- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Latest RAA amendment
by Danny Younger Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The latest amendment added to the package is this: 3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address. Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address). Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic. Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.

7 8

Invitation to discussion on new gTLD Applicant Guidebook 19 December 1400 UTC
by Danny Younger Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

--- On Tue, 12/16/08, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Subject: [GTLD-WG] Invitation to discussion on new gTLD Applicant Guidebook 19 December 1400 UTC > To: "ALAC Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 12:15 PM > Dear all, > > We would like to invite you to a discussion on the At-Large > position on the > new gTLD Applicant Guidebook this coming Friday, 19 > December at 1400 UTC. > > Participation code: 1638. > You can find a list with international toll free phone > numbers under: > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?how_can_i_participate_in_this_meeti > ng > > Please contact us if you would like to request a dial-out > for this call. I > will send out an invitation to the public list shortly. > > Background Information: > > ³Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook² (sent > to At-Large list by > Beau Brendler on December 16th) > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20 > 08q4/005106.html > > Public Comment Forum new gTLD Applicant Guidebook: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-en.htm > > New gTLD Working group page: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène > Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich > ICANN At-Large Staff > email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann… > > Working Group direct URL: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy

1 0

ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily increasing role of the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision. We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines. If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized. Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants. If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard. The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core. It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review. - Evan

8 11

Fwd: GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery presentation posted
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

Following are pointers to a presentation to be given at this coming Thursday's GNSO meeting, the GNSO Agenda where it will be discussed, and the Issue report requested by the ALAC. Alan >Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 14:59:58 -0800 >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >Subject: GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery > presentation posted >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > >Dear Alan, > >Could you please distribute this on the ALAC lists for information. > >Thanks so much. >Glen > >Please find a power point presentation of the > >GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/post-expiration-domain-name-recovery-i… > >Marika Konings will give a presentation to the >Council on Thursday at the meeting under > >Item 6. Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery (20 mins) >http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/agenda-18dec08.shtml > >GNSO Issues Report on Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/post-expiration-recovery/report-05dec08.pdf > >- Overview >Discussion and decision on next steps: > >Motion to consider PDP at next meeting. > >The Post-Expiration Domain Name Recovery Issues >Report power point presentation is posted on page: >http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/ > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

More NCUC statement on new gTLDs
by Brendler, Beau Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

I asked permission to share this document also with the ALAC. Beau ________________________________ From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:20 AM To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: NCUC statement on new gTLDs Importance: High Dear all, Please find attached the statement I have drafted on behalf of the NCUC for ICANN's new gTLD proposal. According to ICANN the deadline for comments is tomorrow -15/12/2008 -(can someone please confirm this?). If this is the case can we request for an extension until at least the end of the week? Please make any changes/suggestions to the document so we don't loose track of any comments. Considering the tight deadline can I please ask you all to proceed and look at this document as soon as possible? Thank you all. KK -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk *** 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.

1 0

NCUC statement on new gTLDs
by Brendler, Beau Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

