- At-Large - lists.icann.org

ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
by Danny Younger Dec. 4, 2007

Dec. 4, 2007

Alan, If the Add Grace Period is not eliminated, then registrars will simply adjust their business models to compensate for any registrar level transaction fee that might be imposed, and domain tasting will continue. You have argued that: (1) fully eliminating the AGP will not be acceptable to registrars (2) Registrars say that they make valid uses of the AGP and could not easily eliminate it without significant pain or expense. (3) from the RC statement it is clear that wholesale elimination of the AGP will not fly. (4) wholesale elimination... would require a formal consensus policy. >From my point of view, I don't care if eliminating the AGP is not acceptable to registrars -- they don't hold any veto power within the GNSO, and I'm not daunted by the prospect of a Supermajority determination that doesn't include the registrars. Fashioning a Consensus Policy is possible even in the absence of registrar support. Yes, registrars have listed a series of purportedly "legitimate" uses of the AGP, but I find none of their justifications listed in the ad hoc outcomes report to have sufficient merit: AGP Use 1: Correction of typographical errors made by registrant -- with all the redundancies built into the registration process (including all the upsell pages) the AGP is no longer needed to dealt with this remote possibility. AGP Use 2: Cart hold to provide access to domain names -- the concept of reserving a domain at the registry once it gets "looked up" by a user (that hasn't paid for the registration) is an abomination. As stated in the White Paper: "The failure to make a domain name applicant pay for its use of a domain name has encouraged cyberpirates and is a practice that should end as soon as possible." AGP Use 3: Fraud remedies -- arrangements regarding the settlement of fraud claims can be built into the Credits section in the Service Level Agreement within the relevant registry-registrar agreements; it need not be part of the AGP. AGP Use 4: Monitoring, testing and development of systems -- This argument seeks to make the "cost of doing business" a registry subsidy. The argument is weak and can readily be rejected. AGP Use 5: Addressing Registrant Buyers Remorse -- a fine example of BS. The best way of dealing with the current spate of domain tasting is to eliminate the Add Grace Period; this option is preferable to all others. The ALAC should advocate for that position. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

9 10

Domain Tasting -- NARALO position
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 4, 2007

Dec. 4, 2007

In response to Alan's request for timely input, the issue of Domain Tasting was discussed at today's NARALO conference call. The UNANIMOUS consensus of that meeting was that ALAC should clearly and specifically advocate the elimination of the AGP. We fully understand that it may be necessary to concede a final position that is more conciliatory, in the interest of building an ICANN-wide consensus on reducing domain tasting. However, we strongly believe that At-Large must make clear to ICANN that the AGP as a component of domain registration is contrary to the public good. Evan Leibovitch Chair NARALO

1 0

ALAC participation
by Kieren McCarthy Dec. 3, 2007

Dec. 3, 2007

Hello all, I am getting a fair few requests direct to me from people that want to get involved in ICANN work but don't know where to start. Most, I would say, best fit into the ALAC/RALO system so I have been trying to find some good resources to send people to. But I have hit a few snags: * The http://www.icannalac.org/ site is horribly out of date - it appears nothing new has been posted for 12 months * There's no clear route or explanation for people to get involved in ALAC or a RALO * It's very unclear about who to contact for what * It's not clear what ALAC is actually discussing or how to provide input into that process * The ALS concept is not explained and the application process is very unclear; in some cases, invisible * There's aren't any lead-in resources i.e. simple explanations about what ICANN does, how it works, what it discusses etc etc I know that Nick Ashton-Hart is working very hard on producing a new ALAC website. I hope you are working on new content and information for the launch of that. I also had a meeting with the RALO secretariats in Los Angeles where we discussed how ICANN can help provide more information so I hope to keep my end of that bargain. But there is a big gap here: it's really quite difficult for someone not already involved in the structure to have any idea how it works or how to get involved. I'm happy to help. But first of all: * Who shall I forward requests to from Internet users that wish to participate in ICANN's processes? * What do people believe is the current state of the various ALAC websites and wikis? i.e. where is it best to point people; is it a bad idea to point people to other places (such as icannalac.org) * Are there existing resources or pages that I have overlooked that explain how the system works? I'm very keen on getting more people involved in ICANN, particularly through the ALAC system, so any and all information, help, suggestions, ideas, resources, pointers etc would be gratefully received. Cheers Kieren ---------------------- Kieren McCarthy ---------------------- General manager of public participation, ICANN http://www.icann.org <http://www.icann.org/>

