- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] [FWD: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC]
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2009

Dec. 15, 2009

I believe that only staff have posting privileges on alac-announce. Anyone can post to: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>. Alan At 14/12/2009 01:57 PM, Garth Bruen at KnujOn wrote: >Forwarding a message rejected by the ALAC list > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Subject: RE: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain > > Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC > > From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen(a)knujon.com> > > Date: Mon, December 14, 2009 1:55 pm > > To: "At-Large Staff" <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > Cc: whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, > > "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > > <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > Hello all, > > In advance of today's policy discussion I have prepared this brief > > report of abuse of privacy/proxy services by illicit pharmacies. As an > > example I have selected 4 rogue pharmacy domains that use the service > > WHOISGAURD. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that WhoisGaurd has > > no clearly declared ownership itself and operates from a UPS box. > > I have forwarded this information to its apparent sponsor: Registrar > > NameCheap for comment. See you in 10 minutes. > > -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 > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Meeting Invitation / Discussion on Domain > > > Names Registered Using Private/Proxy Services / 14.12.09 @ 18:00 UTC > > > From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > > Date: Wed, December 09, 2009 5:48 pm > > > To: <whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, > > > "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" > > > <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Dear All, > > > Further to the Doodle poll, the conference > call to Discuss the Domain Names > > > Registered Using Private/Proxy Services is > scheduled on Monday 14 December > > > at 1800 UTC. > > > Please find a draft agenda, participation instructions and background > > > information under: > > > > https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?community_call_domain_names_re > > > gistered_using_private_proxy_services > > > If you require a dial-out for this call, please email > > > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org. > > > Thank you and we look forward to having > many of you on the call on Monday. > > > Regards, > > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias > Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White > > > ICANN At-Large Staff > > > email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > ------ Forwarded Message > > > From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > > Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 03:52:13 -0800 > > > To: <whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Cc: <alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > Subject: [WHOIS-WG] DOODLE for Discussion > on Domain Names Registered Using > > > Private/Proxy Services > > > Dear All, > > > As discussed during the last recent ALAC Call, there will be a telephonic > > > discussion on the At-Large position on Domain Names Registered using > > > Private/Proxy in mid-December. The teleconference is scheduled for 60 > > > minutes. > > > You can find further information on the Public Consultation on the Draft > > > Report on Domain Names Registered Using a Privacy or Proxy Service > > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-01oct09-en.htm > > > Attached you find a Doodle poll to try and find a suitable time. Please > > > indicate your available times on Sunday, 13 > December and Monday, 14 December > > > via the traffic light colors: > > > green = have time > > > yellow = could make time if absolutely necessary > > > red = do not have time > > > http://www.doodle.com/8id4dsn2wtt45x83 > > > Time-zone active > > > This Doodle poll will close on Tuesday 8 > December at 1200 UTC Â the date and > > > time will be confirmed thereafter. > > > Thank you. > > > -- > > > Regards, > > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias > Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White > > > ICANN At-Large Staff > > > email: staff at atlarge.icann.org > > > ------ End of Forwarded > Message<hr>_______________________________________________ > > > ALAC-Announce mailing list > > > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >

4 3

At-Large Staff Promotions
by Denise Michel Dec. 11, 2009

Dec. 11, 2009

Dear At-Large Community, I would like to call your attention to ICANN COO's announcement that Nick Ashton-Hart has been promoted to ICANN's Senior Director, Participation and Engagement (<http://blog.icann.org/2009/12/nick-ashton-hart-now-senior-director-particip…>). This position incorporates the duties of General Manager for Public Participation previously performed by Kieren McCarthy, as well as a range of participation, recruitment and engagement activities that will significantly benefit At-Large and ICANN. I am pleased to announce that Heidi Ullrich has been promoted to Director for At-Large, assuming Nick's previous duties, and Matthias Langenegger has been promoted to At-Large Regional Affairs Manager, assuming Heidi's previous duties. Gisella Gruber-White will continue to provide the At-Large community with secretariat support, along with Marilyn Vernon and Kristina Nordstrom. Nick is working closely with At-Large Staff to help ensure a smooth transition. I hope you will join me in congratulating Nick, Heidi and Matthias. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN Vice President Policy Development

