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

3 RALOs Celebrated in Lisbon Today!
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

At 1330 GMT, as the finale of the Public Forum at the Lisbon ICANN Meeting, there will be a signing ceremony for two RALOs - Africa and Europe - and a recognition of the conclusion of the Asia/Australia/ Pacific MoU. Those newly-elected in AP and Africa will also be announced. The event will be webcast and scribed, and recorded and made available for download/viewing as a separate event as well as part of the Public Forum. Please see http://public.icann.org for details on watching and listening. The Order of Events is attached for your information. My congratulations to these regions for their achievement - the high- point of a very productive and policy-debate rich meeting for At- Large which I think it is fair to say has given the entire community a great 'bounce' in terms of visibility and credibility with all other constituencies.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Statement on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization - V. 1.3
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

May I just add to this excellent and concise statement of the situation the following points: 1) I caused a document to be prepared some weeks ago, posted then in English, that provides an overview of the GNSO and the PDP process, which was then translated into Spanish, Brazilian Portuguese, and French. I really encourage everyone in the community to revew this - it isn't very long but should give you a solid background in the process which is very important considering that At-Large is now spearheading a PDP-launching effort. These documents have been announced on the front page of www.icann.orgyesterday, and can also be reached at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents 2) The Bylaws of ICANN, which contain the enire process as well as the above document, can be found at: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm. The PDP Process can be found at: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA 3) The GNSO definition of what should be in an issues report can be found at: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml On 29/03/07, Alan Greenberg < alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > If I remember correctly, in the Mar 6 meeting, I asked for > confirmation of whether the document that we had received was in fact > an "Issues Report". The answer we received a few days later was that > it did not meet the criteria of a Bylaw-specified issues report. > Perhaps we should look into why we previously understood that the was > a formal issues report, but that will not help the present process. > > According to the Bylaws, the way that the ALAC can trigger a Policy > Development Process (PDP) is to formally request an Issues Report > from ICANN staff. This issues report must be delivered within 15 > days. The report can them be presented to the GNSO and the GNSO must > vote on whether to start a PDP within 15 days of receipt of the > Issues Report. Assuming that ICANN staff agree that this is indeed an > ICANN "policy" issue, a 33% vote by the GNSO triggers a PDP. If staff > does not agree that it is a policy issue, it requires a 66% vote of > the GNSO to trigger a PDP. The Issues Report can also be submitted to > the Board which, if it chooses, can vote to direct the GNSO to > initiate a PDP (for this entire process, see > http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA) > > As of the meeting in Lisbon, the ALAC has passed a motion to submit a > request for an Issues Report to staff no later than 30 April 2007. > The request was delayed to allow us to solicit support from the GNSO > constituencies and to allow us to formulate the request to maximize > the issue being classed as a "policy issue". > > We already have the support of several GNSO constituencies and we > will work with them to formulate the request for an Issues Report. > > If we are successful, we should have a PDP initiated at the no later > than the San Juan meeting. > > Alan > > > At 28/03/2007 02:15 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: > > >The March 6 vote puts us further into the process. We should call what > >we already received from staff an Issues Report and forward this > >statement to the GNSO Council at this meeting to start the PDP. > > > >--Wendy > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- -- 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

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Statement on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization - V. 1.3
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

