April 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Final (but for your approval) text of the joint resolution
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr April 30, 2010

April 30, 2010

Indeed we did Avri there is an AI for staff to put the preamble on the font of it explaining the BG of our statements in the usual way and bump it over to you and Robyn c.c. to Adam SO I expect you'll see it VERY shortly... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 30 April 2010 19:21, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Did you approve sending the message as a joint ALAC/NCSG Statement? > > Thanks > > a. > > On 22 Apr 2010, at 03:05, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > > > Hi Avri, > > > > Our ALAC meeting is next week Tue 27th 1400 UTC and I'm happy to put this > (Current Draft attached to this message) up on the Agenda for formal ALAC > support as Joint ALAC-NCSG Statement and to assist in this I have sent thie > reply to you c.c. to the ALAC Working List to ensure we give the opportunity > for any pre meeting feedback from the ALAC and Regional Leadership... > > > > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > (CLO) > > > > > > > > On 22 April 2010 15:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > > hi, > > > > At yesterday NCSG meeting I was asked what was happening with this. > > > > Can we send it in as a joint statement? I have been > authorized/instructed to send it in as a NCSG statement if we do not have > ALAC approval to act at this time - though we would prefer to send it as a > joint statement. > > > > Please get back to me on this. We can wait if you are in the midst of an > approval process. > > > > thanks > > a. > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > >> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > >> Date: 11 April 2010 11:05:11 EDT > >> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Robin Gross < > robin(a)ipjustice.org>, evan(a)telly.org, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > >> Subject: Fwd: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint resolution > >> > >> did anyone receive this? > >> do we want to complete this action or has the time and opportunity > passed us by? > >> > >> a. > >> > >> > >> Begin forwarded message: > >> > >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se> > >>> Date: 1 April 2010 16:19:05 EDT > >>> To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Robin Gross < > robin(a)ipjustice.org>, evan(a)telly.org, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > >>> Subject: Fwd: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint > resolution > >>> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> So we have got text which I think is complete. > >>> and then we left nairobi and pretty much forgot about it. > >>> > >>> what do we do now? > >>> > >>> Release it singed by both ALAC and NCSG? > >>> > >>> or? > >>> > >>> thanks > >>> > >>> a. > >>> > >>> > >>> Begin forwarded message: > >>> > >>>> From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > >>>> Date: 12 March 2010 04:39:15 EST > >>>> To: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > >>>> Cc: Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > >>>> Subject: Re: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint > resolution > >>>> > >>>> I've made just a few edits to the attached document (nothing > substantive). Take a look and let me know what you think. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Robin > >>>> > > > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Avri, thanks. > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm happy with this text. > >>>>> > >>>>> Evan, are you OK with it? What's our next step for the ALAC? > >>>>> > >>>>> Adam > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> At 11:17 AM +0300 3/12/10, Avri Doria wrote: > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Adam and I sat together to do a final edit of the language that came > out of yesterday's discussion between ALAC and NCSG. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> As our respective groups have entrusted us with the final edit, I am > hoping we can finish this today. Please let the rest of us know if you have > any objections to the text attached to this email. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> thanks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> a. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Draft ALAC-NCUC Stat#456E5F.doc > (WDBN/«IC») (00456E5F) > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> IP JUSTICE > >>>> Robin Gross, Executive Director > >>>> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > >>>> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > >>>> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > > > <rdg-Draft ALAC-NCUC Statement on Transparency of Staff Documents.doc> > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Final (but for your approval) text of the joint resolution
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr April 22, 2010

