- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [GTLD-WG] [At-Large] Registrars: The new travel agents? (was Re: Amazon, Google And Others Going After Generics)
by Evan Leibovitch June 15, 2012

June 15, 2012

Followup: Almost everyone in the domain industry -- based on publicity to date -- has been following Verisign and its monetization / distribution model, differing mainly in target audiences, services levels and choices of partners. It's a path of tradition, not necessity, that could have looked very different had ICANN made different priorities a decade ago. The newcomers, absent such tradition, offer alternatives -- not replacements -- to that status quo; whether these alternatives succeed is of course far from being determined. Like Bret, I agree that the "domain tenancy" model is *not* a broadly useful models. But then, it may be possible that -- like has been envisioned for some dot-brands -- that these domains are primarily for Amazon internal use. What if Amazon, for instance, used an entire TLD as a basis for categorization of goods in its virtual department store? (ie http://www.rum.beverages.food.amazon) In any case, Amazon is not what I was referring to, in thinking about the disruption that bothers Michele. Why did Amazon need so many nearly identical TLDs? Not sure. Don't really care. It looks like some were purely defensive against Google, IMO, as the domain game is sometimes less about getting a name than preventing others from doing so (or getting in the way such as you must be paid off for merely being involved). How many existing applications have no intention to sell subdomains but exist for purely speculative or defensive purposes? But it only takes one truly disruptive TLD from amongst the hundreds to turn the rest of the industry on its ear. I don't have any trust at all in the "intentions" part of the applications, since existing gTLDs have had a habit of breaking commitments in their application when convenient, and there have been no consequences for doing so. In other words, I'm not speculating on the future based on the content of the applications, but rather based on the past and current behavior of some of the applicants. So I look at what Google and Microsoft and Apple have done to the commercial email (ie, Lotus Notes), and GPS industries. I see how some internet service companies don't need to directly monetize domains any more than they monetize email, productivity applications, media players, mapping services.or even computer operating services. It is from this history that I see a potential future of domain industry disruption as described in my first email. Studying the applications will not, IMO, reveal the disruption to come. - Evan

