- At-Large - lists.icann.org

REMINDER: Briefing Session on Fast Flux Hosting 5 June 1300 UTC
by At-Large Staff June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

Dear all, This is to remind you about the Briefing Session on Fast Flux Hosting starting at 1300 UTC this coming Thursday. Dave Piscitello who will host this meeting has prepared a Powerpoint presentation, which is posted on the meeting page. There will also be an Adobe Connect link where we will be able to show the slides in real time. To join the presentation, please follow the participation instructions on the meeting page. https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?fast_flux_hosting There will be no Spanish and French interpretation for this call as there was not sufficient interest for this service. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fw: [A2k] US Supreme Court Hands Big Win to Free Speech Advocates in the IP World
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

All, FYI. I believe this will have serious ramifications to the current structure of the GNSO. In particular the IPC and the BC. Implications as Robert illuded to as "Core Values" for the Paris meeting may also be realized. ICANN itself will be impacted accordingly given it's lack of openness and Transparency as related to this decision. Of course as always other opinions will very. But they will do so at their own risk. -----Forwarded Message----- >From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> >Sent: Jun 2, 2008 4:20 PM >To: a2k discuss list <a2k(a)lists.essential.org> >Subject: [A2k] US Supreme Court Hands Big Win to Free Speech Advocates in the IP World > >-- >[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ] > >http://ipjustice.org/wp/2008/06/02/highest-us-court-hands-big-win-to- >free-speech-advocates-in-the-ip-world/ > >Highest US Court Hands Big Win to Free Speech Advocates in the IP World >Major League Baseball v. CBC Distribution >By Allonn E. Levy, Esq. >2 June 2008 > >By doing nothing today the U.S. Supreme Court handed a big victory to >those concerned with the ever-tightening spigot of free-flowing >commercial information. After a change in MLB’s licensing scheme in >2005 and the subsequent denial of a license to use the names and >statistics of major league baseball players in its for-profit >“fantasy leagues,” St. Louis based C.B.C. Distribution sued Major >League Baseball in late 2005. Presumably understanding the potential >reach of the issues that would be decided in the case, the Major >League Players association intervened in the case as well. C.B.C. >claimed that even though MLB would not grant a license for C.B.C. to >use the information, C.B.C. nevertheless had a First Amendment right >to utilize the names and data – even though it was exploiting the >information for commercial gain. > >M.L.B. argued that the information was protected by federal copyright >laws, contract law, and the state law rights of publicity. The trial >Court disagreed and in 2006 found in favor of C.B.C. on summary >judgment. In October 2007, the Eight Circuit U.S. Court of Appeal >issued an opinion upholding the trial court’s findings. The Eight >Circuit’s carefully reasoned opinion first corrected certain elements >in the trial court’s opinion and expressly held that C.B.C.’s >activities did violate Missouri’s state law Right of Publicity >statutes. However, the Court held that despite the statutory >violation, the activity was protected by the right of Free Speech >because the data was publicly available for all to see. The Court >also noted that there was no possibility of confusion by consumers or >any suggestion that the players were endorsing a particular product >or site. In fact, the Court noted, the activities of C.B.C. were >likely increasing interest in baseball – a pastime that itself allows >players and owners to reap hansom pecuniary rewards. > >Today, the U.S. Supreme Court simultaneously granted the requests of >certain parties to file “friend of court” briefs (meaning the Court >considered those briefs) but