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

Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 5, 2009

Jan. 5, 2009

Greetings. Several people worked on this since Cairo, so rather than holding on to it any longer I wanted to send it out to a broad group. It's a sort of guide to creating a draft document response to the new gTLD workbook. Only a guide! It's meant to be read in conjunction with the document itself to suggest areas in which the user community might want to elaborate (or not). For it to be most useful you still need the workbook document handy. For instance, there are things we've since discussed on various lists that aren't in this guide, for instance, from Danny: "Working one's way through module 2 (the Applicant Information Form section), there is one question that is glaringly missing: "Indicate whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) directors, or (iv) managers: a. within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these; b. within the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others; c. is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (a) or (b); or d. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at the time of this application. So, for instance, we should decide where we want to put that in. In addition to some of the NCUC comments I have sent out over the last 24 hours or so, here are some URLs of others' perspectives on new gTLDs. International Olympic Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/pdf2Skbh839Jy.pdf Registry Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/docnZV8Xn1mmo.doc IDN Comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00055.html Robin Gross: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00034.html Wendy Chan: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00043.html Unicode Technical Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00021.html Ron Andruff: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-string/msg00001.html After the call on Friday, I would like to propose a time for the working group to meet and discuss its responses to the attached document, to the discussion on the lists, and other matters, so that we can work up a statement by the deadline, which I believe has now been extended to Jan. 7 (we will clarify this in Friday's meeting). Staff, may I ask that you translate this message into French and Spanish and distribute it so that we can get maximum community involvement. Thanks Beau Brendler ** 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.

2 1

Top Ten ALAC Accomplishments of 2008
by Danny Younger Jan. 1, 2009

Jan. 1, 2009

Every year at this time one can find a variety of top ten lists ranging from the top 10 news stories to the top 10 worst-dressed celebrities. Looking back on this year we should be asking ourselves, what are the top ten ALAC accomplishments of 2008? What new policies have we helped to put into place that will benefit the user community? Did we offer any policy suggestions regarding proxy registrations? Did we offer up policy to deal with domain name warehousing? Did we propose policy to prohibit domain name front-running? Did we examine provisions in registry agreements dealing with abusive registrations? Did we come up with a proposal to balance the WHOIS privacy rights of natural persons with disclosure needs? Did we recommend any policy changes to deal with the fast flux issues? Did we review any transfer policy proposals? Did we propose any new policy to speed the adoption of IPv6? Did we arrive at any expedited domain name take-down procedures that would facilitate dealing with phishing? Did we come up with a way to minimize UDRP-related costs? Did we consider ways to minimize the need for defensive registrations in a new gTLD environment? Did we come up with policy to address the direct transfer clauses in registrar terms of service agreements? Did we propose any studies? Did we request that research be commissioned on any topic? Did we initiate any consumer protection initiatives? let's hope that 2009 is a better year

2 1

Another Cybersquatting Registrar
by Danny Younger Dec. 27, 2008

Dec. 27, 2008

ICANN accredited registrar OnlineNIC "unlawfully registered at least 663 domain names that were either identical to or confusingly similar to Verizon trademarks". A federal court in the Northern District of California calculated an award based on $50,000 per domain name and awarded Verizon $33.15 million. http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/stories/2008/12/22/daily39.html Thanks to George Kirikos for bringing this news to our attention on the GA list. Now we will wait and see what, if any, action ICANN takes. As George notes: OnlineNIC is a top 20 registrar with more than 1 million domains under management: http://www.registrarstats.com/Public/RegistrarMarketShareMain.aspx Meanwhile, I have asked ICANN Staff to look into whether Daniel Sundin, the head of Red Register (another ICANN accredited registrar and a recent recipient of an ICANN Breach Notice), is the same Daniel Sundin cited in a recent FTC complaint that dealt with a massive "scareware" scheme, which falsely claimed that scans had detected viruses, spyware, and illegal pornography on consumers’ computers. see http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0723137/index.shtm

