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

Fwd: Fwd: Terms of Reference
by Wendy Seltzer April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Forwarding for Jean, whose posts aren't getting through: >Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2007 09:10:35 -0400 >To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >From: Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> > >I sent this about a week ago and never saw it appear on the list, so >I am sending it again. (My mail is supposed to show me my own posts, >so I don't know what happened. Apologies if you have already seen >this. ) >The ALAC's performance will be judged on the terms of reference >used. This is our chance to help develop them. It might be helpful >to look at the terms of reference that were used for the GNSO review >last year. This will give you an idea of what to develop and what >the end product should look like. >Perhaps a wiki page could be created for this. >The terms of reference are in Annex H, the second listed PDF at the >url below, although they are the basis of the report and are >referred to many times in it. Pointers to the pdfs are here. Well >worth reading the report. > >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm > >Jean Armour Polly >Ex-ALAC, NA -- 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

NomCom: seeking candidates for ICANN leadership positions
by Adam Peake April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Hi, ICANN's NomCom is recruiting candidates, we are selecting: * 3 seats on the ICANN Board of Directors. * 3 members of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), from Africa, Latin America and Caribbean and Asia/Australia/Pacific regions. * 2 members to Generic Names Supporting Organization Council (GNSO). * 1 Country Code Names Support Organization Council (ccNSO) member. NomCom website <http://nomcom.icann.org> has information about the process and more information about the positions. You can nominate yourself. You can suggest someone you think would be a good candidate (details of how to do that here <http://nomcom.icann.org/formal-call-2007.html#H>). Or just send me the names of anyone you think would be a good candidate for any of the positions. Please pass on this information to your ALS or any other groups and individuals you think may be interested. I would be happy to help anyone with questions, please forward my email address <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>. Deadline for applications in 1 May 2007. I should have asked this list long ago for advice, ALAC --the RALOs and ALS-- is the strongest link to the ICANN user community and potential source of candidates. Apologies. Many thanks, Adam (2007 NomCom Associate Chair)

1 0

Revising ALAC Draft Statement on Domain Tasting
by Izumi AIZU April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

At today's conference call of ALAC, we agreed to separate Domain Tasting and Monetization issues more clearly. So we will drop the monetization part from the current resolution draft and focus on Domain Tasting. In the mean time, we agreed to continue the "study" of Domain monetization. As soon as I finish the editing, I will post the new draft here. I thank you for all the helpful comments and suggestions. izumi

1 0

Fwd: Dropped again
by Wendy Seltzer April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

Since I budgeted 1:30 for the call, I'll see you online. --Wendy -----Original Message----- Subject: Dropped again I can't seem to stay connected, and the operators take forever to pick up. We need to find a quicker teleconf service. --Wendy --===============1226226123==--

1 0

Re: [At-Large] 10 April 2007 ALAC Teleconference
by Wendy Seltzer April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

