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

GNSO IDN WG - Final Outcomes Report
by Hong Xue March 24, 2007

March 24, 2007

Dear all, Attached is the final version of the WG report as sent to the GNSO Council and due for posting at the GNSO website. The discussions on IDNs are still going on. Please send in your comments or suggestions to reflect the views of the local users in your organizations. Hong GNSO IDN WG Liaison

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Suggestion: Name the public as intended beneficiary of RALO MOUs
by Wendy Seltzer March 24, 2007

March 24, 2007

Pardon me, but if it's not a binding agreement, namely a contract, what's the point to anyone signing it? To create pretty ceremony? Each of the parties to the agreement assumes obligations to the other. In addition, since those obligations are for the express benefit of individual Internet users, they're enforceable by those users. Otherwise, we're just creating more paper for thre landfills and more bureaucracy to prevent the individual's voice from being heard. --Wendy -- sent from the TreoPod -- Wendy Seltzer wendy(a)seltzer.com cell: 914.374.0613 Brooklyn Law & Berkman Center -----Original Message----- 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. I am seeking clarification from the GCs office with respect to the other points raised and suggested. What lawsuit do you envisage precisely when below you suggest that the only obligation of a RALO is to disseminate information? And why would the individual ALSes wish to sign an MoU that allows any in the general public to sue them - since they are the other party to ICANN in the MoU and since it has been said in this chain that one could sue either the RALO or ICANN. Perhaps I'm missing something? On 23/03/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > > > > >Also: What will "expressly enforceable" look like? > > > > It wouldn't do anything directly, but it would mean that anyone could > > bring a lawsuit if ICANN or the RALO breached its contractual > > obligations. To that end, we should put into the MOU more of the > > things we've been insisting ICANN do for the at-large public. > > :What "contractual obligations" will > the RALO have? (Is the MOU a contract?) > > The world of ICANN is built around contracts rather than public law. In that environment, the only way to get anything done is to have an enforceable contract right (or to get your views endorsed by someone who does or by a sufficiently influential government). The MOU is our chance to establish contractual rights for the individual Internet user against ICANN. If we don't do that, the RALO will be as useless as every other mode of so-called public participation. > > : What resources will the RALO have to meet those obligations, and where > will those resources come from? Will they be sufficient to meeting those > obligations? > > The RALO's obligations are to disseminate information. I was merely mentioning them for completeness. > > --Wendy > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > -- -- 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 --- message truncated ---

4 3

Drafts on ccTLD-IDNs and Regions-Sorry, attached now!
by Siavash Shahshahani March 24, 2007

March 24, 2007

Here are two drafts sent by ccNSO, one on ICANN Regions and another(joint with GAC) on ccTLD IDNs. Siavash ------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah(a)irnic.ir, shahshah(a)nic.ir -----------------------------------------------

1 0

Remote Participation in the At-Large Lisbon meetings (and the main ICANN Sessions too)!
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 24, 2007

March 24, 2007

Evening At-Large worldwide! I wanted to make sure everyone knows that those of you who are not attending Lisbon directly, but who would like to listen in / participate especially in the At-Large Tuesday and Thursday policy discussions are encouraged to do so! Teleconference access has been arranged for all these meetings. If a local free access number does not exist, and you would like to attend, please send an email to staff(a)alac.icann.org with: Your name Meeting you wish to attend Time you want to be called (and your timezone) 2 numbers which will work for you (1 is the alternate in case there's a problem with the first one). Note that the schedules, and documents, can all be reached off of: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_icann_meeting Remote participation details can be found on each meeting page. For the main ICANN Meeting, many sessions will be webcast - in particular the public forums and workshops - and the new Public Participation website is also trying out a number of new ways for remote participation to be richer and more robust - including lots of 2-way interfaces between the site and the meetings themselves, allowing you to contribute directly via the internet in the discussions, ask questions, make comments. The link to the main Lisbon meeting is: http://www.icann.org/meetings/ lisbon The new public participation site can be found at: 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

2 1

Suggestion: Name the public as intended beneficiary of RALO MOUs
by Wendy Seltzer March 23, 2007

March 23, 2007

While we're thinking of third-party beneficiaries in the ICANN accreditation agreements, I'd also suggest it for the RALO MOUs being signed. Suggested language: "Third-Party Beneficiaries. This agreement is made for the benefit of the general public. Individual Internet users are its intended beneficiaries, and its terms are expressly enforceable by any member of the public [in this region]." --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/

1 0

Lisbon Documents - in French, English, Spanish, and Brazilian Portuguese!
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 22, 2007

