I'm not sure as what date it was actually posted to the ICANN website, but ICANN has been removed as a defendant in the $25,000,000 lawsuit initiated by Michael Moore against ICANN, eNom and RegisterFly (for jurisdictional reasons). http://www.icann.org/legal/moore-v-icann/moore-v-icann-dismissal.pdf Some of you may remember the 48 postings sent to the ALAC Public Forum by Michael Moore complaining of renewal problems with these registrars -- you will probably also recall that no one on the ALAC offered any assistance or guidance to Mr. Moore. The ALAC now no longer has a Public Forum per se where average citizens can send through complaints or inquiries... you may want to reassess that decision. You may also want to ask yourselves whether a failure to communicate with the public has led to unnecessary lawsuits that have served to drain ICANN financial resources. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Danny Younger wrote:
You may also want to ask yourselves whether a failure to communicate with the public has led to unnecessary lawsuits that have served to drain ICANN financial resources.
The first thing that is striking, to me, is that you address ALAC as "you", not as "we". Anyway, to the matter of the post, my answer is "No". And the reason is that Tim Cole has written to the plaintiff explaining the position of ICANN, as reported in the document you quote (see: http://www.icann.org/legal/moore-v-icann/moore-v-icann-dismissal.pdf, pages 6-7), to which he has chosen to sue ICANN anyway. However, your question opens a greater issue: "What is the role of ALAC?" Personally, I doubt that ALAC has to turn into a consumer protection agency, and dedicate the scarce resources to anything else than policy making. Maybe an effort can be made to inform consumer protection agencies (some of which are also ALSes) of facts related to the domain names market, but not to try to do their job. Thoughts? Cheers, Roberto
To put some other thoughts, Danny, do you mean/want ALAC as 15-member global committee should correspond to each consumer/user complaints? Or, with the recent setup of RALO, should NARALO, in case of North America, respond to? Or, say, is it better any of ALS first deal with them? [or none of above?] We have Consumer organization in US as one ALS. NARALO "can" become such channel. But I doubt tthe global ALAC to become the first channel. And, I also have thought that each case should be handled not by ALAC, but rather by either ICANN or registrar-registry in charge. At least former interim ALAC did not have that kind of capacity, and there did not seem to exist such expectation. Maybe I am completly wrong, but I cannot help express these. izumi 2007/12/6, Roberto Gaetano <roberto@icann.org>:
Danny Younger wrote:
You may also want to ask yourselves whether a failure to communicate with the public has led to unnecessary lawsuits that have served to drain ICANN financial resources.
The first thing that is striking, to me, is that you address ALAC as "you", not as "we".
Anyway, to the matter of the post, my answer is "No". And the reason is that Tim Cole has written to the plaintiff explaining the position of ICANN, as reported in the document you quote (see: http://www.icann.org/legal/moore-v-icann/moore-v-icann-dismissal.pdf, pages 6-7), to which he has chosen to sue ICANN anyway.
However, your question opens a greater issue: "What is the role of ALAC?" Personally, I doubt that ALAC has to turn into a consumer protection agency, and dedicate the scarce resources to anything else than policy making. Maybe an effort can be made to inform consumer protection agencies (some of which are also ALSes) of facts related to the domain names market, but not to try to do their job.
Thoughts?
Cheers, Roberto
_______________________________________________ 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
-- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org
Roberto, We all read on the At-Large Forum Tim Cole's response regarding RegisterFly's failure to renew registrations held by Mr. Moore: "it does not appear that there has been any violation of ICANN policy that would qualify as a violation of the registrar contract with ICANN." ... and yet a year later RegisterFly is disaccredited for precisely the actions decribed by Mr. Moore. Did the ALAC have a duty to follow this user issue, to bring the matter of persistent registrant abuse to the attention of the Board? Sure it did. But it didn't do that... it basically did nothing even as a flood of complaints regarding registerfly began to emerge and even while several of those complaints continued to appear on the At-Large Public Forum. The public complains to the ALAC, and the ALAC ignores the complaints and then shuts down the ALAC Public Forum. If five years after the creation of the ALAC you have to ask the question "What is the ALAC's role?", then you clearly have a body with no continuing purpose in the ICANN process. By the way, how long do you intend to postpone the ALAC review? I'm beginning to wonder if the delay stems from problems finding an independent reviewer that will in advance commit to your predetermined conclusion regarding the future of the ALAC. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Danny Younger wrote:
We all read on the At-Large Forum Tim Cole's response regarding RegisterFly's failure to renew registrations held by Mr. Moore: "it does not appear that there has been any violation of ICANN policy that would qualify as a violation of the registrar contract with ICANN."
... and yet a year later RegisterFly is disaccredited for precisely the actions decribed by Mr. Moore.
False. The reason why RegisterFly has lost its accreditation was because of violation of its contract *with ICANN*, specifically not complying with the redressment measures put in place, not at all because of violation of its contract *with its customers*, which was the subject of Mr. Moore's lawsuit. And this is precisely the reason why the judge has indicated that he had no jurisdiction over the case, in relation to ICANN. ICANN could not foresee, one year earlier, that after having violated the contract with its customers (which is a private relationship between registrar and customers) RegisterFly would have failed to comply also with its obligations with ICANN: at the time when the sentence had been written by Tim Cole, there was no breach of RegisterFly wrt the registrar accreditation terms.
Did the ALAC have a duty to follow this user issue, to bring the matter of persistent registrant abuse to the attention of the Board? Sure it did. But it didn't do that... it basically did nothing even as a flood of complaints regarding registerfly began to emerge and even while several of those complaints continued to appear on the At-Large Public Forum.
I insist that ALAC's role is not to act as a consumer protection agency. And this is the key issue on which we have a disagreement. Cheers, Roberto
The public complains to the ALAC, and the ALAC ignores the complaints and then shuts down the ALAC Public Forum.
If five years after the creation of the ALAC you have to ask the question "What is the ALAC's role?", then you clearly have a body with no continuing purpose in the ICANN process.
By the way, how long do you intend to postpone the ALAC review? I'm beginning to wonder if the delay stems from problems finding an independent reviewer that will in advance commit to your predetermined conclusion regarding the future of the ALAC.
______________________________________________________________ ______________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Re: "I insist that ALAC's role is not to act as a consumer protection agency. And this is the key issue on which we have a disagreement." Nice try at spin. Responding to those that contact your organizational Forum, and bringing those registrant concerns to the attention of the Board is hardly the totality that constitutes a consumer protection agency. So let me try to understand you correctly wit regard to Mr. Moore's issue, you are arguing that a registrar can choose not to renew a domain name that he has sponsored even if he has received payment for such a renewal, and that action does not violate the registrar's sponsorship obligations as set out in the RAA. Is that correct? ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Danny Younger wrote:
Nice try at spin. Responding to those that contact your organizational Forum, and bringing those registrant concerns to the attention of the Board is hardly the totality that constitutes a consumer protection agency.
True. But what I am saying is that this is not the purpose for which ALAC exists, not at all its core business. Its core business is developing policy statements, not to deal with customer complaints. Had ALAC plenty of resources, it would be a "nice thing to have", but since it is not the case, the little resources have to be concentrated on what is essential. Since I think that I have made my point ad nauseam, this is my last post on the subject.
So let me try to understand you correctly wit regard to Mr. Moore's issue, you are arguing that a registrar can choose not to renew a domain name that he has sponsored even if he has received payment for such a renewal, and that action does not violate the registrar's sponsorship obligations as set out in the RAA. Is that correct?
Not at all. What I said was: "The reason why RegisterFly has lost its accreditation was because of violation of its contract *with ICANN*, specifically not complying with the redressment measures put in place, not at all because of violation of its contract *with its customers*, which was the subject of Mr. Moore's lawsuit." Which means, although I am not a native english speaker, that what RegisterFly did one year before was not at all a "good thing", but was not a sufficient reason to terminate its accreditation. Had ICANN terminated RegisterFly accreditation on the basis of the complaint of Mr. Moore, ICANN would be now in litigation with RegisterFly, and probably on the losing side. And my remark was in reply to your statement that follows:
... and yet a year later RegisterFly is disaccredited for precisely the actions decribed by Mr. Moore. Also on this, I think that my position is clear enough, in spite of your attempts to transform the meaning of words.
