Please feel free to add/suggest: While the ALAC regards the synthesis of public commentary on Registrar Accredition Agreements (http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/comment-summary.html <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 complia for 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