14 13

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Adjustment of timing for vote on GNSO Trademark Issues report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 11, 2009

Dec. 11, 2009

At 11/12/2009 12:10 AM, James Seng wrote: >My apologies for not able to attend the call. I tried to stay up for >it but was really tired out after my flight to Taiwan for TWNIC annual >meeting. > >I support the principle that "Brand owners want to be able to have >clear right-of-first-refusal to >reduce opportunities for cyber-squatting and to reduce the need for >URS and UDRP proceedings." and I agree that it is in the interest of >the at-large users. > >The devils is in the detail however. I am concern about over reaching >their rights, by extension into combination of their trademark with >generic words. Indeed, and that is why we have said that there must be tight restrictions on such use and penalties for abuse. But note that this is only with regard to pre-launch sunrise registrations which give the brand owner a right of first refusal. The moment after launch, they are free to acquire those names unless someone else gets there first. Also note that according to the base report, a registry will have the right to include such combinations if it wishes. What the minority opinion adds is that all registries should allow it, in theory, reducing the amount of cyber-squatting, user confusion and the need to file UDRPs and URSs. But your point is exactly the focus of the question. Will the benefits as noted above, be overshadowed by TM holders successfully gaming the system? >I can also understand multi-national trademarks, that I would assumed >would cover most famous mark. However, I am not sure how national TM >is going to apply. Do you mean as a TM owner in China, I have rights >of refusal for a TLD (say .sydney) that primary market is in >Australia? In this context, a "multinational" trademark is a registered trademark issued to cover more than one country. Examples are a Benelux TM which covers Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, and Community Trade Mark (CTM) which is valid across the European Union. Regarding a .sydney TLD, the registry will have the right to restrict which trademarks that it allows in its sunrise and in this case might restrict based on geographic area - See item 5.2 (ii) Alan >-James Seng

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Dec. 11, 2009

Dec. 11, 2009

Total of 79 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 11 00:53:03 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.13% | 8 | 37.40% | 286146 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 10.13% | 8 | 6.60% | 50478 | karl at cavebear.com 6.33% | 5 | 5.33% | 40819 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 5.06% | 4 | 3.79% | 28963 | evan at telly.org 3.80% | 3 | 3.29% | 25172 | vanda at uol.com.br 3.80% | 3 | 3.00% | 22974 | baptista at publicroot.org 3.80% | 3 | 2.66% | 20387 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 3.80% | 3 | 2.28% | 17461 | jmamodio at gmail.com 3.80% | 3 | 2.17% | 16597 | johnl at iecc.com 2.53% | 2 | 2.41% | 18459 | lutz at thur.de 2.53% | 2 | 1.94% | 14822 | isolatedn at gmail.com 2.53% | 2 | 1.76% | 13435 | jefsey at jefsey.com 2.53% | 2 | 1.74% | 13326 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 2.53% | 2 | 1.61% | 12349 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.53% | 2 | 1.51% | 11589 | ocl at gih.com 2.53% | 2 | 1.49% | 11405 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 1.27% | 1 | 1.42% | 10873 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 1.27% | 1 | 1.38% | 10595 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.27% | 1 | 1.15% | 8802 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 1.27% | 1 | 1.00% | 7621 | matthias.langenegger at icann.org 1.27% | 1 | 0.98% | 7498 | siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.92% | 7036 | fsylla at gmail.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.91% | 6957 | heidi.ullrich at icann.org 1.27% | 1 | 0.87% | 6677 | wendy at seltzer.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.84% | 6434 | michele at blacknight.ie 1.27% | 1 | 0.84% | 6395 | elisabeth.porteneuve at cetp.ipsl.fr 1.27% | 1 | 0.83% | 6345 | sylvia at prontocl.com.br 1.27% | 1 | 0.81% | 6177 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 1.27% | 1 | 0.80% | 6093 | franck.martin at gmail.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.77% | 5915 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.75% | 5767 | denise.michel at icann.org 1.27% | 1 | 0.75% | 5758 | james at seng.sg 1.27% | 1 | 0.75% | 5736 | namecritic at blogs.pn 1.27% | 1 | 0.75% | 5713 | joly at punkcast.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.72% | 5534 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.71% | 5444 | vivekvc2001 at yahoo.co.in 1.27% | 1 | 0.69% | 5248 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.64% | 4905 | danielmonastersky at gmail.com 1.27% | 1 | 0.63% | 4825 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 1.27% | 1 | 0.56% | 4298 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.27% | 1 | 0.54% | 4098 | shearman at victoria.tc.ca --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 79 |100.00% | 765126 | Total

