May 2011 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Public Comment on the .NET auto-renew, proposed contract extension for multiple technical providers
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

Hello Joly, yes, we indeed have a draft, available on the same WIKI URL: https://community.icann.org/x/noHg This is named "Second Draft" since the initial "draft" were the two emails from Eric Brunner Williams. Since we are under pressure to send this statement for it to be considered by the Board, please add your comments to the bottom of that Wiki page by Tuesday 17 May 2011, 11:00 UTC. Many thanks, Olivier On 16/05/2011 20:35, Joly MacFie wrote : > > Do we have a draft? Wiki url? > > j > > > On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:19 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > <ocl(a)gih.com <mailto:ocl@gih.com>> wrote: > > > > On 11/05/2011 03:15, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote : > > if we file it by June 18th > > Of course - I meant by May 18th. That's what happens when you > write past > 3:00am... > > Olivier > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > <mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast > WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com > http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com > VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org > -------------------------------------------------------------- > - -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Fwd: [council] GAC advice on protecting International Olympic Committee and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2011

May 13, 2011

Inter-sessional advice from the GAC. Perhaps a first? Alan >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Thu, 12 May 2011 19:20:38 -0400 >Subject: [council] GAC advice on protecting International Olympic Committee > and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement > >Latest advice from GAC: > >Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush >Chairman of the Board >ICANN > >Dear Peter, > >I am writing to express the strong support of >the GAC for the requests from the >International Olympic Committee and the >International Red Cross and Red Crescent >Movement for the key words most directly >associated with their respective Charters to >be added to the Reserved Names list. > >The GAC believes that this would provide the >most appropriate form of protection of >the global public interest invested in these two >organisations. In both cases, there are >existing protections in national law, in >multiple jurisdictions, as well as coverage under an international instrument. > >The GAC advises the ICANN Board to approve these >requests and to direct staff to >reflect the Boardâs approval in the May 30, >2011 version of the Applicant Guidebook. > >Heather Dryden >Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee >Senior Advisor to the Government of Canada

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [NA-Discuss] Public Comment on the .NET auto-renew, proposed contract extension for multiple technical providers
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 11, 2011

May 11, 2011

Eric, in line with recognizing initiative coming from the grass-roots and since I have noticed support at NARALO level, I have asked At-Large staff to liaise with ICANN policy staff about this, since the deadline for comments was today. I am happy to announce that we have been kindly given the ability to file an ALAC Statement in time for the Board to consider it during their retreat, if we file it by June 18th, even though it is past the public comments deadline. Seth will set-up a Wiki page and will be liaising with you and Beau Brendler in order to get a proposed first draft up for At-Large comment as soon as possible, and we'll have a comment period open until Sunday 15th May. If it gets support, we'll submit an ALAC Statement. Kind regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 09/05/2011 23:41, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote : > Colleagues, > > I'm submitting two comments, the SECOND of which follows, proposing > contract extension for multiple technical providers. > > The public announcement is here: > http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-11apr11-en.htm > > If anyone wants to co-sign, you'll have to explicitly let me know. > I'll be submitting the comment around 9am EDT tomorrow. > > Begin: > > > The proposed changes to the .NET agreement, while of some utility, do > not address the core problem of monopoly power by the registry > operator. This is a hold-over from the May 1999 decision to create a > locus of competition in a separate registrar function, a decision > reversed in November 2010. > > The contract should be changed to include language which separates the > formal Registry Operator (RO) functions (zone file signing, zone file > production from one or more distinct data sources, pointer data to > registrar held "thin registry" registrant data, registrar transfer > processing, registrar invoicing, ICANN reporting and transactional fee > processing and payment), from the Data Base Operator (DBO) (aka > "registry technical services") set of functions, allowing registrants, > through their registrars, to select the underlying competitive DBO for > a given domain. > > The means to allow the .NET contract to be modified, allowing a > second, and subsequent Data Base Operators to provide database service > to the Registry Operator, is now necessary, in light of the removal of > structural separation requirement for legacy contracts. > > No specific set-aside for ROOT-SERVERS.NET is necessary under a > stability and security theory, as the root server operators are > capable of designating whether they seek to use a DBO other than the > current unique DBO. > > An additional extension to EPP will be necessary, to allow registrants > to select, through the registrar function, their choice of DBO to have > custody of their data. > > It is possible that the registrars with a large number of domains, or > other mature database operators, including the operators of other > registries, also currently contractually constrained as monopolies, > will seek to become Competitive Data Base Operators (CDBOs) for the > .NET registry, transforming over 10% of the gTLD domain market from > monopoly to competition. > > The default choice of many users may remain Verisign, the legacy > monopoly registry entity. However, where competition is possible, and > competition among back-end registry service providers within a single > name space is possible, it must be allowed if the competition policy > goal is to be achieved in the current decade. > > End > > To be sent to net-agreement-renewal(a)icann.org. Forward as you see fit. > > Eric > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 1

Statement to the Board on RAA negotiation process
by Alan Greenberg May 3, 2011

May 3, 2011

At the last ALAC meeting, I was asked to revise the letter to the Board with the help of Evan. We have now done so and the revised version can be found at https://community.icann.org/x/zYbT. Alan

1 0