- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Re: Response on GAC principles Whois ?
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 20, 2007

Feb. 20, 2007

On that topic, we have three candidate ALSes who are national consumer groups and they could be particularly useful here. I will try and source the email address of their GAC representatives for them. On 19 Feb 2007, at 10:42, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > All, > > on another mailing list, this draft of GAC principles about Whois was > circulated. I find it horrible, starting from the extensive definition > of uses, that says that Whois is there to help people fight against > "theft of intellectual property". > > It looks that the GAC is asking for comment to consumer groups, so > while > we as the ALAC/RALOs are not entitled to interfere with the work of > the > GAC, any ALS could get in touch with the GAC representative from their > country and provide an opinion in defense of the registrants' privacy. > > More comments interspersed below. > > Michiel Leenaars ha scritto: >> GAC PRINCIPLES REGARDING USES OF WHOIS DATA >> >> Presented by the Governmental Advisory Committee >> March 29, 2007 >> >> Preamble >> >> 1.1 The purpose of this document is to identify a set of general >> public policy principles related to the generic top level domain >> (gTLD) >> WHOIS service, in line with the recommendations of the Tunis >> Agenda of >> the World Summit on the Information Society in November, 2005. >> >> 1.2Individual GAC members have consulted with privacy, law >> enforcement, >> consumer and intellectual property protection bodies in their >> governments. >> >> Objective of this document >> >> 2.1These principles are intended to guide the work within ICANN >> pertaining to the WHOIS service and to inform the ICANN Board of the >> consensus views of the GAC regarding the range of public policy >> uses of >> WHOIS data. >> >> Public Policy Aspects of WHOIS Data >> >> 3.1 The GAC recognizes that the original function of the gTLD WHOIS >> service, a directory database of resources and users connected to the >> network, has evolved as the Internet has expanded and now serves a >> number of legitimate uses, including, but not limited to: >> >> 1.Supporting Internet network operators responsible for the >> operation, >> security, and stability of the Internet; >> >> 2.Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names; >> >> 3.Assisting law enforcement agencies in investigations and in >> enforcing national and international laws and supporting >> international >> cooperation procedures; >> >> 4.Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark >> clearances and to counter intellectual property infringement, misuse >> and theft; > > ..apart from the use of the term "theft", which, today, only the > really > hard pro-intellectual property people use, of course by saying that > Whois is there to help IP owners, you give for granted that IP owners > have the right to have access to the personal information of whoever > creates a website, and I don't like this. > >> >> 5.Building user confidence in the Internet and e-commerce by helping >> users identify contact details of entities online; and >> >> 6.Assisting businesses, financial institutions, and other >> organizations >> in protecting their business interests, combating fraud, complying >> with >> relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of their customers and >> consumers. >> >> >> 3.2The GAC also recognizes that there are concerns about abuses of >> WHOIS data, which are contrary to the provisions of the Universal >> Declaration of Human Rights. > > This is really dangerous; it seems to imply that the only concerns are > about the abuses of data, e.g. if someone is in direct risk of > retribution for, say, publishing opinions on the Web that do not > please > their government. This paragraph seems carefully built to promote > one of > the proposals currently under examination by ICANN's GNSO, the one > that > says that you would be allowed to keep your data private only if you > could prove that you are under a clear and direct risk created by that > publication. The European approach is exactly the opposite; your data > should remain private unless there is a clear reason to disclose them. > There should be a recognition of the fact that under many legislations > users have a natural right not to disclose their information without > their consensus. It's not just about abuse. > >> 4.1The GAC believes the definition, purpose, and operation of gTLD >> WHOIS services should reflect and respect the different interests and >> concerns of legitimate users of WHOIS data, as outlined in Section 3 >> above. In addition, gTLD WHOIS services should utilize appropriate >> conditions and procedures intended to promote legitimate uses, and >> must >> comply with applicable national laws and regulations. > > Again, this para talks about "promoting legitimate use" (eg, > facilitating IP owners and businesses in accessing your data), but > does > not mention the concerns of the *owners* of WHOIS data. In fact, is > there any mention of the rights and needs of the owners of the > personal > information anywhere in this document? > >> 4.2The GAC also believes that the managers of WHOIS data services >> should provide accurate and complete data about domain name >> registrants >> in a manner that: >> >> 1. Supports the stability and security of the Internet, from both a >> technical and public trust perspective; and >> >> 2. Facilitates continued, timely and global access to accurate WHOIS >> data. > > ..and again, the focus is only on ensuring that personal > information is > readily accessible. No mention, for example, of the fact that the > managers of Whois should allow data owners to effectively enforce > their > rights, such as right to update and to removal. > >> 5.1Recommendations for Industry Action >> >> 1. The GAC encourages stakeholders to work with ICANN to improve the >> accuracy of WHOIS data, and in particular, to take action to >> reduce the >> incidence of deliberately false WHOIS data. > > ..and again... > >> 2.The GAC strongly urges ICANN to work with stakeholders to conduct a >> study of the characteristics of domain name registrants, as a first >> step toward determining: whether and how WHOIS data is misused; > > (which implies, if there are no misuses of Whois data then you should > lose your right to privacy of your information; again, the approach is > reverted - according to this document, it's not people that want your > data that have to explain why, it's you that have to justify why you > want to keep your privacy) > >> how >> to prevent the abuse or criminal use of WHOIS data, without >> compromising access to the data for legitimate purposes; > > ..and again... > >> and to >> facilitate the adoption of technical and procedural measures aimed at >> identifying emerging practices that could be considered misuse or >> abuse >> and bring them to the attention of the public. > > All in all, this draft seems written by a control freak that sees > domain > names as a mass surveillance tool over what people do and say over the > Internet, or by the lawyers of the RIAA. Maybe I am overreacting, but > I've rarely seen such a privacy-unfriendly document about Whois, and I > am astonished that the European government representatives would even > consider discussing on these bases. > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org