6 8

Larry Lessig: How Creativity is being strangled by the law
by RJGlass | America＠Large Dec. 3, 2007

Dec. 3, 2007

Very interesting presentation by Prof. Lessig for members of the group... http://youtube.com/watch?v=7Q25-S7jzgs&feature=user -Randy Glass A@L ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

1 0

Business Constituency Position on Domain Tasting
by Danny Younger Dec. 3, 2007

Dec. 3, 2007

http://www.bizconst.org/Positions-Statements/Position-12-2007_domain%20tast… ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [governance] Innovation
by Izumi AIZU Dec. 3, 2007

Dec. 3, 2007

Hi, I did not have much time for even reading the rich/complex postings here, even though I wanted to. Here I am. I was also involved from the very beginning of ICANN and its AtLarge formation, being the member of MAC, MITF, NAIS, drafting group for ALAC, interim ALAC and now new ALAC elected from AP-RALO. The first election was not perfect - as NAIS reported, there were many problems including one happend in my region and country. The Japanese government and industry organized a very systematic campaign, nothing against the rule explicitly, but with different cultural understanding about the election. Half of the members registered are from Japan. Almost half of all who voted globally were from Japan, and they dominated the Asian region by far. A capture? Yes or No depends on where you stand. This sent a strong cautious signal, together with some other regions' activities. Then 911 came, and as some already wrote "forget about democracy" and came the "reform - effectiveness, security", etc. Just before ALSC led by Bildt and NAIS came to consensus on the new election of AtLarge, so-called "palace de coup" happened, in Feb 2002. No AtLarge, no democracy, no users was the original blue print of the reform. ALAC was a last desparate effort to bring AtLarge back to ICANN process, a compromise from both ends. The "stupid" three-tier structure of ALS, RALO and ALAC came from the lessons learned from the previous election and relationship (or lack of) between elected Board members (as Wolfgang wrote) and voters or consituencies who elected them. ICANN staff destroyed all the membership data as soon as the election was over, intentionally, so there were no real means to keep the membership). There was more empahsis put on "participation" than "representation" (by election) in NAIS report as well as some other people's mind. In a way, global election was totally unaccpetable at that time in most ICANN constituencies minds. Then came WSIS, civil society participation, IGC, and attacks to ICANN from some governments, which gave re-birth to the voices of users within ICANN process. While intriem ALAC in the early days suffering from lack of interests, resources, and hostlie attitudes from most ICANN constituencies. Now, after WGIG/IGF, five RALOs were setup, thanks to ICANN's generous funding to bring all ALS reps to one meeting in the region. And there no longer is interim ALAC. Do we, new ALAC have sustainable mechanisms? I honestly don't know. Why ALAC now is not active in policy areas? Well, we are trying, with 13 of 15 members are all new - less than a year with ALAC. Many don't know about the history, and may feel little need to know. (we organized a ALAC one-day workshop at ICANN LA meeting to address these, including briefing on ALAC history). One other element I would bring attention is, perhaps, AtLarge is the only ICANN component with strict geographic balance, similar to RIRs, and thus even where there is little "bottom-up" movement in the civil society, in most developing parts of the world, the out-reach work by ICANN staff and ICANN community and NomCom gave ways to more participation from civil society groups. Are they effective? I don't think so. Are there better ways? "Self-organizing" is the great principle, but it could sometimes result only those who have resources can play the game. "Civil society" has little history in some parts of Asia, for example, thus just relying on that may not work well unless there is some good incentives (such as election/voting on the Board). Coming ALAC review (which is very slow), should give collective wisdom, hopefully. izumi 2007/12/1, Kleinwächter, Wolfgang <wolfgang.kleinwaechter(a)medienkomm.uni-halle.de>: > Two comments to two aspects of the discussion: > > Accountability of elected representatives: > > Yes, we had five elected AT Large Directors in 2000. I organized from Melbourne onwards until 2002 at seven ICANN Meetings the so-called "Dialogue with At Large Directors" together with Hans Klein. With the exception of one occasion, we never managed to bring all five ALM directors into a dialogue with their constituencies. Very often they had "higher priorities" than talking to their voters during the one week of an ICANN meeting. Karl came nearly everytime, Kato (the Asian At Large director from Fujitsu) and Campos (the Latin America Director from the Bank of Brasil) came frequently. Nii from Africa as often as he could. But Andy Mueller Maguhn ignored it widely. And when Andy, who got such an enourmes support in the elections, ended its mandate as director in 2002 he totaly disappeared from the scene. He did not undertake any effort to fight for a improved at large representation with his knowledge as former ICANN director. Karl did it. Andy did not. Karl voted very often "against", Andy voted very often "abstain". How can election guarantee that you get at the end indeed the people who behave in a responsible way? I know that among all the bad procedures you have at your disposal, fair, free and transparent elections are the best