Do we want to postpone the decision on the issues report until after the 2 sessions on RAA? Maybe some of the issues can get cleared up there?

From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org]
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 18:11
To: Beau Brendler
Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Izumi AIZU; At-Large
Subject: Re: [At-Large] DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow

Beau, and all:

I am happy to get Kurt Pritz and/or Tim Cole to come and speak, either in session or informally, about the rationale behind why items went into the various sections?

To request an issues report with respect to the RAA right now is of course a possible step, but if the RAA process went into a PDP process that would almost certainly considerably extend the process of actually getting the agreement changed (and of course the GNSO would have to decide to start a PDP which cannot be assumed....)

Basically, gathering a bit more information from Kurt and Tim cannot be anything but useful, and doesn't prejudice the ability to ask for an Issues Report in any case.

On 29 Oct 2007, at 16:50, Brendler, Beau wrote:

Thanks, Nick, for the foresight on that.

Assuming the ALAC agrees tonight to request an issues report as it has suggested it might do, we could include this explanation.

This summary document has caused me some dismay, and it should cause the user community some dismay as well. I wish I had seen it prior to yesterday's meeting with Kurt Pritz and Denise Michel. I've now come away from that meeting with a different opinion of what actually happened. Perhaps I am making too much out of a summary document, but it appears to me the procedural/implementation die is cast. What remains in Section A is a vaguely worded set of action items that remind me a lot of the GNSO's proposal on gTLDs. There is a single section on graduated sanctions and that's about it.

One item relegated to Section F, in fact, was an undertaking of ratings of registrars, with the help of Consumers Union. This proposal had generated some interest on Jacqueline's part and Danny Younger's part, as I recall. Perhaps it's better going forward that such a project be undertaken outside of and independent from ICANN.

Kurt is now describing dispute resolution procedures in the gTLD workshop so I want to hear that. It might restore a bit of my faith.

From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org]
Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 6:53 PM
To: Brendler, Beau
Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Izumi AIZU; At-Large
Subject: Re: [At-Large] DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow

FWIW, I asked the staff on Friday to prepare a document explaining why items ended up in Section F. Whilst they said they would do that, it may take them a bit of time since the meeting is going on. I will ask for updates on when this can be expected during the staff meeting tomorrow.

On 29 Oct 2007, at 15:08, Brendler, Beau wrote:

(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

--
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@icann.org
Win IM: ashtonhart@hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart@mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart

Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart