- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] TR: ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 2, 2010

Dec. 2, 2010

At 01/12/2010 07:51 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 30 November 2010 18:08, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >Availability is not the only issue. If Sebastien participates to too >great an extent on a particular issue, he may be seen to be in a >conflict position and would have to recuse himself if that issue >comes to the Board for discussion or decision. > > >Are you really saying that great interest in an issue, and a deep >desire to understand the public attitude towards that issue (but >without any financial or organisational ties) constitutes a conflict >of interest? > >PLEASE tell me where to find that in the bylaws. I can't think of a >more fundamental A&T issue. > >I've always considered CoI to mean financial interest or, if defined >more broadly, attachment to an organization that has a financial or >regulatory relationship with ICANN. Until ICANN decides that it >needs to regulate the public, I can't think of any kind of public >consultation -- even a very high-profile one -- that would be >considered a CoI. If ICANN defines CoI that way, it is REALLY out of >touch and deliberately unaccountable in a way that is unacceptable. > >- Evan I don't think that "interest and desire to understand" is any problem at all. Actually participating in the crafting of some proposal (or some similar involvement) *might* be. This is the same reason that Directors do not participate in the policy development process (and you may have noticed that the two Directors who signed up for the VI WG did so as "observers", and even then did not tend to participate. In any case, this was an alert that I was given during the Director selection process, and I passed it on in this forum as a *possible* consideration. Alan

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] RES: ALAC Officer Nominations
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

...As do I Evan thank you for you Nomination Alan and the confidence others have shown in supporting your list... to serve as a VC in support of our new Chair elect and the rest of the team on ExCom and in this years ALAC for my final year with you will be an honor indeed. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 30 November 2010 07:47, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > Thank you everyone for your confidence. > > I accept the nomination. > > - Evan > > > > On 26 November 2010 10:18, Vanda UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br> wrote: > > Those are a good team!!! Wishes of great success to the new ones.! > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Polo Consultores Associados > > IT Trend > > Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 > > 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > > > > > -----Mensagem original----- > > De: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de James Seng > > Enviada em: quinta-feira, 25 de novembro de 2010 23:19 > > Para: Alan Greenberg > > Cc: ALAC Working List > > Assunto: Re: [ALAC] ALAC Officer Nominations > > > > I support the nominations as proposed by Alan. > > > > -James Seng > > > > On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Alan Greenberg < > alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > wrote: > >> Thanks Wolf. > >> > >> Alan > >> > >> At 25/11/2010 07:34 PM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: > >>>I am aware that I have no say in this, Alan, but I strongly support > >>>your ALAC Officer nominations based on your rationale. > >>> > >>>Kind regards, > >>>Wolf > >>> > >>> > >>>Alan Greenberg wrote Thu, 25 Nov 2010 16:27: > >>> >In the absence of any other nominations to date, and given that > >>> >nominations close tomorrow, I would like to take this opportunity to > >>> >make the following officer nominations. > >>> > > >>> >Chair: Olivier Crepin-Leblond > >>> >Vice-Chair: Cheryl Langdon-Orr > >>> >Vice-Chair: Evan Leibovitch > >>> >Rapporteur: Carlton Samuels > >>> > > >>> >My rationale is as follows: > >>> > > >>> >Chair: It is Cheryl's last year on the ALAC and she has indicated > >>> >that she plans to step down as Chair, but would be happy to stay on > >>> >in an executive position to provide for a smooth transition. For > >>> >Chair, we need someone who has a long track record, good contacts > >>> >and the ability to command the respect of the community and the > >>> >ALAC. I think that Olivier has all of these characteristics. > >>> >Although relatively new to ICANN and At-Large, he has a long history > >>> >in the overall Internet area. Note that although Olivier has not yet > >>> >been appointed to the ALAC, it is expected that he will replace > >>> >Patrick after the Cartagena meeting, and our rules explicitly allow > >>> >him to be nominated in such a situation. > >>> > > >>> >Vice-Chair: As Vice-Chair, Cheryl will be able to work closely with > >>> >the Chair, and due to the relationships that she has established > >>> >over the last three years as ALAC Chair and prior to that, she will > >>> >be in a good position to ease Olivier into similar positions. This > >>> >is particularly important with the emerging and growing SO/AC > > relationships. > >>> > > >>> >Vice-Chair: Although I have not checked the records in detail, I > >>> >think that Evan has the longest record of involvement with > >>> >ALAC/At-Large other than me, Sebastien and Cheryl. Moreover, he has > >>> >proved to be a tireless worker who has been involved in both > >>> >administrative issues as well as policy issues. Although some other > >>> >names come to mind for this position (and Tijani is one in > >>> >particular), I think that Evan is the right person this year. > >>> > > >>> >Rapporteur: We are finally starting to get some level of control > >>> >over responding to ICANN comment periods and other policy issues in > >>> >a timely manner, and I think it important to continue this. The work > >>> >that Carlton has done, with the support of Dev, has been key to this > >>> >happening, and I think it would be good for him to continue in this > >>> >role for another year. > >>> > > >>> >Nominations do not need to be seconded, but it is an ALAC tradition > >>> >to second them to show support for the nominees. Nominations must be > >>> >accepted via a post to this list no later than December 3rd. > >>> > > >>> >Alan > >>> > > >>> >_______________________________________________ > >>> >ALAC mailing list > >>> >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >>> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >>> > > >>> >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > >>> >http://st.icann.org/alac > >>> > > >>> > >>>comunica-ch > >>>phone +41 79 204 83 87 > >>>Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > >>>www.comunica-ch.net > >>> > >>>Digitale Allmend > >>>http://blog.allmend.ch - > >>> > >>>EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >> > >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > >> http://st.icann.org/alac > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > > http://st.icann.org/alac > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >

