(BTW I fixed some bad grammar in the first paragraph).

 

Jacqueline -- I'd certainly be happy to see this discussed on the agenda tonight. After reading that lengthy summary document, it looks like a great deal of what I submitted to John Levine, along with some other rather strongly worded statements from others and from Danny, has ended up in "Section F," i.e., comments from the at-large/end user community that ICANN is not going to act upon or consider.

 

While I don't find this surprising, I think this is a good time to invoke the option that seems to have made its way into the summary document about requesting an issues report. (That language didn't originate with me, so I am not sure who put it in there). We've already paved the way, and I think we owe it to users to follow through.

---

From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com]
Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 5:47 PM
To: Brendler, Beau; 'Izumi AIZU'; 'At-Large'
Subject: RE: [At-Large] {Disarmed} DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow

Do we agree on asking for an issues report on this? Should this go on the agenda tonight?

 

From: Brendler, Beau [mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 14:32
To: Izumi AIZU; At-Large
Subject: [At-Large] {Disarmed} DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow

 

Please feel free to add/suggest:

 

While the ALAC regards the synthesis of public commentary on Registrar Accredition Agreements MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "www.icann.org" claiming to be (http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/comment-summary.html) to be a good start, we are concerned a number of proposals made by the at-large community and consumer organizations intended to make more concrete some specific contract enforcement provisions between ICANN and registrars, along with compliance with the agreements themselves, have been classified "unfeasible" or outside ICANN's scope (Section F, http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/comment-summary.html).

 

A number of provisions in section F were suggested to give consumers assistance, direction and help in choosing a registrar; means of redress when disputes arise; objective and public data detailng registrar problems; and some assignation of responsibility on registrars to provide security enhancing and stability (for example, DNSSEC). Perhaps somewhat predictably, the classification of at-large and user comments on the RAA into what probably will be done, might be done through other means or venues, and what probably is not going to be done, seems to go easy on registrars while still leaving substantial gaps in the registrar agreements for abuse of the user community. 

 

Section F, item 21 states, "We ask ICANN staff to prepare a summary of the current practices, fees and burdens imposed on registrants by a significant sample of registrars. (The ALAC is ready to ask for an Issues Report if necessary)." The ALAC now officially asks for an Issues Report, which we believe is necessary, and should include a more thorough explanation of criteria used to eliminate almost 30 items from consideration in Section F.

---

From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Izumi AIZU
Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 4:07 PM
To: At-Large
Subject: [At-Large] DRAFT ALAC comment on IPv4 depletion and IPv6 migration

Here is my "try".  Crude. Please send any comments and suggestions to
make it better.

izumi

--------------

ALAC comment on IPv4 depletion and IPv6 migration

We are aware that sometime within a few years time, current pool of
IPv4 address will expire which may have significant impact on the use
of Internet by broad public.

Everyone agree the importance of making sure to allocate remaining
pool of IPv4 address in a fair, equitable and predictable manner. The
challenge here is what exactly we mean by "fair, equitable and
predictable" that is pragmatic and implementable for all global users.
We respect the policy works done by the RIRs so far, and are willing
to actively participate more.

We are concerned about the potential creation of "black market" and
call for a rational ways to make secondary market a realty. We also
call for a reasonable way of recollecting the unused IPv4 address
blocks.

We also like to call for more outreach work initiated by the ICANN
community to make sure the issues are understood clearly and the
solutions are communicated openly to broad public.

We understand that the best solution to this challenge is to make
smooth and orderly transition to the broad use of IPv6. There are
several challenges and tasks to make that to happen:
- Organize awareness campaign for the need for timely transition,
- Avoid media hypes by providing accurate information to wider public
- Make sure all "public sites" by governments and commercial service
providers implement IPv4-v6 dual capacity in time
- Measures be taken to help developing countries to prepare the
transition in timely and affordable manner

_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@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

***
Scanned

 

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02

***
Scanned

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: 10/27/2007 11:02

_______________________________________________

ALAC mailing list

ALAC@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