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

ConfirmSystem: registrar@icann.org [[52b562ba9402d9d9]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 9, 2007

July 9, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registrar(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=52b562ba9402d9d9&l=registrar@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "Astonishing repl1ca w4tches at Prest1ge Repl1cas" and it arrived at approximately Mon Jul 9 05:52:16 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registrar(a)icann.org [[52b562ba9402d9d9]] 2

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registry@icann.org [[610348f6ee32decd]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 9, 2007

July 9, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registry(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=610348f6ee32decd&l=registry@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "Astonishing repl1ca w4tches at Prest1ge Repl1cas" and it arrived at approximately Mon Jul 9 05:52:15 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registry(a)icann.org [[610348f6ee32decd]] 1

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

>Could we send a statement to the board... We certainly could. But could I suggest that if you are (and others) are changing the discussion that we are having, that you change the SUBJECT line as well? The current thread has nothing to do with domain tasting. Alan At 08/07/2007 06:53 PM, Michael Maranda wrote: >Some have argued the increase was trivial, given people's intuition >of adjustments for inflation, etc., and also with a sense that >prices were stable for a period (after the initial decline). As you >would gather from my prior post, its pretty much nonsense (computing >and teleconnectivity costs should be going down, down down). > >The material on price increases well in advance of the actual >increase taking effect is disgusting and disturbing. They appear to >be taking a page from the Oil cartels. > >Again, referencing the gentleman from Tucows... exclusive contracts >were won in part by expectations of price decreases. > >At-Large should have some strong words on this matter for the Board >of Directors, however, there is a sense that we are supposed to >build up our credibility through "productivity" first. > >Could we send a statement to the board reporting these increases to >the Internet Community, as Danny indicates, well in advance of the >official date... and echoing the sentiment that good stewardship >demands better? > >On 7/8/07, Danny Younger ><<mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com>dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Re: The small increase may seem trivial, but the >principle is more important. > >The price increase (which won't go into effect until >October 15) is not trivial -- registrars are already >raising their prices in anticipation of the price >increase: > >"AIT Domains says that under the promotion all domain >names will cost $6.49 until July 6. However, due to >recently announced price increases from ICANN, AIT >Domains says it's being forced to raise its prices. >Rates are currently scheduled to go up to $8.49 per >registration year on July 9." > ><http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_July_Special.…>http://www.thewhir.com/marketwatch/070307_AIT_Holds_Fourth_of_July_Special.… > > >What's more important than all of this is the issue of >bad decision-making on the part of the unaccountable >ICANN Board. The Internet community has no way of >"throwing the bums out" because ICANN remains >accountable to no one. > >Until this problem is solved it really doesn't much >matter what the community consensus is on the AGP or >anything else... ICANN remains free to ignore the >voice of the people. > >Presently, ICANN profits from the consequences of >domain tasting... the more names that are tasted, the >more names that will eventually be registered as some >of these names can successfully be monetized. Profits >for the registries, profits for the registrars, >profits for ICANN... there were about 16 million new >registrations last year (a good chunk of them the >direct result of tasting activities). > >Don't expect to prevail on this issue without putting >up a spectacular fight and screaming for action at >every opportunity -- convincing a corporation to kill >a lucrative cash cow can only be an uphill battle. > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________Ready >for the edge of your seat? >Check out tonight's top picks on Yahoo! TV. ><http://tv.yahoo.com/>http://tv.yahoo.com/ > > > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------- >Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter >Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance >Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition >President, Association For Community Networking > >Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access >Alliance: ><http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org>http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org >ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Domain tasters apparently "taste" well over 300,000,000 domains per yeas (1,000,000 per day). The $0.22 per domain name dropped would cost them over $60,000,000 - perhaps enough to make domain tasting less attractive. Perhaps it is not enough, and it would need to be higher. It is hard to project the exact impact, but there is general agreement that it would have a major positive impact. Regarding dropping the AGP altogether, that has been proposed. Registrars (include those normally thought to be "good guys") point out that there are legitimate uses of the AGP that they would not like to see go away unless it was addressed by some other measure. Such uses include fraud (credit card fraud in particular), live software testing (for interacting with registries) and even refunds for registrants who make mistakes and then call to ask for help. The first two are not the reasons it was implemented, but the world does change. All of us are opposed to price increases, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed such a price increase during the present discussion. Alan At 08/07/2007 07:10 AM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote: >The kiting/tasting issue can be resolved by getting rid of the AGP, >this was a bad idea from the beginning. The handful of people who >made it knew this would happen and did it anyway. > >For the record, I am opposed to the increasing price of >domains. Not opposed to ICANN charging the fee for the deletions >during the AGP. > >So, what ICANN is saying is that a 22cent domain will stop kiting >and tasting?? That is ridiculous. > >This action needs to be adequately discussed. > >Randy Glass >A@L > >On 7/7/07, John L <<mailto:johnl@iecc.com>johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone should be > > accountable and have some reason for doing such. > > >> "The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all > >> of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP." > >This is to get rid of domain kiting/tasting. > >I happen to agree that it's a good idea, but I also agree that it hasn't >been sufficiently debated to be presented as ALAC's position. > >R's, >John > > > > >-- >------------------------- >AmericaAtLarge.org >RJPacific.com >DDMF.org >_______________________________________________ >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 > >Draft Code of Conduct: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

