June 2011 - NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Decertification of an ALS
by Alan Greenberg June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

There was a discussion at the NARALO meeting today on the need for rules and processes to decertify an ALS which no longer exists or is no longer active. Here are the procedures that are currently on the books. From the ALAC ALS appliation and certification procedure (http://www.atlarge.icann.org/framework.htm) 7. Decisions to de-certify an ALS shall require a 2/3 majority of the members of the ALAC who cast a vote as provided in the Rules of Procedure of the ALAC, and any decertification decision shall be subject to review as provided in the ICANN Bylaws, Article IV, Section 2. Reasons for the ALAC to pursue de-certification action, and to de-certify an ALS, may include persistent non-compliance with significant ALS requirements. The ALAC will provide advance notice to the ALS in question, and the ALS will have an opportunity to be heard and respond to the ALAC prior to a decision on de-certification. The ALAC will notify the ALS of its de-certification decision and provide information on requesting a review of the decision. I. Minimum criteria for an At-Large Structure: 1. Commit to supporting individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN by distributing to individual constituents/members information on relevant ICANN activities and issues, offering Internet-based mechanisms that enable discussions of one or more of these activities and issues among individual constituents/members, and involving individual constituents/members in relevant ICANN policy development, discussions and decisions. 2. Be constituted so that participation by individual Internet users who are citizens or residents of countries within the Geographic Region in which the ALS is based will predominate in the ALS' operation. The ALS may permit additional participation by others that is compatible with the interests of the individual Internet users within the region. 3. Be self-supporting (not rely on ICANN for funding). 4. Post on the Internet (on the ALAC's website or elsewhere) publicly-accessible, current information about the ALS's goals, structure, description of constituent group(s)/membership, working mechanisms, leadership, and contact(s). 5. Assist the RALO in performing its function. From the NARALO Operating Procedures (https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+Operating+Principles+NA-2…) 16. When an ALS representative does not vote in 3 consecutive NARALO elections or does not contribute a comment on ICANN policy through collaboration on the At-Large discussion lists in 12 consecutive months, it automatically loses its voting rights and active status within the NARALO. The ALS should be notified of the status change and may regain its voting rights and active status if within the next 12 months it votes or participates to online discussions, otherwise the Chair will submit to ALAC a request for de-certification of that ALS. So the current rules for us are: - Since we don't tend to have many votes or elections, 12 months of inactivity can trigger losing its active status. Assuming they are notified of this, 12 months later, the NARALO chair can request that the ALAC decertify the ALS, which requires a 2/3 vote to pass. I note 2 things: - For an ALS that no longer exists, we could institute a new procedure to effect the decertification faster, but it is not clear that for most ALSs, there is any way of definitively saying that it no longer exists. - Based on rule 16, I suspect that MANY NARALO ALSs could be put in the non-active status. If we apply this rule inconsistently, we could in theory have problems (but in practice probably not). I guess our real target is to get such active participation from all of our ALSs. Alan

3 2

Statement on Pre-Registration: Draft for discussion
by Seth Greene June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Hello, NARALO members, A wiki page has been created for this statement. It includes Beau's draft, and comments can be added below it using the "Add Comment" function: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/Statement+on+Pre-Registra…. This might make it easier to keep the comments together and revise the document. Many thanks, Seth ______ Seth Greene Interim Manager, At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (212) 662-7723 E-mail: seth.greene(a)icann.org ________________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Beau Brendler [beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, June 13, 2011 8:01 AM To: Wendy Seltzer; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] statement on pre-registration draft for discussion Yes, I understand that objection -- I'm not sure I really got my own point across. I am hoping someone who has some knowledge of how Verisign used pre-registration 10 or more years ago to capture market share might help us out here on that part of the draft, because it's that I was trying to refer to... -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Jun 10, 2011 7:25 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] statement on pre-registration draft for discussion > >I agree with the general sentiment of avoiding confusion -- more, and >more accurate information is better. > >I disagree with the sentences below, specifically as regards >"artificially creating demand." If the service acts as an indication of >demand, we can dispute its accuracy (lots more people may "pre-register" >if its free than might pay money for a registration, or vice versa, they >might not want to show their hands early) but I don't think it's >insidious for that reason. I see nothing wrong with letting people try >to measure or justify demand for new TLDs however they like. > >On 06/10/2011 06:24 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> While United Domains says the pre-registration service is free and non-binding, the NARALO is concerned the offer of such a service could create artificial demand which could then be used to justify additional rounds of TLD creation and release, or might serve to confuse consumers. > >Thanks, >--Wendy >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 >Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >https://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ >http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

