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

Re: [At-Large] {Disarmed} Re: Public Forum presentation - draft
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

We also have Maria Farrell scheduled to join the meeting today and she has been prepped that there are many questions about the procedure, and I've also asked if she can comment on what the expected content of the request would be, and of course answer questions or discuss other subjects related to the GNSO as you desire On 29/03/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > > > > 2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)consensus.pro>: > > > > My point was that Izumi had seemed to suggest that 1(c) could be skipped > > and an issues report requested from the staff. This is not the way it works; > > the issues report is requested from the GNSO, who then direct staff to > > create one. > > > from the staff, or from an advisory commmtee? I did not suggest to skip > 1 c at all. I said I read it. > > I am fine to move this to public list and also discuss in our meeting. > > izumi > > > Honestly, this is obviously becoming a very long and probably confusing > > thread - quite possibly even for some of us contributing to it - may I > > suggest that we actually just discuss this at the meeting later this > > afternoon? In front of all the ALSes and the whole committee? And the result > > can then be posted. > > > > On 29/03/07, Vittorio Bertola < vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > > > > > > I am moving this to the public list, because it is very important. > > > > > > We can discuss on words, but your interpretation of the text of the > > > PDP > > > that would require the GNSO Council to approve a request for an Issue > > > Report by an Advisory Committee is not what was agreed in year 2002. > > > It > > > was explicitly said that we were advisory, but we'd have the > > > unilateral > > > right (of course to be used with care) to put things on the GNSO > > > agenda. > > > I have even checked this with a GNSO guru during the break, who said > > > that there's no way that it can be differently from this - we just > > > need > > > to phrase the request correctly. > > > > > > If the ICANN staff stays with that interpretation, and if it is > > > confirmed by the GNSO, I would like to raise the issue with the other > > > ACs and with the Board to understand whether this is actually the > > > intent > > > of ICANN at the political level. > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > > > Your interpretation does not square with the ICANN GC. Note the word > > > > 'request' in 1(c). Further, you do not request ICANN Staff for an > > > issues > > > > report; you send a request to the GNSO as per 1(c). > > > > > > > > On 29/03/07, *Izumi AIZU* <iza(a)anr.org <mailto: iza(a)anr.org>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, I looked at 1 c. already, as follows, > > > > > > > > 1 c. /Advisory Committee Initiation./ An Advisory Committee may > > > > raise an issue for policy development by action of such > > > committee to > > > > commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO > > > Council > > > > > > > > The "transmission of that request" implies to the commence of > > > PDP, > > > > but NOT issue report IMHO. So, this does not prevent us from > > > > requesting ICANN Staff for Issue Report. Otherwise, there is > > > little > > > > room for any advisory committee - I cannot imagine GAC accepts > > > this > > > > and ask GNSO council to reuqest Issue report or RSSAC or SSAC > > > does... > > > > > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > 2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart < nashton(a)consensus.pro > > > > <mailto: nashton(a)consensus.pro>>: > > > > > > > > Look at 1(c). Then look at 2.... > > > > > > > > On 29/03/07, *Vittorio Bertola* < vb(a)bertola.eu > > > > <mailto: vb(a)bertola.eu>> wrote: > > > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > > > >> Note one error below of process. Quite important not to > > > > misstate the process... > > > >> > > > >> >However, there is a need for more concrete information to > > > > prove these > > > >> >problems actually exist and are affecting the ordinary > > > > users and their > > > >> >experience in using the Internet. Therefore ALAC is > > > > drafting a formal > > > >> >request shortly to ask ICANN staff to prepare an Issue > > > > Report. At the same > > > >> > > > >> This above statement is the problem. What ALAC can do is > > > > ask the GNSO > > > >> Council to ask for an Issues Report to be prepared. > > > > > > > > Huh? If you go to > > > > http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA > > > > < http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, point > > > > 2, it says that upon the request of "a properly > > > supported > > > > motion from an > > > > Advisory Committee", staff will create an Issue Report, > > > > which will then > > > > go to the GNSO council together with a recommendation on > > > > whether or not > > > > to start a PDP. You clarified a few mails ago that > > > according > > > > to Dan "a > > > > properly supported motion" is one that the majority of > > > the > > > > ALAC approved > > > > in a formal vote. > > > > > > > > I don't know how that can be read differently - are you > > > sure > > > > that you > > > > mean what you wrote? I thought Maria had said that the > > > GNSO > > > > council > > > > needs to approve the starting of a PDP, not the creation > > > of > > > > an issue report. > > > > -- > > > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] > > > bertola.eu > > > > > > -- > > > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > > > > > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > PO Box 32160 > > London N4 2XY > > United Kingdom > > UK Tel: [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif][image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif]+44 (20) 8800-1011 > > USA Tel: [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif][image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif]+1 (202) 657-5460 > > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > > mobile: [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif][image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif] [image: Web Bug from > > chrome://skype_ff_toolbar_win/content/space.gif]+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 > > > > > > -- > >> 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 > -- -- 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