2 2

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Dec. 26, 2008

Dec. 26, 2008

Total of 13 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 26 00:53:02 EST 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 23.08% | 3 | 30.82% | 31879 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 23.08% | 3 | 15.61% | 16150 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 15.38% | 2 | 10.51% | 10871 | evan at telly.org 7.69% | 1 | 14.82% | 15326 | vanda at uol.com.br 7.69% | 1 | 11.88% | 12284 | baptista at publicroot.org 7.69% | 1 | 6.02% | 6223 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.69% | 1 | 5.45% | 5640 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 7.69% | 1 | 4.89% | 5057 | langdonorr at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 13 |100.00% | 103430 | Total

1 0

Seasonal Greetings to All
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Dec. 24, 2008

Dec. 24, 2008

Wishing all of you on this at-large mailing and discusion list all the Very Best of the Season, and to those of you who may be taking a break away from your daily work, I trust you will have a safe, happy and healthy time with LOTS of much earned rest... Kindest regards -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Best wishes from ISOC Luxembourg
by Patrick Vande Walle Dec. 23, 2008

Dec. 23, 2008

Dear colleagues, It has been a pleasure working with you during the past year. We wish you and your dear ones a very happy New Year. "Cheers to a New Year and another chance for us to get it right." (Oprah Winfrey) Patrick Vande Walle http://members.isoc.lu/greetings/images/ecards/fullsize/img_a4dfd043isoc-wh…

1 0

Fw: [ga] NTIA/DoC and DoJ bitch slap ICANN over new gTLDs!!!
by Danny Younger Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 2008

forwarded from the GA list: --- On Fri, 12/19/08, George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > From: George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> > Subject: [ga] NTIA/DoC and DoJ bitch slap ICANN over new gTLDs!!! > To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > Date: Friday, December 19, 2008, 2:21 PM > Hi folks, > > I'm still reading their letter dated yesterday, but > it's wonderful that > they appear to see that ICANN is going in the wrong > direction on new > gTLDs: > > [url]http://www.ntia.doc.gov/comments/2008/ICANN_081218.pdf[/url] > > (be sure to read the entire 11 pages, as it includes stuff > from the DoJ > after the first letter) > > More from Reuters at: > > [url]http://uk.reuters.com/article/technologyNewsMolt/idUKTRE4BI4WR20081219?…] > > Sincerely, > > George Kirikos > http://www.leap.com/

2 2

Interesting Quote
by Danny Younger Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 2008

ESTHER DYSON: "Take, for example, ICANN, the body that sets policy for the Domain Name System. I was its founding chairman, and I don't think anyone considers it a success. Its saving grace is that it is widely considered illegitimate and therefore has little power." http://www.guatemala-times.com/opinion/syndicated-2/net-world/651-big-broth…

1 0

NomCom 2009 - seeks applications for ICANN leadership positions
by Adam Peake Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 2008

