- ALAC - lists.icann.org

More on Registrar Listings
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 21, 2009

Aug. 21, 2009

Here's an update from the Registrar Liaisons. I'm sure they'd be happy to answer further questions about the timing or additional information. --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [#IJU-411699]: Registrar listings Date: Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:02:07 -0700 From: ICANN Registrar Liaison <registrar(a)icann.org> Reply-To: registrar(a)icann.org To: wendy(a)seltzer.com CC: tim.cole(a)icann.org Dear Wendy, ICANN plans to make available a new accredited logo for registrars that have adopted the 2009 RAA and to identify registrars on its website based on the version of the RAA they have signed. These provisions are expected to take place later this year. I stay at your disposal, should you have any further question. Best regards, Steve Gobin Registrar Liaison Manager ICANN Brussels Office http://www.icann.org http://www.internic.net -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the August 25th meeting - English, French and Spanish
by carlos aguirre Aug. 20, 2009

Aug. 20, 2009

I. support, of course!!! Carlos Aguirre Enviado desde mi dispositivo inalámbrico BlackBerry® de Claro Argentina -----Original Message----- From: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr> Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:11:26 To: <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Cc: <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the August 25th meeting - English, French and Spanish I would like to support this motion and the proceeding suggested. Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr www.egeni.org <http://www.egeni.org> www.isoc.fr <http://www.isoc.fr> > -----Message d'origine----- > De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- <mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-> > lists.icann.org] De la part de Cheryl Langdon-Orr > Envoyé : jeudi 20 août 2009 19:03 > À : Alan Greenberg > Cc : ALAC Working List > Objet : Re: [ALAC] Proposed motion for the August 25th meeting - > English, French and Spanish > > In my capacity as APRALO rep to ALAC ( as opposed to my role as Chair) > I'd > be delighted to second this motion... and will include it on the > Agenda for > decision... can we as Alan asks discuss this prior to the actual > meeting if > needs be for much discussion that is... > CLO > > 2009/8/21 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > I propose that the ALAC discuss the following motion, and if there is > QUICK > > consensus, that we adopt it. If it will require additional > consultation and > > discussion, it can be postponed, but for a number of reason, it would > be > > VERY timely if the Board had this sooner rather than later. > > > > In the interest of expediency, I have included machine translations > into > > French and Spanish. > > > > Alan > > ====================================== > > > > Whereas the ICANN Board adopted an amended Registrar Accreditation > > Agreement (RAA) to be used for all new accreditations or renewals > after 21 > > May 2009; > > Whereas this RAA takes effect for any specific registrar at some > point > > between 22 May 2009 and 21 May 2014; > > Whereas is it virtually impossible for a registrant or potential > registrant > > to know when the new RAA will be in use by their elected registrar; > > Whereas discussions are now beginning on another possible RAA > amendment, > > potentially resulting in three different RAA's being in use at the > same > > time; > > > > The ALAC recommends to the ICANN Board that it take steps to ensure > that > > the official list of ICANN Registrars ( > > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html <http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html> ) include an > > statement, for each accredited registrar, of which RAA currently > applies, > > and the date that the new RAA will become effective. > > > > The ALAC further recommends the contact information currently > available > > only in the Internic web site (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html <http://www.internic.net/alpha.html> ) be > made > > available on the same ICANN list of registrars and that the complaint > for > > currently resident only on the Internic web site be moved to the > ICANN web > > site. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > Notes: > > > > 1. "Internic" is a trade mark of the US department of Commerce used > under > > license by ICANN. > > 2. As of this time, ICANN has said that over 50% of all current > > registrations are operating under the new RAA, but we do not know > what > > percentage of registrars that covers. > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > Considérant que l'ICANN a adopté une version modifiée de Registrar > > Accreditation Agreement (RAA) à utiliser pour toutes les nouvelles > > accréditations ou de renouvellement après le 21 Mai 2009; > > Considérant que cette prise d'effet de RAA pour tout enregistrement à > un > > certain moment entre le 22 Mai 2009 et le 21 Mai 2014; > > Considérant qu'il est pratiquement impossible pour une personne > inscrite ou > > potentiel de savoir quand la nouvelle RAA sera utilisé par les élus > > d'enregistrement; > > Considérant que les discussions ont commencé sur un autre possible > RAA > > modification, résultant potentiellement en trois RAA soit utilisé à > la même > > heure; > > > > L'ALAC recommande à l'ICANN de prendre des mesures pour s'assurer que > la > > liste officielle des bureaux d'enregistrement ICANN ( > > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html <http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html> ) comporter > une > > déclaration, pour chaque bureau d'enregistrement accrédité, du RAA, > qui > > s'applique actuellement, et la date que la nouvelle RAA sera > effective. > > > > L'ALAC recommande en outre de l'information actuellement disponible > que > > dans la Internic site web (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html <http://www.internic.net/alpha.html> ) sont > > disponibles sur la même liste de bureaux d'enregistrement ICANN et > que la > > plainte pour résident actuellement que sur la Internic site être > déplacé > > dans le site Web de l'ICANN. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > Notes: > > > > 1. "Internic" est une marque déposée de l'US Department of Commerce, > > utilisée sous licence par l'ICANN. > > 2. À partir de ce moment-là, l'ICANN a dit que plus de 50% de tous > les > > enregistrements sont en cours d'exploitation dans le cadre du nouveau > RAA, > > mais nous ne savons pas quel est le pourcentage de bureaux > d'enregistrement > > qui couvre. > > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > Considerando que la Junta de la ICANN aprobó una modificación de > Acuerdo de > > Acreditación de Registradores (RAA), que se utiliza para todas las > nuevas > > acreditaciones o renovaciones después del 21 de mayo de 2009; > > Considerando que la presente RAA en vigor para cada registro, en > algún > > momento entre el 22 de mayo 2009 y 21 de mayo de 2014; > > Considerando que es prácticamente imposible que un solicitante de > registro > > o posibles solicitantes de registro para saber cuándo el nuevo RAA > estará en > > uso por sus elegidos registrador; > > Considerando que los debates están empezando en otra posible > modificación > > RAA, potencialmente resultando en tres diferentes RAA se está en uso, > al > > mismo tiempo; > > > > El ALAC recomienda a la Junta de que la ICANN tome medidas para que > la > > lista oficial de Registradores de la ICANN ( > > http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html <http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html> ) incluir una > > declaración, para cada registrador acreditado, de RAA, que se aplica > en la > > actualidad, y la fecha en que el nuevo RAA será efectiva. > > > > El ALAC recomienda, además, la información de contacto disponible > > actualmente sólo en el sitio web de Internic ( > > http://www.internic.net/alpha.html <http://www.internic.net/alpha.html> ) estarán disponibles en la misma > lista > > de registradores de la ICANN, y que la denuncia sólo para residentes > > actualmente en el Internic sitio web se mueve a la página web de la > ICANN. > > > > -------------------------------------- > > > > Notas: > > > > 1. "Internic" es una marca registrada de los EE.UU. Departamento de > > Comercio utilizada bajo licencia por la ICANN. > > 2. A partir de este momento, la ICANN ha dicho que más del 50% de > todos los > > registros están en funcionamiento en el marco del nuevo RAA, pero no > sabemos > > qué porcentaje de los registradores que cubre. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-> > lists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac <http://st.icann.org/alac> > > > > > > -- > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) >_______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-> > lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org> > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac <http://st.icann.org/alac> _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org <http://www.atlarge.icann.org> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac <http://st.icann.org/alac>

1 0

REVISED: Proposed motion for the August 25th meeting - English, French and Spanish
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 20, 2009

