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

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

March 28, 2007

Definitely - I'm not ignoring you Thomas, I'm just under the gun to finish the staging order for the ceremony tomorrow rather urgently as it is quite complex and involves many people as you can imagine... 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? > > | 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

3 2

not so fast (Re: [EURO-Discuss] SIGNERS FOR TOMORROW - URGENT EMAIL)
by Thomas Roessler March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

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? | 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.…

1 0

Yahoo click fraud settlement
by Izumi AIZU March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

http://news.com.com/2100-1030_3-6170885.html I don't know how exactly this would fit with Domain monetization issue, but I am sure it has some implecations. izumi ----------- Yahoo click fraud settlement gets final OK The $5 million settlement agreement in a California case releases company from all similar click fraud claims against it. By Elinor Mills Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 27, 2007, 11:44 AM PDT Tell us what you think about this storyTalkBack E-mail this story to a friendE-mail View this story formatted for printingPrint Add to your del.icio.usdel.icio.us Digg this storyDigg this A federal judge in San Jose, Calif., has given final approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit over click fraud that requires Yahoo to pay nearly $5 million in attorney fees and give full credits to advertisers dating back to 2004. --

1 0

ALAC COMMENT ON Domain Tasting and Monetisation and their impacts
by Izumi AIZU March 28, 2007

March 28, 2007

Hi, Here is a revised version of our comment (not resolution) on domain name tasting and monetization - not reallyclose to final, but work in progress, for your comments and suggestions, in the interest of time and quality. izumi ------------- ALAC COMMENT ON DOMAIN TASTING AND MONETISATION AND THEIR IMPACTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL INTERNET USERS Version 1.1, Mar 28 On behalf of the ordinary Internet users, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), with the input of the worldwide community of At-Large Structures, would like to make the following comments on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization. We think Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization are two different issues, though some areas may have some relationship, and therefore we like to discuss them separately. The need to articulate the issue first for Domain Tasting We believe that Domain Tasting utilizing the existing Five-day Add Grace Period is an abuse that results in confusion of the ordinary Internet users worldwide and gives an unfair advantage to speculators. However, 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. ALAC will work on drafting the formal request to 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 consensus positions. Upon receiving the Issue Report by the staff, we shall make the final decision whether a formal PDP is necessary. Among the issues and actions we like to discuss are as follows: With the User Constituency, business and non-commercial: How to find the best ways to protect the interest of the end users, including that of registrants, but also that of 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 safeguards for the domain names they registered, what are the rights of the registrants, how to minimize confusion or exploitation of the ordinary users. With the Registrars Constituency: Consider implementation of a Registrars Code of Conduct that prohibits unfair speculation and exploitation of Domain name registration including the use of the five day Add Grace period. With the Registry Constituency: Consider how to avoid user confusion and unfair practices. Abolishing the five day add grace period could be one good solution. Adding a small fee, such as 25 cents per Domain to those registrants who keep names using the add grace period may be one solution, but we would need to be persuaded that this would solve the problem in order to endorse this as a solution. With ICANN Board: We ask ICANN Board to consider how best to prohibit unfair speculation, enhance consumer trust in the Domain Name registration system in the long run. Suggested actions could be: 1. Initiating a third party study on the impact of Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization/speculation and their impact on the ordinary Internet user community; 2. Initiating a review of Registry – Registrar Contracts in order to promote fair trading and restrict unfair speculation. 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. 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 per se. Instead, we call upon those commercial enterprises 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. Since Domain monetization is a relatively new phenomena, the impact to the ordinary users and the Internet community at large is hard to measure at this point. We think it is worth to watch how it develops and may propose more specific actions when we have clearer understanding of measurable impact.

1 0

Election of ALAC Chair and Vice-Chair
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 27, 2007

