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

Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 17, 2010

Aug. 17, 2010

The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP has posted their Initial Report. You will recall that the PDP was initiated by an ALAC Request for Issues Report. The Public Comment Period is open at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report. It is scheduled to close on August 1, but hopefully it will be extended. An ALAC comment on this report has been drafted. It can be found at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?at_large_gnso_liaison#pednr. It is also reproduced below for your convenience. The comment will be discussed and possibly endorsed at the 27 July ALAC meeting. The comment follows the expected outcomes outlined in the initial Request for Issues Report and also is in line with the views of the majority of At-Large participants in the Working Group. For PEDNR, the Public Comment process features an easy-to-complete survey. Since this policy development process was initiated by At-Large, it is REALLY important that as many At-Large people as possible complete the survey. PLEASE: - Review the comments below to see the At-Large position; - If you have the time, review the Initial Report; - Complete the short survey (it can be done without reading the full report). The survey is at <http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4>http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4. Alan -------------------------------------- The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) requested the Issues Report which resulted in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, and it strongly supports the activities of the Working Group. It is essential that the post-expiration "safety net" that existed several years ago be restored. Moreover, the domain industry is sufficiently robust and mature that it can and must provide a level of predictability and security to gTLD domain name holders. In line with the desired outcomes stated in the original Issue Report request, the ALAC supports: 1. Consensus policy requiring that all registrars must allow renewal of domain names for a reasonable amount of time after expiration. 2. Consensus policy explicitly stating the minimum requirements for pre-expiration notices. 3. Consensus policy requiring clarity of how messages will be sent. 4. Consensus policy requiring that WHOIS contents to make it clear that a domain name has expired and has not yet been renewed by the registrant. 5. Consensus policy requiring that notice(s) be sent after expiration. 6. Consensus policy requiring that web sites (port 80) no longer can resolve to the original web site after expiration. 7. Consensus policy requiring that other uses of the domain name (e-mail, FTP, etc.) no longer function after expiration. 8. Consensus policy requiring clarity in the expiration terms and fees offered by registrars. 9. Consensus policy requiring that the Redemption Grace Period be offered by all registries (including future gTLDs) and by all registrars. It is understood that there may be unusual cases where the business models of some registrars may require exceptions to some of these policies. However, the need for such exceptions should not deny the vast majority of registrants a predictable and safe gTLD eco-system. Over and above these minimum requirements, the ALAC supports a move within the registrar community to establish the meaningful and transparent concept of "best practices".

13 27

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Aug. 13, 2010

Aug. 13, 2010

Total of 20 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 13 00:53:03 EDT 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 4 | 17.00% | 25007 | michele at blacknight.ie 10.00% | 2 | 10.38% | 15264 | avc at namesatwork.com 10.00% | 2 | 10.25% | 15075 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 10.00% | 2 | 9.09% | 13377 | jmamodio at gmail.com 10.00% | 2 | 7.75% | 11402 | evan at telly.org 5.00% | 1 | 8.63% | 12689 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 5.00% | 1 | 8.27% | 12168 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 8.00% | 11773 | isolatedn at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 4.72% | 6941 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.00% | 1 | 4.63% | 6810 | johnl at iecc.com 5.00% | 1 | 4.30% | 6322 | avri at acm.org 5.00% | 1 | 3.85% | 5658 | roberto at icann.org 5.00% | 1 | 3.14% | 4622 | admin at ttcsweb.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 20 |100.00% | 147108 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] [lac-discuss-en] [NA-Discuss] Call for regional members of theALAC/At-LargeImprovements work teams
by Sivasubramanian M Aug. 12, 2010