1 0

Fwd: Re: Response on GAC principles Whois ?
by Vittorio Bertola Feb. 19, 2007

Feb. 19, 2007

All, on another mailing list, this draft of GAC principles about Whois was circulated. I find it horrible, starting from the extensive definition of uses, that says that Whois is there to help people fight against "theft of intellectual property". It looks that the GAC is asking for comment to consumer groups, so while we as the ALAC/RALOs are not entitled to interfere with the work of the GAC, any ALS could get in touch with the GAC representative from their country and provide an opinion in defense of the registrants' privacy. More comments interspersed below. Michiel Leenaars ha scritto: > GAC PRINCIPLES REGARDING USES OF WHOIS DATA > > Presented by the Governmental Advisory Committee > March 29, 2007 > > Preamble > > 1.1 The purpose of this document is to identify a set of general > public policy principles related to the generic top level domain (gTLD) > WHOIS service, in line with the recommendations of the Tunis Agenda of > the World Summit on the Information Society in November, 2005. > > 1.2Individual GAC members have consulted with privacy, law enforcement, > consumer and intellectual property protection bodies in their > governments. > > Objective of this document > > 2.1These principles are intended to guide the work within ICANN > pertaining to the WHOIS service and to inform the ICANN Board of the > consensus views of the GAC regarding the range of public policy uses of > WHOIS data. > > Public Policy Aspects of WHOIS Data > > 3.1 The GAC recognizes that the original function of the gTLD WHOIS > service, a directory database of resources and users connected to the > network, has evolved as the Internet has expanded and now serves a > number of legitimate uses, including, but not limited to: > > 1.Supporting Internet network operators responsible for the operation, > security, and stability of the Internet; > > 2.Allowing users to determine the availability of domain names; > > 3.Assisting law enforcement agencies in investigations and in > enforcing national and international laws and supporting international > cooperation procedures; > > 4.Facilitating enquiries and subsequent steps to conduct trademark > clearances and to counter intellectual property infringement, misuse > and theft; ...apart from the use of the term "theft", which, today, only the really hard pro-intellectual property people use, of course by saying that Whois is there to help IP owners, you give for granted that IP owners have the right to have access to the personal information of whoever creates a website, and I don't like this. > > 5.Building user confidence in the Internet and e-commerce by helping > users identify contact details of entities online; and > > 6.Assisting businesses, financial institutions, and other organizations > in protecting their business interests, combating fraud, complying with > relevant laws, and safeguarding the interests of their customers and > consumers. > > > 3.2The GAC also recognizes that there are concerns about abuses of > WHOIS data, which are contrary to the provisions of the Universal > Declaration of Human Rights. This is really dangerous; it seems to imply that the only concerns are about the abuses of data, e.g. if someone is in direct risk of retribution for, say, publishing opinions on the Web that do not please their government. This paragraph seems carefully built to promote one of the proposals currently under examination by ICANN's GNSO, the one that says that you would be allowed to keep your data private only if you could prove that you are under a clear and direct risk created by that publication. The European approach is exactly the opposite; your data should remain private unless there is a clear reason to disclose them. There should be a recognition of the fact that under many legislations users have a natural right not to disclose their information without their consensus. It's not just about abuse. > 4.1The GAC believes the definition, purpose, and operation of gTLD > WHOIS services should reflect and respect the different interests and > concerns of legitimate users of WHOIS data, as outlined in Section 3 > above. In addition, gTLD WHOIS services should utilize appropriate > conditions and procedures intended to promote legitimate uses, and must > comply with applicable national laws and regulations. Again, this para talks about "promoting legitimate use" (eg, facilitating IP owners and businesses in accessing your data), but does not mention the concerns of the *owners* of WHOIS data. In fact, is there any mention of the rights and needs of the owners of the personal information anywhere in this document? > 4.2The GAC also believes that the managers of WHOIS data services > should provide accurate and complete data about domain name registrants > in a manner that: > > 1. Supports the stability and security of the Internet, from both a > technical and public trust perspective; and > > 2. Facilitates continued, timely and global access to accurate WHOIS > data. ...and again, the focus is only on ensuring that personal information is readily accessible. No mention, for example, of the fact that the managers of Whois should allow data owners to effectively enforce their rights, such as right to update and to removal. > 5.1Recommendations for Industry Action > > 1. The GAC encourages stakeholders to work with ICANN to improve the > accuracy of WHOIS data, and in particular, to take action to reduce the > incidence of deliberately false WHOIS data. ...and again... > 2.The GAC strongly urges ICANN to work with stakeholders to conduct a > study of the characteristics of domain name registrants, as a first > step toward determining: whether and how WHOIS data is misused; (which implies, if there are no misuses of Whois data then you should lose your right to privacy of your information; again, the approach is reverted - according to this document, it's not people that want your data that have to explain why, it's you that have to justify why you want to keep your privacy) > how > to prevent the abuse or criminal use of WHOIS data, without > compromising access to the data for legitimate purposes; ...and again... > and to > facilitate the adoption of technical and procedural measures aimed at > identifying emerging practices that could be considered misuse or abuse > and bring them to the attention of the public. All in all, this draft seems written by a control freak that sees domain names as a mass surveillance tool over what people do and say over the Internet, or by the lawyers of the RIAA. Maybe I am overreacting, but I've rarely seen such a privacy-unfriendly document about Whois, and I am astonished that the European government representatives would even consider discussing on these bases. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Evaluation of organisations and composition with respect to ALS status
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 18, 2007