April 22, 2010

Hi Avri, Our ALAC meeting is next week Tue 27th 1400 UTC and I'm happy to put this (Current Draft attached to this message) up on the Agenda for formal ALAC support as Joint ALAC-NCSG Statement and to assist in this I have sent thie reply to you c.c. to the ALAC Working List to ensure we give the opportunity for any pre meeting feedback from the ALAC and Regional Leadership... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 22 April 2010 15:15, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> wrote: > hi, > > At yesterday NCSG meeting I was asked what was happening with this. > > Can we send it in as a joint statement? I have been authorized/instructed > to send it in as a NCSG statement if we do not have ALAC approval to act at > this time - though we would prefer to send it as a joint statement. > > Please get back to me on this. We can wait if you are in the midst of an > approval process. > > thanks > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > *Date: *11 April 2010 11:05:11 EDT > *To: *Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Robin Gross < > robin(a)ipjustice.org>, evan(a)telly.org, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > *Subject: **Fwd: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint > resolution* > > did anyone receive this? > do we want to complete this action or has the time and opportunity passed > us by? > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se> > *Date: *1 April 2010 16:19:05 EDT > *To: *Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>, Robin Gross < > robin(a)ipjustice.org>, evan(a)telly.org, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > *Subject: **Fwd: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint > resolution* > > Hi, > > So we have got text which I think is complete. > and then we left nairobi and pretty much forgot about it. > > what do we do now? > > Release it singed by both ALAC and NCSG? > > or? > > thanks > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > *From: *Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> > *Date: *12 March 2010 04:39:15 EST > *To: *Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> > *Cc: *Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > *Subject: **Re: Final (but for your approval) text of the joint resolution > * > > I've made just a few edits to the attached document (nothing substantive). > Take a look and let me know what you think. > > Thanks, > Robin > > > > > On Mar 12, 2010, at 1:12 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > Avri, thanks. > > I'm happy with this text. > > Evan, are you OK with it? What's our next step for the ALAC? > > Adam > > > > > > At 11:17 AM +0300 3/12/10, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > Adam and I sat together to do a final edit of the language that came out of > yesterday's discussion between ALAC and NCSG. > > As our respective groups have entrusted us with the final edit, I am hoping > we can finish this today. Please let the rest of us know if you have any > objections to the text attached to this email. > > thanks > > a. > > Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:Draft ALAC-NCUC Stat#456E5F.doc > (WDBN/«IC») (00456E5F) > > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > > > > > > >

1 0

ALAC Position on VeriSign Domain Name Exchange Service request
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

The ALAC has now formally endorsed the following statement. Alan Greenberg ----------------------------- The ALAC cautions against approval of this request. Although there may be some benefit to registrars and even to selected registrants for such a service, the potential for negative impact is simply too great. We note the following: - In the absence of knowing what the exchange fee will be, or any ability for ICANN to control it, this service could be new form of Domain Tasting. - This is exacerbated because the RSTEP provision "The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date" could be read to imply that if more than one exchange is done in a year, only a single fee for the initial exchange will be charged. - The service effectively introduces the concept of monthly gTLD domain registrations, a practice which does not seem to be forbidden by the various ICANN contracts, but regardless has not been the subject of any policy discussion in recent years. - In the absence of explicit details on how and when reporting will be performed, there is the potential for abuse. - The transient nature of domain names (with a potential life as short as one month) will render UDRP and for new gTLDs, URS proceeding virtually ineffective. At the very least, the UDRP and URS would need to be adjusted to address the concept of a Domain Name Exchange Service. - Although the background of the service cites "Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market.", these is no restriction that the service, if approved, be used to address that situation. In fact, further statements in the request imply that Registrars may in fact market it in ways unrelated to the initial scenario. - The used of the term "forced" in the preceding point implies that monetization and the secondary market are only reluctantly used by registrars or those in the domain name industry. In reality, current wisdom seems to imply that monetization and the secondary market generate more revenue that traditional domain registrations and there is no apparent reluctance involved. - Although we have no doubt that the introduction of such a service would result in innovative products and marketing, there is little evidence that the service will be in the public interest, and there is some evidence that it could do harm.

