March 2007 - APAC-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Resolutions on Policy Matters for Lisbon
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear At-Large Community: In order to facilitate discussion of the three resolutions being proposed for adoption in Lisbon, I have put them up on the Wiki as follows: Domain Tasting / Monetisation: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_1 Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues: https://st.icann.org/alac/ index.cgi?al_2007_r_2 Internationalised Domain Names: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_3 NEXT STEPS: 1) I will incorporate, as separate revisions so that you can see the changes which have been suggested on the ALAC worldwide discussion forum, as individual edits. 2) I will reformulate them all so that they are structured similarly - to the maximum extent possible making no changes of substance in doing so - also in single revisions so that this is easy to see. 3) Once step 1 and 2 are done, I will translate the texts into French and Spanish - this will take a couple of days though. I will ask our faithful regional liaisons for Africa (Anne-Rachel Inne) and LAC Pablo Hinojosa then to help keep the updates to the English versions current with the French and Spanish versions once the translations arrive. Note that the idea is to adopt these in Lisbon. AS A RESULT INPUT IS NEEDED NOW FROM THE FOLLOWING REGIONS, SINCE THEY WILL NOT BE MEETING IN FULL SESSION IN LISBON like Africa and Europe: LAC North America Asia/Pacific IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE ON ANY OR ALL OF THESE: For ease of reading please use the comment button at the top of the page. You may also send email to the pages of the wiki, which will then appear as comments at the bottom and show you as the person who made the comments. Here are links: Domain Tasting Contractual Compliance IDNS It is helpful if you copy the comment to the worldwide ALAC list at alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org as well so that everyone sees the new comment. If you haven't joined this list, I recommend you do so at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org These resolutions are scheduled for debate, amendment, and if consensus is achieved adoption in a combined meeting of the European, African, and the ALAC on 27th March between 13:00 and 18:00. Full agenda details for that meeting can be found at https://st.icann.org/ alac/index.cgi?second_session. There will be a remote participation facility for this meeting. Details for how to attend that way will be available on the url immediately above early this coming week. If you do not see links above, here is how to use the comment feature: Send an email to: alac(a)st.icann.org, and for the subject line, for domain tasting, use 'AL/2007/R/1' without the quotes, for Contractual Compliance, 'AL/2007/R/2', and for IDNs 'AL/2007/R/3' -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

Fwd: [At-Large] Recommendation on contract enforcement by the public
by Izumi AIZU March 16, 2007

March 16, 2007

You may know about the Registerfly problem. Ro prevent future similar cases, ALAC is discussing to make recommendation to ICANN. Your input is very much welcome. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> Date: 2007/03/16 20:51 Subject: [At-Large] Recommendation on contract enforcement by the public To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org If ICANN't keep a contract, let the public enforce it Earlier in the Registerfly controversy, ICANN Vice President Paul Levins posted to the ICANN Blog <http://blog.icann.org/?p=32>, ICANN is not a regulator. We rely mainly on contract law. We do not condone in any way whatsoever RegisterFly's business practice and behaviour. This is disingenuous. ICANN is the central link in a web of contracts that regulate the business of domain name allocation. ICANN has committed, as a public benefit corporation, to enforcing those contracts in the public interest. Domain name registrants, among others, rely on those contracts to establish a secure, stable environment for domain name registration and through that for online content location. A user