- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC Endorsement of ATRT2 Candidates
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Nov. 30, 2012

Nov. 30, 2012

Dear Members of the ALAC, I have been asked to take on the task of managing the ALAC Candidate Endorsement Process for the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review Team 2 (ATRT2). I am triggering this process now in my capacity as Interim Chair of the ALAC ATRT2 Candidate Endorsement Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee in accordance with the decision of the ALAC meeting on 27 November 2012. *Scope of Work* The selection of ALAC candidates to the ATRT2 will be done by the ICANN Board Chair and the GAC Chair. The responsibility of the ALAC ATRT2 Candidate Endorsement Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee is to review the list of candidates who have applied as representing the ALAC, assess their suitability for the work of the ATRT2, and rank the ones whom we believe to qualify in a preferred order - this is referred to as the endorsement process, which informs the selection by the ICANN Board Chair and the GAC Chair. The endorsement process requires an assessment of candidates based on the set of criteria specified in the ATRT2 Call for Volunteers as well as additional criteria specific to the ALAC. It is known that a minimum of one ALAC candidate will be selected to the ATRT2 and it is expected that more candidates will be selected though the exact number has not been revealed. Given this uncertainty, and there may not be any certainty until the actual selection is made by the Chairs of the ICANN Board and the GAC, we will proceed by reviewing and ranking all the ALAC applicants from the list that the ATRT2 Staff will provide. The following are immediate issues for the ALAC's attention: *1. The **ALAC ATRT2 Candidate Endorsement Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee Call for Members *- The ALAC Chair will issue a call for membership for this ad-hoc sub-committee, which will include information regarding composition, qualification and selection criteria. - It is proposed that the sub-committee be small for manageability (given the tight deadlines) and regionally balanced. - Note: The Chair of the Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee will not count in the regional balance and will not assess the candidates, but rather focus on facilitating the process. The deadline for the sub-committee formation is 10 Dec 2012. *2. Candidate Assessment and Endorsement Tool (Matrix)* - A matrix as a tool to help the sub-committee assess the candidates has been developed and posted for ALAC comments here: At-Large ATRT2 ALAC Endorsement Process Workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/A4lEAg>. - The matrix incorporates the set of criteria specified by the ATRT2 Call for Volunteers as well as two additional criteria specific to the ALAC (i.e., accountability to the ALAC and trust of the ALAC). The deadline for ALAC comments on the matrix is 10 Dec 2012. I urge you to be as concrete and as constructive as possible in your comments and I particularly welcome concrete suggestions on the proxy indicators in the matrix for consideration by the sub-committee. - Note: The development of the matrix as well as the overall endorsement process draw from past experiences and involved consultations with previous coordinators of the process. *3. **ALAC Chair's Candidacy to the ATRT2* - The ALAC Chair has announced that he is applying for the ATRT2. A decision is needed as to whether the ALAC Chair should be endorsed as the primary (first preference) candidate to the ATRT2 by ALAC consensus. *The ALAC is requested to provide feedback on this matter a.s.a.p.** and the ALAC Vice Chairs are requested to manage the call for consensus if deemed necessary. *- Note: If the ALAC Chair is endorsed by consensus, he will be exempt from assessment by the sub-committee and will be able to participate in the sub-committee as an observer. *4. Confidentiality Policy * - The confidentiality policy for the Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee is that the assessment information will only be shared among the sub-committee members for the purpose of making the endorsement decision and no record will be kept after the decision has been announced. - Due to the need for confidentiality, the wiki workspace will be restricted to members of the sub-committee and staff after 11.59pm UTC 10 December 2012 UTC. The workspace is currently open for ALAC comments on the matrix until then. *5. Limits of Information in Decision Announcement* - The decision announcement will reveal only the names and preferred order of the endorsed candidates. * Timeline for the Endorsement Process *Please note that these deadlines have had input from the ATRT2 staff as well as the At-Large staff. Due to time constraints, these deadlines will be held as inflexible.* * 27 Nov 2012 Tabling of Key Decision Points to the ALAC 05 Dec 2012 Deadline for submission of Application and Statement of Interest by candidates to the ATRT2 staff 10 Dec 2012 Deadline for ALAC comments on candidate assessment matrix 10 Dec 2012 Deadline for Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee formation 11-15 Dec 2012 Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee discussion and agreement on matrix proxy indicators 12 Dec 2012 Deadline for receiving list of ALAC candidates from ATRT2 Staff 20 Dec 2012 Deadline for Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee members to submit individual assessment 21 Dec 2012 Staff aggregates and circulates results to Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee members 03 Jan 2012 Ad-Hoc Sub Committee Meeting to review results and decide on candidate preference ranking 04 Jan 2013 Announcement and submission of ALAC endorsement decision to the ATRT2 Staff 07 Jan 2013 ATRT2 candidate selection by ICANN Board Chair and GAC Chair This is not at all an easy task, but I look forward to working with you in identifying the best possible ALAC candidates to the ATRT2. Best regards, Rinalia

