- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ALAC vote on two new ALS applications
by At-Large Staff Oct. 21, 2008

Oct. 21, 2008

Dear all, Cheryl asked us to set up an online vote for the ALAC on two new ALS application, which are ready for accreditation: the Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities from Ontario, Canada and Internauta Chile. You find the applications attached to this mail. The ALAC members will shortly receive a separate email with their voting credentials. NARALO decided during their August meeting that positive regional advise would be given for FBSC if no contrary opinions were received on the mailing list in the following week ( https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_11_august_2008) No such comment was sent to the list the following week. LACRALO advised to approve the application during their monthly teleconference on September 18th. ( https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?meeting_summary_18_september_2008_en) The two questions to be put are: 1. Should the regional advise from NARALO for applicant (114) Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities (FBSC) be rejected? The regional advise was to accept the application. 2. Should the regional advise from LACRALO for applicant (115) Internauta Chile be rejected? The regional advise was to accept the applications. Possible answers are Yes, No and Abstain, whereas -²Yes² means that you would like to reject the application -²No² means that you would like to accept the application This vote remains open until the next ALAC meeting on October 14th at 1400 UTC (the ALAC meeting starts at 1330 UTC). It is not anonymous. Please contact the Staff if you have additional questions. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Summary Minutes 14 October 2008
by At-Large Staff Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 2008

Dear all, The summary minutes and action items of yesterday¹s ALAC teleconference are now up on the meeting page: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?14_october_2008_summary_minutes You can also find them attached below. Please note that the the summary minutes are not final until adoption by the ALAC. Due to a technical problem the audio recording of this meeting is currently unavailable. If we missed parts of the conversation, it is noted in the minutes. Please edit the summary minutes directly online if you believe that something is missing or misrepresented. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Summary Minutes ALAC Teleconference 14 October 2008 The Chair started the meeting at 1347 UTC. The meeting agenda was slightly changed to ensure a short discussion on the Statement of the ALAC on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies Report The meeting minutes of the previous meeting were accepted. Statement of the ALAC on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies Report. P Vande Walle provided a summary on the Statement of the ALAC on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies Report he helped preparing. A vote was held on whether the Statement on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis WG should be endorsed as an official ALAC document. Voting results: Against: B Brendler Abstain: None Support: R Guerra, I Aizu, V Scartezini, P Vande Walle, C Aguirre, J L Salgueiro, S Bachollet, H Diakite, C Langdon-Orr (A Greenberg and F Seye Sylla were not on the call during the vote) The Statement of the ALAC on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies Report was endorsed as an official ALAC statement. D Younger asked if Staff could organize a briefing on the IRIS Protocol Standard, which many believe will be the next generation of WHOIS. R Guerra supported this proposal.The Staff will organize a briefing session on the IRIS Protocol Standard after the Cairo meeting. The Chair noted that this could be a subject for the SSAC-ALAC meeting in Cairo. The ExCom and the ALAC/SSAC Liaison will pursue this issue further. ALAC Overview Report on ALAC Review Final Report A Greenberg gave a short overview on the history of domain name expiration policy and, in particular, the redemption grace period. Motion 1 A Greenberg, seconded by P Vande Walle, moved the following motion: ³Whereas domain names can expire without the conscious agreement of the domain holder who would otherwise renew the registration; Whereas the loss of a domain name under these circumstances can have serious negative impact on both the registrant and the wider community of users of the registrant's services; Whereas ICANN has several times taken action to ensure that a domain name can be recovered by the original owner prior to it being available to others; Whereas such actions have proven to be ineffective; I move that the At-large Advisory Committee will request that an Issues Report be created on the subject of the Post-Expiry Domain Recovery. The request will be based _on_the draft circulated prior to the ALAC meeting of October 14, 2008, and will be revised prior to and at the Cairo ICANN meeting by an ALAC Working Group, with the_ request to be formally issues by the end of the Cairo meeting.² The motion carried unanimously. Motion 2 A Greenberg, seconded by C Aguirre, moved the following motion: ³That the ALAC convene a Working Group, with Alan Greenberg as the ALAC Coordinator to finalize the draft of the request for an Issues Report on Post-Expiry Domain Recovery, with the draft to be approved by the ALAC at the ICANN meeting in Cairo. The working group may include representatives from At-Large, GNSO constituencies and other interested individuals but due to tight time constraints, will be limited to those with specific knowledge of the subject being discussed.² The motion carried unanimously. Action Items The Chair gave a short status update on the action items from the last meeting. S Bachollet gave a short summary of the recent Summit Working Group activities and noted that the ALSes had until the 22nd of October to send in their answers to the Summit questionnaire. Status of ALS applications The Staff noted that two new ALSes have been accepted recently as the online vote ended today. The newly admitted ALSes are Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities from Canada and Internauta Chile. The details of this vote will be communicated shortly. The Chair suggested that links to recent RALO teleconference summary minutes should be put under the standing agenda items for the monthly ALAC meeting. This issue will be further discussed in Cairo. ALAC Overview Report on ALAC Review Final Report The Chair moved the following motion: ³That the ALAC Overview Report on ALAC Review Final Report (PDF) be endorsed as an official ALAC Statement." The motion carried unanimously. 1443 UTC: missed what H Diakite said please fill in Draft Agenda Cairo The Chair asked the ALAC members to make suggestion for the OneDay Workshop in Cairo directly on the agenda page. Any other Business ALAC seat on dotMobi Board S Bachollet suggested that the seat on the dotMobi Board should be part of the call for nominations for liaisons. The Chair noted that she hoped that there would be more frequent reports from the ALAC liaisons in the future. ³Initial Thinking² Report of the Board Governance Committee ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC Improvements The Chair noted that the ³Initial Thinking² Report should be published in English later that week and in the six UN languages shortly after. The Chair asked the ALAC members to get in touch with their regional ALSes before the Cairo meeting so that the ALAC could speak on behalf of the whole community. She further commented that there a preparatory meeting should be planned once the document comes out. What are the next steps on the RAA? D Younger asked the ALAC members what the next steps were on the RRA amendments. B Brendler suggested that he and D Younger could get in touch off-line to discuss this matter further. D Younger commented that ALAC members should read the emails on the At-Large discuss list and take up topics that were being discussed heavily. As an example, he mentioned the thread which started with the email sent by D Younger on October 8t The Chair noted that the comment D Younger made would be discussed more in detail at the ALAC OneDay session in Cairo. The meeting was then adjourned (1507 UTC)