The 2009 NomCom seems to have started work. No announcement to At Large that I've seen. The ALAC job description has been up-dated slightly <http://nomcom.icann.org/positions-2009.html> Could the following be sent to all RALOs with requests to inform the ALS? Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Latin America & Caribbean should be particularly interested. Adam Apply now to join the Board and Councils (2009 NomCom) 2 December 2008 <http://nomcom.icann.org/> ICANN's Nominating Committee invites Statements of Interest and candidate recommendations from the Internet community as it seeks qualified candidates to assist in the organization's technical and policy coordination role. Interested individuals are invited to submit a Statement of Interest to the 2009 Committee for the following positions: * Three members of the Board of Directors * Three At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) representatives (one each from Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Latin America & Caribbean regions) * Two members of the Council of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) * One member of the Council of the Country-Code Names Supporting Organization (ccNSO) The Nominating Committee (Nom Com) is an independent committee tasked with selecting a majority of the members of the Board of Directors and other positions within ICANN's Supporting Organisations. ICANN is an internationally organised, public benefit, non-profit corporation dedicated to: preserving the operational security and stability of the Internet; promoting competition; achieving broad representation of global Internet communities; and supporting the development of policies appropriate to its mission through bottom-up, consensus-based processes. Individuals selected by the Nominating Committee will have a unique opportunity to work with accomplished colleagues from around the globe, address the Internet's intriguing technical coordination problems and policy development challenges with diverse functional, cultural, and geographic dimensions, and gain valuable insights and experience from working across boundaries of knowledge, responsibility and perspective. Those selected will gain the satisfaction of making a valuable public service contribution towards the continued function and evolution of an essential global resource. Considering the broad public interest, nominees will work to achieve the goals towards which ICANN is dedicated in order to facilitate the Internet's critically important societal functions. Current Board members who have been selected by the Nominating Committee include: Harald Tveit Alvastrand, Steve Crocker, Roberto Gaetano, Steven Goldstein, Dennis Jennings, Rajasekhar Ramaraj, Jean-Jacques Subrenat and Katim Touray (see, http://www.icann.org/en/general/board.html) Statements of Interest for the positions described above can be submitted through nomcom2009(a)icann.org. More information regarding the Nominating Committee can be found at http://nomcom.icann.org. Applications will be considered confidentially and should be received by 15 April 2009 for full consideration. Selections will be announced in early September 2009. Successful candidates will take up their positions following ICANN's Annual Meeting in October 2009. Candidate recommendations, questions or comments may also be emailed to nomcom2009(a)icann.org. Background: The Nominating Committee is designed to function independently from the ICANN Board, Supporting Organisations, and Advisory Committees. Nominating Committee members act only on behalf of the interests of the global Internet community and within the scope of the ICANN mission and responsibilities assigned to it by the ICANN Bylaws. Nominating Committee members contribute understanding of the broad interests of the Internet community as a whole, and knowledge and experience of specific Internet constituencies who have appointed them. The challenge for the Nominating Committee is to integrate these perspectives and derive consensus in its selections. Although appointed by Supporting Organisations and other ICANN entities, individual Nominating Committee members are not accountable to their appointing constituencies. Members are, of course, accountable for adherence to the ICANN Bylaws and for compliance with the rules and procedures established by the Nominating Committee. Successful candidates are not remunerated, although direct expenses incurred in the course of duty will be reimbursed. These positions may involve significant international travel, including personal presence at periodic ICANN meetings, as well as regular telephone and Internet communications. Recent ICANN Meetings have been held in Canada, New Zealand, Morocco, Brazil, Portugal, Puerto Rico, the United States, India, France and Egypt. Meetings during 2009 are scheduled for Mexico City, Mexico, Sydney, Australia, Seoul, Korea. The diverse locations facilitate participation across the world's Internet community.

2 2

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [NA-Discuss] On ALAC response to BGC WG midpoint etc.: How do you want me to vote?
by Adam Peake Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 2008

