September 2008 - NA-Discuss

Redemption Grace Period: For ALAC Consideration
by Brendler, Beau Oct. 30, 2008

Oct. 30, 2008

Greetings. Yesterday the NA RALO agreed that this proposal from Danny Younger was significant and important. We submit it today for ALAC consideration. I will mention it on this morning's call and refer you to this note for detail. Beau Brendler A proposal to the ALAC: Six years ago the ICANN Board resolved [02.83] to revise agreements > with the unsponsored TLD registry operators so as to implement the > Redemption Grace Period. The RGP is a time frame in which domain names > that expire go into a period of stasis after their deletion so that > inadvertent expirations can be corrected; the names are disabled > during this stasis period so that the registrant's attention is better > drawn to the situation. > > The Redemption Grace Period was widely heralded as an invaluable > protective service with ICANN Director Abril i Abril noting for the > record that "that the goal of the Redemption Grace Period is not > purely technical or to preserve registrars' businesses, but is > centered on preserving the legitimate interests of the registrants by > installing a safety net." > > Unlike other ICANN initiatives, the RGP Safety Net was not established > by way of the ICANN Consensus Policy process. The ICANN Staff > sentiment at the time was that "Resolving all of the perceived issues > surrounding domain-name deletions would likely require lengthy > policy-development processes that meet the strict requirements for > development of "Consensus Policies" set out in ICANN's various > agreements with registrars and registry operators. The Redemption > Grace Period proposal, on the other hand, allows a way promptly to > solve a specific, pressing problem with the cooperation of the > affected registry operators." > > Six years later, we have ample reason to believe that this error in > judgment, the failure to invoke the Consensus Policy process, has led > to a serious degradation in the degree of protection currently > afforded to the registrant community. Framed as a "registry offering", > it has been at the sole discretion of the registrar whether to offer > or not to offer the Redemption Grace Period service -- and many do > not. We have noted that some that offer the service will still deny > the registrant the protections of the RGP in the event that they > receive an aftermarket back-order for the expiring domain. > > What was once widely viewed as an ICANN consumer protection triumph is > today little more than a degraded product offering engendering a > morass of consumer confusion and aggravation, the situation having > been exacerbated by the collusion of aftermarket profiteers and > registrars to the point that (as indicated by Rob Hall at the Lisbon > Tutorial on Changes in the Expiry Process) domains of value no longer > enter the ICANN RGP. > > From the very beginning, it was the sentiment of many in ICANN's GNSO > community that a consensus policy approach was the best way way > forward. The Business Constituency's Marilyn Cade, for one, noted that > "consensus policy for RGP seems fully appropriate". We in the NARALO > share this point of view and ask the ALAC, in accordance with the > ICANN bylaws, to raise the issue for RGP consensus policy development > by action of the Committee to commence the Policy Development Process, > and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council. > > We further ask that upon requesting the formulation of a Staff Issues > Report, that Staff be directed to supply the following within such report: > > a. a listing of all registrars noting whether they offer or do not > offer the RGP service; > > b. a listing, by registrar, of prices currently charged for the RGP > service; > > c. a listing noting which registries offer or do not offer the RGP; > > d. an assessment of the impact of aftermarket domain name practices on > the RGP > > e. per the Expired Domain Name Deletion Policy 3.7.5.6 "If Registrar > operates a website for domain registration or renewal, it should > state, both at the time of registration and in a clear place on its > website, any fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the > Redemption Grace Period", a listing of all such "statement" URLs of > each registrar that offer the RGP; > > f. the status of the Bucharest recommendation of the Technical > Steering Group that "ICANN's President should re-convene this (or a > similar) Technical Steering Group to review the implementation of the > Redemption Grace Period, to suggest possible improvements to the > Redemption Grace Period, and to develop a specification for Stage 2 of > the implementation of the Redemption Grace Period, which will enable > registrants to choose the “restoring” registrar." > > g. an assessment as to whether it is now possible to engage in > renegotiation of the charges for each restore command -- first set at > $85 by ICANN and thereafter at $40, but with development costs long > since amortized by the respective registries. > > We in the North American user community see great value in a universal > safety net and in the enhanced registrar competition that will allow > RGP prices to fall as consumers choose between the services offered by > competing "restoring" registrars. A consensus policy directive should > ultimately ensure that all gTLD domain name consumers have the blanket > protection that they deserve. We ask the ALAC to set us upon a path > that will bring this vision to fruition. ________________________________________ **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

