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

Election for a Vice-Chair - Nominations Periods ends 2 April
by At-Large Staff April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

Dear Community: This email is to remind you of the formal Election Call¹ issued by the Chair of the ALAC on 19th March, as required by Rule 10.12 of the Rules of Procedure of the ALAC due to a vacancy amongst the Officers of the ALAC. The 14-day nomination period, as provided by Rule 9.2, will end on 2nd April. All nominations must, per that Rule, be received on the ALAC public list at alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org not later than 14 days. I can confirm that to date, no nomincations have been made. Nominations may be made as provided in Rule 9. The Criteria for Officers of the ALAC may be found in Rule 3. Election of Officers is covered by Rules 2, 9, and 10 NOTE: The Election Procedures make clear reference to it being necessary for part of the process to be conducted at an ICANN International Meeting. These provisions are designed to fill regular appointments, and not interim appointments. The Chair intends to present relevant amendments to the Rules of Procedure at the next ALAC Telephonic meeting in April to allow for interim elections to be conducted without the necessity of waiting for the next ICANN International Meeting. The full Rules of Procedure may be found at: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/rules_of_procedure:200 71023183147-0-6223/files/ALAC%20ROP's%20Adopted%20October%202007.doc The Rules above referenced are reproduced below. Rule 2 - Election of Officers 2.1 The ALAC shall elect a Chair, at least two (2) Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur by the mechanism outlined in Rule 10. 2.2 All officers are normally elected at an Annual General Meeting of ICANN . 2.3 The election can take place by electronic mail, online balloting, written balloting, or any other means deemed convenient and accurate 2.4 All officers serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an AGM and ending at the closure of the following AGM. 2.5 Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: 2.6 They shall accept to serve on behalf of the AT LARGE COMMUNITY by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; 2.7 They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, to put the collective views of the Committee always in front of their own. Rule 3 - Qualification Criteria for Officers 3.1 All officers must be members of the ALAC. 3.2 A conflict of interest statement must be filed; 3.3 A person shall not serve, at the same time, in two different officer positions; 3.4 The Chair shall be ineligible to serve on ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which they serve on the ALAC; 3.5 All officers can be removed before the end of their term by a vote of recall according to rule 11. 3.6 All officers have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall. 3.7 Only standing members of the At-Large Advisory Committee are eligible to serve as Chair. If at any point in time the Chair leaves the membership of the ALAC for any reason, he / she shall immediately cease the function of Chair as well. Rule -9 Procedures for the Presentation of Candidatures 9.1 No earlier than one calendar month and no later than three weeks before the beginning of an ICANN Meeting where an ALAC officer has to be elected, the current Chair of the ALAC will send to the public ALAC list an ³election call² message, listing the officers that are to be elected at that ICANN Meeting, asking for nominations, and stating the deadline according to the following paragraph 9.2. 9.2 The deadline for nominations for all open officer positions shall be 14 (fourteen) days after the date of the ³election call². Only delegates can nominate or self-nominate, by posting a message to the public ALAC list. Anyone who will or has a chance to meet eligibility requirements after the next ICANN Annual General Meeting can be nominated; it is not necessary for nominees to meet eligibility requirements at the moment of the nomination, but, if elected, they will have to meet them before taking their position. Nominations of individuals who certainly will not be able to meet the eligibility requirements after the closure of the next Annual General Meeting are invalid. 9.3 Nominations must be accepted by the nominee by sending a message of acceptance to the public ALAC list (or to the person who nominated them, who will then forward it to the public ALAC list, if they do not have posting privileges to the public ALAC list at the time) by the deadline of 7 (seven) days after the deadline for nominations. Nominations that are not accepted are invalid. 9.4 After the deadline for nomination acceptance and before the beginning of the ICANN Meeting, the Chair will post to the public ALAC list an ³election summary² message. This message will contain a summary of all valid nominations for any open position. In such message, the Chair will also notify the day and time in which the actual vote will happen; such day and time must be comprised between the beginning and the closure of the ICANN Meeting, except when the Meeting is also the Annual General Meeting. In this latter case, the day and time of the vote must be comprised in the first 48 (forty-eight) hours after the closure of the Annual General Meeting; thus, the electorate will include the delegates whose term starts at the closure of that Annual General Meeting, and will not include the former ALAC members whose term ends at the closure of that Annual General Meeting. 9.5 Nominations shall then be discussed on the public ALAC list and at the physical ALAC meetings during the ICANN Meeting. 9.6 At the day and time of the vote, delegates will be provided (by staff or delegated disinterested third party) with a mechanism for voting that meets the following requirements: o It allows for each delegate to cast their vote in a confidential manner, so that no other delegate or officer shall know it; o It allows for delegates who are not physically present to cast their vote remotely (also in advance of the day and time of the vote, if they are unavailable at that moment o Each delegate can cast up to one preference for each open position, picking among the list of validly nominated individuals published at rule 9.4. Votes for other individuals are considered equivalent to abstention. Rule 10. Procedures for the Candidate Elections 10.1 A quorum must exist for the election to be valid. 10.2 All Voting in Elections will be CONFIDENTIAL 10.3 The ALAC can designate an independent third party to conduct the mechanics of an electoral vote. 10.4 Instant-runoff voting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting> (IRV) will be used as the voting system to determine the winner. (ref - Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting> ) 10.5 Voters rank candidates in order of preference. 10.6 If no candidate receives an overall majority of first preferences the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and their votes transferred according to their second and third preferences (and so on), until one candidate achieves a majority. 10.7 After votes have been collected, a disinterested person¹ will examine them and call the result. 10.8 The newly elected officers assume their position at the closure of the Annual General Meeting. 10.9 In case two or more candidates receive the same, highest number of preferences, a tiebreak vote is to be conducted. 10.9.1 The Chair will select a new date and time for a new vote on that position, at least 7 (seven) days later than the current vote; in such vote, only the candidates that received the same, highest number of preferences will be eligible to receive preferences. The Chair will then immediately send a new ³election summary² message according to rule 9.4, and the procedure will then restart from rule 9.5 10.10 In case no candidate could be elected for any other reason (lack of valid nominations, lack of five valid preferences...), the Chair will immediately post a new ³election call², thus reopening nominations. The procedure will then restart from rule 9.6 10.11 Incumbent officers shall continue to serve in their position in full standing until a valid result is obtained for the election and a new officer is elected. 10.12 If for any reason whatsoever (including lack of quorum, lack or loss of eligibility requirements, resignation, or recall) an officer position becomes vacant before the end of the term, the Chair will promptly start an election to fill it, by sending an ³election call² message and starting the procedure from rule 9.1 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 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

