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

Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers
by Thomas Lowenhaupt March 3, 2008

March 3, 2008

4 11

GNSO Improvements Proposals Open for Public Comment
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 29, 2008

Feb. 29, 2008

Please note that the GNSO Improvements Report 2008 is open for public comments from 25 February 2008 to 25 March 2008 http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#gnso-improvements-report-2008 GNSO Improvements Report 2008 Explanation: On February 15, 2008, ICANN's Board acknowledged receipt of the "GNSO Improvements Report" and indicated that it would like to receive final public comments on the Report to enable it to consider and implement the Report's recommendations as soon as possible. The Board has directed ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. A copy of the Board's resolution regarding this matter can be found here. http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm A COUPLE OF POINTS TO CONSIDER FOR AT-LARGE MEMBERS: * Do you think that the At-Large community should be a part of the GNSO as a constituency in its own right? You can read more about this in the proposals on page 41. * One of the recommendations is that greater coordination between the GNSO and other parts of ICANN should be implemented - this includes At-Large - read more about it on pages 47 - 48 HOW TO GET THE REPORT: You can read the full report here [PDF, 197K] http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb 08.pdf and see a web page with more information here. http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/ The ICANN Board Governance Committee's "GNSO Review Working Group" http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/ developed the Report's http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03feb 08.pdf set of recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. The Report reflects the Working Group's examination of many aspects of the GNSO's functioning, including the use of working groups and the overall policy development process (PDP), and the structure of the GNSO Council and its constituencies. The Board Governance Committee determined that the GNSO Improvements working group had fulfilled its charter and forwarded the report to the Board for consideration." Is it clear to you what this comment period covers? Do you have all the information you need to respond? The staff member responsible is Denise Michel - if you have questions, she can be reached at denise.michel(a)icann.org. Please submit comments to: gnso-improvements-report-2008(a)icann.org Archives: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/ Please take the time to comment. Thank you. Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Guide to Domain Names in Generic Top-Level Domains
by At-Large Staff Feb. 29, 2008

Feb. 29, 2008

Dear Community: As some of you know, some time ago a draft Guide to Domain Names was prepared by an ICANN consultant with a view to having it published for the use of the individual Internet community worldwide. During the At-Large community meetings in New Delhi, it was decided that the work of preparing the guide for publication should be concluded by allowing members of the community to provide any comments, proposed edits, or thoughts for inclusion in the published text not later than 31 March 2008. I have attached the current draft of the text for you to review. We will have translated editions prepared of the final edition - unfortunately the cost of translating something that may (depending upon how many comments and the nature of the comments) change a great deal makes translating the text now difficult. POINTS TO CONSIDER: 1) This is the raw text of the guide. The version to be published will be prepared in a desktop publishing environment to make it attractive and visually appealing. Of course, until the basic text is completed, it is hard to decide precisely how to format the guide in a DTP application - that's why we are having it done 2) It has been suggested that some graphics would be useful. This of course is entirely sensible. If you have ideas for what these should be, please let us know. You do not have to be very specific - something like the following would work: "Put in a pie chart showing the total number of registered domains in all gTLDs, broken down by gTLD" 3) Is there something which could be included that would be specific for your region of the world? Let us know - there's no problem with producing regionally-specific versions of the guide, if you think that would be more useful. 4) Revision tracking is turned on, so if you want to edit the text directly and send that to us, feel free. Equally, you can just send us narrative suggestions - please remember though that we need enough specificity to be able to understand what to change. If your comment is extremely general, that will make it difficult to know what we should change. If we are unsure of what you mean, we will reply and ask you for more details. -- Regards, ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)alac.icann.org

1 0

Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers
by Thomas Lowenhaupt Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

1 0

Help create the .nyc Internet space for New York and New Yorkers
by Thomas Lowenhaupt Feb. 28, 2008

Feb. 28, 2008

1 0

ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 25, 2008

Feb. 25, 2008

http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-29jan08.htm ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting Suggested fee change would effectively eliminate tasting 29 January 2008 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is looking to effectively end domain tasting with a proposal to start charging the annual ICANN fee on registrar domain registrations. Domain tasting is the use of the Add Grace Period to test the profitability of a domain name registration. The AGP is a five-day period following the initial registration of a domain name when the registration may be deleted and a credit can be issued to a registrar. "Domain tasting has been an issue for the Internet community and ICANN is offering this proposal as a way to stop tasting," said Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "Charging the ICANN fee as soon as a domain name is registered would close the loophole used by tasters to test a domain name's profitability for free." AGP was originally introduced by registries so registrars could avoid costs if a domain name was mistyped or misspelled during the registration process. It is part of the .com, .net, .org, .info, .name, .pro, and .biz registry contracts. Tasting has been a serious challenge for the Internet community and has grown exponentially since 2004. In January 2007 the top 10 domain tasters accounted for 95% of all deleted .com and .net domain names - or 45,450,897 domain names out of 47,824,131 total deletes. The proposal will be part of the ICANN budget process for the fiscal year starting 1 July 2008. The early draft version of that budget will be released for and discussed at ICANN's New Delhi meeting later this month. After public discussions of this proposal and other budget issues, the proposed budget will be released for addition discussions by 17 May 2008 and be voted on at the board meeting to be held during the ICANN meeting in Paris in June. ICANN accredited registrars representing two-thirds of fees collected will be asked to approve the proposal. "This idea came from the ICANN community and we think it is a viable solution the Internet community has been seeking," Dr Twomey added. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 2

