- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Fwd: [council] ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter
by Alan Greenberg April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

>Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:12:54 +0200 >From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter >To: 'Council GNSO' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > >Please note ICANN's the home page >http://www.icann.org/ > >ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-03apr08.htm > >3 April 2008 > >MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation >for Assigned Names and Numbers today launched >the Contractual Compliance Newsletter, a >newsletter that offers a snapshot of the wide >range of compliance work being done by ICANN. > >Each issue of the newsletter will cover >enforcement statistics, an in-depth look at part >of the compliance process, information about >audits and studies, and upcoming events. The >Newsletter will also include new advisories for >registries and registrars to help them >understand and continue to improve their compliance with ICANN contracts. > >In recent feedback on ICANNs performance under >the Joint Project Agreement with the US National >Telecommunications Infrastructure >Administration, there was input about ICANN's >work on Whois accuracy, and that compliance >needed to be better understood. ICANN's goal is >that this newsletter will be an important way to >address these concerns and continue community >dialogue about how to improve contractual compliance. > >The first issue of the Newsletter explains why >and how ICANN does contract compliance with our >contracted parties; gTLD registries and >registrars. It also includes statistics on the >consumer complaints ICANN receives and on >enforcement notices we send out. This issues >section on studies and audits includes an update >on the Whois Data Accuracy Study, the Registrar >Whois Data Inaccuracy Audit and the Performance >Specifications Audit of Registries. > >Please send your comments about the newsletter >and any topics you would like to see covered in it to compliance(a)icann.org. > >To subscribe to this Digest, simply click on the >link below and provide the requested information: >http://www.icann.org/newsletter/ > >For more information about ICANN's Contractual >Compliance Program, please visit http://www.icann.org/compliance. > >For more information about ICANN's Joint Project >Agreement (JPA) with the US National >Telecommunications Infrastructure >Administration, please visit http://www.icann.org/jpa/ . >________________________________ >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat - ICANN >gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Total of 59 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 4 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 8.47% | 5 | 23.88% | 162274 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 13.56% | 8 | 13.45% | 91414 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 11.86% | 7 | 14.07% | 95570 | wendy at seltzer.com 11.86% | 7 | 8.21% | 55815 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 8.47% | 5 | 6.13% | 41637 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 6.78% | 4 | 5.22% | 35479 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 5.08% | 3 | 4.70% | 31906 | franck.martin at gmail.com 5.08% | 3 | 3.76% | 25516 | brenbe at consumer.org 3.39% | 2 | 2.71% | 18422 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 3.39% | 2 | 2.48% | 16877 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 3.39% | 2 | 2.10% | 14240 | jefsey at jefsey.com 3.39% | 2 | 1.82% | 12352 | roessler at does-not-exist.org 1.69% | 1 | 2.31% | 15673 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.69% | 11455 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.69% | 1 | 1.20% | 8122 | dmiloshevic at afilias.info 1.69% | 1 | 1.19% | 8104 | namecritic at blogs.pn 1.69% | 1 | 1.12% | 7615 | iza at anr.org 1.69% | 1 | 1.09% | 7434 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.00% | 6802 | evan at telly.org 1.69% | 1 | 0.97% | 6571 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 1.69% | 1 | 0.91% | 6177 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 59 |100.00% | 679455 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Nick and all, Problem with this "Advisory" is that it is just that, and "Advisory" not a mandate. Ergo it has no teeth as it should have been a directive with consequences if the terms are violated. Milk toast, IMO. If this is any example of oversite by ICANN/GNSO staff, it is hardly effective oversite. Seems to me these "Advisories" have little use other the an attempt to give a "Warm and fuzzy" to registrants. So what these "Advisories" are, are an example of the emperor has no clothes... In more common parlance, lip service! -----Original Message----- >From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 9:15 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy > >ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy > >Advisory available at >http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm > >Due to perceived confusion within the registrar community concerning the >circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests >pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, on 19 September 2007, >ICANN issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the >Inter-Registrar Transfer >(Notice) http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm. > >As part of this Notice, ICANN published a Proposed Advisory Regarding >the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Proposed Advisory). The purpose of >the Proposed Advisory was to solicit comments regarding whether it was >necessary to publish an advisory to assist ICANN-accredited registrars >in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer >Policy. > >The community was informed that comments would be accepted for 30 days >regarding the Proposed Advisory. ICANN received 16 comments, of which 14 >were supportive of ICANN issuing the Proposed Advisory, one comment >opposed the issuance of the Proposed Advisory and one comment was deemed >neutral as it did not indicate support or opposition. After considering >the comments received and other information provided by registrars >regarding the Proposed Advisory, ICANN determined that sufficient >confusion exists to warrant the issuance of an advisory to assist >registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: > >1. Registrars are prohibited from denying >a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending >or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and > >2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for >denying a transfer request. > >The Advisory is identical to the Proposed Advisory issued on 19 >September 2007, except the term "registration period after expiration" >was replaced with "Auto-Renew Grace Period" wherever it appeared in the >Proposed Advisory. > >Developed through ICANN?s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy >was approved unanimously by ICANN?s Generic Names Supporting >Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with >several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The >Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process >for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar >to another upon request. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored >gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy >pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. The purpose of the Advisory is >to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. > > >-- Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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

ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by At-Large Staff April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Advisory available at http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm Due to perceived confusion within the registrar community concerning the circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, on 19 September 2007, ICANN issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer (Notice) http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm. As part of this Notice, ICANN published a Proposed Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Proposed Advisory). The purpose of the Proposed Advisory was to solicit comments regarding whether it was necessary to publish an advisory to assist ICANN-accredited registrars in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The community was informed that comments would be accepted for 30 days regarding the Proposed Advisory. ICANN received 16 comments, of which 14 were supportive of ICANN issuing the Proposed Advisory, one comment opposed the issuance of the Proposed Advisory and one comment was deemed neutral as it did not indicate support or opposition. After considering the comments received and other information provided by registrars regarding the Proposed Advisory, ICANN determined that sufficient confusion exists to warrant the issuance of an advisory to assist registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: 1. Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and 2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request. The Advisory is identical to the Proposed Advisory issued on 19 September 2007, except the term "registration period after expiration" was replaced with "Auto-Renew Grace Period" wherever it appeared in the Proposed Advisory. Developed through ICANN?s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy was approved unanimously by ICANN?s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another upon request. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. The purpose of the Advisory is to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Board liaison report. March meeting, April retreat
by Wendy Seltzer April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

The minutes from last week's Board meeting have now been posted: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm> In addition to the domain reservation issue, raised at ALAC's request and which the Board passed on to the GNSO Council (see my previous message), the Board discussed the mid-term review of the JPA, GNSO Improvements, new gTLDs, and other reviews. As requested, I asked that the at-large public get input into a more transparent process in the President's Strategy Committee considering ICANN reforms in conjunction with JPA reform or transition. I also raised the importance of giving the ALAC review enough time to conduct a useful and productive inquiry -- I encourage all interested parties to contact the ALAC review team at <alacreview(a)westlakenz.com> to have your experience considered. The Board will be meeting for a retreat later this month, and is being encouraged to consider big strategic issues as well as specific policy matters such as new TLDs. I have asked that registrant and end-user issues, including contracts, compliance, and the possible sunsetting of expired consensus policies, be considered in these discussions. If you would like me to put other items on the Board's agenda, please let me know. After the retreat (which is not a formal meeting), the next formal meeting of the Board is 29 April 2008 (agenda items by 19 April). Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Board Meeting Minutes
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Wendy and all, The "Domain name reservation" issues has been around for at least 3 years now, and was originally brought up as an issue under the old DNSO. Personally I believe the more important issue that is related is the "Domain name warehousing" issue, especially in the cases of registries and registrars using "Domain name reservation" as a means by which the can have an unfair advantage over any registrant or any prospective future registrant in registering those Domain Names. I however can understand on several levels why the ICANN Board wants input from the GNSO council before rendering any decision in regards to the DNS, although there should be a mechnisim by which emergancy decisions need to be made from time to time. Seems to me, and our members that sense so many issues have been unaddressed for so long as Danny and many others have recognized and elaborated upon on multipul occasions over the past 5+ years, are now needing emergancy action. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 5:59 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Board Meeting Minutes > >As these minutes indicate, the Board determined to send the "domain >reservation" issue to the GNSO Council for Council response. While >several on the Board would have favored Board action, others felt it was >more appropriate to get GNSO consensus before taking action. > >ALAC should now share its concerns with the GNSO Council, as input to >their consideration. We can also make further requests to the Board, if >we feel that stalemate within the GNSO is delaying what we still >consider to require emergency action. > >Despite the lack of immediate Board action, I think it was useful for >ALAC to send this request, as it put the issue on the Board's agenda and >will no doubt lead to further discussion. Thanks, Danny, for initiating >it. I'd recommend this approach for other items of registry or registrar >activity that affect the at-large public. > >--Wendy > >Danny Younger wrote: >> Board Meeting Minutes have been posted: >> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm >> >> The section regarding the ALAC Letter to the Board is >> reproduced below: > >... >> The Chair determined that emergency action is not >> required today but the matter will be referred to the >> GNSO for additional information or policy development >> if necessary, but not an emergency action. >> > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org >Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Danny and all, I guess cross posting to seperate list is now exceptable. So as such, I am relpying-all accordingly. I agree with all the points Danny has made here. Or were these originally from Chris? In either case, I fully agree. Many if not the vast majority of our members from time to time have expressed pretty much the same, accordingly. What does all of this tell us? Well I have a few suggestions. 1.) ICANN isn't really all that concerned or interested in registrants or non-registrant/users issues regardless of their country of origin. 2.) DOC/NTIA is interested, but must work in conjunction with ICANN staff and Board members to assist in resolving such issues unless they are extreamly egregious, such as the .XXX TLD became. 3.) It does abundantly appear that Registries and Registrars carry far more weight in decision making for policy determination. -----Original Message----- >From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic(a)blogs.pn> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 8:07 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement > >Why do all of these announcements and such include things like the following. > >the recognition that ICANN is the appropriate technical coordinator of the Internet DNS. when ICANN does not stick to doing this and instead gets into areas such as examining business plans when a new TLD is proposed? > >ICANN has made significant progress in several key areas, when no one can really point to several key areas in which progress has been made? > >And then they write as if they have confidence in the following; > >long term stability; when ICANN has not implemented much of a long-term strategy so far? > >accountability; when ICANN has not held anyone accountable before? and when ICANN BoD and staff are not held accountable? > >responsiveness; when ICANN takes years to respond to any issue? > >continued private sector leadership, when ICANN defines this as doing whatever businesses like Verisign tell them to do? > >stakeholder participation; when ICANN defines stakeholders as only large companies, ISPs, and registries and not as lowly domain holders and average users? > >increased contract compliance; when ICANN folds on contracts anytime they are threatened with a lawsuit? See the Verisign lawsuit for an example. > >and enhanced competition. when ICANN does everything they can to assure their is no real competition in namespace? > >Chris McElroy > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >To: <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:01 PM >Subject: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement > > >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html >> >> >> Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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

