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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registration of gTLDs
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 9, 2011

Aug. 9, 2011

Um, I don't even know if a general 'caveat emptor' message from the ICANN nabobs would be appropriate here. Because I'm still struggling to understand what is being bought. And the price they're asking! Reaching for a parallel, it's like waiting in line for 2 days at the Apple store for that new Ipad to land......then you get to the counter and sonofagun, they done run out! IMHO, that behaviour demonstrates the sense of a small pet rock. An ALAC message, um, I don't know.....to be honest, I just can't get excited about this. Up until now, it ain't like they say 'money for nothin' get your chicks for free'. If that were the offer and we didn't act to counter, the ALAC could fairly be accused of misprision. Maybe we ought not to get in the way of the...well, bless their precious hearts. 'Life is short and brutish', goes the Book of Common Prayer. Who am I to stand in the way of a fella getting his/her jollies........... Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registration of gTLDs
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 9, 2011

Aug. 9, 2011

> I'm still struggling to understand what is being bought. One's understanding may be improved by reading the correspondence on the na-discuss list, starting with Danny's note on 6/5/11, and then for the next two days. Eric

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registration of gTLDs
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 9, 2011

Aug. 9, 2011

> I cannot detect a misrepresentation. > I cannot identify an extraction of value under color of law. > Neither can I detect a coercion obliged by contract. Your statement of view is clear. Eric

1 0

Video of iBreakfast tld event
by Joly MacFie Aug. 9, 2011

Aug. 9, 2011

As mentioned in the yesterday's meeting http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL66A04B1808AABF48 There's a couple of segments missing at the end including Q&A as I am waiting on a transcription from Tony Kirsch from ausregistry. They'll be added later in the week. There's a brief summary here http://ibreakfast.blogspot.com/2011/08/esther-dyson-stands-her-ground-at-ne… Apart from Esther Dyson throwing icy water on the whole concept, the most notable comment was Mike Davies from Verisign saying that they anticipate 1500 applications, 1000 of which will be for dot brands, and that it will be 3-5 years before the second round. Ken Hansen of Neustar said they are offering to park TLDs for 10k/yr. Edmon Chung of dot asia gave an excellent all round presentation. I regret not asking about WHOIS when they talked about .canon's plans to give a second level to every customer.. j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

NARALO statement on pre-registration
by Beau Brendler Aug. 8, 2011

Aug. 8, 2011

Dear Colleagues, The NARALO wants to make a statement warning consumers about the issue of pre-registration. We as a region have developed a text, as follows below. I'm writing to ask whether the ALAC would like to endorse this statement and pass it forward to the board. It also occurs to me that it would make an excellent press release in coordination with the appropriate people. I have already done a video spot on the issue for Internet Evolution/Thinkernet, so maybe other press might have some interest. Regards, Beau Brendler NARALO Chair ------------------------------------ The NARALO observes that at least one ICANN-accredited registrar, United Domains, is offering what it calls "Free nTLD pre-registration" (see https://www.uniteddomains.com/ntld/pre-register-new-domains) United Domains began the offer in advance of ICANN's new gTLD decision in Singapore, and it continues afterwards, in expectation of greater availability in October 2012. United Domains says the pre-registration service is free and non-binding. However, NARALO is concerned the offer of such a service might create consumer confusion and possibly present the opportunity for fraud. In support of this concern, we note that at least one registrar, Blacknight Solutions of Ireland, has issued a press release warning registrants to disregard any such pre-registration offers in new gTLDS, and states that the company "discovered that registrants interested in acquiring domains in rumoured new gTLDs had become confused by these offers, as they are not familiar with how the new TLD implementation might work. This sort of speculative offer is the equivalent of taking a down payment on a concept car that has not been approved for production. It is a false promise." (June 30, 2011, http://www.prlog.org/11565814-blacknight-warn-consumers-against-new-gtld-pr…) The NARALO wishes to remind ICANN that approximately 10 years ago, the announcement of pre-registration for new top-level domains (such as .aero, .coop and so-on) prompted the U.S. Federal Trade Commission to issue a consumer alert (http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/alerts/alt084.pdf) that said, in part, "Some registration services are guaranteeing new top level domain names or promising preferential treatment in the registration process.... "But, the agency cautions, these offers may be misleading. "The FTC advises consumers to protect themselves by: ...Avoiding any domain name pre-registration service that guarantees particular top level domain names or preferential treatment in the assignment of new top level domain names.." The NARALO is aware the situation is different now than it was then, and that United Domains and others provide substantial disclosure information about the nature of the pre-registration program. The NARALO also recognizes the FTC action at the time was thought by some in the Internet community to be excessive and alarmist. Therefore, the NARALO recommends that, through ALAC, ICANN undertake public communication that makes clear what, exactly, consumers and others might expect from "pre-registration." It should be the organization that administers the domain name system, not the agents of domain sale, who should be defining the nature of Internet "real estate" in the public interest.