Aug. 12, 2010

Hello I volunteer to be part of work team A. > > > Sivasubramanian M > http://www.isocmadras.com > facebook: http://is.gd/x8Sh > LinkedIn: http://is.gd/x8U6 > Twitter: http://is.gd/x8Vz > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:05 PM, <cveraq(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> I can volunteer work team D >> >> Carlos Vera >> Isoc Ec >> Mensaje enviado desde mi terminal BlackBerry® de Porta >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: annalisa(a)sfbayisoc.org >> Sender: lac-discuss-en-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2010 22:38:27 >> To: Seth Greene<Seth.Greene(a)icann.org>; < >> na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org< >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Reply-To: annalisa(a)sfbayisoc.org >> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff<staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [lac-discuss-en] [NA-Discuss] Call for regional members of >> the >> ALAC/At-LargeImprovements work teams >> >> I can volunteer if needed for working group B. I am a member of NARALO. >> Annalisa, vice-chair >> SFbayIsoc.org >> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Seth Greene <Seth.Greene(a)icann.org> >> Sender: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 14:52:16 >> To: afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org< >> afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org< >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; >> na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org<na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff<staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Call for regional members of the ALAC/At-Large >> Improvements work teams >> >> Dear all, >> >> I would like to remind you that the call for volunteers for the >> ALAC/At-Large Improvements work teams ends tomorrow. (Please see the >> announcement attached below.) If you still would like to volunteer and have >> not done so, please e-mail the At-Large Staff as soon as possible and >> indicate which of the four work teams you would like to join. You may >> volunteer for more than one team. >> >> Many thanks, >> Seth >> ______ >> >> Seth Greene >> At-Large Improvements Project Manager >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> Telephone: + 1 (212) 662-7723 >> E-mail: seth.greene(a)icann.org<mailto:seth.greene@icann.org> >> >> ________________________________ >> From: Seth Greene >> Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 12:48 PM >> To: afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; >> apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; >> euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; >> na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff >> Subject: Call for regional members of the ALAC/At-Large Improvements work >> teams >> >> CALL FOR REGIONAL MEMBERS OF THE ALAC/AT-LARGE IMPROVEMENTS WORK TEAMS >> >> >> The ALAC/At-Large Improvements project is moving ahead. The goal is to >> review and improve both ALAC/At-Large’s participation in ICANN and the >> ALSes’ participation in At-Large. This will be done through the >> implementation of the 13 recommendations detailed in the Simplified At-Large >> Improvements Implementation Outline ( >> http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AhOqmBdY590QdExXZklQLVRZZUtncm1xSDZ… >> ). >> >> We have divided these recommendations into four groups, each of which will >> be assigned a work team consisting of ALAC members and regional >> representatives. These recommendation groups (and work teams) are listed >> below. >> >> The ALAC is now looking for one representative from each RALO to join each >> of the four work teams. We ask that interested ALS representatives respond >> to the At-Large Staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto: >> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>) no later than Wednesday, 11 August 2010. >> >> Each work team is expected to schedule a call every two weeks. As with >> other At-Large work groups, these teams will conduct their business in >> English. For more details, please see the Improvements Project Plan >> (attached). >> >> The four recommendation groups and work teams are: >> >> Work team A: Work team on ALAC's continuing purpose >> Rec 1: ICANN bylaws to reflect ALAC's continuing purpose >> Rec 10: ALAC/At-Large is home of individual Internet users >> Rec 11: Board statement recognizing Rec 10 >> >> Work team B: Work team on ALS participation >> Rec 3: Remove any obstacles in ALS-RALO-ALAC structure >> Rec 4: ALS education and engagement >> Rec 7: ALAC should choose its own communication/collaboration tools >> Rec 9: ICANN should strengthen its translation/interpretation tools >> >> Work team C: Work team on ALAC planning processes >> Rec 5: ALAC should develop strategic/operational plans as part of ICANN’s >> planning process >> Rec 6: At-Large should develop accurate cost models >> >> Work team D: Work team on ALAC's policy advice development >> Rec 8: ALAC may request public comment period be extended to 45 days >> Rec 12: Consumer representatives should have input into decisions and >> policy advice >> Rec 13: ALAC/At-Large policy advice mechanisms should be strengthened >> >> ------ >> 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 >> ------ >> _______________________________________________ >> lac-discuss-en mailing list >> lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… >> _______________________________________________ >> APAC-Discuss mailing list >> APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss_atlarge-lists.… >> >> Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org >> > >