1 0

Adjustment of timing for vote on GNSO Trademark Issues report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 11, 2009

Dec. 11, 2009

During today's teleconference on New gTLD Draft Applicant Guidebook V3, we discussed the timing regarding the vote on supporting the report (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann.or…) and At-Large minority position statements (see http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann.or…) With the agreement of all on the teleconference, Cheryl agreed to shorten the voting period from our normal "short" poll of 5 days to 3 days. This will allow additional time for discussion, and based on recent voting history, should not adversely impact the number of ALAC members voting. According, to allow the vote to complete in time for the GNSO meeting on Thursday morning, the vote will begin Monday morning, 14 Dec 2009 (the exact time to be determined). This will allow the discussion on the report and minority positions to be extended until approximately 18:00 UTC on Sunday. If you have any interest at all in the issues, please do look at the documents and send your questions or comments. Olivier and I will do our best to address them. And please do remember that the question asked by the Board was not whether to implement a Clearinghouse and URS, but rather how to best do it. Alan

2 1

Re: [At-Large] UNESCO & ICANN
by JFC Morfin Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

At 18:46 10/12/2009, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: >http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29372 ><http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29372&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECT >ION=201.html> &URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html > >For your information. >I am sorry that the ICANners (like you ALAC VC) leaving in Paris were not >invited. >I have a question: who is ICANN? >All the best Rod's wife wanted to make some Xmas shopping in Paris. Why would you want to interfere? We have to be friendly with our 60hzers. For a few weeks ICANN enjoys the Seoul dramatic evolution in international networking: up to now, IDNA world revolution annoucements were made in Australia. Leave them enjoy in peace. Xmas is a time for peace. If you really want to consider the Multilingual Name Space, come and work on http://idna2010.org. Vint Cerf just announced that, but a document he should produce today on transition, the IDNA2008 text is OK for the IESG. The issue then is to be sure there is no matter for a technical appeal. This entirely depends on Vint Cerf. Then; if there is an appeal its resolution will most probably depend on ISOC and ICANN positions. So, I suggest we consider "My Track" later on, when we know better. You also want your picture with the UNESCO lady? you will get it. No problem. jfc

1 0

UNESCO & ICANN
by Sébastien Bachollet Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29372 <http://portal.unesco.org/ci/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29372&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECT ION=201.html> &URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html For your information. I am sorry that the ICANners (like you ALAC VC) leaving in Paris were not invited. I have a question: who is ICANN? All the best Sébastien Bachollet Président d'honneur - Isoc France <mailto:sebastien.bachollet@isoc.fr> sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr <http://www.egeni.org/> www.egeni.org <http://www.isoc.fr/> www.isoc.fr

1 0

Google takes over ICANN
by Lutz Donnerhacke Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