Fwd: Meeting minutes from Lisbon
by Izumi AIZU March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

This is what Milton sent to NCUC list already. thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Milton Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> Date: 2007/03/29 1:25 Subject: Meeting minutes from Lisbon To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu DRAFT v. 1.0. Those who were there, feel free to supplement. NCUC Lisbon meeting notes ATTENDANCE: Milton Mueller, Syracuse University Convergence Center, Chair Norbert Klein, Open Forum Cambodia, GNSO Council Rep. Marcelo Fernandes, CGI Brasil, Executive Committee, LACC region Robert Guerra, CPSR, Executive Committee, North America region Karen Banks, APC, NCUC NomCom appointee Glen Ricart, University of Maryland, PIR Board Carlos Afonso, RITS Brasil, Tinwee Tan, National University of Singapore Victoria McEvedy, Solicitor, NCUC rep on new gTLD working groups Adam Peake, Glocom Avri Doria, CPSR/APC Nonmembers George Sadowsky, Bill Manning, Liz Williams, and Monika Ermert visited at various times CONSTITUENCY BUSINESS Financial Report: We have most of the last PIR and Afilias grants remaining, mostly allocated to travel. Election results, officers, terms: Thanks to Marcelo and CGI for their excellent election software. Milton Mueller was elected chair for the next year, but warned that he will not run next year and it is not too soon to think about who might do it next. Robin Gross elected to another 3 year term for GNSO Council New executive committee: North America region: Robert Guerra, CPSR, Canada Europe region: Georg Grève, Free Software Foundation Europe, Germany Africa region: Olivier Nana Nzepa. Africa Management, Cameroun Latin America/ Caribbean region: Marcelo Fernandes, The Committee for Democratization in Information Technology of Pernambuco, Brazil Asia-Pacific region: Horacio Cadiz, Philippine Network Foundation, The Philippines All serve one year terms. There was some discussion about asking members to renew; this would be good for the constituency if we had the capacity to pull it off. Need to develop an annual report. 4 new members: March of Dimes, FSF Europe, ISOC-NY, MINC. Domain name: use the one developed by the Brazilians? Gain access to ncuc.icann.org PIR RELATIONSHIP End of first round of grant commitments made under Ed Viltz's term as CEO. Karen and Carlos volunteer to develop another proposal. Robert Guerra volunteers use of CPSR's account if donors need to give to a 501(3)c. Glen Ricart reported that PIR was searching for a new CEO, and for new Board members. He said he believes there is support for a new funding proposal. NOMCOM VISIT George Sadowsky and Bill Manning entered to pitch nominations. Bill Manning said that ICANN had the opportunity to significantly recast itself. Three Board members -- seats currently held by Joie Ito, Vanda Scartezini and Vint Cerf -- are needed. Vint Cerf is term limited and cannot reapply. Same is true of Alejandro, although he was appointed by GNSO not Nomcom. The GNSO Council positions held by Avri Doria and Sofia Bekele are up for reappointment via Nomcom. So are ccNSO positions and the ALAC seat held by Jacqueline Morris. Constituency members encouraged strongly by Karen Banks to think of good people for these positions. Statements of interest will be due May 1. The Committee is concerned about the pace at which it is receiving applications. By June, the Nomcom will be asking us to appoint a new representative. BRUCE TONKIN VISIT Bruce Tonkin, candidate for the GNSO Board seat running unopposed, visited and we discussed some of the GNSO issues, notably Whois and new gTLDs. He was also asked about his centrist tac and his role as a facilitator of Board-GNSO relations. ISSUE DISCUSSIONS IDNs * Dec05 PDP working group Avri: IDNs are part of the new gTLD proceeding, but results hav not been discussed in a council meeting yet. Liz: IDNs should as much as possible be subject to the same criteria as other new gTLDs. Tin Wee Tan reported. Language communities * should they be independent of ICANN process, or coopted within ICANN process? There is activity in ccNSO and GAC around this. No answer yet. PDP has no idea what kind of an evaluation process will be implemented. Who can represent a language community? TTW: various groups formed for this, e.g. Arab and CDNC. These groups may not believe in the effectiveness of any ICANN process, and may not want to participate. China's "nuclear option" announced last March, no Chinese involved in GNSO IDN process. MM: can we define principles to narrow decision making criteria of these groups? Principles