Aug. 20, 2009

This version corrects an error in English ("complaint for" instead of "complaint form") and the associated translations. This is also now on the web at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?recommendation_to_the_board_related_to_…. -------------------- I propose that the ALAC discuss the following motion, and if there is QUICK consensus, that we adopt it. If it will require additional consultation and discussion, it can be postponed, but for a number of reason, it would be VERY timely if the Board had this sooner rather than later. In the interest of expediency, I have included machine translations into French and Spanish. Alan ====================================== Whereas the ICANN Board adopted an amended Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) to be used for all new accreditations or renewals after 21 May 2009; Whereas this RAA takes effect for any specific registrar at some point between 22 May 2009 and 21 May 2014; Whereas is it virtually impossible for a registrant or potential registrant to know when the new RAA will be in use by their elected registrar; Whereas discussions are now beginning on another possible RAA amendment, potentially resulting in three different RAA's being in use at the same time; The ALAC recommends to the ICANN Board that it take steps to ensure that the official list of ICANN Registrars (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) include an statement, for each accredited registrar, of which RAA currently applies, and the date that the new RAA will become effective. The ALAC further recommends the contact information currently available only in the Internic web site (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) be made available on the same ICANN list of registrars and that the complaint form currently resident only on the Internic web site (http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi) be moved to the ICANN web site. -------------------------------------- Notes: 1. "Internic" is a trade mark of the US department of Commerce used under license by ICANN. 2. As of this time, ICANN has said that over 50% of all current registrations are operating under the new RAA, but we do not know what percentage of registrars that covers. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Considérant que l'ICANN a adopté une version modifiée de Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) à utiliser pour toutes les nouvelles accréditations ou de renouvellement après le 21 Mai 2009; Considérant que cette prise d'effet de RAA pour tout enregistrement à un certain moment entre le 22 Mai 2009 et le 21 Mai 2014; Considérant qu'il est pratiquement impossible pour une personne inscrite ou potentiel de savoir quand la nouvelle RAA sera utilisé par les élus d'enregistrement; Considérant que les discussions ont commencé sur un autre possible RAA modification, résultant potentiellement en trois RAA soit utilisé à la même heure; L'ALAC recommande à l'ICANN de prendre des mesures pour s'assurer que la liste officielle des bureaux d'enregistrement ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) comporter une déclaration, pour chaque bureau d'enregistrement accrédité, du RAA, qui s'applique actuellement, et la date que la nouvelle RAA sera effective. L'ALAC recommande en outre de l'information actuellement disponible que dans la Internic site web (<http://www.internic.net/alpha.html>) sont disponibles sur la même liste de bureaux d'enregistrement ICANN et que la plainte est actuellement résident seulement sur le site Web Internic (http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi) être déplacé dans le site Web de l'ICANN. -------------------------------------- Notes: 1. "Internic" est une marque déposée de l'US Department of Commerce, utilisée sous licence par l'ICANN. 2. À partir de ce moment-là, l'ICANN a dit que plus de 50% de tous les enregistrements sont en cours d'exploitation dans le cadre du nouveau RAA, mais nous ne savons pas quel est le pourcentage de bureaux d'enregistrement qui couvre. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Considerando que la Junta de la ICANN aprobó una modificación de Acuerdo de Acreditación de Registradores (RAA), que se utiliza para todas las nuevas acreditaciones o renovaciones después del 21 de mayo de 2009; Considerando que la presente RAA en vigor para cada registro, en algún momento entre el 22 de mayo 2009 y 21 de mayo de 2014; Considerando que es prácticamente imposible que un solicitante de registro o posibles solicitantes de registro para saber cuándo el nuevo RAA estará en uso por sus elegidos registrador; Considerando que los debates están empezando en otra posible modificación RAA, potencialmente resultando en tres diferentes RAA se está en uso, al mismo tiempo; El ALAC recomienda a la Junta de que la ICANN tome medidas para que la lista oficial de Registradores de la ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) incluir una declaración, para cada registrador acreditado, de RAA, que se aplica en la actualidad, y la fecha en que el nuevo RAA será efectiva. El ALAC recomienda, además, la información de contacto disponible actualmente sólo en el sitio web de Internic (<http://www.internic.net/alpha.html>) estarán disponibles en la misma lista de registradores de la ICANN, y que la forma de queja actualmente residente sólo Internic (http://reports.internic.net/cgi/registrars/problem-report.cgi) en el sitio web de ser trasladado a la página web de la ICANN. -------------------------------------- Notas: 1. "Internic" es una marca registrada de los EE.UU. Departamento de Comercio utilizada bajo licencia por la ICANN. 2. A partir de este momento, la ICANN ha dicho que más del 50% de todos los registros están en funcionamiento en el marco del nuevo RAA, pero no sabemos qué porcentaje de los registradores que cubre.