you can get. But while elections are important and an empowring instrument, they do not settle all problems. > > Empowering of Internet Users: > In the reform process ICANN moved from one extreme to another: The original plan in 1998 was to have nine voting At Large Directors. After four years in 2002 you got just one non voting AL liaison. The background for this movement is - as described elswhere - mainly political. We know this. A big fear and mistrust by some political (and probably also economic) groups was in favour of an exclusion of AL to minimize the risk that uncontrollable voices can make their way to the decisions making process. Within WSIS it was a long way until governments recognized civil society as a main stakeholder and accepted multistakeholderism as a principle. During PrepCom1 at WSIS I in 2002 in Geneva, the doors were closed and CS had no access even to the Plenary. There were a lot of turbulences in front of the closed doors in the ICCG in Geneva. One conclusion which was drawn by CS folks in Geneva was that they have to counter the governmental argument that CS is just a bunch of "individual noise makers" who have no mandate from anybody. The result was the start of a process of self-organisation among CS which procuded the CS Plenary, the CS Bureau, the CS Content & Themes and about 30 caucuses and working groups. One was the CS Internet Governance Caucus (co-chaired first by YJ and me after WSIS I by Jeanette and Adam and now by Parminder and Vittorio). The self organisation of the caucus paved the way for the recognition by the other stakeholders. The IGC became a respected partner in the process, was asked to nominate members for the WGIG and published reasonable statements. It had been the IGC-WGIG members which became a driving force in the WGIG process itself, which paved the way for the Tunis Agenda. In fact, two milestones of WGIG were initiatited and drafted by CS people: the IG definition and the proposal for an Internet Governance Forum. > > Can be lessons learned for ICANN? Yes. > 1. do your homework in pushing foreward the self-organization process using the existing structures for innovative actions > 2. pratice what you preach with regard to bottom up, > 3. draft understandable and rational language with substantial proposals > 4. make concrete contributions in the acting bodies. > One outcome from the ALAC review process could be to change the Advisory Committee status into a supporting organisation status which would than allow an ALSO to send two voting directors to the Board. > > Wolfgang > > ________________________________ > > Fra: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] > Sendt: fr 30-11-2007 16:12 > Til: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > Emne: RE: [governance] Innovation > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Karl Auerbach [mailto:karl@cavebear.com] > > > > It is good to hear that people are getting interested. > > > > Was it you who mentioned previously that you thought that the Director > > elected for LA in year 2000 did not fully represent the Caribbean area? > > Yes, it was. And I note that yet again you write LA, not LAC. So - if as you > say, the Director was elected for LA - not LAC, obviously they didn't > represent the Caribbean at ALL, as there isn't even the single letter that > includes us in the regional name. > > > Do you think that the ALAC - a channel in which your regions views > > are > > filtered and then filtered and then filtered again - is as good as > > having a Director you can chose and elect? > > > I disagree with the premise - I don't think that the views are " filtered > and then filtered and then filtered again". And honestly, once one elects a > Director, until the next election, there's no accountability - or that's > what I am accustomed to here. The elected person or persons can choose to > put forward the regional views or their personal ones, as they want. At the > end, they can be voted out, but the next person will do exactly the same > thing. In the current case, all the views are going forward, without > filtration. > > > Back here in the US there was a thing known as a "company union" - see > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_union > > OK... I don't see the analogy, but ... > > > If you were drowning, as internet users are, in a sea of powerlessness, > > and if given a choice between the ALAC, and its nearly vacuous ability > > to hold ICANN to account, and real elections for real identifiable > > people - including themselves if they chose to run, don't you think > > that many, perhaps most would chose elections? > > Yet again, I disagree with the base concept here. I think that Internet > users in the Caribbean are drowning in a sea of lack of information, lack of > infrastructure, lack of affordable technology; not powerlessness that can be > fixed with a vote. We need information, outreach, we need to know and > understand what the issues are. Then we can determine what we think about > those issues and then we can say- this is what we want/need. An election > system won't do that IMO. NGOs and information campaigns and technology > transfer and training programs will. And the ALSes can work on that, and > they can get support from ICANN and other organizations to do that. > > Honestly, I think that you are coming from a place that is so different to > the reality here that it's almost impossible to relate. > > Jacqueline > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.10/1160 - Release Date: 11/29/2007 > 20:32 > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALAC participation
by Izumi AIZU Dec. 3, 2007

