- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force. >To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: At-Large Position Statement > >Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement. > >Note that: > >- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language >which has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team. > >- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and >process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants. > >- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic >issue that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team. > >- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees. > >Alan

5 8

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

At 09/11/2009 11:31 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >2009/11/9 Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Â >This is certainly an important issue, but your >analysis of the work to date is not quite >accurate, as there has been both the admission >that such problems could exist, and that they will need to be dealt with. > > >It simply converned me that none of the >questions from the Board to GNSO concerned >protection for good-faith registrants. >Â >Sanctions for "abuse" of the URS (and let's be >pragmatic, abuse is likely to be judged >differently depending on who the beholder is) > > >Actually, this is part of the problem. Without a >consistent definition we can't trust that it >will be applied with any usefl consistency. Im >my brief times to date working with the GNSO on >"registrant abuse", all they were concerned with >was abuse *by* (bad-faith) registrants. > >Having clear guidelines for abuse also helps >guide the panelists in acknowledging the purpose >of the URS/UDRP process. Consumer confusion over >brands -- not protecting monopoly control over >names -- should be the primary interest. > >Â >have yet to be discussed in the STI group (we >have had only one meeting dedicated to the URS). >However, both the IRT report and the staff >proposal sets what I presume will be the base >level of sanction: three occasions where >complaints are abusive will bar the complainant >from filing a URS for 1 year (abusive not yet defined). > > > >The sanction is pointless if the definition is >so vague that abuse will never judged to occur. > >Has there ever been judgments (that have stood) >that complainants have abused the UDRP since it started? >Â >NCSG has defined a set of sanctions which I am >guessing will deemed to be too high by the group >as a whole. Presumably the final outcome, if >there is one, will be in the middle. > > >I wouldn't make that assumption. NCSG and >At-Large positions have been completely ignored >in other ICANN contexts, and Hong has also >suggested that much of the NCSG sanctions are >unreasonable. Are there certain specific parts >of Kathy's sanction proposals that are worth pressing for? To quote myself in a private e-mail with a Board member who has an interest in these things, in a conversation about the definition of "abuse", the mechanism by which a Complainant would be "held to have filed [an] abusive complaint", who does the judging: "... the lack of clarity here does make a bit of a mockery of trying to specify in detail what level of "abuse" results in what sanction." Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

Thank you for the kind comment. This is certainly an important issue, but your analysis of the work to date is not quite accurate, as there has been both the admission that such problems could exist, and that they will need to be dealt with. Sanctions for "abuse" of the URS (and let's be pragmatic, abuse is likely to be judged differently depending on who the beholder is) have yet to be discussed in the STI group (we have had only one meeting dedicated to the URS). However, both the IRT report and the staff proposal sets what I presume will be the base level of sanction: three occasions where complaints are abusive will bar the complainant from filing a URS for 1 year (abusive not yet defined). NCSG has defined a set of sanctions which I am guessing will deemed to be too high by the group as a whole. Presumably the final outcome, if there is one, will be in the middle. Alan At 08/11/2009 01:26 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Greetings from Las Vegas, my first non-conference, non-family travel >in years (current gambling tally: -$91 after two days) > >Alan and Olivier have done a fantastic job in assembling together a >compendium of diverse views while still tracking the work being done >on this issue within the NCUC and GNSO's STI working group. > >The only deficiency I see is beyond the bounds of the specific >issues raised by the Board, because (IMO) the Board has been >listening to the IPC and US government and is seeing the issues >within those groups' frames of reference. > >What I mean to say is... there seems to be an asssumption that all >the brand owners are working in good faith and (at least most of) >the targets of their UDRP/URS actions are working in bad faith. But >what protections exist to prevent abuse? How do we protect >legitimate brand protection interests while protecting harrassment >good-faith use that brand owners don't want? (ie, >"this-brand-sucks.tld") Such good-faith registrants are usually low >in the resources needed, and brand owners can use the processes to >hound them into submission. This is of significant concern to me as >we move to opening up new TLDs. > >The NCUC has been addressing this internally, but such issues have >not appeared to make their way into the thought process of the Board >(or the STI) in dealing with this issue. > >Is this considered a significant issue within At-Large? How do we >best (re-)introduce this issue, which goes beyond the Board's charge to GNSO? > >- Evan

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
by Vanda UOL Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

