December 2008 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Fwd: GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery presentation posted
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Following are pointers to a presentation to be given at this coming Thursday's GNSO meeting, the GNSO Agenda where it will be discussed, and the Issue report requested by the ALAC. Alan >Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:59:58 -0800 >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >Subject: GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery > presentation posted >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >Dear Alan, > >Could you please distribute this on the ALAC lists for information. > >Thanks so much. >Glen > >Please find a power point presentation of the > >GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/post-expiration-domain-name-recovery-i… > >Marika Konings will give a presentation to the >Council on Thursday at the meeting under > >Item 6. Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (20 mins) >http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-18dec08.shtml > >GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf > >- Overview >Discussion and decision on next steps: > >Motion to consider PDP at next meeting. > >The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues >Report power point presentation is posted on page: >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/ > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

More NCUC statement on new gTLDs
by Brendler, Beau Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

I asked permission to share this document also with the ALAC. Beau ________________________________ From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:20 AM To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: NCUC statement on new gTLDs Importance: High Dear all, Please find attached the statement I have drafted on behalf of the NCUC for ICANN's new gTLD proposal. According to ICANN the deadline for comments is tomorrow -15/12/2008 -(can someone please confirm this?). If this is the case can we request for an extension until at least the end of the week? Please make any changes/suggestions to the document so we don't loose track of any comments. Considering the tight deadline can I please ask you all to proceed and look at this document as soon as possible? Thank you all. KK -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

1 0

NCUC statement on new gTLDs
by Brendler, Beau Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

In trading some e-mails with the NCUC, I mentioned that more than a few of us were concerned about the morality and public order issues within the new gTLDs document. I asked if we could share thoughts. Here's what Cheryl Preston has written, sent with permission. -----Original Message----- From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Cheryl Preston Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:42 PM To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: NCUC statement on new gTLDs I am sorry if you receive this twice. The one I sent a while ago does not seem to have gone through to the list. Attached is my statement on the new gTLDs, Recommendation 6: Morality and Public Order. If anyone would like to support any of these conclusions, please let me know or write in your own public comment. Also feel free to circulate this to ALAC or whoever. Thanks. Cheryl B. Preston Edwin M. Thomas Professor of Law J. Reuben Clark Law School Brigham Young University 434 JRCB Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-2312 prestonc(a)lawgate.byu.edu >>> Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)SYR.EDU> 12/14/2008 10:37 am >>> Konstantinos: This statement is good, thanks for doing it. My suggestions: (incorporated into the edited version attached): 1) we need to make clear at the beginning that free expression has not been adequately recognized as a rights claim. 2) I would like to put the Morality and Public Order section ahead of the trademark section to reflect constituency priorities. But others may not agree with that. 3) Would like to begin the discussion of incitement by noting the dangers of content regulation. 4) I think you spend too much time on the CoE terrorism statement, which advances a view that most of us don't agree with and which is not applicable international law anyway. It would be better to make a more general argument that incitement cannot be done via a gTLD string. Let me also point out that individual members can file their own comments, and I would encourage you to do so, even if they agree substantially with these, as it has more impact. Thanks, K! ________________________________ From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:20 AM To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC statement on new gTLDs Importance: High Dear all, Please find attached the statement I have drafted on behalf of the NCUC for ICANN's new gTLD proposal. According to ICANN the deadline for comments is tomorrow -15/12/2008 -(can someone please confirm this?). If this is the case can we request for an extension until at least the end of the week? Please make any changes/suggestions to the document so we don't loose track of any comments. Considering the tight deadline can I please ask you all to proceed and look at this document as soon as possible? Thank you all. KK -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

1 0

Fwd: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

As noted on page 8, there have been two additional amendments over and above the set previously discussed. These require that Registrars make their contact information public, and that if a domain name is licensed, the licensee's contact information be made available, or the original registrant accepts liability for harm. ALan >Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:00:55 -0800 >From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments >Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >All, > >Attached please find an updated report from Services on the pending >amendments to the RAA. This report updates and expands on the paper >sent on 29 October 2008. > >Thanks, Liz

1 0

Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments
by Danny Younger Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is currently voting upon. Alan, please take note.