Feb. 18, 2007

:) No lie! If human beings can send people to other planets, we can find a way to do these things, I'm sure. On 18/02/07, Vint Cerf <vint(a)google.com> wrote: > > Nick, > > interestingly, this ALS evaluation problem is reminiscent of our nascent > gTLD evaluation problem. Both proving to be tricky to get right in the > details. > > vint > > > Vinton G Cerf > Chief Internet Evangelist > Google > Regus Suite 384 > 13800 Coppermine Road > Herndon, VA 20171 > > +1 703 234-1823 > +1 703-234-5822 (f) > > vint(a)google.com > www.google.com > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* nashtonhart(a)gmail.com [mailto:nashtonhart@gmail.com] *On Behalf Of > *Nick Ashton-Hart > *Sent:* Sunday, February 18, 2007 3:32 PM > *To:* At-Large Worldwide > *Cc:* Denise Michel; John Jeffrey; Carlton A Samuels; Dr. Vinton G. Cerf; > Frank Fowlie > *Subject:* Evaluation of organisations and composition with respect to ALS > status > > Dear Committee: > > It may be useful to tell you that, due to the Ynternet investigation, plus > the application of others which have opened questions about how to judge the > suitability of certain types of applications, I'm compiling a draft note for > your consideration on how to interpret the criteria for determining the > suitability of applicant ALSes to join the community. Hopefully it can serve > to provide further objective criteria for analysis of applications, > especially in the post-RALO-formation world where the number of stakeholders > looking at new applications will considerably increase. > > It would seem to be logical, with the volume of applications rising and at > the same time the number of people looking at applications also increasing > with the MoU provisions for a more engaged regional role in ALS applications > decisions, that we compile together some guidance for analysing ALS > applications, based upon the considerable experience of nearly 100 > applications being received and the vast majority being handled increasingly > expeditiously easily. > > Naturally the end result of how to interpret the criteria for ALS status > would be in the hands of the community, since it is the community that has > the actual decision as to who is to be considered a member - the decision > being made of course through the lens provided by the Bylaws of ICANN and > the board-accepted critera which rely upon the Bylaw provisions. What I hope > to help provide you with is the basis for greater certainty about what the > provisions mean, to facilitate an agreement amongst the community about how > to decide the merits of applications. > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > ICANN > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom > UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: > nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Evaluation of organisations and composition with respect to ALS status
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 18, 2007

Feb. 18, 2007

Dear Committee: It may be useful to tell you that, due to the Ynternet investigation, plus the application of others which have opened questions about how to judge the suitability of certain types of applications, I'm compiling a draft note for your consideration on how to interpret the criteria for determining the suitability of applicant ALSes to join the community. Hopefully it can serve to provide further objective criteria for analysis of applications, especially in the post-RALO-formation world where the number of stakeholders looking at new applications will considerably increase. It would seem to be logical, with the volume of applications rising and at the same time the number of people looking at applications also increasing with the MoU provisions for a more engaged regional role in ALS applications decisions, that we compile together some guidance for analysing ALS applications, based upon the considerable experience of nearly 100 applications being received and the vast majority being handled increasingly expeditiously easily. Naturally the end result of how to interpret the criteria for ALS status would be in the hands of the community, since it is the community that has the actual decision as to who is to be considered a member - the decision being made of course through the lens provided by the Bylaws of ICANN and the board-accepted critera which rely upon the Bylaw provisions. What I hope to help provide you with is the basis for greater certainty about what the provisions mean, to facilitate an agreement amongst the community about how to decide the merits of applications. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Map of the GNSO Policy Development Process
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 17, 2007

Feb. 17, 2007

Dear all: I've attached a scan of a handout I recently received which neatly maps the process at a high level of how the PDP process works in the GNSO. I hope this is handy. We are working on producing more of this kind of information, with accompanying descriptions, to make processes like this easier to understand. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

3 2

Re: [At-Large] FW: [alac] Re: Domain Monetization Background
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 17, 2007

