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

Fwd: [IP] Comment on worth reading IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing
by Izumi AIZU Feb. 20, 2008

Feb. 20, 2008

FYI. I hope what Randy reveals is not 100% true, but it maybe so very much. See his presentation, URL below. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Farber <dave(a)farber.net> Date: 2008/02/21 7:32 Subject: [IP] Comment on worth reading IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing To: ip <ip(a)v2.listbox.com> ________________________________________ From: Ian Peter [ian.peter(a)ianpeter.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 3:31 PM To: David Farber; 'ip' Subject: RE: [IP] IPv4-v6 - "coexistence" not transition - operational issues surfacing Dave Izumi and others may find this paper interesting in respect of IPv6/IPv4 interoperability. http://www.nanog.org/mtg-0710/presentations/Bush-v6-op-reality.pdf It's from Randy Bush, very much an IETF stalwart and true believer. Randy Bush has compared the IPv6 rollout (starting from 1995) with the war in Iraq - "no transition plan, declared victory before the hard part started, no real long term plan, no realistic estimation of costs, no support for the folk on the front lines [and continual declaration that] victory will be next month" – To which comparison I would add acute embarrassment at the failure, which leads to denial and coverups and all sorts of attempts to wish the problem will go away. Ian Peter Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel (+614) 1966 7772 or (+612) 6687 0773 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info ------------------------------------------- Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/ Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 20, 2008

Feb. 20, 2008

Dominik and all, I understand fully the problem, that being the GA is not an official body within the ICANN structure. That needs to change! Some may believe that the ALAC is a replacement for the GA. I don't see it that way, I see the GA as the only place were at present, the Independant Registrants AND users have a voice, all be it no vote. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Jeff, > > yes, I also see the GA a good place for deliberations on registrant > constituency and other issues as well. > But there are two different things here you have to distinguish between. > Registrant constituency and/or advisory committee are official bodies > that have to be first identified and established within the ICANN > structures with all the power delegated, and as such have nothing to do > either with the GA or any other mailing list. The efforts here are not > about promoting the GA to be automatically incorporated into the > structure as is. The mentioned bodies have specific attributes and are > driven by respective bylaws totally different from those applied on > mailing lists. I just want to say that there is a big difference between > official bodies and mailing lists and that a mailing list cannot be > simply switched to an ICANN body. > > Another thing is that once such a constituency and/or committee will be > officially established and formed, people from the GA or other mailing > list or from anywhere else may be elected as official members, or act as > volunteers, participants, and so forth. > > Dominik > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Jeffrey A. Williams > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 4:35 PM > To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey(a)icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory > Committee > > Dominik and all, > > Agree here as well. As is well known, our members have been > advocating for a Independent registrants constituency for several years. > In fact, we like to consider our organization as such. We are not > however part of the ICANN constituency structure. But I personally > fairly sure either our organization could be incorporated into the ICANN > Constituency structure/GNSO or would give serious consideration to the > formation of such as long as the rules for membership are not overly > restrictive. Of course that is where the rubber meets the road so to > speak... > > Further the GA is a good place to for the time being, discuss and > determine the details of such a Independent Registrants Constituency. > > Dominik Filipp wrote: > > > Chuck, > > > > agreed on all counts here. The Registrant Constituency is definitely > > the goal worth pursuing. > > As regards the details, we could start discussing this here on the GA > > and gain some support/knowledge from other people. > > > > Dominik > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:26 PM > > To: Dominik Filipp; Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger > > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory > > Committee > > > > I have always felt that registrant representation would be good but I > > have yet to see anyone come up with an effective way to make it happen > > > that results in broad representation of the registrant community. I > > know I don't have to tell people on this list that the registrant > > population is hugely diverse and comes from all parts of the world. > > > > As we get closer to GNSO improvements that will likely give increased > > representation to individuals via the non-commercial stakeholder > > group, this would be an excellent time for people to develop and > > propose a workable way to create a registrant constituency that truly > > does represent a broad base of non-commercial, individual gTLD > > registrants around world. > > > > Chuck Gomes > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On > > Behalf Of Dominik Filipp > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:33 AM > > To: Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger > > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory > > Committee > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On > > Behalf Of Peter Dengate Thrush > > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:46 AM > > To: Danny Younger > > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > > Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory > > Committee > > > > . . . > > > > >> While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and supporting > > >> organizations whose responsibilities include putting forth the > > general > > >> registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has > > >> been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated > > >> organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities. > > >> > > >> What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" > > >> is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds > > >> support and drive the ICANN process. > > >> > > > > > This may be a useful development. > > > I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and > > > > disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups > > > > (Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At > > > Large > > > > > I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group, necessarily a > > > subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who > > > are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in > > > particular that you feel are not being served by the current > > > structure? > > > > In fact, we need more than just a Registrant Advisory Committee. We > > need a fully-fledged Registrant Constituency with all the voting > power. Why? > > For simple and logical reason. The Registrants stay on top of the > > financial chain generating income for ICANN. Without the need for > > domain names there would be no need for either Registries or > > Registrars or ISPs. Thus Registrants, though indirectly, is the very > > first gear wheel in the income machinery. > > The Registrant Constituency should have been the very first > > constituency established within the ICANN structures when ICANN was > > formed. And the most influential as it indeed deserves. Without such > > representation ICANN can barely hold its claim as being an advocate of > > > all internet users or stakeholders. > > > > . . . > > > > Regards > > > > Dominik Filipp > > > > > You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from such a > > > contribution. > > > > > > best regards, > > > Danny Younger > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > __ > > > ______________ > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/ > > > newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > > > Peter Dengate Thrush > > barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very > often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Registrar Compliance and Enforcement
by Danny Younger Feb. 20, 2008