4 3

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] TR: ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

Availability is not the only issue. If Sebastien participates to too great an extent on a particular issue, he may be seen to be in a conflict position and would have to recuse himself if that issue comes to the Board for discussion or decision. Then At-Large would lose both their liaison and voting Board member on just the issue that is of importance to them. Alan At 30/11/2010 05:08 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >As far as the issue of Liaison ... Just because you are no longer an >official voting member of ALAC does not prevent you participating in >it to the extent of your availability. > >- Evan

7 12

ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Dec. 1, 2010

Dec. 1, 2010

The voting for Round 2 of the election of the ICANN Board Director selected by the At-Large community has now been completed and the poll closed. The vote is quorate and the results show at Poll close at Sunday 28 November 2010 23:59 UTC: [image: logo] Poll Result At-Large Board Director Election 2010 - Round 2*Report date:* Monday 29 November 2010 00:12 UTC At-Large Board Director Election 2010 - Round 2 *Who should be selected as the At-Large Board Director?* *PLEASE SELECT one (1) preferred candidate.* Detailed information about the candidates is available under: https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At-Large+Director+Candidate-Comm… As at Poll close: Sunday 28 November 2010 23:59 UTC Number of voters: 19 · Group size: 19 · Percentage voted: 100.00 *Candidate**Votes**%*Sébastien Bachollet1052.63Alan Greenberg947.37 Therefore it is my pleasure to announce that Mr. Sébastien Bachollet, has secured the required support from the electorate to be declared the winner, and will occupy seat #15 beginning at the end of the 2010 Annual General Meeting to be held in Cartagena, Colombia. Following this announcement of the results I will be formally writing to the ICANN Board Secretary Mr. John Jeffrey and informing him of the communities selection. * * On behalf of ALAC and the At-Large (RALOs and ALSes) who have been so effectively involved and contributory to this process I would also like to congratulate all the original SoI applicants and the final slate of candidates involved in this landmark process for At-Large and the ALAC, and sincerely thank all of them for their willingness to serve ICANN and our community as well as to offer our most sincere commiserations to Alan and our congratulations to Sébastien. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2007-2010