denied M.L.B.’s petition for >Certiorari. While not technically citable as “Supreme Court >precedent” by taking no action, the U.S. Supreme Court will be seen >by most as tacitly approving the intermediate court’s opinion. By >considering the petition and declining to take up the case >practitioners and other Courts around the country who have been >monitoring this case closely will likely take note. > >In the past, some District and Circuit Courts have been hesitant to >uphold First Amendment rights in the commercial context. At least in >this instance, however, both the trial and intermediate courts had >little difficulty in doing so. In its opinion, U.S. Circuit Judge >Arnold writing for the majority addressed the issue concisely: "It >would be strange law that a person would not have a First Amendment >right to use information that is available to everyone." The idea >however, has not been uniformly adopted. Cases originating in >California have been extremely protective of the Right of Publicity >protecting such rights as the mimicked voices of actors, likenesses >and such. Some feel that the Ninth Circuit’s proximity to Hollywood >has made it more sensitive to the pecuniary rights of celebrities >than to the First Amendment rights of individuals and businesses. > >Curiously, the Supreme Court has been silent on the clash between the >First Amendment and rights of publicity for decades. Its last case >on the topic was Zacchini vs. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting – a 1977 >case that held that the commercial exploitation of a performance was >not protected Free Speech and thus was compensable under a Right of >Publicity theory. But that case was decided by the narrowest of >margins – a 5-4 vote. It also did not provide much direction to >practitioners and courts as to where and upon what criterion the line >between Free Speech and commercial publicity rights would be drawn. > >How important is the High Court’s decision today to let stand the >Eighth Circuit’s opinion? In the brief time the opinion has been >published – and despite a then-pending petition for certiorari, the >opinion has already been cited 36 times by commentators, parties and >at least one other Court. > >Today’s refusal to review (and potentially reverse) the Eighth >Circuit opinion secures greater rights to access available public >information and utilize it for commercial gain. The High Court’s >decision means the Eighth Circuit’s carefully considered opinion will >become the last word on this issue – at least for the moment. An >obvious “win” for Free Speech advocates and “netizens” concerned with >ensuring open access to information on the Internet, the case also >helps the burgeoning field of Internet information consolidators who >help consumers collect information and process it. Expect to see the >case cited frequently in the near future as more and more courts will >be facing cases where Internet based information companies battle >these issues out with content holders. > >Research Notes: > >District Court Decision – C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing Inc. v. >Major League Baseball Advanced Media L.P. and Major League Baseball >Players Assoc. 443 F.Supp. 2d 1077 (E. Dist. Mo 2006) [superseded by >Appellate opinion] > >Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Decision – C.B.C. Distribution >and Marketing Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media L.P. and >Major League Baseball Players Assoc. 505 F.3d. 818 (8th Cir. 2007). >[U.S. Cert. Denied 6/02/08] > >U.S. Supreme Court Order Denying Certiorari – Major League Baseball, >et Al. v. C.B.C. Distribution & Marketing. ____ S.Ct.____, 2008 WL >512723 (U.S.), 76 USLW 3471 > > > > > >IP JUSTICE >Robin Gross, Executive Director >1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > > > >_______________________________________________ >A2k mailing list >A2k(a)lists.essential.org >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Do they exist or what
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 3, 2008

