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

Third possibly final draft of RAA comments
by John L Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

I went through the entire archive of the RAA-WG list (126 messages not counting troll nonsense), and updated the document to try to address all of the open concerns, and to take out stuff that's either resolved like setting up escrow, or on which there's no consensus like what belongs in WHOIS. The two attachents are the same document, the first in ODT format for freedom loving open source users, the latter six times bulkier DOC format for Slaves of Redmond. Please read and review soon, since this document is late and needs to go out tomorrow. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

6 7

Re: [At-Large] Third possibly final draft of RAA comments
by John L Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

> To me, this revision strikes an appropriate balance overall, requesting that > ICANN take oversight of its contractual relationships without making it into > a general-purpose consumer protection agency. Thanks. > I'd recommend modifying Sec. 9, which currently would force identification > even by a registrant who preferred to remain anonymous. In principle I agree, but I have consumer protections concerns because I doubt that many registrants would understand that means that if their registrar flakes, they lose their domain. R's, John

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Third possibly final draft of RAA comments/TPB
by Danny Younger Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

Eric, As an attorney you are aware that in the context of contract law, there are two categories of third party beneficiaries; intended beneficiaries and incidental beneficiaries. By what twist of the law do you regard the registrant community as the intended beneficiary of the two party contract between the registrar community and ICANN? As I see it, registrants are at best incidental beneficiaries that have no enforceable rights under such a contract. Wishing it was otherwise is somewhat akin to a herd of sheep passing a resolution declaring all wolves to be vegetarians. Nice thought, but the reality is still otherwise. Looking forward to your elucidation. --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The section is a mainstay and yet it was taken out. > Could it be put back in? > > Eric > > Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > John L ha scritto: > > <snip> > > Also, you removed the second bullet (and added a new > one) in section 4 - > why? > > Finally, you removed the section on intended > beneficiaries of the > contract. I've seen that Bret already asked to > reinstate it, and I > support that. (I had made it a separate section at > the end to give it > more prominence, but, as you like.) > > Regards, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at > http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > _______________________________________________ > RAA-WG mailing list > RAA-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… > > RAA WG Online: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations > > > > > --------------------------------- > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - > their life, your story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > _______________________________________________ > RAA-WG mailing list > RAA-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… > > RAA WG Online: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html

1 0

ALAC submission to the RAA consultation
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 13, 2007

Sept. 13, 2007

All, I (and the working group) are still waiting to know who will take over the responsibility of finalizing the ALAC submission to the consultation on the revision of the RAA. Pardon me if I insist, but it is very important that the ALAC submits its contribution in the next few days (the formal deadline was September 10). With the collective input of the group, I already drafted a 7-page document which is almost complete - there is the need for a few hours' work of revision incorporating the last round of comments, and then for formal approval by the ALAC with whatever procedure the ALAC wants to apply (I had asked for information about the procedure weeks ago, but I don't think I had any reply). Given that the ALAC wants to mark a sharp change of direction, I do not think that it would be useful for me to continue leading this effort - it would not bring to anything that the ALAC can agree with. Unfortunately, apart from a few replies by Jacqueline, no ALAC member is participating to this working group or has submitted any comments on this issue, so there is no natural candidate. Perhaps the new Board liaison can spare a few hours of her time in the next 2-3 days to take care of this? Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

6 7

Summary Minutes and Recording, 11 September 2007 Meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 13, 2007

Sept. 13, 2007

Dear Members and Community: The Draft Summary Minutes and the recording of the 11 September 2007 ALAC meeting are now available from: https://st.icann.org/alac/ index.cgi?11_september_2007 I shall compile action items from the summary shortly. IMPORTANT: Note that there are a couple of places where there was a break in minute-taking due to my working on technical issues with the teleconference. If Members could step in and fill in anything important whilst the meeting is still fresh in everyone's minds, this would be awfully helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 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

GNSO Council and public comments regarding new gTLDs
by Olof Nordling Sept. 12, 2007

Sept. 12, 2007

Dear all, Since questions have surfaced in this forum about how public comments were handled in conjunction with the Final Report of the PDP for New gTLDs, please find below the relevant part of the draft minutes of the Council's 6 September meeting on this topic, for your information. Very best regards Olof -------------- Olof Nordling, Mgr Policy Development Coordination ICANN, Brussels ------------------ 2.2 - review public comments http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/ Liz Williams reported that the Final Report Part A and B, Introduction of New Generic Top-Level Domains posted for the public comments, included the edits posted by individual Council members among whom were mentioned Avri Doria and Chuck Gomes, incorporated all the small group discussions and the final committee meeting on 6 August 2007. The public comment forum ran from 10 to 30 August 2007 http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-10aug07.htm There were 81 comments in all and a synopsis of the comments was posted at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtldfinalreport-2007/msg00082.html The issues fell into three categories. 1. The first category related to recommendations 6 and 20 with similar language about the way in which morality and public order issues and their lead objection process would be handled. 2. The second category of comments were general ones related to the process and urging ICANN to move towards having a robust and objective application process available as quickly as possible. 3. The third category's comment related to specific elements which included discussions of IDN issues, Recommendation 19 with respect to the use of Accredited ICANN Registrars and protecting the rights of others. The arbitrary cutoff date was midday, CEST on 30 August, 2007 for producing the synopsis of comments for Council members. Comments that were received after that time (but before the posted deadline) would be included in the Board report.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] IDN ccTLD
by Danny Younger Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