1 0

Future of CWGs
by Alan Greenberg June 12, 2012

June 12, 2012

A reply from the ccNSO on the GNSO draft principles related to cross constituency working groups. There will be a session in Prague on this subject - Monday at 14:00 - http://prague44.icann.org/node/31641, and I have been asked to be on the panel. Alan >From: Stéphane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >Subject: [council] Re: Communication of the output of CWGs / Future of CWGs >Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 23:04:29 +0200 >To: Lesley Cowley <lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, "council(a)gnso.icann.org List" > <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Hi Lesley, > >Thanks for this. I am copying the Council for >their information and I agree that this would be >an excellent topic for our joint meeting in Prague. > >Best, > >Stéphane Van Gelder >Directeur Général / General manager >INDOM Group NBT France >---------------- >Head of Domain Operations >Group NBT > >Le 12 juin 2012 à 22:50, Lesley Cowley a écrit : > >>Hi Stéphane, >> >>Further to your email of 15th March on cross >>community working groups to the chairs of the >>SOs and ACs, the ccNSO Council has now been >>able to review the drafting team output. >> >>The ccNSO Council appreciates the work done to >>date by the GNSO. It is our understanding that >>the GNSO sought input and feedback from other SOs and ACs on: >> >>1. The principles themselves, and >>2. The route forward for community-wide >>adoption or development of a related set of >>principles for the operation of Cross-Community Working Groups >> >>On the principles, and acknowledging they are >>high level, some aspects relating to the >>creation, working and decision-making processes >>relating to cross-community working groups may >>need additional coverage by principles, in particular: >> * Defining the purpose and scope of a working group; >> * What should be included in a charter >> * Decision making by the participating SOs >> and ACs, in particular in case of >>> o Disagreement across participating SOs and ACs or >>> o Between WG and (one of the) a participating SO or AC. >>The ccNSO Council views are based on an >>analysis of both the principles and our >>experience with cross community working groups >>to date. This analysis is available. >> >>As to the route forward, the ccNSO Council >>suggests the setting-up of a cross-community >>working group, with the goal to arrive at >>common set of principles and the identification >>of areas of divergence in guidelines and >>practices across SOs and ACs. Such a WG >>should take into account the experiences of the >>cross community working groups to date (both >>those that are active and closed) and include >>the active participation of ICANN staff, who >>over time have gained significant experience >>with the formation and functioning of cross community working groups. >> >>Perhaps we could discuss next steps at the >>SO/AC Chair's meeting and or the ccNSO GNSO lunch meeting in Prague? >> >>Kind regards, >> >>Lesley Cowley OBE, >>Chair of the ccNSO >>Lesley Cowley, OBE >>CEO >>Nominet >>Minerva House >>Edmund Halley Road >>Oxford Science Park >>Oxford, OX4 4DQ >>UK >> >>Tel: +44-(0)-1865-332211 >><http://www.nominet.org.uk/>http://www.nominet.org.uk/ >> >>From: Stéphane Van Gelder >><<mailto:stephane.vangelder@indom.com>stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com> >>Date: Thursday, 15 March 2012 21:30 >>To: Lesley Cowley >><<mailto:lesley@nominet.org.uk>lesley(a)nominet.org.uk>, >>Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >><<mailto:ocl@gih.com>ocl(a)gih.com>, Patrik >>Fältström >><<mailto:patrik@frobbit.se>patrik(a)frobbit.se>, >>John Curran >><<mailto:jcurran@arin.net>jcurran(a)arin.net>, >>Heather Dryden >><<mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca>, >>Louie Lee <<mailto:louie@louie.net>louie(a)louie.net> >>Subject: Communication of the output of CWGs / Future of CWGs >> >>Dear Colleagues, >> >>You may be aware that over the course of last >>year the GNSO Council launched a drafting team >>to examine the issues associated with the >>formation and operation of Community / Cross-Community working groups. >> >>The output of the drafting team was >>encapsulated in a set of draft principles which >>were accepted by the Council through a motion >>passed at the 14 March 2012 meeting of the GNSO Council. >> >>The motion is linked to here: >> >><https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20…>https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+14+March+20… >> >>The draft principles are linked to here: >> >><http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf >> >>It is important to note here that work >>undertaken by the drafting team was undertaken >>specifically in order to develop a GNSO Council agreed perspective. >>The output shared here is not in any way >>intended to presume that this is a broader, community agreed position. >> >>Accordingly we are offering this work as input >>into the discussion which you may wish to >>initiate or further develop within your organisation or committee. >> >>Best, >> >>Stéphane Van Gelder >>GNSO Council Chair

1 0

Fwd: [board-gtlds] Digital Archery, Batching, Root Scalability, Early Warning and GAC Advice/Objections
by Alan Greenberg June 9, 2012

June 9, 2012

From the GNSO Council list. >>From: >><mailto:board-gtlds-bounces@icann.org>board-gtlds-bounces(a)icann.org >>[mailto:board-gtlds-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of >><mailto:Heather.Dryden@ic.gc.ca>Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca >>Sent: Thursday, June 7, 2012 12:32 AM >>To: board-gtlds(a)icann.org >>Cc: jeannie.ellers(a)icann.org; kurt.pritz(a)icann.org; >>jamie.hedlund(a)icann.org; gac(a)gac.icann.org >>Subject: [board-gtlds] Digital Archery, Batching, Root >>Scalability,Early Warning and GAC Advice/Objections >> >>Dear Cherine, gTLD Committee colleagues, >> >> >>(cc GAC) >> >> >>At this time, I would like to provide the following comments on >>behalf of the GAC. >> >> >>The GAC believes it is important to address the concerns raised by >>the GAC and others about the fairness of Digital Archery, before it >>is launched. >> >> >>The GAC further understands that the Board gTLD Committee intends >>to communicate next steps for providing further information to the >>GAC and identifying where there are linkages between Digital >>Archery, Batching, Root Scalability, Early Warning and GAC >>Advice/Objections so that there can be agreement reached, where >>appropriate, on the process and timelines. In essence, the GAC >>needs further information about ICANN's approach in order to >>finalise its own processes. >> >> >>Lastly, please be informed that the GAC intends to send a letter of >>advice before the meeting in Prague, related to the above. >> >> >>Best, >>Heather Dryden >>Chair, Governmental Advisory Committee >> >>