What you received before is most definitely not an issues report I'm afraid. An Issues Report is a specific thing which is regulated by the Bylaws in the way I outlined lower in the thread below. To recap, in order to have an Issues Report, you must ask the GNSO Council for one in the way below-referenced. Since the report you received originally written by Bruce Beckwith is not the result of such a motion to the GNSO, it doesn't qualify. On 28/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > Izumi AIZU wrote: > > 2007/3/29, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>: > >> > >> I like the substance of the comment, but the procedure is wrong. We > >> voted at our March 6 teleconference to commence the PDP, so this is the > >> statement to be sent to the GNSO requesting it. > > > > > > Woops, because we voted yesterday to write a request to > > ICANN Staff for Issue report. No one reminded the Vote on March 6. > > Which one should we follow? > > The March 6 vote puts us further into the process. We should call what > we already received from staff an Issues Report and forward this > statement to the GNSO Council at this meeting to start the PDP. > > --Wendy > > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > --Wendy > >> > >> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >> > Just one comment down below of a technical nature: > >> > > >> > On 28/03/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > >> >> Hi, > >> >> > >> >> Here follows and attached is the third version. I messed up with the > >> >> wiki, changing the link page title made it impossible to keep the > >> >> history - thus this is a kind of new page now. > >> >> I will try to find ways to fix it... in the mean time. I changed the > >> >> title from "Comments" to "Statement". We still need more inputs and > >> >> reactions from you guys! > >> >> > >> >> Thanks, > >> >> izumi > >> >> > >> >> Here is the wiki URL: > >> >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1 > >> >> > >> >> ALAC STATEMENT ON DOMAIN TASTING AND MONETISATION AND THEIR IMPACTS ON > >> >> THE INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS > >> >> > >> >> Version 1.3, Mar 28 > >> >> > >> >> On behalf of the ordinary Internet users, the At-Large Advisory > >> >> Committee (ALAC), with inputs from the worldwide At-Large Structures > >> >> and other friends, would like to make the following statements on > >> >> Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization. > >> >> > >> >> We think Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization are two different > >> >> issues, though certain areas may have some relationship, and therefore > >> >> we like to discuss them separately. > >> >> > >> >> The need to articulate the issue first for Domain Tasting > >> >> We assume that Domain Tasting utilizing the existing Five-day Add > >> >> Grace Period is an abuse that results in confusion of the ordinary > >> >> Internet users and gives an unfair advantage to speculators. > >> >> > >> >> At this point of time, we feel there still needs more concrete > >> >> information to prove these problems actually exist and are affecting > >> >> the ordinary users and their experience in using the Internet. > >> >> > >> > > >> > This paragraph is still slightly out of kilter with what the process > >> > in the Bylaws actually requires. > >> > > >> > What you are actually to do is raise an issue by transmitting a > >> > request to the GNSO Council to commence a PDP. > >> > > >> > Then 15 days after receiving a "properly supported motion from an > >> > Advisory Committee" the staff will create an issues report. > >> > > >> > "properly supported" according to Dan Halloran means supported by the > >> > committee in the normal way it resolves on questions of substance - > >> > e.g majority vote. > >> > > >> > You can find the details here: > >> http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA > >> > > >> >> ALAC will draft a formal request shortly to ask ICANN staff to prepare > >> >> the Issue Report. At the same time, we like to work together with > >> >> other constituencies or groups who share the similar concern to come > >> >> to a consensus position. > >> >> > >> >> Upon receiving the Issue Report by the staff, GNSO must make the > >> >> decision