June 3, 2008

JFC and all, I think LB has hit on a very good point. The ALAC in it's current form cannot reasonably represent users world wide as it is predominantly a "Closed shop". -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Jun 2, 2008 7:53 PM >To: LB <lbleriot(a)gmail.com> >Cc: listegenerale(a)franceatlarge.org, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Do they exist or what > >At 23:11 02/06/2008, LB wrote: >>I propose a motion: france@wide having found that ALAC does not exist, >>and considering that it is necessary to have an ALAC, propose to >>@larges worldwide to resume this good idea and create a World At Large >>Advisory Council (WALAC). > >Louis, >you are going to confuse everyone. > >1. I suppose that "france@wide" is a Google Traduction's fancy. > >- france@large is a French ALS incorporated in 2000 pretty active >ever since as an @large organisation which decided to reorganise to >welcome the other @large people in Paris. > >- world@wide is a small foundation specialising in offering free >domain name protection and hosting to Internet Governance and @large >oriented projects. > >2. we plan your "oualalac" (I understand it meens an "open use, at >large, alac" get to gether diner in Paris. We wait for the answer of >Wolf to know to best answer the Staff suggestion. Sebastien already answered. > >3. The WALAC/IALAC names could be misused: I asked world@wide to >protect them as domain names. > >4. I suggest we do not discuss anymore the ALAC decision concerning >france@large. This is something that we first have to discuss in >detail with Euralo as they proposed. And possibly transfer to the >Ombudsman and BoD if it is confirmed there were influences. > >I would suggest that you use your mailing broadsides to help me >cooling down the situation. We now have enough ways to practically >protect the individual @larges' interests without making noise or in >invading the ICANN meeting (however fun that could be). They want to >ignore us as you underline it, may be should we do the same ? This is >a question I raise. > >Everyone knows now they did not want us to vote at the first Euralo >Summit. This is over now. Probably better we just delegate a few >people at the ICANN meeting and we report at Saturday 28 >InternetCamp, sending them photos, rather than to repeat the Olympic >Flame incidents? > >OK? > >jfc > >___ > >Louis, >tu va confuser tout le monde ! > >1. Je suppose qie "france@wide" est une blague de Google Traduction. > >- france@large est une ALS française incoporée en 2000 et assez >active depuis en tant qu'organisation @large qui a décidé de se >réorganiser pour accueillir les autres @larges à Paris. > >- world@wide est une petite fondation specialisée dans l'offre >gratuite de protection de noms de domaine et d'hébergement pour les >projets orientés vers la Gouvernance de l'Internet et les @larges. > >2. Nous planifions ton diner de rencontre "oualalac (que je comprends >comme "open use, at large, alac") à Paris. Nous attendins la réponse >de World pour savoir comment répondre au mieux à la suggestion du >Staff. Sébastien a déjà répondu. > >3. Les noms WALAC et IALAC pourraient être dangereux. J'ai demandé à >world@wide de les enregistrer en protection. > >4. Je suggère que nous ne discutions plus de la décision ALAC >concernant france@large. C'est quelque chose que nous avons d'abord à >discuster avec Euralo puisqu'ils l'ont proposé. Nous aurons >probablement à le transferer ensuite à l'Ombudsman et au CA s'il se >confirme qu'il y a eu des interférences. > >Je te suggèrerais de réserver tes "bordées de haute-mail" à l'aider à >détendre la situation. Nous avons déhà gagné suffisament d'avantages >pour protéger concrêtement les interêts des @large individuels sans >avoir à faire du bruit inutile qui peut être mal compris, ou à >envahir la réunion ICANN (bien que je conçois que cela pourrait être >très amusant). Ils veulent nous ignorer comme tu le soulignes; >peut-être devrions nous faire de même. C'est une question que je pose. > >Tout le monde sait maintenant qu'ils ne voulait pas que nous votions >au premier sommet européen. Ceci est entendu maintenant. Il est donc >probablemnt mieux que nous leur déléguions que quelques personne lors >du meeting ICANN, et que nous fassions le point à l'InternetCamp de >la Grande Arche le samedi 28 (leur envoyant des photos), plutot que >de renouveller les incidents de la Flame Olympique. > >OK ? >jfc > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Do they exist or what
by LB June 2, 2008

June 2, 2008

Jefsey, je fais un effort avec Google Traduction .... on our behalf, the members of france@large, you asked that the ALAC that: 1) france@large be accredited - they said we did not exist. 2) france@large invit at the Paris meeting at an informal summit of all @larges - nobody responded. 3) france@large having a vision of @larges forged over the years, if we all had the same one - no one has commented. The staff has invited everyone ito a dinner in Paris, so we started (however, we do not exist) to register. So, the staff standed us up. And invited us to organize ourselves. So, you have invited the Euralo Chair and out of politeness before inviting everyone. He has not even responded. Do you think really that ALAC is real, outside the dreams of ICANN and conference-call its "elected" members. I would have liked to know, in being a candidate at the election of the ALAC, but since we do not exist we do not have the right to be an ALS, and therefore I cannot be a cadidate, except if I register in a German ALS . I propose a motion: france@wide having found that ALAC does not exist, and considering that it is necessary to have an ALAC, propose to @larges worldwide to resume this good idea and create a World At Large Advisory Council (WALAC). et que tu organises un repas "Oualalac" sympa dans mon quartier à Nantes avec bombardes et binious, le 21 juin au soir avant d'aller chanter. Zaurez le temps de rentrer à temps : il ne se passera rien le 22 à Paris puisqu'ils n'existent pas ! -- LB

2 1

Tentative Go-Live New gTLD Application Period: Feb09
by Danny Younger June 1, 2008

June 1, 2008

http://www.icann.org/presentations/INTA2008ICANN.pdf In a presentation to the International Trademark Association 130th Meeting in Berlin, Germany, Tim Cole presented some slides detailing the new gTLD and IDN rollout timetables. Key Dates: June 08 -- Phase 1 Global Communications Campaign July 08 -- Tentative Publication of Draft RFP Oct 08 -- Tentative Final RFP Publication Oct 08 -- Phase 2 Global Communications Campaign Feb 09 -- Tentative Go-Live gTLD Application Period