17 16

TR: ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board
by Sébastien Bachollet Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

Dear colleagues, http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ All the best Dear Colleagues, I would like to thank all of you, again, for your efforts in conducting the At-Large selected ICANN Board Member election and I would like to thank all those who participated in this voting round. Those elections were an excellent opportunity to communicate on issues that are important to all of us and to allow an unprecedented involvement of the ALS leaders, RALO boards and ALAC members. As Alan said: It was a good and interesting race. Both Pierre and Alan were very good contestants and I thank them very much for their participation and their constructive campaign style. It has shown a healthy At-Large community. I will do my best to be the voice of the diverse but important At-Large community and serve ICANN and the Internet end-users. As you all know, I generally take the view that elected officers should not be serving multiple mandates at the same time. As a result of this election, I would end up with two mandates after the Cartagena meeting, one being that of ALAC member and the other that of an ICANN Board member (seat #15). I fully concur with the view expressed by Nomcom on this subject. I will therefore step down from the ALAC position (at the end of the Cartagena meeting) and thus avoid a dual mandate. I believe that this is in the best interest of ALAC and the ICANN community. I consulted various colleagues on this subject and found that there was consensus in this respect. There are, however, important things to consider in this respect. There is no point in avoiding one dual mandate situation just to end up with another dual mandate situation. As a community, we should make sure that dual mandates are avoided whenever possible. And we should always try to have more people involved. This is a way to get new brains to look at the issues we deal with and to better share the demanding workload. That brings us to the new issues to deal with: there is no longer a liaison between the ICANN Board and the ALAC. I regard it of course as my duty to be available whenever invited to participate in At-Large processes and thus continue the work done by the ALAC liaison to the board. We could try to formalize this. I am confident that we will be able to find an effective way to keep a close connection between the Board and the ALSes/RALOs/ALAC work. Sébastien Bachollet 30/11/2010 Sébastien Bachollet sebastien(a)bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33 -----Message d'origine----- De : Sébastien Bachollet [mailto:sebastien@bachollet.com] Envoyé : lundi 29 novembre 2010 05:06 À : 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'ALAC Working List' Objet : RE: [At-Large] ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board Thanks Alan, Yes indeed. I hope to still benefit from your advices. I will come back latter with a more complete message to all of you members and participants of the At-Large community. But I would like to thanks Alan and Pierre for sharing this race with me. And all the people, organizations... who made this election possible. I learn a lot. All the best Sébastien Bachollet sebastien(a)bachollet.com +33 6 07 66 89 33 > -----Message d'origine----- > De : at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg > Envoyé : lundi 29 novembre 2010 04:24 > À : At-Large Worldwide; ALAC Working List > Objet : Re: [At-Large] ANNOUNCEMENT : Results from Round 2 voting for > At-Large selected Board Member for seat #15 of ICANN Board > > Congratulations and good luck Sébastien. It was a good and interesting > race. > > Alan > > > At 28/11/2010 07:15 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > >The voting for Round 2 of the election of the ICANN Board Director > selected > >by the At-Large community has now been completed and the poll closed. > > > >The vote is quorate and the results show at Poll close at Sunday 28 > November > >2010 23:59 UTC: > > > >[image: logo] > > > >Poll Result > >At-Large Board Director Election 2010 - Round 2*Report date:* Monday > 29 > >November 2010 00:12 UTC > > > >At-Large Board Director Election 2010 - Round 2 > >*Who should be selected as the At-Large Board Director?* > > > >*PLEASE SELECT one (1) preferred candidate.* > > > >Detailed information about the candidates is available under: > >https://community.icann.org/display/DirCan/At- > Large+Director+Candidate-Community+Forum+-+11.10 > > > > > >As at Poll close: Sunday 28 November 2010 23:59 UTC > >Number of voters: 19 · Group size: 19 · Percentage voted: 100.00 > >*Candidate**Votes**%*Sébastien Bachollet1052.63Alan Greenberg947.37 > > > >Therefore it is my pleasure to announce that Mr. Sébastien Bachollet, > has > >secured the required support from the electorate to be declared the > winner, > >and will occupy seat #15 beginning at the end of the 2010 Annual > General > >Meeting to be held in Cartagena, Colombia. > > > >Following this announcement of the results I will be formally writing > to the > >ICANN Board Secretary Mr. John Jeffrey and informing him of the > communities > >selection. > >* > >* > > > >On behalf of ALAC and the At-Large (RALOs and ALSes) who have been > >so effectively involved and contributory to this process I would also > like > >to congratulate all the original SoI applicants and the final slate of > >candidates involved in this landmark process for At-Large and the > ALAC, > >and sincerely thank all of them for their willingness to serve ICANN > and our > >community as well as to offer our most sincere commiserations to Alan > and > >our congratulations to Sébastien. > > > > > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) > >ALAC Chair 2007-2010 > >_______________________________________________ > >At-Large mailing list > >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