Cheers, Roberto
Echoing Roberto, if we had moved based on those complains we had lost first round battle to really "save" the registrants. The consequence of our correct move is the new escrow system set up, which is now assuring immediate relocation in case of registrar fail. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda@uol.com.br Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Roberto Gaetano Enviada em: sexta-feira, 7 de dezembro de 2007 12:02 Para: 'Danny Younger'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Assunto: Re: [At-Large] Moore v. ICANN Danny Younger wrote:
Nice try at spin. Responding to those that contact your organizational Forum, and bringing those registrant concerns to the attention of the Board is hardly the totality that constitutes a consumer protection agency.
True. But what I am saying is that this is not the purpose for which ALAC exists, not at all its core business. Its core business is developing policy statements, not to deal with customer complaints. Had ALAC plenty of resources, it would be a "nice thing to have", but since it is not the case, the little resources have to be concentrated on what is essential. Since I think that I have made my point ad nauseam, this is my last post on the subject.
So let me try to understand you correctly wit regard to Mr. Moore's issue, you are arguing that a registrar can choose not to renew a domain name that he has sponsored even if he has received payment for such a renewal, and that action does not violate the registrar's sponsorship obligations as set out in the RAA. Is that correct?
Not at all. What I said was: "The reason why RegisterFly has lost its accreditation was because of violation of its contract *with ICANN*, specifically not complying with the redressment measures put in place, not at all because of violation of its contract *with its customers*, which was the subject of Mr. Moore's lawsuit." Which means, although I am not a native english speaker, that what RegisterFly did one year before was not at all a "good thing", but was not a sufficient reason to terminate its accreditation. Had ICANN terminated RegisterFly accreditation on the basis of the complaint of Mr. Moore, ICANN would be now in litigation with RegisterFly, and probably on the losing side. And my remark was in reply to your statement that follows:
... and yet a year later RegisterFly is disaccredited for precisely the actions decribed by Mr. Moore. Also on this, I think that my position is clear enough, in spite of your attempts to transform the meaning of words.
Cheers, Roberto _______________________________________________ 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
Danny Younger wrote:
Re: "I insist that ALAC's role is not to act as a consumer protection agency. And this is the key issue on which we have a disagreement."
Nice try at spin. Responding to those that contact your organizational Forum, and bringing those registrant concerns to the attention of the Board is hardly the totality that constitutes a consumer protection agency.
Danny, play nice with the other children. But seriously, your point is partly valid (or at least in my opinion). ALAC needs to be aware of issues, and possibly address, classes of issues from individuals, but not the individual details. To wit, we need to know about this type of situation, but not the parties, so that we can determine if this is an issue to address or not. We, ALAC, would not be solving the incident. We, as knowledgeable individuals, should offer some guidance as to where to go and who to talk to about the incident. If you think of our role similar to a Congressman. The Congressman's duties are to make laws in Washington DC. Also, an individual can ask for assistance from that Congressman for their own individual problem -- of the type of dealing with governmental red tape (ie. a problem with the immigration office). The two usually do not intersect -- you usually don't have an individual's problem with the immigration office creating new law.
So let me try to understand you correctly wit regard to Mr. Moore's issue, you are arguing that a registrar can choose not to renew a domain name that he has sponsored even if he has received payment for such a renewal, and that action does not violate the registrar's sponsorship obligations as set out in the RAA. Is that correct?
This is the type of question we should address as part of registrar's duties under the RAA -- not in relationship between Moore and Registerfly. And, what is the procedure for ICANN to follow in that sort of situation. ____________________________________________________________________________________ e360Insight sued for Spamming. Ain't irony wonderful? http://www.calspam.com
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I insist that ALAC's role is not to act as a consumer protection agency.