As requested on the public list, I request to add to the agenda discussion of ALAC's top 10 issues and asking staff to compile information on transfer-away fees. --Wendy Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > Hi guys > > This agenda is WAY WAY too long for a 1 hour teleconference – it’s more like over 2 hours! > > I suggest that we cut it down to a manageable length and move as many items as possible to online. > > This draft below is 1 ½ hours if we keep to the suggested times, which are a little tight, but it’s important IMO to keep these meetings to a reasonable time and tightly focused, I think. If all reports are sent out in advance, then we should be able to keep things moving. > > Please send comments/suggestions > > > > Suggested agenda items with timing: > > > > · Adoption of the Agenda – 1 min > > · Apologies from Members (if any) – 1 min > > · Adoption of the Minutes of the Previous Meeting (see HYPERLINK "https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?6_march_2007_minutes"6 March 2007 Minutes > > · Review of Action Items of the Previous Meeting (see HYPERLINK "https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?6_march_2007_minutes"6 March 2007 Minutes > > · Liaison reports – if we get them ASAP via email, we can cut the agenda to items on which the Liaisons want discussion/decisions. 5 minutes > > · Membership matters - > > o ALS applications – we have a vote pending, so I suggest we take this item off this teleconference and Susie can send out the relevant notices. We don’t have regional recommendations on all yet, but we do have DDs on a lot. I suggest that we set up the vote on all that we have dds on, and I will get Susie to send out an email very soon with the status. > > o Regional activities – can the regions post a list on the wiki? We can discuss the ones on which the regions want discussion/decisions. 5 minutes > > · Policy matters – > > o Update from Alan on the Domain tasting issues report request – 5 minutes > > o Nominations of Liaisons to the various working groups – gTLDs, WhoIs Working group, IDNs – 5 minutes > > o ALAC review – comments on the ToR – 5 minutes > > · Other matters > > o Chair’s activities – 2 minutes (I’ll try to cut it downJ) > > o Staff Report – 2 minutes > > o Budget – 5 minutes > > o San Juan preparation – draft items can be seen at HYPERLINK "https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?san_juan_meeting"https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?san_juan_meeting – 5 minutes > > o Rules of Procedure – discussion and decision/vote – 15 minutes > > o Reply to the Board on Ombudsman report (Due End April) – I suggest we set up a group to draft this and get back to the Committee (5 mins) > > · New Business > > o ALS Applications Process discussion and decision/vote– 10 mins > > o ALS Evaluation Criteria discussion and decision/vote – 10 mins > > > > Jacqueline > -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Fwd: ALAC Draft Statement :: Domain Monetization
by Alan Greenberg April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

I don't have the time now for a long answer, but as far as I can see, Domain Monetization is essentially a legal business and it is not at all clear that regulating it is within the purview of ICANN. That certainly does not mean that it has (or hasn't) socially redeeming redeeming reasons for existing. But that can be said of many thriving businesses. It would seem to me that if DM is to die, it will be for business reasons and not due to regulation. That being said, *I* find it a pain to deal with. I am tired of going to Google or other search engines and finding that the first screen is mostly monetization sites instead of real meat. Perhaps one day this kind of consumer discontent will force some action on the part of the business community. But as long as people click on these pointers, the business will likely thrive. Alan At 4/10/2007 06:14 AM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >I can try to consider these into the draft, AND it could >be also a good method to do a poll... >Let's talk (briefly) about this at today's conf call. > >izumi > > >2007/4/10, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com>: > > Hi Izumi > > Can you take these points under consideration in the draft? Or maybe this > > might be a good topic for a poll? > > Jacqueline > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] > > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 8:33 PM > > To: ALAC > > Subject: [At-Large] Fwd: ALAC Draft Statement :: Domain Monetization > > > > Dear ALAC, > > > > This came to me a week ago, and awaits my reply. > > Any comment is helpful. > > > > Thanks, > > > > izumi > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Kevin Ohashi <ohashi(a)ohashi.us> > > Date: 2007/03/31 5:04 > > Subject: Re: ALAC Draft Statement :: Domain Monetization > > To: iza(a)anr.org > > Cc: ohashi(a)ohashi.us > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Izumi