- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICA challenge to IRT
by Adam Peake April 24, 2009

April 24, 2009

From the NCUC list (public). Background to the note below is a CricleID article "ICA to ICANN: The IRT Must Open Up Or Be Stripped of Official Status and Support" <http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090422_ica_icann_implementation_recommendat…> Adam > >Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:16:37 -0400 >Reply-To: Mary Wong <MWong(a)PIERCELAW.EDU> >Sender: Non-Commercial User Constituency <NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU> >From: Mary Wong <MWong(a)PIERCELAW.EDU> >Subject: Re: [NCUC-DISCUSS] ICA challenge to IRT >To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > >Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII >Content-Description: HTML > >Thanks, Bill - I'd just seen that article too. > >Everyone, as I was asked by the IPC to be on the >IRT, and as I wasn't able during the last NCUC >call to elaborate on what's being done, here's a >quick summary: > >- The Implementation Recommendation Team's (IRT) >initial draft proposals will be released >tomorrow for public comment. I'd encourage >everyone to review the proposals and submit >feedback, as the IRT is due to make its final >recommendations to the Board in late May. > >- the IRT meets weekly via teleconference, and >in two in-person meetings (one in April, one in >May); in between, various work teams that were >formed within the IRT also meet via >teleconference and work on draft proposals for >circulation and comment by other IRT members. > >- the discussions to date include proposals >dealing with both top and second level domains >and regarding both pre-launch and >post-delegation issues. The primary suggestion >is to use an IP Clearinghouse with tiered rights >protection mechanisms (instead of a single >Reserved Names List - this was a non-starter >given the flak the GAC and the Geographic Names >List has been getting); and there may also be a >rapid suspension system for abusive >registrations. > >- contrary to some expectations, the process so >far has not been a whitewash in favor of big >brand owners. There have been compromises, >disagreements and quite a bit of debate over >controversial issues. While the draft report is >unlikely to please everybody, I think it is more >balanced than some had feared and is not, for >example, a back door route to expand the UDRP >(as Phil Corwin alleges in the article). > >- Minutes of previous IRT meetings are available >online at ><https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protec…>https://st.icann.org/new-gtld-overarching-issues/index.cgi?trademark_protec… (if >you have limited time, the more informative >minutes are probably those from April 2 and >April 17). > >So please review the draft proposals when they >are released late tomorrow, and please do make >public comments - and also start a discussion on >this listserv - if you see anything that you >think may impact on non-commercial users and >consumers. > >Thanks, >Mar > >Mary W S Wong >Professor of Law >Franklin Pierce Law Center >Two White Street >Concord, NH 03301 >USA >Email: <mailto:mwong@piercelaw.edu>mwong(a)piercelaw.edu >Phone: 1-603-513-5143 >Webpage: ><http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php>http://www.piercelaw.edu/marywong/index.php >Selected writings available on the Social >Science Research Network (SSRN) at: ><http://ssrn.com/author=437584>http://ssrn.com/author=437584 >y > >>> William Drake <william.drake(a)GRADUATEINSTITUTE.CH> 4/23/2009 4:50 PM >>> >If you've not seen >it...http://www.circleid.com/posts/20090422_ica_icann_implementation_recomm…

1 0

Call for volunteers for RAA drafting team: Registrants (and users) rights!
by Brendler, Beau April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

Hello...below is the text of a note from Glen de Saint Géry. We need your help forming a drafting team! Time is short so if you are interested please let me know. The NCUC is doing the same with its membership. Beau Brendler -------------------------- Dear All, In response to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) Motion Action Items the Council formed a drafting team to recommend how to proceed on the two tasks: 1) how to go about drafting a charter of registrant rights; 2) how to form a Drafting Team to discuss further amendments to the RAA and to identify those on which further action may be desirable. The Drafting Team (DT) will have 30 days from Board approval. The mailing list address is Gnso-raa-dt(a)icann.org And the public archives are http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-raa-dt/ Please let the GNSO Secretariat know if you would like to be subscribed to the drafting team. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