1 0

Call with Rod Beckstrom Tuesday 2000 UTC - schedule change
by At-Large Staff Aug. 17, 2009

Aug. 17, 2009

Dear Members: After speaking with Cheryl earlier today, we wish to let you know that the call with Rod will be rescheduled to allow greater time for the agenda to be finalised. We have requested the same time and date one week later. As soon as we have confirmation we shall let you all know. Meanwhile, the existing call time tomorrow will be used for those interested, alongside ALAC's officers, to finalise the agenda for the teleconference. -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

Karl Auerbach wrote: > On 08/14/2009 12:33 AM, Roberto Gaetano wrote: >> Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for >> evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting. > > The point that I was trying to make was something altogether apart > from the tasting issue. > > Rather, I was suggesting that the tasting issue provided yet another > chunk of evidence that the registry fees are completely out-of-line > with the actual cost of providing the registry services. And the cost of Coca Cola is totally out of line with the price of sugar and water. But that's not the point. ICANN, its wisdom, has made the philosophical call that domain names are to be treated as commodities rather than identities, and as such are subject the the whims of the market. The price of a domain is related simply to what others are willing to pay for it, not the cost to deliver. Verisign's shareholders should expect no less. Having chosen the commodity path, it's up to ICANN to ensure healthy competition and protection from abuse. Beyond that, I am dubious about artificial price controls. If people think they're getting gouged, let's give them some alternatives. I think that this is why most folks in At-Large support new gTLDs and a diversity of registry operators -- the more the merrier, so long as there are some assertions of registrant rights (and production of such a document is now underway, though slowly). There's nothing *requiring* a registry to be domainer-friendly. Despite the obvious good intentions, I am extremely wary of injecting dubious price-policing into a free market. If it's not a free market, then let's address *that*. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Roberto Gaetano Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

Personally, I would not focus on the price as the main criterion for evaluating the success of the elimination of domain tasting. I think that the most important effect on consumers was the unavailability of names, that were used instead for different purposes. I agree with Alan, that ALAC can be proud of the fact that it demonstrated that it can indeed play a significant role. Incidentally, the ability of ALAC to play a significant role is one of the considerations on the table in the debate that is going on right now about having one or more Directors, elected by At-Large or ALAC, with voting rights. Cheers, Roberto Disclaimer: I know that Karl and myself have different views on the matter > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Karl Auerbach > Sent: Wednesday, 12 August 2009 22:59 > To: At-Large Worldwide > Cc: ALAC Working List > Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting > > On 08/12/2009 01:21 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: > > > As the organization that started this entire policy > process, At-Large > > and ALAC can be proud of the results. > > I'm not so sure about that. > > The main problem with the massive add-grace stuff was not the > churn but the fact that it was a transfer of costs from the > "domainers", who were getting a free ride, onto the backs of > the domain name buying public who were paying for the > transaction costs and the lost opportunity costs due to the 5 > day name lock-up. > > When you or I acquire a .com name for a year we each have to > pay a registry fee of about $7 to cover the purported costs > that the registry incurs in order to handle our transaction > and publish the name into the zone and operate the zone > servers. We pay that fee even if we relinquish the name in a week. > > That would suggest that in June 2008, where there were > 15,738,292 AGP names, that the .com registry was bearing a > cost (at that pegged $7 registry fee) of $110,168,044/month - > or about $1,322,016,528/year. > > There are two conclusions: > > Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US > that we were previously paying and which it is now retaining > as profit. > > Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level. > > Either way, we the community of internet users are a Boston > fish - we are scrod. > > The point of this little exercise is to show that ICANN's > fiat registry fees, based on thing more than hot air emitted > by the registries and accompanied by no audit of actual > registry costs, is costing domain name users a very large > pile of money every year. > > It is long past time that ICANN be required to perform a > believable, public, and deep audit of registry costs and to > adjust the registry fee component of domain name prices to be > in conformance with those costs. > > --karl-- > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlar ge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