Welcome Matthias Langenegger to the ICANN At-Large Staff
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 22, 2008

Feb. 22, 2008

Dear all: It is my pleasure to introduce you to Matthias Langenegger, who has just joined the At-Large staff in the Policy Unit as At-Large Coordination Officer. He’ll be helping support the global At-Large community in scheduling, meeting support and logistics, servicing information requests, minuting meetings, and helping keep the websites and community communications tools (like the new membership system) up- to-date amongst other essential tasks. Many of you may know Matthias from the IGF Secretariat, where he interned throughout much of 2007 - while there he assisted in the preparations for the Rio de Janeiro Internet Governance Forum in November 2007, coordinating the sessions schedule and providing logistical coordination. He also assisted in the assessment process for the different workshop and best practice proposals. Before and during his university education, he worked in different office environments such as banks and a small language school. He is originally from the German-speaking part of Switzerland and is a native German speaker who is fluent in English and French. He also speaks fair Catalan and Spanish having lived in Barcelona for a year. Matthias recently graduated from the Graduate Institute of International Relations at the University of Geneva and holds an MA in international relations. He lives in Geneva. Continuing the tradition of very long email addresses amongst the At-Large staff, he can be reached at matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org (or, in short form, matthias(a)icann.org ). For those who, like me, often produce inaccurate pronunciations of others’ names, his forename is pronounced “muhteeahs” :) Please welcome him aboard. We’re very glad to have him! -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] [Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
by Michael Maranda Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