2 2

Re: [At-Large] VOTE RESULT: Statement on New gTLD Draft Application Process v2
by Evan Leibovitch April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

My sincere thanks to ALAC for its high participation on this vote and its unanimous support. The next step, in my opinion, is to ensure that our voice is not simply presented to the process, but that the staff who are assembling the guide actually pay attention to it. When Rudi and I spoke at the public gTLD session in Mexico, it is my opinion that we were responded to in a manner that I would characterize -- at best -- as patronizing. Concrete suggestions were dismissed out of hand. (A transcript for the masochistic is available at http://mex.icann.org/files/meetings/mexico2009/transcript-applicant-guidebo…) Indeed, it was this specific exchange that inspired the comment in my closing Summit speech that "we still find within ICANN that merely having the ability to speak does not mean we get listened to". It is my understanding that US government input to the gTLD process shares our objection to the "morality and public order" objection. I am still at a loss to see who is defending this odious clause -- I would welcome open debate, but I don't even know *who* we would be debating (and ICANN has certainly done little to encourage open debate outside the GNSO, making its own staff the sole arbiter of conflicting views). ICANN is paying lots of attention to the intellectual property crowd and had even paid to create its own "think tank" on IP (of course dominated by those who want to maximize protection). I am not denying that that IP issues are important -- indeed there are public benefits to reduced phishing and other abuse through tougher trademark protection. However, I am concerned that ICANN has chosen its "priority" constituencies on this matter and that the public at large is not there. How do we change this attitude? Do we have any channels to address this short of the Board level? - Evan PS: As a reminder, the gTLD statement that ALAC has just approved can be seen at https://st.icann.org/working-groups/index.cgi?at_large_gtld_working_group_s…

2 1

Article on new constituencies (including Consumers) from today's Washington Internet Daily
by Brendler, Beau April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

1 of 1 DOCUMENT WASHINGTON INTERNET DAILY April 17, 2009 Friday DOMAIN NAMES SECTION: DOMAIN NAMES LENGTH: 500 words ICANN wants comments on a proposal to create a Consumers Constituency in its noncommercial user group. The constituency will be the conduit for consumer interests relating to the safety and stability of the Internet under ICANN's mandate, said a petition by Consumer Reports WebWatch Director Beau Brendler. While ICANN isn't directly responsible for dealing with cybercrime issues such as spam or phishing, those abuses aren't possible without using the domain name system for abusive and fraudulent purposes, the petition said. The group will try to ensure that consumers' safety, security and stability concerns about the DNS are adequately represented in ICANN policy development, it said. Consumers' voices are increasingly heard in the public policy arena, and ICANN will gain legitimacy if it has a constituency dedicated to those interests, the petition said. Brendler doesn't expect opposition to the proposal, he told us. The point of creating the constituency is to give consumer groups around the world, which generally have limited resources, a more direct way to participate in ICANN poliycmaking, he said. Comments from the ICANN community so far have been positive, and the hardest problem is convincing small, underfunded consumer groups, which have to deal with issues such as clean water and public health, to devote resources to ICANN issues, he said. Moreover, the "learning curve for a newcomer into the ICANN world is very steep," something the constituency hopes to address, he said. Asked if the constituency's goals conflict with those of the proposed CyberSafety constituency (WID March 20 p1), Brendler said it's too early to tell. The ICANN board has yet to approve the structure of the new noncommercial stakeholder group, or to green-light any of the requested constituencies, he said. Two other proposals - for International Domain Name Top-Level Domain and City TLD constituencies -- are also in the pipeline, although formal petitions haven't been filed. The first will represent the interests of those who have been or are engaged in advocating, promoting, providing and developing IDNs in non-Latin unicode, according to its notice of intent to form a constituency. The rationale for limiting the group to non-Latin script is that countries relying on Latin TLDs and country-code TLDs are already adequately cared for by ICANN, wrote i-DNS.net International Ltd. Chairman S. Subbiah. ICANN's ability to make policy for non-English speaking or non-Latin writing communities is "particularly weak" and untargeted, and the proposed constituency will bring those communities into the ICANN fold, he wrote. The second proposal seeks a constituency for city TLDs. It would represent those running or planning to operate such TLDs, wrote dotBERLIN Manager Dirk Krischenowksi. ICANN will benefit from greater input from "very important true global players, the cities," he said. Comments on the consumer request are due May 14 -- gnso- consumers-constituency(a)icann.org -- DS LOAD-DATE: April 16, 2009 LANGUAGE: ENGLISH PUBLICATION-TYPE: Newsletter Copyright 2009 Warren Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved To view results in Full, edit Settings, delete this Scheduled Search or to contact Nexis®, sign in to Nexis®. ********** Email Completed ********** Time of Delivery: Friday, April 17, 2009 06:13:15 EST E-mail Number: 1821:152173051 *************************************** Copyright 2009 Nexis®. All rights reserved. *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

