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

{Virus?} Returned mail: Data format error
by Returned mail Dec. 3, 2007

Dec. 3, 2007

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

1 0

ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
by Danny Younger Dec. 2, 2007

Dec. 2, 2007

Alan, A "Statement" is supposed to be the end-result of a group-wide debate on policy options. Sorry, but I haven't seen any debate. I also haven't seen any letter going out to any of the RALOs either outlining the policy choices or asking for the RALO views. Neither have I seen any letter going out to the 93 accredited ALSs asking for their views on the policy options. So, yeah, I'm not comfortable with the approach being taken and my tone clearly reflects that. That said, I have noted some earlier comments that pointed to a policy preference that at the very least could have been incorporated into the Statement: (1) "We propose to abandon the five day Add Grace period". http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q… (2) "The only consistent solution seems to get rid of AGP". http://icannalac.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-19.html (3) "The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve is not and never was an important one." http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/msg02173.html Is the above representative of an At-Large consensus on the topic? Who knows? The members haven't been polled, have they? What's important in my view is actually reaching out to obtain the At-Large sentiment, enumerating those views, and determining the relative strength of the positions being held. As I see it, that hasn't been done yet. So how do other groups approach the matter? Other constituencies actually discuss, and debate the topic with all of their members -- they even call for a vote. Consider, for example, the registrar community. They have been actively debating the issue for the last month and have still not yet arrived at a thoroughgoing policy determination (but they are now in the end-process of settling on a position or set of positions). Below you will find the text of a motion on domain tasting currently being discussed within the registrar constituency. The Main Motion: Moved that we accept the following as the RC position statement and submit it to the GNSO Council as such: The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting. Below are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC members. View 1. Many registrars believe that Tasting should be curbed if not eliminated altogether for one or more of the following reasons: a. Tasting is causing general confusion among registrants and potential registrants trying to register domain names. b. Tasting is eroding consumer confidence in the security and trustworthiness of domain name registration services and our industry in general. c. Tasting is causing an increase in support costs for Registrars. d. Tasting violates well-established codes of conduct and good practice intended to ensure security and stability by: i. disturbing the stability of a set of existing services that had been functioning satisfactorily, namely the competitive domain name registration services developed by Registrars; ii. disturbing other existing systems and value added services, for example those relying on Zone files, and various third party WHOIS services; iii. increasing costs that must be absorbed by others not participating in or benefiting from Tasting. e. Despite the long held tenet of "First do no harm," there has been no research, testing for potential disruption of existing services, public review, or comment prior to this high volume activity abruptly occurring in the DNS. In summary, high volume Tasting activity has undermined expectations about reliable behavior and in so doing has reduced trust in the security and stability of the system and has increased costs for registrars, registrants, and others not participating in the activity. View 2. Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a matter of concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN for one or more of the following reasons: a. Tasting takes place due to market demand, and the market should be allowed to evolve as demand dictates. b. ICANN is not a regulatory body, and according to its own bylaws, coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to technical functions of the DNS. ICANN should not be regulating market activity. Notwithstanding the above, the RC is in near unanimous agreement that sun-setting the Add Grace Period (AGP) is not an appropriate action should the GNSO decide to address Tasting activity. Many Registrars who do not participate in Tasting use the AGP in various ways not related to Tasting, as detailed in section 4.4 of the Outcomes Report of the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Name Tasting. Report found here: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-fina… Sun-setting the AGP would unnecessarily put additional burdens and costs on Registrars and Registrants using the AGP for these non-Tasting reasons. To the extent that the GNSO should decide to recommend policy or actions with the intent of curbing or eliminating Tasting activity, RC members are in general agreement that: Preferred - The GNSO should recommend that ICANN make the transactional fee component of the variable Registrar fees apply to all new registrations except for a reasonable number that are deleted within the AGP. Implementation time for Registrars would be negligible. Acceptable but not preferred - The GNSO should encourage gTLD Registries to only allow AGP refunds on a reasonable number of new registrations, noting that such action is affective only if all gTLD registries apply it, and do so in a reasonably consistent manner. Implementation time for Registrars could be substantial depending on how each Registry decided to define their policy. If Registrars need to modify their systems and/or services a minimum of 90-days advance notice should be given. Note: Neither of the above actions requires new policy or modifications to existing policy. Therefore the RC, regardless of their view, is generally opposed to a PDP on this issue. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