to guide position formation on IDN issues: * IDN implementation is a priority for ICANN and for NCUC * New IDN gTLDs provide an opportunity to create a more diverse global distribution of registration suppliers. [* Introduction of IDNs should extend access and not fragment it] * While we recognize that governments (at all levels) and ccTLDs have a significant interest in IDN implementation, their monopoly control of IDNs should not be a policy presumption. Carlos: translations/transliterations of domain names - position needs to be determined WHOIS Strong pressure for a "natural person, noncommercial" vs. "corporate, commercial" distinction NCUC believes that commercial status of domain is unimportant; there are individual businesspeople, "sole traders," using their home as offices. These have a right to privacy regardless. Too much activity can be considered "use in commerce" to make this the dividing line. Should you be able to see who you are doing business with? Yes, but this is dealt with adquately in other legal spheres. Should city be added to jurisdiction? No. Access for law enforcement ("tiered access") Who gets it? Just law enforcement or private actors? Many of us prefer status quo to a "white list" tiered access that includes private actors and gives them unrestricted access. Who pays for it? Cost must be placed on users of the system to access information. Procedure: We are against a new, 30-90 day working group. The basis for an acceptable compromise should be worked out here. We support some kind of a Council vote to take "special circumstances" off the table. This will also pressure the other side to compromise (finally). NEW GTLDs, PRO, RESERVED NAMES Background: PRO: Currently collecting "best" sunrise practices and dispute resolution practices. RN: probably renewed for another 30 day cycle. More work on controversial names, geographical names, needed. Board must approve any decisions at some point. No possibility of creating an automated process. Ergo, Avri believes that any "bad" name will be stopped by Board if the rules don't stop it. Challenge mechanisms: must be minimized and carefully circumscribed Can the draft mention freedom of expression somewhere? Victoria says she put it in. Trademark law is territorial, free expression a defense in trademark cases. No one country should have a veto. HR Conventions. FoE includes right to offend. Every national government has content laws, so TLD strings can fall under those, as can the content associated with web sites under those names. JOINT NCUC-ALAC MEETING For NCUC: Mueller, Banks, Klein, Ricart. Izumi Aizu read a summary of comments by Vittorio. LSE report did not necessarily say NCUC and ALAC should merge, it might just include individual users in a new GNSO civil society constituency. Should we merge? I [vittorio] do not know. By not merging, we have two separate voices. Direct individual participation fits in well with US culture but not otherwise. Bad time for a merge, give RALOs two years and allow ALAC review to take place. Mueller: We did not propose a merger of NCUC and ALAC and are not interested in getting into that now. We would like an umbrella organization for civil society in ICANN. LSE report is vague about what civil society is, blurs the difference between noncommercial organizations and individual users. This indicates that the rest of the world is probably confused as well. This confusion could be dangerous in a restructuring of GNSO. Banks: We don't need to merge we need a civil society forum. A looser structure where you don't have to worry about what hat you are wearing. Likes umbrella idea. Izumi: doesn't like umbrella term. What is above us, what are we sheltering from? ALAC getting more complicated. Review makes things shaky. Alice: I am confused about how NCUC and ALAC relate. Greenberg: she is not confused, the structure is confusing. Izumi proposes issue cooperation, focused on the new domain tasting resolution. Mueller, I don't think issue cooperation is the problem. It is the confusion of entry points for participation in ICANN. There needs to be a firm, joint recognition of the way people who are not business interests come into ICANN and where they go. What about organizations that apply to be ALS's but do not qualify, yet they may qualify for NCUC. Alice: proposes a procedure for ALS handling that ensures that the correct applicants go to the correct way. We appoint a NCUC-ALAC liaison. The group agreed to do that within one week. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Call-In to the ALAC/Europe/Africa meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