3 5

ALAC Mid-point consultation report - ALAC comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Following the open consultation period, and factoring in the comments received, the ALAC has submitted its comments on the mid-point consultation report of BGC WG on the ALAC review. They can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00008.html and also on our wiki documents page https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_read_only_document_store. An ALAC vote to ratify this submission will begin shortly. Alan (on behalf of Cheryl)

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments
by JFC Morfin Dec. 13, 2008

Dec. 13, 2008

Dear Alan, It is unfortunate that a liason has to seat on two chairs. He can seat on one, the other, in between. One of my liaisons used to say he should put his ass on the side he belongs to and his feet in the dishes of the other side. Not always easy. Reshaping the form of the message so it looks having more sense does not modify its underlaying biased sense semantic. I fully understand that petty administrativia is necessary in every organization. However for the nine years I practice ICANN I did not see much of it in relation with some ways "make the Internet better", what is the published goal of the IETF for example. It could be of interest to compare what each organization brings to the Internet and to the people in comparison to the size of their Staff, budget, and openess to people contributions. This comparative evaluation could concern ISOC, IETF, ICANN, IGF and ITU. jfc At 04:04 13/12/2008, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Danny, I am a moderately rational person who can think. My current >role on the GNSO Council is primarily that of Liaison to the ALAC. I >was asked a question about how would the ALAC react to the ICANN >staff proposal. My job was to answer if I knew the answer and pass >the question on if not. I have done that. > >I'm sorry if you don't like the message, but I was just the messenger. > >If there was a widespread belief on the ALAC that it was nonsense to >approve the current package of amendments, then it is too bad that >it was not stated. I did not create the concept of the current vote. >I did re-word it so it made more sense (and removed the phrase that >you as "it sucks"). > >At 12/12/2008 07:59 PM, Danny Younger wrote: >>"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and >>the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them >>wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do >>that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants >>done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. >> >>Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA >>amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus >>if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then >>suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced >>requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address >>any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand >>which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve >>those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that >>their issues with the RAA will be addressed." >> >>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html >> >>This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is >>currently voting upon. Alan, please take note. >> >> >> >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Comments on the ALAC response to the mid-term consultation report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

Admittedly at the last moment, I have a few comments on the draft document (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_response_to_the_mid_point_co…) Regarding the ICANN planning process and ALAC (Item 5), it is clear that ALAC should be a part of the process, but at least a part (perhaps a large part) of ALAC activities will continue to be demand driven, either involvement with ongoing issues (see item 8) or activities driven by issues that rise to the top of user priorities (such as Domain tasting or the post-expiry redemption issue). Regarding involvement with the GNSO policy development process. I agree that the ALAC must be invited to participate. It should not be REQUIRED to, as there will always be numerous consultations that we decide our not sufficiently important to our community to warrant the effort. This is identical to the way Constituencies are treated within the GNSO. Alan

2 1

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

Total of 24 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 12 00:53:07 EST 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.83% | 5 | 84.55% | 621966 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 37.50% | 9 | 7.61% | 55965 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 4.17% | 1 | 0.99% | 7291 | rchiesa at clusit.it 4.17% | 1 | 0.92% | 6754 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 4.17% | 1 | 0.84% | 6210 | jefsey at jefsey.com 4.17% | 1 | 0.83% | 6097 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.17% | 1 | 0.76% | 5605 | icann-list at sorehands.com 4.17% | 1 | 0.75% | 5481 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 4.17% | 1 | 0.73% | 5345 | michele at blacknight.ie 4.17% | 1 | 0.71% | 5194 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 4.17% | 1 | 0.69% | 5076 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 4.17% | 1 | 0.63% | 4632 | bfausett at internet.law.pro --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 24 |100.00% | 735616 | Total

1 0

ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks
by Danny Younger Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

So who do we have to thank for the totally biased language below?!! The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that has worked hard to draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed RAA amendments package. On what basis was the determination made: "but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"? That's a bunch of crap. The Board liaison did not bring forward that viewpoint, nor is there a record of correspondence with any Board members to assert that such is a board position. >From the ALAC Archives: "At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options: 1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context 2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues 3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it 4) Abstain There's nothing more disgusting than the bald attempt to force through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available choices. It's contemptible.

2 7