Yes, that are some problems I heard from the lawyers in Seoul. Let's see if this goes. best vanda From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 10:10 PM To: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond; Vanda UOL; 'ALAC Working List' Subject: Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement That is sort of what I meant by my line 2. If there are is *relatively* regular stream of new gTLDs, the TM holders using the Clearinghouse will decide it is worthwhile maintaining their marks there - remember that there will have to be periodic renewal of each mark to demonstrate that it is still valid, and there will be fees to TM holders for this. So even without a "steady" stream, they may see value in supporting the Clearinghouse. At some point, however, the rate of new gTLDs may fall too low... Alan At 08/11/2009 06:11 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: May I add that IMHO it will not be sustainable if it only works during the sunrise period? I can't see a steady stream of new gTLD creation. If at all, they'll be bursty and a Clearinghouse will obviously have regular costs. That's not compatible. Kind regards, Olivier ----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Greenberg <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: Vanda UOL <mailto:vanda@uol.com.br> ; 'ALAC Working List' <mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: 'Olivier <mailto:ocl@gih.com> MJ Crepin-Leblond' Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 5:21 PM Subject: RE: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement Thanks. It will be sustainable if: 1) there are sufficient mark holders that are interested in its service at fees that will sustain it AND 2) there are sufficient new gTLDs going live to need its services. 2 could be irrelevant if there is a decision to make the Clearinghouse apply to post-launch as well. Alan At 08/11/2009 08:53 AM, Vanda UOL wrote: Alan , Olivier Excelente doc. From my point of view it addresses the concerns we had. It still not clear for me, but it is not our business, is how the claringhouse can be a sustainable operation. Thanks for the work Best cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0 Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 vanda(a)uol.com.br -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 5:21 PM To: ALAC Working List Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force. >To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti(a)icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: At-Large Position Statement > >Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement. > >Note that: > >- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language which >has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team. > >- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and >process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants. > >- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic issue >that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team. > >- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees. > >Alan

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

That is sort of what I meant by my line 2. If there are is *relatively* regular stream of new gTLDs, the TM holders using the Clearinghouse will decide it is worthwhile maintaining their marks there - remember that there will have to be periodic renewal of each mark to demonstrate that it is still valid, and there will be fees to TM holders for this. So even without a "steady" stream, they may see value in supporting the Clearinghouse. At some point, however, the rate of new gTLDs may fall too low... Alan At 08/11/2009 06:11 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >May I add that IMHO it will not be sustainable if it only works >during the sunrise period? >I can't see a steady stream of new gTLD creation. If at all, they'll >be bursty and a Clearinghouse will obviously have regular costs. >That's not compatible. >Kind regards, > >Olivier >----- Original Message ----- >From: <mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>Alan Greenberg >To: <mailto:vanda@uol.com.br>Vanda UOL ; ><mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>'ALAC Working List' >Cc: <mailto:ocl@gih.com>'Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond' >Sent: Sunday, November 08, 2009 5:21 PM >Subject: RE: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement > >Thanks. > >It will be sustainable if: >1) there are sufficient mark holders that are interested in its >service at fees that will sustain it AND >2) there are sufficient new gTLDs going live to need its services. > >2 could be irrelevant if there is a decision to make the >Clearinghouse apply to post-launch as well. > >Alan > >At 08/11/2009 08:53 AM, Vanda UOL wrote: >>Alan , Olivier >> Excelente doc. From my point of view it addresses the concerns we >> had. It still not clear for me, but it is not our business, is how >> the claringhouse can be a sustainable operation. >>Thanks for the work >> Best >> >>cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0 >> >>Vanda Scartezini >>Polo Consultores Associados >>Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 >>Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 >>Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 >><mailto:vanda@uol.com.br>vanda(a)uol.com.br >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ >>mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >>Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 5:21 PM >>To: ALAC Working List >>Cc: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond >>Subject: [ALAC] Fwd: At-Large Position Statement >> >>The following note and attachment has been submitted to the GNSO >>STI Review Team on behalf of Olivier and me and the Names Issues Task Force. >> >> >To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti(a)icann.org> >> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >> >Subject: At-Large Position Statement >> > >> >Please find attached the At-Large Position Statement. >> > >> >Note that: >> > >> >- Items 10 an 18 on notices raise the critical issue of language which >> >has not as yet been discussed in the STI Review Team. >> > >> >- Item 17 on the URS response period proposes new URS timing and >> >process which should substantially benefit both TM holders and registrants. >> > >> >- Item 22 on URS periodic review introduces a new and problematic issue >> >that has previously not been discussed by the STI Review Team. >> > >> >- Item 24 raises the issue of Clearinghouse fees. >> > >> >Alan > >

