January 2010 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

The Future of ICANN by Rod Beckstrom
by Sébastien Bachollet Jan. 31, 2010

Jan. 31, 2010

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Should a Domain Name Registrar Run from a PO Box?
by Michael Maranda Jan. 30, 2010

Jan. 30, 2010

If we can address this issue - we'll have taken a great step forward. -Michael Maranda On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 9:17 AM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn <gbruen(a)knujon.com>wrote: > Dear At-Large folks, > > In 2008 KnujOn published a report indicating that 70 ICANN accredited > Registrars had no publicly disclosed business location > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#06102008) The fundamental problem > was one of community trust and consumer faith. Registrars extend their > legitimacy to their domain customers who then transact and communicate > with the public. It is difficult enough when registrants conduct illicit > commerce and wrap themselves in mystery, for a Registrar to do the same > shames the entire industry. Much to our shock, we found that Registrars > were not required to publicly disclose their address. Since then the > ICANN Registrar directory (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) has been > updated to include all the addresses and the Registrar Accreditation > Agreement > (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm) has > been amended to include the following language: > “3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact > details including a valid email and mailing > address.(http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/ra-agreement-21may09-en.htm#3) > ” > But what constitutes a “valid mailing address” other than it can > accept mail. > This probably would have been better worded as “valid business > address” as we recommended > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#11022008) but that will have to > wait for the next round of RAA changes. In the meantime we ask the > question, does it support openness and accountability if the gatekeepers > of domain registration run out of public mailboxes? Some may immediately > argue that it is an immediacy of running a small business since they may > not have to staff or facilities to accept mail. And I would guess this > would be the case for companies like Domain Monkeys, LLC who use a P.O. > box but have a real brick-and-mortar shop just up the street. The same > goes for DomainsToBeSeen.com, DOMERATI and Sundance Group. But we are > puzzled by Hosting.com, Inc., which has a P.O. Box in Kentucky when > their business is really in Colorado. > > Honestly, the issue disappears if the Registrar clearly posts its > business address where consumers can find it. Enetica Pty Ltd uses a PO > box in Australia but clearly states its street address on their website. > Contrast this with DomReg Ltd. (AKA LIBRIS.COM) which runs from a PO > box in Russia and has no other contact information posted on its website > not even a phone number. > > Now, we have many Registrars using P.O. boxes in the Cayman Islands and > other Caribbean locations. DirectNIC, LTD, AKA Intercosmos, used to > have an address in New Orleans but now has a PO box in the Caymans. > Bargin Register also has a Caymans PO box listed as their address. It > has been explained to us multiple times that “all addresses in Caymans > are PO boxes,” but this is only partly true. For the purposes of > mailing in the Caymans PO Boxes must be used, however, all businesses do > in fact have street addresses. Example, The Royal Bank of Canada in the > Caymans lists two addresses on its website: 24 Shedden Road, George > Town, Grand Cayman (street address) and PO Box 245 Grand Cayman KY1-1104 > (mailing address). In this case the Registrar can and should list both > addresses but DirectNIC and Bargin Register do not. > > And then there are “suites.” Suite is a deceptive address term since > it could mean a leased space in an office building or hotel, but suite > is also the term UPS and other private mailbox services use to refer to > their rented postal boxes. There are at least a dozen Registrars with > suite numbers in their addresses that need to be clarified. Estdomains > ran out of a Delaware proxy address and business registration. This was > part of their overall policy of hiding any information concerning the > true nature of the Registration business > ( > http://www.informationweek.com/news/services/data/showArticle.jhtml?article… > ). > Secrecy and misdirection are primary indications of potential fraud. > > Of course all of these issues are moot in the face of a falsified > address as in the case of Parava Networks, AKA 10-Domains > (http://www.knujon.com/news2008.html#07222008) Parava were later > de-accredited for other contract violations > (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-valdes-27feb09-en.pdf) > In the name of accountability and transparency we need to know that the > Registrars are legitimate companies and the first step is > identification. > > This brings us to the most extreme case of location obfuscation: > OnlineNIC. OnlineNIC claims to be in the U.S. but they are not. The > California address they feature on their website and in the ICANN > directory is an auto-body shop or barren lot > (http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184) There are two other > addresses they use and one is a residential address with no apparent > business taking place. The second is an office building, but we could > not find OnlineNIC there, but we did find a UPS Store. There are > actually more red-herring California addresses for OnlineNIC, but the > point is made. It is no surprise to many people that documents related > to OnlineNIC lead back to Hong Kong and ultimately to mainland China. > Does ICANN even know where OnlineNIC really is? Why are they pretending > to be in the United States when other Chinese Registrars operate with > full location disclosure? This is a shameful charade that has mislead > consumers for too long. We’re calling for OnlineNIC to publicly > disclose their address and for ICANN to post that real address in the > directory. > > Address disclosure is critical to consumer trust and ICANN’s pledge of > transparency and openness. The public should see the same address used > in Registrar accreditation applications. > > More info: > > http://www.circleid.com/posts/should_a_domain_name_registrar_run_from_a_po_… > > > Thanks for your consideration, Garth > > ------------------------------------- > Collect, analyze, enforce, repeat... > > Garth Bruen > gbruen(a)knujon.com > http://www.knujon.com > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > ------ > 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 > ------