Postings from staff@atlarge.icann.org vs postings from individuals
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Dear All: Since there have been various queries and concerns raised about how and why postings which come from the 'corporate' staff account, I thought I would mention the reasons why the account exists and why and when we use it. The main purpose of the staff account is so that all of you can send a message to a single place and reach all of us. Of course, when it was just me, it didn't really matter whether my personal account was used, or the staff account. Now that there are three of us, it definitely makes a difference: It helps us respond to you faster, and it helps us to work efficiently. In a similar vein, sending mail from the staff account is that the reply will reach all three of us - you don't have to wonder whom to send your message to; you can just send it and leave it to us to ensure that the right one of us replies. The other reason that we send messages from the staff is when we are acting in a non-personal capacity - posting announcements, minutes, or the like, and where more than one of us has a hand in preparing the output. Of course, once again there's a benefit in that these are exactly the kinds of emails which generate requests in reply for one reason or another - which again means we all receive the note. On the question of accountability: we are all accountable for what we do or say of course - when an email comes out from the staff, it will now list all three of our names. However, if you feel someone has said or done something that you disagree with, or which is not proper in some way, you can always hold me responsible, since I'm the supervisor of the team. I hope that this makes it clear what the purpose of these corporate emails is and why we use them. In the main, it is to make it easier for you to have a 'one stop shop' - but also to differentiate the acts we make in our individual staff capacities, and when we are acting as a unit. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 4

NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
by Danny Younger April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

7 8

Participation in the Policy Development Process
by Danny Younger April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

For those that choose to involve themselves in real policy work, please take note of the following announcements regarding WHOIS and New gTLDs: A). the GNSO Council unanimously approved a motion on WHOIS as follows: Resolved to form a group of volunteers to: 1. Review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS' 2. Develop a proposed list, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council 3. Deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008. A call for volunteers has been put forth (the first teleconference will be held next week -- see the GNSO Council list for details). You may contact liz.gasster[at]icann.org to volunteer. For background material please read http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-report-25… B). ICANN staff is completing preparations for a briefing and discussion with the Council about the additional investigation and research staff has done on implementation of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs. As requested by the Council, arrangements are being made to accommodate in-person participation in Los Angeles (beginning the evening of 10 April and continuing all day on 11 April) by GNSO Council members (or designated constituency representatives), as well as remote participation. An agenda and additional information will be provided shortly (and posted publicly). Please see <http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> for implementation development updates (the relevant section also is included below). Please note that this 10/11 April session addresses work-in progress on potential implementation of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs. The Report is still under consideration by ICANN's Board, and a comprehensive, proposed implementation plan will not be available for consideration and comment by the GNSO and the public until the Board approves the Report and directs staff to develop an implementation plan. As with all GNSO meetings, this meeting is open to observers. ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

1 0