1 0

Fwd: [gnso-sti] Questions regarding the Board letter
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 8, 2009

Nov. 8, 2009

For your information. The Board letter can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gnso-council-12oct09-en.p…. I have since had at least one confirmation that my questions were appropriate. Alan >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >To: GNSO STI <gnso-sti(a)icann.org> >Date: Sat, 7 Nov 2009 18:58:21 -0500 >Subject: [gnso-sti] Questions regarding the Board letter > > >On reviewing the list of Clearinghouse questions in the Board letter, >I have a few questions of my own. Perhaps my lack of training or >experience with domain IP issues is showing, and if so, I humbly apologize. > > >Q.1 Impact of a clearinghouse notice on a registrant: is there a >potential chilling effect on registrations if a Trademark holder >contacts a registrant before the registration is made? > >I understand the concept of potential chilling effect of receiving >the IP Claims notices when trying to register a domain. But under the >staff proposals (without the GMPL), I was not aware of any notice to >trade-mark holders PRIOR to registration. The staff proposal >explicitly says that such notice must not go out before the >registration is effective so that it does not give the TM owner the >ability to preemptively register or otherwise block an otherwise >legitimate domain name. What am I missing? > > >Q.4 Should the Clearinghouse requirements (including the choice of IP >Claims or Sunrise processes) be applied to existing registries? > >In the staff proposals, the IP Clearing house is only for use >pre-launch, and Sunrise processes are associated with new domains. So >how could either be applicable to the existing registries? > > >Alan

1 0

ALAC Mailing list membership list updated
by ICANN At-Large Staff Nov. 5, 2009

Nov. 5, 2009

Dear All, The following individuals have been removed from the ALAC-internal and the ALAC working mailing lists due to the end of their terms as ALAC members or liaisons: Fatimata Seye Sylla Sivasubramanian Muthusamy José Ovidio Salueiro Thu Hue Nguyen Wendy Seltzer The incoming members of the 2010 ALAC have already been added to the mailing lists in advance of the ICANN Seoul meeting. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff at atlarge.icann.org

1 0

"placeholder" reps not placeholders?
by Beau Brendler Nov. 1, 2009

Nov. 1, 2009

By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly appointed GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year terms? I don't really see a constituency model working under those circumstances. Who's going to join a constituency if they have to wait two years to be able to directly elect a representative? No consumer group I am aware of is going to want to do that. -----Original Message----- >From: Andrés Piazza <investigaciones(a)densi.com.ar> >Sent: Oct 15, 2009 7:04 AM >To: James Seng <james(a)seng.sg>, alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ALAC-NCUC > > >If it's a dinner, drink or whatever I'll join.. > >Sent from BlackBerry® > >-----Original Message----- >From: James Seng <james(a)seng.sg> >Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:46:19 >To: William Drake<william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >Cc: ALAC Working List<alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; At-Large Worldwide<at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] ALAC-NCUC > >Milton spoke to me a while ago and mentioned there are some issues wrt >to NCUC lately. > >I do not know the exact details yet but I am all ears to learn more. > >So if we can arrange something on Monday night, I would definitely be joining. > >-James Seng > >On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 4:47 PM, William Drake ><william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: >> Hi, >> >> No formal meeting between ALAC and NCUC has been set for Seoul, which to me >> is a pity but whatever. However, that doesn't mean that interested folks >> can't get together for more informal chatting about mutual concerns and >> such. At the moment NCUC has nothing programmed for Monday night, don't >> know about ALAC. Might anyone here be available for a drink at day's end, >> or even dinner? If so I'm sure we can rustle up a good NCUC contingent. >> >> Best, >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> *********************************************************** >> William J. Drake >> Senior Associate >> Centre for International Governance >> Graduate Institute of International and >> Development Studies >> Geneva, Switzerland >> william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch >> www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html >> *********************************************************** >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: 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 > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >_______________________________________________ >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 8

Re: [ALAC] At-Large Performance Management Proposal
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

