May 2017 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

TWO SSAC REPORTS PUBLISHED
by Julie Hammer May 23, 2017

May 23, 2017

Hi Everyone, Please note that the following SSAC Reports have been published: SAC093: SSAC Comments on the Draft Recommendations of the CCWG- Accountability-WS2 on SO/AC Accountability dated 18 May 2017 In summary, the SSAC: - agrees that it would be beneficial to determine and implement those best practices which are applicable to SSAC’s structure and purpose - does not believe it is appropriate to incorporate an implementation review into the scope of future ATRTs - suggests that it would be more appropriate to incorporate such a review into the 5-yearly independent organizational reviews - does not support the formal “Accountabillity Roundtable” as proposed - suggests a more informal approach should be adopted, which involves the exchange of views, experiences and best practices during the course of regularly scheduled meetings between SO/AC chairs only - agrees that the IRP should not be made applicable to activities of SO/AC/Groups. SAC094: SSAC Response to the Request for Advice Relating to the 2012 New gTLD Round dated 22 May 2017 This Report reviews and highlights in detail the recommendations from past SSAC Reports which have relevance to the 2012 New gTLD Round Both Reports are attached and can also be found on the SSAC Reports <https://www.icann.org/groups/ssac/documents> webpage. Cheers, Julie

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Fw: Interesting article about parked domains
by Alan Greenberg May 21, 2017

