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

FW: interesting link on Icann
by Thompson, Darlene June 23, 2008

June 23, 2008

Hi all, Below is a link to the article that came out today on new gTLDs. Its not totally accurate but here it is. D ________________________________ From: Bev [mailto:bev@pcna.ca] Sent: Mon 6/23/2008 5:03 PM To: Thompson, Darlene; 'Gareth Shearman' Subject: interesting link on Icann http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7468855.stm>

1 0

gtld procedure and morality and public order
by Annette Muehlberg June 23, 2008

June 23, 2008

hi, this might be helpful to understand the gtld procedure (and our trouble with the category of morality and public order). http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/gtld-process-simplified-10apr08.pdf best annette

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Dominik, Evan, and all, I understood that the context to which you refer Dominik is one possible meaning. But not the only one. Still, my questions stand as relevant in any context, which is why I posed them in the manner in which I did. Users can only represent themselves as whom and what they are in the manner they are most familier with even if that manner is offensive to other users irrespective of context. Parsing or attributing context to a particular meaning in any language can be difficult, often misunderstood, and frequently malinged improperly. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 22, 2008 6:53 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Jeff, > >Evan's wording is ok. I see it in the context 'what would happen if' in >connection with other posts on this thread. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 11:09 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Dominik and all, > > I am not sure how the summit organizers could endanger the ALAC or the >RALO's any worse than they have endangered themselves already. I am >also clearly sure the statement on the ALAC review is significantly >flawed as to user participation and representation on the ICANN Bod as >it does not reflect the known users desires and reasonable rights via >the OECD declaration posted earlier, nor accomplish ICANN's mission re >the MOU. > >Again for OECD declaration see: >http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/seoul-declaration.pdf >Note: I and our members fully support the principals of this declaration >and believe that it largely can and should apply to ICANN. > > Further I am more than a bit baffled by Evan's meaning by stating >"improper comments by some individuals". What "improper comments by >some individuals" is he referring to, and how could their be such >statements in the first place, unless he is just stating his own >personal opinion as if it were gospel or even actually authoritative to >stakeholder/users everywhere, which obviously such cannot be true? >Evan, can you clarify please? Please bare in mind that if you answer >directly, and regardless of your answer, casting false aspersions upon >others, however indirectly, is in and of itself often times considered >"improper" or not "appropriate" in legal parlance. >And if done so publicly is considered civil defamation. > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>Sent: Jun 22, 2008 1:02 AM >>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review >> >>Evan, >> >>I am not suggesting anything about At-Large itself let alone the >>importance of the summit. >> >>The only thing I am sugesting is a view how the summit organizers who >>could 'endager' the summit are looking at At-Large. That is what I have >>understood from the remark. >> >>To clarify my point further I am appending another remark from the post >> >>"the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and >>board to rethink support for the summit at this time" >> >>I am optimistic :-) >> >>Dominik >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] >>Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:48 AM >>To: Dominik Filipp >>Cc: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review >> >>Dominik Filipp wrote: >>>> that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could >>>> endanger the summit being ok'd >>>> >>> >>> Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be >>punished? >>> If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted. >>> >>I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here >are >>acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO >>naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit. >> >>IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to >>outsiders (and especially the US government) that it at least is >>minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the >>Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that >>doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated >>and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven >otherwise. >> >>- Evan >> >> >>------ >>NA-Discuss mailing list >>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list >s.icann.org >> >>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.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