Feb. 17, 2007

I'm happy to get a revision done to the report I sent out incorporating these points if that's thought useful. On 17/02/07, Roberto Gaetano <roberto(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > I believe this is the message that John sent to the alac public list about > the domain name monetization. > RG > > (didn't ask for explicit permission, but since it was sent to the public > list I assume it's OK) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-alac(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-alac@icann.org] On Behalf Of John > L > Sent: 21 August 2006 05:50 > To: ALAC > Subject: [alac] Re: Domain Monetization Background > > Thanks for that useful summary. There are a few other points that are > worth > bringing out: > > One is that there is a meaningful difference between domain monetization > and > domain tasting. > > Monetization is a straightforward arbitrage between the cost of domain > registrations and the revenue from as much pay-per-click traffic as the > domain owner can get from people who visit web sites in the domain. It's > a > fundamentally sleazy business, since the web sites have no useful content > and the way they get the traffic is basically by tricking people, either > via > typos or recently expired domains. But it's not the only sleazy thing > that > people do with domains, and it is not at all obvious to me why ICANN > should > do something special about this particular flavor of sleaze. If > registrars > are warehousing domains in violation of sections > 3.7.4 and 3.7.9 of the registar agreement, I suppose that ICANN should > slap > their wrists, but that's trivial to circumvent by creating a nominally > separate customer to hold the domains. > > If we agree that this is a bad idea, it would be much more effective to > persuade Google and Overture to stop paying for clicks on pages with no > content, thereby dealing with a problem that is not limited to typo and > expired domains. We've seen click arbitrage, people buying Google ads to > drive traffic to pages that are simply other Google ads. > > Domain tasting, on the other hand, uses the five day add grace period to > register domains without paying for them. It stops being arbitrage and > instead is somewhere between larceny and extortion, because the > registration > cost is zero. As many people, most eloquently Bob Parsons, have noted, > it's > exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be there in the first place. There > was > a great deal of debate both in the ICANN community and on the ICANN board > about the deletion grace period, but none at all about add grace which was > apparently tossed into the package by an ICANN staffer without asking > anyone. So says Karl Auerbach, who was on the board at the time, and I > haven't seen anything to the contrary from any other board member. > > The usual explanation of domain tasting says that the registrars register > millions of domains, watch the traffic, and then after 4.9 days they > delete > the ones that don't seem likely to make back the six bucks. I wouldn't be > surprised if they just delete them all and then reregister what they can a > few minutes later. The domains are all nearly worthless, so why take the > risk of paying anything for them? > > The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve > is > not and never was an important one. If you let an important domain > expire, > you risk losing the entire investment made in that domain over many years. > But if you register a domain by mistake, the most you risk is the ten or > twenty bucks you paid to register it. > > Finally, it was completely predictable that people would abuse the ability > to register domains for free. Back in the pre-ICANN days you registered a > domain by sending mail to NSI, they sent back the confirmation, then you > had > several weeks to send them a check before they deleted the domain for > non-payment. Pay per click hadn't been invented yet, so the abuse at that > point was to squat on domains with interesting looking names and try to > sell > them before they were deleted. > > R's, > John > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