No one said anything about increasing the prices of domains. If anything, this is a rationale for decreasing prices. ICANN charges all registrars $0.25 per domain registers and kept past the Add Grace Period (minus a price reduction of $0.03 last year and $0.05 in the coming year). It is included in all registrations that you buy. I was suggesting that the fee partially or completely apply to all registrations, even those that are cancelled during the AGP. I was not expecting the suggestion to be taken up on such short notice (the budget was expected to be discussed by the Board Finance Committee within 1 day), but I did hope that it would increase pressure to do *something*. To put this in perspective, in the 12 months ending in February 2007, there the number of .com domains increased by about 17,000. Presumably a larger number of new domains were actually registers and some dropped. During that same period, there were about 420,000,000 domain deleted performed. The bulk of them seemingly due to domains added and then deleted during the AGP. I have to assume that someone is paying for the added cost of all of those transactions, and it is not the domain tasters - it is us regular registrants who bear the cost. My suggestion was one way to get the domain tasters who get their millions of domains for free have to pay a fee. Although it is not clear that it is a representative sample, .org has found that by charging a $0.05 fee per AGP deleted domain (to those who do it a lot), their use of the AGP virtually disappeared. Alan At 07/07/2007 10:40 PM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote: >As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone >should be accountable and have some reason for doing such. > >Randy Glass >A@L > >On 7/7/07, Danny Younger ><<mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com>dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Alan Greenberg posted the following comment on 27 >June: > >"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging >registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names >deleted during the AGP." > ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html > >Sorry to say, that I cannot find the minutes of the >meeting in which this decision was agreed upon, nor >can I find a recording of the San Juan meeting >sessions. > >How did the ALAC arrive at this particular >recommendation without the benefit of any on-list >discussion whatsoever? What input did the RALOs have >into the endorsement of this one specific >recommendation? Why were other viable options not >endorsed? > >Is this an authorized statement? If so, why wasn't it >issued by the chair? > >Some answers would be appreciated. > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love >(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. ><http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265>http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 > >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list ><mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>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>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: ><http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >Draft Code of Conduct: ><http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct>http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > > > >-- >------------------------- >AmericaAtLarge.org >RJPacific.com >DDMF.org >_______________________________________________ >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 > >Draft Code of Conduct: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registrar@icann.org [[04da41b69a30f49b]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registrar(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=04da41b69a30f49b&l=registrar@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "buy Breitling right here" and it arrived at approximately Sun Jul 8 02:18:07 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registrar(a)icann.org [[04da41b69a30f49b]] 6

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registry@icann.org [[0f9f5b3aafd2a3db]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registry(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=0f9f5b3aafd2a3db&l=registry@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "buy Breitling right here" and it arrived at approximately Sun Jul 8 02:18:06 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registry(a)icann.org [[0f9f5b3aafd2a3db]] 5

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registrar@icann.org [[9080df6862ceb2e2]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registrar(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=9080df6862ceb2e2&l=registrar@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "Best IWC repl1ca w4tches at Prest1ge Repl1cas" and it arrived at approximately Sat Jul 7 23:33:29 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registrar(a)icann.org [[9080df6862ceb2e2]] 4

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registry@icann.org [[c64c9a58e79d65df]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registry(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=c64c9a58e79d65df&l=registry@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "Best IWC repl1ca w4tches at Prest1ge Repl1cas" and it arrived at approximately Sat Jul 7 23:33:28 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registry(a)icann.org [[c64c9a58e79d65df]] 3

1 0

Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations
by Jacqueline A. Morris July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

The GNSO Council has received an Issues Report pertaining to dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations - http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03586.html The ALAC would appreciate feedback from the AtLarge on this issue. Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM

3 3