2 1

Fast flux update
by Brendler, Beau Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Brief update: It appears this WG has stalled for the foreseeable future. The chairman, Mike O'Connor, has resigned. Avri Doria sent a message this morning telling the participants to await next steps, but the WG had pretty much stalled in process already. Bureaucratic processes are not my strong suit, but should the ALAC create a short statement of advisory that we believe this is an important issue, provide some framework and definition, and encourage the GNSO to re-constitute the group? Beau ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

6 7

For consideration at the monthly meeting
by Danny Younger Sept. 29, 2008

Sept. 29, 2008

There was a time when the ccTLD community was part of the DNSO. They weren't happy with the arrangement as matters of importance to them couldn't properly be discussed and dealt with in the DNSO environment. Ultimately they chose to leave the DNSO and formed their own Supporting Organization, the ccNSO. I think that we need to start asking ourselves if our concerns are properly being served solely by continued participation in the ALAC. We put up issues for discussion, and invariably none of the other regions discuss those issues. Neither are our topics being discussed by the ALAC members on the ALAC discuss list. On top of everything else, we need to worry about a continued trend of ALAC non-participation that results in meetings where quorum is not attained and where our work and concerns cannot be progressed in a timely manner. As we consider the future, one particular option stands out. The GNSO is willing to accept new constituencies. As you know, the GNSO is the body that actually crafts new policy. All the ALAC has ever been able to do is to merely suggest to the GNSO that they consider a new policy. As I see it, the needs of the North American community would be better served as a constituent body within the GNSO than as a mere appendage to the ALAC processes. That is not to say that the NARALO could not serve in both capacities (within the ALAC and within the GNSO). I am willing to talk about the possibility of the NARALO becoming a formal constituency within the Non-Commercial Stakeholders Group of the GNSO. I see it as a better way forward that would allow us to introduce motions directly to the GNSO for consideration. This notion also comports with the intent of the Board Governance Committee recommendations to open up the Non-Commercial grouping within the GNSO so that it doesn't remain the sole province of the NCUC. Let's talk about this.

5 5

Summit Questionnaire:
by Danny Younger Sept. 29, 2008

Sept. 29, 2008

So only 49 ALSs bothered to reply to the Summit Questionnaire, and from the NARALO the only responses received came from: 1. America@Large 2. ISOC Quebec 3. Telecommunities Canada 4. Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail(CAUCE North America) 5. ISOC Puerto Rico 6. The Intellectual Property & Technology Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association 7. Pacific Community Networks Association (PCNA) This means that the following groups didn't respond (and likely we should be asking them to explain why they chose not to respond): Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities ISOC New York Communautique Consumer Reports WebWatch Youth Helping Youth Inc dba: Emerging Futures Network Association For Community Networking The Alberta Community Network Association People Who N-CAP CLUE - The Canadian Association for Open Source Privaterra Web405 Question: If "Delegates are expected to be full participants" and the above group has not participated fully, are these ALSs to be denied Summit travel funding?

5 6

interesting debate on the African list
by Danny Younger Sept. 29, 2008

Sept. 29, 2008

Mr. J. Philemon Kissangou, Chair of ISOC-Congo, the technical manager for a local ISP, with a masters degree in téléinformatique, a diploma on Telecommunications Policy and Regulation, and a trainee at the Internet Governance Working Group Secretariat (based on two years course work with the diploFoundation) and prior chair of Centre Africain de Complementarite Scolaire, Universitaire et de Promotion and ASCIS (African Civil Society for Information Society), has self-nominated for an AFRALO elected position. The incumbent, Hawa Diakite, has argued that as he is not a member of a certified ALS, he cannot stand for election.

2 1

Summit Plans
by Danny Younger Sept. 28, 2008

Sept. 28, 2008

A few questions: 1. The Summit Questionnaire revealed that 28 ALSs would like to be a part of the team planning and running the Summit. Who has been assigned to reaching out to these ALSs to formally invite them into the process? 2. The Summit Questionnaire revealed that attendees support the idea of a Keynote Speaker. Who is on the team that will select the Keynote speaker? When does this group meet? What selection criteria will be used? 3. The Summit Questionnaire revealed that most favor panel discussions that allow for audience participation. What are the specific topics that will be covered by these panels? What's the process by which the panelists will be selected? 4. Are Summit WG members prepared to discuss this stuff on-line by email, or will discussion only happen at a teleconference?