Aizu, > > I recently read this on the ICANN website as part of your draft > > statement and had a few questions and disagreements with it in > > general. For background purposes I am involved with domain names and > > do participate in what you are labeling 'Domain Monetization' on a > > small scale. > > > > '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' > > > > No 'useful' content - What gives you the right to determine what is > > useful? How do you define use? People obviously click the paid > > advertisements on websites such as Google and advertisers pay for > > those areas to advertise. If someone searches for a 'digital camera' > > and gets a paid search result to Sony for a digital camera or eBay > > selling digital cameras didn't they get what they were looking for? > > Presumably when one doesn't find what they are looking for they close > > the window, go back and look elsewhere. While there may be some > > deception in rare instances Google and other Pay-Per-Click advertising > > companies such as Yahoo monitor for such fraud and suspend any > > accounts deceiving users. Let's look at what is going on - people are > > typing in cameras.com (actual ppc page) and clicking on a type of > > camera they are interested in and presented with a list of choices, > > highest paying advertisers on the keyword. A user then chooses one of > > those companies and goes directly to their website. I would think > > that is useful. Isn't that the same as typing in google.com, > > searching cameras and clicking on a brand? Technically speaking, the > > user performed nearly identically except you seem to class using a > > domain monetization service vs something like a search engine as > > fundmentally sleazy. You pretend the only traffic is typos and > > expired domain names. There are a lot of generic domain names, for > > instance cameras.com, which are completely generic and receive pure > > type in traffic through what is often labeled direct navigation. I am > > sure you are not ignorant of this fact but merely don't mention it > > because it would weaken your argument, but nonetheless if you want to > > present a balanced view and are attempting to look out for the users > > of the internet, you should be honest and upfront about everything. > > Wouldn't you agree? > > > > 'the presence of such website makes web-surfing by ordinary users far > > more difficult and confusing than they should be.' > > Now you are bordering in on free speech and freedom in general. > > Webmasters around the globe publish websites, blogs and media in many > > forms and generally are allowed to do so under free speech laws held > > in many countries. As a member of EFF you must understand that trying > > to control content, censorship, is exactly what your membership with > > EFF is against don't you? You are taking your views and imposing them > > on many others, what you think would be best use and for the benefit > > of the majority. While this may be noble, is it your place to decide? > > If I owned dogs.com and put a picture of my dog, I assure you she's > > adorable, it doesn't really add much content, perhaps if I surrounded > > it with advertisements? Where do you draw the line? I think many of > > us can agree that some things are generally objectionable and maybe > > shouldn't belong on the internet, many countries have such laws > > regarding pornography, but it is still on the internet, the .XXX > > proposal was rejected yet again on similar principles. How do you > > respond to that? > > > > 'It seems clear, however, that it does not improve the user experience > > at all.' (reference to domain monetization) > > > > Broad generalization not supported with any evidence. There is > > evidence suggesting that this traffic and websites monetizing this > > traffic are actually more beneficial to companies than other forms of > > advertising. Page 6 of Growth and Sustainability of Direct Search > > Traffic (http://www.internetreit.com/ica_growth_4.pdf) Direct > > navigation has nearly twice the conversion ratios for advertisers > > compared to search engine clicks. Not useful at all? It would seem > > to me that these websites offer some of the most valuable resources to > > any company marketing on the internet. That seems quite useful, > > highly targetted users being sent directly to advertisers of products > > they are looking for. > > > > I hope you take the time and consider these points and can respond to > > me and explain your position in more depth and with more evidence. > > > > Regards, > > Kevin Ohashi > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > -- > > >> 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 > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: > 4/8/2007 8:34 > > PM > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/752 - Release Date: > 4/8/2007 8:34 > > PM > > > > > > > > >-- > >> 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