1 0

Invitation - GigaNet Workshop on Global Internet Governance - Paris, 23 Juin 2008
by Robert Guerra June 1, 2008

June 1, 2008

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Meryem Marzouki <Meryem.Marzouki(a)lip6.fr> Date: Sat, May 31, 2008 at 8:39 PM Subject: [Coalition] Invitation - GigaNet Workshop on Global Internet Governance - Paris, 23 Juin 2008 To: Public Voice <coalition(a)mailman.thepublicvoice.org> Dear all, This invitation will probably be of interest to subscribers to this list. Best regards, Meryem Marzouki -- Meryem Marzouki LIP6/PolyTIC - CNRS 104 avenue du Président Kennedy - 75016 Paris http://www-polytic.lip6.fr ::::::::::::::::::::::::: Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Research Field in Construction A GigaNet workshop, organized in cooperation with GDR TICS and DEL Networks Paris, France - 23 June 2008 - 08:30-13:30 University Paris III Sorbonne Nouvelle – Institut du Monde Anglophone Invitation to participate The Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GigaNet) will hold its first workshop on "Global Internet Governance: An Interdisciplinary Field in Construction", in Paris, France, on Monday 23 June 2003, 08:30-13:30. French co-organizers and sponsors are: GDR- CNRS TICS, DEL-CNRS network, Sciences Po, U. Paris 3 Sorbonne Nouvelle, U. Pierre et Marie Curie, and LIP6 Laboratory. The purpose of the workshop, the first of its sort, is to allow scholars involved in Internet Governance-related research to describe their ongoing research projects to other scholars in the field, in order to share ideas, forge possible collaborations, and identify emerging research themes in the field. Scholars from various academic disciplines and all regions of the world are expected to contribute to this reflexive exercise, with the long-term objective of collectively building this interdisciplinary research field. Rather than featuring academic paper presentations, the workshop aims at providing a survey of current academic activities in the field of global Internet governance. The workshop is mainly organized around 3 roundtables, fostering lively and fruitful discussions. Panelists selected among the authors of submitted contributions will discuss global Internet governance research activities dealing with: models, players and democratic principles; regulation policies and regulatory issues; and regional perspectives and sociocultural issues. Attendance at the workshop is free and open to all interested parties, but registration is required. Workshop agenda and detailed program, registration form, contribution abstracts, as well as other practical information, are available at the workshop website: http://tinyurl.com/2nww9t. Contact: Meryem Marzouki, Workshop Chair LIP6-UPMC-CNRS, France (Meryem.Marzouki(a)lip6.fr) Workshop website: http://tinyurl.com/2nww9t _______________________________________________ Coalition mailing list Coalition(a)mailman.epic.org http://right.epic.org/mailman/listinfo/coalition

1 0

ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan (fwd)
by John Levine May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

Patrick Jones asked me to pass this along. Since registry failover actually does affect both registrant and non-registrant users, and is something ICANN can actually do, I'd encourage the ALAC to take him up on his offer. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:21:18 -0700 From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> To: "johnl(a)iecc.com" <johnl(a)iecc.com> Subject: ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan John, I have seen the comments on the ALAC list regarding the gTLD Registry Failover Plan. Quite a lot of work has gone into the draft gTLD Registry Failover Plan since the public version was last posted in November 2007. See http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/. An updated version of the plan will be made available in advance of the Paris meeting. If ALAC would like an update in Paris on the Failover work, please let me know. Feel free to pass this on to the ALAC list. Regards, Patrick -- Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones(a)icann.org

