- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Domain tasters apparently "taste" well over 300,000,000 domains per yeas (1,000,000 per day). The $0.22 per domain name dropped would cost them over $60,000,000 - perhaps enough to make domain tasting less attractive. Perhaps it is not enough, and it would need to be higher. It is hard to project the exact impact, but there is general agreement that it would have a major positive impact. Regarding dropping the AGP altogether, that has been proposed. Registrars (include those normally thought to be "good guys") point out that there are legitimate uses of the AGP that they would not like to see go away unless it was addressed by some other measure. Such uses include fraud (credit card fraud in particular), live software testing (for interacting with registries) and even refunds for registrants who make mistakes and then call to ask for help. The first two are not the reasons it was implemented, but the world does change. All of us are opposed to price increases, but to the best of my knowledge, no one has proposed such a price increase during the present discussion. Alan At 08/07/2007 07:10 AM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote: >The kiting/tasting issue can be resolved by getting rid of the AGP, >this was a bad idea from the beginning. The handful of people who >made it knew this would happen and did it anyway. > >For the record, I am opposed to the increasing price of >domains. Not opposed to ICANN charging the fee for the deletions >during the AGP. > >So, what ICANN is saying is that a 22cent domain will stop kiting >and tasting?? That is ridiculous. > >This action needs to be adequately discussed. > >Randy Glass >A@L > >On 7/7/07, John L <<mailto:johnl@iecc.com>johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone should be > > accountable and have some reason for doing such. > > >> "The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging registrars part or all > >> of the $0.22 fee for names deleted during the AGP." > >This is to get rid of domain kiting/tasting. > >I happen to agree that it's a good idea, but I also agree that it hasn't >been sufficiently debated to be presented as ALAC's position. > >R's, >John > > > > >-- >------------------------- >AmericaAtLarge.org >RJPacific.com >DDMF.org >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >Draft Code of Conduct: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

No one said anything about increasing the prices of domains. If anything, this is a rationale for decreasing prices. ICANN charges all registrars $0.25 per domain registers and kept past the Add Grace Period (minus a price reduction of $0.03 last year and $0.05 in the coming year). It is included in all registrations that you buy. I was suggesting that the fee partially or completely apply to all registrations, even those that are cancelled during the AGP. I was not expecting the suggestion to be taken up on such short notice (the budget was expected to be discussed by the Board Finance Committee within 1 day), but I did hope that it would increase pressure to do *something*. To put this in perspective, in the 12 months ending in February 2007, there the number of .com domains increased by about 17,000. Presumably a larger number of new domains were actually registers and some dropped. During that same period, there were about 420,000,000 domain deleted performed. The bulk of them seemingly due to domains added and then deleted during the AGP. I have to assume that someone is paying for the added cost of all of those transactions, and it is not the domain tasters - it is us regular registrants who bear the cost. My suggestion was one way to get the domain tasters who get their millions of domains for free have to pay a fee. Although it is not clear that it is a representative sample, .org has found that by charging a $0.05 fee per AGP deleted domain (to those who do it a lot), their use of the AGP virtually disappeared. Alan At 07/07/2007 10:40 PM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote: >As a registrant, when someone charges me more fees, that someone >should be accountable and have some reason for doing such. > >Randy Glass >A@L > >On 7/7/07, Danny Younger ><<mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com>dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >Alan Greenberg posted the following comment on 27 >June: > >"The ALAC requests that ICANN consider charging >registrars part or all of the $0.22 fee for names >deleted during the AGP." > ><http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html>http://forum.icann.org/lists/budget-0708/msg00001.html > >Sorry to say, that I cannot find the minutes of the >meeting in which this decision was agreed upon, nor >can I find a recording of the San Juan meeting >sessions. > >How did the ALAC arrive at this particular >recommendation without the benefit of any on-list >discussion whatsoever? What input did the RALOs have >into the endorsement of this one specific >recommendation? Why were other viable options not >endorsed? > >Is this an authorized statement? If so, why wasn't it >issued by the chair? > >Some answers would be appreciated. > > > > >____________________________________________________________________________________ > >We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love >(and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. ><http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265>http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265 > >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list ><mailto:NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: ><http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: ><http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP>http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >Draft Code of Conduct: ><http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct>http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > > > >-- >------------------------- >AmericaAtLarge.org >RJPacific.com >DDMF.org >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > >Draft Code of Conduct: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registrar@icann.org [[04da41b69a30f49b]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registrar(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=04da41b69a30f49b&l=registrar@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "buy Breitling right here" and it arrived at approximately Sun Jul 8 02:18:07 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registrar(a)icann.org [[04da41b69a30f49b]] 6