6 5

Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 15, 2008

Oct. 15, 2008

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Carlton Samuels wrote: > To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. :-) > It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and > usurpations" experienced by registrants; the lack of contract > enforcement by ICANN and the disability/disinclination of some > registrants to access remedies via the UDRP. I would add to "disability/disinclination of registrants", the lack of easy to access information to registrants detailing any recourse they may have. > There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well > dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and > equity. > > So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum > total of which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep > on its own contract enforcement! Do we even need an issues report to enable ALAC to assert this position to the Board? I thought that one of the great things about ALAC (often touted as a reason At-Large doesn't get a seat on the Board) is that we have the ability to advocate user issues and concerns directly to the Board. We should be getting the Board to direct their own resources to confirm the problem (if that is even necessary) and then to itself act. Issues reports appear to be SO mechanisms to which ALAC is not bound. Can we not be more creative -- or at least more direct -- on this issue? - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI9jFHB6WWYxnsgmwRAn8WAJ9OqveDESn/ZkE7DRDwNug6XA/i5ACfUDq/ nKEDSg+Bk35kdlGtIIGnZ6U= =Uef0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DNSSEC
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 15, 2008

Oct. 15, 2008

Dear Members: As you will notice there is a DNSSEC Briefing during the Cairo meeting. It seems that it might be useful to have an additional telephonic briefing, perhaps just after the Cairo meeting, for the community to learn more about the subject. Does this sound like a good idea? I would like to keep organising monthly briefings for the community - so any proposals for new subjects are most welcome :) Perhaps another should be the New GTLD RFP? -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 4