3 4

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated
by Michele Neylon :: Blacknight Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

On 30 Nov 2010, at 03:09, Danny Younger wrote: > Dear all, > > Events that have transpired in the last few days attendant to the launch of .рф have made it clear to me that although we can't deal with the troubling issues that may arise with TLD launches in the ccTLD world, we do have the ability to act to protect the public interest within the gTLD sphere by way of a policy that would govern speculation in domain names by registrars. > > By way of background, in the recent .рф ccTLD launch an ICANN accredited registrar, RU-Center, decided to register domain names in its own name on a priority basis and only then did it register other domain names. Approximately 24,500 premium domains registered to RU-Center were then put up for auction. The Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) then stepped in, shut down the auctions and accused a number of registrars of collusion. > > What can we learn from this? Simply put... greed in the new TLD launch process can lead to abuse of the public trust, and measures need to be in place to ensure that the public is protected from the ICANN-accredited registrar community. > > In our gTLD world, there is at the moment no ICANN policy whatsoever governing speculation in, or warehousing of, domains by registrars. Registrars are able to game the system to their own ends however they see fit; this has to change. > > The current RAA (section 3.7.9) states: "Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars". > > As there is no such policy or specification, I suggest that we initiate a PDP to have such a policy created, namely a policy that would state: > > "No registrar, registrar affiliate, or reseller of registrar services shall engage in warehousing of or speculation in domain names." > > While I understand that the GNSO soon will broadly be looking at proposed amendments for the RAA, we all know that the GNSO process (if spread over the entirety of the RAA proposed amendments) can take years to arrive at a recommendation... yet with the imminent roll-out of hundreds of new gTLDs, we just don't have the luxury of waiting that long. > > In my view, what is called for is a Fast Track PDP approach that would focus on a single policy recommendation that could be put in place before any new gTLD is launched. > > I would ask the NARALO to bring this matter to the immediate attention of the ALAC. > > Thanks for your consideration of this issue. > > Danny Younger Danny As a registrar, and I can only speak for the one that I own, I'd have to strongly disagree with your views on this. In the ccTLD world registry operators are able to decide on policies that they feel should be applied to their registrars and this includes, in some cases, clauses referring to warehousing and clear definitions of same. While I may not have an issue with a registry operator specifying that "warehousing" is forbidden / restricted, I do take issue with your broadening that to include all forms of speculation in domain names. That is far too broad. In the real world you cannot reasonably expect to pay the same price for prime real estate as you would for non-prime real estate. Your view that it's "us against them" where "us" refers to the "public" and its interest and "them" refers to "registrars" is over simplistic and quite frightening. Do you honestly think that all registrars are "evil"? Do you honestly think that non-registrars cannot "game" a system? So even if you had your way, do you think you would actually solve the "problem"? I also do not think that this is really a matter for the RAA and even if it was any amendment there would not be binding on ALL registrars until they ALL renewed under a new contract, which won't actually solve your "problem" with new TLDs that will have launched before that time period. 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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated
by Eric Brunner-Williams Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