(I am not a member of the "ALAC-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-excom(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> or NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> lists so have removed them from the cc list, but this discussion began At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> so that list is addressed.) Comment below: At 12:04 PM +1100 12/19/08, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >Couple of things regarding a few points made in this topics thread... > >As far as I know all comments from Wendy, Danny and others made on lists or >wiki's were incprprated with the exception of a part point mae by Sebastien >regarding Strategic planning... > >Also there is no power grab by the ExCom => the use of ExCom in the addition >of suggestion that a Board Liaison position be retained *in transition* was >discused in Cairo which is where it came from and the use of Chair as a >possability* of that role fits with the role of Board liaison being Chair >of other AC's we extended it to the ExCom as a suggestion *IF such a >proposal were ever contemplated by the BGC ALAC Review WG* to allow wider >choice to ExCom but ALAC can be inserted instead of ExCom without any issue >at all as far as I'm concerned... > >And I totally agree with the ALAC Budget SC being the interface with the >staff on budget proposal but the original consultants proposed Chair for >this matter the BGC ALAC Review WG did not change it I believe and our draft >was trying again to expand this role to at least ExCom but the natural >alternate is the Budget & Finance SC if it is reconstituted... > >Finally the ExCom is assigned authorship of this interim document UNTIL it >is voted on then it becomes an ALAC Statement with all the front pages and >coversheets that go along with that authority after the vote has closed... > >Finally if NARALO wish, there is at least two options forward here:- 1) is >to propose the ammendments below to the ALAC Working List get agreement (I'm >happy to propose and endores this if Beau puts it forward) and those who >have voted so far will need to revote in a new adjusted poll, with an >extention of time given... I asked for conformation of process in email sent to the At-Large Worldwide list on Tuesday December 16. <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2…> I asked if the document was draft, it certainly looked like a draft as it hadn't been put to the ALAC for any final comment, no had a vote been called (the document claimed to be "under ratification vote by the ALAC for the next 8 Days" but not such vote had been called, with not information about the vote until credentials were sent earlier today, Friday December 19.) I asked if the document still open for amendments, and made some recommendations. I am clearly not alone in wishing to see the document amended. I will not vote for the document as it stands and without the opportunity to have amendments considered. I do not know the formal procedure for the following request, but I am asking as a member of the ALAC that the vote be suspended until such time as the amendments have been submitted and considered. Request a delay of five days, to the end of Tuesday December 23rd, with the vote restarted on December 24th for eight days. Thanks, Adam >or 2) NARALO reps vote however they are advised >to or not and NARALO put forward a short "We disagree with the following in >the ALAC Comments / Statement" note that can act as an ammendment to any >Comment already sent and I will ensure that the BGC ALAC Review WG accept >this to be included in their deliberations on final recommendations, to do >this I will need to know in the next day or so which you desire so that I >can let Trish et.al. know what is happening before many people take a break >away from thier workplaces etc., > > >CLO > >2008/12/19 Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > >> Brendler, Beau wrote: >> > I would appreciate the guidance of the NARALO as to how to vote. >> Personally, I'm wavering between 60 percent for and 40 percent against. The >> percent I'm against mostly consists of wording that reads to me like >> something of a transferrence of power from the ALAC to the exec committee >> and the chair. >> > >> Yeah, I sort of had that objection as well ;-). There are two spots >> where the ExCom is mentioneed, once regarding Board liaisions and once >> regarding budget planning. Both are IMO unacceptable overstepping of the >> bounds originally surounding the ExCom. I'm concerned that the ExCom >> assigned itself at the authors of the document -- to be endorsed by ALAC >> - rather than an ALAC document. >> >> And finally, I'm more than a little concerned that I -- who am not on >> ALAC per-se -- had to be the first to point that out on the lists. Is >> most of ALAC OK with this power-grab, or just asleep at the wheel? >> >> My personal preference would be to bring forward an amendment that would: >> 1) Change authorship of the document from the ExCom to ALAC >> 2) Change the Board liaision authority from the Chair-or-ExComm to ALAC >> 3) Change the ALAC liaison with staff on budget implementation from >> Chair-or-ExCom" to the ALAC Budget Subcommittee >> >> If the amendment does not pass I would vote to reject the document -- >> and then have NARALO draft its own statement, echoing most of the other >> comments but noting the danger in the ExComm references. >> >> But that's just me. Frankly, I'd be delighted if you raised a motion to >> disband the ExCom -- less than a month after its creation it members >> have wasted no time to destroy the trust that it was meant for >> emergency, rapid-response use only. Clearly the real solutions to the >> problems the ExCom was created to address lie in fixing ALAC rather than >> institutionalizing a shortcut around it. >> >> The continued existence of the ExComm prolongs -- and arguably enhances >> -- a culture of group inaction and unaccountability. It needs to go IMO. >> >> > I'm also not sure about the language on page 4 referring to ALAC as the >> appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concern of the >> individual Internet user in ICANN processes. I'm opposed to this statement >> both in theory and in practice -- I don't think ALAC is doing that now, and >> I don't think it should be roped off as the most appropriate venue for >> individual users. >> > >> I am personally OK with language designating ALAC as the primary channel >> but not the only one. I have no problem with At-Large being the default >> forum for Internet users who don't self-identify with other >> constituencies. Maybe with enough new blood we can inject some life into >> this thing yet. >> >> - Evan >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >> > > > >-- >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >(CLO) >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > >ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0