May 21, 2017

At 21/05/2017 01:48 PM, Andrei Kolesnikov wrote: >In my previous practice: up to 10% of search >revenue went to parked domains (in Russia) in >2010 before Google and Yandex changed keywords >and reference links measurements, took it down below 1%. Yes, that is my roughly experience as well - my statement was about current search results. >Expired domains, auctions is a significant part >of registrars business. There is nothing wrong >when buying good names at extra price. The >process of expiration is kind of uniform for >gTLD world, however ccTLDs use different schemes. Indeed, and even the monetization of expired domains could help some registrar's bottom lines. Which is why we did not push to eliminate it. The practice that we found inappropriate was sometimes deliberately not letting registrants know their names were expiring (or putting no effort into it) and then IF they allowed renewal, charging high prices for renewal based on their monetization experience. Or simply because they could. Selling to other bidders once the name was truly expired and not renewed is fair game. As is picking up dropped names and offering to sell them back to original registrant for high prices. Unsavory perhaps, but all legit. Ever since ICANN started, there has been a to-and-fro game being played between ICANN and registrars with ICANN trying to provide a "safety net" (that is the expression that was used) for accidentally expired names and registrars finding a way around it. The best example is this one day in 2003 when ICANN announced that a PDP had "restored the safety net" and registrars announcing they had found a way to bypass it - https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2004-09-21-en and https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2004-09-21-en. Alan >--andrei > >Ð²Ñ, 21 Ð¼Ð°Ñ 2017 Ð³. Ð² 10:06, Alan >Greenberg <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>: >Domain parking is not a new issue for At-Large. >We have a long and interesting history related to this topic. > >In 2007, there was a prevalent practice among a >number of registrars and domainers called >"domain tasting" ( >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_tasting) >In short it was a completely legitimate (that is >not against any rules) proactive which allowed a >domain to be registered and monetized, and if it >did not prove profitable, to cancel the >registration at no net cost (ie free). This >allowed the "tasting" on many millions of >domains per month. The practice was also used to >some extent for disposable domains for >generating spam (it was before phishing was >common). If I remember correctly, less than 1% >were kept because they proved profitable (often >typos of real domain names). The ALAC requested >a GNSO PDP to stop the practice. Once the new >policy was developed and adopted, it made >tasting to expensive to be practical in the general case. > >The issue of parked monetized pages also arose >when we were requesting a PDP on ensuring the >rights of registrants who accidentally let their >domain expire. It was common for the registrar >to monetize the page at expiration or soon >after, allowing them to make some extra money, >and also gauge whether the domain was "valuable" >or not. If it was valuable, they could >take over the registration (virtually all >registration agreements let them do that) and >then use it themselves or auction it off. We >ultimately decided to not object to the >practice, since doing so would impact the >registrars revenue stream and would make it much >more difficult to achieve the real aims of the >PDP. This proved to be a correct analysis. We >did ensure that the monetized page clearly said >it was an expired domain and told the registrant >how to get it back. And made sure the price did >not go up immediately due to what was learned during monetization. > >Interestingly we also in a few cases probably >increased the monetization because it was the >practice in some cases to NOT interrupt the >domain and monetize it. This allowed the domain >to work as if it was still owned by the original >registrant until it was too late to renew the >registration (generally 30 days) and then the >registrar could take it over without any way for >the registrant to get it back at a reasonable price. > >This is a discussion that we could have, but I >think it rather unlikely that ICANN would stop >the practice, as it directly goes to how the >domain is being used and its content. The only >real issue within ICANN's current remit is that >in many cases, a parked domain is one that is >found by incorrectly typing a URL. A few years >ago it was common to his monetized pages through >a search engine, but these days the search sites >seem pretty good at filtering them out - or at >least that is my experience (largely with Google). > >Alan > > > >At 21/05/2017 03:11 AM, Kan Kaili wrote: > >>Hi again, >> >>This article may have nothing to do with >>Google. Sorry for that ... (although Google >>did provide the platform for these activities) >> >>However, it also tells how to make money at the >>end-users' expense quite a few years ago. Over >>time, according to some research, this has >>already grown into an industry by itself. >> >>This is one of the reasons why the At-Large >>community needs to look into domain parking. >> >>Kaili >> >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: <mailto:ocl@gih.com>Olivier MJ CrÃÂ©pin-Leblond >>To: <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Sent: Sunday, May 21, 2017 2:50 PM >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fw: Interesting article about parked domains >>Dear Kaili, >>that article dates from 2010. Google has since retired Adsense for domains. >> >><https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/2456470?visit_id=1-63630945756510…>https://support.google.com/adsense/answer/2456470?visit_id=1-63630945756510… >> >>Kindest regards, >>Olivier >> >>ps. the author is the owner of GroovyPost which >>has nothing to do with Google. >>On 21/05/2017 08:22, Kan Kaili wrote: >>>Hi, >>> >>>Thanks a lot for sharing. Just read the >>>article titled "Make Easy Money from Your >>>Parked Domains with Google AdSense for Domains". >>> >>><https://www.groovypost.com/howto/google/google-adsense-for-domains-review-m…>https://www.groovypost.com/howto/google/google-adsense-for-domains-review-m… >>> >>>This article by Google itself teaches you how >>>to make money from parked domains, although at >>>the expense of consumers and end-users. >> >>I am used to think of Google as "DO NO >>EVIL". Well, maybe not always ... :( >> >>Kaili >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >> >> >>ALAC mailing list >> >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> >> >> >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >> >> >>At-Large Online: >> >><http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> >> >>ALAC Working Wiki: >> >> >>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >>-- >> >> >>Olivier MJ CrÃÂ©pin-Leblond, PhD >> >> >><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html >> >>---------- >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>) >> >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit >>Content-Disposition: inline >>X-Microsoft-Exchange-Diagnostics: >> >>1;DM5PR03MB2714;27:7sXV3AmCalKoBN7ReQFVT+9krJSVNT9opo/tHyqla3T79FIXvHX5wkzAUCesK2GUz8NiTRANbzCiJU5pjIOhK/oFhwwpjAjS+8yDSgSzJ+bMP47F8pt4pOGTbSm10pjKpgPT2/22vNaz9/hO9JZIPQ== >>X-Microsoft-Antispam-Mailbox-Delivery: >> >>ex:0;auth:0;dest:I;ENG:(400001000070)(400125000095)(20160514016)(520000050)(520002050)(750028)(400001001070)(400125100095)(400001002070)(400125200095); >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >> >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>) >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: ><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >-- >-- {ak}

1 0

Call for Comments: GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process
by ICANN At-Large Staff May 19, 2017