2 1

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 17 00:53:02 EDT 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 5625 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 5625 | Total

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 10, 2009

April 10, 2009

Total of 8 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 10 00:53:03 EDT 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 37.50% | 3 | 39.66% | 18553 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 12.50% | 1 | 15.49% | 7249 | neil at cauce.org 12.50% | 1 | 14.69% | 6871 | vb at bertola.eu 12.50% | 1 | 11.55% | 5405 | narten at us.ibm.com 12.50% | 1 | 9.91% | 4638 | evan at telly.org 12.50% | 1 | 8.70% | 4069 | derek at aa419.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 8 |100.00% | 46785 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Open letter to ICANN
by Patrick Vande Walle April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

Vermont Linux wrote, On 9/4/09 16:25: > I am a bit surprised at the naivete expressed in this discussion. > ICANN does not take down any registrants, that is left to the registrars. Hi Bob, I never said ICANN was taking down registrants. > The RAA appears to be just fine as a contract (no, I am not a lawyer, > this is not legal advice) that, in my opinion, would stand up in > court. ICANN and the registrars have lawyers who have looked closely > at the RAA. If either believed it was not enforcable, I am pretty sure > someone would have taken action by now. I guess it very much depends in which country you are located. > Opinions are fine (I have many), but doing one's homework first on a > complex and important issue is helpful. My homework did not allow me to identify relevant case courts outside the USA. I would be most interested if you could share some references. Thanks a lot -- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu

1 0

Open letter to ICANN
by Derek Smythe April 7, 2009

April 7, 2009

Hi Re: Open letter to ICANN http://www.badwhois.info/wp/?p=256 Well worth a read to see what devastating effect registrars who ignore reports of fake whois are having, also the general internet user perception of ICANN. Regards, Derek

4 3

Fwd: [DNS Symposium] Symposium Wrap Up
by Patrick Vande Walle April 7, 2009

April 7, 2009

For you information Patrick -------- Original Message -------- FROM: "DNS SSR Symposium" DATE: April 6, 2009 10:19:25 AM EDT TO: SUBJECT: [DNS SYMPOSIUM] SYMPOSIUM WRAP UP REPLY-TO: The final report from the DNS Security, Stability, and Resiliency Symposium, Feb 3-4 2009, is now available on the Symposium website: http://www.gtisc.gatech.edu/icann09 . (See "Final Report" at the top of the menu on the left) The report is considered to be publicly releasable and you are welcome to publicize, use its contents, or point to it in future work at your discretion. This email address will be deactivated on Friday May 1st; questions and comments are welcome until that time. Thank you for your participation and interest in the Symposium!

1 0

News: Google to increase push to IPV6
by Evan Leibovitch April 3, 2009

April 3, 2009

An interesting story, if for no other reason than to call more attention to the growing scarcity of IPV4 numbers: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10204391-92.html There's even a dedicated Google page on its IPV6 efforts (which include instrutions on how to access its IPV6 services): http://www.google.com/intl/en/ipv6/ - Evan

1 0