5 4

Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

Cheryl and all, Sorry to read/hear that Alan nor Beau will be attending. Two or our INEGroup members will be attending. They will be there mostly to listen and report back to our members so that we may gather whatever information from that session and issue a possition statemen and/or directive accordingly. Of course, I shall share that possition statemen and/or directive with all ALAC members accordingly as well. We prefer that all of our positions are in written format for documentation purposes and historical record. -----Original Message----- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> >Sent: Apr 5, 2008 6:23 AM >To: 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: 'At-Large writ small' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week > >Just to let you know Wendy, as we knew Alan would be unable to make this >meeting, I did ask if either Brett of Beau could physically attend on our >behalf, but unfortunately both are otherwise committed... > >I will note however that observers are able to attend and that includes I >assume by phone as well... I will be doing that, (so that we can keep up to >date on these activities) even though we cannot have either our liaison or >another person physically present on the ALAC's behalf... That said if >anyone on this list is planning to attend this meeting as an observer (or >on any other capacity) perhaps they would care to prepare a briefing report >for all our benefit. > > >CLO >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:13 AM >To: Wendy Seltzer >Cc: At-Large writ small >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week > >I am leaving for Central Africa on Friday, and so will not be >attending. There are discussions about sending an alternative rep, >but I have not yet heard the outcome. > >Based on the last missives I have seen, it will primarily be an >update on implementation progress, with some request for feedback >where alternative options seem available (all meeting the >recommendations) and some requests for additional rationale for >specific recommendations. There does will not (as far as I can >understand) be an opportunity to revisit the actual recommendations >in the gTLD report. > >To date, I have received no instructions from ALAC regarding >positions to take on gTLD issues. I am of course aware of work done >on IDN issues with regard to gTLDs. > >Alan > >At 04/04/2008 12:22 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >>Hi Alan, >> >>Will you be participating in the GNSO's new gTLD session in LA next >>week? <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04906.html> >> >>Do you have the information you need from ALAC, including, I hope, our >>strong endorsement of a simple, rapid process to unblock the addition of >>new gTLDs? >> >>Thanks, >>--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/ >>https://www.torproject.org/ > Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k 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

ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by Danny Younger April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Here's a registrar response to the Advisory clarification: "I do not think that this clarification leads to anything. If you want to charge for transfers during the Auto-renew Grace Period, you simply change the owner on expiration day and charge whatever you think the customer is able to pay." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05748.html These rogues definately need to be reigned in. ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

2 1

Fwd: [council] ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter
by Alan Greenberg April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

>Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:12:54 +0200 >From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter >To: 'Council GNSO' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > >Please note ICANN's the home page >http://www.icann.org/ > >ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-03apr08.htm > >3 April 2008 > >MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation >for Assigned Names and Numbers today launched >the Contractual Compliance Newsletter, a >newsletter that offers a snapshot of the wide >range of compliance work being done by ICANN. > >Each issue of the newsletter will cover >enforcement statistics, an in-depth look at part >of the compliance process, information about >audits and studies, and upcoming events. The >Newsletter will also include new advisories for >registries and registrars to help them >understand and continue to improve their compliance with ICANN contracts. > >In recent feedback on ICANNs performance under >the Joint Project Agreement with the US National >Telecommunications Infrastructure >Administration, there was input about ICANN's >work on Whois accuracy, and that compliance >needed to be better understood. ICANN's goal is >that this newsletter will be an important way to >address these concerns and continue community >dialogue about how to improve contractual compliance. > >The first issue of the Newsletter explains why >and how ICANN does contract compliance with our >contracted parties; gTLD registries and >registrars. It also includes statistics on the >consumer complaints ICANN receives and on >enforcement notices we send out. This issues >section on studies and audits includes an update >on the Whois Data Accuracy Study, the Registrar >Whois Data Inaccuracy Audit and the Performance >Specifications Audit of Registries. > >Please send your comments about the newsletter >and any topics you would like to see covered in it to compliance(a)icann.org. > >To subscribe to this Digest, simply click on the >link below and provide the requested information: >http://www.icann.org/newsletter/ > >For more information about ICANN's Contractual >Compliance Program, please visit http://www.icann.org/compliance. > >For more information about ICANN's Joint Project >Agreement (JPA) with the US National >Telecommunications Infrastructure >Administration, please visit http://www.icann.org/jpa/ . >________________________________ >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat - ICANN >gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Total of 59 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 4 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 8.47% | 5 | 23.88% | 162274 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 13.56% | 8 | 13.45% | 91414 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 11.86% | 7 | 14.07% | 95570 | wendy at seltzer.com 11.86% | 7 | 8.21% | 55815 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 8.47% | 5 | 6.13% | 41637 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 6.78% | 4 | 5.22% | 35479 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 5.08% | 3 | 4.70% | 31906 | franck.martin at gmail.com 5.08% | 3 | 3.76% | 25516 | brenbe at consumer.org 3.39% | 2 | 2.71% | 18422 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 3.39% | 2 | 2.48% | 16877 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 3.39% | 2 | 2.10% | 14240 | jefsey at jefsey.com 3.39% | 2 | 1.82% | 12352 | roessler at does-not-exist.org 1.69% | 1 | 2.31% | 15673 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.69% | 11455 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.69% | 1 | 1.20% | 8122 | dmiloshevic at afilias.info 1.69% | 1 | 1.19% | 8104 | namecritic at blogs.pn 1.69% | 1 | 1.12% | 7615 | iza at anr.org 1.69% | 1 | 1.09% | 7434 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.00% | 6802 | evan at telly.org 1.69% | 1 | 0.97% | 6571 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 1.69% | 1 | 0.91% | 6177 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 59 |100.00% | 679455 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Nick and all, Problem with this "Advisory" is that it is just that, and "Advisory" not a mandate. Ergo it has no teeth as it should have been a directive with consequences if the terms are violated. Milk toast, IMO. If this is any example of oversite by ICANN/GNSO staff, it is hardly effective oversite. Seems to me these "Advisories" have little use other the an attempt to give a "Warm and fuzzy" to registrants. So what these "Advisories" are, are an example of the emperor has no clothes... In more common parlance, lip service! -----Original Message----- >From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 9:15 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy > >ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy > >Advisory available at >http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm > >Due to perceived confusion within the registrar community concerning the >circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests >pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, on 19 September 2007, >ICANN issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the >Inter-Registrar Transfer >(Notice) http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm. > >As part of this Notice, ICANN published a Proposed Advisory Regarding >the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Proposed Advisory). The purpose of >the Proposed Advisory was to solicit comments regarding whether it was >necessary to publish an advisory to assist ICANN-accredited registrars >in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer >Policy. > >The community was informed that comments would be accepted for 30 days >regarding the Proposed Advisory. ICANN received 16 comments, of which 14 >were supportive of ICANN issuing the Proposed Advisory, one comment >opposed the issuance of the Proposed Advisory and one comment was deemed >neutral as it did not indicate support or opposition. After considering >the comments received and other information provided by registrars >regarding the Proposed Advisory, ICANN determined that sufficient >confusion exists to warrant the issuance of an advisory to assist >registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: > >1. Registrars are prohibited from denying >a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending >or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and > >2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for >denying a transfer request. > >The Advisory is identical to the Proposed Advisory issued on 19 >September 2007, except the term "registration period after expiration" >was replaced with "Auto-Renew Grace Period" wherever it appeared in the >Proposed Advisory. > >Developed through ICANN?s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy >was approved unanimously by ICANN?s Generic Names Supporting >Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with >several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The >Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process >for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar >to another upon request. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored >gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy >pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. The purpose of the Advisory is >to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. > > >-- 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

ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by At-Large Staff April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Advisory available at http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm Due to perceived confusion within the registrar community concerning the circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, on 19 September 2007, ICANN issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer (Notice) http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm. As part of this Notice, ICANN published a Proposed Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Proposed Advisory). The purpose of the Proposed Advisory was to solicit comments regarding whether it was necessary to publish an advisory to assist ICANN-accredited registrars in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The community was informed that comments would be accepted for 30 days regarding the Proposed Advisory. ICANN received 16 comments, of which 14 were supportive of ICANN issuing the Proposed Advisory, one comment opposed the issuance of the Proposed Advisory and one comment was deemed neutral as it did not indicate support or opposition. After considering the comments received and other information provided by registrars regarding the Proposed Advisory, ICANN determined that sufficient confusion exists to warrant the issuance of an advisory to assist registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: 1. Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and 2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request. The Advisory is identical to the Proposed Advisory issued on 19 September 2007, except the term "registration period after expiration" was replaced with "Auto-Renew Grace Period" wherever it appeared in the Proposed Advisory. Developed through ICANN?s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy was approved unanimously by ICANN?s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another upon request. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. The purpose of the Advisory is to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Board liaison report. March meeting, April retreat
by Wendy Seltzer April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

The minutes from last week's Board meeting have now been posted: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm> In addition to the domain reservation issue, raised at ALAC's request and which the Board passed on to the GNSO Council (see my previous message), the Board discussed the mid-term review of the JPA, GNSO Improvements, new gTLDs, and other reviews. As requested, I asked that the at-large public get input into a more transparent process in the President's Strategy Committee considering ICANN reforms in conjunction with JPA reform or transition. I also raised the importance of giving the ALAC review enough time to conduct a useful and productive inquiry -- I encourage all interested parties to contact the ALAC review team at <alacreview(a)westlakenz.com> to have your experience considered. The Board will be meeting for a retreat later this month, and is being encouraged to consider big strategic issues as well as specific policy matters such as new TLDs. I have asked that registrant and end-user issues, including contracts, compliance, and the possible sunsetting of expired consensus policies, be considered in these discussions. If you would like me to put other items on the Board's agenda, please let me know. After the retreat (which is not a formal meeting), the next formal meeting of the Board is 29 April 2008 (agenda items by 19 April). Thanks, --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/ https://www.torproject.org/