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registry@icann.org [[0f9f5b3aafd2a3db]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registry(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=0f9f5b3aafd2a3db&l=registry@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "buy Breitling right here" and it arrived at approximately Sun Jul 8 02:18:06 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registry(a)icann.org [[0f9f5b3aafd2a3db]] 5

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registrar@icann.org [[9080df6862ceb2e2]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registrar(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=9080df6862ceb2e2&l=registrar@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "Best IWC repl1ca w4tches at Prest1ge Repl1cas" and it arrived at approximately Sat Jul 7 23:33:29 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registrar(a)icann.org [[9080df6862ceb2e2]] 4

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registry@icann.org [[c64c9a58e79d65df]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registry(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=c64c9a58e79d65df&l=registry@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "Best IWC repl1ca w4tches at Prest1ge Repl1cas" and it arrived at approximately Sat Jul 7 23:33:28 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registry(a)icann.org [[c64c9a58e79d65df]] 3

1 0

Issues Report on Dispute Handling for IGO Names and Abbreviations
by Jacqueline A. Morris July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

The GNSO Council has received an Issues Report pertaining to dispute handling for IGO names and abbreviations - http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03586.html The ALAC would appreciate feedback from the AtLarge on this issue. Jacqueline No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM

3 3

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [APAC-Discuss] Independent At-Large Website
by RJGlass | America＠Large July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

.....Getting more confused by the second.... -Randy Glass A@L On 7/6/07, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> wrote: > > Hi--who will choose the RSS /blogs to be carried on the site? For > example, icannalac reflects a variety of views, with links to Danny > Younger's and Karl Auerbach's blogs among others. If the ALAC > committee selects the blogs to be carried can ICANN in ANY WAY refuse > to carry the RSS content? > > >The design of the new site was deliberately based around the concept > >that the site for a constituency should reflect that constituency's > >views, and allow dynamic content development in a way that the > >current architecture does not. In fact, the process of posting > >content to the new site will in many ways be simpler than what is > >currently the case for icannalac.org. > > Gosh-- posting to icannalac is ridiculously simple--easier than > posting to a wiki. > But back to the new site -- in the old days of alac.icann.org I > recall your boss Denise told us that "not even a comma" could be > changed on the official ALAC site without going through ICANN legal. > So, I gather that this policy has changed? > Nick, how do you see the workflow-- when if ever would ICANN legal > get involved with the new site? > If they have NO involvement whatsoever with content, that would be > reassuring to the ALAC community. Perhaps you could get a written > statement from Jeffries (ICANN Counsel) to that effect and we'd be > done here. Otherwise it is troubling to think that ICANN legal could > always shut the site down and leave the community without a home and > without access to its documents and discussions. Seems like the > confusion could easily be cleared up with a statement from Jeffries. > > Thanks > JP > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] New gTLDs
by Alan Greenberg July 8, 2007