This kind of technocentric approch is interesting, because it's highlights the net neutrality issue and the seperation of the Internet and the GoogleNet. http://precursorblog.com/content/googles-engineering-takeover-internet-no-s… Google's Engineering Takeover of the Internet -- No "slow" DNS needed on GooglesNet Submitted by Scott Cleland on Fri, 2009-12-04 10:54 As part of Google's previously announced plan to make the Web faster, Google announced yesterday a Google engineering alternative system to the Internet's current core, the Domain Name System or DNS. * Google believes that Google's new addressing system is faster and more secure than the current Internet addressing system, which is run by the independent Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN) and which is essentially the Internet's de facto "phone book." This is a big deal. Google is essentially saying it can do a better faster job for the Internet than the current ICANN can. Listen to ICANN's self description: * "To reach another person on the Internet you have to type an address into your computer - a name or a number. That address has to be unique so computers know where to find each other. ICANN coordinates these unique identifiers across the world. Without that coordination we wouldn't have one global Internet. * ICANN was formed in 1998. It is a not-for-profit public-benefit corporation with participants from all over the world dedicated to keeping the Internet secure, stable and interoperable. It promotes competition and develops policy on the Internet’s unique identifiers. * ICANN doesn’t control content on the Internet." In stark contrast, Google's entire business is controlling how most content is discovered on the Internet -- so Google's lone wolf re-engineering project to "make the web faster" would represent a massive change in how the neutral Internet works -- tantamount to a type of non-neutral engineering takeover of the neutral Internet. This is not an isolated Google Internet re-engineering event. It is part of Google's grander vision/ambition to single-handedly re-make the global Internet allegedly faster and more secure, for everyone. * Readers of this blog appreciate that Google's Chrome browser also essentially replaces the DNS system by creating only one "Omnibox" search bar, by completely replacing the DNS Internet address bar at the top of the page. * I explained in this previous PrecursorBlog post that Google's Chrome browser completely replaces the neutral DNS address bar with Google's non-neutral search rankings, which forces everyone that types in a URL in Chrome, like www.brand.com, to not go to the DNS address that they requested first, but to get routed by the Google Chrome gatekeeper function to Google's search results page -- where Google can be first to monetize that page/traffic and the requested brand website may or may not get monetization seconds. Many may not know that how Google makes the search experience so fast is that Google literally makes a digital copy of all the literally trillion web pages in the world so that when you search for something you are searching Google's database copy of the Internet in Google's massive data centers, and not the Internet itself. Many also may not know that in just the last few years Google surprised most everyone in the world with how much new Internet infrastructure they have built and assembled for Google's use. As the recent Arbor Networks study showed, Google now carries more Internet traffic than any entity in the world. In sum, Google "making the web faster" is GoogleSpeak "code" for transferring Internet traffic off of the Internet and onto "GooglesNet" where Google can run it faster because it is all happening in their data centers and not on the global Internet itself. What relevance does all this have to an Open Internet, net neutrality, and the FCC's proposed Open internet regulations, which by the way effectively exempt Google from any openness, neutrality, or transparancy obligations? * In Google's announcement of its better DNS mousetrap Google makes the very bold claim that Google can make the Internet better and more neutral through Google's superior engineering: * "Validity: Google Public DNS complies with the DNS standards and gives the user the exact response his or her computer expects without performing any blocking, filtering, or redirection that may hamper a user's browsing experience." My question is the broader Internet community awake out there? * Does ICANN understand that Google is effectively aiming to replace ICANN without asking anyone for permission? * Does the FCC or any other open Internet regulation proponents understand that a very non-neutral Google is essentially implementing an incremental engineering takeover of the Internet -- all in the supposed name of making it more "neutral?"

7 9

Fwd: GNSO Selected Trademark Issues Review Team draft report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