2 1

Posición de las Asociaciones de Usuarios de Internet de Latinoamérica nucleadas en la Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet (FLUI) con respecto a la política de Participación de los mismos impulsada por ICANN.
by Presidencia Internauta Aug. 12, 2010

Aug. 12, 2010

Estimados compañeros enviamos el documento realizado Por FLUI (federracion latinoamerica de usuarios de Internet) con respecto a las politicas de participacion impulsadas por ICANN Saludos cordiales Sergio Salinas Porto Internauta Argentina FLUI Presidente -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posición de las Asociaciones de Usuarios de Internet de Latinoamérica nucleadas en la Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet (FLUI) con respecto a la política de Participación de los mismos impulsada por ICANN. Hace 19 meses desde la Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet (FLUI), expresábamos nuestro más enérgico repudio a las nuevas políticas de participación impulsada por ICANN, en desmedro de la participación real y genuina de los usuarios de Internet en la rica vida de esta institución. Es así que en dicho documento expresábamos que: ".Quienes formamos parte de las organizaciones ALS consideramos que la política de viajes tiene una relación estrecha con la participación de los Usuarios de Internet en ICANN, por lo que rechazamos enfáticamente la decisión que resulta atentatoria a las políticas y principios de ICANN y por ende de Internet..." También enfatizábamos que esto no es una mera cuestión contable administrativa de "políticas de viaje" sino se trataba de cercenar el derecho y la posibilidad de poder expresarnos y participar en un pie de igual con los otros sectores, en el seno de la estructura que nuclea las políticas de comunicaciones globales de Internet, del cual somos parte por el solo hecho de ser quienes usamos esta tecnología y aportamos nuestro dinero para que la comunidad toda se pueda servir de ello. Entendemos que esto es así, porque no esta en juego el hecho de viajar, sino la plena potencialidad de participación de la sociedad civil en este organismo. En ese momento afirmamos que: ".estamos convencidos que la participación en ICANN implica la interacción entre gobiernos, empresas y usuarios para poder contar con una organización que dirija los destinos de Internet en forma justa y democrática..." Estamos convencidos de que ICANN ha respondido hasta ahora a las expectativas planteadas, abriendo a la participación de las Organizaciones de la Sociedad Civil- OSC como parte de un proceso formativo que demanda la incorporación de todos los actores que participan en la vida de Internet, pero esto no termina ahí sino que es la puerta de una interacción productiva y rica que de seguro reformulará los puntos de vista hasta ahora logrados con respecto a esta maravillosa herramienta y su potencialidad, no solo para los negocios sino también para el crecimiento intelectual, comunicacional y democrático de nuestro planeta. Por esta razón, cada día, es más importante el lograr que otras organizaciones se vayan incorporando en la toma de decisiones reales. También indicábamos en el documento señalado que ".Si se busca una mayor participación se tienen que superar las limitaciones que hasta ahora dificultan la toma de decisiones. Pese a que en la actualidad se tienen reuniones por teleconferencia, éste medio de comunicación resulta limitado frente a la toma de decisiones de las ALSs en las reuniones presenciales de acuerdo a lo que disponen nuestros estatutos.." En este sentido se firmó el 4 de diciembre del 2006 un documento de suma importancia para nuestra región, Los Principios Operativos y el MOU, el cual fue rubricado tanto por los integrantes del primer Ralo de ICANN (LACRALO) como por su CEO Paul Towmey y quien en ese momento era el presidente del organismo Vint Cerf, en su punto 4 (cuatro) se expresa: "4. El órgano de gobierno de la LACRALO será una Asamblea General que estará integrada por dos (2) representantes de cada ALSs acreditada, nombrados y removidos libremente por cada ALS, la cual comunicará a la Secretaria los nombramientos realizados."