5 4

Re: [At-Large] Not the pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

Michele and all, Very good question IMHO. That figures out to be about 8k per registration just for administration costs! Looks to me there are some shanagans going on there... I bet they wouldn't pass a in depth audit... Of course niether did ICANN some time back... Birds of a feather perhaps? And so the ICANN/GNSO decision making saga continues eh? What's next, lets see now... Maybe .Pharm for pharmacuticles? or maybe just .Drug instead? -----Original Message----- >From: Michele Neylon <michele(a)blacknight.ie> >Sent: May 30, 2008 4:59 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Not the pending death of a registry > > >On 30 May 2008, at 01:58, John Levine wrote: >> It appears that .TRAVEL generates about $1.5 million per year in >> revenue, >> which should be enough to keep it going just fine if they cut down on >> whatever is costing $200K/mo in administrative overhead, which >> shouldn't >> be hard. > > >What on earth are they spending that money on? > >When I wrote about them last year they only had 25 thousand names >registered: > >http://www.isquattedyour.eu/2007/05/20/tralliance-in-trouble-travel-could-d… > > >> So it's not a particularly noble situation, but it looks >> like .TRAVEL will >> survive to fail another day. > > >Considering its size and "popularity" why aren't they courting one of >the other registry operators? Is there any sane reason for them to >continue a loss making exercise when a larger and leaner organisation >might be in a better position to do it? > >> >> >> I agree with Danny that ICANN should still be working on registry >> failover >> plans, because if Egan ever loses interest, Tralliance could >> collapse in a >> matter of weeks. > > >Agreed > >Mr Michele Neylon >Blacknight Solutions >Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection >http://www.blacknight.com/ >http://blog.blacknight.com/ >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >Locall: 1850 929 929 >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 >------------------------------- >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >Park,Sleaty >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ISOC-NY 'Connecting .nyc' forum - video
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

Joly and all, I don't believe in the idea that the ISOC-NY "Deserves" a TLD, but I also see no reason why .NYC could not be created as long as it wasn't managed by ISOC-NY but rather by some other entity. One question would be, is there sufficient funding avaliable to manage the proposed .NYC, or is Donnald Trump ponying up the funding? I do hope it's not Mike Roberts! After all he already has managed to foul up .EDU pretty handely! -----Original Message----- >From: WWWhatsup <joly(a)punkcast.com> >Sent: May 30, 2008 5:03 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] ISOC-NY 'Connecting .nyc' forum - video > > >> > > >Video of Tom Lowenhaupt's presentation last week about the plan to acquire >the .nyc TLD on behalf of the local community is now posted: > >http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=242 > >Joly > > > >--------------------------------------------------------------- > WWWhatsup NYC >http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com >--------------------------------------------------------------- > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan (fwd)
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 31, 2008

May 31, 2008

Robert and all, It's clear if one reads the so called "Fail-over Plan" that is is fundementally flawed as it does not provide what so ever for "Fail-over" of a registry in that ICANN is back peddeling on its earlier promise to cover the possibility of a registry failure. Ergo, unless public funding for such a calamity be provided in ICANN's stead, the registry that is failing will fail fully at some point and perhaps that is how it should be according to some. The only other possiblility is to find a "White Knight" that is willing to put up their own financing to run/manage the failing registry. But most of these are going to want some sort of "Deal" by which they have no or little liability in case they are unable or not fully able to bring a dying registry to good health... Microsoft or Google comes to mind here... -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> >Sent: May 30, 2008 8:40 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan (fwd) > >I would like to second John's proposal. I thus propose that Patrick's >offer to update ALAC on the gTLD Registry Failover Plan be - it on our >next conference call, or added to our Paris meeting agenda. > >thank you. > >Robert > > >On 30-May-08, at 8:02 AM, John Levine wrote: > >> Patrick Jones asked me to pass this along. >> >> Since registry failover actually does affect both registrant and non- >> registrant users, and is something ICANN can actually do, I'd >> encourage the ALAC to take him up on his offer. >> >> >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 23:21:18 -0700 >> From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> >> To: "johnl(a)iecc.com" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >> Subject: ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan >> >> John, >> >> I have seen the comments on the ALAC list regarding the gTLD >> Registry Failover Plan. Quite a lot of >> work has gone into the draft gTLD Registry Failover Plan since the >> public version was last posted in >> November 2007. See http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/. An >> updated version of the plan will be >> made available in advance of the Paris meeting. >> >> If ALAC would like an update in Paris on the Failover work, please >> let me know. >> >> Feel free to pass this on to the ALAC list. >> >> Regards, >> >> Patrick >> -- >> Patrick L. Jones >> Registry Liaison Manager & >> Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers >> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >> Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >> Tel: +1 310 301 3861 >> Fax: +1 310 823 8649 >> patrick.jones(a)icann.org >> _______________________________________________ >> 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://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0