March 22, 2007

Dear All: The consolidated documents page for Lisbon - including now also links to URLs with further information - has been updated and the translations of these documents are in the process of being posted - so look overnight and tomorrow for documents in French, Spanish, and Brazilian Portuguese for many documents. That URL again is: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents -- 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

ICANN Announcement: Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must Be Reviewed
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 22, 2007

March 22, 2007

The announcement below should be of interest in the context of the resolution being discussed by the community. The link to this item is at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21mar07.htm. The list of questions may incorporate some questions which would be worthy of cross-incorporation into the resolution of the community - just a thought. --- Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must be Reviewed 21 March 2007 President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey today called for major review of ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA) and the Accreditation process. “What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA” he said. “This is going to be a key debate at our Lisbon meeting scheduled for 26 - 30 March 2007. There must be clear decisions made on changes. As a community we cannot put this off.” “ICANN introduced competition to the domain name market in 1998. Back then there was one registrar. There are now over 865. That’s a good thing because it has made domain names cheaper and offered more choice. But the RAA was designed and signed when the domain name market was much smaller. The market now supports about 70 million generic TLD names and is growing.” Dr Twomey said. “Registrants suffer most from weaknesses in the RAA and I want to make sure that ICANN’s accreditation process and our agreement gives us the ability to respond more strongly and flexibly in the future” he said. “What is presently happening with RegisterFly makes it clear that there are also some problems with proxy registrations. Specifically, proxy registrations are available as a choice, but people who have them have great difficulties getting access to their data and having their domain name transferred where a registrar is uncooperative or has other problems with transfer. ICANN has had difficulty accessing this data too,” Dr Twomey said. “We need to expedite data escrow. There has been a long and detailed discussion and much interaction between ICANN staff and registrars on this issue. But we need to reach a conclusion. Recent events and the Lisbon meeting present that opportunity. There are resource implications and useage rules that need to be discussed among the ICANN community. I look forward to the continuing efforts and collaboration of registrars with ICANN in that regard ” he said. “Registrants clearly want ICANN to have more capacity to access data on their behalf if there are significant problems with their registrar. There is a need for better enforcement mechanisms and an ability for ICANN to intervene more quickly if a registrar fails or is engaged in damaging business practice” he added. “There’s also no way that registrants can measure the performance of registrars in any independent comparative way. That should be encouraged” Dr Twomey said. “The vast majority of ICANN’s accredited registrars offer high levels of service and integrity. But as we have seen, there is the risk that poorly performing registrars can hurt registrants very significantly. If the domain name industry wants to remain community self – regulating as it has been until now we need to put in place further sensible and practical measures to protect registrants” he noted. Dr Twomey said he would like to see the following issues included in any discussion: Purpose of Register Accreditation Policy and Agreement What is the primary purpose of the Registration Accreditation Agreement? Is it a compliance tool? If so how can it be strengthened to protect registrants? Rating of Registrars How should ICANN and/or the registrar constituency encourage a system that rates registrars according to customer service and performance and should this be available to registrants? Affiliated Registrars / Group ownership Affiliated registrars have common ownership or control. What is the best mechanism for ICANN to hold affiliated registrars accountable for an affiliate’s actions? Additional compliance enforcement tools Stronger compliance tools need to be included in any reform to the RAA. What are those tools? Do they encompass liquidated damages? Should registrars be able to be suspended more readily? Are there other options? What are the mechanisms that allow such options to be enforced quickly? Transfer policy What elements of the transfer policy need to be reformed? Should registrants have an alternative to their current registrar for the issuing of authcodes and the unlocking of them? Should ICANN or another entity be able to do this? Registrar operator skill testing How is it possible to assess registrar skills and to train registrars to a common standard of performance upon which registrants can rely? Accreditation by purchase It is possible for companies to ‘avoid’ accreditation application process by buying a registrar. How can abuse of this loophole be stopped? Proxy registrations There needs to be an examination of proxy registrations in light of difficulties faced in registrar data recovery. What is the balance between privacy and disclosure? Reseller liability under RAA What tools are needed to ensure better accountability by resellers to registrants? Registrar data escrow What data needs to be escrowed? If implementation needs to move faster, greater resource allocation is required. What level of resourcing is necessary? Clarification of ICANN's responsibilities and the options available to registrants ICANN recently posted a guide for registrants on its website but additional consumer options (outside ICANN) should be identified for and provided to registrants. Is there a need for a new entity to assist customers and intervene on behalf of their concerns? “All ICANN stakeholders need to be involved in this debate. But in particular I would like to see registrars and registrants actively engaged in the discussion,” Dr Twomey said. “It is in their interests to make sure that poor practice is driven from the process and that the protection of registrants is increased.”

