Brendler, Beau wrote:

From a consumer/end-user perspective (not necessarily a registrant perspective), the issues of concern are: typo- and cyber-squatting,

Typo squatting and cyber-squatting shouldn't be mixed in with tasting. While there is a degree of overlap at times they aren't the same thing -- Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection http://www.blacknight.eu/ http://blog.blacknight.eu/ Tel. 1850 929 929 Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845

Some time ago, our organization (AGEIA DENSI) made a paper in wich, we expresed our ideas about this issue. One point in that paper was the neccesity to avoid the AGP. The only problem was that this paper was in spanish, and nobody read papers in spanish. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - * / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:48:22 -0500From: Brenbe@consumer.orgTo: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.orgSubject: Re: [At-Large] Revised Domain Tasting Statement

From a consumer/end-user perspective (not necessarily a registrant perspective), the issues of concern are: typo- and cyber-squatting, Internet clutter from parked pages and possible misinformation contained on those pages, and potential harm resulting from misinformation. Arguments on behalf of registrants specifically have already been made by Danny and others, and so, altogether: My organization supports elimination of the AGP, and we encourage ALAC to make a statement accordingly to ICANN on behalf of users.

Beau Brendler Director, Consumer Reports WebWatch From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Alan GreenbergSent: Mon 12/3/2007 11:01 AMTo: At-Large WorldwideSubject: [At-Large] Revised Domain Tasting Statement Attached is the revised Domain Tasting statement and I welcomeconstructive comments.I will need all input no later than Dec. 4, 1700 UTC in order to meetthe Dec 5 submission deadline.Alan***Scanned _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/

Indeed I can and would be happy to do so. On 4 Dec 2007, at 02:05, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:

Actually, a lot of people do – and I am sure if you submit the paper Nick can get it translated for those who don’t. Jacqueline

From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org ] On Behalf Of carlos aguirre Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 18:50 To: Brendler, Beau; Alan Greenberg; At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Revised Domain Tasting Statement

Some time ago, our organization (AGEIA DENSI) made a paper in wich, we expresed our ideas about this issue. One point in that paper was the neccesity to avoid the AGP. The only problem was that this paper was in spanish, and nobody read papers in spanish. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - * / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar

Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2007 14:48:22 -0500 From: Brenbe@consumer.org To: alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Revised Domain Tasting Statement From a consumer/end-user perspective (not necessarily a registrant perspective), the issues of concern are: typo- and cyber-squatting, Internet clutter from parked pages and possible misinformation contained on those pages, and potential harm resulting from misinformation. Arguments on behalf of registrants specifically have already been made by Danny and others, and so, altogether: My organization supports elimination of the AGP, and we encourage ALAC to make a statement accordingly to ICANN on behalf of users.

Beau Brendler Director, Consumer Reports WebWatch

From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Alan Greenberg Sent: Mon 12/3/2007 11:01 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] Revised Domain Tasting Statement Attached is the revised Domain Tasting statement and I welcome constructive comments.

I will need all input no later than Dec. 4, 1700 UTC in order to meet the Dec 5 submission deadline.

Alan

*** Scanned

Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! MSN Messenger

No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 20:34

No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.13/1165 - Release Date: 12/2/2007 20:34

_______________________________________________ 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

Roberto Gaetano wrote:

I think that we are touching here one of the essential points of ALAC: if we want to favour involvment of the local community, we have to accept that at least some communication will take place in the local language(s).

I would go a step further. If we want to achieve the involvement of the local community -- of the public, not just existing advocates -- we need to help put at least some of those communications in local, _non-technical_ language. Most non-involved people will not read lengthy reports full of bureaucratic and technical jargon. Two page simplified briefing papers will go much further to serve our purpose. Nick, what is the status of those writers who were going to describe ICANN issues in plain language? They were mentioned in the San Juan meeting, and some in yesterday's NARALO conference call remember them being promised as long ago as February in Vancouver. Then there's the matter of Jacob's replacement. These are absolutely unacceptably long hiring cycles to fulfill needs critical to the success of the At-Large infrastructure. - Evan

Evan, I have no intention of listing elimination as simply one of many options. I will clearly indicate that one region formally and strongly stated this, as well as a few ALAC members. LA has said that they support the elimination of DT, but did take any position on methodology. And a few Committee members have agreed that the focus should be on the AGP. Most have been silent which by our conventions implies support of the document. As John Levine pointed out, we may have to settle for other measures (supported by Izumi) and as Danny has clearly stated, we should not cop out and leave the policy development to others. If there is a chance that other mechanisms may be adopted, we should have input into them. Although there has been some very strong statements from NA, there has not been the same outcry from other regions and I will try to represent the entire picture. If the ALAC disagrees, they will say so. Alan At 04/12/2007 10:28 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:

So far as I can tell, every single bit of feedback received has regarded the elimination of the AGP, with only the severity of the need to eliminate it varying between the comments.