1 0

Weather and the Brussels meeting
by Evan Leibovitch April 20, 2010

April 20, 2010

In keeping with past practice, I am awaiting notice from GoDaddy and ICANN's Intellectual Property Constituency that it will be too dangerous for them to travel to the next ICANN meeting in Brussels. I have not yet had any confirmation of the rumour that they want to stage an alternate meeting, to be held at a location about 10km east of Naples, Italy. - Evan

2 1

VeriSign Domain Name Exchange Service request
by Alan Greenberg April 19, 2010

April 19, 2010

This statement is in response to the VeriSign request for approval of a Domain Name Exchange Service for the .NET Registry. At this point, it is being submitted on my own behalf, but with the explicit support of a number of other At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) members. The comment is currently under discussion by ALAC and will be undergoing a formal vote starting within a few days. Once the five-day vote is completed, I expect that it will be a formal ALAC position. Please acknowledge receipt of this comment. Alan Greenberg ----------------------------- We caution against approval of this request. Although there may be some benefit to registrars and even to selected registrants for such a service, the potential for negative impact is simply too great. We note the following: - In the absence of knowing what the exchange fee will be, or any ability for ICANN to control it, this service could be new form of Domain Tasting. - This is exacerbated because the RSTEP provision "The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date" could be read to imply that if more than one exchange is done in a year, only a single fee for the initial exchange will be charged. - The service effectively introduces the concept of monthly gTLD domain registrations, a practice which does not seem to be forbidden by the various ICANN contracts, but regardless has not been the subject of any policy discussion in recent years. - In the absence of explicit details on how and when reporting will be performed, there is the potential for abuse. - The transient nature of domain names (with a potential life as short as one month) will render UDRP and for new gTLDs, URS proceeding virtually ineffective. At the very least, the UDRP and URS would need to be adjusted to address the concept of a Domain Name Exchange Service. - Although the background of the service cites "Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market.", these is no restriction that the service, if approved, be used to address that situation. In fact, further statements in the request imply that Registrars may in fact market it in ways unrelated to the initial scenario. - The used of the term "forced" in the preceding point implies that monetization and the secondary market are only reluctantly used by registrars or those in the domain name industry. In reality, current wisdom seems to imply that monetization and the secondary market generate more revenue that traditional domain registrations and there is no apparent reluctance involved. - Although we have no doubt that the introduction of such a service would result in innovative products and marketing, there is little evidence that the service will be in the public interest, and there is some evidence that it could do harm.

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] LACRALO Officer Positions 2010
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr April 16, 2010

