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

Pre-registrations, next week's call, other issues
by Beau Brendler June 10, 2011

June 10, 2011

Greetings. 1. I am assuming everyone saw the note yesterday about Marc Rotenberg's resignation from his nom com slot on ALAC. I think this is a big loss to us and to the effort of improving relations with the NCSG/UC but we all know what it's like not to have enough time for this work. 2. I see some consensus over the past week on the possibility of sending a brief statement to ICANN on the pre-registration matter that, in effect, suggests it take a similar action to what was done a few years back, i.e., a sort of "consumer alert" (though the intended audience really would be businesses and entities interested in gTLDs). If so I will attempt to draft something brief over the next 24 hours and send it to the list for a quick round of feedback. If someone else would rather do that, let me know. 3. I believe there is a NA-RALO call scheduled for early next week. I will only be available to do that early Monday EST (say during the 9 a.m. to 12 noon slot), but not again until Thursday, as I will be in transit to Singapore. Please let me know what you would like to do -- reschedule call, cancel, etc. 4. Don't forget that it would be very helpful for us attending the Singapore meeting to have some input from all of you on policy issues. I have collected what has been said so far (some of it ranging to issues outside policy development, such as recruitment), but there's certainly room for more requests/input. 5. I was not able to attend the recent call to discuss the budget. I believe we have had a chance to review the document -- NA-RALO got basically $5K to do a survey/study and another $1K to produce a recruitment video for YouTube and other venues -- all the other requests were turned down. We can communicate some more about whether it would be a good idea to try to convene an NARALO general assembly at the Toronto meeting, as there should be some travel funds to spare -- a number of us are within cheap travel distance from there. More when I have a chance... Beau -----Original Message----- >From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Sent: Jun 6, 2011 1:10 PM >To: ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net, dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations > >Eric B-W wrote: > >"offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry >application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the >targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress." > >After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it. > >I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus. > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net >>Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM >>To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >>Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations >> >>Danny, >> >>I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at >>some prior point in time. >> >>Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any >>other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point >>in time. >> >>If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and >>either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again. >> >>Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives >>project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, >>as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, >>is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label. >> >>How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, >>and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which >>are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether >>unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can >>come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon. >> >>The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application >>project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, >>Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective >>communities. >> >>I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel >>to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar >>contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry >>application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the >>targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress. >> >>Eric >>------ >>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 >>------

3 2

FW: [Secretariat] Agenda proposal for Secretariats meeting Singapore
by Thompson, Darlene June 9, 2011

June 9, 2011

Hi all, The leadership will be discussing what to do about non-active ALSs. Attached is what the EURALO is proposing to do. Our current wording is: "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." The wording above makes it so an inactive ALS will not negatively affect our quorum. We have never actually taken the step of de-certification of an ALS. Can I have any comments you might have on our process? We will be discussing this in Singapore. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: secretariat-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:secretariat-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wolf Ludwig Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 5:06 PM To: Seth Greene; secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [Secretariat] Agenda proposal for Secretariats meeting Singapore Dear all, for the upcoming At-Large Regional Leadership meeting in Singapore on Wednesday, 22 June - (time TBC from 11:00 - 12:30), I would like to suggest an agenda item on a "RALO/ALAC coordinated procedure - how to deal with inactive certified members". Attached please find a copy of the EURALO discussion paper I would like to share with you. Pleased to meet you soon again, kind regards, Wolf comunica-ch phone +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig Digitale Allmend http://blog.allmend.ch - EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

4 5

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

Michele, The difference between offering "pre-registration" before a registry contract exists, or has been applied for, or the parties involved in making the determination that the new gTLD program shall progress to implementation, and offering "pre-registration" when there is a contract is significant. Another significant difference is between the efforts of applicant projects to communicate ICANN's current plan of record, and their own plan of record, to the communities for which the eventual legal applicant of record will, in their application, if required by the application evaluation process (and so conditional upon the acts of others) claim support and/or offer services to, and communications by other parties not intending to become the eventual legal applicant of record. As you note, personal views color "pre-registration" and "expressions of interest" as useful terms. My point is not only is the example we have of "pre-registration" problematic, but a similar act, carried out by the NCBA or PunctCat in 2000 or 2004, for .coop and .cat, respectively, is also distinguishable, and less inherently problematic, as these were in the process of obtaining a contract right to create .coop and .cat. Eric

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

Jothan, > ... prominent pre-registration sites for 201X new TLDs, United Domains > and Pool ... There's a joke there somewhere, something about something that does not yet exist being offered as already expired. > ... neither are collecting money ... Neither did NetSol prior to a specific point in time, but it did acquire market share which at a later point in time it was successful in converting to a fee for service. > ... setting any expectations about their service ... The mere offer creates a duty to meet an expectation, whether it is the "reasonable person" standard or the "informed domainer" standard, or something else, is TBD. > ... to a person actually obtaining the domain name ... Again, the expectation depends on what the standard is, and while the ad copy may have me laughing that UD has a way to get the .usa inventory past the DoC, it may look pretty good to the targets of other deceptive advertizing. > These objective criteria ... My point above being that these are not objective criteria, this is what attornies for the FTC do for a day job, is test marketing propositions for liability under existing law. Further, they are of no use to the issue of trying to ask what the RAA (any version) has to say about the conduct by a registrar, or a reseller, and cannot replace ICANN's own statement on the issue. Your next point is a real stretch: > It seems like the pre-registrations are largely demonstrative as > reasonably good empirical evidence for ... As the numbers are significantly less than the 100k number that was posited at what became the kick-off of the Vertical Integration Saga, and most I knew assumed that 100k was a safe upper bound for the size of the defensive+generic buy, which is why the RACK+ and IPC positions on exceptions (to Recommendation 19, the requirement for registrars) was in the few thousands, to eliminate registries-as-gamed-marks+generics, I read those numbers as failing to predict the sunrise/landrush buys of the "top ten" ranked propositions. Not "proof" that a benefit (as yet unidentified) is greater than a (well known) cost. > Those are two examples that are operating in the realm of reasonable > practice ... There is an ICANN Registrar Advisory Concerning Inappropriate Lending of Registry Access from 12 February 2002 that may be relevant to this representation. I agree with your final two paragraphs. Eric