whether a formal PDP is necessary or not. > >> >> > >> >> In addition, here are some possible actions you can do voluntarily > >> now: > >> >> > >> >> With the User Consituency, business and non-commercial: > >> >> Find the best ways to protect the interest of the end users, as > >> >> registrants as well as just as general users who do not register > >> >> domain names but just use domain names to communicate each other or > >> >> find useful information on Internet. How to provide safeguard for the > >> >> domain names they registered, what are the rights of the registrants, > >> >> for example. > >> >> > >> >> With the 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. In case full consensus > >> >> is difficult to achieve, some voluntary Code of Conduct or Best > >> >> Practice or some kind of Self-certification may be a good alternative > >> >> to assure user confidence. > >> >> > >> >> With Registry Constituency: gTLD and ccTLDs > >> >> 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 another solution. > >> >> > >> >> With ICANN Board: > >> >> We suggest ICANN Board to consider how to prohibit unfair speculation, > >> >> enhance consumer trust to Domain Name registration system, for > >> >> example, initiating a third party study on the impact of Domain > >> >> Tasting and Domain Monetization/speculation to the ordinary Internet > >> >> users. ALAC is more than happy to assist such study, > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> 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. More importantly, the presence of such website makes > >> >> web-surfing by ordinary users far more difficult and confusing than > >> >> they should be. > >> >> > >> >> We do not think it is appropriate in this case to make ICANN as a > >> >> regulator to watch and prohibit the Domain Monetization practices per > >> >> se. Instead, on behalf of ordinary Internet users, we call upon those > >> >> commercial enterprises such as Google or Overture to take appropriate > >> >> measures such as 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. > >> >> > >> >> Since Domain monetization is a relatively new phenomena, the impact to > >> >> the ordinary users and the wider Internet community is hard to measure > >> >> at this point. It seems clear, however, that it does not improve the > >> >> user experience at all. We think it is worth to keep watching on how > >> >> it develops and may seek for specific actions when we have clearer > >> >> understanding of measurable impact. > >> >> > >> >> Background and Rationale on Domain Tasting > >> >> "Domain tasting" is the term used to describe the use of the five-day > >> >> add grace period to register domains without paying for them and find > >> >> those domains which generate certain traffic for pay-per-click > >> >> advertisements. We think these 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 by taking > >> >> advantage of automated bulk registration to exploit the domain names, > >> >> which are in essence 'public goods', and not the real property of > >> >> anyone. > >> >> > >> >> As many people have noted, this practice is exploiting a loophole that > >> >> shouldn't exist in the first place. There was a great deal of debate > >> >> both in the ICANN community 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 we haven't seen anything to the contrary > >> >> from any other board member. > >> >> > >> >> As Bob Parsons, CEO and Founder of Go Daddy, 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. > >> >> > >> >> 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 registration fee. Often they just delete them all and then > >> >> reregister what they can a few minutes later until they find the > >> >> domains that produce enough traffic to yield a return well above the > >> >> registration fee. > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ > >> >> 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 > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > >> phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 > >> 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/ > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 > 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/ > -- -- 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