I agree. ALAC simply can't serve this purpose, given the level and nature of the resources given it. By name and role it is designed to provide policy input and educate the public (in large part, to assist in the credible assembly of public-focused policy). It is, however, completely reasonable to assert that ALAC has a critical role in ensuring ICANN has such a mechanism. Indeed, one can easily suggest that ALAC -- as the one body within ICANN intended to represent the public interest -- has a duty to press for this and perhaps even architect it. One of my biggest surprises since becoming involved in At-Large is the (seemingly) completely reactive nature of ALAC. Respond to this paper, meet that deadline, jump when others say to jump. ALAC appears to have rarely -- at least so long as I've seen -- helped to _drive_ the ICANN policy agenda, to assert issues that are important to the public that the governments, the registries and the trademark lawyers need to address. Is this a matter of maturity and self-awareness, that will come as ALAC gets its feet and the grassroots asserts its proper place? Or is this flaw inherent in the design? Alan has said on the domain tasting issue that the NSOs listen to us only by courtesy; that if we ever raise an issue that they don't want exposed, that issue may never see the light of day. - Evan
Evan Leibovitch wrote: "One of my biggest surprises since becoming involved in At-Large is the(seemingly) completely reactive nature of ALAC. Respond to this paper,meet that deadline, jump when others say to jump. ALAC appears to haverarely -- at least so long as I've seen -- helped to _drive_ the ICANN policy agenda, to assert issues that are important to the public thatthe governments, the registries and the trademark lawyers need to address." before anything, I assume my own lack. Second, I agree with Evan's words. In my short life in ALAC we have never decided for ourselves. the parameters, always were fixed by others. I think is time to take the control and decide in relation with the RALO's interests, and fullfil our obligations completelly. stop to talk only about issues that others want, I think is neccesary to put on a table our own initiatives, or decide if the others issues are important for us or not. We need to have an ideas engine and directly send to the Board like advisory committee that we are. all of this without prejudice to work in a WG or as a liason with others committees, etc. I would like to hear your ideas about how we can get this. regards. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:26:56 -0500> From: evan@telly.org> To: roberto@icann.org> CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; dannyyounger@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Moore v. ICANN> > Roberto Gaetano wrote:> > I insist that ALAC's role is not to act as a consumer protection agency.> > I agree. ALAC simply can't serve this purpose, given the level and> nature of the resources given it. By name and role it is designed to> provide policy input and educate the public (in large part, to assist in> the credible assembly of public-focused policy).> > It is, however, completely reasonable to assert that ALAC has a critical> role in ensuring ICANN has such a mechanism. Indeed, one can easily> suggest that ALAC -- as the one body within ICANN intended to represent> the public interest -- has a duty to press for this and perhaps even> architect it.> > One of my biggest surprises since becoming involved in At-Large is the> (seemingly) completely reactive nature of ALAC. Respond to this paper,> meet that deadline, jump when others say to jump. ALAC appears to have> rarely -- at least so long as I've seen -- helped to _drive_ the ICANN> policy agenda, to assert issues that are important to the public that> the governments, the registries and the trademark lawyers need to address.> > Is this a matter of maturity and self-awareness, that will come as ALAC> gets its feet and the grassroots asserts its proper place? Or is this> flaw inherent in the design? Alan has said on the domain tasting issue> that the NSOs listen to us only by courtesy; that if we ever raise an> issue that they don't want exposed, that issue may never see the light> of day.> > - Evan> > > _______________________________________________> 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 _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Well, the domain tasting issue was quite definitely driven by ALAC. The IP of Business constituency's may have taken it up if we had not, but we did initiate it on our own. Once issues are raised, regardless of who raises then, there will be deadlines. But it is clear that until we can find a way to mobilize the distributed resources within RALOs and ALSs, we can only do a handful of things at a time, and we need to regularly make judgement calls regarding what we do respond to and what we pass on. To date, we pass on things not because of a formal decision, but simply because no one does it in time. If we get better at managing and increasing our resources available, we can better respond to external demands when they really matter to At Large, and drive more initiatives ourselves. Alan At 07/12/2007 11:34 AM, carlos aguirre wrote:
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
"One of my biggest surprises since becoming involved in At-Large is the (seemingly) completely reactive nature of ALAC. Respond to this paper, meet that deadline, jump when others say to jump. ALAC appears to have rarely -- at least so long as I've seen -- helped to _drive_ the ICANN policy agenda, to assert issues that are important to the public that the governments, the registries and the trademark lawyers need to address."
before anything, I assume my own lack. Second, I agree with Evan's words. In my short life in ALAC we have never decided for ourselves. the parameters, always were fixed by others. I think is time to take the control and decide in relation with the RALO's interests, and fullfil our obligations completelly. stop to talk only about issues that others want, I think is neccesary to put on a table our own initiatives, or decide if the others issues are important for us or not. We need to have an ideas engine and directly send to the Board like advisory committee that we are. all of this without prejudice to work in a WG or as a liason with others committees, etc. I would like to hear your ideas about how we can get this.
regards.