Danny, I saw your note last night on the NA-Discuss list and thought about it over night. The subject came up at the December 2008 meeting in Washington, held at the offices of Wilmer Hale (courtesy Becky Burr). At that meeting a proposal was first made in response to the then hot-off-the-press report from Charles River Associates -- the CRAI Report -- and its recommendations that later resulted in the Vertical Integration PDP. The proposal was a new registry could have an exception from Recommendation 19 (use of accredited registrars, equal access) for the first 100,000 units of inventory. Immediately the participants, representing registries and registrars, as well as non-contractual parties, realized that proposals of this form would be likely result in "bulk premium names" exploits. Because of the language in ICP-1, and RFC 1591, I don't think that it is necessarily the case that public interest, even if the public is the public which uses Cyrillic script and has a reliance, one the IANA, and then ICANN have fostered for 15 years, may be ignored. Because RU-Center (IANA #439) is a contracted party, it is reasonable to ask how the RAA, or the current or proposed Registry Agreements, bear on the conduct of contracted party also engaged in ccTLD registrations. I would like to see much more detail, and will make a point of meeting with persons likely to be helpful for information gathering purposes next week in Cartagena. I suspect that the outcome of the VI PDP is relevant, that is, as the Board adopted the position that structural separation is no longer necessary, if some monitoring is present, that a similar outcome will result. I don't regard the VI result as good policy outcome, but it may be controlling on questions of pricing behavior by integrated entities. However, I don't want to spend time on a process issue before we have an incident report. Eric

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

Danny, I agree with you in principle. I suspect a new consensus policy would need to be a bit more nuanced that what you suggest - for instance it would have to define the terms and would likely need some level of grand-fathering or phase-in for existing TLDs. Details notwithstanding, for new gTLDs at least, the issue should be addressed. Although the situation described does not require vertical integration to function, VI will certainly not make it any better. For better or worse, we do not currently have a Fast Track PDP process (one is being discussed, but that is, at best, quite a way off). I did a rough calculation of how long a PDP will take, assuming virtually no talk for actual discussion but just the Bylaw mandated times and the delays caused by the regular meeting schedule. It is about 5 months. To that we need add in the time for actual discussion. How long that would be would depend on how much opposition there was, and I would assume there *will* be some. Overall, it *might* be done in time to see the first gTLD launch. Or not. Under section 4.3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA), the Board *might* have the power to take emergency action pending a full PDP. Certainly, this is an issue that at least deserves the consideration of the ALAC and a quick decision on whether an Issues Report should be considered. A factor in this is whether the current gTLD process even considers that there needs to be an orderly roll-out (much as it mandates that IP rights need to be respected at launch). Since my time on the ALAC is rather limited, and I am otherwise occupied for the next few days, can I ask that you do a first draft of a Request for and Issues Report - preferably as rhetoric-free as possible while still capturing the severity. Alan At 29/11/2010 10:09 PM, Danny Younger wrote: >Dear all, > >Events that have transpired in the last few days attendant to the >launch of .?? have made it clear to me that although we can't deal >with the troubling issues that may arise with TLD launches in the >ccTLD world, we do have the ability to act to protect the public >interest within the gTLD sphere by way of a policy that would govern >speculation in domain names by registrars. > >By way of background, in the recent .?? ccTLD launch an ICANN >accredited registrar, RU-Center, decided to register domain names in >its own name on a priority basis and only then did it register other >domain names. Approximately 24,500 premium domains registered to >RU-Center were then put up for auction. The Russian Federal >Antimonopoly Service (FAS) then stepped in, shut down the auctions >and accused a number of registrars of collusion. > >What can we learn from this? Simply put... greed in the new TLD >launch process can lead to abuse of the public trust, and measures >need to be in place to ensure that the public is protected from the >ICANN-accredited registrar community. > >In our gTLD world, there is at the moment no ICANN policy whatsoever >governing speculation in, or warehousing of, domains by >registrars. Registrars are able to game the system to their own >ends however they see fit; this has to change. > >The current RAA (section 3.7.9) states: "Registrar shall abide by >any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or >restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars". > >As there is no such policy or specification, I suggest that we >initiate a PDP to have such a policy created, namely a policy that would state: > >"No registrar, registrar affiliate, or reseller of registrar >services shall engage in warehousing of or speculation in domain names." > >While I understand that the GNSO soon will broadly be looking at >proposed amendments for the RAA, we all know that the GNSO process >(if spread over the entirety of the RAA proposed amendments) can >take years to arrive at a recommendation... yet with the imminent >roll-out of hundreds of new gTLDs, we just don't have the luxury of >waiting that long. > >In my view, what is called for is a Fast Track PDP approach that >would focus on a single policy recommendation that could be put in >place before any new gTLD is launched. > >I would ask the NARALO to bring this matter to the immediate >attention of the ALAC. > >Thanks for your consideration of this issue. > >Danny Younger