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] dot-mobi policy advisory board positions
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Thank you for your report John... If you agree we will include this text (or you can provide a separate document directly to the ALAC Wiki for the Oct 14th meeting because as you are an ALAC appointment you could and I believe should be reporting their) such text will then be included as part of our annual Working Group, Liaison and general activity reporting at the Cairo meeting (for annual Reporting to ICANN and internally to the One Day workshop where we will be (amongst other things) reviewing all our job descriptions (as currently listed in the ROP's) and any participation requirements (Rule 21 of the ROP's) along with related accountability (reporting KPI's etc.,) that may be associated with all of the ALAC Roles, specifically in relation to whatever recommendations are going to be coming forward from the ALAC Review WG, which will be public by then. The specific matter of next year's dotMobi appointment form the ALAC was on the ALAC Meeting Agenda last night, (as we had received both the request you mentioned and background information from Caroline Greer {which is all appended to the meeting page}) and we agreed that this appointment will be included with the call for nominations for all our ALAC Liaisons and appointments for 2008-2009. It is intended that this call will go out before the end of the week. I trust you will either be nominated or self nominate for this important appointment at that time... It is also intended and I have let Caroline know that the matter of this appointment (and all the other liaison or appointment roles) will be finalized by the ALAC during the Cairo meeting and after the Sunday OneDay workshop. Cheryl (CLO) -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2008 2:05 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] dot-mobi policy advisory board positions Speaking of elections, the .MOBI domain has a policy advisory board which includes a seat selected each year by the ALAC, and it's time to make this year's selection. I've held that seat for the two years that it has existed, and would like another year. The PAB meets quarterly by phone and once a year in person. Its task is to provide policy advice for the management of the .MOBI domain. As you may know, .MOBI is intended for users of mobile devices, and the idea is that content in the .MOBI domain works on your mobile. So far that's been mostly a technical goal, since the state of the mobile web is sort of like the PC web ten years ago, with slow connections, small screens, and browsers with varying and sometimes incompatible features and capabilities. (There is a guy at .MOBI whose full time job is to maintain an encyclopedia of devices and browsers.) This year in the PAB we've addressed a variety of issues that affect users. The biggest problem is that in .MOBI there are a lot of domains owned by domain speculators who care little for the interests of users. In many cases they just leave their domains parked, which isn't great, but at least follows the rules, but sometimes they just point the domain at random parking sites that don't work on mobiles at all, due to large images, frames, etc. The domain has a compliance process so they know which sites don't work, and I've been helping them develop a combination of carrots and sticks to get the sites to do something reasonable on mobile phones. Farther out I'm trying to figure out ways to encourage domains to build useful content rather than link farms, with weather.mobi being a good example of a site that could have been a link farm but instead has useful weather forecasts. Even farther out than that, it seems pretty likely that mobile devices will catch up to PCs in capability, so any site that works on a PC will work on a mobile. At that point the other characteristics of mobiles become more important, that people tend to keep them with them much more than they keep their PCs with them, and that they physically move around so you can do stuff like have a site that uses geolocation to recommend restaurants near where you are right now. It'll still be important for .MOBI content to be good for mobile users, although the issues will be quite different. Anyway, I've enjoyed doing this with .MOBI and would like to keep at it for at least another year. The .MOBI management has sent Cheryl a note explaining when they'd like to hear back (fairly soon). As far as I know I'm the only candidate for this position this year, but the ALAC should set some dates so we can be sure and so if need be there can be a vote. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Documents for the meeting today
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Dear Members: I have made a few updates to the agenda page for today, to incorporate the various documents announced at various points earlier, and also to incorporate into the wiki the changes made by Patrick to the draft Statement on the WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group report. There is also a link which allows you to easily see on the wiki the changes between versions - for those of you who do not like reviewing text in Word, this should prove helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Late for appointment now. Will reply when next have connectivity. Alan At 13/10/2008 08:56 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Alan: >Actually, this issues report might just be doing exactly what you caution me >against; "blow this out of proportion"! > >Plainly put, I'm saying an Issues Report is premature.....at best! And I'm >saying this against the background of the several others that have coursed >themselves through the process with, well, uneven results to date. > >Here's the killjoy. By your own reckoning, "the vast majority are honouring >all contracts and agreements 100%"; presumably, that "vast majority" phrase >refers registrars and/or resellers? > >Which begs the question...... > >Ach...the irony of my response..even by invoking an "Evanism"......got lost >in the shuffle.......... > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 05:31 PM >To: 'ALAC Working List' >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report > >The draft request does allude to some possible violation of >contracts, specifically cases where a registrar or reseller acts in >bad faith by not issuing appropriate notices or honouring >auto-renewal agreements. > >But please do not blow this out of proportion. In my estimation (and >there is no body of actual statistics available), this is a small >fraction of the cases we are talking about in the overall Issues >Report request. The vast majority are honouring all contracts and >agreements 100%. > >We may not like the terms of those agreements, and this is a way to >go about having them unilaterally changed. Even if registrars don't >like it. That is what the concept of consensus policies is all about. >If enough of the community supports a change, it will happen. > >For cases that actually do include a breach of contract, we are also >asking that ICANN ramp up enforcement and provide paths for >registrant complaint. > >Alan > >At 13/10/2008 02:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > >To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. > > > >We believe we have a situation with "Post-expiry Domain Recovery by the > >original registrant" that undermines the interests of users; the > >registrants. The updated draft request document - a well-written tome, in >my > >opinion! - gives chapter and verse, the background to the problem and the > >existing ICANN Registrar/Registry related policies that were intended to > >ameliorate said problem; the RGP and the AGP. > > > >It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and usurpations" > >experienced by registrants; the lack of contract enforcement by ICANN and > >the disability/disinclination of some registrants to access remedies via >the > >UDRP. > > > >There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well > >dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and equity. > > > >So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum total of > >which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep on its own >contract > >enforcement! > > > > > > > >I say again: IMHO, the ALAC pronouncements around contracts of one or other > >kind tends to impairment on the applicability of tort laws to commercial > >transactions. So now, I dare to ask this: "What do we know and when did we > >know it?" > > > >Carlton Samuels > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > >Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 06:47 PM > >To: ALAC Working List > >Subject: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report > > > >A revised draft (based in comments received) is now posted on the > >wiki pointed to from the agenda of our Oct 14 meeting. > > > >Alan > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or >g > > > >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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

