December 2008 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Business Constituency on the RAA Amendments
by Danny Younger Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

"The Council has barely discussed the RAA amendments proposed by Staff and the Registrars, yet we are asked to essentially approve them wholesale? Why are we asked to do that, and why would we do that? In that scenario, one constituency gets everything it wants done with the RAA, and nobody else has a say. Might it be a better approach to form a group to determine which of the RAA amendments have full consensus as written, which could have full consensus if reworded, and which should be abandoned for now? The group could then suggest rewording of some amendments, and also lay out a plan for sequenced requests for Issues Reports from Staff, and/or Working Groups, to address any and all identified open issues. Meanwhile the Board would understand which of the amendments have full consensus and could approve those, and the other Constituencies will have greater comfort that their issues with the RAA will be addressed." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg05902.html This approach makes a lot more sense than what the ALAC is currently voting upon. Alan, please take note.

3 5

Re: [NA-Discuss] ExecComm Mission Creep
by Danny Younger Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

I share Evan's frustration. I am not seeing a willingness on the part of the ALAC to follow its own rules, to engage in consultative activities with the RALOs, or to work toward making necessary improvements. There is a reticence on the part of ALAC members to discuss anything on-line or to bring user issues forward. The dysfunctional state of the ALAC impacts our ability as North Americans to protect the interests of our community. I appreciate and endorse Beau's suggestion to consider forming a separate GNSO constituency of consumer groups, but such an action alone won't have an effect upon the continuing dysfunctional state of the ALAC. In my view, the ALAC needs to be sent a strong message -- that unless necessary changes are made, and quickly, the NARALO will secede from the ALAC and will work exclusively within the GNSO. We don't need to continue working within a broken model that brooks no hope for change. In the past, the ccTLDs withdrew from the DNSO to better protect the interests of their own community. Withdrawal from the ALAC remains a viable option that we should consider. --- On Mon, 12/15/08, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Subject: ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments) > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com > Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Monday, December 15, 2008, 11:47 AM > I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily > increasing role of > the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this > recommendation -- which I > honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for > comment -- suggests > that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be > given the > authority to appoint a Board Liaision. > > We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for > issues of > unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to > -- in > recommendations it has itself written -- be given > consideration to have > the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable > timelines. > > If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to > me -- then > that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the > ExecComm was > created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, > under the > pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears > being realized. > > Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which > participants > are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding > their > subject preferences, then _required_ to actively > participate in working > groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel > support and ultimately > the ability to be complete participants. > > If only the same zeal used to demand participation from > Summit delegates > was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not > need to exist. > Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy > that, despite > many months of member performance reports in our hands, > ALAC has not > begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall > provisions) even > once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to > take > performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, > having exhausted > my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix > itself in this regard. > > The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in > this > document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a > disturbing -- > if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give > the ExecComm > powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they > be > "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should > be stopped and if > possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very > few people > shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to > address this by > increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a > special > position for the inner core. > > It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm > indicates a failure > of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in > discussion > of a document related to the ALAC review. > > - Evan

1 0

ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

For those who may be interested, I have posted some personal comments on the Mid-point report. They can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf. Alan

2 1

CORRECTION: ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

>For those who may be interested, I have posted some personal >comments on the Mid-point report. They can be found at >http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf. > >Alan Thanks to Dharma Dailey who pointed out that the attachment has moved. That *was* where it lived when I posted the message. But I have seen attachments on ICANN mail logs move before, so I should have known better. It is now at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfcNsdHX1u56.pdf (tested seconds ago), but in case it moves again, the message pointing to it (which I don't think moves) is http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html. Alan

1 0

ALAC vote on RAA now open -- and it sucks
by Danny Younger Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

So who do we have to thank for the totally biased language below?!! The phrasing of Point #3 is an insult to everyone that has worked hard to draw attention to the great many flaws in the proposed RAA amendments package. On what basis was the determination made: "but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it"? That's a bunch of crap. The Board liaison did not bring forward that viewpoint, nor is there a record of correspondence with any Board members to assert that such is a board position. >From the ALAC Archives: "At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options: 1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context 2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues 3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it 4) Abstain There's nothing more disgusting than the bald attempt to force through a position vis-a-vis poorly drafted available choices. It's contemptible.