Feb. 20, 2008

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/jpacomments2007/jpacomment_160.… Excerpt from the GoDaddy submission to the NTIA: The tenth area of responsibility states that: "ICANN shall conduct a review of, and shall make necessary changes in, corporate administrative structure to ensure stability, including devoting adequate resources to contract enforcement, taking into account organizational and corporate governance 'best practices.'" ICANN has maintained a requirement for Registrar data escrow in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) since at least 2001 (possibly earlier), but it is just now being implemented. Also, ICANN is just beginning to develop real efforts to improve its compliance and enforcement capabilities. Although good progress has been made in this area of responsibility, it is too soon to characterize either effort as successfully completed. In fact, RAA and Consensus Policy enforcement had been an all but ignored area up until the first major registrar failure, RegisterFly. The failure of registrars is inevitable and so a coherent and effective plan to deal with such failures is essential on ICANNs part. In fact, no such plan currently exists. The problems associated with the failure of RegisterFly, for example, were exacerbated by the lack of any plan to deal with registrar failures, the inability of ICANN to enforce its RAA and Consensus Policies, and ICANNs delay in implementing the data escrow requirement of the RAA. As a result, compliance efforts were ineffective and dragged out for over a year. During that time registrants suffered increasing problems ranging from the inability to manage their domain names to the outright loss of thousands of others. ICANN responsiveness to Registrars with an interest in compliance is also lacking at times. An example of this is our experience in assuming the RegisterFly domain names upon its failure. During the last few months leading up to RegisterFlys loss of its Accreditation, Go Daddy engaged in negotiations with RegisterFly to acquire its portfolio of domain names. An agreement was reached and presented to ICANN with a request for the bulk transfer of the domain names. This was ultimately approved and the transfer took place within a few weeks. However, almost immediately Go Daddy came under fire for exercising its right under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (IRTP) to deny transfer requests for 60-days after the bulk transfer had been completed. In fact, we were accused of not following policy on ICANNs own blog. We had based our actions on section A.3.9 of the IRTP which allows a registrar to deny a transfer in cases where "a domain name is within 60 days (or a lesser period to be determined) after being transferred (apart from being transferred back to the original Registrar in cases where both Registrars so agree and/or where a decision in the dispute resolution process so directs)." We did this as a precaution due to the state of many of the domain name records we received from RegisterFly and the numerous complaints we were getting about domain name hijackings and inaccurate contacts. We requested clarification on the policy from ICANN to be sure we were acting in accordance with the policy. To this day, we have not received a response. We did manage to get the editor of ICANNs blog to print a retraction, but it only stated our explanation and the fact that we had requested clarification. We were never defended and no clarification was ever offered. This suggests either an inability or unwillingness on the part of ICANN to engage in simple contract interpretation, let alone "contract enforcement, [which takes] into account organizational and corporate governance 'best practices." There are numerous other instances where we have gone to ICANN in the past eighteen months for enforcement assistance and there was either no procedure in place, or ICANN simply ignored our requests. These instances include a variety of topics from straight forward domain name disputes to domain name transfer disputes to multi-registrar implementation disputes. For example, we currently have a request in to ICANN to enforce a variety of provisions in Section 3 of the RAA to cause a foreign registrar to implement the decision of a UDRP panel with respect to a domain name that was previously registered at Go Daddy. In this particular case, Go Daddy was attempting to comply with a UDRP ruling, but since the domain name was recently transferred to another registrar, Go Daddy must rely on the gaining registrar to implement the decision. Because the gaining registrar has been entirely uncooperative, we enlisted the assistance of ICANN to enforce the terms of the RAA. After several contacts, ICANN has been unresponsive in enforcing the UDRP ruling with the other registrar. It is unclear to us whether ICANN believes there is nothing they can do due to the lack of enforcement tools, or if ICANN believes there is nothing they should do for other reasons. Therefore its difficult for us to know what our next steps should be in resolving this dispute. This is not an isolated incident. Again, this suggests either an inability or unwillingness on the part of ICANN to engage in enforcement activities. This is not the response of an entity that has fully achieved its obligations regarding compliance and enforcement. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Feedback from OneDay Workshop Delhi
by Veronica Cretu Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Dear ALAC/AtLarge colleagues! Hope my message finds you all well and hope you got back home safe and sound:)! As we have agreed during the end of the “OneDay” Workshop (Phase 2), one of the first steps forward is to give each one of us, who participated in the workshop, the opportunity to share our feedback on the activities of the OneDay in New Delhi. I thank very much colleagues who did already send their suggestions and impressions ... We would really appreciate hearing from everyone else by the end of this week, by February 24. You can send your completed Questionnaires to me at VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu OR vcretu(a)cmb.md! Thank you very much for your time and looking forward to hearing from you soon! On behalf of OneDay Workshop team, V eronica