4 3

Re: [ALAC] ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement
by Alan Greenberg June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012

At 08/06/2012 10:34 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >DA is also based on something random -- that is, whatever reference >moment the selected timestamp is supposed to be closest to. >The main difference between my checksum method and DA is that the >applicant's "entry" -- in the form of the checksums of their >applications -- already exists and can't possibly be gamed after the fact. > >I agree with Avri, that if the checksum method is susceptible to >challenge as an illegal lottery of chance then so is DA. Yup. That is what I said, although perhaps not as clearly. >OTOH, there are a number of non-random methods to create the >reference point for my alternate scheme. One of them could be to >collect the first page of every application, make a checksum of THAT >resulting (1900 page) document, and use that checksum as the >reference against which to measure the others. I like that one! Of course, if they had announced that ahead of time, it could have been gamed as well (presuming the page size and algorithm were fixed). >- Evan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement
by Alan Greenberg June 8, 2012

June 8, 2012

At 07/06/2012 11:22 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >I really don't give a damn about the method of random selection of who gets >in what batch, with one exception stated below. There are many less-gamable >ways to do the selection, based on data that has already been collected. > >Here's one super simple example that most people on this list could >implement (using open source software for maximum transparency): >1) make a checksum of each received application document that is in the >pool (and publish the list of checksums) >2) create a random checksum (seeded by the moment Rod presses "Enter" at a >public event staged for the purpose) >3) Select the 500 applications whose checksums are numerically closest to >the random one. I believe that sine a "random number" is involved in the, it would be considered a lottery under California law and is thus not allowed. >The above example is far from perfect and anyone taking more than a minute >or two could come up with something better, but even this is preferable to >ICANN playing William Tell. It's transparent, and it eliminates the >pool.comoffering since the batch choices are made based on >pre-existing data that >did not anticipate this process, and no further action on the applicant's >part is necessary. > >Still.... to me this is a fight between applicants, and IMO there is little >public interest in their competitive issues. My only concern is about the >appearance that ICANN has chosen a process that service providers are >claiming is game-able, and that appearance is damaging to ICANN's >reputation. Agreed. >I agree with Olivier that simply because orgs are promising ways to game >the system doesn't mean they can. Even a psychic can be correct on >occasion. But it's the *appearance* that the system is so easily game-able >that sends such a horrid message outside the ICANN bubble. > >So what is there for ALAC to say? > >ICANN in its (lack of) wisdom refused to consider the concept of >categorizing applications before the fact, so the option of determining >which subsets of applications are in the public interest is not available >without starting the evaluation process. All we have is the "community" >designation and IDNs. And ICANN has already said that applications >requesting support won't be done in the first batch. > >Personally, I would limit any comment of ALAC's to >1) Demand that community and IDN applications be given advanced priority as >a matter of public benefit >2) Repeat our warning of the bias against developing economies evidenced by >the relegation of applications requesting support >3) Note the damage to ICANN's reputation created by the choice of a >selection method that can appear to be gamed My personal feeling is that there are plenty of people criticizing this and given our workload and the timing, this is one we can afford to skip. Alan >- Evan > > > > >On 7 June 2012 06:51, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> wrote: > > > Hello all, > > > > please find below, more information about the Digital Archery which will > > be used to batch new gTLD applications into batches of probably 500 > > applications at a time. With a possible 2000 applications to process, > > some applications might only be processed much later than others and > > this "game" of Digital Archery will set applicants apart. > > Already several firms run by close ICANN insiders are proposing a paying > > service to "win" the Digital Archery using their automation service > > which they claim will ensure their client's applications are considered > > first. This means more sources of profit, but this also means that > > applications which were made possible by thanks to all of the work the > > community did to have Applicant Support, might be discriminated against > > since they will not be able to afford the automated digital archery > > winning service. > > > > Also, looking closely at the terms and conditions of "digital archery", > > (see video on > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-media/video/batching-demo > > at Time 2:37 mark) , applicants using the Digital Archery system agree > > legally that this is a contest of skill rather than a contest of chance. > > Clearly, with the Internet's differing delays depending on where you are > > located, and since digital archery system will be accurate to 100th > > second (as seen on the demo), it is *impossible* for anyone to display > > any kind of skill except by being physically at the data center itself. > > I remind you that delays on the Internet range from 3ms to 700ms or > > more, depending on where you are, since any satellite link will > > automatically induce between 300 to 700ms -- it is a physical > > propagation time