[1] Es imperativo en virtud de la búsqueda de consensos, que ICANN busque otros medios de reducción de costos. Entendemos que uno de ellos podría ser el recortar los costos de representación de las estructuras de gobiernos, ya que bien podrían ellos soportar los costos de participación en función de los intereses de cada uno de los países en intervenir en las políticas globales de comunicación. También afirmábamos en el documento que."estamos convencidos que esto sería un camino sólido y válido de construcción de políticas públicas de cada uno de los estados con respecto a las TICs, priorizando la transparencia de gestión, independencia económica, soberanía política y la autodeterminación de los pueblos, como normas irrenunciables de los países a la hora de la confrontación de ideas y propuestas que primen los intereses de toda la humanidad y de los pueblos en particular." Nos reconocemos como el sector más débil de esta relación de poder entre empresas, gobiernos y usuarios, es necesario que las organizaciones de usuarios sean tuteladas en su participación, ya que en ICANN se da el hecho de que participan dos sectores fuertes desde lo económico (empresas y gobiernos) y uno débil (ALS), es necesario salvaguardar los derechos de las mayorías (los Usuarios de Internet), que se encuentran en una posición de desigualdad frente a los poderosos. Seguimos convencidos como ya hace más de 19 meses que ".la historia de nuestra región nos ha demostrado que el trabajo entre distintos sectores representativos de la vida democrática, han afirmado el valor de la pluralidad..." No entendemos la participación plena y pertinente sin que los tres estamentos de representación válidos estén sentados en igualdad de condiciones y posibilidades, con representación tripartita igualitaria, entre Estados, Empresas y Usuarios Finales de Internet. Es por eso que insistimos en la participación plena de como hasta ahora hemos participado y no renunciamos a los derechos adquiridos en ICANN por los Usuarios de Internet. En el mismo sentido de antes sostenemos que deben adoptarse políticas efectivas para evitar la concentración de la información y las decisiones de las políticas en ICANN. Si unos pocos tienen la posibilidad de controlar la información no es posible una participación plena y pertinente. Entendemos que el menoscabo en la posibilidad de participación de los Usuarios Finales de Internet conspira contra los sistemas democráticos establecidos en ICANN, ya que al restringir la pluralidad y diversidad que asegura el pleno ejercicio del derecho a la información y participación de los usuarios se provoca un escenario de injusticia social. Los que más tiene discuten y participan y los que menos tienen y más aportan al sistema quedan fuera del mundo de los debates y de la construcción de una Internet mejor. Por estas razones nos ratificamos en la búsqueda de una participación igualitaria que mejore el cumplimiento de los objetivos de ICANN y por ende de los Usuarios de Internet y esperamos que se consideren las necesidades de la región y el respeto y honra de los acuerdos rubricados por las partes intervinientes en favor de la real participación de la totalidad de los representantes conforme los Principios Operativos que rubricamos en conjunto los Usuarios de Internet y los representantes del Board de ICANN. Firman: Sergio Salinas Porto, Internauta Argentina; Sylvia Herlein (Internauta Brasil); Johnny Laureano (AUI Perú), Antonio Medina Gomez (ACUI); Sergio Bronstein (Internauta Venezuela), Cristian Casas (CETIC AJB), Gilberto Lara (Conexión-El Salvador), Javier Chandia (Internauta Chile) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/lacralo/attachments/ralo_organising_do…