Please see the announcement and report (<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-12aug09-en.htm) ICANN posted today about the impact of the AGP Budget Provision and the AGP Limits Policy on Domain Tasting. In short, the changes are dramatic. There were 17,668750 AGP deletes in June 2008. Following the ICANN budget levy on excessive deletes, the number decreased to 2,785,605. With the implementation of the AGP limit policy in April 2009, the total number of AGP deletes was 58,218, an overall decrease of 99.7%. Put another way, in June 2008, for .COM, there were 2,122,794 net new domains added, and an additional 15,738,292 domain names added and then AGP-deleted for an AGP delete rate of 741% In April 2009, there were 2,084,868 net new domains added, and an additional 37,519 domain names added and then AGP-deleted for an AGP delete rate of under 2%. Under the policy, an AGP-delete rate of 10% is allowed without financial penalty, per registrar, to allow for exceptional conditions. It was expected that few registrars would exceed this 10% and in fact in April only 22 registrars exceeded 10%, and there were only 432 excessive AGP-deletes. As the organization that started this entire policy process, At-Large and ALAC can be proud of the results. Alan

3 3

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 14, 2009

Aug. 14, 2009

I find it fascinating -- and disturbing -- that one of our longest discussion threads of recent memory is not about policy, or even process, but assigning credit. If only we could have something even half as engaging regarding the most pressing current issue (IMO) which is proposing an alternative to the massive excesses of the IRT report. Without an alternative in hand, that piece of crap is the only approach to trademarks that ICANN senior staff and Board have in their hands. If that doesn't interest you, please find something else that does. There are certainly enough going on right now: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rJKtp8gl3W5-ZcY_xMpPg5w Pick a working group and get involved, wake it up if you have to. ALAC has an acute shortage of people stepping forward to help on policy. We have an otherwise-needless Executive Committee formed merely because there are so many vacuums to fill, which means the same small core of people are being called upon to to most of the work. And then people complain about inclusiveness... Please -- those of you who have so keenly debated who deserves the honours for past actions -- consider that we have many more such potential actions ahead. Let's not make domain tasting the ONLY policy achievement we of which should be proud. - Evan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ICANN Announcement on Domain Tasting
by Patrick Vande Walle Aug. 13, 2009

Aug. 13, 2009

On Wed, 12 Aug 2009 19:49:33 -0400 (EDT), "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: >> Either the .com registry has now saved over 1.3 billion $US that we were >> previously paying and which it is now retaining as profit. >> >> Or the registry fee is pegged by ICANN at a hyper inflated level. > > I don't believe that Verisign has ever offered a cost justification for > their registry fees. Considering that .COM and .NET use the exact same > infrastructure, it'd take some pretty creative cost accounting to justify > $6.86 for .COM and $4.98 for .NET. Allow me to be the devil's advocate here. In a capitalist environment, market prices are based on supply and demand. As long as customers are willing to pay the price being asked, there is no reason why VRSN would lower its prices. That is what a VRSN shareholder expects the company to do. If there was ever a trend that .com registrations would decrease because of the price, VRSN would adapt its strategy. The bottom line is that if you are unhappy with the price you pay, vote with your feet and get a cheaper domain name. It's a free market. There is competition. Patrick -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Identica: http://identica.vande-walle.eu

1 0

Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance Project Headlines
by Gareth Shearman Aug. 12, 2009