needed. And these delays are jittery too. > > > > Is Digital Archery therefore allegedly a game of chance, not controlled > > by any kind of legal structure associated with games of chance, with > > open opportunities for cheating? > > > > There have been calls to the Board by some members in the ccNSO for > > Digital Archery *not* to be used and an alternative process to be > > followed, which may also involve *not* having any batching altogether. > > Others in the GNSO Council have also written to the Board about this, > > with similar findings or other alternative propositions. > > Should we support those comments? > > > > Alas, the Board correspondence page has its last entry on 21 May 2012 > > and the correspondence which I have been CC'ed into was sent on June 4th > > and on June 6th but I have asked if those have already been published. > > > > With Digital Archery starting on June 8th, should the ALAC issue a > > statement on this ASAP? > > > > I'd be interested in your points of view. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Olivier > > (the above message includes some of my own points of view) > > > > > > -------- Message original -------- > > Sujet: ICANN News Alert -- New gTLD Batching Announcement > > Date : Wed, 06 Jun 2012 22:35:29 -0400 > > De : ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> > > Pour : <ocl(a)gih.com> > > > > > > > > ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> > > > > > > News Alert > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-06jun12-en.htm > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > New gTLD Batching Announcement > > > > 6 June 2012 > > > > Given the large number of new generic top-level domain (gTLD) > > applications, we will divide and evaluate them in batches. The batching > > system is targeted to open at 00:01 UTC on 8 June 2012, and will close > > at 23:59 UTC on 28 June 2012. The target date for posting the batching > > order is 11 July 2012. > > > > The batching process will be used to determine which applications will > > be processed in the first batch, the second batch and so on. It will be > > done by: assignment of a timestamp, and the formation of batches. > > > > /Timestamp assignments/ will be done using the TLD Application System > > (TAS). All applicants must use their TAS credentials to log in, read and > > accept the batching rules, indicate their batching preference, and > > select their target date and time. Once these steps are completed > > applicants should log back into TAS to hit the target time and generate > > a secondary timestamp. Users will have access to a testing feature to > > gauge the secondary timestamp system's response time. > > > > /Batching formation/ considers an applicant's: (1) batching preference, > > (2) geographic region and secondary timestamp; and (3) contention among > > identical and "similar" applications. > > > > (1) Applicants stating a preference for "opting-out" will be placed > > last. > > > > (2) Geographic diversity is important in bringing more competition > > and choice into the domain name market. Applicants who opted in will > > be ranked within their geographic region (Africa, Asia-Pacific, > > Europe, Latin America/Caribbean and North America) by their > > secondary timestamp score. Then applications will be selected from > > each ICANN region using a "round robin" approach. This approach > > selects the best timestamp score from each region, one region at a > > time, on a rotating basis. If a region runs out of opted-in > > applications, the "round robin" continues across the remaining > > regions. This process continues until the batch is formed, with the > > opted-out applications last. > > > > (3) ICANN will then make preliminary determinations of contention > > sets based upon exact match. All applications in a single contention > > set are placed into the batch where the earliest application in the > > contention set is placed. Once the string similarity panel > > establishes complete contention sets, "similar" strings might be > > reassigned to an earlier batch. No applications will be demoted as a > > result of the promotion of others. This could result in a batch > > larger than 500. > > > > ICANN has taken care to provide a secure and stable platform for the > > batching system. Users will connect to the Citrix XenApp > > high-availability cluster and will then log into the batching system. > > Applicants will be required to agree to a set of Batching Rules, > > including an agreement that "ICANN reserves the right to delay an > > application to the last batch or to reject an application entirely if > > ICANN reasonably determines that the applicant abused the batching > > system or intentionally interfered with the performance of the system or > > any other applicant's use of the system." > > > > Along with this announcement ICANN is posting several additional > > resources to inform applicants about the batching process. These include > > a: set of frequently asked questions (FAQs), video demonstration, user > > guide, batching details and rules, and a batching basics fact sheet, > > which all can be found on the Batching information webpage at > > http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/tas/batching/. Information on > > security, infrastructure, and operations is also available in these > > materials. > > > > > > > > This message was sent to ocl(a)gih.com from: > > > > ICANN | 4676 Admiralty Way Suite 330 | Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601 > > > > > > > > Email Marketing by iContact - Try It Free! > > <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > > > > < > > > http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9829257&l=6333&s=YVM2&m=884… > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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… > > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada > >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >_______________________________________________ >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…