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

Total of 23 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 29 00:53:05 EST 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 13.04% | 3 | 11.61% | 22442 | evan at telly.org 8.70% | 2 | 13.59% | 26266 | ocl at gih.com 8.70% | 2 | 11.96% | 23112 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 8.70% | 2 | 9.90% | 19130 | isolatedn at gmail.com 8.70% | 2 | 9.63% | 18606 | info at internautabrasil.org 8.70% | 2 | 9.13% | 17642 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 4.35% | 1 | 4.96% | 9579 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 4.35% | 1 | 4.92% | 9513 | gisella.gruber-white at icann.org 4.35% | 1 | 4.42% | 8552 | heidi.ullrich at icann.org 4.35% | 1 | 3.21% | 6206 | narten at us.ibm.com 4.35% | 1 | 3.16% | 6116 | karl at cavebear.com 4.35% | 1 | 3.14% | 6070 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 4.35% | 1 | 2.79% | 5400 | joly at punkcast.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.73% | 5270 | shearman at victoria.tc.ca 4.35% | 1 | 2.59% | 5010 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 4.35% | 1 | 2.27% | 4384 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 23 |100.00% | 193298 | Total

1 0

DOODLE / Community Call: At-Large Director Selection Process
by At-Large Staff Jan. 27, 2010

Jan. 27, 2010

Dear All, As the next step in the community consultation about the At-Large Director Selection process and to offer a telephonic opportunity to discuss the recently released White Paper on this important issue - see https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?director_white_paper - we invite you to join a conference call to be scheduled at the end of January. A doodle has been set up to assist in the selection of a time for this call that will allow for maximum participation by ALSes, RALO leadership and interested individuals. http://www.doodle.com/5u6dt525n9yin2zf Time-zone active When completing the Doodle poll, please indicate your Yes / No / Maybe options for ALL possible times shown and also indicate any need for interpretation to be made available on this call by indicating FR or ES next to your name please note any other comments on the timing of this community call are also welcome in the comments section. This doodle will close on Thursday 21 January 2010 at 1200 UTC. The call date and time will be announce shortly thereafter. Thank you Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

7 11

[NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: Community Comment Invited on Revised Proposal To Form A New GNSO Consumers Constituency 22 January to 13 February 2010
by Adam Peake Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