3 2

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Statement on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization - V. 1.3
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

Just one comment down below of a technical nature: On 28/03/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Here follows and attached is the third version. I messed up with the > wiki, changing the link page title made it impossible to keep the > history - thus this is a kind of new page now. > I will try to find ways to fix it... in the mean time. I changed the > title from "Comments" to "Statement". We still need more inputs and > reactions from you guys! > > Thanks, > izumi > > Here is the wiki URL: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1 > > ALAC STATEMENT ON DOMAIN TASTING AND MONETISATION AND THEIR IMPACTS ON > THE INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS > > Version 1.3, Mar 28 > > On behalf of the ordinary Internet users, the At-Large Advisory > Committee (ALAC), with inputs from the worldwide At-Large Structures > and other friends, would like to make the following statements on > Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization. > > We think Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization are two different > issues, though certain areas may have some relationship, and therefore > we like to discuss them separately. > > The need to articulate the issue first for Domain Tasting > We assume that Domain Tasting utilizing the existing Five-day Add > Grace Period is an abuse that results in confusion of the ordinary > Internet users and gives an unfair advantage to speculators. > > At this point of time, we feel there still needs more concrete > information to prove these problems actually exist and are affecting > the ordinary users and their experience in using the Internet. > This paragraph is still slightly out of kilter with what the process in the Bylaws actually requires. What you are actually to do is raise an issue by transmitting a request to the GNSO Council to commence a PDP. Then 15 days after receiving a "properly supported motion from an Advisory Committee" the staff will create an issues report. "properly supported" according to Dan Halloran means supported by the committee in the normal way it resolves on questions of substance - e.g majority vote. You can find the details here: http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA > ALAC will draft a formal request shortly to ask ICANN staff to prepare > the Issue Report. At the same time, we like to work together with > other constituencies or groups who share the similar concern to come > to a consensus position. > > Upon receiving the Issue Report by the staff, GNSO must make the > decision whether a formal PDP is necessary or not. > > In addition, here are some possible actions you can do voluntarily now: > > With the User Consituency, business and non-commercial: > Find the best ways to protect the interest of the end users, as > registrants as well as just as general users who do not register > domain names but just use domain names to communicate each other or > find useful information on Internet. How to provide safeguard for the > domain names they registered, what are the rights of the registrants, > for example. > > With the 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. In case full consensus > is difficult to achieve, some voluntary Code of Conduct or Best > Practice or some kind of Self-certification may be a good alternative > to assure user confidence. > > With Registry Constituency: gTLD and ccTLDs > 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 another solution. > > With ICANN Board: > We suggest ICANN Board to consider how to prohibit unfair speculation, > enhance consumer trust to Domain Name registration system, for > example, initiating a third party study on the impact of Domain > Tasting and Domain Monetization/speculation to the ordinary Internet > users. ALAC is more than happy to assist such study, > > > 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. More importantly, the presence of such website makes > web-surfing by ordinary users far more difficult and confusing than > they should be. > > We do not think it is appropriate in this case to make ICANN as a > regulator to watch and prohibit the Domain Monetization practices per > se. Instead, on behalf of ordinary Internet users, we call upon those > commercial enterprises such as Google or Overture to take appropriate > measures such as 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. > > Since Domain monetization is a relatively new phenomena, the impact to > the ordinary users and the wider Internet community is hard to measure > at this point. It seems clear, however, that it does not improve the > user experience at all. We think it is worth to keep watching on how > it develops and may seek for specific actions when we have clearer > understanding of measurable impact. > > Background and Rationale on Domain Tasting > "Domain tasting" is the term used to describe the use of the five-day > add grace period to register domains without paying for them and find > those domains which generate certain traffic for pay-per-click > advertisements. We think these 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 by taking > advantage of automated bulk registration to exploit the domain names, > which are in essence 'public goods', and not the real property of > anyone. > > As many people have noted, this practice is exploiting a loophole that > shouldn't exist in the first place. There was a great deal of debate > both in the ICANN community 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 we haven't seen anything to the contrary > from any other board member. > > As Bob Parsons, CEO and Founder of Go Daddy, 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. > > 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 registration fee. Often they just delete them all and then > reregister what they can a few minutes later until they find the > domains that produce enough traffic to yield a return well above the > registration fee. > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- -- 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

4 4

Proposed research on registrar transfer-away fees
by Wendy Seltzer March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

Thanks to Danny Younger for starting this conversation. Danny has proposed that the ALAC initiate research on a specific, registrant-affecting question: What are the scope and magnitude of transfer-away fees among the various registrars? These fees, charged to domain-name registrants when they seek to leave one registrar for another, can lock registrants in to a registrar who no longer serves their needs (as has happened in droves with former Registerfly customers). High fees can also contravene the intent of the uniform transfers policy. We have seen little public information about these fees. So, here is a focused research task: For each registrar, ask Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names to another registrar? If so, what is the fee? Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of registration? Where and how is such disclosure made? Is the fee subject to change? After we decide whether these are the relevant questions, we should ask staff to contact all registrars for their responses, and/or review public information on the registrars' websites. If you're interested in this research, please respond to this message with your thoughts. --Wendy -- 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/

9 10

Fwd: Issues Reports - their format and structure - for information
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

