- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] ALAC submission to the RAA consultation
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 17, 2007

Sept. 17, 2007

I have seen your postings. I think these comments are referring to the number of ALSes participating in the discussion rather than suggesting that none at all have participated. On 13 Sep 2007, at 21:09, Seth M. Reiss wrote: > Nick > > Trouble is, even though Randy and I made the effort the review and > give our sincere input respecting Vittorio's drafts, those > commenting on the lack of ALS input seem to have missed our > participation entirely! I wonder if only we can see the messages > we post??? A new technological innovation perhaps? > > Seth > > > > From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org] > Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2007 8:57 PM > To: RJGlass | America@Large > Cc: Vittorio Bertola; seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC submission to the RAA consultation > > All the regions are collaborating together on the RAA WG to put a > statement together, which is what Vittorio is speaking of below. > > On 12 Sep 2007, at 21:06, RJGlass | America@Large wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I thought the NARALO put something in or was working toward doing so. >> >> I don't know if this is the same discussion, please clarify. >> >> Thanks, >> Randy >> >> >> On 9/12/07, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: >> All, >> >> I (and the working group) are still waiting to know who will take >> over >> the responsibility of finalizing the ALAC submission to the >> consultation >> on the revision of the RAA. >> >> Pardon me if I insist, but it is very important that the ALAC submits >> its contribution in the next few days (the formal deadline was >> September >> 10). With the collective input of the group, I already drafted a 7- >> page >> document which is almost complete - there is the need for a few >> hours' >> work of revision incorporating the last round of comments, and >> then for >> formal approval by the ALAC with whatever procedure the ALAC wants to >> apply (I had asked for information about the procedure weeks ago, >> but I >> don't think I had any reply). >> >> Given that the ALAC wants to mark a sharp change of direction, I >> do not >> think that it would be useful for me to continue leading this >> effort - >> it would not bring to anything that the ALAC can agree with. >> Unfortunately, apart from a few replies by Jacqueline, no ALAC >> member is >> participating to this working group or has submitted any comments on >> this issue, so there is no natural candidate. Perhaps the new Board >> liaison can spare a few hours of her time in the next 2-3 days to >> take >> care of this? >> >> Regards, >> -- >> 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 >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org >> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org >> >> >> >> -- >> ------------------------- >> AmericaAtLarge.org >> RJPacific.com >> DDMF.org >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- >> lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org >> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > -- > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > ICANN > Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +41 (22) 595 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 > > > -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 email: nashton(a)consensus.pro 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] [RAA-WG] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 17, 2007

Sept. 17, 2007

Hugh Dierker ha scritto: > Multiple viewpoints should be spelled out when there is any appreciable > support, even one, well reasoned for a different point of view. I say > this especially in light of the nominal contributions in this instance. I am not sure about what are the divergent points of view in this case: some people think that registrars should abide by privacy laws in their countries, while some others think that they should violate them? Some people think that ICANN should enforce both its policies related to accuracy and those related to privacy, while some others think that it should enforce only the former? It seems to me that the ALAC is taking a position that until now I had heard only from representatives of the IP lobby and of North American police corps, and I do not understand why. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Fourth possibly final draft of RAA comments
by John L Sept. 17, 2007

Sept. 17, 2007

> On this subject, I suggested having an ombudsman-like scenario. Someone or > something that independently fixes problems. The two parties to the RAA are ICANN and the registrar. Is this an ombudsman to negotiate between them or between registrars and registrants? In the latter case, we're back to the third party beneficiary stuff. > 2) WHOIS > WHOIS should not be a publicly available database. Registering a domain is not a license for registrants to harass Internet users anonymously. The publicly available WHOIS is an essential facility to protect the vast, vast majority of at-large users who have never registered a domain and never will. > Privacy laws do prevail in this circumstance. Oh, then we agree, since as I would hope everyone was aware, the United States, where ICANN and the largest registrars are located, has no meaningful privacy laws. Needless to say, consensus on this point in this group is unlikely any time in the near future. R's, John

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Third possibly final draft of RAA comments/TPB
by Danny Younger Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

Eric, Thanks for your thoughtful input. At the end of the day, however, the goal is to have complaints resolved. Rather than opening up the door to the possibility of increased litigation, have a look at an alternative approach to Complaint Handling: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2002-21/ regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz

1 0

[RAA-WG] Third possibly final draft of RAA comments
by Danny Younger Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

