December 2007 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

GNSO: IDN Fast-Track concerns emerging
by Danny Younger Dec. 20, 2007

Dec. 20, 2007

Serious concerns regarding the IDN Fast-Track are being raised within the GNSO. [excerpt] "However, until such time as the apportionment of the IDN TLD name space for the ccNSOʼs remit has been decided, the methods by which this will be done cannot be fairly decided by a ccNSO and GAC led WG that does not recognize the GNSO as equal participants. Until such time as the ICANN community at large has decided on the proper apportionment of the IDN TLD name space for the ccNSOʼs remit, any fast-track method must be developed with balanced participation from the GNSO, along with the ccNSO and GAC." [excerpt] "It is unclear who the intended registries of the to be defined IDN ccTLDs are. Are these the traditional ccTLD registries as defined by RFC 1591? Are these the IDNs associated with language and cultural communities as envisioned by the IDN WG? Or are these new IDN ccTLDs critical national resources that come under some form of national administration?" The most recent version of this draft document can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04334.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

Request for input to Issues Report on Introduction of IDN ccTLDs
by Jacqueline Morris Dec. 20, 2007

Dec. 20, 2007

FYI Jacqueline ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gabriella Schittek <gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org> Date: Dec 20, 2007 4:01 AM Subject: [cctld-discuss] Request for input to Issues Report on Introduction of IDN ccTLDs To: ccnso-members(a)icann.org, ccnso-council(a)icann.org, cctld-discuss(a)wwtld.org Dear all, A request for input to the Issue Report on the Introduction of IDN ccTLDs has been posted at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm The comment period ends at 25th January 2008. Please, see the announcement for further details. Kind regards, Gabi ---------- Gabriella Schittek ccNSO Secretariat gabriella.schittek(a)icann.org

1 0

W3C Recommends Creation of a DNS Foundation
by Brendler, Beau Dec. 20, 2007

Dec. 20, 2007

Given the (lofty) W3C language, "Our goal is to convince the DNS industry and ICANN to support more actively the ongoing technical development of the Web and Internet for the global, common good, and to promote the stability, utility, and universal accessibility of these platforms," we should consider supporting this effort, or a similar one, yes? -----Original Message----- From: w3c-ac-members-request(a)w3.org [mailto:w3c-ac-members-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steve Bratt Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 2:21 PM To: W3C Members Subject: W3C Recommends Creation of a DNS Foundation Dear Advisory Committee Representative, ICANN recently issued a call for input [1] on potential uses of revenues that would be generated from new Domain Name System schemes (e.g., from the proposed offering of single-letter and single-digit second-level domain names). With the support of the Advisory Board (at their November face-to-face meeting [2] and subsequently), the Team has sent a recommendation [3] on behalf of W3C for the creation of a Trust Fund -- a "DNS Foundation" -- to manage the proceeds that will result from opening the DNS market. Our goal is to convince the DNS industry and ICANN to support more actively the ongoing technical development of the Web and Internet for the global, common good, and to promote the stability, utility, and universal accessibility of these platforms. If you are interested in this topic, please contact Daniel Dardailler <dd(a)w3.org>. Best Regards, Steve [1] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-16oct07.htm [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2007OctDec/0050 [3] http://forum.icann.org/lists/allocationmethods/msg00033.html -- Steven R Bratt mailto:steve@w3.org Chief Executive Officer World Wide Web Consortium http://www.w3.org/ MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory 32 Vassar Street, Rm G522, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA / tel: +1.617.253.7697 *** Scanned

3 2

Re: [At-Large] For consumers: Ten tips when choosing a registrar
by Elisabeth Porteneuve Dec. 19, 2007