Please find below the guidelines for an issues report adopted by the GNSO Council. This will I hope aid the committee - and the community - in the process of raising the issues at hand with the GNSO. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glen De Saint Géry <glen(a)icann.org> Date: 28-Mar-2007 16:29 Subject: Issues reports To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> Nick Here we are: http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-19feb04.shtml Item 6: Expectations on ICANN staff manager for GNSO policy support - guidelines for producing issues report - preliminary reports - timelines for deliverables - reporting structure Item Philip Sheppard commented that some guidance was given in the ICANN bylaws on the policy development process but that the expectations in the content were missing and referred to the following set of guidelines he had drawn up and welcomed by ICANN General Counsel: Proposed guidelines for the ICANN staff manager's issue report - Background The staff manager's issue report is the precursor to the GNSO policy development process (PDP). The PDP is relatively new and there has been a high degree of variation in the quality, length and usefulness of the issues reports so far. This is not surprising since Council and staff are still developing procedures. Therefore, Council proposes guidelines to provide structure for future staff manager issue reports. The goal is to ensure that the materials are directly useful to the work of the Council. Objective An issue report has three objectives: - Relevance: to confirm an issue is within ICANN's mission, - Description: to explain what the issue is, who it affects, what support there is to address the issue, - Recommendation: to recommend whether or not the GNSO should start a PDP. The by-laws lay down a structure as to how the above objectives may be met. http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA What SHOULD NOT be in the issues report The report has a short time frame (15 calendar days). This tells us that it is NOT intended to contain: - options for solutions, - options for how the Council may proceed, - responses to a formal consultation of constituencies (this comes later if the PDP goes ahead), - nor should it be necessary to supplement it with documents such as FAQs. What SHOULD the issues report look like? It should be the primary document needed for the Council to make a decision whether to proceed or not with a PDP. It should include links to existing documents that provide directly relevant background. The report must be clear in its recommendation to Council. Past reports have not had this clarity and the GNSO chairman has been obliged to draft terms of reference for a Council WG in an attempt to provide such clarity. It would be more appropriate if the report itself proposed such terms of reference (recognising that Council may choose to modify them). Therefore all future issues reports should contain: - proposed terms of reference for a Council working group drafted in a practical and manageable way and reflecting a possible priority of sub-issues. The length of an issues report will be guided by the topic. Some issues reports may be very short; others may be lengthier but none need be long. Summary of guidelines The issue report should: 1. Describe an issue but NOT explore options. 2. Provide directly relevant background and links. 3. Recommend whether to proceed or not. 4. Propose terms of reference for a Council WG. 5. Be provided to Council within the 15 day time frame laid out in the by-laws. Bruce Tonkin commented that the object of the issues report was to identify the issues and establish the terms of reference. As far as the constituency statements were concerned, it was a question of having the right amount of detail for the Staff to work on. Barbara Roseman welcomed having guidelines on the issues report and made the distinction between an issues report requested from the Board and one requested from the GNSO Council. The concern was to not to over summarize for fear of being misinterpreted. Marilyn Cade mentioned that there were tools available for making summaries and that the importance of ICANN staff in the process was the neutrality aspect in providing structural support. In addition she urged that the GNSO secretariat and Barbara Roseman document the timelines. In addition there should be cognition that some of the deliverables may not be achievable as there is no base of extensive knowledge to work from. Grant Forsyth proposed: - a diagram of each process, - the time frames each constituency proposed for each process - where the decision point would be in each process Bruce Tonkin dropped off the call momentarily. Alejandro Pisanty joined the call at 8:55 Philip Sheppard took over the chair in the absence of Bruce Tonkin. Philip Sheppard moved for the adoption of the Proposed guidelines for the ICANN staff manager's issue report, seconded by Ross Rader. Resolution carried unanimously, 26/27 votes, 1 absent. -- -- 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

Re: [At-Large] not so fast (Re: [EURO-Discuss] SIGNERS FOR TOMORROW - URGENT EMAIL)
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