This message has also been sent to the ALAC public list. Alan >To: name-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: GNSO Selected Trademark Issues Review Team draft report > >I am attaching a copy of the GNSO STI draft report. It is still >undergoing revision. A final version is expected sometime today and >I will forward it when available. > >PLEASE NOTE THAT ACCORDING TO THE CURRENT PLAN WE ONLY HAVE 1.5 DAYS >TO DECIDE ON THE WAY FORWARD - SEE MESSAGE AT END. > >For background and references to previous documents, I refer you to >my e-mail of 28Nov09 - >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/name-issues_atlarge-lists.icann.or…. > >The discussions which led to this draft involved something well over >20 hours of teleconferences and innumerable e-mails, side >discussions and sub-group work. So I will not try to describe it all >here. But it is important to note a few things: > >- this is a compromise proposal - no one has come out of this with >their "perfect" result >- it has been discussed negotiated and crafted with an immense >amount of effort and cooperation and goof faith. Some of the more >contentious parts were crafted by small teams often involving the >Intellectual Property Constituency and NCSG and the results are >models for how people with quite different perspectives and >end-points can reach consensus. >- all of that being said, there will be "minority statements" >submitted by a number of groups (perhaps most) allow them to >emphasize for the Board issues that they feel are important but on >which a unanimous consensus could not be reached. Olivier and I will >be suggesting that At-Large submit a minority position on the following issues: > > + Whether the Trademark Clearing house should be operated by a > single provider, or should the two functional parts of the > Clearinghouse be divided into two arms-length providers > > + To what extent should trademarks that are not formally > registered be allowed in the Clearinghouse > > + Whether there should be a TM Claims process for all > registrations post-launch (TM claims allows a registrant to be > "warned" if there is potential overlap between their requested name > and some mark in the Clearinghouse > > + Whether a transfer of the domain to the trademark holder > should be allowed following a successful URS. > >I will be sending out a more detailed description of these four >minority positions soon, but did not want to delay getting the core >document out first. > >Timing is critical. The GNSO meets to decide whether to forward this >document to the Board on Thursday, 17 December at 16:00 UTC. We >decided that the ALAC should conduct a vote to complete prior to >that time to decide on: >- whether to endorse the report >- What, if any, minority positions to take. > >If this is to be a standard 5-day "short" vote, it needs to start by >late Friday. That means we need a recommendation from the >name-issues group prior to that time - in short, in the next 1.5 days at most. > >This message will also be forwarded to the ALAC and At-Large lists. >I would suggest that to the extent possible, the discussion be >carried out on the At-Large list to involve the largest number of people. > >Alan

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Voting for At-Large Director
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 10, 2009

Dec. 10, 2009

Best handled in a voice chat I think (at least I don't have the patience for anything more at the moment since I still need to get out the STI report by tomorrow morning. I just realized I was distracted (or probably went onto a teleconference) and never responded to your reply about the ALAC seat. I will. Alan PS Carlton says he has been trying to get hold of you I think regarding the new gTLD meeting. Alan At 09/12/2009 09:30 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >2009/12/8 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > > > What I didn't understand is why there was a conviction that there will be a > > huge multiplicity of candidates. > > > > We have already spent a fair amount of time defining a nomination and > > vetting process which should produce a small number of > candidates. If we end > > up with 8 or 9 or 10, that process has dismally failed! > > > > >Actually, we haven't really addressed this at all. We have an understanding >that a special Working Group will search for suitable candidates, and that >each RALO could add one or two. > >So ... let's say that the working group puts forward three candidates, and >that each RALO adds one of its own. That's eight ... not inconceivable, and >not a failure of the process. > >We haven't really spent any time defining the "vetting" process, which >itself will be time consuming regardless of method used. The Monday call >ended up being all about voting methods, even though there are still some >loose ends to deal with. And that (the vetting process) is the biggest and >loosest end.. > >Since an election itself is a vetting process, perhaps this could be part of >the 'hybrid system" Trish suggested in the Monday call: > >1) The WG comes up with its candidates >2) The RALOs add theirs (optional) >3) A first vote (ordered, using STV) is held based on this combined list of >candidates >4) the top three from this vote stand for a second found >5) a second round is held (using first past the post, votes are for a single >candidate) >6) A third (expedited) runoff round is held if the second round does not >produce a winner with 50%+1 > >Personally, I still think that steps 3 to 6 can (and should) be combined >into a single STV vote. But if there is real aversion to trusting everything >to an ordered vote, perhaps something like the above scenario could satisfy >peoples' needs for more than one round and a simple final vote. > >I still think that there needs to be the ability for the voting individuals >to go back to their constituencies (ie, the RALOs, ALSs and individual >members) for direction/guidance before the votes. In the above scenario, >this would take place in advance of steps 1 and 5. > >Is this workable? > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >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