Dec. 3, 2007

I echo with what Jean wrote below, especially in the latter para. ALAC agreed and requested ICANN to hire Jean as our web manager with very modest budget, but after a few months time, it was not accepted, thus we had to give up that one and we did not get any effective replacement/system until later. I was partially responsible, as a member of ALAC, but it is often beyond volunteers' capacity to keep effective communication tool in such complex world of ICANN/AtLarge. izumi 2007/12/3, Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com>: > > > > > The http://www.icannalac.org/ site is horribly out of date - it appears > nothing new has been posted for 12 months > The last posting occurred Dec 2006 as I left ALAC when my term expired > through my Nomcom appointment. > When I left, I created several guides for the next person I assumed would > step up to be webmom or dad of the site. I offered transitional help. I > offered passwords to the chair. > At this time I offer them again. > The ALAC chair can have author privileges for posting to this independent > site at any time. The chair can authorize the webmaster to give author > privileges to anyone at any time. The chair can authorize anyone to be the > "publisher" of all submitted content. Every ALS can have their own page, > with author privileges. Every RALO has their own page. The site is in Joomla > and it is easy to post an article to it. It just takes a commitment of time > to be the "publisher" of submitted content. > The chair should contact Larry Polly <larry(a)pollywood.org> who is under > contract from ICANN to provide software updates/technical maintenance to > this site. He does not do content, which was my job. > After I got off ALAC, there was a movement to hire me to continue to provide > content, with a small stipend, since I would no longer get the ALAC perk of > the travel. However, I haven't heard anything about that for months. > Thanks for the opportunity to clarify things. > Jean Polly > _______________________________________________ > 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://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

GNSO Reform
by Danny Younger Dec. 3, 2007

Dec. 3, 2007

The ISPCP has put out a document on the GNSO Reform (wherein they argue that their constituency should be included within the Supplier block, and that Nominating Committee Representatives should lose their voting rights with the Council "as they represent no stakeholder group"). ... hmmmm, and I always thought that NomCom appointees were supposed to represent the general public interest... A link to the document can be found here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00384.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

1 0

{Virus?} Returned mail: Data format error
by Returned mail Dec. 3, 2007

Dec. 3, 2007

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message, instruction.do.pif, instruction.zip). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
by Danny Younger Dec. 2, 2007