I look forward to the revisions to the ALAC submission, which reflect the At-Large community's overwhelmingly clear assertion that the AGP is determined to be harmful to the public good. It is a mockery of this stance to simply list elimination of the AGP as one of a number of recommended options. It must be made clear that partial measures such as surcharges are only stopgaps along the path to halting the practice altogether.

I would remind the ALAC that it is a collector, not a framer, of public opinion. You asked for input and you got it. If the overwhelming public sentiment is ignored or downplayed in the official At-Large position, don't complain when future calls for public input get similarly ignored. Not every issue will have public opinion so clearly aligned; if ALAC can't get THIS one right, future issues will be even harder to tackle.

As we all know ALAC is under extremely close scrutiny, by ICANN but also by public groups and participants, many of whom believe that this whole At-Large creation is a placating gesture and a waste of time. It is a corruption of ALAC's purpose to factor objections from other constituencies into its own positions; our paramount goal is to determine the public good and to assert that public good -- undiluted -- into the ICANN ecosystem. It won't happen overnight... but if it is done meekly and apologetically it won't happen at all.

Given the immense cynicism that hangs over ALAC from all circles, perhaps some opportunities present themselves in which the taking of a principled stand, and forcefully getting behind it, is more important than milquetoast diplomacy. I suggest that this is one of those opportunities.

Maybe it's about time that ALAC stopped claiming to protect the public good and started actually doing it. Here's a chance on a platter to do so.

- Evan

As an individual participant in the NA-RALO, I support its position that ALAC should recommend abolition of the AGP as its favored option, not just as one option among many. The AGP opens a loophole in the contractual framework of domain name registration that has been exploited into large-scale flux in the DNS and uncertainty of domain name availability and resolution. Half-measures that don't close the loophole will likely inspire more gaming. --Wendy Evan Leibovitch wrote:

Alan Greenberg wrote:

...

Most have been silent which by our conventions implies support of the document.

If ALAC truly believes that the silent "support" of the document's vague goals is stronger than the voice of those who have spoken in favour of its taking a principled stand, it should be aware that its very relevance is at stake.

...

As John Levine pointed out, we may have to settle for other measures (supported by Izumi) and as Danny has clearly stated, we should not cop out and leave the policy development to others. If there is a chance that other mechanisms may be adopted, we should have input into them. Taking a strong initial stand never eliminates the ability to strategically compromise on temporary, partial solutions. I do believe that you have significant and diverse input that says clearly that the AGP is *WRONG* and against the public good. Half measures are acceptable but must be recognized as what they are -- expediently better than nothing but no replacement for the real thing.

...

Although there has been some very strong statements from NA, there has not been the same outcry from other regions and I will try to represent the entire picture. It's sadly revealing that the NARALO position is described as an 'outcry'.

...

If the ALAC disagrees, they will say so. Indeed. And there are many eyes on the direction it takes.

- Evan

-- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

The silence is possibly due to several factors including: 1) This subject has been discussed for well over a year with no action other than an email debate, and statement. 2) The overall premise seems very much not worthwhile to many individuals and organizations due to several other factors. Just one of the factors dealing with the latter is the constant lack of action. I for one don't understand why the same people must continually beat the same tune on a variety of subjects yet have very little direct bearing on anything of relevance. But, with this does come some progress. I for one will continue to hope for progress. aloha, RJ Glass A@L On Dec 4, 2007 12:17 PM, Bret Fausett <bfausett@internet.law.pro> wrote:

...

If the ALAC disagrees, they will say so.

In reality though, we know that neither the ALAC as a whole nor its component organizations rarely comment on matters of substance, so silence is not a meaningful measure of anything. Nevertheless, a statement that North America strongly advocates elimination of the grace period altogether is a nice start. We did speak with one voice on yesterday's NARALO conference call, which is rare enough to warrant an underline in the comment we submit.

Bret _______________________________________________ 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

-- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org