Via the NCUC list. It would be good to know how membership of the constituency is progressing. The notice of intent to create a constituency mentions some, and some outreach that will be done. What progress has been made? The constituency is important. But it needs to meet membership thresholds before launch. Or it'll be a bad precedent (for one thing.) Hopefully they've achieved regional diversity and appropriate level of interest. Adam > > >>From: Glen de Saint Géry <<mailto:Glen@icann.org>Glen(a)icann.org> >>Date: January 24, 2010 10:09:38 AM PST >>To: Avri Doria >><<mailto:avri@ACM.ORG>avri(a)ACM.ORG>, Robin >>Gross >><<mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org>, >>"<mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au>rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au" >><<mailto:rosemary.sinclair@atug.org.au>rosemary.sinclair(a)atug.org.au> >>Cc: Glen de Saint Géry >><<mailto:gnso-secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso-secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >>Subject: FW: Community Comment Invited on >>Revised Proposal To Form A New GNSO Consumers >>Constituency 22 January to 13 February 2010 >> >>Dear Avri, Robin and Rosemary, >> >>FYI >>Thanks >>Glen >> >>Community Comment Invited on Revised Proposal >>To Form A New GNSO Consumers Constituency >>Please note and take some time to submit comments before 13 February 2010! >> >><http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22jan10-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-22jan10-en.htm >>«»Í íÜï English Français Español êÛÒÒÍËÈ >>ìñ{åÍ Deutsch Português «±¼æÓ Italiano >> >>22 January 2010 >>The ongoing GNSO Improvements process has >>created significant community interest in the >>formation of new GNSO constituencies. One of >>those proposals is for a new Consumers >>Constituency. Proponents of the Consumers >>Constituency originally submitted a New >>Constituency Petition and Charter to the ICANN >>Board on 14 April 2009. A revised version of >>the proposal, responding to several Board >>inquiries was submitted to the Board on 15 >>September 2009. >> >>The Structural Improvements Committee of the >>ICANN Board has directed the Staff to post the >>revised (15 September) version of the proposed >>Consumers Constituency Charter for community >>review and comment. All members of the ICANN >>community and the public are now invited to >>review the petition and charter of the >>Consumers Constituency and share comments with >>the Board through 13 February 2009. >> >>Background and Explanation: >> >>In June 2008, the Board of Directors endorsed a >>series of recommendations on how to improve the >>GNSO's structures and operations. One of the >>significant drivers of those recommendations >>was an interest in maximizing participation in >>the GNSO and its policy development processes. >>Among the various recommendations endorsed by >>the Board was that ICANN take steps to clarify >>and promote the option to self-form new >>constituencies. >> >>The ICANN Bylaws provide that any group of >>individuals or entities may petition the Board >>for recognition as a new or separate >>constituency, in accordance with Section 5(4) >>of Article X. Such a petition must explain (1) >>why "the addition of such a Constituency will >>improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out >>its policy-development responsibilities" and >>(2) why "the proposed new Constituency would >>adequately represent, on a global basis, the >>stakeholders it seeks to represent." Despite >>those Bylaw provisions, it has been many years >>since the organization has had formal requests >>for any new GNSO constituencies. Since the >>Board action last June, however, the Board has >>received four petitions for potential new GNSO >>Constituencies. In December, the Board chose >>not to approve three of those proposals (see >><http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-09dec09-en.htm) >>and the Consumers proposal is still under >>consideration. >> >>The ICANN bylaws do not provide specific >>procedural guidance for how interested parties >>should submit the petitions contemplated in >>Article X. Mindful that explicit steps, >>formats, and/or processes for expansion would >>take some time for the community to develop in >>the implementation of the improvements >>recommendations, the Board directed ICANN Staff >>to provide the community with some initial >>guidance, a structure and a specific procedural >>path for potential new constituencies to >>follow. At its 1 October 2008 meeting, the >>Board acknowledged Staff's development of a >>"Notice of Intent" document for potential new >>constituencies and directed Staff to develop a >>formal petition and charter template to assist >>new constituency applicants in satisfying the >>formative criteria (consistent with the ICANN >>Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of >>petitions to form new constituencies. >> >>The process subsequently developed by the Staff >>required interested groups to first submit a >>Notice of Intent to Form a New Constituency >>(NOIF). The proponents of the Consumers >>Constituency completed that first step on 28 >>February 2009. The second step of the process >>is development of a New Constituency Petition >>and Charter. The proponent of the Consumers >>Constituency completed that effort on 14 April >>2009. >> >>In August 2009 the members of the ICANN Board >>developed a number of questions regarding the >>proposal. In response to those inquiries the >>Consumer Constituency proponents revised their >>original NOIF and updated their proposed >>charter document on 15 September 2009. >> >>Relevant Board Resolution, Bylaws and Constituency Submissions: >> >>Minutes of 1 October 2008 ICANN Board Meeting: >><http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/minutes-01oct08.htm >> >>ICANN Bylaws Article X, Section 5, Subsection >>4: >><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm>http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm >>- X-5.1 >> >>Copies of the original and Revised Consumers >>Constituency Petition Documents can be found at >>this web page: >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm >> >>Revised (15 Sept) Consumers Constituency NOIF; >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-noif-redacted-…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-noif-redacted-… >> >>Revised (15 Sept) Consumers Constituency >>Charter Document; >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-charter-15sep0…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/consumers-constituency-charter-15sep0… >> >>Public Comment Forum of this proceeding: >><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco>http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco >>The Process From Here: >> >>At the end of this Public Comment Forum period, >>the ICANN Staff will provide a summary/analysis >>of the comments submitted regarding the revised >>Consumers Constituency petition and charter. >>That summary/analysis will be shared with the >>community and the Board. The Board will >>ultimately make the decision on whether to >>authorize the new constituency. >> >>It should be noted that the GNSO Improvements >>Report approved by the Board in June 2008 has >>additional guidelines and recommendations for >>the ongoing practices and processes of GNSO >>constituencies. This work is ongoing as part of >>the GNSO Improvements implementation efforts >>being coordinated by the GNSO Council (see >><http://gnso.icann.org>http://gnso.icann.org/ >>and >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/) >> >>Deadline and How to Submit Comments: >> >>The Staff is opening a 21-day public >>consultation forum, from 22 January 2009 >>through 13 February 2010, and invites community >>comments on this matter. >> >>The formal Public Comment Forum Box is located >>here: >><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco>http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco >> >>To submit comments: >><mailto:consumers-constituency-petition@icann.org>consumers-constituency-petition(a)icann.org >> >>To view comments: >><http://forum.icann.org/lists/consumers-constituency-petition/>http://forum.icann.org/lists/consumers-constituency-petition/ >> >>Staff Responsible: Robert Hoggarth >> >>Glen de Saint Géry >>GNSO Secretariat >><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >><http://gnso.icann.org>http://gnso.icann.org >> > > > > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: ><http://www.ipjustice.org>http://www.ipjustice.org > e: <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org>robin(a)ipjustice.org >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