March 27, 2007

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

3 2

Discussion on LSE recommendation #19
by Vittorio Bertola March 27, 2007

March 27, 2007

All, given that I won't be present at the meeting with the NCUC, I'd like to provide briefly my opinions on the main subject, LSE recommendation #19, which, as explained in para 4.35 of the GNSO review, would create a "civil society" constituency in the GNSO, "including the current Non-Commercial Users Constituency, but also ordinary domain holders, and possibly individuals currently represented via the At Large Advisory Committee of ICANN". (Please note that the recommendation itself does not say that the ALAC and the NCUC should merge, it just says that the new "CS" GNSO constituency should include individual users as well.) Merging with the NCUC: I don't know. It could be useful to have a single "general public" constituency at ICANN, but in that case we'd have to ensure that we keep both levels of participation, the general/Board one (current ALAC) and the GNSO one (current NCUC). OTOH, by not merging we keep two separate voices for non-commercial interests in GNSO Task Forces. We now also allow groups to pick ALAC, NCUC or both according to what they are interested in, if they're eligible for both, so more choice for them; also, the types of groups involved in the two entities, though overlapping, are mostly different. Individual membership: I think that NA should create a NARALO which is radically different from the others, based on individuals, so that we can see whether that works and compare. I remain with my view that direct individual participation fits well the US culture, but not the rest of the world. I certainly would not accept a change of membership type all of a sudden, nor one that was imposed from the outside to the existing ALSes/RALOs. Naming: I don't like the term "civil society" in this context, it's really more registrants/customers/users. Timing: this is definitely bad timing for a merge. I'd like to give a chance to the new RALOs for a couple of years before concluding that yet more changes in the ALAC structure are necessary. I'd also wait for the ALAC review to be concluded. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [LAC-Discuss] ALAC Lisbon Meeting - first session
by carlos aguirre March 27, 2007

March 27, 2007

1 0

Request from Euralo
by Vittorio Bertola March 27, 2007

March 27, 2007

The EURALO would like to ask the ALAC to appoint someone, outside the European region, to act as "trustee" in the EURALO elections that should happen sometimes beginning of May. Non-EU people who were in this morning's EURALO meeting might seem like natural candidates :) -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
by Izumi AIZU March 27, 2007

March 27, 2007

Here is the information for remote participation: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?second_session izumi 2007/3/27, cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>: > I'm glad our Australian feedback was or may be of some use, but I must > make (or more accurtely remake the point that in the limited time > available for specific feedback on the draft text per se... our small > reply to you does it's best to show a tryue representaion of the > responces elicited and this was quite limited... to this end > particular attention needs to be drawn to the comments ellicited in > the public comment phase of our own monitisation review (within the > context of our users experience in the far more controlled ccTLD of > .au) as being highy representtive of our users and vested interest > sectors opinion... > > Regarding the consumer protection desire/ requirement within the gTLD > area:- there may be no real impediment (though I doubt it would be a > quick or easy task) for internationaalised codes of conduct to be > considered as worthy of development (we could even use the basis of > offers made by counties or trade / economic developemt groups such as > ASEAN within the negotiation(s) FTA's and mulitlateral trade agreement > offers... (which is another area I'm interested in passionate about > and work in) to further this... > > With so many views and reactions to your dradft being considered in > the ALAC session, I look forward to hearing about the final results... > but feel it worthy of note that whilst at 2050 hrs in the evening as > I'm writting this email I can be listening & watching the ccNSO > meeting I have not got (and neither does any one else in the atlarge > constituancy) have the same opportunity to "watch" or be included in > the ALAS sessions *sigh*... I almost miss the days of the ad hoc ICQ > feeds :-) > > > kindest regards > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > > > Hi, I managed to put your comment at the ALAC wiki, as comments > > to the draft. > > > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1 > > > > As for the substance, about the "monetization", I agree that ICANN is > > not a consumer protection agency, and consumer protection is not > > in the "main" business of ICANN, I still like to maintain most of the text > > in the draft. My rationale is as follows: > > > > In the Core Value 6, there is the following statement: > > "6. Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of > > domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public > > interest." > > > > We question that the way it is handled by "domain monetization" is > > practicable and beneficial in the public interest – my hunch is No. > > > > And there is another Core Value as follows: > > "9. Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the > > Internet while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining > > informed input from those entities most affected." > > > > I think individual users are the ones most affected in this case. > > > > And for the Consumer protection, I agree that it applies to the ccTLD > > area, but wonder if it also applies to the gTLD area such as dot com. > > That is why we think it is appropriate for gNSO to work on. > > > > But in any case thanks so much for raising the important ponints. > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2007/3/27, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > >> I have received the following comments on Domain Tasting from > >> ISOC-AU, one of AP ALSes. I think they are great comments > >> for our reference. > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> > >> Date: 2007/03/26 14:31 > >> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting > >> To: iza(a)anr.org > >> > >> Hello Izumi, I trust this email (later than I'd planned I'm afraid) > >> finds you in Lisbon and in good health... > >> > >> I did manage to elicit some responses from my outreach efforts > >> regarding your draft... Realising that our small contribution will be > >> only part of what you receive rather than edit the text per se I > >> include below the following comments, points and sentiments from those > >> organisations / people who did respond... by COB Friday. > >> > >> Firstly, we must recognise that our experience here in .au is very > >> different from the gTLD world? here we have considerable public > >> interest and individual user input into our Domain Name system and > >> policy development and we also (in many ways *because* of this input) > >> have strong rules such as our eligibility criteria for all of our Open > >> 2ld?s? see http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-02/ > >> > >> These rules go a long way towards giving our Domain Name users and > >> general public interest of the Internet a great deal of security and > >> confidence in names in the .au space? so even our consumer advocacy > >> groups such as CTN see www.ctn.org.au have had little direct > >> experiences of the types of frustrations that those only accessing the > >> open slather gTLD?s and may therefore be at some variance with those > >> public interest and consumer protection driven views? > >> > >> Further in October 2005 > >> http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-14102005/ & March 2006 > >> http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-domainmon-public.pdf auDA undertook > >> a public consultation process regarding Domain Monetisation and this > >> resulted in the publication of our auDA Policy Clarification of Close > >> and Substantial Connection Rule - Domain Monetisation (2006-03) on 20 > >> July 2006. > >> > >> A full list9ing of the public submissions received can be found at > >> http://www.auda.org.au/reviews/monetisation-2006/ and I specifically > >> stated in my distribution of your draft document that I would be > >> pointing these references out to you for use by the ALAC, and that > >> therefore no reiteration of those specific points needed to be made by > >> the respondents. > >> > >> In general, support, was received for the intent of the text you > >> provided as Draft resolutions to the various councils on Domain > >> Tasting but not for the text titled ?On Domain Monitization? > >> > >> Based upon this and on the background information provided previously > >> in this report, the following important points were made by our > >> respondents. > >> > >> -That the ALAC is to be encouraged to express their request in terms > >> relating specifically to ICANN's mission and core values. e.g. part > >> of ICANN's > >> mission is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's > >> unique identifier systems, and one of its core values is preserving and > >> enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global > >> interoperability of the Internet. > >> > >> -Any issues report that is produced through the ICANN policy development > >> process, will need to answer whether the issue is within ICANN's mission > >> and core values - rather than whether the issue is indeed something of > >> importance to end users. SO rewording of the draft should consider > >> this point to maxamise the likelyhood of a successful outcome. > >> > >> > >> -ICANN is not explicitly a consumer protection body. If it is purely a > >> consumer protection issue - then the first point of contact could well > >> be a registrar code of conduct, or perhaps alerting the relevant > >> consumer protection bodies in each country - e.g Australian Competition > >> and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in Australia, or the Federal Trade > >> Commission (FTC) in the USA to investigate. > >> > >> An example of such a code of conduct, as it operates in Australia, can > >> be found at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2004-04/ and the > >> committee process by which this was developed can be followed in > >> documents linked from the following page > >> http://www.auda.org.au/cop/cop-index/ and a full list of auDA Panels > >> and committee activities past and present can be found at > >> http://www.auda.org.au/panels/panels-index/ > >> > >> I've attached this text as a word doc and a .PDF so the links will be > >> live for you to use with the ALAC should you see fit. > >> > >> Kindest regards, > >> > >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr > >> (CLO) > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > > Kumon Center, Tama University > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
by Izumi AIZU March 27, 2007