I need some help understanding where we are going with this proposal. It seems to me that most people on the planet want to communicate in their native language, and logically they would be looking for a language-based TLD -- for example, a Vietnamese language TLD or a Wolof language TLD -- let's call them L-tlds. Why then do we seem to be supporting proposals that seem to automatically confer IDN authority upon the ccTLD managers? Wouldn't it make more sense to have a competitive process wherein those that wish to bid to manage a language based TLD would have the opportunity to make their case to ICANN? Why do we need another set of territorial-based TLDs when language tends to go well beyond specific territories? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/

4 6

Fwd: GNSO Council Liaison report
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

Following is my report on recent GNSO activities. I specifically call your attention the Domain Tasting Request for Information. Contributions from both individuals and ALSs are welcome. The deadline is September 15, 2007. Alan >Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 02:09:17 -0400 >To: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: GNSO Council Liaison report > >There have been three major issues before the GNSO this last month >which were addressed during the Sept. 6 Council meeting. The first >and the last were the result of policy development processes over >that last several years. > >1. Policy document on new Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLD) had been >finalized and was released for community comment on August 10th >(http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gtld-draft-final-report) The >comment period ended on August 30th. There was a spirited >discussion, particularly related to recommendations: >- 6 (Strings must not be contrary to generally accepted legal norms >relating to morality and public order that are recognized under >international principles of law); >- 19 (Registries must use only ICANN accredited registrars in >registering domain names and may not discriminate among such >accredited registrars); and >- 20 (An application will be rejected if an expert panel determines >that there is substantial opposition to it from a significant >portion of the community to which the string may be explicitly or >implicitly targeted). >Ultimately, the report was approved with some abstentions or no >votes (primarily from the NCUC). > >2. The GNSO General Assembly (GA) is an open mailing list. >Historically, the GA was a integral part of the former DNSO (before >it was split into the GNSO and the ccNSO). The current GA is a part >of the GNSO only in that the GNSO has responsibility for the mailing >list. It has been quite inactive but has recently been brought back >to life. A set of guidelines were created for mailing list >participation, and were submitted to the GNSO. The GNSO basically >supported the revived GA Activity with specific cautions. > >3. The last WHOIS working group had reported in, with little >actually concluded. There has been a lot of discussion regarding >what to do next, some of it just barely civil (or perhaps already >over the line of civility). Ultimately, a outcome was brokered which >all constituencies accepted. The motion makes no particular policy >recommendation to the ICANN Board, but does request a set of >specific actions culminating in a vote during the Los Angeles public >GNSO Council meeting. > >Details of the three actions can be found at >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/resolutions-gnso-06sep07.shtml. > >Work is proceeding on the Domain Tasting issue that the ALAC >initiated. A Request for Information was issued in August 10th, with >input due by September 15th >(http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-10aug07.htm) > >Alan > > > > > > > > > > > >http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/resolutions-gnso-06sep07.shtml

1 0

GNSO Council vote on new gTLDs
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

Alan Greenberg ha scritto: > 1. Policy document on new Generic Top-Level Domains (GTLD) had been > finalized and was released for community comment on August 10th ( > http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gtld-draft-final-report) The > comment period ended on August 30th. There was a spirited discussion, > particularly related to recommendations: Is it true (as I was told) that public comment was basically not considered, up to the point that the report that was briefly introduced by staff did not include the comments submitted in the last days, because staff did not find time to process them? Was there any serious consideration given to public comment during the discussion? Thanks, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

2 1

Board liaison report
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 11, 2007

Sept. 11, 2007

The Board met by teleconference on August 14. Reports from that meeting have been already provided in other threads, anyway: - The Board selected Paris as location for the second meeting in 2008 (the other application was from Belgrade). - The Board agreed with moving the ICANN office in a bigger space some floors above the present location. - The Board selected Iron Mountain as partner provider of escrow services. As per our discussions, I stressed the need to comply with the various privacy and data protection legislations, which will be made easier by having selected a global company which is a leader in the field. - The Board renewed the .name contract. - .dm (Dominica) was redelegated (a straightforward one). - The Board approved the insertion of the eleven test IDN TLDs into the root. - The Board approved a response to the Ombudsman related to the Ynternet.org case. The response goes largely in the direction of our comments, and I informed the Board that we were soon to revote on Ynternet.org's application. - The Board appointed Vint Cerf as ICANN speaker at the Rio IGF. Moreover, discussions on the Board list in the past weeks were mostly focused on: - Whether a specific code of ethical conduct should be established for Board members and/or ICANN employees and/or SO/AC officers and members. - Whether ICANN should have a role in reclaiming the unused legacy IPv4 space (and whether it should be reclaimed at all, rather than letting its present holders sell it at the foreseeable black market) and in other IPv6-migration-related issues. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0