This is a task that could progress well if at Large could reach out to external Rights groups such as the Internet Rights and Principles ( Max Senges, Lisa Horner ) who may be able to involve Civil Society participants with a particular interest in Rights and contribute to this task with expertise and ease. This can also be an opportunity to work together with NCSG as some of the NCSG members including Milton Mueller have a particular interest in Rights. I feel that their involvement in this task would give the proposed Charter a good shape, though I don't agree with many of them on their "Rights-based approach" to Internet Governance. Sivasubramanian Muthusamy http://www.isocmadras.com On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > Hi, I promised to contribute to the Charter, WG A, yet to date have > contributed zero. The calls have been at times I simply cannot make (and the > next call also not possible.) Still, I should have read and continued to > work online. Apologies. I'll try to get up to date over the coming weeks. > > Adam > > > > > One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft >> some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was >> mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it >> was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done >> properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the >> organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. >> >> So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a >> "Registrant >> Rights Charter< >> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_20… >> >" >> March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. >> However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. >> >> The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the >> charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be >> considered; >> I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, >> dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of >> this >> charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and >> responsibilities) >> *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation >> project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its >> public. >> >> When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a >> declaration >> of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right >> now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and >> considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea >> what >> might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, >> I >> hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe >> Chat. >> (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at >> >> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiratio… >> ). >> >> There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing >> list >> and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff >> has provided a document of this >> nature< >> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201… >> > >> which >> Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with >> understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last >> meeting< >> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_… >> > >> chair >> Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer >> within the scope of the group. >> >> So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of >> what >> registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of >> the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. >> >> Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. >> Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large >> with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied >> at >> meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to >> serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that >> advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one >> would >> think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of >> such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their >> policy >> making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. >> >> What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe >> that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in >> the >> first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a >> statement >> of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to >> ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than >> with registrars and registries, in its development. >> >> Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is >> anyone >> else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was >> envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? >> >> -- >> Evan Leibovitch >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