April 16, 2010

On behalf of ALAC I would also like to proffer our congratulations on your reappointment and we are looking forward to quite a year ahead with great input coming from the LACRALO ALSes and at-large. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) 2010/4/16 At Large Staff <Staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Dear All, > > At-Large staff warmly congratulate Andres and Dev on their re-election as, > respectively, Chairperson and Secretary! We look forward to continue > offering staff support to them in their LACRALO leadership roles. > > The LACRALO regional officers page has been updated to reflect their new > terms: > https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?regional_leaders. > > Regards, > > Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, > Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström > ICANN At-Large Staff > > email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org > website: www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dev > Anand Teelucksingh > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2010 9:56 AM > To: LACRALO discussion list > Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] LACRALO Officer Positions 2010 > > Dear all, > > The deadline for nominations for the LACRALO President and Secretariat > positions was Wednesday, April 14th 2010. > > Apart from the nominations of > - Andres Piazza from AGEIA DENSI for another term as president of LACRALO > and > - Dev Anand Teelucksingh from Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society for > another term as secretariat of LACRALO > > no other nominations were received. > > Therefore, since there were no other candidates : > > - Andres Piazza from AGEIA DENSI is re-elected as president of LACRALO > - Dev Anand Teelucksingh from Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society is > re-elected as secretariat of LACRALO > > for a one year term from April 14, 2010, according to our LACRALO > Operating Principles and Rules of Procedure, > (https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?ralo_organising_documents) > > > ---- > Regards, > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > LACRALO Secretariat > > > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 10:36 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh > <admin(a)ttcsweb.org> wrote: > > Dear all, > > > > The last LACRALO general assembly was in March 2009 in Mexico when the > > election of chair and secretariat took place. > > > > According to the LACRALO operating principles and the Rules of Procedure, > > (https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?ralo_organising_documents) > > the term of the President of LACRALO and the secretariat of LACRALO > > is one year each. > > > > The current president is Andres Piazza from > > AGEIA DENSI, and is willing to serve another term. > > The current secretariat is Dev Anand Teelucksingh from > > Trinidad and Tobago Computer Society and is willing to serve another > term. > > > > While there was discussion at last year's general assembly and in the > recent > > LACRALO teleconference on February 18th, 2010 to having such officers > serve > > for a two year term, it is necessary to confirm with the LACRALO > membership > > any such change in the terms of office. > > > > Since these officers can only be elected by a LACRALO general assembly, > > it is the intention to have a virtual assembly if there is any other > > representative from an accredited ALS in LACRALO who wishes to > > stand for either > > - the post of LACRALO president. > > or > > - the post of LACRALO secretariat. > > > > These candidates MUST email the secretariat at admin(a)ttcsweb.org within > > two weeks from the date of this posting. > > > > If there are no other candidates, then the president and secretariat > > will be considered re-elected to serve another year from the date of > > this posting and the virtual assembly would not be held. > > > > > > ---- > > Regards, > > > > Dev Anand Teelucksingh > > LACRALO Secretariat > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… >

2 1

As I stated I would in the DNS-Cert briefing call I've aggregated our main points raised and put together a comments document
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr April 15, 2010

April 15, 2010

As I stated I would in the DNS-Cert briefing call I've aggregated our main points raised and put together a comments document and lodged it to both the strat-ini-ssr and the dns-cert-proposal lists to act as our Public Comment input (ALAC and At-Large) in addition to the earlier Joint ALAC, ccNSO and GNSO Chairs letter sent last month; please find the VERY brief text attached. PLEASE NOTE the disclaimer... This is NOT an ALAC Statement. If staff can send to the announce list as well that will be appreciated. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Draft statement on the Verisign RSTEP request for a Domain name exchange service
by Alan Greenberg April 14, 2010

April 14, 2010

I plan to submit a statement on the RSTEP request. The issue was discussed at the NARALO meeting yesterday and I will also be submitting this draft to a WG within NARALO for further enhancement as a possible NARALO statement. Optimally, if the ALAC can come to closure, a statement could be submitted on behalf of ALAC. I am using the term "we". In the final version, this will change to the ALAC, NARALO or just me as appropriate. Alan ======================= This statement is in response to the VeriSign request for approval of a Domain Name Exchange Service for the .NET Registry. We caution against approval of this request. Although there may be some benefit to registrars and even to selected registrants for such a service, the potential for negative impact is simply too great. We note the following: - In the absence of knowing what the exchange fee will be, or any ability for ICANN to control it, this service could be new form of Domain Tasting. - This is exacerbated because the RSTEP provision "The registrar's account balance will be debited the exchange fee at the time of the initial exchange occurring within a one year term based upon initial registration date" could be read to imply that if more than one exchange is done in a year, only a single fee for the initial exchange will be charged. - The service effectively introduces the concept of monthly gTLD domain registrations, a practice which does not seem to be forbidden by the various ICANN contracts, but regardless has not been the subject of any policy discussion in recent years. - In the absence of explicit details on how and when reporting will be performed, there is the potential for abuse. - The transient nature of domain names (with a potential life as short as one month) will render UDRP and for new gTLDs, URS proceeding virtually ineffective. At the very least, the UDRP and URS would need to be adjusted to address the concept of a Domain Name Exchange Service. - Although the background of the service cites "Today when a registrant terminates a package of services from a registrar after, for example, an introductory 1 or 3 month period, the registrar is forced to recoup the investment in the associated domain via monetization or the secondary market.", these is no restriction that the service, if approved, be used to address that situation. In fact, further statements in the request imply that Registrars may in fact market it in ways unrelated to the initial scenario. - The used of the term "forced" in the preceding point implies that monetization and the secondary market are only reluctantly used by registrars or those in the domain name industry. In reality, current wisdom seems to imply that monetization and the secondary market generate more revenue that traditional domain registrations and there is no apparent reluctance involved. - Although we have no doubt that the introduction of such a service would result in innovative products and marketing, there is little evidence that the service will be in the public interest, and there is some evidence that it could do harm.