5 6

Fwd: ALAC Draft Statement :: Domain Monetization
by Izumi AIZU April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

Dear ALAC, This came to me a week ago, and awaits my reply. Any comment is helpful. Thanks, izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Ohashi <ohashi(a)ohashi.us> Date: 2007/03/31 5:04 Subject: Re: ALAC Draft Statement :: Domain Monetization To: iza(a)anr.org Cc: ohashi(a)ohashi.us Mr. Izumi Aizu, I recently read this on the ICANN website as part of your draft statement and had a few questions and disagreements with it in general. For background purposes I am involved with domain names and do participate in what you are labeling 'Domain Monetization' on a small scale. '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' No 'useful' content - What gives you the right to determine what is useful? How do you define use? People obviously click the paid advertisements on websites such as Google and advertisers pay for those areas to advertise. If someone searches for a 'digital camera' and gets a paid search result to Sony for a digital camera or eBay selling digital cameras didn't they get what they were looking for? Presumably when one doesn't find what they are looking for they close the window, go back and look elsewhere. While there may be some deception in rare instances Google and other Pay-Per-Click advertising companies such as Yahoo monitor for such fraud and suspend any accounts deceiving users. Let's look at what is going on - people are typing in cameras.com (actual ppc page) and clicking on a type of camera they are interested in and presented with a list of choices, highest paying advertisers on the keyword. A user then chooses one of those companies and goes directly to their website. I would think that is useful. Isn't that the same as typing in google.com, searching cameras and clicking on a brand? Technically speaking, the user performed nearly identically except you seem to class using a domain monetization service vs something like a search engine as fundmentally sleazy. You pretend the only traffic is typos and expired domain names. There are a lot of generic domain names, for instance cameras.com, which are completely generic and receive pure type in traffic through what is often labeled direct navigation. I am sure you are not ignorant of this fact but merely don't mention it because it would weaken your argument, but nonetheless if you want to present a balanced view and are attempting to look out for the users of the internet, you should be honest and upfront about everything. Wouldn't you agree? 'the presence of such website makes web-surfing by ordinary users far more difficult and confusing than they should be.' Now you are bordering in on free speech and freedom in general. Webmasters around the globe publish websites, blogs and media in many forms and generally are allowed to do so under free speech laws held in many countries. As a member of EFF you must understand that trying to control content, censorship, is exactly what your membership with EFF is against don't you? You are taking your views and imposing them on many others, what you think would be best use and for the benefit of the majority. While this may be noble, is it your place to decide? If I owned dogs.com and put a picture of my dog, I assure you she's adorable, it doesn't really add much content, perhaps if I surrounded it with advertisements? Where do you draw the line? I think many of us can agree that some things are generally objectionable and maybe shouldn't belong on the internet, many countries have such laws regarding pornography, but it is still on the internet, the .XXX proposal was rejected yet again on similar principles. How do you respond to that? 'It seems clear, however, that it does not improve the user experience at all.' (reference to domain monetization) Broad generalization not supported with any evidence. There is evidence suggesting that this traffic and websites monetizing this traffic are actually more beneficial to companies than other forms of advertising. Page 6 of Growth and Sustainability of Direct Search Traffic (http://www.internetreit.com/ica_growth_4.pdf) Direct navigation has nearly twice the conversion ratios for advertisers compared to search engine clicks. Not useful at all? It would seem to me that these websites offer some of the most valuable resources to any company marketing on the internet. That seems quite useful, highly targetted users being sent directly to advertisers of products they are looking for. I hope you take the time and consider these points and can respond to me and explain your position in more depth and with more evidence. Regards, Kevin Ohashi 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. -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

3 4

Re: [At-Large] Remote participation - Fwd:[APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