FW: [alac] Re: Domain Monetization Background
by Roberto Gaetano Feb. 17, 2007

Feb. 17, 2007

I believe this is the message that John sent to the alac public list about the domain name monetization. RG (didn't ask for explicit permission, but since it was sent to the public list I assume it's OK) -----Original Message----- From: owner-alac(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-alac@icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: 21 August 2006 05:50 To: ALAC Subject: [alac] Re: Domain Monetization Background Thanks for that useful summary. There are a few other points that are worth bringing out: One is that there is a meaningful difference between domain monetization and domain tasting. Monetization is a straightforward arbitrage between the cost of domain registrations and the revenue from as much pay-per-click traffic as the domain owner can get from people who visit web sites in the domain. It's a fundamentally sleazy business, since the web sites have no useful content and the way they get the traffic is basically by tricking people, either via typos or recently expired domains. But it's not the only sleazy thing that people do with domains, and it is not at all obvious to me why ICANN should do something special about this particular flavor of sleaze. If registrars are warehousing domains in violation of sections 3.7.4 and 3.7.9 of the registar agreement, I suppose that ICANN should slap their wrists, but that's trivial to circumvent by creating a nominally separate customer to hold the domains. If we agree that this is a bad idea, it would be much more effective to persuade Google and Overture to stop paying for clicks on pages with no content, thereby dealing with a problem that is not limited to typo and expired domains. We've seen click arbitrage, people buying Google ads to drive traffic to pages that are simply other Google ads. Domain tasting, on the other hand, uses the five day add grace period to register domains without paying for them. It stops being arbitrage and instead is somewhere between larceny and extortion, because the registration cost is zero. As many people, most eloquently Bob Parsons, have noted, it's exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be there in the first place. There was a great deal of debate both in the ICANN community and on the ICANN board about the deletion grace period, but none at all about add grace which was apparently tossed into the package by an ICANN staffer without asking anyone. So says Karl Auerbach, who was on the board at the time, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary from any other board member. The usual explanation of domain tasting says that the registrars register millions of domains, watch the traffic, and then after 4.9 days they delete the ones that don't seem likely to make back the six bucks. I wouldn't be surprised if they just delete them all and then reregister what they can a few minutes later. The domains are all nearly worthless, so why take the risk of paying anything for them? The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve is not and never was an important one. If you let an important domain expire, you risk losing the entire investment made in that domain over many years. But if you register a domain by mistake, the most you risk is the ten or twenty bucks you paid to register it. Finally, it was completely predictable that people would abuse the ability to register domains for free. Back in the pre-ICANN days you registered a domain by sending mail to NSI, they sent back the confirmation, then you had several weeks to send them a check before they deleted the domain for non-payment. Pay per click hadn't been invented yet, so the abuse at that point was to squat on domains with interesting looking names and try to sell them before they were deleted. R's, John

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [EURO-Discuss] [Fwd: Re: Domain Name Tasting]
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 16, 2007

Feb. 16, 2007

See below On 16/02/07, John L <johnl(a)iecc.com> wrote: > > > Secondly: If there are missing elements from the issues report - which > was > > forwarded around recently, and is attached again here - we should > identify > > those and make improvements to the report. Any thoughts on that subject > would > > be very helpful. > > I sent a response the day it came out, which should be in the mail > archives. The day it came out the first time in August, or more recently? If the latter then I will go find it. > In other words the ALAC would need to take action formally and transmit a > > request to the GNSO Council as provided above. > > Good point. The committee needs to decide whether it wants to do so. The committee, in consultation with the community, would be well-advised - in advance - to decide what outcome it is actually looking for, and to devise the rationale for the position it takes on the issue. > HOWEVER: Just because ALAC asks the GNSO to start a PDP doesn't mean that > > they will. > > Yes, I know. But we have to ask for them to say yes or no. Actually, the point I was making is that there are multiple routes to initiating a PDP, and careful thought needs to be spent on which route is most likely to assure the result you want. You would also, after deciding what specific outcomes you are looking for, and the best way to go about trying to initiate a PDP based upon the desired outcomes, want to reach out to key constituencies in the GNSO to see what view they are likely to take on your ideas and views. To be effective in raising a PDP and achieving the result you want from the PDP process is far more complex than ALAC communicating with the GNSO and asking them to do something. R's, > John > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > www.alac.icann.org > www.icannalac.org > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [EURO-Discuss] [Fwd: Re: Domain Name Tasting]
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 16, 2007