registers a domain name by contracting with a registrar, such as Registerfly. The terms of that agreement are constrained by ICANN's accreditation contract with the registrar <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm>. French registrar Gandi <http://gandi.net/> explains this web with helpful diagrams in its registration agreement <http://www.gandi.net/contracts/en/g1/pdf/>: Gandi is a Registrar, accredited by both the Trustee Authority [ICANN] and registry of each TLD to assign and manage domain names according to their specific TLD. We must abide by the terms and conditions of Our accreditation contract. As a consequence, We must pass some of Our obligations on to Our customers. ... As such, We commit Ourselves to providing you with the best possible service. This being said, due to Our contractual obligations with the Trustee Authorities and Registries, and which You must also abide by, Our services are limited in some of their technical, legal, regulatory and contractual aspects. Now the ICANN contracts can both limit and help the end-user registrant. On the limit side, they restrict the registrant's ability to maintain anonymity or privacy by requiring the registrar to provide accurate identifying information to the WHOIS database <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.2>, a duty the registrar fulfills by compelling provision of accurate information in its own contract with the registrant. This requirement benefits trademark holders, who have recently turned out <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-services-comments/> to prophesy doom if data display is limited. On the benefit side, the RAA-imposed duty of data escrow <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.6>, requiring the registrar to maintain an escrowed copy of its registration database, provides evidence of a registrant's domain name holdings in the event of registrar failure. Registrants seeing this provision could believe that their domain names would be secure even if the registrar who had recorded them defaulted. So they might have believed, but apparently ICANN has never enforced this provision of its contracts <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06000.html>. Moreover, ICANN denies that the public is a third-party beneficiary entitled to demand enforcement <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#5.10>. The Registerfly debacle < http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070307_079128.ht… > shows why this view is wrong as a matter of law and policy. ICANN was told more than a year ago of customer service problems at Registerfly, but did nothing to respond to those complaints, including escrowing data, leaving the company's 200,000 registrants at risk of losing domain names or the ability to update them when Registerfly's business troubles escalated early this year. ICANN should recognize that the reason for its registrar contracts is precisely to benefit third parties: domain name registrants and those who rely on the domain name system. ICANN is not (or shouldn't be) accrediting registrars merely to have a larger pool of organizations paying fealty to it. Rather, it is imposing terms and conditions on registrars and, with an "ICANN accredited" seal, inviting the public to rely on those terms for a secure domain name registration. In cases where ICANN fails <http://omblog.icann.org/?p=6> to recognize a registrar's problems <http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/19/registerfly_angry_customers/>, concerned members of the public should be entitled to take action themselves. As well as enforcing public-benefit obligations on its own, ICANN should facilitate individual action by removing the "no third-party beneficiary" language from its contracts. Resolved that: Recognizing that the public Internet users are intended beneficiaries of ICANN should strike the "no third-party beneficiary" language from its Registrar Accreditation Agreements and Registry Agreements; ICANN should promptly adopt a schedule and provisions for escrowing of data from all registrars, as envisioned in RAA 3.6. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
by Izumi AIZU March 14, 2007