2 7

The ALAC Voting Process
by Danny Younger Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Cheryl, We have now had two consecutive ALAC Monthly Meetings in which a vote was introduced at the very last moment without the benefit of prior substantive on-line discussion, with the motions being drafted on the fly (specific motion language not being fully ready or well-articulated or available sufficiently in advance of the session). The ALAC voting process is not up to expected standards. You have Rules in place, but you are not following your own rules: ALAC-Rules of procedure (July4, 07) Rule 16 - Resolutions and Amendments 1. Draft resolutions and amendments may be proposed by the participants referred to in Rule 1 and shall be transmitted in writing to the Chairperson, which shall circulate copies to all participants. 2. Motions need to be seconded by another delegate. As a general rule, no draft resolution or amendment shall be discussed or put to the vote unless it has been circulated sufficiently in advance to all participants. If you truly want individual user participation, then please allow the local ALSs and the Regionals to consider the propositions being voted upon by their representatives (elected and unelected) sufficiently in advance of the Monthly meeting.

1 0

When a Registry goes Rogue
by Danny Younger Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

On a follow-up to Jacqueline's query: When Hostway's subsidiary purchased the register.com registryPro subsidiary in order to manage the .pro registry an "assignment" ratified by the ICANN was required. I would have to wonder why the purchase of Trailliance by the globe.com did not similarly require an ICANN-approved "assignment". Perhaps someone on Staff can offer a clarification...

1 0

New gTLDs: Assignment Sucks
by Danny Younger Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Consider the following list of registry reserved names: d-o-t-p-r-o-s-u-c-k-s.*.pro d-o-t-p-r-o-s-u-c-k-s.pro dot-pro-sucks.*.pro dot-pro-sucks.pro dotprosucks.*.pro dotprosucks.pro hostway-sucks.*.pro hostway-sucks.pro hostwaysucks.*.pro hostwaysucks.pro netnation-sucks.*.pro netnation-sucks.pro netnationsucks.*.pro netnationsucks.pro p-r-o-n-a-m-e-s-s-u-c-k-s.*.pro p-r-o-n-a-m-e-s-s-u-c-k-s.pro p-r-o-n-a-m-e-s-u-c-k-s.*.pro p-r-o-n-a-m-e-s-u-c-k-s.pro pronamesucks.*.pro pronamesucks.pro r-e-g-i-s-t-r-y-p-r-o-s-u-c-k-s.*.pro r-e-g-i-s-t-r-y-p-r-o-s-u-c-k-s.pro registeryprosucks.*.pro registeryprosucks.pro registriprosucks.*.pro registriprosucks.pro registry-pro-sucks.*.pro registry-pro-sucks.pro registryprosucks.*.pro registryprosucks.pro registryservices-sucks.*.pro registryservices-sucks.pro registryservicessucks.*.pro registryservicessucks.pro registrysolutions-sucks.*.pro registrysolutions-sucks.pro registrysolutionssucks.*.pro registrysolutionssucks.pro v-i-s-u-c-k-s.*.pro v-i-s-u-c-k-s.pro visucks.*.pro visucks.pro The problem, of course, is that the management of the .pro registry really does suck. At last report this global domain had only around 8000 registrations under management. First the registry was owned and operated by the registryPro subsidiary of register.com; later those assets were assigned to Registry Services Corporation, a Nevada corporation fully owned by Hostway Corporation. At issue is the assignment process. Subsection 5.11 of the .pro Registry Agreement provides that "Registry Operator may assign this Agreement as part of the transfer of its registry business if such transfer and assignment are approved in advance by ICANN..."; Did any of us see the assignee's business plan for the TLD? Of course not. In keeping with ICANN's notion of transparency, only new gTLD applicants need to submit a business plan, assignees do not. No one in the public had any right to review the details of the planned takeover of the .pro registry... we had no opportunity to scrutinize an application or to post any challenges or concerns -- a classic example of back-room deal-making that totally excludes the general public. What is needed is a substantially higher level of transparency in the assignment process. In my view, assignees should be required to publicly disclose details to the same degree as any new gTLD applicant.

1 0

New GTLDs: Missing Applicant Question
by Danny Younger Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

Working one's way through module 2 (the Applicant Information Form section), there is one question that is glaringly missing: "Indicate whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) directors, or (iv) managers: a. within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these; b. within the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of funds of others; c. is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the type specified in (a) or (b); or d. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at the time of this application. If anyone has spotted such a question elsewhere within the Applicant guidebook, please let me know.

2 1

Transfer of Registrar Accreditation
by Danny Younger Dec. 10, 2008

Dec. 10, 2008

Dear Ms. Burnette, Messages on the net indicate that on December 23, 2008 Intercosmos Media Group, Inc. will be transferring its ICANN registrar accreditation to directNIC LTD, a Cayman Islands company, and registrants are being told that "you can transfer your domain names to another registrar within the next two weeks". A few questions: 1. Has an application for Transfer of Registrar Accreditation been submitted? 2. Has ICANN approved this transfer? 3. Will the completed application form be made public? Thanks, Danny http://www.namepros.com/domain-name-discussion/541028-directnic-transferrin… http://onlinemoneylab.com/not-sure

1 0