1 0

How did we arrive at this point?
by Derek Smythe Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Hi all Having received too many replies from registrars, even silence regarding spoof domains with obviously invalid and fake whois, I could not resist: http://www.unitednationsonline.net Redirects in a frame to the real United Nations website. Apparently the United Nations wishes to give away money as seen here and via Google: http://forum.aa419.org/viewtopic.php?p=105432 Not supprisingly, the registrant also owns citti-bank.com abused in a similar manner. Sadly, despite abuse letters, still very much alive. All things being equal, the registrar would require a court order or pull the UDRP card to disable these domains. I am not saying this has happened, but it is happening with other obviously spoofed domain names, similar to the citti-bank.com bank. These are by no means unique. Any guesses how many victims later this will eventually be terminated? How did we ever arrive at this point? Regards Derek http://www.aa419.org

2 1

FWD: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Thomas Narten Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

FYI, here is Peter's response, which didn't show up (presumably) because he is a non-subscriber. ------- Forwarded Message From: Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> Cc: twomey(a)icann.org, ga(a)gnso.icann.org, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 19:46:27 +1300 Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee Hello Danny, On 18/02/2008, at 8:59 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > Peter, > > I write to you prior to the upcoming budget cycle with > a proposed solution to enhance ICANN efficiencies. > > The overarching goal of the ICANN structural and > operational review cycle has been to ensure that the > ICANN board receive the best possible qualitative and > timely advice from members of the community on vexing > issues that require an organizational response. > Actually, I don't agree that this is the overarching goal; the board does not seek advice from members of the community in this fashion, nor for that purpose. The policy making and coordinating, which is our major function, is done via the SO's. The board's interest in that "timely advice" is in seeing that it is fed into the policy-making processes, which, as you know, we do not want to be happening at the Board. > While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and > supporting organizations whose responsibilities > include putting forth the general registrant interest > as a part of their duties, the sad reality has been > that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a > dedicated organizational advocate to spearhead policy > development activities. > > What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" > is upon the needs of the general registrant community > whose funds support and drive the ICANN process. > This may be a useful development. I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups ( Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group,necessarily a subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in particular that you feel are not being served by the current structure? > Accordingly, I ask you and your peers on the board to > consider the establishment of a Registrant Advisory > Committee. The registrant community needs a strong > advocate in their corner, and ICANN needs a continued > focus on general registrant issues. > I assume that you are limiting this interest group to registrants of some, or possibly all gTLDs? You will know that ccTLD registrants rights are not a matter for the ICANN board. And, I assume, the smaller chartered TLDs like .museum are not going to require this group. Nor can I see much intersection with the registrants of .asia or .eu. I wonder if your real focus should be the registrar contracts? The real way forward, as you know, is not for a letter to the board with an idea, but to set about self forming such a group, to clarify its membership, and goals. A clear cost benefit analysis is also required - what precisely is the harm that this is intended to remedy? This is the bottom-up process which characterized the formation of the existing constituencies Once this has some momentum from the ground-up, with greater clarity of purpose, we could look at it further. Regards Peter > You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from > such a contribution. > > best regards, > Danny Younger > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > ______________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/ > newsearch/category.php?category=shopping Peter Dengate Thrush barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz ------- End of Forwarded Message

1 0

FYI: ICANN Not Yet Ready to Sever Ties to US Government
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

All, All be this a little bit delayed or belated. See:http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/02/15/icann-not-yet-ready-to-sever-ties-to… So it is clear that ICANN has some ways to go still before it is truely representative of all interested parties of the Internet. FWIW and IMHO only, ICANN has a very long way to go yet, but frankly I cannot understand why it has taken so long other than to say that certain forces within the ICANN GNSO structure are resisting tooth and toe nail to maintain a power base of the few over the many where the many are the suckers and the few are the extorters of that same many... And so, the sad saga of ICANN continues.... Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

[Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
by Danny Younger Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Evan, I'm more than happy to discuss why the ALAC isn't working and what can be done to correct the situation. Let's start by having a look at the worldwide distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over which ICANN exerts policy control). com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000 registrations. Our region holds 65,000,000 of those registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region has only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC -- a situation which does little to protect our interests. So when rogue registrars impact the DNS our region feels the brunt of it while the bulk of the ALAC members could care less as they tend to live mostly in the ccTLD world. Why are we at this point? Why is it that our region doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the ALAC? This is purely based on a distribution that reflects "political correctness" moreso than the realities of the marketplace. That may be acceptable to civil society types that only comment on the lists as the time approaches for another IGF session; it's not acceptable to most North Americans that continue to be affected by damaging gTLD registrar behaviors, and who are counting upon those in ICANN to deliver results. The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend the user interest; instead, they have chosen to tacitly discriminate against North Americans by ignoring their immediate and ongoing concerns. It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC will continue to stumble along and produce statements on ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead of dealing with the serious problems at hand. It's time for not only an operational overhaul of the ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and assigns representation that reflects actual current worldwide participation in the DNS. Weighted voting is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new reality in the ALAC. If that means that North America will be assigned 66 percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time -- so be it. At some point soon the balance will switch to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the weighting to be changed to relect the new mix. The politically correct distribution that we suffer under has not worked out. A change is most certainly in order. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