6 10

Report from Board-GAC Joint Working Group
by Joly MacFie Aug. 8, 2011

Aug. 8, 2011

Following up on my comments at the meeting today. I was asking if ALAC might make a statement about the Report from Board-GAC Joint Working Group http://www.icann.org/en/committees/board-gac-2009/board-gac-jwg-final-repor… There is concern that GAC liason to the Board may not do an adequate job of comunication the Boards's thinking to the GAC.. it is vitally important for governments to have a clear and comprehensive understanding of ICANN's strategic thinking, focus areas, business planning and key operational decisions. It is recommended therefore that a formal Board Liaison to the GAC be established who would report to the GAC, both intersessionally and in person at GAC meetings, on major Board discussions and decisions relating to these high level matters. I seems that, under the current by-laws, the GAC's role is limited to advising the board, and it is under no obligation,to involve itself with the SO's or AC's or the PDPs. However provision is made in the bylaws. The JWG notes that the ICANN By Laws provide (Article XI, Section 2, g) that the GAC may designate a non-voting liaison to each Supporting Organization (SO) and Advisory Committee (AC) as it considers appropriate. The only reference to liaisons in the GAC Operating Principles is in Article XI, Principle 44, referring to the role of the GAC Secretariat. So, similarly to the Board, the recommendation is the establishment of "reverse liasons": While improvements in the interactions between the GAC and other SOs and ACs would be beneficial, it is not entirely clear that focusing solely on the role of GAC liaisons to each SO and AC would improve the effectiveness of the GAC’s contributions to ICANN’s policy development processes, which is the goal of recommendation 12 of the ATRT report. Recommendations 1. The GAC and the Board should develop, in consultation with the SOs and ACs, a common understanding regarding the scope and function of liaisons between and among the GAC and the SOs and ACs to ensure that each have shared expectations. 2. Consider experimenting with “reverse” liaisons, with each SO and AC identifying members of their respective constituencies to liaise with the GAC. 3. In the event that further discussions within ICANN suggest a shared understanding of the respective roles of all liaisons (e.g. GAC to SOs and ACs, and the “reverse” liaisons), the GAC and the SOs and ACs should develop agreed procedures for communications between such liaisons and their respective SOs and ACs, to ensure consistency in reporting and coordination. 4. In the event that GAC liaisons are agreed, the GAC will consider creating teams of GAC volunteers to serve as liaisons to all of the SOs and ACs on a rotating basis. In the event the normal work priorities of an individual GAC member prevent full-time liaison functions, another member of the GAC team would step in. 5. The Board and ICANN management should review the roles of ICANN staff assigned to support the work of the SOs and ACs to determine how their efforts could be expanded to include more routine information sharing or briefings for the GAC, as well as whether there are additional opportunities for information sharing on issues of interest to a cross-section of SOs and ACs. 6. Consider extending the model represented by the joint GAC-ccNSO working group for the IDN ccTLD “fast track” process to other issues and other SOs and ACs as appropriate. 7. Encourage the ICANN Board to jointly review with the GAC ways to include GAC advice at earlier stages in the policy development process. The JWG considers the recently developed “New GNSO Policy Development Process” a constructive starting point for this review. 8. Explore whether the ICANN ByLaws need to be amended to more affirmatively provide for GAC input to ICANN’s policy development processes (vice the current provisions which call for the provision of GAC advice directly to the Board). on that last point, it is noted that the GAC website could be improved.. For example, ICANN/IANA has not been referencing the 2005 GAC Principles and Guidelines for the Delegation and Administration of Country Code Top Level Domains (2005) but rather an earlier version of the document. How can this circumstance be avoided in the future? Some form of register, accessible on a public web-site, could be useful. For example, the SSAC website (see http://www.icann.org/en/committees/security/ssac-documents.htm) offers a comprehensive and up-to-date list of all SSAC "reports and advisories" since 2001. The GAC has no similar register to refer to. The public comment window on this report closed last Saturday, but I understand the ALAC can comment at any time. Should we support these recommendations? j -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

REMINDER: NARALO TELECONFERENCE - Monday, 08 August 19:00 UTC
by Marilyn Vernon Aug. 7, 2011

Aug. 7, 2011

Dear All, The next NARALO teleconference is scheduled for Monday, 08 August 2011 at 19:00 UTC. The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/1gBLAQ <https://community.icann.org/x/HIAUAQ> If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. -- Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Gisella Gruber-White, Seth Greene, Marilyn Vernon, Matt Ashtiani ICANN At-Large Staff

2 1

Weekend reading
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 6, 2011

Aug. 6, 2011

Colleagues, Two recent papers, "Inflight Modifications of Content: Who are the Culprits?", and Implications of Netalyzr's DNS Measurements", [1][2] yesterday's overview piece in the New Scientist, [3] and the explianitory post by EFF, [4] are interesting, and present policy issues similar to Verisign's Sitefinder exploit and synthetic returns generally. Eric [1] http://www.icir.org/christian/publications/2011-satin-netalyzr.pdf [2] http://www.usenix.org/event/leet11/tech/full_papers/Zhang.pdf [3] http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20768-us-internet-providers-hijacking- users-search-queries.html [4] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/07/widespread-search-hijacking-in-the-us

1 0

2011 Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Eduardo Diaz Aug. 5, 2011

Aug. 5, 2011

FYI. http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-05aug11-en.htm -ed -- NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately by e-mail, and delete the original message.

1 0

NomCom 2011 announcements
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net Aug. 5, 2011

Aug. 5, 2011

Colleagues, The 2011 NomCom announcements are here: http://bit.ly/nvulwc Eric

1 0