I believe that he did - I'm sure he will say otherwise if he feels differently. On 29/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > At 10:21 AM 3/29/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >FYI, Danny Younger just asked a question and it came through loud > >and clear here - hopefully it was as clear for him. > > Even more important, I hope he got a clear answer :) > > --Wendy > > > >On 29/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com> > >wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > >I look forward to seeing the minutes. > > > >--Wendy > > > >At 10:06 AM 3/29/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > >FYI, there is call-in access as found at > > ><<https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session>https://st.ican > > n.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session >https://st.icann.org/alac/index. > > cgi?third_session > > > > > >Please join the meeting - the agenda is also at the page shown above > > > > > >-- > > >-- > > >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: > > <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com><mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com> > ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com > > / > > >AIM/iSight: <mailto: > > nashtonhart(a)mac.com><mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > Skype: > > >nashtonhart > > >Online > > >Bio: > > ><<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>https://www.linkedin.com/i > > n/ashtonhart >https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > >_______________________________________________ > > >ALAC mailing list > > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists > > .icann.org> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > www.alac.icann.org > > ><http://www.icannalac.org>www.icannalac.org > > > >-- > >Wendy Seltzer -- <mailto:wendy@seltzer.org>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://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: <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / > >AIM/iSight: <mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: > >nashtonhart > >Online > >Bio: > ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > -- > 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/ > -- -- 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] Call-In to the ALAC/Europe/Africa meeting
by Wendy Seltzer March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

At 10:21 AM 3/29/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >FYI, Danny Younger just asked a question and it came through loud >and clear here - hopefully it was as clear for him. Even more important, I hope he got a clear answer :) --Wendy >On 29/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <<mailto:wendy@seltzer.com> >wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: >I look forward to seeing the minutes. > >--Wendy > >At 10:06 AM 3/29/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >FYI, there is call-in access as found at > ><<https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session>https://st.ican > n.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session >https://st.icann.org/alac/index. > cgi?third_session > > > >Please join the meeting - the agenda is also at the page shown above > > > >-- > >-- > >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: > <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com><mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com > / > >AIM/iSight: <mailto: > nashtonhart(a)mac.com><mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: > >nashtonhart > >Online > >Bio: > ><<https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>https://www.linkedin.com/i > n/ashtonhart >https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists > .icann.org>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > www.alac.icann.org > ><http://www.icannalac.org>www.icannalac.org > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- <mailto:wendy@seltzer.org>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://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: <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / >AIM/iSight: <mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: >nashtonhart >Online >Bio: ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart -- 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/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Call-In to the ALAC/Europe/Africa meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

FYI, Danny Younger just asked a question and it came through loud and clear here - hopefully it was as clear for him. On 29/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > I look forward to seeing the minutes. > > --Wendy > > At 10:06 AM 3/29/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > >FYI, there is call-in access as found at > ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session> > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session > > > >Please join the meeting - the agenda is also at the page shown above > > > >-- > >-- > >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: <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / > >AIM/iSight: <mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: > >nashtonhart > >Online > >Bio: > ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart> > 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 > > -- > 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/ > -- -- 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] Call-In to the ALAC/Europe/Africa meeting
by Wendy Seltzer March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