Aug. 12, 2009

Begin forwarded message: > From: Internet Governance Project <info(a)internetgovernance.org> > Date: August 12, 2009 11:30:36 AM PDT (CA) > To: plenary <plenary(a)wsis-cs.org> > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] [IGP Announce] Internet Governance > Project Headlines > Reply-To: Internet Governance Project <info(a)internetgovernance.org>, > Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space <plenary(a)wsis-cs.org> > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire > list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for > specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > translation of this message! > _______________________________________ > > > > August 12, 2009 > > The House Committee Letter on ICANN: All politics is local > Four ICANN Board members dissent in vote on NCSG charter > Are you listening, ICANN? > IGP files comments on proposed Noncommercial Stakeholder Group charter > The 2009 NCUC Membership Drive: "Tell 'em Kieren sent you!" > Under pressure from trademark interests, ICANN undoes the GNSO reforms > When You Hear “Security,” Think “National Sovereignty” > New CEO stresses ICANN's role in cybersecurity > Search Internet Governance Project Headlines > The House Committee Letter on ICANN: All politics is local > > On August 4 the U.S. House Committee that oversees the Commerce > Department published their opinionabout ICANN and the impending > expiration of its Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the Commerce > Department. The gist of the letter was that the Congressional > committee, headed by powerful Democrat Henry Waxman of California, > wants something like the JPA to become a permanent part of the > global Internet. > > The letter proposes that a new, "permanent instrument" between the > U.S. Commerce Department and ICANN be created. The list of things > the instrument should do was strong and sweeping. It not only allows > Commerce to periodically review ICANN's performance but also asks it > to "create a mechanism for ICANN's implementation of any new gTLDs > and internationalized domain names that ensures appropriate > consultation with stakeholders." It would ensure that ICANN will not > change its current policy toward indiscriminate access to Whois > information. > > > In other words, this is a rather explicit call for the basic > parameters of DNS policy to be made (or rather, re-made) in > Washington. > > Why? What reason was put forward to justify this rather stark > departure from the basic model of ICANN, which was supposed to be an > independent, multistakeholder global governance agency, accountable > to all the world's Internet users and not just those located in the > U.S.? One has to answer the "why" question in two separate > paragraphs. There are the real reasons, which can be read between > the lines, and there are the rhetorical reasons explicitly stated in > the letter. > > > > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > Four ICANN Board members dissent in vote on NCSG charter > > On July 30 a majority of the ICANN Board took a fateful step away > from open public participation in domain name policy making. In a > decision that seriously impairs ICANN’s claim to be a multi- > stakeholder, bottom up institution, the Board voted 10-4 to impose > upon civil society groups a charter that they did not support and > which is designed to weaken and fragment their participation. > > The Board-approved charter for a Non Commercial Stakeholders Group > (NCSG) was drafted directly by ICANN’s staff, without any > consultations with the affected noncommercial organizations. When it > was put up for public comment the reaction was overwhelmingly > negative. And yet the majority of the Board (with several strong > dissents, see the “silver lining” below) didn’t care, and passively > complied with the direction fed to it by its Vice Chair and staff. > The staff did not make a single modification reflecting the views of > the overwhelming majority of the affected community. > > > The importance of this issue goes well beyond the NCSG; it relates > to the whole problem of public participation in ICANN. Is ICANN a > structure to facilitate policy making by any interested and affected > stakeholder, or is ICANN nothing more than a self-perpetuating > corporation that sees the public as a potential threat and public > participation as something to be carefully managed and controlled? > > > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > Are you listening, ICANN? > > A wonderful thing is happening on the ICANN public comment board. > Public interest groups from all over the world have mobilized to > express support for the NCUC charter proposal. What seemed to be an > obscure procedural issue months ago has attracted worldwide > attention. Civil society groups are objecting strongly to the ICANN > management's attempt to manipulate and control its allegedly "bottom > up" policy making structures. These are not your standard two-line > ICANN public comments, "I support this, I hate that." These are not > your usual commenters, the same ICANN insiders who have held the > same positions in the GNSO for 10 years. The entries are from new > people, many of the comments are unusually long and articulate, and > motivated by a sense of disbelief and injustice. > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > IGP files comments on proposed Noncommercial Stakeholder Group charter > > The IGP filed comments today in ICANN's second proceeding on GNSO > Stakeholder Group Charters. In its comments IGP identified both > substantive issues in the revised NCSG charter proposal drafted by > ICANN policy staff, as well as procedural flaw in ICANN's > proceeding. In light of these concerns, IGP asked that ICANN > immediately drop its attempt to impose its revised NCSG charter > proposal, and instead reinstate the original Noncommercial > Stakeholder Group (NCSG) charter proposal submitted by the NCUC for > consideration by