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

Complaint Resolution PDP Requested
by Danny Younger Sept. 21, 2007

Sept. 21, 2007

Cheryl, Thank you for your comments on the work of the RAA WG. >From the point of view of the registrant community, there is little satisfaction to be gained from ICANN's current policy regarding registrant/registrar disputes. A registrant after experiencing serious issues with his registrar will often write to ICANN (not knowing that ICANN will do little more than forward his correspondence back to the registrar). This is not the best way foward. Candidly, ICANN and the registrant community need a Uniform Complaint Resolution Policy along the lines of the auDa model. My proposal: Have the ALAC put forward a formal PDP request to the GNSO so that a complaint resolution policy may be crafted. In conjunction with this initiative, the ALAC can (1)organize a workshop on this topic with auDa representatives, registrars, ICANN Staff and public interest advocates among the panelists; and (2) commence a fact-finding effort examining other complaint resolution models in the ccTLD world and elsewhere; and (3) formalize recommendations that may aid the GNSO policy development process. regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC liaison positions
by Izumi AIZU Sept. 21, 2007

Sept. 21, 2007

Thank Adam for volunteering for the ALAC liaison to ccNSO. ALAC has not yet finalized the list of items to be discussed in LA including the ccNSO liaison matter, but I am sure we will, since our current Liaison, Siavash, will have to step down from ALAC member selected by Nomcom at the conclusion of the coming AGM in LA. And also all liaisons' term finishes at the conclusion of AGM. Now, ALAC is also finalizing the proposed Rules of Procedure in which all liaison selection process is (re)defined. The latest draft can be see at ALAC wiki, but not easy to find (sorry) https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?11_september_2007 As is summarized below, we expect to finalize this RoP by the end of September. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?meeting_summary_11_september_2007 So, we need to set the rule, follow the rule and execute them. For that, again, thanks Adam for prompting us to do so. izumi 2007/9/19, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>: > Hi, > > Will discussion/selection of new ALAC liaisons to the various > councils, etc be discussed in LA. Is there a process for selection? > > I would like to volunteer to be considered for the position of ALAC > liaison to ccNSO. > > Best, > > Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

[WHOIS] Public comments once again sought
by Wendy Seltzer Sept. 20, 2007

Sept. 20, 2007

There's another call for public comments on WHOIS, <http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-14sep07.htm>. While previous comments have met with resounding silence and lack of follow-up or recognition, ALAC might want to share the opportunity for comment with at-large participants. More significantly, now that the Working Group has officially concluded and turned its report over to the GNSO Council, ALAC should consider providing public perspectives to the GNSO Council and ultimately the Board. I would (personally) recommend that ALAC support allowing domain name registrants to designate an Operational Point of Contact to be listed in the WHOIS record for their domains -- I don't think that reduces accountability, but increases contactability. In the absence of consensus, however, I would recommend that we at least (once again...) gather and submit comments reflecting the range of views users and registrants have on the issue. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/

1 0

IGF workshop on IPv4-v6 possible speaker/input?
by Izumi AIZU Sept. 20, 2007

Sept. 20, 2007

Hi, I am working on coordinating the IGF workshop on IPv4v6, most likely to be titled as: "From IPv4 to IPv6: Challenges and Opportunities" with other parties. The list of speakers should be finalized and sent to the IGF secretarait by Sep 22, Saturday! I cannot promise, but there is a slight possibiity to add a speaker from the civil society /ALAC/ALSes, and I wonder if any of you are going to Rio, and have high qulaification on this issue from public interest/end user perspectives. Very frankly, I think I can do that and was asked today to be the speaker (I was thinking to be one of the moderators). But want to make sure we have the right speaker. And , if you have any opinion or "input" even you are not the speaker, I can covey that collectively. We also need to move on to the LA workshop. izumi

1 0

Re: [At-Large] No fifth possibly final draft of RAA comments
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 18, 2007

Sept. 18, 2007

It does indeed fall to Jacqueline as Chair or Jose as Vice-Chair to send something on behalf of ALAC. -----Original Message----- From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> To: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> To: John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> Sent: 9/18/2007 10:17:01 AM Subject: Re: [At-Large] No fifth possibly final draft of RAA comments Doesn't it fall to Jacqueline to send on behalf of ALAC? Why don't you send the latest draft to her, as she may have a better sense of where the ALAC members stand on acceptance of the draft. Bret On Sep 18, 2007, at 9:15 AM, John L wrote > > I really don't feel comfortable sending something that says ALAC which > only two of the members have looked at. > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 -- Bret Fausett bfausett(a)internet.law.pro skype:lextext | iChat:bret@mac.com (smime.p7s is a digital signature) ----------------------------------

