January 2009 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] RES: [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement
by Fatimata Seye Sylla Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Hello All, IMHO, we should not delay the process. We can work on a compromise by trying to have ICANN agree to make the requested studies this same year 2009. Best wishes for the new year to all of you. Fatimata On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > I am agreeing with Bret and Robert. We can not just postpone with lots of >> study the competition into the marketplace. From my point of view, I >> would >> clarify some obscure points in the rules and start the process. Certainly >> we >> will face many points that will need to be corrected during the process, >> but >> there will be always risk for those who want to enter into this market. >> >> >> > > More agreement: I can't see any good reason for the ALAC supporting a > delay, would seem to fly in the face of ALAC's past support for new gTLDs. > > And absolutely no reason to delay the introduction of IDNs ccTLDs. > > Adam > > > > >> >> >> >> Vanda Scartezini >> >> Polo Consultores Associados >> >> Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 >> >> Tel - +55113266.6253 >> >> Mob- +55118181.1464 >> >> vanda(a)uol.com.br >> >> P Before print think about the Environment >> >> "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is >> restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender >> immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned >> information will create grounds for legal action." >> >> >> >> "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para >> uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, >> favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das >> informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Mensagem original----- >> De: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Sébastien >> Bachollet >> Enviada em: sábado, 10 de janeiro de 2009 06:02 >> Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' >> Cc: gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Assunto: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement >> >> >> >> . >> > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- Fatimata Seye Sylla Presidente Bokk Jang Bokk Jeff Coordonnatrice ACSIS - Senegal BP : 22336 Dakar Senegal Tel : 221 33 864 4284 / 1301 552 8282 email : fsylla(a)gmail.com fsylla(a)orange.sn

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement
by John L Jan. 11, 2009

Jan. 11, 2009

> .xxx was not a special case. It was included in the last round of gTLDs. > There are other that are not yet into the root like .post. .XXX was in practice a special case because of all of the political attention it attracted. If it had been the 1000th new TLD, it wouldn't have been a big deal, but it was about the 10th so it was. The same problem will occur with any new domain that has moral or political implications, and the current plan which (roughly) gives anyone in the world a veto on moral grounds isn't going to work. > I think we need to find a way less heavy to introduce new gTLDs. Indeed, but the current rush job is not the right way to do it. R's, John

3 2

Re: [At-Large] Thoughts on Delaying New gTLDs
by Bill Silverstein Jan. 10, 2009

Jan. 10, 2009

** Reply to note from Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:28:17 -0800 > > I've been an advocate of new gTLDs for over ten years now, and time and again I > have seen the process delayed by studies and the need for further preparation. The > truth is that we cannot foresee with 100% certainty all of the consequences of > this, or any, change in the fabric of the Internet. We will always have something > to study and something new on which to ponder and prepare. The last five years have > seen a concerted effort on behalf of the GNSO, ICANN Staff, and the ICANN community > at large to move this process forward, finally, and we now have a very thoughtful, > if not always perfect, set of guidelines prepared by ICANN Staff. As a much smarter > man once observed, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." We cannot wait for > perfection or we will never go anywhere at all. These guidelines are going through > yet another revision now, and we almost certainly still have the opportunity to > provide meaningful input into the process and impact the final version. > > While I can understand the desire to make the RFP and implementation guidelines the > best they can be, I don't support the call for further delay. Let me comment > briefly on the reasons advanced as supporting a delay of the process (copied from > Beau's recent email): > > You are correct in your points. There is a difference between reviewing issues for valid reasons and reviewing to delay. I "have no dog in this fight." As you know, I do not work for registrars or registries. If I am to be accused of any bias it is solely to make sure that whois data is accurate and that is enforced -- so that it is easier to track down spammers and other bad actors. I don't believe you give mroe responsibility to a person who is not doing their job. ICANN either does not have the will or the skill handle their current areas of responsibility. ------------------------------------------------------ Who is General Error and why is he reading my drive?