2 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] "We can't be bothered to vote; so just send us the travel vouchers for Cairo"
by Nick Ashton-Hart Sept. 28, 2008

Sept. 28, 2008

Dear Izumi: Thanks for your suggestions. For your information, we changed the way in which voting notices were sent out in order to help prevent them from going in people's spam filters; you may recall that we were all informed that one or two members informed us all that they had not seen notices for this reason. We do often send reminders that votes are closing near the closing time as well. I understand that you are all volunteers, however, there is only so much that systems can do to help remind Members to vote when ballots are open. On 28/09/2008 08:17, "Izumi Aizu" <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: I might also suggest that, IF at all possible, the header of the voting insturction will include the "Subject" of the vote we are asked to vote. The message we receive now comes under the same heading by the staff, even the subject is different, so it is easy to ignore the second or the thrid email which came closely with the first one. izumi 2008/9/28 Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > Sorry, I missed it - in part I did not pay attention, in part I was on the > road and was too busy, in part the vote was closed when I found it. > These are of course my excuse. > > If I could have voted, I would have voted yes. > > izumi > > 2008/9/26 Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>: >> In another fine display of participant zeal, eight ALAC members decided to ignore yet another ALAC vote -- this time on the Overview Report on the ALAC Review. Those listed below (more than half of the ALAC) did not bother to vote: >> >> 1 Izumi Aizu >> 2 Annette Muehlberg >> 3 Carlos Aguirre >> 4 Jose Ovidio Salgueiro >> 5 Hawa Diakite >> 6 Thu Hue Nguyen >> 7 Vanda Scartezini >> 8 Fatimata Seye Sylla >> >> Kudos to the ALAC Chair for the great results obtained under the new "Remedial" participation policy. At this rate, the ALAC will be dead and buried soon. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> At-Large mailing list >> At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >> > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.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 DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 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-send of Summit Questionnaire Requested
by Danny Younger Sept. 27, 2008

Sept. 27, 2008

Nick, Please re-send the Summit Questionnaire to ISOC-NY. Contact email addresses: "WWWhatsup" <joly(a)punkcast.com>, "David Solomonoff" <president(a)isoc-ny.org> Thanks, Danny

1 0

Verisign Root Zone Signing Proposal
by Danny Younger Sept. 27, 2008

Sept. 27, 2008

See attached document.

1 0

ALAC Election
by Thompson, Darlene Sept. 26, 2008

Sept. 26, 2008

Hi all, I just wanted to announce that Beau Brendler has now been acclaimed as our ALAC rep for another two years. We did not receive any other nominations or volunteers so it was decided on our conference call on Monday to not bother with a formal election. All were in favour of this approach and consensus was achieved. CONGRATULATIONS, BEAU!!! You’re stuck with us for another two years! D ᑕᓕᓐ ᑕᒻᓴᓐ ᓄᓇᓕᖕᓂ ᖃᕆᓴᐅᔭᕐᕕᒋᔭᐅᔪᓐᓇᕐᑐᓄᑦ ᑎᑎᕋᖅᑎ ᑮᓇᐅᔭᓕᕆᓂᕐᒧᑦ ᐊᐅᓚᑦᑎᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᐱᔨᑦᑎᕋᖅᕕᖓᑦ ᐃᓕᓐᓂᐊᕐᓂᓕᕆᔨᒃᑯᑦ ᓄᓇᕗᑦ ᒐᕙᒪᖓᑦ ᑎᑎᖅᑲᓂᐊᕐᕕᖓ 1000, ᐊᓪᓚᕝᕕᖓ 910 ᐃᖃᓗᐃᑦ, ᓄᓇᕗᑦ dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca ᐅᖄᓚᐅᑎ: 867 975-5631 ᓱᑲᑦᑐᒃᑰᕈᑎ: 867 975-5610 Taliin Taamsan Nunalingni Qaritauyani Atuqtauningitnun Titiraqtia Nunavut Kavamangat Titiraqarvia 1000, Nayugaa 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Hivayautik : 867 975-5631 Kayumiktuk : 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Corporate Services Division Department of Education Government of Nunavut PO Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Ph: 867 975-5631 Fax: 867 975-5610 Darlene Thompson Administratrice du programme d’accès communautaire Division des services ministériels Ministère de l’Éducation Gouvernement du Nunavut Case postale 1000, Succursale 910 Iqaluit Nunavut, X0A 0H0 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca Tél. : 867 975-5631 Téléc. : 867 975-5610

2 1