Dec. 2, 2007

Alan, A "Statement" is supposed to be the end-result of a group-wide debate on policy options. Sorry, but I haven't seen any debate. I also haven't seen any letter going out to any of the RALOs either outlining the policy choices or asking for the RALO views. Neither have I seen any letter going out to the 93 accredited ALSs asking for their views on the policy options. So, yeah, I'm not comfortable with the approach being taken and my tone clearly reflects that. That said, I have noted some earlier comments that pointed to a policy preference that at the very least could have been incorporated into the Statement: (1) "We propose to abandon the five day Add Grace period". http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q… (2) "The only consistent solution seems to get rid of AGP". http://icannalac.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-19.html (3) "The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve is not and never was an important one." http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/msg02173.html Is the above representative of an At-Large consensus on the topic? Who knows? The members haven't been polled, have they? What's important in my view is actually reaching out to obtain the At-Large sentiment, enumerating those views, and determining the relative strength of the positions being held. As I see it, that hasn't been done yet. So how do other groups approach the matter? Other constituencies actually discuss, and debate the topic with all of their members -- they even call for a vote. Consider, for example, the registrar community. They have been actively debating the issue for the last month and have still not yet arrived at a thoroughgoing policy determination (but they are now in the end-process of settling on a position or set of positions). Below you will find the text of a motion on domain tasting currently being discussed within the registrar constituency. The Main Motion: Moved that we accept the following as the RC position statement and submit it to the GNSO Council as such: The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting. Below are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC members. View 1. Many registrars believe that Tasting should be curbed if not eliminated altogether for one or more of the following reasons: a. Tasting is causing general confusion among registrants and potential registrants trying to register domain names. b. Tasting is eroding consumer confidence in the security and trustworthiness of domain name registration services and our industry in general. c. Tasting is causing an increase in support costs for Registrars. d. Tasting violates well-established codes of conduct and good practice intended to ensure security and stability by: i. disturbing the stability of a set of existing services that had been functioning satisfactorily, namely the competitive domain name registration services developed by Registrars; ii. disturbing other existing systems and value added services, for example those relying on Zone files, and various third party WHOIS services; iii. increasing costs that must be absorbed by others not participating in or benefiting from Tasting. e. Despite the long held tenet of "First do no harm," there has been no research, testing for potential disruption of existing services, public review, or comment prior to this high volume activity abruptly occurring in the DNS. In summary, high volume Tasting activity has undermined expectations about reliable behavior and in so doing has reduced trust in the security and stability of the system and has increased costs for registrars, registrants, and others not participating in the activity. View 2. Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a matter of concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN for one or more of the following reasons: a. Tasting takes place due to market demand, and the market should be allowed to evolve as demand dictates. b. ICANN is not a regulatory body, and according to its own bylaws, coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to technical functions of the DNS. ICANN should not be regulating market activity. Notwithstanding the above, the RC is in near unanimous agreement that sun-setting the Add Grace Period (AGP) is not an appropriate action should the GNSO decide to address Tasting activity. Many Registrars who do not participate in Tasting use the AGP in various ways not related to Tasting, as detailed in section 4.4 of the Outcomes Report of the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Name Tasting. Report found here: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-fina… Sun-setting the AGP would unnecessarily put additional burdens and costs on Registrars and Registrants using the AGP for these non-Tasting reasons. To the extent that the GNSO should decide to recommend policy or actions with the intent of curbing or eliminating Tasting activity, RC members are in general agreement that: Preferred - The GNSO should recommend that ICANN make the transactional fee component of the variable Registrar fees apply to all new registrations except for a reasonable number that are deleted within the AGP. Implementation time for Registrars would be negligible. Acceptable but not preferred - The GNSO should encourage gTLD Registries to only allow AGP refunds on a reasonable number of new registrations, noting that such action is affective only if all gTLD registries apply it, and do so in a reasonably consistent manner. Implementation time for Registrars could be substantial depending on how each Registry decided to define their policy. If Registrars need to modify their systems and/or services a minimum of 90-days advance notice should be given. Note: Neither of the above actions requires new policy or modifications to existing policy. Therefore the RC, regardless of their view, is generally opposed to a PDP on this issue. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/

5 5