash them into a single worksheet, do some analysis, and push the whole thing back to the list. i'll finish that over the weekend and put together 3-5 options based on whatever clumps i find in there (plus some Kentucky windage) and try to get those options out to you early next week so you will have some time to look them over before the call next Wednesday. thanks! m voice: 651-647-6109 fax: 866-280-2356 web: www.haven2.com *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

While there are certainly various reactions being contemplated in regards to the ICANN travel policy, this message is specifically intended to call attention to one interesting detail from Wednesday's teleconference on the issue. I refer to the summary minutes of the meeting: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_20_august_2008 and the 12th paragraph, which currently begins: > D Michel wanted to address a couple of issues. First of all, she noted > that nothing will essentially change for At-Large until a year from now. This is very significant, if it is accurate, for it indicates a substantial change in policy from what we have been told to date. What I have been explicitly told by ICANN staff is that -- starting IMMEDIATELY with the Cairo meeting -- only the 15 ALAC members people would be funded. No liaisons, no RALO chairs or secretariats, and no regional ALS reps. I can understand the lack of regional rep funding for Cairo given that the Summit takes place the following meeting, and it is intended to welcome ALSs from everywhere. However, the cut off of Chair, Secretariat and Liaison funding is definitely not the "status quo" for At-Large. Denise's statement above, as reported in the summary minutes, appears to contradict the announcement of earlier cuts. However, I am informed that what she really meant to say (as was Doug in speaking of "maintaining the status quo") is that nothing will change **FOR ALAC ONLY**. An examination of the recording will confirm or deny what Denise was reported as saying, which means that either: - Indeed, nothing is changing for the next year, which means Liaison and RALO leadership funding for Cairo, Mexico City, and June 2009 in AsiaPac or - There is some doublespeak going on, which suggests that the status quo for At-Large is being maintained when it clearly is not. If even the ICANN staffer taking the summary minutes had not caught any intended nuance that distinguished between "ALAC" and "At-Large", why would we? As far as I know, ALAC and At-Large are not separated as budget categories. In any case, I look forward to the clarification of this matter. If, indeed, the At-Large status quo will not change this year, I applaud ICANN staff on this show of good faith, and look forward to its constructive engagement with At-Large on this and other issues. - Evan PS: I am very aware that Denise explicitly said that a few Summit organizers and two of the Liaisons would be funded to go to Cairo. But there is a difference between making some arbitrary exceptions to the cuts, and saying there is no change to what had been done before.

5 5

ICANN Board Meeting tomorrow
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

ICANN's board will meet tomorrow, with an agenda including substantial discussion of the GNSO Council Restructuring. If there are points to be added to that discussion, beyond those already raised regarding the importance of making room for Internet *users* on the Council (which I will re-emphasize), please let me know. Please also share any comments on other topics. I will bring the ALAC's concerns about the travel policy and support for RALO participants to the table, if that is desired. <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/> 28 August 2008 Special Board Meeting Agenda [Agenda set by Executive Committee on 21 August 2008] Review Minutes from 31 July / 1 August Special Board Meeting President’s Monthly Report GNSO Council Restructuring Nominating Committee’s Recommendation for ICANN Bylaws Change regarding Criteria for Board Member Selection Redelegation of the .MS (Montserrat) Domain Ombudsman Budget Independent Reviews Status Report Board Finance Committee Report Board Governance Committee Report Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation for selection of the next Nominating Committee Chair Board’s Compensation Committee Report President’s Strategy Committee Report Other Business Board Executive Session -- 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/

9 12

Travel Support for NomCom Delegates at Cairo Meeting
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

It would seem that this was supposed to go to ALAC as well, but I have not seen it yet. The gist of it is that if you are a NomCom delegate on the upcoming 2009 NomCom, and not otherwise funded to attend ICANN, ICANN will pay for your airfare and room and food starting on Thursday night, but not for the bulk of the ICANN meeting itself. This is in line with the formal policy, but I believe not in line with recent practice (but not sure about last year). Anyone we are potentially naming as a delegate to the NomCom (vote to start today I believe) should really be notified about this and sign-off on it. Unless Nick has some private ALAC funding lined up to cover this. Alan >Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:45:10 -0700 >From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Travel Support for Cairo Meeting >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >At the request of Denise Michel I am sending this note to the >Council list. Advisory Committees, Constituencies and Supporting >Organizations are in the process of selecting their representatives >to the 2009 ICANN Nominating Committee. It is anticipated that the >2009 Nom Com will have a kickoff face-to-face meeting in Cairo >following the end of the ICANN meeting. Representatives to the Nom >Com will have their transportation reimbursed at economy class, >along with hotel costs covered for the Nom Com portion of the >meeting (ICANN would cover Thurs 6 Nov through Sat or Sun 8 or 9 Nov >depending when the rep departs Cairo). Hotel costs for the other >days of the ICANN meeting will have to be covered by the >representative or their sending organization. > ><GNSO-specific details omitted.> > >Patrick > >-- >Patrick L. Jones >Registry Liaison Manager & >Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers >4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >Tel: +1 310 301 3861 >Fax: +1 310 823 8649 ><patrick.jones(a)icann.htm>patrick.jones(a)icann.org

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Since I was a part of this group (contributing to its earlier incarnation, but not to the "hypotheses" phase that began June 25 or so), I'd like to volunteer to help facilitate discussion and comment within ALAC. Some of the GAC hypotheses mirror what I believe are user community concerns/perceptions of WHOIS. I think the ALAC should review the whole document, but at minimum focus on what the GAC has put forward. Even if the ALAC can't agree, the user community's voice needs to be heard on this issue. For additional perspective I have attached the final version (in its entirety, no longer preliminary) of the New York state study we conducted that I presented to the ALAC in Paris, including the questions on WHOIS and other ICANN issues (grouped towards the end). The study is statistically significant for New York state only, but I believe the results should encourage us to look beyond the traditional "privacy vs. law enforcement" deadlock. Please do not distribute any of this data outside these groups, as we are planning to release it to the press as part of an anti-fraud campaign in Sept., Oct. and November. BB -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:02 AM To: whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] FW: Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached Dear Working Group Members and At-Large Community Members: Attached please find the report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group to the GNSO Council as requested by the Council in its resolution of 26 June 2008. -- 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 *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0