- ALAC - lists.icann.org

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

April 15, 2010

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

1 0

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

April 14, 2010

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

5 7

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

April 13, 2010

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

1 0

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

April 9, 2010

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

1 0

Comments on Proposed Framework for FY11 Operating Plan and Budget from ALAC (subject to current VOTE / Ratification)
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr April 2, 2010

April 2, 2010

Please find attached the ALAC Comments made on behalf the ALAC by the ExCom drafting team, and subject to current ratification and Vote by the ALAC to become a Statement of the ALAC. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010

1 0

GNSO Motion on AC/SO WG to support new gTLD bids requiring assistance
by Alan Greenberg March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

Following is the motion to be discussed in tomorrow's gTLD. The only change from the version I previously sent out is the last clause in the first "resolved" statement: keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs This statement is equivalent to one in the Board resolution. It is unclear why it was added, but it does not change the intent. PLEASE NOTE that the timing in the motion says that the group should start working within 28 days and is expected to deliver a report by Brussels (ie, several weeks before). If we are to meet these constraints, we will really need to approve the WG PRIOR to out 27 April meeting. Alan ==================================================== MOTION TO CREATE JOINT SO/AC WORKING GROUP ON NEW GTLD APPLICANT SUPPORT: Whereas, ICANN aims to ensure that the New gTLD Program is inclusive, along the lines of the organization's strategic objectives; Whereas, numerous stakeholders have, on various occasions, expressed concern about the cost of applying and about the material requirements for new gTLDs, and suggested that these costs and material conditions might hinder applicants requiring assistance, especially those from developing regions, from cultural/linguistic groups and from non-profit groups such as philanthropies, Whereas, on 13 March 2010, the ICANN Board adopted Resolution 20 (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/resolutions-12mar10-en.htm#20) requesting that stakeholders work with their respective ACs and SOs to form a working group to provide a sustainable approach to providing support to applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS; Whereas, the GNSO Council desires to form a joint working group with other interested Supporting Organizations (SO's) and Advisory Committee (AC's) to fulfill this Board request, and to develop a sustainable approach to providing support to such new GTLD applicants; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT: Resolved, that the GNSO Council supports the formation of a joint SO/AC working group to respond to the Board's request by developing a sustainable approach to providing support to new gTLD applicants requiring assistance in applying for and operating new gTLDS keeping in mind the GNSO Implementation guideline to recover the cost of new gTLD applications and on-going services to new gTLDs; Resolved further, that Rafik Dammak shall serve as the GNSO Council Liaison for this joint SO/AC working group; Resolved further, that the GNSO Council Chair shall within 48 hours of this motion inform the Chairs of other SO's and the AC's of this action and encourage their participation; Resolved further, that ICANN Staff shall within seven calendar days of this motion identify and assign applicable Staff support for this working group and arrange for support tools such as a mailing list, website and other tools as needed; Resolved further, that the staff support assigned to this working group shall within 48 hours after the support tools are arranged distribute an invitation for working group participants as widely as possible within the SO/AC community; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall initiate its activities within 28 days after the approval of this motion. Until such time as the WG can select a chair and that chair can be confirmed by the participating SO's and AC's, the GNSO Council Liaison shall act as interim co-chair with the liaison(s) from other SO's and AC's; Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall as its first action items: i) elect a chair or co-chairs; ii) establish meeting times as needed; and iii) develop and propose a charter describing its tasks and schedule of deliverables for approval by the participating SO's and AC's. Resolved further, that the New gTLD Applicant Support WG shall deliver its initial recommendation for community comment in time for discussion at the Brussels ICANN meeting.

1 0

Re: [ALAC] RAA process
by Heidi Ullrich March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

I’m very happy to assist in organizing an At-Large/ALAC-Registrars meeting in Brussels. With only 43 working days until the 38th ICANN meeting begins, it would be useful to begin the planning as soon as possible. Kind regards, Heidi From: Tim Cole Sent: Sunday, March 28, 2010 2:11 PM To: langdonorr(a)gmail.com; masonc(a)snapnames.com; Heidi Ullrich Cc: met(a)msk.com; David Olive; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: RAA process I'm sure Heidi and I can make that happen, Cheryl. Tim Tim Cole Chief Registrar Liaison ICANN _ Written on my Blackberry - please excuse any typos. ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> To: Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com>; Heidi Ullrich Cc: Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com>; David Olive; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole; ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Sun Mar 28 13:51:40 2010 Subject: Re: RAA process Excellent Mason (always happy to hear affirmation of these things) => and to that end as we have not had a 'formal' ALAC - At-Large and Registrars meeting/get together for a few ICANN meetings lately (since our tiny beginning back at the Delhi meeting) shall we both ensure that Tim and Heidi have one in our Meeting Agenda's for Brussels? I'll get Heidi to follow up directly with you and Tim... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 29 March 2010 05:38, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com<mailto:masonc@snapnames.com>> wrote: Cheryl, registrars are always willing to discuss issues of concern with the ALAC or any other group. The point of my initial e-mail simply is to ensure all understand that negotiations of any future RAA amendments will be solely between the entities that are party to the contract. ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 4:23 PM To: Mason Cole Cc: Metalitz, Steven; david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: RAA process SO sorry to have confused you Mason... and pleased that my concern over how I read your note was apparently unfounded... As you know I and my community know well Mason the joint GNSO - ALAC RAA-WG's (a&b) processes are of course inclusive of our views it was mandated to be that way! However these activities are one thing... Any future actions as a result of outcomes and recommendations is another, and that is where I was focusing my point of concern... What happens next and what the attitudes of the gTLD Domain Name Industry might be to those (once decided). To that end as I stated, ALAC would be happy to start a dialog with the Industries leaders, in an appropriate fora, at any time. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 09:58, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com<mailto:masonc@snapnames.com>> wrote: Steve and Cheryl – I’m confused by Cheryl’s note. I hope what I read below isn’t a conclusion that registrars are unwilling to discuss the community’s input – that obviously is not the case. In fact, the entire RAA process, today and for some months now, already is being informed by end-user and consumer input by virtue of ALAC’s involvement in the subteam, and by solicitation of the community’s points of view. That, however, is entirely different from contract negotiation. As a private party, registrars have no obligation to negotiate their contracts with the ICANN community – only the ICANN corporation. As a bottom-up organization, of course ICANN staff should receive input as to potential changes the community would like to see; while that should help inform staff, the negotiations are handled between the parties to the agreement, just as was the case in the last round of negotiations. Steve, to your e-mail, I’m not an attorney and certainly did not mean to insinuate bad faith on the part of the subteam. My point was that the registrars and ICANN, in the last round of negotiations, took input from the community and, during negotiations between the parties to the contract, incorporated it as appropriate into the RAA now in effect. Registrars agreed in good faith at that time to work with the community to review and consider further changes to the agreement – which, I should point out, doesn’t expire for another four years – but have the expectation that negotiation of the contract is between only the contracted parties, just as was the process in the last round. I’m asking our subteam members to see if there’s a specific reference on the list about expectation-setting with regard to negotiating parties. There may not be one there, though the absence of one is hardly latitude for an expectation otherwise. I do remember very clearly Tim Ruiz making that point in the subteam meeting in Seoul. Further, stakeholder group leadership has had explicit discussions with staff, going back to June 2009, explicitly discussing the fact that the RAA is not a policy document, and that its terms are negotiated only between contracted parties, either at the conclusion of the agreement in effect, or at the parties’ mutually agreed-to time prior. If it makes sense to restate that position to the subteam formally, I’m certain Tim or Jon can do so. I appreciate the candor from you both. Our intention here is always to be constructive and to keep the process appropriately focused. Regards, Mason ________________________________ From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com<mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com>] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 3:01 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: Mason Cole; david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole; gnso-raa-b(a)icann.org<mailto:gnso-raa-b@icann.org>; ALAC Working List Subject: Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our attention) from Mason, Steve... Which unsurprisingly has my full support... What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>should any form of Industry best practice model(s) or Industry Codes developed (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen without complete stakeholder involvement? In other words in the absence of end user and consumer input! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are leaders in this area. Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora. Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com<mailto:met@msk.com>> wrote: Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG"). Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of course I would be glad to stand corrected. While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns. Steve Metalitz ________________________________ From: Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com<mailto:masonc@snapnames.com>] Sent: Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM To: Metalitz, Steven Cc: david.olive(a)icann.org<mailto:david.olive@icann.org>; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole Subject: RAA process Steve – I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this process, and your team is currently focused on task 1. However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).” I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in negotiations. Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position. Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so. Regards, Mason

1 0

Some information on the rogue root server instance in China
by Patrick Vande Walle March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

http://www.betanews.com/article/With-three-months-to-go-to-DNSSEC-someones-… To summarize: last week, an anycast instance of the I root server stated exhibiting a strange behaviour. Some replies appeared to be spoofed. Autonomica, the Swedish company managing the I root, claims their anycast instance in China is identical to the other instances they have around the world. In other words, they serve the same root zone, not something that would be "adapted" to the Chinese Internet regulations. CNNIC, on their side, say they are just supplying the power and the bandwidth. There is a lively discussion on the origin of this malfunction on the SSAC list. Opinions differ, but the research is going on. However, some raised the issue of the accountability of root server operators, and the fact that the absence of a contractual framework (minus L-root) between them and ICANN means that no-one is able to formally complain and seek redress. It is all a question of good faith and willingness on the side of the rootops. I think indeed that ICANN will have to think about a contractual framework with the root zone operators in the future, along the lines of the registry agreements. After all, the Internet users deserve the same level of service from the root that they get from gTLD operators. I am not saying that the rootops have done a bad job. Quite the contrary. They have done an outstanding volunteer job. However, there should be a mechanism to replace a root operator that fails for whatever reason. -- Patrick Vande Walle Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Facebook: http://facebook.vande-walle.eu

4 4

Re: [ALAC] RAA process
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

Excellent Mason (always happy to hear affirmation of these things) => and to that end as we have not had a 'formal' ALAC - At-Large and Registrars meeting/get together for a few ICANN meetings lately (since our tiny beginning back at the Delhi meeting) shall we both ensure that Tim and Heidi have one in our Meeting Agenda's for Brussels? I'll get Heidi to follow up directly with you and Tim... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 29 March 2010 05:38, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com> wrote: > Cheryl, registrars are always willing to discuss issues of concern with > the ALAC or any other group. The point of my initial e-mail simply is to > ensure all understand that negotiations of any future RAA amendments will be > solely between the entities that are party to the contract. > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 4:23 PM > *To:* Mason Cole > *Cc:* Metalitz, Steven; david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; > Tim Cole; ALAC Working List > *Subject:* Re: RAA process > > > > SO sorry to have confused you Mason... and pleased that my concern over how > I read your note was apparently unfounded... > > > > As you know I and my community know well Mason the joint GNSO - ALAC > RAA-WG's (a&b) processes are of course inclusive of our views it was > mandated to be that way! However these activities are one thing... Any > future actions as a result of outcomes and recommendations is another, and > that is where I was focusing my point of concern... What happens next and > what the attitudes of the gTLD Domain Name Industry might be to those (once > decided). > > > > To that end as I stated, ALAC would be happy to start a dialog with the > Industries leaders, in an appropriate fora, at any time. > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > On 27 March 2010 09:58, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com> wrote: > > Steve and Cheryl – > > > > I’m confused by Cheryl’s note. I hope what I read below isn’t a conclusion > that registrars are unwilling to discuss the community’s input – that > obviously is not the case. In fact, the entire RAA process, today and for > some months now, *already is* being informed by end-user and consumer > input by virtue of ALAC’s involvement in the subteam, and by solicitation of > the community’s points of view. > > > > That, however, is entirely different from contract negotiation. As a > private party, registrars have no obligation to negotiate their contracts > with the ICANN community – only the ICANN corporation. As a bottom-up > organization, of course ICANN staff should receive input as to potential > changes the community would like to see; while that should help inform > staff, the negotiations are handled between the parties to the agreement, > just as was the case in the last round of negotiations. > > > > Steve, to your e-mail, I’m not an attorney and certainly did not mean to > insinuate bad faith on the part of the subteam. My point was that the > registrars and ICANN, in the last round of negotiations, took input from the > community and, during negotiations between the parties to the contract, > incorporated it as appropriate into the RAA now in effect. Registrars > agreed in good faith at that time to work with the community to review and > consider further changes to the agreement – which, I should point out, > doesn’t expire for another four years – but have the expectation that > negotiation of the contract is between only the contracted parties, just as > was the process in the last round. > > I’m asking our subteam members to see if there’s a specific reference on > the list about expectation-setting with regard to negotiating parties. > There may not be one there, though the absence of one is hardly latitude for > an expectation otherwise. I do remember very clearly Tim Ruiz making that > point in the subteam meeting in Seoul. > > Further, stakeholder group leadership has had explicit discussions with > staff, going back to June 2009, explicitly discussing the fact that the RAA > is not a policy document, and that its terms are negotiated only between > contracted parties, either at the conclusion of the agreement in effect, or > at the parties’ mutually agreed-to time prior. If it makes sense to restate > that position to the subteam formally, I’m certain Tim or Jon can do so. > > I appreciate the candor from you both. Our intention here is always to be > constructive and to keep the process appropriately focused. > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:langdonorr@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 3:01 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* Mason Cole; david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim > Cole; gnso-raa-b(a)icann.org; ALAC Working List > *Subject:* Re: [gnso-raa-b] RE: RAA process > > > > Thank you for your response to this message (and for forwarding it to our > attention) from Mason, Steve... > > > > Which unsurprisingly has my full support... > > > > What Mason's note has also raised in my mind however is however, is =>*should > any form of Industry best practice* model(s) or Industry Codes developed > (and it is more than timely that that happens in my view, as the sector is > mature enough now to have that happen {overdue of course in some peoples > views} and we have mentioned and discussed such options in several different > GNSO working groups as we ponder various issues) are we to assume that the > gTLD Domain Name Industry would believe that such discussion and > deliberation (let alone policy development) would or should happen *without > complete stakeholder involvement*? In other words *in the absence of end > user and consumer input*! Certainly that is NOT the basis for the > successful experiences I have had in both the Domain Name and > Telecommunications Industries here in Australis and I posit that we are > leaders in this area. > > > > Not a topic for this WG per se I suppose, but a matter that now raised DOES > need to be dealt with in an appropriate fora. > > > > Tim perhaps you and Mason might like to consider this an invitation for > a dialog with the ALAC on this to begin. > > > > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > On 27 March 2010 04:43, Metalitz, Steven <met(a)msk.com> wrote: > > > Thank you for this, Mason, which of course I will by this message circulate > to subteam B (which I assume is what you are referring to as "the WG"). > > > > Contrary to your message, I do not believe that any of the registrars > participating in subteam B have ever enunciated there the position that no > one but registrars and ICANN can participate in negotiation of amendments to > the RAA. If you can point me to any posting on our extensive e-mail > archive, or in the mp3 recordings, in which this was stated "many times", of > course I would be glad to stand corrected. > > > > While I disagree with your insinuation that the proposal for a more > comprehensive negotiating team, were it to be recommended by the subteam -- > and it has not been so recommended yet -- would somehow be in "bad faith" > or inconsistent with some "agreement" that the "community" has made with the > registrars, I look forward to further discussion of this topic within the > subteam, in which of course those registrars who are participating in the > subteam would have every opportunity to express their concerns. > > > > Steve Metalitz > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* Mason Cole [mailto:masonc@snapnames.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 26, 2010 1:25 PM > *To:* Metalitz, Steven > *Cc:* david.olive(a)icann.org; Margie Milam; Kurt Pritz; Tim Cole > *Subject:* RAA process > > Steve – > > > > I’m contacting you in my capacity as chair of the Registrars SG. The > registrars are in receipt of your proposed steps for considering amendments > to the RAA (Subteam B, Task 3). I understand it’s still very early in this > process, and your team is currently focused on task 1. > > > > However, registrars are very concerned about elements of your proposal. > Specifically, about ICANN forming a negotiating team including > “representatives of registrant and third-party interests (including CSG, > NCSG, ALAC, chosen by those groups).” > > > > I need to underline here politely but as firmly as possible that there are > only two parties to the RAA – registrars and ICANN, the formal entity – and > those two parties are the only ones involved in negotiating changes that > cannot be made through the consensus process. The registrars in the WG have > stated many times to the WG, and believed it to be clearly understood, that > there should be no expectation that the group can anticipate involvement in > negotiations. > > > > Following the vote on the last round of amendments, the registrars agreed > in good faith to a process for suggestion and consideration of additional > possible amendments. We intend to hold up our end of that agreement, and > expect both ICANN staff and the community to honor this reasonable position. > > > > Please feel free to share this with the rest of the WG. If I can follow up > in a way useful to the WG, I’m happy to do so. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mason > > > > > > > > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Fwd: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

