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
I attended the recent ARIN meeting and I concur with Izumi's comment. The issues are indeed complex and the ARIN meeting was warned by their lawyer that the community has to make the transition work or governments will step in and the result could be ugly. There doesn't seem to be agreement on when the IPv4 pool will run out but 2010 was frequently mentioned. Gareth On Oct 29, 2007, at 1:07 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote:
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
See comments inline below -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 13:07 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 soon, within a few years time, the current pool of IPv4 address will expire. This may have significant impact on the use of the Internet by the broader public. Everyone agrees on the importance of allocating the remaining pool of IPv4 addresses in a fair, equitable and predictable manner. The challenge here is exactly what we mean by "fair, equitable and predictable" that is pragmatic and implementable for all global users. We respect the policy work done by the RIRs so far, and are willing to actively participate. We are concerned about the potential creation of a "black market" and call for rational ways to make secondary market a reality. We also call for a reasonable way of recollecting the unused IPv4 address blocks. We also 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 a smooth and orderly transition to the broad use of IPv6. There are several challenges to, and tasks required to make that happen: - Organize awareness campaign for the need for timely transition, - Avoid media hype 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 taken to help developing countries to prepare for the transition in timely and affordable manner Also - should we put a timeline suggestion in there? If the consensus is that the pool runs out by 2010, then we should put some deadlines for the tasks that end no later than 2009 (outreach, technical assistance etc) so that the transition-readiness is there by 2009, before the projected depletion date. Jacqueline _______________________________________________ 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 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
2007/10/30, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:public
Also - should we put a timeline suggestion in there? If the consensus is that the pool runs out by 2010, then we should put some deadlines for the tasks that end no later than 2009 (outreach, technical assistance etc) so that the transition-readiness is there by 2009, before the projected depletion date.
Jacqueline, I am a little bit hesitant to put a timeline in a specific manner. There is no strong evidence that it will run out exactly by 2010 (or earlier or later), though there is a good prediction. Recently, Japanese government organized a Study Group and tasked them to come up with their own estimate, taking account various projections in the Interent community - and their conclusion (tentative) is sometime between 2010 and 2012 for IANA pool to expire, and between 2011 and 2013, the RIR (APNIC, for example and for Japan) pool may expire. That is pusblished on the public website, but all are in Japanese. So if you put "2009" in a definitive term, we may receive some critical comments/questions which may distract the attention from other important points. We may say that " we should prepare a timeline under which we can operate the transition program, such as outreach, technical assistance, and other preparation works)" or something like that. Is that OK to you? thanks, izumi
perfect -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:iza@anr.org] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 17:19 To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com Cc: At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] DRAFT ALAC comment on IPv4 depletion and IPv6 migration 2007/10/30, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:public
Also - should we put a timeline suggestion in there? If the consensus is that the pool runs out by 2010, then we should put some deadlines for the tasks that end no later than 2009 (outreach, technical assistance etc) so that the transition-readiness is there by 2009, before the projected depletion date.
Jacqueline, I am a little bit hesitant to put a timeline in a specific manner. There is no strong evidence that it will run out exactly by 2010 (or earlier or later), though there is a good prediction. Recently, Japanese government organized a Study Group and tasked them to come up with their own estimate, taking account various projections in the Interent community - and their conclusion (tentative) is sometime between 2010 and 2012 for IANA pool to expire, and between 2011 and 2013, the RIR (APNIC, for example and for Japan) pool may expire. That is pusblished on the public website, but all are in Japanese. So if you put "2009" in a definitive term, we may receive some critical comments/questions which may distract the attention from other important points. We may say that " we should prepare a timeline under which we can operate the transition program, such as outreach, technical assistance, and other preparation works)" or something like that. Is that OK to you? thanks, izumi 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
One way around this is to use terms such as 'in a timely manner so that planning for suitable, reliable and effective infrastructure planning can be made" with oir without reference to the ever changing deadline resources / sources... CLO Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org>:
2007/10/30, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:public
Also - should we put a timeline suggestion in there? If the consensus is that the pool runs out by 2010, then we should put some deadlines for the tasks that end no later than 2009 (outreach, technical assistance etc) so that the transition-readiness is there by 2009, before the projected depletion date.
Jacqueline, I am a little bit hesitant to put a timeline in a specific manner.
There is no strong evidence that it will run out exactly by 2010 (or earlier or later), though there is a good prediction. Recently, Japanese government organized a Study Group and tasked them to come up with their own estimate, taking account various projections in the Interent community - and their conclusion (tentative) is sometime between 2010 and 2012 for IANA pool to expire, and between 2011 and 2013, the RIR (APNIC, for example and for Japan) pool may expire. That is pusblished on the public website, but all are in Japanese.