March 14, 2007

2007/3/15, cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>: > > Thank you Izumi, for both your draft and an excellent working example > of how such a draft can activate (and make easier) direct input into > ALAC processes by both RALO's and ALS's... I know I always find it > easier to get our AUstralian constituency to respond to a draft or > white paper (or fill out a short survey) rather than find the time to > answer open ended "what is you opinion on / of ???" questions... That is quite true. I am happy to be a part of the process. May ISOC-AU as an ALS in the APRALO distribute this draft text as a > request for comment through our mailing list to Members and via our > related contacts in both business and general consumer peak bodies and > lists, here in .au; and presuming you will permit us to reproduce, > when is the deadline for feedback and response? Sure, that is more than welcome. AND, though we have not set the fixed deadline, we like to read this at the ICANN Lisbon meeting as our consensus of ALAC/RALO - so for that, we need to hear from your perhaps one week from now, meaning next Wednesday or so. thanks again, izumi Kindest regards, > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > > > Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > > > Dear ALAC/RALO/ALS people, > > > > At the last ALAC conference call, I volunteered to write some draft > > resolution for ALAC on Domain Tasting (and Domain monetization). > > > > With my limited knowledge, I rather hesitate, but put forward the > following > > as a very crude draft. I owe much part to John Levin's comment (on > internal > > list months ago), who unfortunately left ALAC recently. I hope John > still > > watch this open list and make further contribution, together with all > > others. > > > > I repeat this is very very crude, and I am aware that some porposals may > not > > be readily accepted by you guys, especially in the area of domain > > monetization. > > > > I still feel that the speculation is not for the interest of ordinary > users, > > perhaps OK with Domainers as new and innovative industry. For that, I > really > > like you to come up with clear and convincing ideas and solutions. This > > draft is just a step stone for that. > > > > Thanks, > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > *Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting > > ICANN AtLarge Advisory Committee (ALAC) > > > > V. 0.8 > > Mar 12 2007* > > * > > > > * > > On behalf of the ordinary Internet users, AtLarge Advisory Committee > (ALAC) > > would like to propose the following actions to be taken by the ICANN > > Community on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization. > > > > *To gNSO Council:* > > Start a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting. We believe that > Domain > > Tasting is an abuse of existing Five-day Add Grace Period which results > > confusion for the ordinary Internet users and give unfair treatment to > > peculiar speculators. We propose to abandon the five day "Add Grace > period". > > > > > > *To Registrars Constituency:* > > Finalize and implement Registrars Code of Conduct that prohibits unfair > > speculation and exploitation on Domain name registration including the > use > > of five day Add Grace period. > > > > *To Registry Constituency:* > > We request the registries to consider how to avoid user confusion and > unfair > > practices by abolishing the five day add grace period. Adding small fee, > > such as 25 cents per Domain to those registrants who kept their names > using > > add grace period may be one solution, but we are not fully convinced. > > *To ICANN Board: > > *We request ICANN Board to seriously consider how to prohibit unfair > > speculation, enhance consumer trust to Domain Name registration system, > by > > a) Initiating a third party study on the impact of Domain Tasting and > Domain > > Monetization/speculation to the ordinary Internet users. > > b) Initiating review of Registry ? Registrar Contract that will promote > the > > fair trade and restrict unfair speculation. > > > > *Background and Rationale:* > > Domain tasting uses the five day add grace period to register domains > > without paying for them. We think they are unfair acts: somewhere > between > > larceny and extortion, because the registration cost is zero and the > purpose > > of these registrations is just to make money taking advantage of > automated > > bulk registration to exploit the domain names which are the public goods > in > > essence. > > > > As many people have noted, it's exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be > > there in the first place. There was a great deal of debate both in the > > ICANN community and on the ICANN board about the deletion grace period, > but > > none at all about add grace which was apparently tossed into the package > by > > an ICANN staffer without asking anyone. So says Karl Auerbach, who was > on > > the board at the time, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary from > any > > other board member. > > > > As Bob Parsons wrote in his blog: > > *Millions of good .COM domain names ? on any given day over 3.5 million > and > > climbing ? are unfairly made unavailable to small businesses and others > who > > would actually register and use them in ways for which the names were > > intended. Many times businesses accidentally let their domain names > expire. > > When they go to renew them, they find they have been snapped up ? and > taken > > away with a huge expensive hassle to follow ? by an add/drop registrar. > * > > (http://www.bobparsons.com/adddropscheme.html) > > > > The usual explanation of domain tasting says that the registrars > register > > millions of domains, watch the traffic, and then after 4.9 days they > delete > > the ones that don't seem likely to make back the US$6.00. Often they > just > > delete them all and then reregister what they can a few minutes later > until > > they find the ones which produce enough traffic that yields well above > $6 > > cost. > > > > The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve > is > > not and never was an important one. If you let an important domain > expire, > > you risk losing the entire investment made in that domain over many > years. > > But if one registers a domain by mistake, the most one risks is the ten > or > > twenty dollars you paid to register it. > > > > *On Domain Monetization* > > We note that there is a meaningful difference between domain tasting and > > domain monetization. Monetization is a straightforward arbitrage between > the > > cost of domain registrations and the revenue from as much pay-per-click > > traffic as the domain owner can get from people who visit web sites in > the > > domain. It's a fundamentally sleazy business, since the web sites have > no > > useful content and the way they get the traffic is basically by tricking > > people, either via typos or recently expired domains. > > > > We do not think it is appropriate in this case to make ICANN as a > regulator > > to watch and prohibit the Domain monetization practice. Instead, we like > to > > ask those commercial activities such as Google or Overture to stop > paying > > for clicks on pages with no content, thereby dealing with a problem that > is > > not limited to typo and expired domains. We've seen click arbitrage, > people > > buying Google ads to drive traffic to pages that are simply other Google > > ads. This kind of self-generating traffic for pay-per-click advertising > is > > confusing and unnecessary for ordinary Internet users and , in the long > run, > > not healthy for the development of Internet as a whole. > > > > END > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
by Izumi AIZU March 14, 2007