I look forward to seeing the minutes. --Wendy At 10:06 AM 3/29/2007, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >FYI, there is call-in access as found at ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session>https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session > >Please join the meeting - the agenda is also at the page shown above > >-- >-- >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: <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com>ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / >AIM/iSight: <mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com>nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: >nashtonhart >Online >Bio: ><https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart>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 -- 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/

1 0

Call-In to the ALAC/Europe/Africa meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

FYI, there is call-in access as found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?third_session Please join the meeting - the agenda is also at the page shown above -- -- 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] Public Forum presentation - draft
by Vittorio Bertola March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

I am moving this to the public list, because it is very important. We can discuss on words, but your interpretation of the text of the PDP that would require the GNSO Council to approve a request for an Issue Report by an Advisory Committee is not what was agreed in year 2002. It was explicitly said that we were advisory, but we'd have the unilateral right (of course to be used with care) to put things on the GNSO agenda. I have even checked this with a GNSO guru during the break, who said that there's no way that it can be differently from this - we just need to phrase the request correctly. If the ICANN staff stays with that interpretation, and if it is confirmed by the GNSO, I would like to raise the issue with the other ACs and with the Board to understand whether this is actually the intent of ICANN at the political level. Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: > Your interpretation does not square with the ICANN GC. Note the word > 'request' in 1(c). Further, you do not request ICANN Staff for an issues > report; you send a request to the GNSO as per 1(c). > > On 29/03/07, *Izumi AIZU* <iza(a)anr.org <mailto:iza@anr.org>> wrote: > > Yes, I looked at 1 c. already, as follows, > > 1 c. /Advisory Committee Initiation./ An Advisory Committee may > raise an issue for policy development by action of such committee to > commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council > > The "transmission of that request" implies to the commence of PDP, > but NOT issue report IMHO. So, this does not prevent us from > requesting ICANN Staff for Issue Report. Otherwise, there is little > room for any advisory committee - I cannot imagine GAC accepts this > and ask GNSO council to reuqest Issue report or RSSAC or SSAC does... > > izumi > > 2007/3/29, Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)consensus.pro > <mailto:nashton@consensus.pro>>: > > Look at 1(c). Then look at 2.... > > On 29/03/07, *Vittorio Bertola* < vb(a)bertola.eu > <mailto:vb@bertola.eu>> wrote: > > Nick Ashton-Hart ha scritto: >> Note one error below of process. Quite important not to > misstate the process... >> >> >However, there is a need for more concrete information to > prove these >> >problems actually exist and are affecting the ordinary > users and their >> >experience in using the Internet. Therefore ALAC is > drafting a formal >> >request shortly to ask ICANN staff to prepare an Issue > Report. At the same >> >> This above statement is the problem. What ALAC can do is > ask the GNSO >> Council to ask for an Issues Report to be prepared. > > Huh? If you go to > http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA > <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA>, point > 2, it says that upon the request of "a properly supported > motion from an > Advisory Committee", staff will create an Issue Report, > which will then > go to the GNSO council together with a recommendation on > whether or not > to start a PDP. You clarified a few mails ago that according > to Dan "a > properly supported motion" is one that the majority of the > ALAC approved > in a formal vote. > > I don't know how that can be read differently - are you sure > that you > mean what you wrote? I thought Maria had said that the GNSO > council > needs to approve the starting of a PDP, not the creation of > an issue report. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

4 3

ALAC Draft Statement on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization - V. 1.3
by Izumi AIZU March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

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. 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.

6 7

At-Large Report to the Lisbon Public Forum
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 29, 2007

March 29, 2007

Dear Colleagues: I'm happy to provide you with the Report of the community being presented by ALAC Chair Jacqueline Morris in about 15 minutes in the Lisbon public forum. We hope you are tuned in to the webcast from http://public.icann.org :) -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0