Final Agenda for IPv4v6 Workshop, Tomorrow, June 23, 10 am,
by Izumi AIZU June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Dear all, attached is the final (I hope) agenda of tomorrow's workshop on Internet End Users and Transition to IPv6 see you tomorrow! izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Dominik and all, I am not sure how the summit organizers could endanger the ALAC or the RALO's any worse than they have endangered themselves already. I am also clearly sure the statement on the ALAC review is significantly flawed as to user participation and representation on the ICANN Bod as it does not reflect the known users desires and reasonable rights via the OECD declaration posted earlier, nor accomplish ICANN's mission re the MOU. Again for OECD declaration see: http://thepublicvoice.org/events/seoul08/seoul-declaration.pdf Note: I and our members fully support the principals of this declaration and believe that it largely can and should apply to ICANN. Further I am more than a bit baffled by Evan's meaning by stating "improper comments by some individuals". What "improper comments by some individuals" is he referring to, and how could their be such statements in the first place, unless he is just stating his own personal opinion as if it were gospel or even actually authoritative to stakeholder/users everywhere, which obviously such cannot be true? Evan, can you clarify please? Please bare in mind that if you answer directly, and regardless of your answer, casting false aspersions upon others, however indirectly, is in and of itself often times considered "improper" or not "appropriate" in legal parlance. And if done so publicly is considered civil defamation. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 22, 2008 1:02 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Evan, > >I am not suggesting anything about At-Large itself let alone the >importance of the summit. > >The only thing I am sugesting is a view how the summit organizers who >could 'endager' the summit are looking at At-Large. That is what I have >understood from the remark. > >To clarify my point further I am appending another remark from the post > >"the ensuing reaction to the report, might be grounds for staff and >board to rethink support for the summit at this time" > >I am optimistic :-) > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] >Sent: Sunday, June 22, 2008 12:48 AM >To: Dominik Filipp >Cc: Robert Guerra; NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Draft NARALO statement on ALAC review > >Dominik Filipp wrote: >>> that being that a negative response by At-large to the review could >>> endanger the summit being ok'd >>> >> >> Does it mean if At-Large baby will not be obedient it will be >punished? >> If so, I would then fully understand why the ALAC voted as it voted. >> >I think it is grossly unfair to suggest that most of the people here are >acting this way. Some of the stronger supporters of strong NARALO >naction on this issue have also been key organizers of the Summit. > >IMO the Summit is a *necessary* activity of ICANN if it is to prove to >outsiders (and especially the US government) that it at least is >minimally serious about multi stakeholder involvement. If they can the >Summit because of improper comments by some individuals, well than that >doubly proves that ICANN does not really care about having an educated >and active At-Large. I prefer to stay optimistic until proven otherwise. > >- 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 >------ 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

2 1

Front-running
by Alan Greenberg June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

The GNSO is discussing putting the Front Running issue on hold pending the Board's decision on the limitation of use of the AGP (and the 20 cent Registrar fee waiver). I have been asked for thoughts on whether there is an ALAC/At-Large perception that the GNSO should go full speed ahead on the front running issue regardless of the changing AGP environment (recognizing that work put into this impact progress on possibly more crucial issues). Alan

4 3

Re: [At-Large] Front-running
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Jacque and all, It would seem reasonable that everyone will know or not, how or even if, the proposed measures are working within days of its implimentation. I don't understand why it has now taken this long to impliment the proposed measures anyway, re Front-Running. So not to be disagreeable, but 3 or six months hold and than a review is far to long and too late if the proposed measures aren't working, IMO. This said, it would likely take ICANN and it's registrars at least 3 months to formulate and/or impliment a far more effective set of measures if the proposed measures are less than adquately effective. In any event stronger measures are necessary in accordance with our, INEGroups proposed method if Front-Running is to be fully delt with as Front-Running is a direct violation of Restraint of Trade statutes we believe, and as such any registrar enguaging in such practices however ordained or approved such practices have been by ICANN and any proposed measures to address same that do not fully address Front-Running however well intentioned, will at some point be viewed in that light in a legal proceedure. -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Jun 22, 2008 12:11 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Front-running > >Holding until we see IF and HOW the proposed measures affect the >environment makes sense. There MAY be no more frontrunning problem after >the implementation of these measures. I'd suggest that we ask for a 3 or >6 month hold and then a review to evaluate the success or not of the >measures and then decide to go forward or not on additional activities >re front running >Jacqueline >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> The GNSO is discussing putting the Front Running issue on hold >> pending the Board's decision on the limitation of use of the AGP (and >> the 20 cent Registrar fee waiver). >> >> I have been asked for thoughts on whether there is an ALAC/At-Large >> perception that the GNSO should go full speed ahead on the front >> running issue regardless of the changing AGP environment (recognizing >> that work put into this impact progress on possibly more crucial issues). >> >> Alan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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

Our next meeting - 10:00, NOT 11:30
by Izumi AIZU June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

For those who are in Paris, but not in the current meeting room of ALAC - GNSO, our next meeting, OneDay will begin at 10:00, or just after join meeting with GNSO is over, not 11:30 as is described in ICANN offical website. We will not have the translation for the first hour, though. I just confirmed with our CHair. izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Front-running
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