March 14, 2007

Dear ALAC/RALO/ALS people, At the last ALAC conference call, I volunteered to write some draft resolution for ALAC on Domain Tasting (and Domain monetization). With my limited knowledge, I rather hesitate, but put forward the following as a very crude draft. I owe much part to John Levin's comment (on internal list months ago), who unfortunately left ALAC recently. I hope John still watch this open list and make further contribution, together with all others. I repeat this is very very crude, and I am aware that some porposals may not be readily accepted by you guys, especially in the area of domain monetization. I still feel that the speculation is not for the interest of ordinary users, perhaps OK with Domainers as new and innovative industry. For that, I really like you to come up with clear and convincing ideas and solutions. This draft is just a step stone for that. Thanks, izumi *Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting ICANN AtLarge Advisory Committee (ALAC) V. 0.8 Mar 12 2007* * * On behalf of the ordinary Internet users, AtLarge Advisory Committee (ALAC) would like to propose the following actions to be taken by the ICANN Community on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization. *To gNSO Council:* Start a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting. We believe that Domain Tasting is an abuse of existing Five-day Add Grace Period which results confusion for the ordinary Internet users and give unfair treatment to peculiar speculators. We propose to abandon the five day "Add Grace period". *To Registrars Constituency:* Finalize and implement Registrars Code of Conduct that prohibits unfair speculation and exploitation on Domain name registration including the use of five day Add Grace period. *To Registry Constituency:* We request the registries to consider how to avoid user confusion and unfair practices by abolishing the five day add grace period. Adding small fee, such as 25 cents per Domain to those registrants who kept their names using add grace period may be one solution, but we are not fully convinced. *To ICANN Board: *We request ICANN Board to seriously consider how to prohibit unfair speculation, enhance consumer trust to Domain Name registration system, by a) Initiating a third party study on the impact of Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization/speculation to the ordinary Internet users. b) Initiating review of Registry – Registrar Contract that will promote the fair trade and restrict unfair speculation. *Background and Rationale:* Domain tasting uses the five day add grace period to register domains without paying for them. We think they are unfair acts: somewhere between larceny and extortion, because the registration cost is zero and the purpose of these registrations is just to make money taking advantage of automated bulk registration to exploit the domain names which are the public goods in essence. As many people have noted, it's exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be there in the first place. There was a great deal of debate both in the ICANN community and on the ICANN board about the deletion grace period, but none at all about add grace which was apparently tossed into the package by an ICANN staffer without asking anyone. So says Karl Auerbach, who was on the board at the time, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary from any other board member. As Bob Parsons wrote in his blog: *Millions of good .COM domain names – on any given day over 3.5 million and climbing — are unfairly made unavailable to small businesses and others who would actually register and use them in ways for which the names were intended. Many times businesses accidentally let their domain names expire. When they go to renew them, they find they have been snapped up – and taken away with a huge expensive hassle to follow – by an add/drop registrar. * (http://www.bobparsons.com/adddropscheme.html) The usual explanation of domain tasting says that the registrars register millions of domains, watch the traffic, and then after 4.9 days they delete the ones that don't seem likely to make back the US$6.00. Often they just delete them all and then reregister what they can a few minutes later until they find the ones which produce enough traffic that yields well above $6 cost. The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve is not and never was an important one. If you let an important domain expire, you risk losing the entire investment made in that domain over many years. But if one registers a domain by mistake, the most one risks is the ten or twenty dollars you paid to register it. *On Domain Monetization* We note that there is a meaningful difference between domain tasting and domain monetization. Monetization is a straightforward arbitrage between the cost of domain registrations and the revenue from as much pay-per-click traffic as the domain owner can get from people who visit web sites in the domain. It's a fundamentally sleazy business, since the web sites have no useful content and the way they get the traffic is basically by tricking people, either via typos or recently expired domains. We do not think it is appropriate in this case to make ICANN as a regulator to watch and prohibit the Domain monetization practice. Instead, we like to ask those commercial activities such as Google or Overture to stop paying for clicks on pages with no content, thereby dealing with a problem that is not limited to typo and expired domains. We've seen click arbitrage, people buying Google ads to drive traffic to pages that are simply other Google ads. This kind of self-generating traffic for pay-per-click advertising is confusing and unnecessary for ordinary Internet users and , in the long run, not healthy for the development of Internet as a whole. END

2 1

Re: [APAC-Discuss] Nomination for APRALO
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 11, 2007

March 11, 2007

Done :) On 10/03/07, David Chen <david(a)twnic.net.tw> wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > Could you please move Dr. Ruay-Shiung Chang to run for a nominated > candidate of 2 years term of the representative of ALAC . We are sorry that > the perious mail was not clear. Thanks very much! > > Best Regards, > David Chen > ISOC-TW > > YMYehCSIE wrote: > > Dear All: > > > As the representative of ISOC-TW, as mentioned in Bali, we are looking to > contribute our service for APRALO. > > Here we would like to nominate our member Dr. Ruay-Shiung Chang to run for > the representative of ALAC. > > > > Attached you will find the resume of Dr. Ruay-Shiung Chang > > > > Sincerely yours, > > > > Yaoming Yeh > > ISOC-TW > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttp://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Geographic Regions Review
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 11, 2007

March 11, 2007

Dear Community: The following presentation from the Sao Paulo meeting may be useful, especially for those who are new to ICANN. It discusses why the current review of Geographic Regions in ICANN is important and what the regions are used for. I hope you find it helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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: [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] ICANN IDN Laboratory test results online
by Siavash Shahshahani March 11, 2007