5 5

ALAC statement on Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 2, 2007

Dec. 2, 2007

Earlier this year, the ALAC requested that ICANN develop an Issues Report on Domain Tasting. Although the ICANN Bylaws allow an Advisory Committee to request such reports, this was the first (and so far only) time that a committee had actually done so. The Issues report (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju…) was issued in June and sent to the GNSO for further action. The ALAC's request for the Issues Report is at the end of the report. The GNSO charted an ad hoc group to further investigate and propose Terms of Reference for a possible Policy Development Process (PDP). That group's report can be found at http://www.gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-…. At the LA ICANN meeting, the GNSO decided that domain tasting merited further action, and voted to initiate a PDP. Constituency input has been solicited and is due by December 5th. Although not a GNSO constituency, input from the ALAC has been requested as well (a first, I believe). The statements will be combined by ICANN staff, and the result will go back to the GNSO. To the extent that more work may need to be done at that time, working groups will likely be formed. The ALAC meeting on Nov. 20th accepted that we should contribute a statement to the process, but that it did not need to be exhaustive (for reasons of both time and that our actions had initiated the activity). I propose the following statement. Comments and suggestions welcome. ======================= ALAC "Constituency" statement regarding the PDP on Domain Tasting The ALAC is pleased to have been asked to submit a statement regarding the newly launched GNSO Policy Development Process (PDP) on Domain Tasting. Domain tasting is the use of legitimate ICANN-approved processes to register a domain, test if there is any substantial traffic (perhaps because it was recently in use by someone else or is similar to another regularly used domain), and if not, cancel the registration at no net cost to the registrant. The issue of domain tasting has been regularly been discussed since the phenomena began in 2005 - and with good reason. In January 2005, before the practice was common, for .com and .net, there were about 1.7 million domains registered and 0.7 million domains deleted for a net increase of 1.0 million domains. By the end of the month, there were just over 40 million total domains registered. Two years later, at the end of January 2007, the total number of domains had increased by 78% to 72 million domains. However, in January 2007, there were 51 million domains registered and 48 million domains deleted. That is, there was a net increase of 3 million names, but most of the rest were just being "tasted". In the period since January 2007, the practice has grown even more. Although the practice is relatively widely used, the majority of tasting was being done by just three registrars, all of which have the same address, telephone number and formation date. The ALAC initiated the formal investigation of domain tasting by requesting that ICANN develop an Issues Report. This was done with the support of several GNSO constituencies. Ultimately, the Issues Report was delivered to the GNSO and at the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles, the GNSO decided to undertake a PDP with the intent of further understanding the effects of domain tasting and if appropriate, recommend measures to impede domain tasting. The ALAC is not only pleased that the GNSO has taken this action, but is particularly pleased that the action was taken with a 72% vote where only >33% was required to initiate a PDP. This indicated wide GNSO constituency support for the action. Although each constituency may have different reasons for supporting the process, it is nonetheless encouraging that the end target is the same. The GNSO has chosen to solicit constituency statements and most likely will create one or more working groups to further investigate domain tasting. From the ALAC's perspective, our main concerns were raised in the request for the Issues Report and with the possible exception of the reference to Facilitation of Criminal Activity, the positions remain valid. The ALAC advocates any and all actions that will reduce or eliminate domain tasting. It will support the PDP in whatever ways are most productive to better understand the impacts of domain tasting and to ultimately meet this end.