July 8, 2007

And we are not likely to reach concensus. Perhaps .NYC and .NEWYORK should be two different gTLDs. Or perhaps they should be the aliases for the same domain as my original example of .PRAGUE and .PRAHA. In my mind, saying that aliases are not allowed (unless you happen to submit two separate bids and both are accepted) allows the most competition. Allowing aliases in a single bid allows you to (in the Prague/Praha case) reduce user confusion because you can use the name you are familiar with to get to the same gTLD. Both alternatives may be the "right" answer depending on the circumstances. As things stand now, there is no allowance for aliases in the draft policy recommendation, and that is the way it will likely stay when the GNSO finalizes it next month. If there is some interest in allowing aliases, I will submit a statement to that effect. The statement should include some parameters for when it is reasonable or not (since the use of aliases WILL reduce the potential for competition, there must be some rationale for doing so). In my mind, as the group representing users, less confusion may be more important than more competition. Or not. Alan At 01/07/2007 11:32 PM, RJGlass | America@Large wrote: >Yes, I think much more discussion on this issue >is appropriate. Well before aproving additional >gTLDs. The IDNs and aliases I think are great >concerns. With the issue of .nyc and .newyork, >I think these could well be 2 applications, 2 >operators. Possibly the applicants of a TLD >should have to request aliases and IDN >alternatives, but we are far from coming to a consensus on these matters. > >aloha, >Randy Glass >A@L > >On 6/28/07, Annette Muehlberg ><<mailto:Annette.Muehlberg@web.de>Annette.Muehlberg(a)web.de> wrote: >Dear Alan, > >yes the problem has been discussed on an even >simpler basis - not only even concerning the use >of different languages. In case of NYC an >alternative application could well be .newyork - >so that woud mean it is up to the applicant to >also apply for another version of TLD (or someone else could apply). > > >Concerning our ALAC statement to present this >afternoon could you pick up what, Jaqueline put >it already in her slides (unfortunately not shown): > >We would like to stress that Geo/City TLDs >provide a great opportunity for users. >More choice, Identification with the >region/city. They offer good opportunities for local business. > >Part of what has to be considered are the rights >of governments to register governmental domains >- (apart from Trademark issues). >A local geographical and unrestricted (!) domain >is a very useful addition to the existing TLDs for the users. > >Best >Annette > > > > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > > Von: Alan Greenberg > <<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > Gesendet: 28.06.07 17:11:25 > > An: At-Large Worldwide > <<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org>alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Betreff: Re: [At-Large] New gTLDs > > > > > > Agreed. And time is VERY short. > > > > One of my comments is that the current plan is that new gTLDs will be > > processed one-by-one. But there are compelling reasons for linking > > applications in cases where the multiple TLDs will map to the same domain. > > > > This is already starting to be discussed related to IDN ccTLDs which > > map to existing ASCII ccTLDs. > > > > This applies to both IDN TLDs which will be aliases for existing > > gTLDs as well as cases where multiple language (IDN or not) versions > > of the same name. For example, in the case of Geo-TLDs, it might make > > sense for applications for .PRAGUE and .PRAHA to be linked and > > applied for at the same time if they will be aliases for each other. > > > > We are always talking about fragmenting the Internet. If we don't > > address this issue, we have the potential for fragmenting the > > Internet over language lines. > > > > As Liaison to the GNSO, I would like to raise this issue, at the very > > least for inclusion of a comment from the ALAC (it is probably too > > late to effect the body of the recommendations). Is there any support > > for my proposal? > > > > Alan > > > > At 28/06/2007 10:27 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > >All, > > >in the interesting discussion that is now developing at the public forum > > >on the introduction of new gTLDs, I will refrain from taking any > > >position, because we have not discussed any at this point in time (the > > >proposal just came out a few days ago). > > >Nonetheless, we should agree on a position as soon as possible, possibly > > >before the intermediate Board meeting in August, so that we can then try > > >to push it through, and that I have something official to say in the > > >discussions of the Board. > > >Thanks, > > >-- > > >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > > >--------> finally with a new website at > <http://bertola.eu/>http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >ALAC mailing list > > ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > >At-Large Official Site: > <http://www.alac.icann.org>http://www.alac.icann.org > > >ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > <mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Official Site: > <http://www.alac.icann.org>http://www.alac.icann.org > > ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org > > > >-- > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: <http://www.alac.icann.org>http://www.alac.icann.org >ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org > > > > >-- >------------------------- >AmericaAtLarge.org >RJPacific.com >DDMF.org