3 3

Fwd: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 44 Public Forum agenda
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

Dear all, along in the flow of emails received recently, we have been asked again to provide details of the subjects we would like to discuss in the Public Forum in Prague. (see below) Suggestions are welcome. Matt will create a WIKI page shortly. Cutting off date for your suggestion is Friday 1st June 2012 so that I can send those to Filiz before the 4 June 2012. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: [Soac-infoalert] ICANN 44 Public Forum agenda Date : Wed, 9 May 2012 08:09:35 -0700 De : Filiz Yilmaz <filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org> Pour : soac-infoalert(a)icann.org <soac-infoalert(a)icann.org> Copie à : steve.crocker(a)icann.org <steve.crocker(a)icann.org> [Sent on behalf of Steve Crocker] Dear ICANN Community Leaders, We are approaching ICANN 44 in Prague. As usual, we will have a Public Forum that will take place on Thursday, 28 June 2012, where Community members can make comments and ask questions to the Board and in front of the rest of the community. Following the practice we had in the recent meetings, we would like to build the agenda with your input again as this facilitates the forum process and results in a productive session with the subjects that the Community thinks are important to talk about. Publishing the agenda as early as possible also facilitates more informed discussions during the Public Forum as we have experienced in recent meetings, allowing the Community ample time to be aware of the agenda topics before the meeting actually starts. Please let Filiz Yilmaz (filiz.yilmaz(a)icann.org) know of one or two suggested topics that your groups would like to see included in the Public Forum agenda in Prague, before the end of Monday, 4 June 2012. We will then review the suggestions, accommodate them as much as possible, combine common or related topics under one agenda topic and publish the agenda for the Public Forum after my approval. Thanks for your consideration and input. Kind regards, Steve Crocker

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership .
by Alan Greenberg June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