3 2

ALAC statement on Domain Tasting
by Danny Younger Dec. 1, 2007

Dec. 1, 2007

While I appreciate Alan's endeavor to arrive at a Statement, I am dissatisfied with the proposed ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting. The Statement as written does nothing more than report that: (1) ALAC is pleased that someone else will do the real policy-formulating work (2) ALAC has no new concerns (prior concerns have already been cited in an Issues report) (3) as long domain tasting is reduced or eliminated, ALAC has no preference as to how this is accomplished. In my view, such a Statement is not sufficiently helpful. Constituency Statements called for by the GNSO ask for the following: (1) positions to be taken -- as in, do we support the elimination of the add grace period or do we support the imposition of registrar-level transaction fees during the AGP, or do we support something else? (2) an analysis of the degree of support for a policy position by way of a tally of the vote held by the group on the policy choices that were enumerated (3) a listing of all positions held by all parties to the debate (4) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position detailing specific group meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views (5) An analysis of how the issue would affect the group, including any financial impact on the group (6) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy. For an example of what a Statement should look like, please see http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2007/2007-10-04-01.pdf or look at http://www.ncdnhc.org/policydocuments/PDP-Dec05-NCUC-CONST-STMT-JUNE2007.pdf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

3 2

Fwd: SV: [governance] Innovation
by Robert Guerra Dec. 1, 2007

Dec. 1, 2007

Not sure if all those subscribed to this list are aware of the rather comprehensive discussion taking place on the Internet Governance Mailing list on and about At-Large and ALAC. Well worth a read, as the discussion is far more comprehensive then what has been the case on this list.. If you aren't subscribed to the governance list, i'll share a recent posting by Wolfgang Kleinwächter. Internet Governance list Subscription & Archive details@ http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance regards Robert Begin forwarded message: > From: Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de > > > Date: December 1, 2007 4:13:04 AM GMT-05:00 > To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > Subject: SV: [governance] Innovation > Reply-To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.xn--org,kleinwchter-9kb, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de > > > > Two comments to two aspects of the discussion: > > Accountability of elected representatives: > > Yes, we had five elected AT Large Directors in 2000. I organized > from Melbourne onwards until 2002 at seven ICANN Meetings the so- > called "Dialogue with At Large Directors" together with Hans Klein. > With the exception of one occasion, we never managed to bring all > five ALM directors into a dialogue with their constituencies. Very > often they had "higher priorities" than talking to their voters > during the one week of an ICANN meeting. Karl came nearly everytime, > Kato (the Asian At Large director from Fujitsu) and Campos (the > Latin America Director from the Bank of Brasil) came frequently. Nii > from Africa as often as he could. But Andy Mueller Maguhn ignored it > widely. And when Andy, who got such an enourmes support in the > elections, ended its mandate as director in 2002 he totaly > disappeared from the scene. He did not undertake any effort to fight > for a improved at large representation with his knowledge as former > ICANN director. Karl did it. Andy did not. Karl voted very often > "against", Andy voted very often "abstain". How can election > guarantee that you get at the end indeed the people who behave in a > responsible way? I know that among all the bad procedures you have > at your disposal, fair, free and transparent elections are the best > you can get. But while elections are important and an empowring > instrument, they do not settle all problems. > > Empowering of Internet Users: > In the reform process ICANN moved from one extreme to another: The > original plan in 1998 was to have nine voting At Large Directors. > After four years in 2002 you got just one non voting AL liaison. The > background for this movement is - as described elswhere - mainly > political. We know this. A big fear and mistrust by some political > (and probably also economic) groups was in favour of an exclusion of > AL to minimize the risk that uncontrollable voices can make their > way to the decisions making process. Within WSIS it was a long way > until governments recognized civil society as a main stakeholder and > accepted multistakeholderism as a principle. During PrepCom1 at WSIS > I in 2002 in Geneva, the doors were closed and CS had no access even > to the Plenary. There were a lot of turbulences in front of the > closed doors in the ICCG in Geneva. One conclusion which was drawn > by CS folks in Geneva was that they have to counter the governmental > argument that CS is just a bunch of "individual noise makers" who > have no mandate from anybody. The result was the start of a process > of self-organisation