9 13

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Endorsement of ATRT2 Candidates
by JJS Nov. 30, 2012

Nov. 30, 2012

*@Rinalia, thank you for such a clear proposal on the way to manage this. Your reminder of the process, especially deadline and sending one's candidature to the proper place, was very useful. Also, it was useful to point out that as a matter of principle, we cannot exclude candidates not considered by your *ad hoc *designation process.* * * *@Chair as candidate: I too support Carlton's motion.* * * *@Evan's rationale for proposing Chair + 1, which was supported by several colleagues: agreed, so Rinalia please consider me a candidate. I will of course fill in the form as required, before 5 December.* * * *Best regards,* *Jean-Jacques.* * * 2012/11/30 Tijani BEN JEMAA <tijani.benjemaa(a)planet.tn> > Dear Carlton, > > > > I fully support your recommendation for Olivier as the ALAC's preferred > candidate for the ATRT2 membership. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Tijani BEN JEMAA > > Executive Director > > Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) > > Phone: +216 98 330 114 > > Mobile: +216 41 649 605 > > Fax: +216 70 825 231 > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Carlton > Samuels > Envoyé : vendredi 30 novembre 2012 03:00 > À : Rinalia Abdul Rahim > Cc : ALAC Working List > Objet : Re: [ALAC] ALAC Endorsement of ATRT2 Candidates > > > > Dear Colleagues: > > When you read the criteria set out for ATRT2 members, they mirror the > > qualities that informed my decision to recommend and support Olivier as > > ALAC Chair. > > > > Consequently, I here now recommend Olivier as the ALAC's preferred > > candidate for the ATRT2 membership and urge your favourable advice and > > consent. > > > > Kind regards, > > - Carlton > > > > ============================== > > Carlton A Samuels > > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > > ============================= > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 8:17 PM, Rinalia Abdul Rahim < > > rinalia.abdulrahim(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Dear Members of the ALAC, > > > > > > I have been asked to take on the task of managing the ALAC Candidate > > > Endorsement Process for the ICANN Accountability and Transparency Review > > > Team 2 (ATRT2). I am triggering this process now in my capacity as > Interim > > > Chair of the ALAC ATRT2 Candidate Endorsement Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee in > > > accordance with the decision of the ALAC meeting on 27 November 2012. > > > > > > *Scope of Work* > > > The selection of ALAC candidates to the ATRT2 will be done by the ICANN > > > Board Chair and the GAC Chair. The responsibility of the ALAC ATRT2 > > > Candidate Endorsement Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee is to review the list of > > > candidates who have applied as representing the ALAC, assess their > > > suitability for the work of the ATRT2, and rank the ones whom we believe > to > > > qualify in a preferred order - this is referred to as the endorsement > > > process, which informs the selection by the ICANN Board Chair and the GAC > > > Chair. The endorsement process requires an assessment of candidates > based > > > on the set of criteria specified in the ATRT2 Call for Volunteers as well > > > as additional criteria specific to the ALAC. It is known that a minimum > of > > > one ALAC candidate will be selected to the ATRT2 and it is expected that > > > more candidates will be selected though the exact number has not been > > > revealed. Given this uncertainty, and there may not be any certainty > until > > > the actual selection is made by the Chairs of the ICANN Board and the > GAC, > > > we will proceed by reviewing and ranking all the ALAC applicants from the > > > list that the ATRT2 Staff will provide. > > > > > > The following are immediate issues for the ALAC's attention: > > > > > > *1. The **ALAC ATRT2 Candidate Endorsement Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee Call for > > > Members > > > *- The ALAC Chair will issue a call for membership for this ad-hoc > > > sub-committee, which will include information regarding composition, > > > qualification and selection criteria. > > > - It is proposed that the sub-committee be small for manageability (given > > > the tight deadlines) and regionally balanced. > > > - Note: The Chair of the Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee will not count in the > > > regional balance and will not assess the candidates, but rather focus on > > > facilitating the process. The deadline for the sub-committee formation > is > > > 10 Dec 2012. > > > > > > *2. Candidate Assessment and Endorsement Tool (Matrix)* > > > - A matrix as a tool to help the sub-committee assess the