As you all know I'm a big fan of making remote participation work as seamlessly as possible. Some of the things we've tried at this meeting (telephonic participation, Java-based (Marratech) shared whiteboard) have worked OK for some meetings, and others not so well (the whiteboard seems to be problematic in particular in a conference setting, due I think to bandwidth perhaps), and there are some new ICANN-provided services (see public.icann.org) which could work very well. The webcasts and audiocasts currently are only available for certain meetings. We should think about whether we want to ask for these to be extended to our meetings and I will investigate what costs and technical requirements would be needed to make that work with my colleagues here. Perhaps at the next ALAC teleconference we could review some of the things we have tried and which have been available - like the webcasts - for other sessions and I can then work on improving things for the San Juan meeting. On 28/03/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > > I think we should pay more attention to remote participation > to our meetings. Please see below. > > izumi > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> > Date: 2007/03/28 16:54 > Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting > To: Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> > > > As tomorrow's meeting at 1400 hrs lisboa time is in the Floriana > room(s) and that is already set up for web & audio casts (yes I'm > listening to the GNSO meeting atm ;-) perhaps ALAC could consider > useing ( or asking to use) this facility for all of us not actually > with you... see how you go... but if that was to happen make sure Nick > let's all the lists know.. many of us wil be loggin in just before > that to watch / hear the RALO signings so it does seem natural to me > to have a go... > > Have a great day... > > CLO > > Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > > > Good morning! from Lisboa. > > > > and thanks for your warm understanding and very constructive > > and pragmatic suggestions - I will bring this to the attention > > of ALAC tomorrow (no ALAC meeting is scheduled for today). > > > > As for the Domain tasting "resolution" we agreed to change it > > to "comments" and will further work on revisions. But your > > input has been quite helpful in forming "reasons" behind > > our comments. > > > > thanks, > > > > izumi > > > > 2007/3/28, cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>: > >> NP Izumi, I suspected a delay might have happened but having given > >> it an hour after start time ... well you know ;-) > >> > >> I must say having attended ICANN remotely for all but one meeting > >> since its inception, so I've used many official and un-official > >> mechanisms to participate over the years... there is advantages to > >> having a web cam open as well as audio / IRC / real player link / > >> teleconf etc., or the use of a Marratch style system where you can > >> either listen see or stream video to suit your bandwidth...that we 'we > >> out here in cyberspace' can see if any one is in the room vs. the > >> room is live but not meeting yet vs. no connectivity... perhaps we > >> might work towards this greater diverstiy of participation options (to > >> suit all the diverse connectivity and timing issues) as an adjuct to > >> the excellent wiki work that is going on) within the new ALAC ... > >> > >> I look forward to seing the final outcomes on the work you have been > >> doing and once the WIKI is up to date will also send the link to that > >> page back to our Members and respondants who commented on the original > >> draft (we must remember to make communications a complete cycle > >> otherwise the public interest will wain very quickly) > >> > >> kindest regards > >> CLO > >> > >> Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > >> > >>> Sorry about the unexpected delay - I was also concerned and > >>> thus sent you the e-mail - but failed to see the response. > >>> > >>> With other meetings in the morning delayed significantly, ALAC > >>> second session was delayed for more than 40 minutes to begin. > >>> I tried to remind my colleagues about this, but was not able > >>> to persuade all the way. I will tell them later so as not to > >>> repeat the similar mistake. (I feel really bad). > >>> > >>> As for the draft resolution, we agreed to change it into "comment" > >>> but not resolution, and are going to modify quite significantly. > >>> I proposed to form a small working team and come up with > >>> the next version perhaps tomorrow. Will send it to the list and > >>> also put into the wiki. > >>> > >>> many thanks, > >>> > >>> izumi > >>> > >>> 2007/3/27, cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au>: > >>>> Hi Izumi, > >>>> > >>>> sorry to annoy you in the second session meeting please if you read > >>>> this in session do *not* bother taking the time to reply... > >>>> (especially as you should be discussing the draft resolutions you put > >>>> up ;-) A couple of us were in the teleconf call for about 30 mins or > >>>> so at the schedual start time of 1300 local Lisbon time (2200hrs au > >>>> EST) and I've dialed back in again now at 2300hrs... the call is > >>>> deffinaltly set up but there is no connection to the room at all I've > >>>> just had 10 mins of absolute silence so I figure it's time to give up > >>>> and as the ccNSO is now seemingly offline from the audio and Web > >>>> com=nnection ( I suspect they may be at lunch) bed time looks like a > >>>> good option ... well I did try... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Hope the resolutions work well and I look forwaerd to seeing a final > >>>> form of the agreed text in the nexrt WIKI update (these are not being > >>>> activly changed or edited at the moment but I suppose that is fair > >>>> enough... though in the next few years real time chnges could be > being > >>>> posted to interested parties with the tools we have at ahne now let > >>>> alone what will be comming around the corner... > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> kindest regards, > >>>> > >>>> CLO > >>>> > -- -- 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 2

Draft rules of procedure
by Vittorio Bertola April 10, 2007

April 10, 2007

All, having reviewed the input that was posted about the draft rules of procedure, this is the list of points that we need to discuss in the call: 1. Terms for positions: one or two years? (Two preferences for one) 2. Should appointments to working groups and task forces have fixed terms as well? (Siavash) 3. Does it make sense to have minimum participation requirements for liaisons? (Siavash) 4. Requirements for eligibility as ALAC liaisons (and/or WGs?): no requirements (current draft) or only members or ex members that left less than one ICANN meeting ago? (Siavash) 5. People should not be allowed to run for more than two positions at the same time (Siavash) 6. Make changing the rules easier? (not 2/3 in favour as in the draft, but simple majority with 2/3 quorum) (Wendy) 7. Make recalling officers before the end of their term easier? (same proposal as above) (Wendy) 8. Shorter "no objections" period on motions (four days instead of seven)? (Wendy) (A couple of other points were minor and I think that we can take them in directly, such as motions requiring a second.) I suppose that we can go through them one by one and agree on them, so that I can prepare a final draft. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