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Board Meeting Minutes
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Wendy and all, The "Domain name reservation" issues has been around for at least 3 years now, and was originally brought up as an issue under the old DNSO. Personally I believe the more important issue that is related is the "Domain name warehousing" issue, especially in the cases of registries and registrars using "Domain name reservation" as a means by which the can have an unfair advantage over any registrant or any prospective future registrant in registering those Domain Names. I however can understand on several levels why the ICANN Board wants input from the GNSO council before rendering any decision in regards to the DNS, although there should be a mechnisim by which emergancy decisions need to be made from time to time. Seems to me, and our members that sense so many issues have been unaddressed for so long as Danny and many others have recognized and elaborated upon on multipul occasions over the past 5+ years, are now needing emergancy action. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 5:59 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Board Meeting Minutes > >As these minutes indicate, the Board determined to send the "domain >reservation" issue to the GNSO Council for Council response. While >several on the Board would have favored Board action, others felt it was >more appropriate to get GNSO consensus before taking action. > >ALAC should now share its concerns with the GNSO Council, as input to >their consideration. We can also make further requests to the Board, if >we feel that stalemate within the GNSO is delaying what we still >consider to require emergency action. > >Despite the lack of immediate Board action, I think it was useful for >ALAC to send this request, as it put the issue on the Board's agenda and >will no doubt lead to further discussion. Thanks, Danny, for initiating >it. I'd recommend this approach for other items of registry or registrar >activity that affect the at-large public. > >--Wendy > >Danny Younger wrote: >> Board Meeting Minutes have been posted: >> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm >> >> The section regarding the ALAC Letter to the Board is >> reproduced below: > >... >> The Chair determined that emergency action is not >> required today but the matter will be referred to the >> GNSO for additional information or policy development >> if necessary, but not an emergency action. >> > >-- >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/ >https://www.torproject.org/ 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] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Danny and all, I guess cross posting to seperate list is now exceptable. So as such, I am relpying-all accordingly. I agree with all the points Danny has made here. Or were these originally from Chris? In either case, I fully agree. Many if not the vast majority of our members from time to time have expressed pretty much the same, accordingly. What does all of this tell us? Well I have a few suggestions. 1.) ICANN isn't really all that concerned or interested in registrants or non-registrant/users issues regardless of their country of origin. 2.) DOC/NTIA is interested, but must work in conjunction with ICANN staff and Board members to assist in resolving such issues unless they are extreamly egregious, such as the .XXX TLD became. 3.) It does abundantly appear that Registries and Registrars carry far more weight in decision making for policy determination. -----Original Message----- >From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic(a)blogs.pn> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 8:07 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement > >Why do all of these announcements and such include things like the following. > >the recognition that ICANN is the appropriate technical coordinator of the Internet DNS. when ICANN does not stick to doing this and instead gets into areas such as examining business plans when a new TLD is proposed? > >ICANN has made significant progress in several key areas, when no one can really point to several key areas in which progress has been made? > >And then they write as if they have confidence in the following; > >long term stability; when ICANN has not implemented much of a long-term strategy so far? > >accountability; when ICANN has not held anyone accountable before? and when ICANN BoD and staff are not held accountable? > >responsiveness; when ICANN takes years to respond to any issue? > >continued private sector leadership, when ICANN defines this as doing whatever businesses like Verisign tell them to do? > >stakeholder participation; when ICANN defines stakeholders as only large companies, ISPs, and registries and not as lowly domain holders and average users? > >increased contract compliance; when ICANN folds on contracts anytime they are threatened with a lawsuit? See the Verisign lawsuit for an example. > >and enhanced competition. when ICANN does everything they can to assure their is no real competition in namespace? > >Chris McElroy > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >To: <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:01 PM >Subject: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement > > >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html >> >> >> 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