5 12

Re: [NA-Discuss] Statement on Pre-Registration: Draft for discussion
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Colleagues, I was surprised to hear in the most recent JAS call, the GAC express a current interest in applications from public administrations of urban areas, and the fees for which these public administrations will be liable. For those who hold the belief that a geographic association such as the name of an urban area will not work, how do you distinguish between the urban and the region? If .nyc is "a bad idea (tm)", what kind of an idea is .quebec? They are both political jurisdictions, both mid-sized in the population and average income among the existing entities holding, for better or for worse, iso3166 delegations, and both having functioning administrations. Or are both "a bad idea (tm)", and for the same reason? Prior to joining NARALO I was the CityTLD Constituency Petitioners' appointee (or stuckee) to the GNSO's Operations Work Team, so I've some interest in why people think city governments, which appear to be adopting RDF, linked data stadards, sematic web notions, etc, will not use namespaces. Thanks in advance for you thoughts, Eric

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Statement on Pre-Registration: Draft for discussion
by Beau Brendler June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Thomas, you wrote: "...Your suggestion then that we harmonize between cities was a good one. And at last years IGF I organized a workshop on City TLD Governance and Best Practices <http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/vilnius-workshop-report>. Lots more work to do on that. Might some NARLO support be forthcoming?" I can see how it might be beneficial, since the NARALO is committed to the public interest, to help develop best-practice guidelines for efforts such as yours and others. That said, it is difficult for me to see how to prioritize such assistance, since the responses on this list have been, to be polite, lukewarm to the .nyc effort. You have asked for examples. I have only two: About three years ago, while working for Consumers Union in Yonkers, NY, I got a call from NY mayor Bloomberg's office, asking if I knew why there was any good reason the city government should support the .nyc effort. I told that person the only benefits I could see would be if the availability of .nyc might help the city create URLs for its public information resources that might make them easier to find by consumers (such as "evacuationplan.nyc"), or if there was currently a lot of squatting on .com URLs with NY city content. I never heard back from them. In fact, when I tried to explain aspects of the domain name system and the cases of other cities around the world such as .berlin, I was (not particularly politely) rushed off the phone, and I wasn't the one who intiated the call. If the people of New York City were clamoring for .nyc, I doubt the mayor's office would have called me for an opinion about whether they should care about it or not. The second example is when I brought up the possibility of the .NYC domain to senior staff at Consumer Reports. Their reaction was overwhelmingly negative, as they thought it meant they would have to rush out and defensively register all their existing .com URLs with .NYC suffixes to protect the IP of their content. Empirically I just can't get enthusiastic about .NYC and until there's some demonstrated public demand (or public interest demand), I think there are far more pressing issues competing for NARALO's attention and resources. >-----Original Message----- >>From: Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml(a)communisphere.com> >>Sent: Jun 15, 2011 9:25 PM >>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >>Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Seth Greene <Seth.Greene(a)icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Statement on Pre-Registration: Draft for discussion >> >>Evan, >> >>On 6/15/2011 6:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>> Hi Thomas, >>> >>> On 15 June 2011 16:32, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml(a)communisphere.com >>> <mailto:toml@communisphere.com>> wrote: >>> >>> Please accept my apologies as I must have been unclear in my >>> earlier email. >>> >>> And you'll have to accept my apologies as well, for the two of us are >>> speaking in different realities. >>> >>> To me a domain is an identifier, an alias, a pointer that is not so >>> much content itself as a pointer to content. It's this generation's >>> Yellow Pages. >> >> > So names such as restaurants.nyc, clothing.nyc, autos.nyc are useful. >>Great. >> >>> >>> You see domains as an agent of social change. >>> >>> I think I have empirical evidence on my side and that your case is >>> more wishful thinking than anything else. Obviously you see otherwise. >> >>Try, try, try again is my motto, especially when the returns can be so >>great. And with the experience of less-than-useful TLDs, how do we >>develop a better one. Don't give up. Things can get better. >> >>> >>> But there was a larger error in assuming that all NARLO members >>> would be aware of the utility of a TLD for a large global city >>> like New York. Had I been a more active participant in NARLO over >>> the years, I'd