5 4

Public Forum on GNSO Improvements, Monday 16:00 Lisbon
by Denise Michel March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Dear At-Large Advisory Committee members and At-Large community members: Your participation in the 'Public Forum on GNSO Improvements' scheduled for Monday, 26 March, 16:00 - 18:00, in Lisbon is encouraged. <http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/agenda-public2-26mar07.htm> The Board Governance Committee (BGC) is hosting this forum to encourage additional public input and discussion on the LSE review and improvements to the GNSO's structures and processes. While input on all elements of the GNSO and the LSE review report are open for comment at the forum, the Committee is particularly interested in hearing your views on the GNSO review recommendations listed below. (Note that questions raised about the recommendations listed below are included to prompt thought and discussion, and are not intended to represent the views of the BGC or its members). *Individuals and stakeholder groups are encouraged to submit views on these and other recommendations in advance of the forum to <gnso-improvements(a)icann.org>. Authors of emailed input will be given an opportunity to present their views prior to opening the forum to comments from the floor.* o Structural Changes to GNSO Constituencies -- LSE recommendation 19. Simplify the GNSO constituency structure in order to respond to rapid changes in the Internet, including by substituting 3 larger constituency groups representing Registration interests, Business, and Civil Society; LSE recommendation 18. Create a category of 'Associate Stakeholder' to establish a pool of available external expertise. - Which entities and individuals should participate in the GNSO process, and what will motivate them to want to join? The six current groups are the natural point to begin discussion. Do they represent the right groups? Are they over or under inclusive? The Bylaws acknowledge that the optimal groupings may be different than the ones that now exist, and that there is no "magic number." The LSE points out several problems with the current structure and suggests the substitution of three larger constituencies — is this the right answer? - Is it feasible to create a roster of readily available experts who can assist with task forces and other aspects of the PDP? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? o Changes to the Policy Development Process -- LSE recommendation 17. Make greater use of task forces [in policy development processes]; LSE recommendation 23. Revise and move PDP operational provisions from Bylaws to more flexible GNSO 'Rules of Procedures.' - Could greater use of task forces, particularly proposals to attract more expertise and geographical diversity, help the policy development process? Would limiting the number of Councilors on any task force enable the Council to focus more on the task of managing PDPs, rather than the substantive aspects of formulating specific policies? Would this change increase the number of people willing to serve on the Council? - There seems to be widespread agreement that the Bylaws are overly prescriptive, and the prescribed PDP steps and timelines have not captured the requirements of a policy development process. Should the PDP principles be preserved in the Bylaws while placing more procedural elements in GNSO 'rules of procedure'? Do you have specific suggestions for how the PDP should be revised? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? o Changes to Voting and Representation -- LSE recommendation 21. Increase the threshold for establishing consensus to 75% and abolish weighted voting; LSE recommendation 20. Make the Council smaller (16 members suggested). - How would raising the consensus threshold and abolishing weighted voting advance the role of the GNSO? The Bylaws task the GNSO with both "developing and recommending" gTLD policies to the Board. - Weighted voting, in particular, was instituted as part of ICANN's Evolution and Reform Process to address the different effect policies have on contracted versus non-contracted constituencies. Has this approach contributed to, or hampered, effective policy development? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? (Please share this announcement with community members and other interested parties.) Regards, Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN denise.michel(a)icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALSapplications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Hong: This is precisely what is envisaged by the proposal on how to handle these matters which was put forward for ALAC's review before the March teleconference, and which is scheduled for discussion at the Sunday ALAC meeting in Lisbon. On 21/03/07, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On the long run, why should not the RALOs themselves define their > acceptance procedure, with ALAC only ratifying (and in this case I would > agree that it should be default = YES). The problem is that different RALOs > will have different approaches, also to keep the flexibility of the local > situation. > For instance, in Europe we have a fairly typical case which is the > European umbrella organization for national organizations (remember CECUA?). > As of today, the umbrella organization is not permitted to join. However, > the very reason for having an umbrella organization is to avoid duplication > of effort (and cost) by national bodies. > Another element of difference is individual membership, which will be > allowed for EURALO but not for other RALOs (at least, this is how it looks > as of today). It would not make sense to have the ALAC to have to vote on > each individual application. > > Through reviewing the draft MOU for all RALOs, I find that RALOs will soon > play a big role in ALS applications. At least, they will soon take over the > task of "regional advice" and decide whether to grant "provisional status" > to the applicants. In that case, a RALO may recommend ALAC to approve a > *umbralla organization*. So, even if RALO would be functioning, ALAC would > have to sort out an answer first. > > Hong > > > > > -- -- 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] Draft written guidance for evaluating ALSapplications
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