candidates has > > > been developed and posted for ALAC comments here: At-Large ATRT2 ALAC > > > Endorsement Process Workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/A4lEAg>. > > > - The matrix incorporates the set of criteria specified by the ATRT2 Call > > > for Volunteers as well as two additional criteria specific to the ALAC > > > (i.e., accountability to the ALAC and trust of the ALAC). The deadline > for > > > ALAC comments on the matrix is 10 Dec 2012. I urge you to be as concrete > > > and as constructive as possible in your comments and I particularly > welcome > > > concrete suggestions on the proxy indicators in the matrix for > > > consideration by the sub-committee. > > > - Note: The development of the matrix as well as the overall endorsement > > > process draw from past experiences and involved consultations with > previous > > > coordinators of the process. > > > > > > *3. **ALAC Chair's Candidacy to the ATRT2* > > > - The ALAC Chair has announced that he is applying for the ATRT2. A > > > decision is needed as to whether the ALAC Chair should be endorsed as the > > > primary (first preference) candidate to the ATRT2 by ALAC consensus. > *The > > > ALAC is requested to provide feedback on this matter a.s.a.p.** and the > > > ALAC Vice Chairs are requested to manage the call for consensus if deemed > > > necessary. > > > *- Note: If the ALAC Chair is endorsed by consensus, he will be exempt > > > from assessment by the sub-committee and will be able to participate in > the > > > sub-committee as an observer. > > > > > > *4. Confidentiality Policy * > > > - The confidentiality policy for the Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee is that the > > > assessment > > > information will only be shared among the sub-committee members for the > > > purpose of making the endorsement decision and no record will be kept > after > > > the decision has been announced. > > > - Due to the need for confidentiality, the wiki workspace will be > > > restricted to members of the sub-committee and staff after 11.59pm UTC 10 > > > December 2012 UTC. The workspace is currently open for ALAC comments on > > > the matrix until then. > > > > > > *5. Limits of Information in Decision Announcement* > > > - The decision announcement will reveal only the names and preferred > order > > > of the endorsed candidates. > > > * > > > Timeline for the Endorsement Process > > > *Please note that these deadlines have had input from the ATRT2 staff as > > > well as the At-Large staff. Due to time constraints, these deadlines > will > > > be held as inflexible.* > > > * > > > > > > 27 Nov 2012 > > > > > > Tabling of Key Decision Points to the ALAC > > > > > > 05 Dec 2012 > > > > > > Deadline for submission of Application and Statement of Interest by > > > candidates to the ATRT2 staff > > > > > > 10 Dec 2012 > > > > > > Deadline for ALAC comments on candidate assessment matrix > > > > > > 10 Dec 2012 > > > > > > Deadline for Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee formation > > > > > > 11-15 Dec 2012 > > > > > > Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee discussion and agreement on matrix proxy indicators > > > > > > 12 Dec 2012 > > > > > > Deadline for receiving list of ALAC candidates from ATRT2 Staff > > > > > > 20 Dec 2012 > > > > > > Deadline for Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee members to submit individual assessment > > > > > > 21 Dec 2012 > > > > > > Staff aggregates and circulates results to Ad-Hoc Sub-Committee members > > > > > > 03 Jan 2012 > > > > > > Ad-Hoc Sub Committee Meeting to review results and decide on candidate > > > preference ranking > > > > > > 04 Jan 2013 > > > > > > Announcement and submission of ALAC endorsement decision to the ATRT2 > Staff > > > > > > 07 Jan 2013 > > > > > > ATRT2 candidate selection by ICANN Board Chair and GAC Chair > > > > > > This is not at all an easy task, but I look forward to working with you > in > > > identifying the best possible ALAC candidates to the ATRT2. > > > > > > 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+(ALA > C) > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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+(ALA > C) > > > > > > ----- > > Aucun virus trouve dans ce message. > > Analyse effectuee par AVG - www.avg.fr > > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de donnees virale: 2634/5926 - Date: 29/11/2012 > > > > ----- > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2634/5926 - Date: 29/11/2012 > > ----- > > Aucun virus trouvé dans ce message. > > Analyse effectuée par AVG - www.avg.fr > > Version: 2013.0.2793 / Base de données virale: 2634/5926 - Date: 29/11/2012 > > _______________________________________________ > 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+(AL… >