March 11, 2007

> Hong Xue ha scritto: >> >> Dear At-Large Community >> >> The positive IDN Laboratory test results that have just been posted on >> www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/> - see directly at: >> >> http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-4-07mar07.htm >> >> It concludes that "during these tests, we were unable to detect any >> deviation at all in any part of the system from the normal behaviour of >> DNS systems. The addition of IDN strings seems to have had no measurable >> effect at all on the qualitative performance of the test systems. " >> >> These positive results will enable ICANN to move forward with the test >> of phase II. Phase II is currently under development but will be >> communicated as soon as possible. > > This is really a good development... I really hope that we can have full > deployment of IDNs as soon as possible. It is very important for many > parts of the world! > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org > Could somebody describe a possible 'failure scenario' for the tests? Siavash

1 0

An Introduction to Prof. Chang for APRALO election
by David Chen March 10, 2007

March 10, 2007

Dear all, Greeting! On behalf of ISOC Taiwan, Chair of Board, Prof. C.L. Liu, I would like to introduce a candidate from ISOC Taiwan in APRALO election, Prof. Ruay-Shiung Chang, who has deeply involved in ISOC activities with his knowledge, and best efforts. Prof. Chang is a senior member of IEEE, a member of ACM and a member of Japan's IEICE. From May 2004, he also serves on the Advisory Council for the www.pir.org, which manages the .ORG top-level domain name and maintains the database of all .ORG Internet addresses. In the Advisory council, Prof. Chang is in the Policy Committee, which proposes suggestions and solutions for various policy issues regarding the management of .org domain names in particular and the Internet in general. Prof. Chang also preaches the use, the freedom, and the democratization of the Internet in Taiwan. He has published numerous articles in Taiwanese newspapers about the Internet. According to http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats.htm, Asia now has the largest number of Internet users at 398 millions. But with a population of about 3712 millions, the penetration rate is only 10.7%, far below 69.7% in North America, 53.5 in Oceania, and 38.9% in Europe. Therefore, Dr. Chang believes that one of the main missions for the APRALO is to negotiate more resources for the outreach of Internet in the Asia-Pacific region. If elected, Dr. Chang promises he will do his best to facilitate the better communication and further cooperation between APRALO, ALAC and ICANN. Dr. Chang can be reached at rschang(a)mail.ndhu.edu.tw for further questions and suggestions. Please find the attached for Prof. Chang's Resume, I thank you again for your continuous supports. Best Regards, David Chen ISOC-TW

1 0

Nomination for APRALO
by YMYehCSIE March 9, 2007

March 9, 2007

Dear All: As the representative of ISOC-TW, as mentioned in Bali, we are looking to contribute our service for APRALO. Here we would like to nominate our member Dr. Ruay-Shiung Chang to run for the representative of ALAC. Attached you will find the resume of Dr. Ruay-Shiung Chang Sincerely yours, Yaoming Yeh ISOC-TW

2 1

For election
by Izumi AIZU March 9, 2007

March 9, 2007

Dear all, It was so nice to have very productive meeting last week in Bali. I thank you all for your great contribution and collaboration. Now, after thinking several times and also consulted with my colleagues, I would like to submit my intention to become candidates for the following position: ALAC representative from AP region. My idea is that in order to preserve some contintuity, given that Hong is not going to run and Siavash will be endig his term at the next ICANN AGM in November, I would like to serve for the position. My intention is to be selected as the shorter, one-year term (max), and aim to make as smooth transition as possible. There are several subject matters ALAC must respond to rather quickly, on the table now: Domain tasting, Registerfly, whois, IDN, new gTLD Ombudsman Report, gNSO Review/LSE Recommendation and coming ALAC External Review I am particularly interested in the area of Domain tasing, Ombudsman, gNSO review and ALAC review. Global ALAC itself is also facing the rapid transition, as new RALOs are coming up from LAC to EU to Africa, making some stability is important. Besides above policy issues, many other issues and topics will arise as ICANN enters into new fiscal year from July: ALAC/ICANN budget, IGF, GAC-ICANN relation, Stratgic Planning/Operation Plan, Board Review, etc. I am more than happy if other colleagues have strong interest for ALAC and pursue these policy issues, but frankly speaking some of them are rather complex and may require some period to get accuanted where my knowldge and experience on ALAC for such long years may help ;-). I thank you very much for your warm support and understandings and looking forward to the conference call to facilitate our mutual consensus. izumi

6 5