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

How did we get into this new gTLD mess?
by Danny Younger Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

It's a rare day that I decide to focus upon process, but process was the root cause of the GNSO's poor decision-making that led to the sorely deficient Applicant Guidebook. I recall the GNSO's Washington session chaired by Bruce Tonkin at which the position was taken that least-common-denominator agreement constituted consensus. This meant that if Business had a concern that wasn't shared by other parties, that concern was shoved to the sidelines in pursuit of those areas upon which all other parties had sufficient agreement. Similarly, if Intellectual Property concerns were raised that weren't shared by all in the room, then these too were set aside. This approach was a fundamental deviation from the consensus standard that has guided ICANN since its inception. In the article "Why Consensus Matters", Susan Crawford defined the nature of consensus as follows: "The consensus standard calls on all parties to suggest changes that, while not perhaps optimal, will persuade others not to oppose. It is a standard based on the ideal of cooperation (looking for the high ground, not the lowest common denominator that can marshal a majority) on which the net was built." We are in a mess with the new gTLD plans precisely because we failed to act in keeping with consensus principles. The basic premise is simple: if intense opposition is absent or irrational or limited to those who do not bear the impact of the policy in question, then a policy may go forward on a consensus basis, otherwise, legitimate opposition and concerns must be taken into account -- they cannot be trampled upon in the pursuit of a least-common-denominator approach. In view of the public comments tendered, we should have the GNSO go back to the drawing board and begin anew with a process that respects our consensus traditions.

1 0

my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

greetings... attached are two draft statements for the ALAC response to the new gTLD workbook and process. I have given up trying to upload these to the wiki, thought I knew how but I guess I don't. I will be leaving town for a few days' vacation returning the evening of Weds. Jan. 7. I could possibly answer questions then but will not really be available between now and then. Unless I am mistaken,though, there have been no submissions on new gTLDs since the last phone conference). Attached are two documents: some suggested overview statements that ALAC might want to make, and then a line-by-line specific document, which generally though not completely follows the guide that was sent around. In it I addres modules 2, 3 and 4 only, with "consumer issues" only. These were written in conjunction with or in mind of some of the NCUC's statements and the two U.S. government letters to ICANN in December. Some of the elements really need some discussion! Like auctions and so forth. I'm not sure everyone on ALAC will be comfortable with some of these statements but here they are from my perspective as a member of NA RALO. I hope also that we have taken note of the fairly big controversy the new gTLD application has created, though this was perhaps not a surprise. Beau Brendler ________________________________________ From: Brendler, Beau Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2008 10:55 AM To: gtld-wg-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide Cc: Atlarge Staff Subject: Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook Greetings. Several people worked on this since Cairo, so rather than holding on to it any longer I wanted to send it out to a broad group. It's a sort of guide to creating a draft document response to the new gTLD workbook. Only a guide! It's meant to be read in conjunction with the document itself to suggest areas in which the user community might want to elaborate (or not). For it to be most useful you still need the workbook document handy. For instance, there are things we've since discussed on various lists that aren't in this guide, for instance, from Danny: "Working one's way through module 2 (the Applicant Information Form section), there is one question that is glaringly missing: "Indicate whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) directors, or (iv) managers: a. within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these; b. within the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others; c. is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (a) or (b); or d. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at the time of this application. So, for instance, we should decide where we want to put that in. In addition to some of the NCUC comments I have sent out over the last 24 hours or so, here are some URLs of others' perspectives on new gTLDs. International Olympic Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/pdf2Skbh839Jy.pdf Registry Constituency: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/docnZV8Xn1mmo.doc IDN Comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00055.html Robin Gross: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00034.html Wendy Chan: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00043.html Unicode Technical Committee: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00021.html Ron Andruff: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-string/msg00001.html After the call on Friday, I would like to propose a time for the working group to meet and discuss its responses to the attached document, to the discussion on the lists, and other matters, so that we can work up a statement by the deadline, which I believe has now been extended to Jan. 7 (we will clarify this in Friday's meeting). Staff, may I ask that you translate this message into French and Spanish and distribute it so that we can get maximum community involvement. Thanks Beau Brendler ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

9 11

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response
by Danny Younger Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