Staff has their arms full at the moment, so let's let the statement get posted as currently written. Once that is done, I will revise for voting and later re-posting during the reply period) which ends on the Thursday of the Prague meeting, so plenty of time). Alan At 06/06/2012 01:12 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Ah. OK. Thanks for the explanation. > >It may be too late to make this point element >clearer in the first paragraph of the statement >as Carlton has suggested, given the severe >timeline constraints. Nonetheless, I can support >it given what you've said, with or without the modification. > >- Evan > > >On 6 June 2012 11:47, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Evan, perhaps I am missing something, but here is my take. > >The comment says that the ALAC is in favour of >removing the cross-ownership constraints. This >is not conditional (it is for some of us a >statement grudgingly made because of a >preference for maintaining ownership limits >everywhere - but THAT decision was already irrevocably made). > >The concern is not with the removal of ownership >constraints, but with one of the methodologies >to implement this - namely the wholesale >transition to the new gTLD contract form. > >The comments says we support removing the >cross-ownership rules, but NOT by the wholesale >move to the new contract which makes a LOT of >other changes, most benign to users, some good >(such as thick whois) and some bad, such as the lifting of price caps. > >Alan > > >At 06/06/2012 10:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > > > >On 6 June 2012 03:53, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond > >< > ><https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ocl > >at gih.com> wrote: > > > > thank you for your kind follow-up on this. I understand that this > >was > > > a short comment period but have so far only see positive feedback > >about the > > > text. > > >That said, I'm still ambiguous about the wording. > > >Apparently, we're concerned about the price cap, but not enough to > >affect > >our approval of the policy. Tacking on "major" is IMO > >pointless. Either the > >issue is significant enough for ALAC to make support conditional on > >maintaining price controls, or it isn't. The wording of the statement > >allows our advice to be comfortably accepted as "support" and > >the trailer > >concern ignored. > > >The policy can be revisited after the gTLD rollout and we can determine > >if > >monopoly power still exists. > > >It's not likely I would vote in favour of the statement as worded. But > >I'm > >just one vote. > > >- Evan > > > > With today being the deadline for submitting comments and > > > with only positive feedback received both on the ALAC but also the > >wider > > > At-Large list, I have given the green light for staff proceed as > >follows > > > TODAY: > > > > > > - submit this final version to the public comment process, with a > >note > > > that the statement is currently undergoing ALAC ratification, > > > - create a wiki page for the comment with the first draft of your > >text > > > and the final version, as submitted, > > > - cut/paste all comments received on the ALAC and the At-Large lists > >and > > > display them as a comment on this Wiki page. > > > > > > This process ensures a better transparency and archiving of the > > > discussion for future reference, if needed. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Olivier > > > > > > On 06/06/2012 04:15, Alan Greenberg wrote : > > > > In light of Evan's comment, have made a change to the > >statement. Not > > > > exactly what he suggested, but I think in the same direction. > > > > > > > > I note that if a comment is to be submited by the ALAC, even a > > > > preliminary one, it must be done in the next 22 hours. > > > > > > > > Alan > > > > ========================== > > > > > > > > The ALAC and At-Large have multiple opinions on whether the > >removal > > > > of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for gTLD Operators will be to > >the > > > > benefit or detriment of users, or in fact, the domain > >ecosystem. > > > > There is, however, a unified position that whatever the > >environment > > > > is, with certain constraints, there should be a level playing > >field > > > > for all gTLD operators. > > > > > > > > As such, the ALAC supports the removal of cross-ownership > >constraints > > > > for existing gTLD operators. > > > > > > > > However, the ALAC does have one major concern with the > >proposal. The > > > > option for existing gTLD operators to transition to the new > >gTLD > > > > agreement would remove cross-ownership constraints, but it > >would also > > > > have a very significant other effect that has not been the > >subject of > > > > virtually any public discussion. Specifically, it would remove > >the > > > > price caps in the existing agreements, and that is not > >something that > > > > should quietly be slipped in without careful analysis. > > > > > > > > That transition would be subject to limits related to > >competition > > > > issues raised by the removal of the cross-ownership > >restrictions. The > > > > document is silent on other results of such a transition, and > > > > particularly the removal of price caps on existing operators. > > > > > > > > The ALAC does not believe that there is sufficient proof at > >this time > > > > to indicate that the new gTLD environment will so > >significantly > > > > change the gTLD market so that price caps are no longer > >required for > > > > the dominant gTLDs. As such, no change driven by the removal > >of > > > > cross-ownership restrictions should at the same time remove the > >price > > > > caps in the current agreements for dominant gTLDs without > >substantive > > > > community involvement. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > ALAC mailing list > > > > > ><https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC at > >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 CrÃ©pin-Leblond, PhD > > > > ><http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > > ><https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC > >at 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… > > >) > > > > > > > >-- > >Evan Leibovitch > >Toronto Canada > > >Em: evan at telly dot org > >Sk: evanleibovitch > >Tw: el56 > > > > >---------- >Previous message: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/002135.html>[ALAC] >Comment on proposal for the removal of existing >gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership . >Next message: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/002137.html>[ALAC] >Comment on proposal for the removal of existing >gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership . >Messages sorted by: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/date.html#2136>[ >date ] ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/thread.html#2136>[ >thread ] ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/subject.html#2136>[ >subject ] ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/author.html#2136>[ >author ] >---------- ><https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>More >information about the ALAC mailing list > > > > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >Toronto Canada >Em: evan at telly dot org >Sk: evanleibovitch >Tw: el56 >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large Improvements Project Taskforce] Link to the NOW ABSOLUTLY FINAL report :-)
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