the Board. > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > The 2009 NCUC Membership Drive: "Tell 'em Kieren sent you!" > > A few days ago we described the discrimination and barriers ICANN’s > Board and staff have unjustly placed on civil society representation > in ICANN. In a reply on our blog, ICANN’s Director of Public > Participation, Kieren McCarthy, made an attempt to be constructive. > After implying that hundreds of thousands of people should be > actively involved in the GNSO, he stated, “Now if you want my help > in getting those people in, just ask - that's my job after all. But > I've never been asked by anyone in ICANN …to help them go get more > people. I'd be happy to do so.” > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > Under pressure from trademark interests, ICANN undoes the GNSO reforms > > A little-noticed outcome of the Sydney ICANN meeting (overshadowed > by the excitement surrounding the selection of its new CEO) was a > shockingly flagrant display of how arbitrary and unfair ICANN can > be. A year ago a Board Governance Committee recommended, and the > full Board adopted, a proposal to give civil society and commercial > user interests the same number of votes (6) on the GNSO Council. The > action was intended to correct what was widely perceived as an > indefensibly unfair distribution of votes, in which trademark/ > commercial interests were given nine votes and noncommercial > interests only three. The rebalancing was first proposed in an > independent, expert evaluation of the GNSO by the London School of > Economics, and later endorsed by the Board. A July 2008 GNSO > committee - which included representatives of the trademark and > commercial users - also endorsed the idea of representational parity. > > But when faced with the prospect of equal representation of > commercial and noncommercial user interests, the commercial user > groups revolted. Having lost the fight against parity on principle > grounds, they shifted tactics and "went negative," claiming that the > Noncommercial Users Constituency was not "representative enough" and > did not warrant additional representation. The staff and Board were > inundated with non-stop criticism of this sort for months. Numerous > threats about withdrawing from the GNSO were made. > > And yet, in Sydney the Board's Structural Improvements Committee > turned a deaf ear to the vibrant new participation and caved in to > the incessant pressure of the commercial interests. Two decisions, > almost unbelievable in the degree to which they discriminate against > civil society and completely ignore public comments, emerged from > the Sydney meeting. > > > > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > When You Hear “Security,” Think “National Sovereignty” > > The Obama administration is making security a high priority. > However, prioritizing security goes contrary to Internet > privatization, multi-stakeholderism, civil society, and even > international cooperation. > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > New CEO stresses ICANN's role in cybersecurity > > One summer sport in Internet governance is speculating on what > direction ICANN’s new CEO will take it in. Making the media rounds > yesterday on Fox and Lehrer News Hour to talk about the recent DDoS > attacks on US and S. Korea government and commercial websites, new > CEO Rod Beckstrom pushed how the response to cyber attacks is a > coordinated effort, he also alluded to ICANN's role in similar > attacks. Responding to a question on the News Hour about the USG > policy response to dealing with cyber attacks, Beckstrom highlighted > the critical role of ISP filtering, and identified the "organic" as > well as "somewhat structured" coordination which occurs during a > typical response. More interestingly, he plugged ICANN's > facilitating role. > > ICANN, as the global Internet corporation that handles the naming > and address for every mailbox in the Internet globally, over 200 > million, we have relationships with every single country in the > world and play somewhat of a diplomatic role when these things > occur, particularly if they affect the naming and addressing system, > which this one doesn't yet, but it involves multiple countries. > While there are some technical inaccuracies in his statement > (domains are not “mailboxes” and ICANN doesn’t actually have formal > relations with every country in the world) producing accurate > television sound bites is really tough. But Beckstrom correctly > points out the limitations of ICANN's role in resolving cyber attacks. > So far, ICANN's role has largely been as a facilitator. E.g., in the > ongoing cooperative effort against the Conficker worm, the security > community determined preemptive barring of domain transfers and > registrations in affected TLD registries as a mitigation tactic. > ICANN's role was largely to communicate this to TLD operators. It > took the agreement of ccTLD operators to put the response in place, > because in reality, ICANN has very little authority over the ccTLDs > business and operational practices. (with gTLDs it has almost > complete contractual governance and can even take away the > assignment after a period of time) Because of "national sovereignty" > claims most ccTLDs have very limited contracts with ICANN, and there > are clear limitations to using ICANN's authority to enforce > stability and security on the Internet. > > > View the News Hour interview: > > And the Fox interview (which dutifully follows the First Law of > Cyberwarfare): > > > > • Email to a friend • Article Search • • > > > > > Click here to safely unsubscribe now from "Internet Governance > Project Headlines" or change your subscription or subscribe > Your requested content delivery powered by FeedBlitz, LLC, 9 Thoreau > Way, Sudbury, MA 01776, USA. +1.978.776.9498 > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary(a)wsis-cs.org > http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/plenary

1 0