among CS which procuded the CS Plenary, the CS > Bureau, the CS Content & Themes and about 30 caucuses and working > groups. One was the CS Internet Governance Caucus (co-chaired first > by YJ and me after WSIS I by Jeanette and Adam and now by Parminder > and Vittorio). The self organisation of the caucus paved the way for > the recognition by the other stakeholders. The IGC became a > respected partner in the process, was asked to nominate members for > the WGIG and published reasonable statements. It had been the IGC- > WGIG members which became a driving force in the WGIG process > itself, which paved the way for the Tunis Agenda. In fact, two > milestones of WGIG were initiatited and drafted by CS people: the IG > definition and the proposal for an Internet Governance Forum. > > Can be lessons learned for ICANN? Yes. > 1. do your homework in pushing foreward the self-organization > process using the existing structures for innovative actions > 2. pratice what you preach with regard to bottom up, > 3. draft understandable and rational language with substantial > proposals > 4. make concrete contributions in the acting bodies. > One outcome from the ALAC review process could be to change the > Advisory Committee status into a supporting organisation status > which would than allow an ALSO to send two voting directors to the > Board. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] > Sendt: fr 30-11-2007 16:12 > Til: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > Emne: RE: [governance] Innovation > > > > -----Original Message----- >> From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@cavebear.com] >> >> It is good to hear that people are getting interested. >> >> Was it you who mentioned previously that you thought that the >> Director >> elected for LA in year 2000 did not fully represent the Caribbean >> area? > > Yes, it was. And I note that yet again you write LA, not LAC. So - > if as you > say, the Director was elected for LA - not LAC, obviously they didn't > represent the Caribbean at ALL, as there isn't even the single > letter that > includes us in the regional name. > >> Do you think that the ALAC - a channel in which your regions views >> are >> filtered and then filtered and then filtered again - is as good as >> having a Director you can chose and elect? > > > I disagree with the premise - I don't think that the views are " > filtered > and then filtered and then filtered again". And honestly, once one > elects a > Director, until the next election, there's no accountability - or > that's > what I am accustomed to here. The elected person or persons can > choose to > put forward the regional views or their personal ones, as they want. > At the > end, they can be voted out, but the next person will do exactly the > same > thing. In the current case, all the views are going forward, without > filtration. > >> Back here in the US there was a thing known as a "company union" - >> see >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union > > OK... I don't see the analogy, but ... > >> If you were drowning, as internet users are, in a sea of >> powerlessness, >> and if given a choice between the ALAC, and its nearly vacuous >> ability >> to hold ICANN to account, and real elections for real identifiable >> people - including themselves if they chose to run, don't you think >> that many, perhaps most would chose elections? > > Yet again, I disagree with the base concept here. I think that > Internet > users in the Caribbean are drowning in a sea of lack of information, > lack of > infrastructure, lack of affordable technology; not powerlessness > that can be > fixed with a vote. We need information, outreach, we need to know and > understand what the issues are. Then we can determine what we think > about > those issues and then we can say- this is what we want/need. An > election > system won't do that IMO. NGOs and information campaigns and > technology > transfer and training programs will. And the ALSes can work on that, > and > they can get support from ICANN and other organizations to do that. > > Honestly, I think that you are coming from a place that is so > different to > the reality here that it's almost impossible to relate. > > Jacqueline > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: > 11/29/2007 > 20:32 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

1 0

Re: [At-Large] I'm inviting you into the "At-Large GNSO Liaison" workspace
by Wendy Seltzer Dec. 1, 2007

Dec. 1, 2007

Why are we creating a new workspace here, rather than using space within the overall ALAC wiki? I don't think this fragmentation helps us or our public keep track of activities. Thanks, --Wendy Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Hi, > > I'm inviting you to join At-Large GNSO Liaison, one of our shared workspaces. Sign in using the information below: > > web address: https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/ > username: > > > > Because you already have a Socialtext Appliance account, the password is the same as the password you use for your other Socialtext Appliance workspaces. > If you don't remember it, follow this link to select a new password: > https://st.icann.org/nlw/forgot_password.html > > > You may want to keep this email for future reference. > > Thanks, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

4 9