The WHOIS Working Group is dead, long live the WHOIS WG
by Wendy Seltzer April 9, 2007

April 9, 2007

With apologies to those with monarchs... Le Roi est mort. Vive le Roi! The original WHOIS Working Group concluded its work, GNSO Council voted to charter a new WHOIS Working Group. Still, the anti-privacy status quo persists. I was, however, assured that this group would work via consensus rather than voting, so the non-voting status of non-constituencies such as ALAC might be less of an issue. <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03357.html> [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group * To: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> * Subject: [council] Draft Charter for new Whois Working Group * From: "Maria Farrell" <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> * Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:51:53 +0100 * Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx * Thread-index: Acdy0pITxrrlOGY7RXiPgSiXRFgS/w== Dear Council members, Attached is the draft Charter that sets out the statement of work and working methodologies of the Whois Working Group, created by resolution of the GNSO Council in Lisbon, on 28 March. Please review it and note that it will be an agenda item for discussion and adoption at the next Council meeting on 12 April. Also, please email this list if you wish to be on the Working Group, and feel free to to put any interested constituency members or outside experts in touch with me for further information. All the best, Maria Attachment: Whois Working Group Charter2.doc Description: MS-Word document Whois Working Group Charter Approved by the GNSO Council on -- April, 2007 STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT This is the DRAFT Whois Working Group Charter produced by ICANN staff for the consideration of the GNSO Council at its meeting on 12 April, 2007. 1 Introduction The GNSO Council voted on 28 March, 2007 to create a Whois Working Group with a broad, balanced and representative membership to take the output of the WHOIS task force and carry out further work to address concerns raised by the community and seek to reach greater consensus around improvements to the WHOIS service that achieve a balance between providing contact information adequate to facilitate timely resolution of any problems that arise in connection with the Register Name, and the need to take reasonable precautions to protect the data about any identified or identifiable natural person from loss, misuse, unauthorized access or disclosure, alteration, or destruction. 2 Background Whois ICANN’s agreements with gTLD registrars and gTLD registries require them to provide data concerning active Registered Names via three mechanisms: port-43 WHOIS, an interactive web page (often called WHOIS service), and third-party bulk access. The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) spells out which data is collected and which data is made available. The data includes contact information of natural persons that includes names, postal addresses, email addresses, fax and voice telephone numbers. Whois Policy Development Process (PDP) The GNSO is approaching the end of a PDP on Whois that should fulfill terms of reference agreed in June 2005. The terms of reference of the PDP (http://gnso.icann.org/policies/terms-of-reference.html) are to make policy recommendations to the Board on: 1.The purpose of the Whois service 2.The purpose of the Whois contacts (ie Registered Name Holder, technical contact, and administrative contact) and the purpose for which the data is collected. 3.Which data should be available for public access, and determine how to access data that is not available for public access. 4.How to improve the process for notifying a registrar of inaccurate data, and how to improve the process for correcting inaccurate data. 5.How to deal with any conflicts between the requirements of ICANN agreements, and local or national privacy laws Regarding term of reference #5, a Policy on conflicts between Whois requirements and local or national privacy laws was developed by the GNSO and approved by the Board on 10 May 2006. A draft Procedure for Handling Whois Conflicts with Privacy Law has been published on the ICANN website at (http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois_national_laws_procedure.htm) The Final Task Force Report on Whois Services was submitted to the GNSO Council on 12 March, 2007. The Task Force Report and Staff Discussion Points on Potential Implementation Issues are available at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-16mar07.htm. The GNSO Council met to consider the WHOIS task force report on Saturday 25 March 2007, and also met with the Government Advisory Committee. Various concerns were raised regarding some of the recommendations in the report, and subsequently the GNSO Council met on Wednesday 28 March and decided to form a working group to attempt to resolve some of the issues raised. 3 Objective The objective of the WG is to examine the issues raised with respect to the policy recommendations of the task force and make recommendations concerning how those policies recommendations may be improved to address these issues. 4 Work Plan 4a Define the roles, responsibilities, and requirements of the contacts available for unrestricted public query-based access, and what happens if the responsibilities are not fulfilled. 