Carlos Dionisio Aguirre
abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 <http://www.sitioderecho.com.ar/>www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 10:26:56 -0500 From: evan@telly.org To: roberto@icann.org CC: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; dannyyounger@yahoo.com Subject: Re: [At-Large] Moore v. ICANN
Roberto Gaetano wrote:
I insist that ALAC's role is not to act as a consumer protection agency.
I agree. ALAC simply can't serve this purpose, given the level and nature of the resources given it. By name and role it is designed to provide policy input and educate the public (in large part, to assist in the credible assembly of public-focused policy).
It is, however, completely reasonable to assert that ALAC has a critical role in ensuring ICANN has such a mechanism. Indeed, one can easily suggest that ALAC -- as the one body within ICANN intended to represent the public interest -- has a duty to press for this and perhaps even architect it.
One of my biggest surprises since becoming involved in At-Large is the (seemingly) completely reactive nature of ALAC. Respond to this paper, meet that deadline, jump when others say to jump. ALAC appears to have rarely -- at least so long as I've seen -- helped to _drive_ the ICANN policy agenda, to assert issues that are important to the public that the governments, the registries and the trademark lawyers need to address.
Is this a matter of maturity and self-awareness, that will come as ALAC gets its feet and the grassroots asserts its proper place? Or is this flaw inherent in the design? Alan has said on the domain tasting issue that the NSOs listen to us only by courtesy; that if we ever raise an issue that they don't want exposed, that issue may never see the light of day.
- Evan
_______________________________________________ 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
---------- Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! <http://clk.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/>MSN Messenger _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists....
ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac ALAC Official: http://alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
carlos aguirre wrote:
We need to have an ideas engine and directly send to the Board like advisory committee that we are. all of this without prejudice to work in a WG or as a liason with others committees, etc. I would like to hear your ideas about how we can get this. Carlos, why did you change the addressing of your response to my mail?
My original was sent to the public at-large list. Your response was sent to the internal list, with a Cc to the public list. I request to know why the redirection was made. Some people have been asking (and Robert has been begging) not to post to both lists, since everyone subscribed on the private list is also on the public list. In addition to the redirection being simply rude, it is contrary to the openness and transparency that we are trying to achieve. Have you not read the "discussions should be transparent" discussion going on right now? Must this behavior be governed by regulation rather than common sense? This kind of practice -- of (at best) duplicating messages or (at worst) redirecting public discussions to private ones -- must be stopped. - Evan
Evan. I Only changed, because to me seems better. no other explanation. and disagree with your comments, because I strongly agree with "discussions should be transparent". regards. there are no phantoms in everywhere. Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar > Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2007 12:55:26 -0500> From: evan@telly.org> To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] Moore v. ICANN> > carlos aguirre wrote:> > We need to have an ideas engine and directly send to the Board like> > advisory committee that we are. all of this without prejudice to work> > in a WG or as a liason with others committees, etc. I would like to> > hear your ideas about how we can get this.> Carlos, why did you change the addressing of your response to my mail?> > My original was sent to the public at-large list.> Your response was sent to the internal list, with a Cc to the public list.> > I request to know why the redirection was made. Some people have been> asking (and Robert has been begging) not to post to both lists, since> everyone subscribed on the private list is also on the public list.> > In addition to the redirection being simply rude, it is contrary to the> openness and transparency that we are trying to achieve. Have you not> read the "discussions should be transparent" discussion going on right> now? Must this behavior be governed by regulation rather than common sense?> > This kind of practice -- of (at best) duplicating messages or (at worst)> redirecting public discussions to private ones -- must be stopped.> > - Evan> > > _______________________________________________> 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 _________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Bill Silverstein -
carlos aguirre -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Izumi AIZU -
Roberto Gaetano -
Vanda Scartezini UOL