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

Danny, I've thought about this now for a day, and I've run through tolerance of consumer deception, indifference to the plight of hoodwinked domainers, and I'm glad to see Antony's managed to find historical advisories, which if the corporation staff has remaining institutional memory, and purpose, it can recycle. However, I keep coming to a balance of interests question. Not a "is it in scope? question, but an "is it more important than ...? question. It is two weeks before some NARALO and other RALO members will be able to join the ALAC executive and gather information concerning and advocate for the public interest, in what is probably the most effective venue -- the tri-annual public meetings. I hope the ALAC will articulate a public interest statement of position on the proposed renewal of Verisign's contract to operate the .net registry. I hope the ALAC will broaden and deepen a working relationship with the state sovereignty focused public interest advisory group -- the GAC. I hope the ALAC will ... And in these I mean that the individuals receiving travel support from the corporation by virtue of their offices will act on questions identified long before the date at which they start tossing socks and stacks of docs into their travel bags before traveling to the current public meeting venue. So at the end of a day of balance of interest reflection, even if ICANN were joining in "sales of ready-to-occupy, residential-zoned lunar real estate", I want our representatives favored by travel support to ignore United Domains, and many other warts and boils. I do not think you've pointed out something out of scope, only that it is minor relative to the major issues of monopoly power, absence of public interest participation in private interest favoring policy development, lack of transparency and accountability, and so on. I have what I hope is a constructive suggestion. That the diffuse set of projects that observe and document problematic registrar activities add "pre-registrations" by registrars and their resellers to the acts that are periodically reported to ICANN's registrar compliance function, and to the relevant public agencies, and the issue of deceptive marketing be added to the Registrar Contract advice offered to the Board by the Advisory Group. Eric

6 7

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

Evan, > Perhaps it this should be standing and permanent advice, offered through > a few channels > -- maybe suggested to the SSAC to add to their tutorial dicumentation > -- maybe the next idea for Scott Pinzon's growing library of "ICANN Start" podcasts. Good idea. Do you have a link to Scott's library? Eric

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
by Beau Brendler June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

Eric B-W wrote: "offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress." After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it. I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus. -----Original Message----- >From: ebw(a)abenaki.wabanaki.net >Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM >To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations > >Danny, > >I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at >some prior point in time. > >Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any >other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point >in time. > >If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and >either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again. > >Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives >project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, >as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, >is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label. > >How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, >and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which >are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether >unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can >come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon. > >The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application >project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, >Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective >communities. > >I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel >to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar >contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry >application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the >targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress. > >Eric >------ >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 >------

6 6

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
by Carlton Samuels June 7, 2011

June 7, 2011

So let me see if I understand this. The closest everyday thing I can relate to is like waiting in line for how many hours - and overnight - at the Apple store for release of that new Ipad. Lessee. Some folks are promoting themselves as place holders in the line for new gTLDs. They are gambling on a few. If you agree for them to hold a place for you, they will place an order on your behalf if and when the TLD becomes available. They say they will charge a fee IF and only IF the shop (the new TLD registry) is opened and IF by the time they get to the point for ordering, the goods of interest (the domain name) is still available for purchase. So far as we can tell, the offerers are not contracted parties in the present ICANN context. And there is no evidence to suggest that they are also prospective contracted parties. Unless one or both attributes are proved, it seems to me ICANN has no standing to regulate them. If they players belong to either group, I believe this 'pre-registration' gambit could be construed as prima facie evidence of an attempt to game they system. This would be enough for the ALAC to advise and for ICANN to take punitive measures against the party. Otherwise, I'm prepared to accept that like that wildebeest in the herd, sometimes the predators will get a few weak ones. And from the impressive numbers already 'pre-registered', there appears to be good 'eatings' on the ground. In this context, I suspect that the ALAC might ruminate and motion ICANN to be above reproach: issue a cya 'caveat emptor' kind of advisory. Carlton Samuels ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= >

2 2

Wiki Maintenance
by Matt Ashtiani June 6, 2011

June 6, 2011

Dear all, Please note on Tuesday 6/7/2011 the Community WIKI (community.icann.org) will be taken down for maintenance starting 6:00 pm PDT and returned to service at 8:00 pm PDT. Heidi Ullrich, Seth Greene, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net June 6, 2011

June 6, 2011

Danny, I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at some prior point in time. Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point in time. If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again. Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label. How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon. The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective communities. I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress. Eric

1 0