4b. Determine how third parties may access registration data that is no longer available for unrestricted public query-based access for legitimate activities. The GAC Policy Principles on gTLD Whois Services (dated 28 March 07) sets out a list of legitimate (subject to applicable national law) activities, including: 1. Supporting the security and stability of the Internet by providing contact points for network operators and administrators, including ISPs, and certified computer incident response teams; 2. Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names; 3. Assisting law enforcement authorities in investigations, in enforcing national and international laws, including, for example, countering terrorism-related criminal offences and in supporting international cooperation procedures. In some countries, specialized non governmental entities may be involved in this work; 4. Assisting in combating against abusive uses of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), such as illegal and other acts motivated by racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, hatred, violence, all forms of child abuse, including paedophilia and child pornography, and trafficking in, and exploitation of, human beings. 5. Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark clearances and to help counter intellectual property infringement, misuse and theft in accordance with applicable national laws and international treaties; 6. Contributing to user confidence in the Internet as a reliable and efficient means of information and communication and as an important tool for promoting digital inclusion, e-commerce and other legitimate uses by helping users identify persons or entities responsible for content and services online; and 7. Assisting businesses, other organizations and users in combating fraud, complying with relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of the public. 4c Determine whether and how a distinction could be made between the registration contact information published based on the nature of the registered name holder (for example, legal vs. natural persons) or its use of the domain name (for example, commercial versus non-commercial use).. 5 Participation The WG will allow for new insights regarding this issue, with people drawn from the GNSO, members of the GAC, government agencies (such as law enforcement agencies), and the broader community. The membership of this WG extends to the following: Nominating Committee appointed GNSO councilors GNSO constituency members In addition, observers and liaisons may join the working group on the following basis: Observers shall not be members of or entitled to vote on the working group, but otherwise shall be entitled to participate on equal footing with members of the working group. In particular observers will be able to join the mailing list, and attend teleconferences or physical meetings. Observers must provide their real name, organization (if associated with an organization) and contact details to the GNSO secretariat, and the GNSO secretariat will verify at least their email address and phone contact information. Observers will also be requested to provide a public statement of interest, as for working group members. The GNSO Council will appoint an interim Chair of the WG and the working group can elect a chair at its first meeting. 6 Working Methods The WG will work using the following methods: Teleconferences, likely to be once a week Wiki / other participatory forum or platform for group decision-making Face to face meeting at ICANN Puerto Rico meeting, 25-29 June, 2007. Email list 7 Decision-making The WG will operate using a rough consensus approach. The WG will work to achieve agreement on positions that most or all of the group members are willing to support. For the expression of views, the Working Group will use the following conventions: - Agreement – there is broad agreement within the Working Group (largely equivalent to “rough consensus” as used in the IETF) - Support – there is some gathering of positive opinion, but competing positions may exist and broad agreement has not been reached - Alternative view – a differing opinion that has been expressed, without garnering enough following within the WG to merit the notion of either Support or Agreement. Working with the group, the Chair will have the authority to establish where agreement/support/alternative views exist. 8 Timeline The WG will convene within one week of the GNSO Council’s agreement of its Charter, by 20 April, 2007, latest. The WG will work to achieve the following targets: 1.Produce for publication on the ICANN website a progress reports by each of the following dates: 25 May, 2007, and 22 June, 2007. 2.Conclude its work and submit a final report to the GNSO Council on or before 26 July, 2007. If the WG has not been able to reach conclusions by 26 July, 2007, it will terminate its work and report its outcomes to the GNSO Council by that date. 9 Relevant Documents The following documents are directly relevant to the work of this Working Group and should be read by participants before joining the group: Final Task Force Report on Whois Services, including the public comments report on comments received on the policy proposals from November 2006 – January 2007; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-services-final-tf-report-1… . Staff notes on Potential Implementation Issues; http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/staff-discussion-points-whois-final-15ma… Government Advisory Committee Principles regarding gTLD WHOIS Services http://gac.icann.org/web/communiques/gac27com.pdf -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0