2 1

Re: [At-Large] ALAC submission to the RAA consultation
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 17, 2007

Sept. 17, 2007

I have seen your postings. I think these comments are referring to the number of ALSes participating in the discussion rather than suggesting that none at all have participated. On 13 Sep 2007, at 21:09, Seth M. Reiss wrote: > Nick > > Trouble is, even though Randy and I made the effort the review and > give our sincere input respecting Vittorio's drafts, those > commenting on the lack of ALS input seem to have missed our > participation entirely! I wonder if only we can see the messages > we post??? A new technological innovation perhaps? > > Seth > > > > From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:57 PM > To: RJGlass | America@Large > Cc: Vittorio Bertola; seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC submission to the RAA consultation > > All the regions are collaborating together on the RAA WG to put a > statement together, which is what Vittorio is speaking of below. > > On 12 Sep 2007, at 21:06, RJGlass | America@Large wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I thought the NARALO put something in or was working toward doing so. >> >> I don't know if this is the same discussion, please clarify. >> >> Thanks, >> Randy >> >> >> On 9/12/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: >> 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/ <-------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------- >> AmericaAtLarge.org >> RJPacific.com >> DDMF.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 > > -- > 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 > > > -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nashton(a)consensus.pro Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 17, 2007

Sept. 17, 2007

Hugh Dierker ha scritto: > Multiple viewpoints should be spelled out when there is any appreciable > support, even one, well reasoned for a different point of view. I say > this especially in light of the nominal contributions in this instance. I am not sure about what are the divergent points of view in this case: some people think that registrars should abide by privacy laws in their countries, while some others think that they should violate them? Some people think that ICANN should enforce both its policies related to accuracy and those related to privacy, while some others think that it should enforce only the former? It seems to me that the ALAC is taking a position that until now I had heard only from representatives of the IP lobby and of North American police corps, and I do not understand why. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
by John L Sept. 17, 2007

Sept. 17, 2007

> On this subject, I suggested having an ombudsman-like scenario. Someone or > something that independently fixes problems. The two parties to the RAA are ICANN and the registrar. Is this an ombudsman to negotiate between them or between registrars and registrants? In the latter case, we're back to the third party beneficiary stuff. > 2) WHOIS > WHOIS should not be a publicly available database. Registering a domain is not a license for registrants to harass Internet users anonymously. The publicly available WHOIS is an essential facility to protect the vast, vast majority of at-large users who have never registered a domain and never will. > Privacy laws do prevail in this circumstance. Oh, then we agree, since as I would hope everyone was aware, the United States, where ICANN and the largest registrars are located, has no meaningful privacy laws. Needless to say, consensus on this point in this group is unlikely any time in the near future. R's, John

3 2

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

Sept. 14, 2007

Eric, Thanks for your thoughtful input. At the end of the day, however, the goal is to have complaints resolved. Rather than opening up the door to the possibility of increased litigation, have a look at an alternative approach to Complaint Handling: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2002-21/ regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz

1 0

[RAA-WG] Third possibly final draft of RAA comments
by Danny Younger Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

Bret, (1) In your view, do you think that the efforts of Stacy Burnette and Connie Brown will be sufficient to police the tens of thousands of resellers that are out there? I don't. It's not realistic, nor is it realistic to think that they will be able to audit all of these entities and/or "rate" these resellers. (2) ICANN does have a compliance department (see above) that so far is managing to audit the less than 1000 registrars currently accredited. (3) Third-party beneficiary status is not the appropriate way to deal with enforcement issues. I would suggest (a) leaving the enforcement up to the Compliance Team (which is what they are being paid to do) and; (b) having a look at the auDa Complaint Resolution mechanisms that registrars are required by contract to implement. There are ways forward other than one which will only open the door to lawsuits. (4) ICANN's lack of enforcement should be criticized, and ICANN should be augmenting its compliance team. This is called for in the Joint Project Agreement that specified "devoting adequate resources to contract enforcement" as affirmed responsibility #10. regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&…

1 0