5 7

Fwd: Notice of New Registry Service Proposal
by Alan Greenberg April 13, 2010

April 13, 2010

Please see the attached notice of a new Registry Service for .net. If accepted, it would allow a registrar to change the NAME of a domain in mid-year. Although the motivation for the service is described as registrars who offer hosting agreements having surplus name registrations if the registrant does not keep the hosting arrangement for a full year, there are no such restrictions on how the exchange service would be used once approved. Registrars could use the name exchange purely for their own purposes, or could offer it as a service. In a separate note, I will list my concerns with this new service. The deadline for the 15 day comment period will be the April 21. It is unclear when the Board will take action on the request. Alan >From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Sender: "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2010 00:11:36 -0400 >Subject: [council] Notice of New Registry Service Proposal > > >ICANN has commenced its 15-calendar day review period on a request >from VeriSign to offer a Domain Name Exchange service in dot-NET. >Information on the proposal can be found at ><http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#201004>http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#201004. > > >Although public comments can be submitted at any time on a registry >services proposal to registryservice at icann.org, this is not >notification of a formal comment period. Information on the Registry >Services Evaluation Process can be found at ><http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/>http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/. > >Patrick > >-- >Patrick L. Jones >Senior Manager, Continuity & Risk Management >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers >4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >Tel: +1 310 301 3861 ><patrick.jones(a)icann.htm>patrick.jones(a)icann.org >patrickjones.tel

1 0

Fwd: [ccnso-council] Public commentICANN travel support guidelines
by Rudi Vansnick April 9, 2010

April 9, 2010

For your information Rudi Vansnick Internet Society Belgium vzw - president   Board member EURALO (ALAC - ICANN)  ALAC ccNSO liaison Tel: +32 (0)70 77 39 39  GSM: +32 (0)475 28 16 32  www.internetsociety.be <--------- Recent and upcoming travels and activities ----------> 20/6 - 27/6 : 38th ICANN meetings in Brussels - Belgium 30/6 - 4/7 : ICT salon 50th anniversary RD Congo - Kinshasa <---------------------------------------------------------> Begin doorgestuurd bericht: > Van: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> > Datum: 9 april 2010 07:58:32 GMT+02:00 > Aan: "ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org" <ccTLDcommunity(a)cctld-managers.org>, ccNSO Members <ccnso-members(a)icann.org>, ccNSO Council <ccnso-council(a)icann.org> > Onderwerp: [ccnso-council] Public commentICANN travel support guidelines > > Dear all, > ICANN has opened a public comment period has opened today for 30 days on the topic of community travel support to ICANN meetings. > > In addition to Board members and staff attending ICANN international meetings, about 100 members of the ICANN community receive travel support. The travel guidelines specific how community members are selected to receive travel support. The budget impacts on ICANN of community travel support amount to nearly $1.5 million. Community members are invited to provide feedback on the proposed FY11 Travel guidelines. The proposed guidelines are here: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/draft-travel-support-guidelin… [PDF, 212 KB] > > The public comment period will close on 7 May 2010. If you wish to send in a comment, email travel-support-2011(a)icann.org. All comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/travel-support-2011/. > > Related links: > > Travel Guidelines, travel summaries, and travel reports: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/travel-support/

1 0