Bret, (1) In your view, do you think that the efforts of Stacy Burnette and Connie Brown will be sufficient to police the tens of thousands of resellers that are out there? I don't. It's not realistic, nor is it realistic to think that they will be able to audit all of these entities and/or "rate" these resellers. (2) ICANN does have a compliance department (see above) that so far is managing to audit the less than 1000 registrars currently accredited. (3) Third-party beneficiary status is not the appropriate way to deal with enforcement issues. I would suggest (a) leaving the enforcement up to the Compliance Team (which is what they are being paid to do) and; (b) having a look at the auDa Complaint Resolution mechanisms that registrars are required by contract to implement. There are ways forward other than one which will only open the door to lawsuits. (4) ICANN's lack of enforcement should be criticized, and ICANN should be augmenting its compliance team. This is called for in the Joint Project Agreement that specified "devoting adequate resources to contract enforcement" as affirmed responsibility #10. regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Got a little couch potato? Check out fun summer activities for kids. http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&…

1 0

Third possibly final draft of RAA comments
by John L Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

I went through the entire archive of the RAA-WG list (126 messages not counting troll nonsense), and updated the document to try to address all of the open concerns, and to take out stuff that's either resolved like setting up escrow, or on which there's no consensus like what belongs in WHOIS. The two attachents are the same document, the first in ODT format for freedom loving open source users, the latter six times bulkier DOC format for Slaves of Redmond. Please read and review soon, since this document is late and needs to go out tomorrow. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

6 7

Re: [At-Large] Third possibly final draft of RAA comments
by John L Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

> To me, this revision strikes an appropriate balance overall, requesting that > ICANN take oversight of its contractual relationships without making it into > a general-purpose consumer protection agency. Thanks. > I'd recommend modifying Sec. 9, which currently would force identification > even by a registrant who preferred to remain anonymous. In principle I agree, but I have consumer protections concerns because I doubt that many registrants would understand that means that if their registrar flakes, they lose their domain. R's, John

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [RAA-WG] Third possibly final draft of RAA comments/TPB
by Danny Younger Sept. 14, 2007

Sept. 14, 2007

Eric, As an attorney you are aware that in the context of contract law, there are two categories of third party beneficiaries; intended beneficiaries and incidental beneficiaries. By what twist of the law do you regard the registrant community as the intended beneficiary of the two party contract between the registrar community and ICANN? As I see it, registrants are at best incidental beneficiaries that have no enforceable rights under such a contract. Wishing it was otherwise is somewhat akin to a herd of sheep passing a resolution declaring all wolves to be vegetarians. Nice thought, but the reality is still otherwise. Looking forward to your elucidation. --- Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > The section is a mainstay and yet it was taken out. > Could it be put back in? > > Eric > > Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > John L ha scritto: > > <snip> > > Also, you removed the second bullet (and added a new > one) in section 4 - > why? > > Finally, you removed the section on intended > beneficiaries of the > contract. I've seen that Bret already asked to > reinstate it, and I > support that. (I had made it a separate section at > the end to give it > more prominence, but, as you like.) > > Regards, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at > http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > _______________________________________________ > RAA-WG mailing list > RAA-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… > > RAA WG Online: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations > > > > > --------------------------------- > Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - > their life, your story. > Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. > _______________________________________________ > RAA-WG mailing list > RAA-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… > > RAA WG Online: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrant_registrar_relations > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Don't let your dream ride pass you by. Make it a reality with Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/index.html

1 0

ALAC submission to the RAA consultation
by Vittorio Bertola Sept. 13, 2007

Sept. 13, 2007

All, I (and the working group) are still waiting to know who will take over the responsibility of finalizing the ALAC submission to the consultation on the revision of the RAA. Pardon me if I insist, but it is very important that the ALAC submits its contribution in the next few days (the formal deadline was September 10). With the collective input of the group, I already drafted a 7-page document which is almost complete - there is the need for a few hours' work of revision incorporating the last round of comments, and then for formal approval by the ALAC with whatever procedure the ALAC wants to apply (I had asked for information about the procedure weeks ago, but I don't think I had any reply). Given that the ALAC wants to mark a sharp change of direction, I do not think that it would be useful for me to continue leading this effort - it would not bring to anything that the ALAC can agree with. Unfortunately, apart from a few replies by Jacqueline, no ALAC member is participating to this working group or has submitted any comments on this issue, so there is no natural candidate. Perhaps the new Board liaison can spare a few hours of her time in the next 2-3 days to take care of this? Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

6 7

Summary Minutes and Recording, 11 September 2007 Meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 13, 2007

Sept. 13, 2007

Dear Members and Community: The Draft Summary Minutes and the recording of the 11 September 2007 ALAC meeting are now available from: https://st.icann.org/alac/ index.cgi?11_september_2007 I shall compile action items from the summary shortly. IMPORTANT: Note that there are a couple of places where there was a break in minute-taking due to my working on technical issues with the teleconference. If Members could step in and fill in anything important whilst the meeting is still fresh in everyone's minds, this would be awfully helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 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

1 0