See below On 21/03/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > I will see who from NCUC is attending Lisbon this time - in view of the > packed policy schedule of the Tuesday meeting though I would suggest that we > simply extend that meeting from 1800 - 1900 if the NCUC are amenable to > meeting during that time. > > It is important to say, though, that the ALAC's admission of applicants > and the criteria which it uses to decide admission actually do not have > anything to do with NCUC or any other constituency - and vice versa. If they > were meant to do so the Bylaws would provide for that to be the case, and > they do not. As has been pointed out, those who qualify for membership in > both are entirely welcome at present to join them both if they wish to do so > so - as a result of which there cannot be any competition for members. That > would only be possible if membership in one constituency precluded > membership in the other. > > > There are some fundamental differences. NCUC is a regular constituency of > the GNSO, and as such it has a vote in the Name Council, and a scope that is > related to Domain Names. ALAC is an advisory committee to the Board, and as > such it has a Liaison to the Board (non-voting) but a scope that is not > limited to the DNS. > I might be wrong, but I haven't noticed substantial overlapping in > practice, i.e. I am not aware of many organizations that had the doubt on > whether join one or the other, I would like to know if somebody has > practical cases to show me. This was, by the way, also the subject of my > conversation with Ynternet.org. > > > As to you second very good point, the larger context is important as you > say - however, the larger context is a shifting sand with the advent of the > ALAC review. Addressing the functions and and positions of the two > constituencies is important, but is an entirely separate issue from deciding > on written criteria for evaluating membership applications for THIS > constituency, since, again, organisations are free to join both. > > > Already with the GNSO review we need to tackle this item, as the LSE has > identified the need for a different constituency structure for the GNSO. > Regardless on whether this is going to happen or not, the discussion will > have to address this. > > > To remind everyone of the current situation, we have an ALS applicant > (Telecommunities Canada) who is waiting on a decision on their application, > which is more overdue every day, and that decision is waiting on ALAC > concluding review of the proposal, subject to amendments of course, on how > to evaluate applications for At-Large especially in certain circumstances. > The decision also affects another application, Communica.ch, which is of > long standing based upon the very same issues. > > > On the long run, why should not the RALOs themselves define their > acceptance procedure, with ALAC only ratifying (and in this case I would > agree that it should be default = YES). The problem is that different RALOs > will have different approaches, also to keep the flexibility of the local > situation. > For instance, in Europe we have a fairly typical case which is the > European umbrella organization for national organizations (remember CECUA?). > As of today, the umbrella organization is not permitted to join. However, > the very reason for having an umbrella organization is to avoid duplication > of effort (and cost) by national bodies. > Another element of difference is individual membership, which will be > allowed for EURALO but not for other RALOs (at least, this is how it looks > as of today). It would not make sense to have the ALAC to have to vote on > each individual application. > I have proposed a new model of evaluating ALS applications for the consideration of the ALAC and the community which would do precisely what you are suggesting, and which is congruent also with the new role in evaluating ALS applications which the regions have undertaken in their MoUs with ICANN. You can find the text at: https://st.icann.org/page/alac/6_march_2007/attachments/20070302114536-1-21… These larger questions you reference are important, but if you do not deal > with the question at hand pretty quickly, then the likelihood of another > Ombudsman investigation of ALS applications is a real possibility. > > > From previous conversation with the Ombudsman, it seems that we should at > least send a letter to the applicants explaining why there is a delay, > apologize for it, and give a reasonable time frame for processing. > Also, why don't you simply contact the Ombudsman, explain the situation, > and ask for advice? > I am sure that Frank would love to be involved as advisor in an early > stage rather than have to process complaints when it is too late. > Note that I have discussed the situation with Telecommunities Canada so the understand the situation which their application presents some members of ALAC in relation to the still-current application interpretation. I have asked the Ombusdman to review the TC application - he knows a number of the principals and their work - and he understand the current criteria. He was also asked for his view on the proposed clarification to interpretation of ALS applications and he, like the General Counsel and VP Policy Dev, also agreed that he saw it as congruent with the Bylaws. This can be found at: https://st.icann.org/page/alac/6_march_2007/attachments/20070305185723-0-20… Cheers, > Roberto > > > -- -- 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

2 1