May 19, 2017

Dear All, In response to the public comment proceeding on the GNSO Community Comment 2 (CC2) on New gTLD Subsequent Procedures Policy Development Process (PDP)<https://www.icann.org/public-comments/cc2-new-gtld-subsequent-procedures-20…>, the ALAC penholders have developed comments in response to the specific questions asked in the PDP’s Work Tracks. The draft, as well as pertinent resources that provide background to this Statement, can be found in the following wiki workspaces. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on the draft. * Work Track 1<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> * Work Track 3<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> * Work Track 4<https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Please note that the ALAC response to Work Track 2 is still in development. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by 22 May 2017 at 22:00 UTC. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Blog on clarifying the differences between Ombudsman and Complaints Office
by León Felipe Sánchez Ambía May 19, 2017

May 19, 2017

Dear all, This blog post has been published today: https://www.icann.org/news/blog/clarifying-the-roles-of-the-icann-complaint… <https://www.icann.org/news/blog/clarifying-the-roles-of-the-icann-complaint…> It’s essentially a chart highlighting the differences between the Ombudsman and the Complaints Office. I believe some of us might find it useful. Best regards, León

1 0

Fwd: Notification of Board Seat 11 Nomination
by Alan Greenberg May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

As was noted for the nominations of Directors by At-Large and the GNSO, this nomination is is being ratified by the Empowered Community Administration as a formal designation of Director to serve effective the end of the Johannesburg meeting. this is Chris's third and final term. Alan >From: Bart Boswinkel <bart.boswinkel(a)icann.org> >Subject: Notification of Board Seat 11 Nomination >Date: Thu, 18 May 2017 15:38:06 +0000 > >Dear Empowered Community Administration, >cc. ICANN Secretary and Decisional Participants > >On behalf of the ccNSO Chair, Katrina Sataki, please find included a >notification concerning the nomination of Chris Disspain for Board >Seat 11 per ICANN AGM 2017. > >Kind Regards, > >Bart Boswinkel

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Domain Abuse Reporting Tool
by Alan Greenberg May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Evan, it is not clear what fraction of the "abuse" being captured here contravenes policy. To the extend that it does, and where the information is such that it is actionable I do hope that we will see action. But I think that the real issue here is that this is the first time in my recollection that ICANN has taken a position other than "this is outside of our remit". Jamie Hedlund has said that we need to look at abuse situations because because domain names are being used, and PERHAPS there is something that we can do. We now have a staff-developed tool that may help quantify things and with the granularity to actually identify individual contracted parties that seem to be focal points for this type of behaviour. Although I have rarely been accused of being an optimist in this area, I do see grounds for hope, and if we see behaviour in ICANN that we support, we need to be vocal about it. There will be others who would want this type of information suppressed. That would be a shameful outcome. Alan At 18/05/2017 09:05 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Based on what I have read in the lists so far, >the process of reporting has not really been a >problem. The complaints come from how problems >are resolved (or, as the case may be, not resolved but closed anyway). > >ICANN seems not to care at all about resolving >complaints to the satisfaction of the >complainants, just itself. That is a problem >with attitude and corporate behaviour, and the >best technical tools will not solve that. > >I hope that not only the reporting processes, >but also the complaint resolution mechanisms, >will be addressed when you meet on this topic. > >â£- Evan (via mobile)â > >On 18 May 2017, 02:14, at 02:14, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > >I am optimistic we will have a session on it in Jo'burg. > > > >Alan > >-- > >Sent from my mobile. Please excuse brevity and typos. > > > >On May 18, 2017 2:02:24 AM EDT, Harold Arcos <harold.arcos(a)gmail.com> > >wrote: > >>Dear Rinalia > >> > >>Thank you for information about that valuable tool. > >>This tool represents a tremendously valuable source of knowledge and > >>ongoing assessment. > >> > >>Kind regards > >> > >> > >>On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 12:58 AM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > >>rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, > >>> > >>> This may be of interest to you: > >>> > >>> Domain Abuse Reporting Tool (DART Project) - A tool that empowers > >>policy > >>> makers, consumer advocates and users. > >>> > >>> > >>https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-dart-13may17-en. > >>> pdf > >>> > >>> > >>> Best regards, > >>> > >>> Rinalia > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> ALAC mailing list > >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >>> > >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >>> ALAC Working Wiki: > >>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+ > >>> Advisory+Committee+(ALAC) > >>> > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: > >https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At- > Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)

1 0

Domain Abuse Reporting Tool
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim May 18, 2017

