Um, well, it is always the results that matter. ..there's this memory fragment...there was a German politician named Willy Brandt that did much to popularize the word "realpolitik" and the meaning we've come to know.....here under is the lesson. Still without a nibble on this from the LACRALO list to date. That aside, I cut to the chase and endorsed the ALAC's decision on the principle that a half of something is better than nothing at all. Still unable to shake the view formed by logic and the facts recited in the preamble to the request for the report; the optimal response is a memorandum from ALAC to the Board cataloguing ICANN's wishy-washy enforcement of its own rules and encouraging them to get busy and hold somebody accountable. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 12:01 PM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [ALAC] Request for an Issues Report on the recovery of expired domain names I am in the middle of working on a report with a tight deadline, so I don't have the time to reply line-by-line. I am afraid that Evan misses one important aspect of making a change such as the one we want. To be able to unilaterally tell registrars how we expect them to handle these situations requires a Consensus Policy as defined in the ICANN Bylaws. Such a policy MUST be developed by the GNSO, and the first step to developing such a policy is the creation of an Issues Report. As a rather pointed example, the RAA has been discussed at several levels and it was expected that the Board would approve the proposed changes. Recently, it was recognized that according to the ByLaws, to be effective, the recommendation must come from the GNSO before the Board can act. Luckily, since the wording in the current registrars agreements predate the Bylaw Consensus policy definition, it looks like the process may be a bit shorter, but nevertheless, it seems that no action will be taken until the GNSO approves the proposed RAA changes (and despite the long discussions over the RAA, they have never formally taken place at the GNSO). Evan is correct that we could make a recommendation to the Board. But according to the Bylaws (http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA), the best the Board could do would be to decide to start the process by passing the issue back to the GNSO. Such action will automatically request the creation of an Issues Report. But this would not happen until the issue was discussed at the Board and they decide that the issue warrants such (very unusual) action. More likely, as has happened with the Front-Running issue that we referred directly to the Board, they would decide to simply forward it to the GNSO for their consideration. Either option will result in more time, not less, and take control out of our hands. The only substantive difference if the Board were to direct that the issue be addressed, is that the GNSO does not vote on the initiation of a PDP - it de facto happens. But in our case, we have sufficient support from various GNSO constituencies that this should not be an issue. So in short, I think that we are taking the most direct and likely effective action that we can to address the real problem. Regarding anecdotal evidence of the problem, I wasn't assuming that it would all with domains owned by the reporter, but rather cases that had somehow been brought to your attentions. Alan At 23/10/2008 11:42 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
At its October 14th teleconference, the ALAC voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. Details can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?recovery_of_expired_domain_names. An Issues Report is the first step in a possible Policy Development Process. This is a a real shame of a missed opportunity.
In the email thread that discussed this issue before the ALAC meeting was held, there was a suggestion that this matter not be put through the Issues Report / PGP process, but rather that ALAC create its own investigation and use its own mechanisms to bring the matter directly to the attention of the Board.
The IR/PGP process is (or at least appears to be) a structure imposed on GNSO, not ALAC. We exist supposedly to _directly_ advise the Board (indeed other ICANN bodies) and are able to choose whatever internal process we require to develop such advice.
The ALAC formed a small Working Group. According to the motion "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." If anyone else would like to participate, please let me know.
I propose that the Working Group prepare a submission aimed not at GNSO, but directly at the Board with the intention of its driving both staff and volunteers to investigate this issue.
I fully understand the advantages of having GNSO onside with our requests, but that should be a result -- not a requirement -- of our introduction of this issue to the Board. The GNSO contains the ICANN constituencies that propagate what we are claiming to be public harm, and cannot (and should not) be counted upon to give us complete support. But that is not a problem (in my opinion) if we exploit ALAC's unique level of access.
If we need to GNSO's blessing every time we want to advance an issue, then why should ALAC exist as a separate body rather than just have as many ALSs as possible join NCUC? The ALAC review has made much of our "special" nature, that we have the ability to advocate user concerns directly to the Board without them needing to be vetted by other constituencies. Indeed this special quality has been used to justify keeping At-Large from having a designated position on the Board.
So why doesn't ALAC grow up, use the tools at its disposal, and stop asking for GNSO to hold our collective hand on every major issue?
Maybe there's some significance that the suggestion to bypass the IR/PGP process comes from RALOs (Carlton and myself) and not from within ALAC proper. But I suggest that maturity and self-confidence will not be bequeathed on ALAC, it will have to achieve and assert those qualities on its own,
I am also formally calling for statements of support for this initiatives from ALSs and RALOs. Statements need not be long. Was this long enough? ;-)
Lastly, if people can send me concise descriptions of situations where a domain name had inadvertently been allowed to expire, telling what happened, that would be very useful. Unfortunately, I cannot help much in this regard. The domains I own are done through a certain Canadian registrar -- with an animal-type name -- which has treated such circumstances admirably, (putting them in a locked-down limbo for a period after expiry and giving the owner a final chance for renewal before the domain goes up for grabs).
- Evan
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list 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 ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008 02:10 PM