See below On 28/03/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > how about an answer to the questions in this message? > > | From: Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > | To: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org, > | Discussion for At-Large Europe < > euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > | Date: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 00:05:55 +0200 > | Subject: Re: [EURO-Discuss] Signing the MoUs > > On another matter, I notice the following in your proposed > electronic signing statement: > > | I hereby consent for [INSERT ORGANISATION FULL NAME] to be bound by > | the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the > | Signing Organisations in the European Region as if I were personally > | signing the document. > > How does this language (which clearly suggests some kind of binding > effect) mix with this statement of yours to the na-discuss list, > made last Friday? I do not see any conflict. Both sides agree to do several things, and they agree to some benefits. It is an agreement. The fact that it is not intended as a contract for enforcement in courts does not change that both sides are making an agreement with one another. Hopefully that's helpful. | From: "Nick Ashton-Hart" <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > | Subj: Re: [NA-Discuss] Suggestion: Name the public as intended > beneficiary > | of RALO MOUs > | Date: Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:33 am > | Size: 2K > | To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > | cc: "Michael Maranda" <mmaranda(a)afcn.org>, > na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > | > | To clarify, as I have been given to understand the MoUs between ICANN > | and the regions is not a contract as that term is understood in law. > | It is an agreement, but not of legal standing such as a contract. > > Thanks for your clarification, > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> > > > > > > On 2007-03-28 13:13:25 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > > To: bruch(a)humanistische-union.de, kiravuo(a)tml.hut.fi, > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > <Wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de>, > > wolfgang(a)imv.au.dk, aoliva(a)isoc-cat.org, aoliva(a)diplomaticnet.com, > > dpefeva(a)isoc.bg, patrick(a)vande-walle.eu, Patrick(a)isoc.lu, > > rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be, sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr > > Cc: Europe Discuss <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2007 13:13:25 +0100 > > Subject: [EURO-Discuss] SIGNERS FOR TOMORROW - URGENT EMAIL > > Reply-To: Discussion for At-Large Europe > > <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > List-Id: Discussion for At-Large Europe > > <euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org.atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > X-Spam-Level: > > X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.1.5 > > > > Dear All: > > > > I have heard from the following people with the details required to > finish > > the signature page. > > > > IF YOU ARE NOT ON THE LIST BELOW PLEASE REPLY ASAP (BEFORE END OF DAY > > WEDNESDAY) OR YOU WILL NOT BE ONE OF THE SIGNERS OF THE MOU ON THURSDAY! > > > > Internet Society - Bulgaria > > Signing person: Dragoslava Pefeva > > Position: Coordinator for ALAC > > > > Name of Organisation: Medienstadt Leipzig e.V. > > > > Name of Signer: Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > > > Position of Signer: Member of the Board > > > > > Name of Organisation : Internet Society Belgium > > > > > Name of Signer : Rudi Vansnick > > > > > Position of Signer : Chair > > > > Name of Organisation Internet Society Luxembourg > > > > Name of Signer Patrick Vande Walle > > > > Position of Signer Chairman > > > > Name of Organisation Chapitre français de l'Internet Society – Isoc > > France > > > > Name of Signer Sébastien Bachollet > > > > Position of Signer Président > > > > > > DIGITAL SIGNERS > > > > (SEE SEPARATE EMAIL ON THIS SUBJECT) > > > > Christophe BRUCH > > "German Civil Liberties Union / Humanistische Union" (GCLU) > > > > Board Member > > > > > Name of Organisation: netzwerk neue medien (nnm) - network new media > > (nnm) > > > > > Name of Signer: Annette Muehlberg > > > > > Position of Signer: Chair > > > _______________________________________________ > > EURO-Discuss mailing list > > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.… > > > -- -- 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

Re: [At-Large] [EURO-Discuss] Signing the MoUs
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