The draft request does allude to some possible violation of contracts, specifically cases where a registrar or reseller acts in bad faith by not issuing appropriate notices or honouring auto-renewal agreements. But please do not blow this out of proportion. In my estimation (and there is no body of actual statistics available), this is a small fraction of the cases we are talking about in the overall Issues Report request. The vast majority are honouring all contracts and agreements 100%. We may not like the terms of those agreements, and this is a way to go about having them unilaterally changed. Even if registrars don't like it. That is what the concept of consensus policies is all about. If enough of the community supports a change, it will happen. For cases that actually do include a breach of contract, we are also asking that ICANN ramp up enforcement and provide paths for registrant complaint. Alan At 13/10/2008 02:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. > >We believe we have a situation with "Post-expiry Domain Recovery by the >original registrant" that undermines the interests of users; the >registrants. The updated draft request document - a well-written tome, in my >opinion! - gives chapter and verse, the background to the problem and the >existing ICANN Registrar/Registry related policies that were intended to >ameliorate said problem; the RGP and the AGP. > >It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and usurpations" >experienced by registrants; the lack of contract enforcement by ICANN and >the disability/disinclination of some registrants to access remedies via the >UDRP. > >There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well >dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and equity. > >So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum total of >which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep on its own contract >enforcement! > > > >I say again: IMHO, the ALAC pronouncements around contracts of one or other >kind tends to impairment on the applicability of tort laws to commercial >transactions. So now, I dare to ask this: "What do we know and when did we >know it?" > >Carlton Samuels > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 06:47 PM >To: ALAC Working List >Subject: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report > >A revised draft (based in comments received) is now posted on the >wiki pointed to from the agenda of our Oct 14 meeting. > >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

Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 13, 2008

Oct. 13, 2008

A revised draft (based in comments received) is now posted on the wiki pointed to from the agenda of our Oct 14 meeting. Alan

2 1

Board liaison report: October
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 13, 2008

Oct. 13, 2008

Colleagues, As you can see from the preliminary report from the October Board meeting, GNSO restructuring continues to be a major subject for the board: <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm> DNSSEC, new gTLDs, and "Institutional Confidence"/President's Strategy Committee also face ongoing discussion. I have not received responses to requests for information on the ALAC submissions. Agenda has not yet been set for the Cairo meetings, so we should add items, such as Registrar contract enforcement to the list if we'd like to see them. I will be able to join the upcoming ALAC call only part-way through. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0