So if you put "2009" in a definitive term, we may receive some critical comments/questions which may distract the attention from other important points. We may say that " we should prepare a timeline under which we can operate the transition program, such as outreach, technical assistance, and other preparation works)" or something like that. Is that OK to you?
thanks,
izumi
_______________________________________________ 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
Good point - I'm cool with that. -----Original Message----- From: cheryl@hovtek.com.au [mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 17:54 To: Izumi AIZU Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] DRAFT ALAC comment on IPv4 depletion and IPv6 migration One way around this is to use terms such as 'in a timely manner so that planning for suitable, reliable and effective infrastructure planning can be made" with oir without reference to the ever changing deadline resources / sources... CLO Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza@anr.org>:
2007/10/30, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam@jacquelinemorris.com>:public
Also - should we put a timeline suggestion in there? If the consensus is that the pool runs out by 2010, then we should put some deadlines for the tasks that end no later than 2009 (outreach, technical assistance etc) so that the transition-readiness is there by 2009, before the projected depletion date.
Jacqueline, I am a little bit hesitant to put a timeline in a specific manner.
There is no strong evidence that it will run out exactly by 2010 (or earlier or later), though there is a good prediction. Recently, Japanese government organized a Study Group and tasked them to come up with their own estimate, taking account various projections in the Interent community - and their conclusion (tentative) is sometime between 2010 and 2012 for IANA pool to expire, and between 2011 and 2013, the RIR (APNIC, for example and for Japan) pool may expire. That is pusblished on the public website, but all are in Japanese.
So if you put "2009" in a definitive term, we may receive some critical comments/questions which may distract the attention from other important points. We may say that " we should prepare a timeline under which we can operate the transition program, such as outreach, technical assistance, and other preparation works)" or something like that. Is that OK to you?
thanks,
izumi
_______________________________________________ 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
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
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
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 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 complia for 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: 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 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 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
(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 (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 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
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
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 <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 *** Scanned
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
*** 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: 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
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
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
Thank you Nick and Tim for addressing this so quickly. Thank you, Jacqueline, for accommodating Tim's schedule and moving the RAA policy item to the top of tonight's agenda. As Danny has pointed out, we have time to resolve this and need, ourselves, to engage the registrar community in a strategic way. ________________________________ From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of cheryl@hovtek.com.au Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 9:43 PM To: alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar AccreditationAgreement and Data Escrow 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
Do I understand correctly that only Supporting Organizations can ask for an Issues Report? In this case we should convince the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) to request that. Siavash
(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 (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 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
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
Siavash Shahshahani ha scritto:
Do I understand correctly that only Supporting Organizations can ask for an Issues Report? In this case we should convince the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) to request that.
We can ask for an issues report on our own. However we need to spend a lot of time writing it in the appropriate format - Alan is the expert on this. P.S. Earlier today, an unknown person from an association of registrants came to the mike and said "we want to have a registrant bill of rights". That was what I proposed as a sort of charter to be compulsorily shown by registrars to registrants whenever registering a domain name. That of course went down to section F as well (item 20), but I think it's an important and very practical proposition. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------
Hi Siavash ALAC already requested one on domain tasting, remember, so we are certainly able to ask for one again if we decide so to do. -----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 15:59 To: Brendler, Beau Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Izumi AIZU; At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow Do I understand correctly that only Supporting Organizations can ask for an Issues Report? In this case we should convince the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) to request that. Siavash
(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 (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 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
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir ----------------------------------------------- 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
Hi Siavash ALAC already requested one on domain tasting, remember, so we are certainly able to ask for one again if we decide so to do.
But I thought that happened within gNSO framework, i.e., the result was submitted to gNSO. If an issues report is to be followed by a PDP then it has to go to a Supporting Organization(right or wrong?) Siavash
-----Original Message----- From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 15:59 To: Brendler, Beau Cc: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Izumi AIZU; At-Large Subject: Re: [At-Large] {Disarmed} RE: {Disarmed} DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow
Do I understand correctly that only Supporting Organizations can ask for an Issues Report? In this case we should convince the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) to request that. Siavash
(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 (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 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
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
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
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
No, that is not the case. The ALAC can request an Issues Report just as we did with respect to Domain Tasting. Alan At 29/10/2007 06:58 PM, Siavash Shahshahani wrote:
Do I understand correctly that only Supporting Organizations can ask for an Issues Report? In this case we should convince the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) to request that. Siavash
(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 (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 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
------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah@irnic.ir, shahshah@nic.ir -----------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ 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
OK Will add. 10 mins OK or you want to try for 15 min? From: Brendler, Beau [mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 15:08 To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Izumi AIZU; At-Large Subject: RE: [At-Large] {Disarmed} DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow (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 HYPERLINK "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 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: 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 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 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
Thank you. I think I can probably do it in 5. ________________________________ From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 7:12 PM To: Brendler, Beau; 'Izumi AIZU'; 'At-Large' Subject: RE: [At-Large] {Disarmed} DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow OK Will add. 10 mins OK or you want to try for 15 min? From: Brendler, Beau [mailto:Brenbe@consumer.org] Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 15:08 To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; Izumi AIZU; At-Large Subject: RE: [At-Large] {Disarmed} DRAFT ALAC comment on Registrar Accreditation Agreement and Data Escrow (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 (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 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 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
participants (9)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Brendler, Beau -
cheryl＠hovtek.com.au -
Gareth Shearman -
Izumi AIZU -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Nick Ashton-Hart -
Siavash Shahshahani -
Vittorio Bertola