12 38

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Dominik and all, Our members sympathize with your concerns here Dominik. Yet I see no harm in the forming of such a committee as long as it is not stacked with committee members that only reflect the current ICANN GNSO constituency's members. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Danny, > > I do not agree. Creating an Advisory Committee without voting power > makes no sense to me at all. It would just be yet another toothless > voice lost among many others incapable of influencing final decisions. > Registrants/stakeholders must gain full support and respect within ICANN > they truly deserve. > > Dominik > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Danny Younger > Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2008 12:44 AM > To: Peter Dengate Thrush > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee > > Peter, > > Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I share your view of the > importance of feeding timely advice into the policy-making and > coordinating processes handled via the Supporting Organizations; this is > precisely what Advisory Committees are supposed to do. > > I'm further appreciative of your assessment that an Advisory Body whose > sole focus is upon the needs of the general registrant community "may be > a useful development", and I will be happy to work with those on the GA > and NARALO lists that have already endorsed this concept to see it > carefully distinguished per the guidelines that you have tendered. > > It is my expectation that a more formal proposal will be put forth in > advance of the Paris session that will clarify for the board the extent > of the interests that are not being properly served by the current > structure. > > With regard to your query on the topic of registrar contracts, I look > forward to the self-regulatory activities that will be pursued by the > registrar community and believe that the guidance offered by such an AC > will doubtless facilitate work in the SO community to buttress that > self-regulatory effort through the consensus policy process. > > Understanding that an Advisory Committee is, per the bylaws, a creation > of the board, it would have been presumptive and inappropriate to act to > self-form such a group, but I am willing to work with others to clarify > the AC's likely future membership and its goals in much the same manner > that the earlier At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) facilitated the > emergence of the ALAC; additionally, per your request a clear cost > benefit analysis will of course be provided. > > As bottom-up momentum is already developing with regard to this > proposal, it is my expectation that the clarity of purpose you seek will > soon emerge in upcoming discussions. > > Thank you for sharing your views. I look forward to further discussions > as needed. > > best wishes, > Danny > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Dominik and all, Agree here as well. As is well known, our members have been advocating for a Independent registrants constituency for several years. In fact, we like to consider our organization as such. We are not however part of the ICANN constituency structure. But I personally fairly sure either our organization could be incorporated into the ICANN Constituency structure/GNSO or would give serious consideration to the formation of such as long as the rules for membership are not overly restrictive. Of course that is where the rubber meets the road so to speak... Further the GA is a good place to for the time being, discuss and determine the details of such a Independent Registrants Constituency. Dominik Filipp wrote: > Chuck, > > agreed on all counts here. The Registrant Constituency is definitely the > goal worth pursuing. > As regards the details, we could start discussing this here on the GA > and gain some support/knowledge from other people. > > Dominik > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 11:26 PM > To: Dominik Filipp; Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory > Committee > > I have always felt that registrant representation would be good but I > have yet to see anyone come up with an effective way to make it happen > that results in broad representation of the registrant community. I > know I don't have to tell people on this list that the registrant > population is hugely diverse and comes from all parts of the world. > > As we get closer to GNSO improvements that will likely give increased > representation to individuals via the non-commercial stakeholder group, > this would be an excellent time for people to develop and propose a > workable way to create a registrant constituency that truly does > represent a broad base of non-commercial, individual gTLD registrants > around world. > > Chuck Gomes > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Dominik Filipp > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:33 AM > To: Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory > Committee > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Dengate Thrush > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:46 AM > To: Danny Younger > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee > > . . . > > >> While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and supporting > >> organizations whose responsibilities include putting forth the > general > >> registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has > >> been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated > >> organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities. > >> > >> What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" > >> is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds > >> support and drive the ICANN process. > >> > > > This may be a useful development. > > I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and > > disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups > > (Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large > > > I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group, necessarily a > > subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who > > are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in > > particular that you feel are not being served by the current > > structure? > > In fact, we need more than just a Registrant Advisory Committee. We need > a fully-fledged Registrant Constituency with all the voting power. Why? > For simple and logical reason. The Registrants stay on top of the > financial chain generating income for ICANN. Without the need for domain > names there would be no need for either Registries or Registrars or > ISPs. Thus Registrants, though indirectly, is the very first gear wheel > in the income machinery. > The Registrant Constituency should have been the very first constituency > established within the ICANN structures when ICANN was formed. And the > most influential as it indeed deserves. Without such representation > ICANN can barely hold its claim as being an advocate of all internet > users or stakeholders. > > . . . > > Regards > > Dominik Filipp > > > You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from such a > > contribution. > > > > best regards, > > Danny Younger > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________ > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/ > > newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > Peter Dengate Thrush > barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0