On 28/03/07, Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org> wrote: > > On 2007-03-28 14:43:21 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > My thought, without prejudice to what the legal people might say, > > is that ICANN doesn't really have a preference and the bylaws do > > not provide for ICANN to have such a preference. > > I disagree with the latter; that's part of the questions that you've > chosen to ignore for a while now. > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.o… I would characterise 'ignoring' as inaccurate, since I have previously stated on two occasions the reason for the delay, which in any case is a matter of hours. It is really unfortunate that you were not here; many of the questions and concerns that you have could have been a part of the discussions and dealt with alongside your colleagues. I hope that you will decide to have enough faith and trust in the other ALSes here to accept that they would not have concluded these arrangements unless they were satisfied that the outcome resulting was worthwhile. > My suggestion to everyone is that we agree the process you wish > > to follow in respect of this element once we have all returned > > home and had some time to get through the elections process and > > address the question of incorporation - it would seem to me that > > the question you raise here, and the question of incorporation, > > are questions which naturally go together. > > > Does that seem sensible to you? > > The more I see of this process, the more I think that all that > should be signed tomorrow is a set of very short letters of intent > in which ICANN and the ALSes state that they: > > (a) intend that a European RALO be formed according to the > principles laid out in the draft materials coordinated > > (b) intend that a formal MoU be signed once EURALO is formed and the > question around individual user participation resolved > > You can still declare victory and hold a ceremony around that. > > Cheers, > -- > Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.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

Re: [At-Large] [EURO-Discuss] Signing the MoUs
by Thomas Roessler March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

On 2007-03-28 14:43:21 +0100, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > My thought, without prejudice to what the legal people might say, > is that ICANN doesn't really have a preference and the bylaws do > not provide for ICANN to have such a preference. I disagree with the latter; that's part of the questions that you've chosen to ignore for a while now. http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/euro-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.o… > My suggestion to everyone is that we agree the process you wish > to follow in respect of this element once we have all returned > home and had some time to get through the elections process and > address the question of incorporation - it would seem to me that > the question you raise here, and the question of incorporation, > are questions which naturally go together. > Does that seem sensible to you? The more I see of this process, the more I think that all that should be signed tomorrow is a set of very short letters of intent in which ICANN and the ALSes state that they: (a) intend that a European RALO be formed according to the principles laid out in the draft materials coordinated (b) intend that a formal MoU be signed once EURALO is formed and the question around individual user participation resolved You can still declare victory and hold a ceremony around that. Cheers, -- Thomas Roessler <roessler(a)does-not-exist.org>

1 0

Re: [At-Large] {Disarmed} Re: Election of ALAC Chair and Vice-Chair
by Annette Muehlberg March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

Right on. Congratulations and all the best wishes to Jaqueline and José! Annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Izumi AIZU" <iza(a)anr.org> > Gesendet: 28.03.07 00:25:21 > An: "Carlton A Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm> > CC: LAC Discuss <lac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Europe Discuss <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org>, Africa Discuss <afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Asia-Pacific Discuss <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: [At-Large] {Disarmed} Re: Election of ALAC Chair and Vice-Chair I like to echo with what has already been said here to congratulate the two new leaders of ALAC. The regional dominance was brought to our attnetion at the election, but no one really had any problem with two excellent volunteers from LAC region. Well, you guys were the first to bring RALO into existance hence you deserve to take the leadership. > > Thank for the extra work!! > > izumi > > > 2007/3/28, Carlton A Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm>: > > > > > Heartiest congratulations > to both Jacqueline and Jose. Even though both are stalwarts of the LAC > region, we are certain they are fit for purpose for the entire At-Large world. > > > > > > Carlton > > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > > From: Nick Ashton-Hart > [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org] > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 1:41 > AM > To: Asia-Pacific Discuss; Europe > Discuss; Carlton A. Samuels; Africa Discuss; LAC Discuss; NA Discuss; At-Large > Worldwide > Subject: Election of ALAC Chair > and Vice-Chair > > > > > > > Good morning At-Large world! > > > > > > > > I'm about to go into another meeting but I wanted to inform you that at > the ALAC meeting last night, Jacqueline Morris was elected Chair of the ALAC, > and Jose Ovidio Salgueiro Vice-Chair, both terms lasting until the ICANN AGM in > October 2007. > > > > > > > > The ICANN Staff extend our congratulations to both of them on their > election. > > > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 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 > --

1 0