I'm replying within region - if members within NARALO share some of Danny's concerns below - what can best be done within NARALO to address them? Danny - have you participated in the NARALO conference calls? Have you raised these issues there? I am not answering in this way to attack. My thought is that from NARALO standpoint we can address many of these points. To make my position clear - many of the issues Danny raises point to problems we should address. Not that I agree with everything - whether priorities or analysis or conclusion - but it seems to me that there is a lot of structure that winds up protecting the interests of certain constituencies at the expense of many others, and of the health of the Net. What is the relevance of Internet Governance to/for the average user? (now further circumscribe the issues to the domain name system) Two dimensions draw my attention --- structural-policy decisions affecting everyone and conflicts within the space those decisions have established ( i.e. the equivalent of torts). In terms of the latter: When there are grievances, what are the meaningful options? Is there a place we can direct people where we can say that their grievance will be handled fairly? In the absence of these, what are the options? This brings us to the former - the policy that gets set by ICANN and other bodies. Either groups/classes/individuals feel there is a clear, reasonable and fair venue in which to address maters and modify policy, or the legitimacy of the system is brought into question. Even where there are clear issues (Tasting in it's several flavors; Artificial Scarcity in the Name System) - what is the most effective manner in which to bring them to the fore? What is our expectation for change to a better policy? What are the forces we have to contend with? How do we educate others on these points? On Feb 17, 2008 12:50 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Michael, > > Thanks for the feedback. I would be sympathetic with > your position regarding weighted support for the > end-user community if it could be demonstrated that > ALAC reps in other regions have been busy formulating > policy to deal with non-registrant end-user concerns > that theoretically could take precedence over current > registrant concerns... but this hasn't happened. > > What we have instead is a bunch of folk who by dint of > their Civil Society involvement are now being paid to > attend ICANN sessions, folk that seem to have no real > interest in anything other than networking and getting > together for the next IGF session. > > These aren't the representatives of "the people". > They don't speak for the at-large as do the voices on > Slashdot, the voices in the tech blogs, or the > complainants in the public forums. At the ALAC helm > we tend to find the ivory tower crowd that would > rather spend their time theorizing about Internet > Governance than actually dealing with immediate > problems in the DNS. > > Just have a look through the Euralo discussion list > and see if you can find a single policy initiative > pursued in the last twelve months. You won't. That > discussion list (and others) are a wasteland bereft of > any real work or attention to either registrant or > non-registrant concerns. > > Those that are getting a free ride are offering up no > more than a token amount of work and our region > suffers as a consequence. > > If you look at the track record of the SSAC, you can > point to a number of significant achievements -- > documents on timely issues emerge on a frequent basis. > Since LA we have seen no less than five serious > documents prepared: on WHOIS and spamming, on > fast-flux, on front-running, on DNSSEC. > > Where is the ALAC equivalent? Where is the > well-considered advice? Perhaps some consider waiting > until the last day of the JPA comment period before > soliciting advice from constituent orgs to be an > appropriate way of handling things... I don't... but > it demonstrates how the ALAC currently handles things > -- irresponsibly and at the last minute. > > This is no longer acceptable. After six years of this > BS so far, how much longer can we patiently sit back > listening to the refrain that "these are new people > and we have to give them time"? > > The structure is flawed and the current dynamic is > failing to produce results. If our region is not to > be protected in the midst of this morass, then we > should scrap the ALAC in its entirety or arrive at a > weighted formula that will serve to better protect our > own interests. > > regards, > Danny > > > --- Michael Maranda <mm(a)michaelmaranda.net> wrote: > > > I am sympathetic to part of the argument here, but > > not the entirety. > > Namely, I dont see At Large as exclusively about > > those participating in > > domain registration market. The end-users (and > > potential end users) are the > > widest possible set (i.e. everybody) under at-large. > > How then does the math > > of apportionment break down then? > > > > Nonetheless - organizing the concerns of those who > > do or might wish to > > register a domain - should be one of our goals. How > > best to achieve that? > > It's generally those who find themselves in an > > unfortunate situation that > > find themselves motivated to do something but with > > no obvious remedy. I > > assume some of the ALSs (perhaps a small few) may be > > documenting these > > complaints. I suggest that it would be a great > > service to have some sort of > > clearinghouse on complaints (if one is not in > > existence - and if one already > > does - make it globally useful) and use At-Large > > leverage to make it > > meaningful for end-users. > > > > On Feb 17, 2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger > > <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > Evan, > > > > > > I'm more than happy to discuss why the ALAC isn't > > > working and what can be done to correct the > > situation. > > > > > > Let's start by having a look at the worldwide > > > distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over > > which > > > ICANN exerts policy control). > > > > > > com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000 > > > registrations. Our region holds 65,000,000 of > > those > > > registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region > > has > > > only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC -- > > a > > > situation which does little to protect our > > interests. > > > > > > So when rogue registrars impact the DNS our region > > > feels the brunt of it while the bulk of the ALAC > > > members could care less as they tend to live > > mostly in > > > the ccTLD world. > > > > > > Why are we at this point? Why is it that our > > region > > > doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the > > ALAC? > > > This is purely based on a distribution that > > reflects > > > "political correctness" moreso than the realities > > of > > > the marketplace. That may be acceptable to civil > > > society types that only comment on the lists as > > the > > > time approaches for another IGF session; it's not > > > acceptable to most North Americans that continue > > to be > > > affected by damaging gTLD registrar behaviors, and > > who > > > are counting upon those in ICANN to deliver > > results. > > > > > > The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend > > the > > > user interest; instead, they have chosen to > > tacitly > > > discriminate against North Americans by ignoring > > their > > > immediate and ongoing concerns. > > > > > > It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt > > > Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with > > > transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC > > will > > > continue to stumble along and produce statements > > on > > > ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead > > of > > > dealing with the serious problems at hand. > > > > > > It's time for not only an operational overhaul of > > the > > > ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a > > > structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and > > > assigns representation that reflects actual > > current > > > worldwide participation in the DNS. Weighted > > voting > > > is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new > > > reality in the ALAC. > > > > > > If that means that North America will be assigned > > 66 > > > percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time > > -- > > > so be it. At some point soon the balance will > > switch > > > to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the > > > weighting to be changed to relect the new mix. > > > > > > The politically correct distribution that we > > suffer > > > under has not worked out. A change is most > > certainly > > > in order. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > > > > > > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > ALAC mailing list > > > ALAC(a)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 > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping >

8 17

Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Danny Younger Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Reply to Peter Dengate-Thrush (copied to the NARALO): Peter, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I share your view of the importance of feeding timely advice into the policy-making and coordinating processes handled via the Supporting Organizations; this is precisely what Advisory Committees are supposed to do. Im further appreciative of your assessment that an Advisory Body whose sole focus is upon the needs of the general registrant community "may be a useful development", and I will be happy to work with those on the GA and NARALO lists that have already endorsed this concept to see it carefully distinguished per the guidelines that you have tendered. It is my expectation that a more formal proposal will be put forth in advance of the Paris session that will clarify for the board the extent of the interests that are not being properly served by the current structure. With regard to your query on the topic of registrar contracts, I look forward to the self-regulatory activities that will be pursued by the registrar community and believe that the guidance offered by such an AC will doubtless facilitate work in the SO community to buttress that self-regulatory effort through the consensus policy process. Understanding that an Advisory Committee is, per the bylaws, a creation of the board, it would have been presumptive and inappropriate to act to self-form such a group, but I am willing to work with others to clarify the ACs likely future membership and its goals in much the same manner that the earlier At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) facilitated the emergence of the ALAC; additionally, per your request a clear cost benefit analysis will of course be provided. As bottom-up momentum is already developing with regard to this proposal, it is my expectation that the clarity of purpose you seek will soon emerge in upcoming discussions. Thank you for sharing your views. I look forward to further discussions as needed. best wishes, Danny Hello Danny, On 18/02/2008, at 8:59 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > Peter, > > I write to you prior to the upcoming budget cycle with a proposed solution to enhance ICANN efficiencies. > > The overarching goal of the ICANN structural and > operational review cycle has been to ensure that the > ICANN board receive the best possible qualitative and timely advice from members of the community on vexing issues that require an organizational response. Actually, I don't agree that this is the overarching goal; the board does not seek advice from members of the community in this fashion, nor for that purpose. The policy making and coordinating, which is our major function, is done via the SO's. The board's interest in that "timely advice" is in seeing that it is fed into the policy-making processes, which, as you know, we do not want to be happening at the Board. > While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and > supporting organizations whose responsibilities > include putting forth the general registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities. > > What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds support and drive the ICANN process. > This may be a useful development. I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups ( Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large. I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group,necessarily a subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in particular that you feel are not being served by the current structure? > Accordingly, I ask you and your peers on the board to consider the establishment of a Registrant Advisory > Committee. The registrant community needs a strong > advocate in their corner, and ICANN needs a continued focus on general registrant issues. > I assume that you are limiting this interest group to registrants of some, or possibly all gTLDs? You will know that ccTLD registrants rights are not a matter for the ICANN board. And, I assume, the smaller chartered TLDs like .museum are not going to require this group. Nor can I see much intersection with the registrants of .asia or .eu. I wonder if your real focus should be the registrar contracts? The real way forward, as you know, is not for a letter to the board with an idea, but to set about self forming such a group, to clarify its membership, and goals. A clear cost benefit analysis is also required - what precisely is the harm that this is intended to remedy? This is the bottom-up process which characterized the formation of the existing constituencies. Once this has some momentum from the ground-up, with greater clarity of purpose, we could look at it further. Regards Peter ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

1 0

ICANN.org Announcement: Asia-Pacific Internet Users Big Part of ICANNs New Delhi Meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 15, 2008

Feb. 15, 2008

Asia-Pacific Internet Users Big Part of ICANN's New Delhi Meeting http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14feb08.htm Ceremony recognizes Regional At-Large Organization, first Asia-Pacific At-Large General Assembly 14 February 2008 NEW DELHI, INDIA: Individual Internet users from Asia, Australia, and the Pacific Islands have direct input into the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, a fact recognized today with the ceremonial signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between ICANN and the Internet user groups who participate in the Asia-Pacific Regional At-Large Organization (APRALO). The APRALO conducted its first General Assembly as a part of ICANN's 31st International Public Meeting in New Delhi. They discussed issues that will affect Internet users throughout the region and the world. The Internet user groups who are a part of APRALO are incredibly diverse, and include users from India, Japan, China, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and the United Arab Emirates. "Today's ceremony recognizes the ICANN community's success in creating a formal, global structure to help ensure ideas and feedback from individual Internet users around the world is heard in our policy processes," said Dr Paul Twomey, ICANN's President and CEO. "ICANN's work to introduce a process for applying for new top level domains – the part after the dot – especially those using the more than 100,000 characters from the languages of the world which do not use the Latin character set – will benefit from formal inputs through the Regional At-large Organizations worldwide. The Asia-Pacific RALO is a key contributor to this process." There are now more than 100 user groups taking part in ICANN's five Regional At-large Organizations, or RALOs, from the Asia-Pacific, Latin America and the Caribbean, North America, Europe, and Africa. APRALO was created on 30 March 2007 and has been informing the region's individual Internet users about ICANN activities and providing advice to ICANN on their behalf for nearly a year. The RALOs have direct input to ICANN, especially through the international At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which represents Internet users in ICANN and whose members are chosen largely by the RALOs. "ICANN's ongoing coordination of the domain name system, and its policy work, has a large impact on the Internet and the more than one billion people around the world who use it – and the billions more who should be able to use it," said Cheryl Langdon-Orr, ALAC Chair. "By bringing together Internet users from across the globe, the RALOs are at the heart of ensuring that users have a say on what's happening at ICANN." More information on the participation of individual Internet users in ICANN is available at http://alac.icann.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(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0