1 0

Fwd: [council] Interim position of the European Commission concerning the applications for new gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 30, 2012

Nov. 30, 2012

FYI >From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Interim position of the European Commission concerning the > applications for new gTLDs > >Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 06:53:28 +0000 > >Hello All, > >For information the EU has created their own notices for new gTLD applicants. > >"The Commission has identified a number of new gTLD applications >which could possibly raise issues of compatibility with the existing >legislation (the acquis) and/or the policy positions and objectives >of the European Union." > >"The presence of a new gTLD in the list is rather a signal that >further discussions with the relevant applicant are necessary" > >See attached for further information. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin

2 1

ERRP Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 29, 2012

Nov. 29, 2012

I have finalized the ERRP statement wording in https://community.icann.org/x/J4Q3Ag. The two changes are: 1. Including the option of other forms of regarding in addition to simply keeping paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.2.3. This is in conjunction with a post I will be making suggesting that in the PEDNR Recomendation, if given this new knowledge, we might have replaced "If the Registrar operates a website for registration or renewal," to "If a website is operated for registration or renewal,". 2. Adding one final sentence as suggested by Holly giving the broader picture that all registrants dealing with resellers should be given the full complements of rights under the RAA. Alan

1 0

Letter from GAC to GNSO on protection of IOC, RCRC, and IGOs
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 29, 2012

Nov. 29, 2012

I've lost track whther this has been sent to the ALAC list yet (I did see it on a skype chat). <https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/4817665/GAC_GNSOCouncil_20121…>https://gacweb.icann.org/download/attachments/4817665/GAC_GNSOCouncil_20121… Alan

1 0

Fwd: [council] Update from the New gTLD Program Committee
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 28, 2012

Nov. 28, 2012

I think that what this is saying is the Board New gTLD Program Committee on Monday approved temporary reservations for RC, IOC and some unknown subset of IGOs. This would make the resubmitted GNSO motion regarding RC/IOC no longer relevant. I am once again troubled that even after the fact, there is no public knowledge of important Board activities taking place - See http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/meetings. The last meeting posted is that of the Board on Nov 8. Alan >From: Jonathan Robinson <jonathan.robinson(a)ipracon.com> >To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] Update from the New gTLD Program Committee >Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2012 10:50:16 +0000 >Thread-Index: Ac3NUmnnhSOKAw26S0eLreaaNZM8VQ== >Sender: <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >All, > >Cherine Chalaby, Chair of the New gTLD Program Committee, has asked >me to forward to you, a letter providing an update on their most >recent (26 November 2012) meeting. > >I have also attached an information update I provided to the New >gTLD Program Committee immediately ahead of their 26 November meeting. > >Jonathan

1 0

Followup meeting on TMCH issues
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 27, 2012