Bret and all, Some forms maybe. But such an approach does not solve the problem of Front-Running, it only makes it more expensive and truoblesome to monitor adaquately at the expense of future registrants. Such a policy is inhearently unfair to those future registrants and may represent a restraint of trade accordingly. Someone else other than Chris will likely file legal action on that basis, amongst other potential legal reasons. -----Original Message----- >From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Sent: Jun 21, 2008 1:01 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Front-running > > From what I've read in the press, some forms of registrar front- >running will stop when ICANN adopts its new AGP pricing policy. No >reason to solve problems that may not exist anymore. Holding the >working group seems like a good idea. > > Bret > >On Jun 21, 2008, at 8:12 AM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >> The GNSO is discussing putting the Front Running issue on hold >> pending the Board's decision on the limitation of use of the AGP (and >> the 20 cent Registrar fee waiver). >> >> I have been asked for thoughts on whether there is an ALAC/At-Large >> perception that the GNSO should go full speed ahead on the front >> running issue regardless of the changing AGP environment (recognizing >> that work put into this impact progress on possibly more crucial >> issues). >> >> Alan >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.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

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 22, 2008

June 22, 2008

George and all, Glad you swung in George ( of the jungle )! Must be a banana shortage amongst other food shortages in your neck of the jungle. >:) But more to the point, yes this is rather troubling indeed. And yes of course, registries like Verisign I am sure are watching very closely to see how ICANN responds and indeed may respond in kind. This request seems like a "Post-front-running" scheme to me... The real danger is that if approved, and/or practiced by afilias or other registries for political purposes to suppress speech, I am rather sure that the courts will need to be involved at some point to correct abusive registry practices such as this one could become or used for. However there is always an upside to this requests approach to dealing with abusive Domains, such as those the promote Child pornography, spam, and those that are frequently used for phishing purposes. Such a practice would relieve the ICANN staff from doing their oversight in this narrow but very important regard and at the same time send a message to other yet to be reveled or known abusive domain name registrants that they need to clean up their act, or face Registry damnation. But than again I thought that DMCA and LEA's and the courts is/are for addressing these abusive Domain name problems? If now these entities are not adequate as ACTA indicates, and perhaps the courts dockets are too inundated with filings as well as US-CERT.gov and IC3.GOV filed complaints are too numerous to address in a timely manner, than perhaps this request will act as a potential relief valve? -----Original Message----- >From: George Kirikos <gkirikos(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Jun 21, 2008 3:50 PM >To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: [ga] Potential Danger Ahead for Registrants -- dot-info Abusive Domain Use Policy > > >Hi folks, > >ICANN has posted a request by Afilias for a new registry service in >relation to "abusive" domains in dot-info: > >http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/index.html#2008007 >http://www.icann.org/registries/rsep/afilias-request-20jun08.pdf > >While in general the proposal is motivated by good intentions, the >devil is in the details. While most folks (including myself) probably >care very little about the .info TLD, my concern is that any bad >implementation in .info might be copied or used as a precedent in other >more important TLDs, in particular .com run by VeriSign. > >In particular: > > >"Pursuant to Section 3.6.5 of the RRA, Afilias reserves the right to >deny, **cancel** or transfer any registration or transaction, or place >any domain name(s) on registry lock, hold or similar status, that it >deems necessary, **in its discretion**;........" > >(emphasis added) > >I would be against giving VeriSign (if the model was copied to .com) >that discretionary power over my company's domains, especially the >"right to cancel." What exactly is "illegal"? In China, I'm sure there >are many things that are illegal that are perfectly legal in Canada, >the USA or the EU. Suppose a domain name gets hacked for a brief time, >and is temporarily used to serve up spam or malware, etc. That company >experiencing bad luck, having their site hacked, can then be put >totally out of business in the event that the registry operator, "in >its discretion," decides to cancel the domain name. > >Thus, I think concern should be raised that any implementation be very >conservative in order to protect the inherent right of registrants to >due process. The potential for harm in a bad implementation is >enormous, and companies and individuals could be put out of business if >a valuable domain name is taken from a registrant. > >Sincerely, > >George Kirikos >http://www.kirikos.com/ 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