Dec. 19, 2007

Bret, Very good observations. Re first one: I would re-state your sentence: "Many registrars present themselves to the consumer in English, but are based in non-English speaking countries." into "Many registrars present themselves to the consumer in English, but you do not know the country they operate in, neither the jurisdiction which apply in case of problem. Usually it it easier to understand contract written in your mother tongue, to deal with courts and lawyers in your mother tongue." Personnaly the very first thing I am checking is the company name, VAT number, postal address, country, phone numbers. If I cannot find it easily, like in German "impressum", which is always available on the main website page, I get suspicious, and leave. Your third comment is the most important. I want to see up front the easy tools to write my new zonefile, to update it, and to have DNS servers taking change into account immediately (live, 30 seconds or so). I also appreciate registrar providing information on how many his name servers he makes available to me, and ASN's distribution of his nameservers. I would love to have registrar's commitmment to use only ICANN's Internet root servers, no "a la sitefinder" tricks diverting name servers trafic and attempting on my privacy. I appreciate also registrar's commitment to preserve network neutrality. Eventually my final observations: I want to see in one glimpse all costs, for all TLDs, gTLDs or ccTLDs, the registrar is accredited for. No clicodrome, no adds, no dancing nonsense - sober, up to the point website, minimizing my time, and dedicated ONLY to the domain names. Best regards, Elisabeth Porteneuve (holder of a dozen of domain names in gTLDs and ccTLDs) --- ----Bret original messages---- Two comments, if it's not too late. 1. Choice of law/jurisdiction is something to consider. Do you really want to purchase from an overseas registrar? ("overseas" being a relative term, wherever you are in the world.) Many registrars present themselves to the consumer in English, but are based in non-English speaking countries. This can be an issue for customer service. It's also an issue should you have to sue the registrar because most registrar contracts make the jurisdiction for suit the place where the registrar is located. I might use this to replace 8 ("What if choose not to re-register..."), which really has nothing to do with selecting a registrar. 2. As phrased, I think you do a disservice with #1 because resellers of accredited registrars are often places to get great personal service and prices. A lot of local ISPs, for example, are resellers of companies like Tucows and eNom and GoDaddy, but they don't have their own accreditation. So I might rephrase #1 to say something about looking for an ICANN accreditation *or a reseller of an ICANN- accredited registrar.* Hope that is helpful. -- Bret Another comment, even more important. I'm really surprised you mention nothing about the online tools and explanations for how to use those tools that the registrar provides. I mean, is anything actually more important than the ability to *use* the domain name you've registered? I would recommend that would be registrants actually look around on the registrar sites long enough to see whether they can find clear explanations of both the registration process and the domain name configuration process. Do you need hosting with your domain? Does the registrar explain how to set up the name servers to work with your host? I have about 150 domains, and I've used a lot of registrars, and their online tools vary greatly. Some are easy to use, some are a maze of upsells that could confuse even power users. I think you're looking for a clear interface, few ads and upsells presented along the way, with a easy to understand FAQ about how to configure your name. Bret

2 1

ICANN Board meeting: Dec 18
by Danny Younger Dec. 18, 2007

Dec. 18, 2007

Wendy, It would be appreciated if you could check on the status of the "Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" (dated 19 September 2007). The comment period expired on 19 October (almost two months ago) and ICANN still hasn't taken any definitive action even after having received a slew of comments. http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm http://forum.icann.org/lists/retransfers-comments/ Thanks, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

1 0

Cataluña puede tener un Estado propio en Internet gracias al PP
by Robert Guerra Dec. 17, 2007

Dec. 17, 2007

Dear colleagues: I just read the following article in the spanish " el pais " newspaper. Would be keen to hear from our spanish speaking collegues as they might be able to quickly comment on the spanish story Quick summary for the non-spanish speakers - it seems that the Spanish Region of Cataluña, who now have the .CAT domain might soon be granted a two letter TLD (ie. appear in ISO3166-1). Currently, two other spanish territories (canary islands and Ceuta & Melilla) have such status, and Cataluna wants to have it too. regards Robert -- http://www.elpais.com/articulo/Pantallas/Cataluna/puede/tener/Estado/propio… ELPAIS.COM Sociedad de la información Cataluña puede tener un Estado propio en Internet gracias al PP PABLO X. DE SANDOVAL - Madrid - 14/12/2007 En el plazo máximo de seis meses, el Gobierno debe proponer que Cataluña tenga el dominio .cat en Internet, es decir, que tenga rango de Estado. Así ha quedado aprobado tras el paso de la Ley de Impulso a la Sociedad de la Información por el Senado, con los votos a favor del Partido Popular y los votos en contra de Esquerra Republicana de Cataluña, en una de las votaciones más complicadas que se recuerdan en la Cámara alta. En la Red, sólo los Estados tienen dominios formados por dos letras, como España tiene el .es y Francia el .fr, por ejemplo. La idea era una propuesta de CiU, que no se equivocó en la votación, como tampoco el PNV, que lo apoyó. Fuentes del PP dieron por hecho ayer que su apoyo a este punto se trata de un error. Además, es momentáneo. La ley debe volver al Congreso para que se pronuncie sobre las enmiendas introducidas por el Senado, y ésta tiene poco futuro, ya que el Gobierno y el PSOE se oponen a que Cataluña tenga categoría de Estado en la Red. Era una de esas ocasiones en el Pleno del Senado donde lo difícil era no equivocarse en algo. La enmienda número 56 de CiU, para que Cataluña pueda aspirar a un dominio .ct (de Estado) en vez del actual .cat (de región), había sido aprobada en el trámite en Comisión. En el Pleno, lo que se votaba -a propuesta del PSOE- era eliminarla. Por tanto, si un grupo quería que Cataluña fuera un Estado debía votar "no", y si quería que no lo fuera debía votar "sí". El PP votó que no. ERC votó que sí, junto con sus socios parlamentarios del PSC e ICV. La enmienda se quedó en el texto por 122 votos a 110. Los senadores de Coalición Canaria, más uno de Eusko Alkartasuna y un independiente navarro, se abstuvieron prudentemente. Los códigos de dos letras o de primer nivel están en la lista ISO3166-1, y corresponden a países, aunque también hay algunos territorios que no son Estados propios, como por ejemplo la Isla de Reunión (.re). Pero los códigos de esta lista que identifican territorios han sido concedidos a islas o enclaves, no a provincias o regiones dentro de un país, sea cual sea su grado de autonomía (ni siquiera Escocia o Texas, por ejemplo). En España, actualmente hay reservados dos códigos en ISO3166-1 para casos de este tipo. Son el .ea para Ceuta y Melilla y el .ic para las Islas Canarias. Pero nada para Cataluña, a no ser que prospere la Ley de Sociedad de la Información tal como ha sido modificada en el Senado a propuesta de CiU. El propio ex ministro de Industria y actual presidente de la Generalitat, José Montilla, explicó en el Pleno del Senado en octubre de 2005 a preguntas del PP la posición del Gobierno al respecto. Montilla dijo que el Gobierno no apoyaría a Cataluña en la petición de un dominio de primer nivel ante el ICANN (el organismo que concede los dominios), ya que Cataluña, "a pesar de su identidad nacional, no es un Estado". Para Montilla, el dominio .cat ya era adecuado para desarrollar la cultura catalana en Internet. La votación de la Ley de Sociedad de la Información saltó a los medios por la aprobación del fin del canon digital indiscriminado, una propuesta de ICV que también apoyó el PP, con los votos en contra de PSOE, PSC y CC. La portavoz de Cultura del PP en el Congreso reaccionó rápidamente diciendo que había sido un error, y fue contundentemente desautorizada por el Grupo Popular en el Senado, que aclaró que está de acuerdo con buscar alternativas, pactadas con los artistas, a una medida hoy por hoy indiscriminada. © Diario EL PAÍS S.L. - Miguel Yuste 40 - 28037 Madrid [España] - Tel. 91 337 8200 © Prisacom S.A. - Ribera del Sena, S/N - Edificio APOT - Madrid [España] - Tel. 91 353 7900