May 18, 2017

Dear ALAC and Regional Leaders, This may be of interest to you: Domain Abuse Reporting Tool (DART Project) - A tool that empowers policy makers, consumer advocates and users. https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/presentation-dart-13may17-en.pdf Best regards, Rinalia

3 2

Things some noticed about ICANN Tax Returns
by Carlton Samuels May 16, 2017

May 16, 2017

Um, well.... http://domainnamewire.com/2017/05/16/icann-published-tax-return-heres-learn… -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Public Comment: GTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Questions
by Maureen Hilyard May 15, 2017

May 15, 2017

Hi everyone Thank you to Alan for drafting up some responses for Worktrack #3 on String Contentions. Many thanks to Andrei, Satish, and Evan for their work on Work Tracks #1 and #3. I have still to hear from our At-Large lawyers on Worktrack #2. If you would like to make further comments on the submissions that have already been made, please do so on the following pages. Work track #1 For overall picture and outreach etc <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> : Work Track #2 Legal considerations <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Work Track #3 String Contentions, etc <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Work Track #4 IDNs <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Workspace%3A+Wor…> Any comments much appreciated. Regards Maureen

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Issue related to the Appointment of Directors by Empowered Community
by Alan Greenberg May 13, 2017

May 13, 2017

Seun, that is not an acceptable process. Doing a Consensus Call implies that this is a decision of the ALAC and the Bylaws make it clear that it is not. ICANN legal counsel has been very clear on that. As well, although not a likely occurrence, if there is a removal of a Director by the Board, that must be carried out immediately. Alan At 12/05/2017 02:25 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >Hello Alan, > >Thanks for your response, while I understand this is a non-issue, my >preference is that the Chair do a quick consensus call of the ALAC >when such happens and ALAC decision recorded accordingly. > >Regards >Sent from my LG G4 >Kindly excuse brevity and typos > >On May 12, 2017 06:05, "Alan Greenberg" ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Thanks for the vote of endorsement Seun. >I can always rely on you for a good question. In this case, the >answer is relatively easy. We will add a clause saying that for all >actions related to the EC designating Directors selected by the SOs, >At-Large or the NomCom under Bylaws section 7.2(a), or for the >removal of Directors by the Board under Bylaws 7.11(a)(i)(B) and >7.11(a)(ii), the ALAC is deemed to have instructed the EC >Representative to act in accordance with the Bylaws. >Alan >At 11/05/2017 11:32 PM, Seun Ojedeji wrote: >>Hello Alan, >>Am fine with your endorsement on this by default. However I am not >>sure what problem is to be corrected in our ROP since the Bylaw hasn't changed. >>I think it's just fine for you to do what you have just done now in future. >>Regards >>Sent from my LG G4 >>Kindly excuse brevity and typos >>On May 12, 2017 4:22 AM, "Alan Greenberg" >><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca > wrote: >>In looking at the recent notice of the appointment of the new GNSO >>Director and again at the notice for Leon, I realized we have a >>small issue related to the appointment of Directors. >>Although Directors are selected by the SOs, At-Large and the >>NomCom, under the new Empowered Community model, the actual >>appointment (technically under California statutes, they are >>"designated") to the Board is done by the Empowered Community (EC) >>through the EC Administration. The EC Administration is not a true >>body but the name given to the five representatives of the >>"Decisional Participants", the GNSO, ccNSO, ASO, GAC and ALAC. >>Therefore the designation is done by those five people without any >>discretion to second-guess the selecting body. >>However, both the Bylaws in the general case and the ALAC Rules of >>Procedure (RoP) say that the Representative can only act on express >>instructions of their AC/SO. >>It is clear that the intent of the CCWG-Accountability and the >>Bylaws are to not actually involve the five Decisional Participants. >>Extracts from the ICANN Bylaws and the ALAC RoP are attached. >>As the appointments must be formally made without delay, I am, with >>the knowledge of the ALT and in accordance with ALAC RoP 5.11, >>endorsing the EC Administration designation of the new Directors >>(Matthew Shears and Leon at this point) and will ask that this >>decision be ratified at the upcoming ALAC meeting. >>I will also be proposing an amendment to our Rules of Procedure to >>correct this inadvertent problem. >>Alan >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac >>At-Large Online: <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: >><https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >>

2 1