1 0

Re: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement
by JFC Morfin Jan. 10, 2009

Jan. 10, 2009

At 21:39 09/01/2009, Franck Martin wrote: >And your views are tainted by a desire of having ICANN to fail, so >you too have a conflict of Interest, but I think it makes a good >equilibrium on the list. > >on another note: we do not live in a perfect world. I think comes a >time, when someone has to say, enough consultations and let's do it. >The economist likes to publish rating of countries based on how easy >it is to do business in these countries because how slow is the >administration. This is ICANN precautionary duty. ICANN plays its survival. There is no mystery: if ICANN's Internet for the Rich strategy fails there will be an international recovery alternative, which may take one year. But that recovery will most probably not be an ICANN plan B [which is not even considered], and - I am sure of it - will not keep ICANN in the way it sees itself today. The question for us (lead and end users) is: what is the worst case? - the collapse of the Internet for the Rich, - or the ICANN continuation. Until to six months ago I would have said: the collapse. Today I am obliged to say the ICANN continuation: they are those who have chosen to support the single virtual root, the money oriented Internet for the Rich strategy rather than a QoS oriented multilaterally concerted strategy. "tant va la cruche à l'eau ..." jfc

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 10, 2009

Jan. 10, 2009

So, perhaps, create a sort of case-by-case evaluation basis for those gTLDs who have been in the race for a while, but at the same time, halt the overall procedure so that the cited concerns can be addressed? -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sébastien Bachollet Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 1:56 PM To: gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: 'At-Large Staff'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement Thanks Beau for your push on that subject. I would like to add one idea: With less staff and less money Icann was able to introduce 7 and then 6 new gTLDs. Maybe a more pragmatic way could be explored. Thanks Sébastien Bachollet Président Isoc France sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr www.egeni.org www.isoc.fr > -----Message d'origine----- > De : gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:gtld-wg- > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Brendler, Beau Envoyé : > vendredi 9 janvier 2009 18:22 À : At-Large Worldwide; > gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc : Matthias; Heidi Ullrich; At-Large > Staff; NA Discuss Objet : [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement > > We need to make a statement of some sort -- it may already be too > late, though my guess is that the rather unenthusiastic reception > ICANN has received so far makes the concern less acute. That said, our > deadline has come and gone. > > May I ask for guidance from staff to coordinate? And as for process? > Are we to put the statement as written up for a vote? Or make it > simple and just send up a line of advice to the board (we can cite the > other documents as a backup rationale)? > > Something like this (adopting from some of the language I have seen in > reviewing recent notes, mostly from John): > > The ALAC recommends that the ICANN board delay the new gTLD > application and implementation process until the following steps are taken: > > * The economic impact study promised in 2006 has been released and > evaluated. > * ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage all > requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. > * ICANN develops compliance processes for any new or different > requirements in new contracts. > * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs be delayed as well until similar > issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and > disseminated to the user community. > * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details > contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a > separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely > response to them. > > May I suggest to the ALAC ex com or whomever the appropriate authority > is, to put this statement up for a vote from the ALAC as soon as > possible? > > Beau Brendler > > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger > Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:37 AM > To: At-Large Worldwide > Subject: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement > > Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and > we play the game of the incumbents." > > Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, > your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. > > Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx > initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA > going up to the microphone session after session, year after year > while burning up money. > > But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; > we are in the business of acting in the public interest. > > The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be > significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this > could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new > registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a > poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > *** > Scanned > > ** > This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) > named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any > attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not > the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute > or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all > or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in > error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and > permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer > system. > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > > Working Group direct URL: https://st.icann.org/gnso- > liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

3 2

Re: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Franck Martin Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

And your views are tainted by a desire of having ICANN to fail, so you too have a conflict of Interest, but I think it makes a good equilibrium on the list. on another note: we do not live in a perfect world. I think comes a time, when someone has to say, enough consultations and let's do it. The economist likes to publish rating of countries based on how easy it is to do business in these countries because how slow is the administration. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Friday, 9 January, 2009 2:36:44 AM (GMT+1200) Auto-Detected Subject: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents." Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money. But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest. The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse.