I started out in our ALAC & Regional Leadership Working Session at Seoul giving reasons why I have grave reservations about this performance management process. First, it seems like work. And quite frankly if we're going to make this "like work", then it disturbs the fundamental framework of our engagement; a voluntary group giving what they give because of interest. I know. Some folks think it is the "free" travel that that is honey. I personally find that offensive since a) I work for fee and when I participate it is an opportunity cost, my account b) I've traveled for work almost 2 million air miles to all continents since I have been working and if I never travel for a mile for ICANN-related matters, I would be on an airplane way too often for my loved ones. Then again, I prefer my own bed. If you all interested, I will share my travel itinerary for the past 2 months and the next 2 months! Second, even as it allows that we come to the ICANN agenda with different experiences and different assumptions, the logic of this undermines all of those facts and the reasonable expectations that any thoughtful examination of the implications from assessment would have provided; we will not all be A1 and top of the class, even after we sit the bench for a time. Third, this proposal posits the ALAC, en banc, as the jury, court of originating jurisdiction and the court of appeal. That is offensive to equity, probably immoral and fundamentally unfair. Fourth, this assumes that we all have the same interests, even those who are elected to propel regional interests; this rubbishes the original anticipation for regional representation. I will give an example. There is no compelling regional or Caribbean interest in IDNs. So, quite frankly, it does not do those who represent the region any good with their constituents to be known as the "go-to" guy for IDN matters on ALAC! Take myself, for example. If you troll the lists, you will see very little from me on IDNs. So when that issue was hot and heavy, I could be deemed as non-performing. The way I deal with this issue is to let myself be guided by those with the compelling interest, those that I trust and those that I think have spent the time to educate themselves on the issues and so prepared to speak authoritatively. My light was Hong and now, James. So if ever I am called in a division, I will likely take counsel from them and vote with them. Fifth, RALOs were designed to be independent entities raised to give advice to ICANN thru ALAC, en banc; RALO-appointed members were not intended to "take the whip" of ALAC. So the proposal sounds dangerously like the ALAC seeking to impose its will on the RALO. Let me explain. What if ALAC - at least the majority part of it - decides that some RALO-approved member is a dud and send this message back to the RALO of the offending member. And what if the RALO, having gravely considered the matter, decide there is nothing there and responds, "go fly a kite"? What then? Will the ALAC deny a seat at the table to the member in question? Closer to home, what does ALAC do when an advisory to the Board is not accepted, much less acknowledged? Sixth, the proposal makes a very good case why statistics taken in their purest form is good but hardly sufficient to assess performance. So far, so good. Then it conflates the question of high performance versus low performance and bring back statistics as a definitive indicator of poor performance. The internal inconsistency is writ large, usually meaning a wholesale rejection. I support and applaud the development of JDs. I cannot support *this* performance measurement proposal. It is good enough for members who is underwhelmed by another's performance to send a message. This then becomes a perfect opportunity for intervention by an *aware* Rapporteur. And by the way, mediating non-performing membership was one of the original ideas proffered for the Ex-Com and the PRINCIPAL reason why I supported it then; this was the price I thought manageable to act in any way to limit the deliberative rights of another ALAC member. Finally, an analogy. I have a mango tree in my yard. Son of a gun, some years it gives us a good crop of very sweet mangoes, other years not so good. In the years that it is not at peak performance, I am inclined to cut it back, even to chop it down altogether. But my mother, bless her heart, would have none of it. Because, she says, it provides shade! I'm about good fruit..and she sees shade as equally valuable. Let the matter rest at JDs and declare victory. Kind regards, Carlton On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 3:25 AM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > The ALAC has now adopted the Position Description (PD) for ALAC members and > Liaisons (http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-PD) Despite satisfaction that it has > been approved, I must admit some disappointment at the low voter turnout. > > I now submit the following discussion paper on how to ensure that the PD is > effective. > > The document is based on the principles I presented in Sydney and modified > based on the comments received prior to and at that meeting. It has also > drawn very significantly from the policy proposed by Carlos Aguirre. > > This document will be presented and discussed on Tuesday in Seoul, with the > intent of deciding on the principles and to be followed soon thereafter with > a formal policy for discussion and approval. > > Any comments via e-mail or in person received sufficiently prior to the > meeting will be incorporated in the presentation. > > A machine-translated version in French and Spanish will be sent soon. > > Alan > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >

2 1

Proposal for a Board Advisory on new gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 29, 2009

Oct. 29, 2009

For a long time, I have been advocating not trying to solve all of the gTLD problems but rather releasing categories of gTLDs where the problems can be readily addressed (either because of the type of gTLD or because the applicant is willing to agree to sepecific measures to address the potential problems. This has typically been a VERY unpopular position to take in public. At this meeting, in both public and private discussions, the concept is receiving wide acceptance. Is there an interest in quickly putting forth a position that we advocate such methodology and are willing to work with other parts of ICANN to put in place such categories and allow ICANN to QUICKLY allow applications for some classes of TLDs (and I would support including IDN and small cultural TLDs as well as city TLD (the latter only if they are willing to put in place strong controls to inhibit abuse). Alan

4 5