Nov. 27, 2012

Evan and I attended a follow-on teleconference on the TMCH issues today. The following note is written in the first person, but has the full support or Evan. The first part was on the progress related to the negotiation of contracts with Deloitte who will perform the TM validation process and deal with TM holders and IBM who will operate the Clearinghouse and interface with registrars and registries. The contract with Deloitte is close to finalized. The price for registering a single trademark will be $150 (with some variations due to currencies and such) and there will be substantive discounts for multi-year registrations and for bult registrations. ICANN will have access to Deloitte costs and revenue figures and the right to audit Deloitte, all to ensure that their profit margins are kept reasonable (and specifically a contractual profit cap). Although Deloitte has exclusivity until after the first 10 sunrises (ensuring that the protocols and TMCH are functioning well), after that point, ICANN could invite other applicants to play a similar role - a marked change from the original plans. The contract with IBM should be complete within a week or so. As already noted, ICANN will retain all use rights to the data in the TMCH, so although IBM will be able to market other services, they can only do so with the express permission of ICANN. Similarly, ICANN can offer the data to other parties for competing services (all subject to whatever the TM holders agree to when they deposit their information in the CH). Although the details of the "strawman" proposal are not yet agreed to, both contractors have agreed that what ever is there (presumably based on what ins in the current strawman), the contracts already will include that. These could not have been an easy contracts to negotiate, and are the most rational from an ICANN and user standpoint that I have ever seen at ICANN. To make it clear, I am impressed. On the strawman proposal, Fadi divided the issues into three sections: 1. Adding a 30 day "announcement period before the formal 30 day sunrise. 2. a) Extending the 60 TM Claims period to 90 days, and b) tacking on a new, for-fee TM Claims process for 6-12 months (to be decided) with a lighter, less legalistic notice and no requirement to acknowledge receipt. 3. All up to 50 additional character strings associated with a TM to be entered into the TMCH (for a fee). The names would typically be typos or the TM plus related strings (products or services associate with the mark). Following extensive staff discussions, the following Implementation vs Policy recommendations are being made (along with my and Evan's take on them) 1. The original policy was silent on sunrise timing, and certainly did not either mention or prohibit a prior announcement period. This is deemed to be implementation. Comment: No argument at all. I did point out that despite this new 30 day period, between now and the first sunrise, ICANN has a real need to get out there and let TM holders know this is coming. 2. Both the extension of 60 to 90 days and the addition of the new lighter TM Claims process were deemed to be implementation. Comment: There was little discussion about the first part, but much more about the second. I for one was rather surprised as were a number of others. Fadi said that there was a lot of discussion on this point, and he believes that their rationale, which will be made available very shortly will explain why. Regardless of the implementation vs policy issue, this extension of TM Claims is something that the ALAC supported in its minority report to the STI, and the change to a lighter form of notice should adequately address the concerns that the ALAC did have about such extension. I did point out that it was important for the community to be involved in wording this new notice. 3. The additional of "related" strings was deemed to be policy. Only strings that have been the subject of UDRP or Court decisions would be allow (and specifically not URS). Comment: No disagreement here. Fadi will be writing to the GNSO to tell them that they need to offer guidance on this. The TM folks on the call took the opportunity to raise the issue of blocking (or making very difficult) registration on marks and marks+related-strings that have been found to have been abused in the past. Fadi was adamant that such a process was not something that he could imagine approving in a process like the current one. I added that it was sufficiently counter to other decisions that have been made in the past that it would need to be the result of substantive community-based policy discussion. The TM folks did not seem please with this position and we may want to explicitly support Fadi on this one. On the substance of the blocking proposal, At-Large has traditionally been sympathetic to the needs/desires of the TM holders. Although At-Large has a keen interest in Registrant rights, when they may conflict with User issues, we have tended to side with the needs of Users. In this case, the registrations that the TM owners are worried about tend to be used for monetized pages, phishing, deceptive web site or out-and-out fraud. In all of these cases, fighting such uses is generally pro-user. So we are not necessarily completely against the concept. But it would need to be implemented in such a way as to not unreasonably interfere with valid registrations. To date, none of the proposed implementations have come anywhere near this, and they specifically all have tended to be "block until the prospective registrant can demonstrate that they have a legitimate need" - which has a very "guilty until proven innocent" tone to it and with the demonstration being a slow and possibly expensive process. Alan Alan