8 18

Re: [At-Large] Proposal: Rotating Chair for ALAC
by carlos aguirre July 7, 2007

July 7, 2007

a priori, the Bret`s proposal sounds really good for me, and this way to elect our chairs is very intelligent. I would like to ear some others ideas and objections, but this, I repeat, seem to me show good faith, and clear. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> From: bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 17:17:39 -0700> Subject: [At-Large] Proposal: Rotating Chair for ALAC> > Dear Colleagues,> > A few years ago, before the RALOs were formed, I proposed an idea to > the then-ALAC that I think is worth reconsidering.> > It occurred to me at ICANN's meeting in Mar del Plata, Argentina, > while listening to our very good and very Italian Chair, Vittorio > Bertola, address the Board, that it would have been a nice thing had > our *Argentinean* ALAC member, Sebastian Ricciardi, been the Chair > and ALAC spokesperson for the Mar del Plata meeting *in Argentina.* > This was nothing at all against Vittorio, who was a very good Chair > for us at that time, but more a feeling that we could be doing more > to highlight the international nature of the ALAC by rotating the > Chair among the five regions, in step with ICANN's meeting calendar. > In recent discussions with ALAC members, I proposed the idea again, > and because it was well received, I wanted to propose it formally on > the list. As long as we are revising our internal working rules, this > is worth discussing.> > Here's the idea. At the end of every ICANN meeting, the members of > the region that will host the *next* ICANN meeting select one of them > to act as Chair from that point through the last day of the next > meeting. This will have a couple of positive effects. First, it will > take the burden of acting as Chair off of a single individual and > allow the ALAC to share the work among its members. Second, it will > give each region a chance to have one of its members serve as Chair, > providing greater perspective and diversity to our work. It also will > assist us in our outreach efforts, as this rotation will highlight > for the regions the international nature of the ALAC.> > The downside of the proposal, as I presented it in Argentina, was > that we would lose some continuity at a time when we were trying to > get the RALOs formed and get the ALAC up and running. Even though we > are past the formational stages of the ALAC, I can still see the > continuity issue. Fortunately, one of my North American colleagues > told me about the way the European Union handles *its* rotating > Chair, and I immediately knew we had found our solution.> > If we follow the EU model of rotation, the ALAC would have an > Executive Committee consisting of the immediate Past Chair, the > Current Chair, and the Prospective Chair. At the end of every ICANN > meeting, the Past Chair would drop off the Executive Committee, the > Current Chair would become the Past Chair, the Prospective Chair > would become the Chair, and a new Prospective Chair would be > selected. The "Prospective Chair" would act as Vice-Chair of the ALAC.> > If applied to our current ALAC at the present time, the Executive > Committee would consist of Jacqueline Morris as Past Chair (she was > Chair in Puerto Rico), a Chair from among the three North Americans > (NA hosts the October, 2007 meeting), and a Prospective Chair from > among the Asia Pacific representatives (AP hosts the February, 2008 > meeting). When the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles closes, Jacqueline > would drop off the Executive Committee, the North American would > become the Past Chair, an Asian-Pacific Islander would become Chair, > and a European would be selected as the Prospective Chair (Europe > will host the June, 2008 meeting).> > The nice thing about the EU-style rotation is that it ensures we > have, at all times, a multinational Executive Committee, and it keeps > continuity in our leadership, as every person selected will serve a > year on the Executive Committee.> > I think this would work very well, and I hope you will consider it.> > Bret Fausett> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org _________________________________________________________________ Descubre Live.com - tu propia página de inicio, personalizada para ver rápidamente todo lo que te interesa en un mismo sitio. http://www.live.com/getstarted

2 1