In trading some e-mails with the NCUC, I mentioned that more than a few of us were concerned about the morality and public order issues within the new gTLDs document. I asked if we could share thoughts. Here's what Cheryl Preston has written, sent with permission. -----Original Message----- From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Cheryl Preston Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:42 PM To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: Re: NCUC statement on new gTLDs I am sorry if you receive this twice. The one I sent a while ago does not seem to have gone through to the list. Attached is my statement on the new gTLDs, Recommendation 6: Morality and Public Order. If anyone would like to support any of these conclusions, please let me know or write in your own public comment. Also feel free to circulate this to ALAC or whoever. Thanks. Cheryl B. Preston Edwin M. Thomas Professor of Law J. Reuben Clark Law School Brigham Young University 434 JRCB Provo, UT 84602 (801) 422-2312 prestonc(a)lawgate.byu.edu >>> Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)SYR.EDU> 12/14/2008 10:37 am >>> Konstantinos: This statement is good, thanks for doing it. My suggestions: (incorporated into the edited version attached): 1) we need to make clear at the beginning that free expression has not been adequately recognized as a rights claim. 2) I would like to put the Morality and Public Order section ahead of the trademark section to reflect constituency priorities. But others may not agree with that. 3) Would like to begin the discussion of incitement by noting the dangers of content regulation. 4) I think you spend too much time on the CoE terrorism statement, which advances a view that most of us don't agree with and which is not applicable international law anyway. It would be better to make a more general argument that incitement cannot be done via a gTLD string. Let me also point out that individual members can file their own comments, and I would encourage you to do so, even if they agree substantially with these, as it has more impact. Thanks, K! ________________________________ From: Non-Commercial User Constituency [mailto:NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] On Behalf Of Konstantinos Komaitis Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2008 8:20 AM To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] NCUC statement on new gTLDs Importance: High Dear all, Please find attached the statement I have drafted on behalf of the NCUC for ICANN's new gTLD proposal. According to ICANN the deadline for comments is tomorrow -15/12/2008 -(can someone please confirm this?). If this is the case can we request for an extension until at least the end of the week? Please make any changes/suggestions to the document so we don't loose track of any comments. Considering the tight deadline can I please ask you all to proceed and look at this document as soon as possible? Thank you all. KK -- Dr. Konstantinos Komaitis, Lecturer in Law, GigaNet Membership Chair, University of Strathclyde, The Lord Hope Building, 141 St. James Road, Glasgow, G4 0LT, UK tel: +44 (0)141 548 4306 email: k.komaitis(a)strath.ac.uk *** 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.

1 0

Fwd: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

As noted on page 8, there have been two additional amendments over and above the set previously discussed. These require that Registrars make their contact information public, and that if a domain name is licensed, the licensee's contact information be made available, or the original registrant accepts liability for harm. ALan >Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:00:55 -0800 >From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments >Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >All, > >Attached please find an updated report from Services on the pending >amendments to the RAA. This report updates and expands on the paper >sent on 29 October 2008. > >Thanks, Liz

1 0

Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments
by Danny Younger Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is currently voting upon. Alan, please take note.

3 5

ALAC Mid-point consultation report - ALAC comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Following the open consultation period, and factoring in the comments received, the ALAC has submitted its comments on the mid-point consultation report of BGC WG on the ALAC review. They can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00008.html and also on our wiki documents page https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_read_only_document_store. An ALAC vote to ratify this submission will begin shortly. Alan (on behalf of Cheryl)

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments
by JFC Morfin Dec. 13, 2008

Dec. 13, 2008

Dear Alan, It is unfortunate that a liason has to seat on two chairs. He can seat on one, the other, in between. One of my liaisons used to say he should put his ass on the side he belongs to and his feet in the dishes of the other side. Not always easy. Reshaping the form of the message so it looks having more sense does not modify its underlaying biased sense semantic. I fully understand that petty administrativia is necessary in every organization. However for the nine years I practice ICANN I did not see much of it in relation with some ways "make the Internet better", what is the published goal of the IETF for example. It could be of interest to compare what each organization brings to the Internet and to the people in comparison to the size of their Staff, budget, and openess to people contributions. This comparative evaluation could concern ISOC, IETF, ICANN, IGF and ITU. jfc At 04:04 13/12/2008, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Danny, I am a moderately rational person who can think. My current >role on the GNSO Council is primarily that of Liaison to the ALAC. I >was asked a question about how would the ALAC react to the ICANN >staff proposal. My job was to answer if I knew the answer and pass >the question on if not. I have done that. > >I'm sorry if you don't like the message, but I was just the messenger. > >If there was a widespread belief on the ALAC that it was nonsense to >approve the current package of amendments, then it is too bad that >it was not stated. I did not create the concept of the current vote. >I did re-word it so it made more sense (and removed the phrase that >you as "it sucks"). > >At 12/12/2008 07:59 PM, Danny Younger wrote: >>"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and >>the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them >>wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do >>that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants >>done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. >> >>Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA >>amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus >>if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then >>suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced >>requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address >>any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand >>which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve >>those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that >>their issues with the RAA will be addressed." >> >>http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html >> >>This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is >>currently voting upon. Alan, please take note. >> >> >> >> > > > >_______________________________________________ >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