have had the opportunity to make that case. >>> >>> >>> Actually, you've been here before -- about three years ago -- and met >>> with similar levels of doubt. >>> >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2008-March/001806.html >> >>Indeed. Your suggestion then that we harmonize between cities was a good >>one. And at last years IGF I organizeda workshop on City TLD Governance >>and Best Practices >><http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/vilnius-workshop-report>. >>Lots more work to do on that. Might some NARLO support be forthcoming? >> >>> >>> It's unfortunate that you forgot about that experience, let alone that >>> it had no effect on your efforts. But at very least the reaction here >>> should not be surprising to you sincve you *have* been through it before. >> >>I have been here, and being somewhat sensitive, it was and is a painful >>experience. But I grew up with 5 brothers and am on a mission, so I've >>returned to possibly face more ridicule, in the hope of making an >>important tool available to my city. I do think that a more positive >>approach to things would attract more active participants. >> >>> Be that as it may, I am a bit surprised to find you think so >>> little about the role of a TLD in city life. >>> >>> >>> Or corporate life. Or national-government life. Or any life for that >>> matter. >>> >>> Not only are domains just pointers, they're pointers that are >>> decreasing in value as search engines continue to evolve. Now Google >>> Chrome uses a single window in which to type both search words and >>> domain names, so that for many, typing >>> >>> "weather nyc" >>> typed into Chrome (or most mobile phone browsers) may give results as >>> satisfying as >>> "weather.nyc" >>> >>> except that the former already exists and can't be monopolized by >>> speculators or poor quality content. >> >>You do trust search more than I. >>> >>> ditto "sports nyc" or any other '[generic word].nyc" >> >>You've totally given up all hope. >> >>> >>> But as you object to my use of the word "disruption" to describe >>> the impact of using the Standard vs. Community Model, I see I must >>> elaborate. A few of the differences I see from the two models >>> include equitable vs. inequitable distribution of domain names. >>> For example, I've heard it suggested that Rupert Murdock, who has >>> been buying up local community newspapers, is interested in the >>> 352 neighborhood names <http://NYCwiki.org/>. With our civic >>> histories and lives tied into these names, would it be disruptive >>> if those names went to Newscorp? >>> >>> >>> Nope. Because alternates already exist. Search engines already exist. >>> It's the CONTENT, not the bloody pointer to it, that matters. If >>> quality content about those neighbourhoods exists, it already has a >>> domain name that people will find. At this level having an obvious >>> "[neighbourhood].nyc" is nice and convenient, but almost the same >>> could be accomplished with "[neighbourhood].nycneighbors.com >>> <http://nycneighbors.com>" (or something like that. Not only wouldn't >>> you need .nyc for that, you wouldn't have to buy more than ONE domain >>> from ICANN! >>> >> >>With some help from organizations such as NARLO we could possibly (no >>not definitely) make the neighborhood names quite useful - as part of a >>broad introduction and development of the .nyc TLD. You've seemingly >>thrown up your hands, decided it's impossible, and are willing to let >>the .nyc TLD go to speculators, after which you'll say "See. I told you >>so." Is that what I'm hearing? >> >>> Same with small business, government, tourism, education, >>> community and civic organization names, etc. >>> >>> Yup. >>> >>> It's tough to say no having improved civic community is disruptive. >>> >>> You say it's tough. I say it's pointless (to believe that a mere TLD >>> will improve anything to do with civic action or activity that >>> couldn't be done with the current regime). >> >>Perhaps there's a saving here. For it's not a "mere TLD" that I'm >>talking about. I'm suggesting that with support from organizations like >>yours, we could apply the capabilities of the DNS to support existing >>functions. For example, 34th Street exists. I'm not suggesting creating >>another 34th Street. Our goal is to put the TLD to use making the >>existing structures function better. If we don't do that, 34thStreet.nyc >>will go to a speculator with little regard for reality. >> >>> >>> I don't think you've made your case. >> >>And what is your suggestion for .nyc? A one time fund raiser? >>Competition for .com? I suspect you'd prefer no new TLDs. But if they >>come, what next? >> >>I'm curious if others on this list have similar thoughts. Is the list >>totally convinced that there's no utility, no possible benefit that >>might arise from a thoughtfully developed city-TLD? That there's no >>experience from 25 years of DNS operations that might be drawn upon? >> >>> >>> - Evan >> >>Best, >> >>Tom Lowenhaupt >>------ >>NA-Discuss mailing list >>NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss >> >>Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >>------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Statement on Pre-Registration: Draft for discussion
by Beau Brendler June 16, 2011