Feb. 16, 2007

Firstly: John, feel free to join the European list; I'm sure that nobody will object. Secondly: If there are missing elements from the issues report - which was forwarded around recently, and is attached again here - we should identify those and make improvements to the report. Any thoughts on that subject would be very helpful. Thirdly: Just because the ALAC requests an issues report from the At- large staff does not automatically lead to the GNSO Staff asking the GNSO to initiate a PDP. Here's a snippet from the Bylaws (Annex A(1)): 1. Raising an Issue An issue may be raised for consideration as part of the PDP by any of the following: a. Board Initiation. The Board may initiate the PDP by instructing the GNSO Council ("Council") to begin the process outlined in this Annex. b. Council Initiation. The GNSO Council may initiate the PDP by a vote of at least twenty-five percent (25%) of the members of the Council present at any meeting in which a motion to initiate the PDP is made. c. Advisory Committee Initiation. An Advisory Committee may raise an issue for policy development by action of such committee to commence the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council. In other words the ALAC would need to take action formally and transmit a request to the GNSO Council as provided above. HOWEVER: Just because ALAC asks the GNSO to start a PDP doesn't mean that they will. The Council has to vote to do so - and the weighted voting of the registrars and registries means that the extra votes they dispose - especially in this case - could block a PDP being raised. I'm not saying that they would block it, or that any other constituency might do so, but the voting position means that we must move carefully. The initiation of a PDP is a serious step and it is very political. If a PDP were to be sought, careful thought would need to be given to how to assure that the PDP process actually begins - and then how to raise the votes in the GNSO Council to help the process reach the desired conclusion. I would suggest strongly that careful planning and though, as well as advance discussions with members of the GNSO council and the ICANN Board, should be held so that the political climate can be assessed. The At-Large Community should also, in advance, have a clear idea of exactly what the outcome of a PDP ought to be. On 16 Feb 2007, at 15:35, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > John Levine asked me to forward the message below to the European > maillist as he was not authorised he said. > > On Fri, 16 Feb 2007, Rudi Vansnick wrote: > >> I support the Domain Name Tasting issue to be discussed at the >> upcoming >> ICANN Meeting in Lisbon. Looking at what happens in EURid, I >> personally >> think the issue is a real big hurdle for EURid, even at Belgian (.be) >> level many discussions are ongoing. > > That's a good thought. The ALAC has already asked for and received an > issues paper on this topic. It wasn't as complete as I would have > liked, > but it did cover the basics. > > The bylaws say that within 15 days after the report, the GNSO council > staff is supposed to recommend to the GNSO whether or not to > initiate a > policy development process (PDP). The issues report came out > months ago, > but I don't recall hearing what happened relative to a PDP. > > Nick, can you query their staff and find out? Thanks. > > Regards, > John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet > for Dummies", > Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, Mayor > "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > EURO-Discuss mailing list > EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro- > discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [AFRI-Discuss] Domain Name Tasting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 16, 2007

Feb. 16, 2007

Absolutely possible. I've copied Craig Schwartz of ICANN in on this email; he's the liaison to the registrars. It may be that such an informational session is already planned; if not, perhaps he will have an idea about how we can have a discussion on the subject you've raised. On 16/02/07, Alan Levin <alan(a)futureperfect.co.za> wrote: > > Hi, > > I'm not in favour nor against this suggestion. > > Once we're chatting about agenda items, I am interested to have a > session on the new Auth code requirements for initiating a registrar > transfer process. This makes things incredibly difficult for > registrants to change their registrar should they be unhappy with the > service they receive. Changing registrars has become an obstacle/ > assault course. > > Possible? > > warm regards, > > Alan > > > On 16 Feb 2007, at 10:55 AM, Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > > > Dear all: > > > > Since ALAC, African and European ALSes are all meeting in Lisbon, > > I'm wondering if we can do some substantive work with respect to > > the domain name tasting issue. > > > > Of course, if one region wants to do more with this than another, > > that's fine - but it occurs to me we will have lots of experts and > > staff people around in Lisbon; lets make the most of them. > > > > I'd like to ask, in particular, the ICANN Staff Registry Liaison to > > come and talk, at least with the ALAC but if it is in an open > > meeting perhaps also with other groups - or separately also with > > regions - and that conversation could be about registry issues in > > general with a focus on tasting. > > > > Without objection, I'll put a placeholder into the draft agenda of > > each group for a discussion on registry issues. We can always then > > remove it of course. > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > Director, At-Large > > ICANN > > PO Box 32160 > > London N4 2XY > > United Kingdom > > Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] > > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > AFRI-Discuss mailing list > > AFRI-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/afri- > > discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > --------------------------------------------- > Alan Levin > Tel: +27 21 409-7997 > -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1