1 0

Fwd: Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

I have forwarded this message to the At-Large list because I think it should be considered by a wider audience than just North America. In case the Cyrillic characters do not make it through, the TLD that is being referred to is the new IDN .RU. My reply follows. Alan ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> To: "na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > CC: "discuss(a)lists.isoc-ny.org" <discuss(a)lists.isoc-ny.org> Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:09:37 -0500 Subject: [NA-Discuss] Request to have a Fast Track PDP initiated Dear all, Events that have transpired in the last few days attendant to the launch of .рф have made it clear to me that although we can't deal with the troubling issues that may arise with TLD launches in the ccTLD world, we do have the ability to act to protect the public interest within the gTLD sphere by way of a policy that would govern speculation in domain names by registrars. By way of background, in the recent .рф ccTLD launch an ICANN accredited registrar, RU-Center, decided to register domain names in its own name on a priority basis and only then did it register other domain names. Approximately 24,500 premium domains registered to RU-Center were then put up for auction. The Russian Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) then stepped in, shut down the auctions and accused a number of registrars of collusion. What can we learn from this? Simply put... greed in the new TLD launch process can lead to abuse of the public trust, and measures need to be in place to ensure that the public is protected from the ICANN-accredited registrar community. In our gTLD world, there is at the moment no ICANN policy whatsoever governing speculation in, or warehousing of, domains by registrars. Registrars are able to game the system to their own ends however they see fit; this has to change. The current RAA (section 3.7.9) states: "Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars". As there is no such policy or specification, I suggest that we initiate a PDP to have such a policy created, namely a policy that would state: "No registrar, registrar affiliate, or reseller of registrar services shall engage in warehousing of or speculation in domain names." While I understand that the GNSO soon will broadly be looking at proposed amendments for the RAA, we all know that the GNSO process (if spread over the entirety of the RAA proposed amendments) can take years to arrive at a recommendation... yet with the imminent roll-out of hundreds of new gTLDs, we just don't have the luxury of waiting that long. In my view, what is called for is a Fast Track PDP approach that would focus on a single policy recommendation that could be put in place before any new gTLD is launched. I would ask the NARALO to bring this matter to the immediate attention of the ALAC. Thanks for your consideration of this issue. Danny Younger

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ALAC Officer Nominations
by Evan Leibovitch Nov. 30, 2010

Nov. 30, 2010

Just in case my original didn't go to the right mailing list: I accept Alan's nomination and appreciate the confidence expressed in emails supporting it. - Evan

2 1