Dear Cheryl, on behalf of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), I would like to thank you for your leadership in this very tough, challenging task force with very tight deadlines. Your driving and the incredible amount of work which At-Large staff has undertaken throughout the At-Large Review, follow-up to the review, Work Team Improvements and now Improvements implementation, but also the extensive amount of work which the At-Large community has produced as a whole, is testimony to the work that volunteers can furnish when working with qualified, competent staff. A few years ago, it was thought that this first full review of everything At-Large could happen in theory. This report is proof that it has happened in practice, and though practice is often a lot harder than theory, a lot was learnt by everyone along the line. ICANN is by no means perfect. Neither is At-Large today, far from it. For example, I still remember the recommendation that At-Large should have TWO appointed Board Seats. The next review cycle is probably just around the corner. But then, what a different At-Large it will be compared to the start of the last review cycle! Our determination is the same: harder, better, faster, stronger. It's all thanks to you: leadership, volunteers, staff. Kudos to you all. Olivier On 05/06/2012 05:42, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote : > It is with GREAT pleasure that I send you the link to the Final Report > that the ALAC is about to ratify/vote on... after todays call staff > and I managed to format and edit it down to a mere 27 pages the 4 of > main report text and the appendicies (which considering the start was > 47 is VERY impressive indeed.... > > As Chair of this WG I want to than each and every one of you for the > great contributions you have made in this project and give a > particular 'shout out' to our amazing staff, who certainly today but > all so often go WAY Beyond the expected norms for us, and it makes > us volunteers look so darn good :-) > > THANKS Again TEAM > > /Cheryl Langdon-Orr ... /*(CLO)* > http://about.me/cheryl.LangdonOrr > > > > _______________________________________________ > at-large-improvements-project-taskforce mailing list > at-large-improvements-project-taskforce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large-improvements-project-taskfor… -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership .
by Alan Greenberg June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