June 16, 2011

Thomas, you wrote: "...Your suggestion then that we harmonize between cities was a good one. And at last years IGF I organized a workshop on City TLD Governance and Best Practices <http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/vilnius-workshop-report>. Lots more work to do on that. Might some NARLO support be forthcoming?" I can see how it might be beneficial, since the NARALO is committed to the public interest, to help develop best-practice guidelines for efforts such as yours and others. That said, it is difficult for me to see how to prioritize such assistance, since the responses on this list have been, to be polite, lukewarm to the .nyc effort. You have asked for examples. I have only two: About three years ago, while working for Consumers Union in Yonkers, NY, I got a call from NY mayor Bloomberg's office, asking if I knew why there was any good reason the city government should support the .nyc effort. I told that person the only benefits I could see would be if the availability of .nyc might help the city create URLs for its public information resources that might make them easier to find by consumers (such as "evacuationplan.nyc"), or if there was currently a lot of squatting on .com URLs with NY city content. I never heard back from them. In fact, when I tried to explain aspects of the domain name system and the cases of other cities around the world such as .berlin, I was (not particularly politely) rushed off the phone, and I wasn't the one who intiated the call. If the people of New York City were clamoring for .nyc, I doubt the mayor's office would have called me for an opinion about whether they should care about it or not. The second example is when I brought up the possibility of the .NYC domain to senior staff at Consumer Reports. Their reaction was overwhelmingly negative, as they thought it meant they would have to rush out and defensively register all their existing .com URLs with .NYC suffixes to protect the IP of their content. Empirically I just can't get enthusiastic about .NYC and until there's some demonstrated public demand (or public interest demand), I think there are far more pressing issues competing for NARALO's attention and resources. -----Original Message----- >From: Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml(a)communisphere.com> >Sent: Jun 15, 2011 9:25 PM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Seth Greene <Seth.Greene(a)icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Statement on Pre-Registration: Draft for discussion > >Evan, > >On 6/15/2011 6:23 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> >> On 15 June 2011 16:32, Thomas Lowenhaupt <toml(a)communisphere.com >> <mailto:toml@communisphere.com>> wrote: >> >> Please accept my apologies as I must have been unclear in my >> earlier email. >> >> And you'll have to accept my apologies as well, for the two of us are >> speaking in different realities. >> >> To me a domain is an identifier, an alias, a pointer that is not so >> much content itself as a pointer to content. It's this generation's >> Yellow Pages. > > > So names such as restaurants.nyc, clothing.nyc, autos.nyc are useful. >Great. > >> >> You see domains as an agent of social change. >> >> I think I have empirical evidence on my side and that your case is >> more wishful thinking than anything else. Obviously you see otherwise. > >Try, try, try again is my motto, especially when the returns can be so >great. And with the experience of less-than-useful TLDs, how do we >develop a better one. Don't give up. Things can get better. > >> >> But there was a larger error in assuming that all NARLO members >> would be aware of the utility of a TLD for a large global city >> like New York. Had I been a more active participant in NARLO over >> the years, I'd have had the opportunity to make that case. >> >> >> Actually, you've been here before -- about three years ago -- and met >> with similar levels of doubt. >> >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/na-discuss/2008-March/001806.html > >Indeed. Your suggestion then that we harmonize between cities was a good >one. And at last years IGF I organizeda workshop on City TLD Governance >and Best Practices ><http://www.coactivate.org/projects/campaign-for.nyc/vilnius-workshop-report>. >Lots more work to do on that. Might some NARLO support be forthcoming? > >> >> It's unfortunate that you forgot about that experience, let alone that >> it had no effect on your efforts. But at very least the reaction here >> should not be surprising to you sincve you *have* been through it before. > >I have been here, and being somewhat sensitive, it was and is a painful >experience. But I grew up with 5 brothers and am on a mission, so I've >returned to possibly face more ridicule, in the hope of making an >important tool available to my city. I do think that a more positive >approach to things would attract more active participants. > >> Be that as it may, I am a bit surprised to find you think so >> little about the role of a TLD in city life. >> >> >> Or corporate life. Or national-government life. Or any life for that >> matter. >> >> Not only are domains just pointers, they're pointers that are >> decreasing in value as search engines continue to evolve. Now Google >> Chrome uses a single window in which to type both search words and >> domain names, so that for many, typing >> >> "weather nyc" >> typed into Chrome (or most mobile phone browsers) may give results as >> satisfying as >> "weather.nyc" >> >> except that the former already exists and can't be monopolized by >> speculators or poor quality content. > >You do trust search more than I. >> >> ditto "sports nyc" or any other '[generic word].nyc" > >You've totally given up all hope. > >> >> But as you object to my use of the word "disruption" to describe >> the impact of using the Standard vs. Community Model, I see I must >> elaborate. A few of the differences I see from the two models >> include equitable vs. inequitable distribution of domain names. >> For example, I've heard it suggested that Rupert Murdock, who has >> been buying up local community newspapers, is interested in the >> 352 neighborhood names <http://NYCwiki.org/>. With our civic >> histories and lives tied into these names, would it be disruptive >> if those names went to Newscorp? >> >> >> Nope. Because alternates already exist. Search engines already exist. >> It's the CONTENT, not the bloody pointer to it, that matters. If >> quality content about those neighbourhoods exists, it already has a >> domain name that people will find. At this level having an obvious >> "[neighbourhood].nyc" is nice and convenient, but almost the same >> could be accomplished with "[neighbourhood].nycneighbors.com >> <http://nycneighbors.com>" (or something like that. Not only wouldn't >> you need .nyc for that, you wouldn't have to buy more than ONE domain >> from ICANN! >> > >With some help from organizations such as NARLO we could possibly (no >not definitely) make the neighborhood names quite useful - as part of a >broad introduction and development of the .nyc TLD. You've seemingly >thrown up your hands, decided it's impossible, and are willing to let >the .nyc TLD go to speculators, after which you'll say "See. I told you >so." Is that what I'm hearing? > >> Same with small business, government, tourism, education, >> community and civic organization names, etc. >> >> Yup. >> >> It's tough to say no having improved civic community is disruptive. >> >> You say it's tough. I say it's pointless (to believe that a mere TLD >> will improve anything to do with civic action or activity that >> couldn't be done with the current regime). > >Perhaps there's a saving here. For it's not a "mere TLD" that I'm >talking about. I'm suggesting that with support from organizations like >yours, we could apply the capabilities of the DNS to support existing >functions. For example, 34th Street exists. I'm not suggesting creating >another 34th Street. Our goal is to put the TLD to use making the >existing structures function better. If we don't do that, 34thStreet.nyc >will go to a speculator with little regard for reality. > >> >> I don't think you've made your case. > >And what is your suggestion for .nyc? A one time fund raiser? >Competition for .com? I suspect you'd prefer no new TLDs. But if they >come, what next? > >I'm curious if others on this list have similar thoughts. Is the list >totally convinced that there's no utility, no possible benefit that >might arise from a thoughtfully developed city-TLD? That there's no >experience from 25 years of DNS operations that might be drawn upon? > >> >> - Evan > >Best, > >Tom Lowenhaupt >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 14, 2011