3 3

Expired Registration Renewal Policy
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 27, 2012

Nov. 27, 2012

Also posted as a comment to https://community.icann.org/x/J4Q3Ag. As you know the Post Expiration Domain Name Recovery (PEDNR) PDP was approved by the Board last year and the resultant Policy (now called the Expired Registration Recovery Policy - ERRP) was posted for comment. The PDP recommended that registrars who operate web site for registration must post their renewal fees and state what method they will use to contact registrants. The recommendation was silent regarding resellers because it was the belief that registrars, in honoring all of the terms of their contract, would require resellers to post this information as well. Although it was not clear why at the time, ICANN staff working on the resultant changes to the RAA added very welcome wording explicitly requiring that registrars require resellers to post this information as well. The proposed policy can be found at <http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp/draft-…>http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp/draft-… and the sections in question are paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.2.3. There were no negative comments about this in the public comments which were due to close on Nov. 11th. Staff extended the comment period for one more week, and had explicitly called attention to the changes on the Implementation Review Group mailing list and explicitly asking for comments to be posted on this. Michele Neylon, the registrar who was on the Implementation Review Group submitted a statement to the ERRP Comment saying that the proposed language about resellers was debated at length by the PDP WG and the final decision was to not include such language in the recommendation. That is factually correct and indeed the report made reference to the fact that there was an explicit decision to not include it. His statement can be found at <http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-errp-policy/msg00001.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-errp-policy/msg00001.html. The ICANN Registrar Relations staff person who I had been working with was unavailable, so I asked compliance whether that was how they saw this as well. The reply was direct and clear that this was not how they interpreted the RAA terms and that the web posting provisions would not apply to resellers unless the explicit. The exchange is appending to this message. I propose the following: 1. Under my own name but as former Chair of the PEDNR WG and a member of the Implementation Review Team, I will post the statement from Compliance that without the explicit reseller language, that the new Policy will not benefit all Registrants, but only those who deal directly with Registrars, and based on my understanding, that was not the intent of the WG. 2. ALAC should post a statement supporting the need to keep the explicit reseller language. This statement may need to be altered if registrars in the interim post a message agreeing to keep the language. Draft Statement The PEDNR PDP recommended that information about renewal fees and how a registrar will contact a registrant should be readily made available on the registrar web site (Rec. 5 & 6). It was the clear intent of the recommendations that this apply to ALL registrants. Paragraphs 4.1 and 4.2 of the ERRP (http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp/draft-…) require, among other things, that if a registrar operates a web site, certain information must be clearly displayed there. Paragraphs 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 require that a reseller, if one is used, must similarly display this information. It is the understanding of the ALAC that the belief within the PEDNR WG was that all provisions of the RAA that applied to registrars must be enforced by registrars on resellers (for those who use them). Since that has now proven to be false (reference to Greenberg post) it is imperative that sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 of the proposed ERRP not be omitted. Without these two paragraphs, there is no obligation for a registrar to ensure that a reseller displays this information and a significant percentage of registrants, those who deal with resellers, may be deprived of this information. The access to this information that the PDP was attempting to ensure is no longer guaranteed, and the registrar, by subcontracting services to a reseller, has effectively been relieved from fulfilling these RAA obligations. This calls into question the value of the immense time and energy that the community puts into developing PDP Consensus Policy Recommendations and indeed the effectiveness of the entire RAA. =========== Dialogue with Contractual Compliance Alan Greenberg: >A comment has now been made >(http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-errp-policy/msg00001.html) >speaking against the language in the draft ERRP Policy paragraphs >4.1.2 and 4.2.3 >(http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/consensus-policies/errp/draft-…) > >As a result, the ALAC now needs to decide whether to reply to this, >and if so, what we need to say. > >In order to understand the issue, I would like to know whether ICANN >Contractual Compliance believes that the inclusion of these sections >alters their ability to enforce the intent of the ERRP. > >Specifically, it has been stated repeatedly that all obligations of >a Registrar are unchanged if they decide to sub-contract marketing >to a reseller. In this case, I take this to mean that the obligation >to have certain information on the Registrar's web site also >includes the reseller's website if that is the Registrant point-of-contact. > >That would imply that what is explicit in 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 is >applicable whether these statement are there or not, and their >presence simply serves to remind Registrars of their obligations. > >Can you please confirm if that is a correct interpretation, or if >not, how you view it. ICANN Contractual Compliance: >ICANN does not have the same interpretation. > >The reseller obligations as stated in section 3.12.2 of the 2009 RAA >focus on the registration agreement where, if a registrar has an >agreement with its resellers, the agreement must require the >reseller to include all registration agreement provisions and >notices required by the ICANN Registrar Accreditation Agreement and >any ICANN Consensus Policies (such as the information identified in >4.1.1 and 4.2.2 of the proposed ERRP). The reseller obligations >within the 2009 RAA do not include obligations on registrars to >require the posting of information such as that within the proposed >ERRP Sections 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 on reseller websites. > >Under the contracts we have in place today, the reseller website >posting obligations in the proposed ERRP section 4.1.2 and 4.2.3 >would only be enforced if the language is included within the ERRP.

1 0

Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 27, 2012

Nov. 27, 2012

I was asked for an opinion on whether an ALAC statement is necessary on the <https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Preliminary+Issu…>Preliminary Issue Report on the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) Part D. The short answer is that I do not believe that a statement is required, but I would appreciate a "sense of the ALAC" that this PDP should be initiated. IRTP-D is the last of a set of PDP's to review and possibly update various aspects of the Inter-Registrar transfer Policy (IRTP). IRTP-D consideres: a) Whether reporting requirements for registries and dispute providers should be developed, in order to make precedent and trend information available to the community and allow reference to past cases in dispute submissions; b) Whether additional provisions should be included in the TDRP (Transfer Dispute Resolution Policy) on how to handle disputes when multiple transfers have occurred; c) Whether dispute options for registrants should be developed and implemented as part of the policy (registrants currently depend on registrars to initiate a dispute on their behalf); d) Whether requirements or best practices should be put into place for registrars to make information on transfer dispute resolution options available to registrants; e) Whether existing penalties for policy violations are sufficient or if additional provisions/penalties for specific violations should be added into the policy; f) Whether the universal adoption and implementation of EPP AuthInfo codes has eliminated the need of FOAs (Forms of Authorization). This Public Comment is an opportunity to identify errors or omissions in the Preliminary Issue Report, and to provide support for initiating the PDP. O know of no specific errors or omissions. Although I support the PDP going forward, given the long history which got us to this stage, I am not expecting much opposition so I do not feel that a written comment is worth the effort. The PDP does address a number of issues that could benefit registrants and for that reason I do believe that it should go ahead. If the ALAC agrees, I would like to carry that message forward. I would also strongly advise that there be At-Large representatives on the resultant WG. Alan

1 0

The sales case for defensive registrations
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 22, 2012

Nov. 22, 2012

I just received an unsolicited email that some of you may find interesting. Due to non-ICANN related work, I own a domain related to ebooks. Some domainer -- or its agent -- sent me a solicitation to acquire a similar domain. Obviously my WHOIS info was culled for this, but that doesn't particularly bother me. What is interesting to read is the sale pitch that pushes defensive registrations and says that even if you own a trademark it doesn't really matter. Quotes of note: *Q:But I already own a similar domain, why do I need another one?* * * *A: The answer is pretty simple, you will get more exposure for your business for the least amount of money. Search engines file your page contents within one domain name. If you have multiple domains, this multiplies the chance of having a surfer click on the link to your website.* *Q:But my domain name and business are trademarked..* * * *A: This does not really prevent other people from using unregistered versions of your trademark for other legal or illegal reasons. A good example is Nissan.com, a trademark just for your branch in the industry and quite often just for your region of the world. Defensive registering will help protect your brand and business.* I have zero interest in the domain, if anyone else wants *stud-ebooks.com*you're welcome to it http://ourbestnames.net/acquire/hgag/WkaM3hn6T7 -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0