Adam, The proper thing to do is to advise the Board Governance Committee that the ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on ALAC Review was improperly sent to them, had not been ratified by the membership at the time of its release, and still hasn't been ratified even after a second vote. At the very least, the ALAC should be honest about its ongoing inability to reach a quorate vote -- this is not the first time that this has happened, and this is a consideration that the BGC should be aware of as it moves forward with its review (as it points, once again, to the current dysfunctional state of the ALAC). Danny [At-Large] Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response Adam Peake ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Jan 7 06:33:32 EST 2009 I think we should consider how to call the vote again. We should not leave this important issue as failed for lack of quorum. Do our procedures allow for another (3rd) attempt? Is a new motion required? If we can vote again I would like it added to the agenda of the Jan 13th ALAC call <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009>. For clarification, if we are to consider a new vote I suggest it should be yes or no on: "Do you endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?" Thanks, Adam > > <mailto:alac-announce-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=subscribe> >Sender: alac-announce-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Dear all, > >Seven out of 15 ALAC Members have voted in the recent vote on the updated >ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report, therefore the >quorum was not reached. > >Number of voters: 7· Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 46.67% > >³Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint >consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?² > >Yes (85.71%) (Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, >Beau Brendler, Robert Guerra, Cheryl Landon-Orr) > >No (14.29%) (Carlos Aguirre) > >Abstain (0.00%) > >You may verify the results independently under: >https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=eTuRkbjiyZCk2DRJXXAU > >When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair >to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can >confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: > >Alan Greenberg >Vanda Scartezini >Fatimata Seye Sylla >Hawa Diakite >Mohamed El Bashir >Jose Ovidio Salgueiro >Vivek Vivekandan >Thu Hue Nguyen > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff at atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce at atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Fwd: [ALAC-Announce] Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response
by Adam Peake Jan. 7, 2009

Jan. 7, 2009

I think we should consider how to call the vote again. We should not leave this important issue as failed for lack of quorum. Do our procedures allow for another (3rd) attempt? Is a new motion required? If we can vote again I would like it added to the agenda of the Jan 13th ALAC call <https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_january_2009>. For clarification, if we are to consider a new vote I suggest it should be yes or no on: "Do you endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?" Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp >Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:09:33 +0100 >From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Thread-Topic: Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response >Thread-Index: AclwuGsbv46fUSS1y0WCzsiFRO9smA== >X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.11.cp3 >Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Result of the vote on the updated ALAC Response >X-BeenThere: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >List-Id: ALAC Announcement list > <alac-announce_atlarge-lists.icann.org.atlarge-lists.icann.org> >List-Unsubscribe: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/options/alac-announce_atlarge-lists.…>, > > <mailto:alac-announce-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=unsubscribe> >List-Archive: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac-announce_atlarge-lists.icann.…> >List-Post: <mailto:alac-announce@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >List-Help: <mailto:alac-announce-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=help> >List-Subscribe: ><http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists…>, > > <mailto:alac-announce-request@atlarge-lists.icann.org?subject=subscribe> >Sender: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Dear all, > >Seven out of 15 ALAC Members have voted in the recent vote on the updated >ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint consultation report, therefore the >quorum was not reached. > >Number of voters: 7· Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 46.67% > >³Would you like to endorse the updated ALAC Response to the BGC WG midpoint >consultation report on the ALAC Review as an official ALAC Statement?² > >Yes (85.71%) (Adam Peake, Patrick Vande Walle, Sébastien Bachollet, >Beau Brendler, Robert Guerra, Cheryl Landon-Orr) > >No (14.29%) (Carlos Aguirre) > >Abstain (0.00%) > >You may verify the results independently under: >https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=eTuRkbjiyZCk2DRJXXAU > >When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair >to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can >confirm that the following ALAC member did not participate in the balloting: > >Alan Greenberg >Vanda Scartezini >Fatimata Seye Sylla >Hawa Diakite >Mohamed El Bashir >Jose Ovidio Salgueiro >Vivek Vivekandan >Thu Hue Nguyen > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Date
by At-Large Staff Jan. 6, 2009

Jan. 6, 2009

Dear all, The Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery, which was requested by the ALAC is now available in the five UN languages under http://gnso.icann.org/policies/. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

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

Jan. 5, 2009

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

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] my submissions to new gTLD statement
by Bill Silverstein Jan. 4, 2009

Jan. 4, 2009

John L said: >My advice would be to stop the new gTLD process until: > b) ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage *all* of > the requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts, and > develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new > contracts. I partially agree. I would like to wait until, ICANN actually demonstrates that they have reliably enforced compliance. ICANN has consistently demonstrated that they have Just having rules and process does not mean that it has been enforced. See http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-letter-to-beckwith-03sep02.htm . The domain names in questions stayed invalid until they switched to a privacy service provider.

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 2, 2009

Jan. 2, 2009

Total of 5 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 2 00:53:02 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 40.00% | 2 | 43.09% | 14139 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 20.00% | 1 | 21.40% | 7024 | jefsey at jefsey.com 20.00% | 1 | 17.95% | 5889 | joly at punkcast.com 20.00% | 1 | 17.56% | 5763 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 5 |100.00% | 32815 | Total

1 0

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

Jan. 1, 2009

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

2 1