I think we could afford the few minutes suggested for this topic
as a
point to discuss the offer of further briefing that Nick offered
to
facilitate if we want it...
CLO
Quoting
"Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:
> 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 [HYPERLINK
> "mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org"mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org]
>
Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 6:53 PM
> To: Brendler, Beau
> Cc: HYPERLINK
"mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com"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 [HYPERLINK
> "mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com"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
[HYPERLINK
> "mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org"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 HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/comment-summary.html"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,
HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/comment-summary.html"http://www.icann.org/t
>
opics/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:
HYPERLINK
> "mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org"alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.ican
>
n.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
> HYPERLINK "mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org"ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
HYPERLINK
> "http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or
>
g"http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.o
>
rg
>
> At-Large Official Site: HYPERLINK
> "http://www.alac.icann.org"http://www.alac.icann.org
> ALAC
Independent: HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icannalac.org"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
>
> HYPERLINK "mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org"ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>
HYPERLINK
> "http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or
>
g"http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.o
>
rg
>
>
>
> At-Large Official Site: HYPERLINK
> "http://www.alac.icann.org"http://www.alac.icann.org
>
>
ALAC Independent: HYPERLINK
> "http://www.icannalac.org"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: HYPERLINK
> "mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org"nick.ashton-hart@icann.org
>
Win IM: HYPERLINK "mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com"ashtonhart@hotmail.com
/
> AIM/iSight: HYPERLINK "mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com"nashtonhart@mac.com
/
> Skype: nashtonhart
>
> Online Bio:
HYPERLINK
> "https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart"https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonha
>
rt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
***
> Scanned
>
>
>
> --
>
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: HYPERLINK
> "mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org"nick.ashton-hart@icann.org
>
Win IM: HYPERLINK "mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com"ashtonhart@hotmail.com
/
> AIM/iSight: HYPERLINK "mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com"nashtonhart@mac.com
/
> Skype: nashtonhart
>
> Online Bio:
HYPERLINK
> "https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart"https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonha
>
rt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
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
>
>
> 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
***
Scanned