Evan, perhaps I am missing something, but here is my take. The comment says that the ALAC is in favour of removing the cross-ownership constraints. This is not conditional (it is for some of us a statement grudgingly made because of a preference for maintaining ownership limits everywhere - but THAT decision was already irrevocably made). The concern is not with the removal of ownership constraints, but with one of the methodologies to implement this - namely the wholesale transition to the new gTLD contract form. The comments says we support removing the cross-ownership rules, but NOT by the wholesale move to the new contract which makes a LOT of other changes, most benign to users, some good (such as thick whois) and some bad, such as the lifting of price caps. Alan At 06/06/2012 10:30 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: On 6 June 2012 03:53, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ocl at gih.com> wrote: > thank you for your kind follow-up on this. I understand that this was > a short comment period but have so far only see positive feedback about the > text. That said, I'm still ambiguous about the wording. Apparently, we're concerned about the price cap, but not enough to affect our approval of the policy. Tacking on "major" is IMO pointless. Either the issue is significant enough for ALAC to make support conditional on maintaining price controls, or it isn't. The wording of the statement allows our advice to be comfortably accepted as "support" and the trailer concern ignored. The policy can be revisited after the gTLD rollout and we can determine if monopoly power still exists. It's not likely I would vote in favour of the statement as worded. But I'm just one vote. - Evan > With today being the deadline for submitting comments and > with only positive feedback received both on the ALAC but also the wider > At-Large list, I have given the green light for staff proceed as follows > TODAY: > > - submit this final version to the public comment process, with a note > that the statement is currently undergoing ALAC ratification, > - create a wiki page for the comment with the first draft of your text > and the final version, as submitted, > - cut/paste all comments received on the ALAC and the At-Large lists and > display them as a comment on this Wiki page. > > This process ensures a better transparency and archiving of the > discussion for future reference, if needed. > > Kind regards, > > Olivier > > On 06/06/2012 04:15, Alan Greenberg wrote : > > In light of Evan's comment, have made a change to the statement. Not > > exactly what he suggested, but I think in the same direction. > > > > I note that if a comment is to be submited by the ALAC, even a > > preliminary one, it must be done in the next 22 hours. > > > > Alan > > ========================== > > > > The ALAC and At-Large have multiple opinions on whether the removal > > of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for gTLD Operators will be to the > > benefit or detriment of users, or in fact, the domain ecosystem. > > There is, however, a unified position that whatever the environment > > is, with certain constraints, there should be a level playing field > > for all gTLD operators. > > > > As such, the ALAC supports the removal of cross-ownership constraints > > for existing gTLD operators. > > > > However, the ALAC does have one major concern with the proposal. The > > option for existing gTLD operators to transition to the new gTLD > > agreement would remove cross-ownership constraints, but it would also > > have a very significant other effect that has not been the subject of > > virtually any public discussion. Specifically, it would remove the > > price caps in the existing agreements, and that is not something that > > should quietly be slipped in without careful analysis. > > > > That transition would be subject to limits related to competition > > issues raised by the removal of the cross-ownership restrictions. The > > document is silent on other results of such a transition, and > > particularly the removal of price caps on existing operators. > > > > The ALAC does not believe that there is sufficient proof at this time > > to indicate that the new gTLD environment will so significantly > > change the gTLD market so that price caps are no longer required for > > the dominant gTLDs. As such, no change driven by the removal of > > cross-ownership restrictions should at the same time remove the price > > caps in the current agreements for dominant gTLDs without substantive > > community involvement. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC at 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+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > -- > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD > <http://www.gih.com/ocl.html>http://www.gih.com/ocl.html > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>ALAC at 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+%28…>https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 ---------- * Previous message: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/002135.html>[ALAC] Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership . * Next message: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/002137.html>[ALAC] Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership . * Messages sorted by: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/date.html#2136>[ date ] <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/thread.html#2136>[ thread ] <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/subject.html#2136>[ subject ] <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac/2012/author.html#2136>[ author ] ---------- <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac>More information about the ALAC mailing list

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Comment on proposal for the removal of existing gTLD-Registrar cross-ownership .
by Alan Greenberg June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

In light of Evan's comment, have made a change to the statement. Not exactly what he suggested, but I think in the same direction. I note that if a comment is to be submited by the ALAC, even a preliminary one, it must be done in the next 22 hours. Alan ========================== The ALAC and At-Large have multiple opinions on whether the removal of Cross-Ownership Restrictions for gTLD Operators will be to the benefit or detriment of users, or in fact, the domain ecosystem. There is, however, a unified position that whatever the environment is, with certain constraints, there should be a level playing field for all gTLD operators. As such, the ALAC supports the removal of cross-ownership constraints for existing gTLD operators. However, the ALAC does have one major concern with the proposal. The option for existing gTLD operators to transition to the new gTLD agreement would remove cross-ownership constraints, but it would also have a very significant other effect that has not been the subject of virtually any public discussion. Specifically, it would remove the price caps in the existing agreements, and that is not something that should quietly be slipped in without careful analysis. That transition would be subject to limits related to competition issues raised by the removal of the cross-ownership restrictions. The document is silent on other results of such a transition, and particularly the removal of price caps on existing operators. The ALAC does not believe that there is sufficient proof at this time to indicate that the new gTLD environment will so significantly change the gTLD market so that price caps are no longer required for the dominant gTLDs. As such, no change driven by the removal of cross-ownership restrictions should at the same time remove the price caps in the current agreements for dominant gTLDs without substantive community involvement.

4 3