1 0

my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Danny Younger Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents." Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money. But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest. The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse.

4 3

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

Total of 23 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 9 00:53:02 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 8.70% | 2 | 39.29% | 97496 | brenbe at consumer.org 21.74% | 5 | 14.70% | 36476 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 13.04% | 3 | 6.54% | 16217 | icann-list at sorehands.com 8.70% | 2 | 6.41% | 15899 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 8.70% | 2 | 6.19% | 15362 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 4.35% | 1 | 4.37% | 10847 | vanda at uol.com.br 4.35% | 1 | 4.33% | 10752 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 4.35% | 1 | 3.62% | 8971 | fsylla at gmail.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.81% | 6977 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 4.35% | 1 | 2.76% | 6860 | christopher.wilkinson at skynet.be 4.35% | 1 | 2.60% | 6449 | isolatedn at gmail.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.35% | 5837 | johnl at iecc.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.23% | 5545 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.35% | 1 | 1.79% | 4437 | staff at atlarge.icann.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 23 |100.00% | 248125 | Total

1 0

User concerns on practices in the Domain Name market
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

Hello At-Large, Dan Connolly <http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/> of the W3C posted a message that cites a blog post from the UK based gandi iwi (Gandi tribe) Here is what Gandi iwi <http://iwi.gandibar.net/post/2008/10/22/Why-domain-name-services-are-not-al…>has put together as "a list of a few things to watch out for in the tricky domain market." *1. Sneaky pricing* - Different pricing for register (buy now £0.99 per year!) and renewal (oops it costs more next year) - Different pricing for transfers out (oh, you want to leave, that'll be £xx) - The cost of a .co.ukat the registry is £2.50 per year. Companies selling below this have an ulterior motive! *2. Service restrictions* - Can't get full DNS control - pay more for additional services *3. Front running* - Using your domain search data to buy domains before you do, or selling your domain search data. More references.<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_front_running> *4. Account lockins* - Locking your account for a period following changes, prevents transfer outs. More by Slashdot.<http://tech.slashdot.org/tech/08/04/08/0349253.shtml> *5. Domain ownership* - Not the owner of your domain, some companies buy it on your behalf and then rent it to you.<http://news.cnet.com/2010-1071-281311.html> *6. Privacy* - Selling your whois data/customer data Most of these are concerns of the users, so would at-Large please look into this? -- Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ISOC India Chennai ALS http://isocmadras.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/isocchennai <http://wealthyworld.blogspot.com>http://www.circleid.com/members/3601/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Bill Silverstein Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

** Reply to note from Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> Thu, 08 Jan 2009 09:38:41 +0100 > > > On Thu, 8 Jan 2009 00:19:02 -0800 (PST), "Bill Silverstein" > <icann-list(a)sorehands.com> wrote: > >> > >> While I agree it would be best to suspend the process until the concerns > >> are addressed, I think we should keep in mind that several potential new > >> registries have already invested a lot of time, energy and money for a > >> long time in this saga. > > I was under the impression that application process for the new tlds have > > not been started. Maybe I am mistaken? > > As you may know, this whole new gTLD process started many years ago. There have > been tons of documents, meetings, etc to finally come up with this Applicant's > guide. Many potential new entrants participated in the whole process over the last > 3 years. This does have a cost. Suggesting that the process has not started because > the final RFP is not officially published is dismissing one of the most important > parts of the work, which is the preparation of the RFP. I did mean the actual acceptance of applications. The parties who became involved early did so at their own risk, as there was no guaranty as to the final start of the application acceptance or the exact terms of the application process. > >> By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play > >> the game of the incumbents. > > > > What about the the internet users, the public? Or do we protect the > > interests of a few people who jumped the gun on spending money for a > > process that has not been finalized? > > I think it is the best interest of the public to have alternatives to the incumbent > registry operators. I don't think it is, or at lease until until it is shown that ICANN has the will to enforce the rules that have been developed. And take quick decisive actions to prevent abuses and protect the public. This has not been shown. ------------------------------------------------------ Who is General Error and why is he reading my drive?

1 0