3 3

Fwd: Re: Re: Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

FYI -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Re: Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now? Date : Mon, 25 Jan 2010 12:57:31 +0100 De : Max Senges <maxsenges(a)gmail.com> Pour : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Copie à : Lisa Horner <lisa(a)global-partners.co.uk> FYI. (please reply CC'ing the at large list too) thanks for sending this That's exactly what I thought, when I read the question (I've kept the full body of the previous discussion below, for Max and Lisa to be able to read through it, if they don't have access to the thread. The IRP coalition is an ALS, isn't it? the IRP is not an ALS - I was there as rep. for the Committee for a Democratization of the United Nations Perhaps its member's experiences in the field could catalyse the crystallisation of such a charter? i very much think that our member are interested to work on this best max Warmest regards, Olivier > This can also be an opportunity to work together with > NCSG as some of the NCSG members including Milton Mueller have a particular > interest in Rights. I feel that their involvement in this task would give > the proposed Charter a good shape, though I don't agree with many of them on > their "Rights-based approach" to Internet Governance. > > > Sivasubramanian Muthusamy > http://www.isocmadras.com > > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:19 PM, Adam Peake<ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> <mailto:ajp@glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > > >> Hi, I promised to contribute to the Charter, WG A, yet to date have >> contributed zero. The calls have been at times I simply cannot make (and the >> next call also not possible.) Still, I should have read and continued to >> work online. Apologies. I'll try to get up to date over the coming weeks. >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft >> >>> some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was >>> mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it >>> was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done >>> properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the >>> organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. >>> >>> So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a >>> "Registrant >>> Rights Charter< >>> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_20… >>> >>>> " >>>> >>> March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. >>> However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. >>> >>> The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the >>> charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be >>> considered; >>> I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, >>> dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of >>> this >>> charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and >>> responsibilities) >>> *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation >>> project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its >>> public. >>> >>> When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a >>> declaration >>> of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right >>> now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and >>> considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea >>> what >>> might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, >>> I >>> hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe >>> Chat. >>> (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at >>> >>> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiratio… >>> ). >>> >>> There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing >>> list >>> and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff >>> has provided a document of this >>> nature< >>> https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201… <https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201…> >>> >>>> >>> which >>> Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with >>> understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last >>> meeting< >>> https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_… >>> >>>> >>> chair >>> Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer >>> within the scope of the group. >>> >>> So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of >>> what >>> registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of >>> the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. >>> >>> Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. >>> Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large >>> with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied >>> at >>> meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to >>> serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that >>> advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one >>> would >>> think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of >>> such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their >>> policy >>> making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. >>> >>> What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe >>> that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in >>> the >>> first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a >>> statement >>> of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to >>> ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than >>> with registrars and registries, in its development. >>> >>> Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is >>> anyone >>> else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was >>> envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? >>> >>> -- >>> Evan Leibovitch >>> _______________________________________________ >>> At-Large mailing list >>> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >>> >>> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >> At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site:http://atlarge.icann.org > > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a "Registrant Rights Charter<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_20…>" March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be considered; I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of this charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and responsibilities) *as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its public. When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a declaration of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea what might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, I hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe Chat. (Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiratio… ). There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing list and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff has provided a document of this nature<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201…> which Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last meeting<https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_…> chair Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer within the scope of the group. So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of what registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied at meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one would think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their policy making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in the first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a statement of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than with registrars and registries, in its development. Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is anyone else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? -- Evan Leibovitch

3 2

Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Beau Brendler Jan. 23, 2010

Jan. 23, 2010

Well, then let's include a third party beneficiary rights statement in the aspirational document. I've heard support for this idea from some people in the community before. -----Original Message----- >From: Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> >Sent: Jan 23, 2010 2:54 PM >To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now? > >On 01/23/2010 06:27 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >> Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here... > >It strikes me that there is a small step that can be taken that is not a >"mere aspiration". (As if aspirations were not the atoms from which >concrete policies are constructed.) > >A Charter of Registrants Rights is a nice aspiration, but wouldn't it be >nice if registrants could get even the bare rights that are supposed to >be given to them under the existing ICANN registrar and registry contracts? > >At a bare minimum all ICANN contracts with registrars and registries >ought to be amended to add third party beneficiary rights provisions >that recognize domain name holders as having the power to go to court to >enforce contractual obligations even if ICANN fails to do so. > >As it stands today a registrar or registry can do horrible things to >registrants, things that are clearly in violation of its contract with >ICANN, and the effected domain name registrants can do no more than >watch, endure, and suffer. > >With third party beneficiary rights registrants would have the power to >take action. > >Yes, I know that third party beneficiary rights is a topic listed >somewhere on lists of things to be discussed someday in the future, if ever. > >ICANN has steadfastly over the years refused even to discuss the >possibility that perhaps ICANN might someday want to consider that it >might add third party beneficiary rights to the contracts. > >The reason given by ICANN for this position is that ICANN fears that >registrants might actually try to enforce their rights and that some >cases might succeed and others might fail, creating a patchwork of >decisions. > >However, it seems to me that a patchwork cloth is more protection >against the cold winds of registrar misbehavior and ICANN inaction than >today's nakedness. > > --karl-- > >_______________________________________________ >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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now?
by Beau Brendler Jan. 23, 2010