June 14, 2011

Michele, You asked "How is accepting pre-registrations / expressions of interest a matter for Compliance?" Consult your contract. If it specifically directs Blacknight to pay to ICANN a registration fee for the registration of domains in generic top-level domains that don't exist, then there may not be a compliance issue. Otherwise, upon what basis is the conduct of offering, whether for a present fee, or for the expectation of fees, direct or consequent, registrations of domains in generic top-level domains that don't exist claimed to be within the scope of which (there are several to choose from) registrar accreditation agreements? Where this question and answer may go is to an area the Intellectual Property Constituency has raised a significant claim, and some, but not all, of the Registry Consituency members have attempted a defense. What is, or should be, the liabilities of a party which is aware of systematic misconduct? The IPC wants to attach liabilities to the registries which are aware of systematic conduct by some registrars. This would not affect registries such as .cat and .coop, but it would affect the CNOBI set, and possibly others. So what is, or should be, the liabilities of a registrar which systematically registers or "pre-registers" domains which cannot resolve, or which is aware of a reseller which engages in the same conduct? I've been involved in the registrar constituency from 2003 to 2010, and ran for its chair along with Bhavin (who won) and Jordyn. There are registrars who's business model was not dependent upon exploiting the Add Grace Period (domain "tasting"), and similar. I do not think the necessary response of any Registrar Accreditation Agreement holder to a proposed limit on permissible conduct must be in the negative. There are registrars for which the weakest interpretation of their contract with the corporation is not the best interpretation, or the sole source of information to their business plan. Your milage may vary, of course, but just as Jean-Christophe Vignes (then of EuroDNS), Stephane Van Gelder (INDOM), Volker Greimann (Key-Systems) and yourself Michele Neylon, (Blacknight Solutions), argued articulately when advancing the Open Registrar Proposal [1], from the point of view of parties to the European legal tradition, the text of a contract is only a part of the complete agreement between the contracting parties. This is a cultual difference from the Anglo-American legal tradition, in which any conduct not specifically barred by the contract is permitted, or "anything goes if not specifically prohibited". I'm puzzled by the change of perspective, but as I mostly engaged with Volker in the VI WG, perhaps his view was not genral to all the advocates of the Open Registrar Proposal. Ireland is not a Civil Law jurisdiction and that may explain a preference for the "what is not prohibited is permitted" construction of a contract. Eric [1] The ORP had fewer limits on cross ownership than the RACK+ and JN2 proposals, more limits than the CAM proposal), and central to this issue, increassed support for ICANN's compliance function. Vertical Integration Working Group,