Thanks Frank... Now the work begins! From my POV I think ALAC should set up a Wikispace/Commons where any one can raise issues or opinions on this important matter and to encourage discussion and debate on what is raised there... In this way I can refer to current input from our community and use that to develop whatever outreach planning the Review Team will be no doubt discussing early on its processes. So I'll discuss this at the next ExCom meeting and let these lists know what and when things will be set up... Another thought is (in case anyone wished to forward matters via email for my attention) is to set up an @at-large-lists address for this purpose... What do you think any views?? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 27 March 2010 08:31, Franck Martin <franck.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Congratulations! > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> > To: "ALAC Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large > Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Sent: Saturday, 27 March, 2010 10:28:57 AM > Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: Status of your application for a position on the > Accountability and Transparency Review Team > > Received overnight (well for me overnight it's my Sat morning here in the > antipodeas) from Alice Jansen... The following informs me that I have been > retained as part of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: RT Candidatures <rtcandidatures(a)icann.org> > Date: 27 March 2010 01:04 > Subject: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability > and > Transparency Review Team > To: langdonorr(a)gmail.com > > > Dear Mrs. Langdon-Orr, > > > > We are contacting you on behalf of Mr. Janis Karklins, Chair of the GAC, > and > Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors (the > Selectors of the first Review Team), and we would like to update you on > your > application status for a position on the Accountability and Transparency > review team. > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

3 2