March 27, 2007

just quick reaction - I guess all ALAC meetings here in Lisbon is open to remote participation - could you try to see ALAC wiki with instructions? Right now we are having meeting with the Board which is unfortunately not open to public parcitipation including ALSes. more later, izumi 2007/3/27, cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>: > I'm glad our Australian feedback was or may be of some use, but I must > make (or more accurtely remake the point that in the limited time > available for specific feedback on the draft text per se... our small > reply to you does it's best to show a tryue representaion of the > responces elicited and this was quite limited... to this end > particular attention needs to be drawn to the comments ellicited in > the public comment phase of our own monitisation review (within the > context of our users experience in the far more controlled ccTLD of > .au) as being highy representtive of our users and vested interest > sectors opinion... > > Regarding the consumer protection desire/ requirement within the gTLD > area:- there may be no real impediment (though I doubt it would be a > quick or easy task) for internationaalised codes of conduct to be > considered as worthy of development (we could even use the basis of > offers made by counties or trade / economic developemt groups such as > ASEAN within the negotiation(s) FTA's and mulitlateral trade agreement > offers... (which is another area I'm interested in passionate about > and work in) to further this... > > With so many views and reactions to your dradft being considered in > the ALAC session, I look forward to hearing about the final results... > but feel it worthy of note that whilst at 2050 hrs in the evening as > I'm writting this email I can be listening & watching the ccNSO > meeting I have not got (and neither does any one else in the atlarge > constituancy) have the same opportunity to "watch" or be included in > the ALAS sessions *sigh*... I almost miss the days of the ad hoc ICQ > feeds :-) > > > kindest regards > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > > > Hi, I managed to put your comment at the ALAC wiki, as comments > > to the draft. > > > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1 > > > > As for the substance, about the "monetization", I agree that ICANN is > > not a consumer protection agency, and consumer protection is not > > in the "main" business of ICANN, I still like to maintain most of the text > > in the draft. My rationale is as follows: > > > > In the Core Value 6, there is the following statement: > > "6. Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of > > domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public > > interest." > > > > We question that the way it is handled by "domain monetization" is > > practicable and beneficial in the public interest – my hunch is No. > > > > And there is another Core Value as follows: > > "9. Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the > > Internet while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining > > informed input from those entities most affected." > > > > I think individual users are the ones most affected in this case. > > > > And for the Consumer protection, I agree that it applies to the ccTLD > > area, but wonder if it also applies to the gTLD area such as dot com. > > That is why we think it is appropriate for gNSO to work on. > > > > But in any case thanks so much for raising the important ponints. > > > > izumi > > > > > > 2007/3/27, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > >> I have received the following comments on Domain Tasting from > >> ISOC-AU, one of AP ALSes. I think they are great comments > >> for our reference. > >> > >> izumi > >> > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> > >> Date: 2007/03/26 14:31 > >> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting > >> To: iza(a)anr.org > >> > >> Hello Izumi, I trust this email (later than I'd planned I'm afraid) > >> finds you in Lisbon and in good health... > >> > >> I did manage to elicit some responses from my outreach efforts > >> regarding your draft... Realising that our small contribution will be > >> only part of what you receive rather than edit the text per se I > >> include below the following comments, points and sentiments from those > >> organisations / people who did respond... by COB Friday. > >> > >> Firstly, we must recognise that our experience here in .au is very > >> different from the gTLD world? here we have considerable public > >> interest and individual user input into our Domain Name system and > >> policy development and we also (in many ways *because* of this input) > >> have strong rules such as our eligibility criteria for all of our Open > >> 2ld?s? see http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-02/ > >> > >> These rules go a long way towards giving our Domain Name users and > >> general public interest of the Internet a great deal of security and > >> confidence in names in the .au space? so even our consumer advocacy > >> groups such as CTN see www.ctn.org.au have had little direct > >> experiences of the types of frustrations that those only accessing the > >> open slather gTLD?s and may therefore be at some variance with those > >> public interest and consumer protection driven views? > >> > >> Further in October 2005 > >> http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-14102005/ & March 2006 > >> http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-domainmon-public.pdf auDA undertook > >> a public consultation process regarding Domain Monetisation and this > >> resulted in the publication of our auDA Policy Clarification of Close > >> and Substantial Connection Rule - Domain Monetisation (2006-03) on 20 > >> July 2006. > >> > >> A full list9ing of the public submissions received can be found at > >> http://www.auda.org.au/reviews/monetisation-2006/ and I specifically > >> stated in my distribution of your draft document that I would be > >> pointing these references out to you for use by the ALAC, and that > >> therefore no reiteration of those specific points needed to be made by > >> the respondents. > >> > >> In general, support, was received for the intent of the text you > >> provided as Draft resolutions to the various councils on Domain > >> Tasting but not for the text titled ?On Domain Monitization? > >> > >> Based upon this and on the background information provided previously > >> in this report, the following important points were made by our > >> respondents. > >> > >> -That the ALAC is to be encouraged to express their request in terms > >> relating specifically to ICANN's mission and core values. e.g. part > >> of ICANN's > >> mission is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's > >> unique identifier systems, and one of its core values is preserving and > >> enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global > >> interoperability of the Internet. > >> > >> -Any issues report that is produced through the ICANN policy development > >> process, will need to answer whether the issue is within ICANN's mission > >> and core values - rather than whether the issue is indeed something of > >> importance to end users. SO rewording of the draft should consider > >> this point to maxamise the likelyhood of a successful outcome. > >> > >> > >> -ICANN is not explicitly a consumer protection body. If it is purely a > >> consumer protection issue - then the first point of contact could well > >> be a registrar code of conduct, or perhaps alerting the relevant > >> consumer protection bodies in each country - e.g Australian Competition > >> and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in Australia, or the Federal Trade > >> Commission (FTC) in the USA to investigate. > >> > >> An example of such a code of conduct, as it operates in Australia, can > >> be found at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2004-04/ and the > >> committee process by which this was developed can be followed in > >> documents linked from the following page > >> http://www.auda.org.au/cop/cop-index/ and a full list of auDA Panels > >> and committee activities past and present can be found at > >> http://www.auda.org.au/panels/panels-index/ > >> > >> I've attached this text as a word doc and a .PDF so the links will be > >> live for you to use with the ALAC should you see fit. > >> > >> Kindest regards, > >> > >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr > >> (CLO) > >> > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > > Kumon Center, Tama University > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0