1 0

Possibly Off-topic - Aftermarket in ccTLDs - Good Or Bad?
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Aug. 12, 2010

Aug. 12, 2010

Wearing one of my other hats I've been asked to put together a paper on the aftermarket for cctlds covering both sides of the debate. I'd love to get people's views on domain aftermarkets - good, bad or indifferent Thanks in advance Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://blacknight.mobi/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

2 3

.CO user confusion?
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 11, 2010

Aug. 11, 2010

Following on a conversation I've had with a concerned user, my eyebrow has been raised by the potential for user confusion in the re-launch of .CO which advertises its use not as a ccTLD, but as a gTLD. Whilst I know that this is not the first time a ccTLD is being marketed as a gTLD and I personally don't mind it at all (some communities have been able to subsidise local Internet access thanks to this), the omission of the last letter in a domain is possibly one of the more common typo errors out there, and since this is a user issue, I ask whether At Large should address this to ask ICANN to make recommendations to the .CO registry to avoid potential phishing? (best practice etc.) Perhaps .CO has already implemented safeguards in the .CO application process which take care of this? Warm regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

28 96

ICANN responds to GAC letter of 10 March 2010 regarding comments on new gTLDs and v3 of the DAG
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Aug. 10, 2010

Aug. 10, 2010

Peter Dengate-Thrush, the chair of the ICANN Board has replied to the chair of the Government Advisory Committee re: GAC’s letter of 10 March 2010, providing comments on new gTLDs and version 3 of the Draft Applicant Guidebook (DAG). http://www.icann.org/correspondence/dengate-thrush-to-dryden-05aug10-en.pdf The 11 page reply responds to the potential use of additional categories for new gTLDs. --- Dev Anand Teelucksingh LACRALO Secretariat

1 0

DEADLINE: 15 August 2010 - Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 8, 2010

Aug. 8, 2010

This message has been sent to the global At-Large list, but it may be useful for RALO leaders and ALAC members to re-distribute to their RALO discussion lists (in other languages if applicable). It is very important that we get good participation in the survey. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP has posted their Initial Report. You will recall that the PDP was initiated by an ALAC Request for Issues Report. The Public Comment Period is open at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report. The comment period will close on 15 August (extended from 01 August). The ALAC comment on this report is at the end of this message. For PEDNR, the Public Comment process features an easy-to-complete survey. Since this policy development process was initiated by At-Large, it is REALLY important that as many At-Large people as possible complete the survey. PLEASE: - Review the comments below to see the At-Large position; - If you have the time, review the Initial Report - the executive summary is available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian. - COMPLETE THE SHORT SURVEY (it can be done without reading the full report). The survey is at <http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4>http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4. Alan -------------------------------------- The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) requested the Issues Report which resulted in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, and it strongly supports the activities of the Working Group. It is essential that the post-expiration "safety net" that existed several years ago be restored. Moreover, the domain industry is sufficiently robust and mature that it can and must provide a level of predictability and security to gTLD domain name holders. In line with the desired outcomes stated in the original Issue Report request, the ALAC supports: 1. Consensus policy requiring that all registrars must allow renewal of domain names for a reasonable amount of time after expiration. 2. Consensus policy explicitly stating the minimum requirements for pre-expiration notices. 3. Consensus policy requiring clarity of how messages will be sent. 4. Consensus policy requiring that WHOIS contents to make it clear that a domain name has expired and has not yet been renewed by the registrant. 5. Consensus policy requiring that notice(s) be sent after expiration. 6. Consensus policy requiring that web sites (port 80) no longer can resolve to the original web site after expiration. 7. Consensus policy requiring that other uses of the domain name (e-mail, FTP, etc.) no longer function after expiration. 8. Consensus policy requiring clarity in the expiration terms and fees offered by registrars. 9. Consensus policy requiring that the Redemption Grace Period be offered by all registries (including future gTLDs) and by all registrars. It is understood that there may be unusual cases where the business models of some registrars may require exceptions to some of these policies. However, the need for such exceptions should not deny the vast majority of registrants a predictable and safe gTLD eco-system. Over and above these minimum requirements, the ALAC supports a move within the registrar community to establish the meaningful and transparent concept of "best practices".