Jan. 23, 2010

Evan... I had to bow out of the most recent RAA meeting because of a work conflict that sprang up at the last moment. However, I did have a brief, focused phone conversation with Heidi and Michele earlier in the day, to discuss the agenda. Nowhere was it brought up during that discussion that the "aspirational document" was now out of scope. Further, the "aspirational document" was in the stated scope of Group A in more than one update I have sent to the GNSO. So, a) No one has the authority to simply "rule it out" and b) as co-chair of the group, I didn't agree to any such thing. I haven't spoken to Michele since the day of the meeting, but I would assume there is some miscommunication here. However, what would be great would be that someone other than you, me, Cheryl or the "usual suspects" actually contribute to this process. It would be nice to hear from someone on LACRALO on this topic. It would be great to hear from someone on AFRALO. Or EURALO, for that matter. The more participants we can get from diverse regions to bring forward their aspirations, the more seriously the ICANN community will have to take the process. Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Jan 23, 2010 9:27 AM >To: ICANN At-Large list <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Registrants' Rights Charter -- where now? > >One of the things I've long wanted to do within At-Large was to help draft >some kind of a Charter (or Declaration) of Registrant Rights. It was >mentioned frequently during the At-Large Summit and I had believed that it >was something that ought to be universal, simple and direct. If done >properly, acceptance by ICANN would be a clear indication that the >organization was serious about serving the interests of the public good. > >So when the GNSO voted to create a joint ALAC/GNSO team to draft a "Registrant >Rights Charter<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/14_december_20…>" >March 4 as part of a broader effort to update the RAA, I was hopeful. >However, such hope has been substantially diminished if not eliminated. > >The team was split into two working groups, subgroup A to work on the >charter and subgroup B to work on specific RAA amendments to be considered; >I because involved in subgroup A. I soon became aware that this subgroup, >dominated by ICANN's contracted parties, insisted that the core work of this >charter should be an enumeration of registrant rights (and responsibilities) >*as they exist in the current RAA*. To me, this is more of a documentation >project than a definitive assertion of how ICANN should be serving its >public. > >When it was noted in one meeting that a "Charter" was more of a declaration >of how things should be (as opposed to just reporting what exists right >now), that declaration was to be referred to as "aspirational" Charter and >considered a secondary issue. In fact, many in the meeting had no idea what >might even be included in such an "aspirational" document -- in response, I >hastily drew up some potential articles and typed them into the Adobe Chat. >(Thanks to Heidi, they can be found publicly at >https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?raa_wg_a_workspace_for_aspiratio… >). > >There has been much discussion of the Charter since then, on a mailing list >and in teleconferences, as an enumeration of what exists in the RAA. Staff >has provided a document of this >nature<https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/raa-related/attachments/20_january_201…> >which >Cheryl and I have offered to review and provide pointers to assist with >understanding the jargon. But, far more troubling, at the last >meeting<https://st.icann.org/raa-related/index.cgi?20_january_2010_raa_dt_sub_wg_a_…> >chair >Michele Neylon declared that the "aspirational document" was no longer >within the scope of the group. > >So as of this moment, the concept of a true charter -- a declaration of what >registrants ought to be able to expect from ICANN -- is completely out of >the process. Even the little that existed has been shunted aside. > >Now, it hasn't helped that so few members of At-Large have participated. >Beau, Cheryl and myself appear to have been the only people from At-Large >with enough interest to participate. As a result it's easy to get bullied at >meetings where there is a chorus of voices ready to oppose initiatives to >serve the interests of end-users and personal registrants. Given that >advocating the rights of the public is At-Large's primary mandate, one would >think that a Charter of Rights of registrants would be a core component of >such advocacy. It would guide both At-Large and ICANN itself in their policy >making and indeed ultimately affect the RAA as it moved forward. > >What remains is to ponder what's next. Maybe it was a mistake to believe >that a GNSO WG could be the proper forum for crafting such a document in the >first place. Maybe it's just as well, I would easily argue that a statement >of registrant rights, if sufficiently universal, should also apply to >ccTLDs. Maybe we should be consulting with ISOC and the IGF, rather than >with registrars and registries, in its development. > >Perhaps it is time for ALAC to take some further initiative here; is anyone >else interested? Or is the concept of a real Charter -- one that was >envisioned on Page 2 of the Summit Declaration -- to be left to fade away? > >-- >Evan Leibovitch >_______________________________________________ >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

4 3