4 3

NomCom Process description
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond June 13, 2011

June 13, 2011

I am sorry, my line dropped during the NARALO call just as I was explaining the NomCom process. The ALAC vacant seat is for a delegate from the North American region. No information is shared between successive NomComs, so the NomCom 2011 does not have access to the information that the NomCom 2010 had. Furthermore, the NomCom 2011 was mandated to search for ALAC candidates from Africa, Asia/Australia/Pacific and Latin America/Caribbean. It is therefore the task of the 2010 NomCom to find a replacement. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Chair of the 2010 NomCom was informed and I believe that the process is under way to go through the alternate(s) list, along with Due Diligence etc. But the process does take a while, so from the start is was *not* expected that a candidate be selected prior to the Singapore meeting. The spare travel slot was therefore allocated by the ALAC to the NARALO region to offer to one of their delegates. This was an emergency procedure since with the Singapore meeting so near, all travel arrangements had to be finalised within a matter of days. Had no candidate been found within a few days, that travel slot would have been lost. I am very glad that Eric Brunner Williams was able to accept the offer which NARALO extended to him and look forward to seeing many of you in Singapore. Warm regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] NomCom Process description
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 13, 2011

June 13, 2011

> ... Eric Brunner Williams was able to accept the offer > which NARALO extended to him ... Thank you Oliver, this is at some personal cost, motivated by the efficacy of public meetings to maintain At Large networks and advance policy agendas, in particular at this meeting, the Joint Application Support Working Group's set of recommendations. I hadn't planned to attend a public meeting until next year's meeting a few hours travel from Ithaca. Eric

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] statement on pre-registration draft for discussion
by Beau Brendler June 13, 2011

June 13, 2011

Yes, I understand that objection -- I'm not sure I really got my own point across. I am hoping someone who has some knowledge of how Verisign used pre-registration 10 or more years ago to capture market share might help us out here on that part of the draft, because it's that I was trying to refer to... -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Jun 10, 2011 7:25 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] statement on pre-registration draft for discussion > >I agree with the general sentiment of avoiding confusion -- more, and >more accurate information is better. > >I disagree with the sentences below, specifically as regards >"artificially creating demand." If the service acts as an indication of >demand, we can dispute its accuracy (lots more people may "pre-register" >if its free than might pay money for a registration, or vice versa, they >might not want to show their hands early) but I don't think it's >insidious for that reason. I see nothing wrong with letting people try >to measure or justify demand for new TLDs however they like. > >On 06/10/2011 06:24 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> While United Domains says the pre-registration service is free and non-binding, the NARALO is concerned the offer of such a service could create artificial demand which could then be used to justify additional rounds of TLD creation and release, or might serve to confuse consumers. > >Thanks, >--Wendy >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org +1 914-374-0613 >Fellow, Princeton Center for Information Technology Policy >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >https://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ >http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/

1 0

(US Interest) White House Rural Council establishment
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 12, 2011

June 12, 2011

Colleagues, The rural areas, and rural populations, of North America, lie "outside" of the usual "At Large Structure". For those with an interest in national policy intended to benefit rural government and civil society, as well as encourage economic development, this may be of interest. Here's the URL: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/06/09/executive-order-estab… I'll be looking at it. I don't assume there are "ICANN ALAC NARALO" issues present, but portions of the US Broadband Plan relate to rural access, and to infrastructure, which without torturing the statue or the NTIA's plan of record, could include DNS policy and implementation issues, as well as addressing and routing issues, so it is a remote possibility. Eric

2 1