1 0

DEADLINE: 15 August 2010 - Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 8, 2010

Aug. 8, 2010

The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP has posted their Initial Report. You will recall that the PDP was initiated by an ALAC Request for Issues Report. The Public Comment Period is open at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#pednr-initial-report. The comment period will close on 15 August (extended from 01 August). The ALAC comment on this report is at the end of this message. For PEDNR, the Public Comment process features an easy-to-complete survey. Since this policy development process was initiated by At-Large, it is REALLY important that as many At-Large people as possible complete the survey. PLEASE: - Review the comments below to see the At-Large position; - If you have the time, review the Initial Report - the executive summary is available in Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Spanish and Russian. - COMPLETE THE SHORT SURVEY (it can be done without reading the full report). The survey is at <http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4>http://www.zoomerang.com/Survey/WEB22AUYRGHCV4. Alan -------------------------------------- The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) requested the Issues Report which resulted in the Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery PDP, and it strongly supports the activities of the Working Group. It is essential that the post-expiration "safety net" that existed several years ago be restored. Moreover, the domain industry is sufficiently robust and mature that it can and must provide a level of predictability and security to gTLD domain name holders. In line with the desired outcomes stated in the original Issue Report request, the ALAC supports: 1. Consensus policy requiring that all registrars must allow renewal of domain names for a reasonable amount of time after expiration. 2. Consensus policy explicitly stating the minimum requirements for pre-expiration notices. 3. Consensus policy requiring clarity of how messages will be sent. 4. Consensus policy requiring that WHOIS contents to make it clear that a domain name has expired and has not yet been renewed by the registrant. 5. Consensus policy requiring that notice(s) be sent after expiration. 6. Consensus policy requiring that web sites (port 80) no longer can resolve to the original web site after expiration. 7. Consensus policy requiring that other uses of the domain name (e-mail, FTP, etc.) no longer function after expiration. 8. Consensus policy requiring clarity in the expiration terms and fees offered by registrars. 9. Consensus policy requiring that the Redemption Grace Period be offered by all registries (including future gTLDs) and by all registrars. It is understood that there may be unusual cases where the business models of some registrars may require exceptions to some of these policies. However, the need for such exceptions should not deny the vast majority of registrants a predictable and safe gTLD eco-system. Over and above these minimum requirements, the ALAC supports a move within the registrar community to establish the meaningful and transparent concept of "best practices".

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Aug. 6, 2010

Aug. 6, 2010

Total of 84 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 6 00:53:03 EDT 2010 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 14.29% | 12 | 10.87% | 68202 | johnl at iecc.com 11.90% | 10 | 12.44% | 78041 | jmamodio at gmail.com 7.14% | 6 | 12.08% | 75769 | eduardo at cointernet.com.co 8.33% | 7 | 7.31% | 45869 | evan at telly.org 5.95% | 5 | 5.74% | 36035 | elisabeth.porteneuve at cetp.ipsl.fr 5.95% | 5 | 4.47% | 28027 | avri at acm.org 4.76% | 4 | 5.20% | 32649 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 4.76% | 4 | 4.52% | 28325 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 4.76% | 4 | 4.46% | 27996 | avc at namesatwork.com 3.57% | 3 | 5.12% | 32130 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 3.57% | 3 | 3.90% | 24457 | cveraq at gmail.com 3.57% | 3 | 3.35% | 21031 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 2.38% | 2 | 2.42% | 15169 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 2.38% | 2 | 2.15% | 13496 | isolatedn at gmail.com 2.38% | 2 | 1.96% | 12308 | karl at cavebear.com 1.19% | 1 | 1.96% | 12270 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.19% | 1 | 1.91% | 11980 | info at internautabrasil.org 1.19% | 1 | 1.24% | 7778 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 1.19% | 1 | 1.18% | 7416 | roberto at icann.org 1.19% | 1 | 1.17% | 7320 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.19% | 1 | 1.13% | 7075 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.19% | 1 | 1.08% | 6780 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 1.19% | 1 | 1.02% | 6416 | michele at blacknight.ie 1.19% | 1 | 1.01% | 6317 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.19% | 1 | 0.83% | 5227 | fouadbajwa at gmail.com 1.19% | 1 | 0.74% | 4613 | jaap at nlnetlabs.nl 1.19% | 1 | 0.73% | 4594 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 84 |100.00% | 627290 | Total

1 0