3 2

Moore v. ICANN
by Danny Younger Dec. 17, 2007

Dec. 17, 2007

I'm not sure as what date it was actually posted to the ICANN website, but ICANN has been removed as a defendant in the $25,000,000 lawsuit initiated by Michael Moore against ICANN, eNom and RegisterFly (for jurisdictional reasons). http://www.icann.org/legal/moore-v-icann/moore-v-icann-dismissal.pdf Some of you may remember the 48 postings sent to the ALAC Public Forum by Michael Moore complaining of renewal problems with these registrars -- you will probably also recall that no one on the ALAC offered any assistance or guidance to Mr. Moore. The ALAC now no longer has a Public Forum per se where average citizens can send through complaints or inquiries... you may want to reassess that decision. You may also want to ask yourselves whether a failure to communicate with the public has led to unnecessary lawsuits that have served to drain ICANN financial resources. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

8 13

{Virus?} Delivery reports about your e-mail
by Mail Delivery Subsystem Dec. 16, 2007

Dec. 16, 2007

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (letter.zip, the entire message, Letter.scr). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

{Virus?} Returned mail: Data format error
by Bounced mail Dec. 15, 2007

Dec. 15, 2007

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message, message.zip, message.htm .com). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

Scheduling regular telephonic policy briefings on Policy for the At-Large Community
by Nick Ashton-Hart Dec. 14, 2007

Dec. 14, 2007

Dear ALAC and Secretariat members: Following up on an offer made by the Staff during the 1 November 2007 ALAC meeting in Los Angeles, and followup conversations with Cheryl, may I suggest that the staff of ICANN provide two briefings on policy issues at a standing time and date twice per month - one convenient to the eastern hemisphere, and the other convenient to the western hemisphere, approximately every two weeks. We would then facilitate callers to dial in to the briefing, or if they do not live in a country with a freephone number, the service could dial out to them. The calls would be recorded, so that those who could not participate 'live' would be able to listen to the recordings later. Setting a standing date and time may make it easier for the volunteer community to schedule time to participate sufficiently in advance to ensure good Q&A sessions so that recordings are of maximum use to other parties - even other ICANN communities. Might I suggest that with respect to the subjects of the call, these could be decided by a procedure where the ALAC Executive Committee proposes a list of subjects for the next four calls (two months' worth) to the public ALAC list on a no-objections basis after their next meeting (20th December). These calls would begin in the new year and proposing the subjects in good time like this would allow the Policy staff to schedule the right people to do the briefings with sufficient warning. I hope that this will meet with your favour. With the various working groups really getting underway, it seems that this may help to raise understanding of the issues and their complexity so that the At-Large community can provide the best advice possible on the subjects which concern you. I will separately liaise with my colleagues in the Policy department to see if some time / date combinations are most suitable to ensure over the course of time the best access to the widest number of potential briefers :) -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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

8 8