- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Costa Rica NARALO Monthly Meeting / Transcript
by At-Large Staff April 5, 2012

April 5, 2012

Dear All, Please note that the transcript of the NARALO Monthly meeting held on Monday 12 March 2012 in Costa Rica has been posted on: http://costarica43.icann.org/node/29549 As well as the wiki meeting page: https://community.icann.org/x/NqHbAQ Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN At-Large Staff E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Call for Membership / Metrics Working Group
by At-Large Staff April 5, 2012

April 5, 2012

Dear Members of At-Large, The Metrics Working Group was created as part of the ALAC / At-Large Improvements Project and approved by the ALAC at their February Meeting, to be a Sub Committee of the 'parent' Rules of Procedure (ROP) Review Work Group (see https://community.icann.org/x/RJPbAQ) to conduct a review of the ALAC Member and At-Large participation metrics, including RALO Member and ALS performance metrics / measures / reportage. Cheryl Langdon-Orr, the Chair of this WG, has requested a reminder call for membership of the ROP's Review and its Sub-Committee Metrics Work Group . The Chair is seeking to have at least two representatives from the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) in addition to the ALAC Liaison (already appointed) and at least two regional members appointed as representative from each RALO. Additional Regional, ALS or Individual Membership involvement is also welcomed. To see the list of current Membership see https://community.icann.org/x/RJPbAQ. If you are interested in joining the ROP Review / Metrics WG, please be so kind to declare your interest (noting any preference for ROP's, Metrics, or both) to At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org by 06 April, 2012. At-Large Staff will add your name to the list of members. The ROP's Review SC on Metrics Workspace is available at: https://community.icann.org/x/HJfbAQ Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, and Nathalie Peregrine ICANN At-Large Staff E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 1

After SOPA
by Glenn McKnight April 4, 2012

April 4, 2012

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-57408208-261/hollywood-formally-brings-is… -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

1 0

New UK rules
by Glenn McKnight April 2, 2012

April 2, 2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17576745 -- Glenn McKnight mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight twitter gmcknight Http://www.globalcatalysts.com http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem
by Alan Greenberg April 2, 2012

April 2, 2012

Indeed, and if one believes the that the number of domain names used for spam and phishing and monetization is as large as some people imply, imagine the liability to ICANN of we could eliminate all of that (as clearly some people wish). The way ahead is fraught with problems. Alan At 02/04/2012 02:48 PM, gbruen(a)knujon.com wrote: >I'm concerned about the very specific influence this creates if a >registrar decides to drop all of their extra accreditations at once, >pulling up to 4% ICANN's budget out from under the organization. > >It is a Sword of Damocles > >http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damocles > > >Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > >-----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2012 14:40:02 >To: Eduardo Diaz<eduardodiazrivera(a)gmail.com>; Garth Bruen at Knujon >com<gbruen(a)knujon.com> >Cc: LACRALO discussion list<lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; ><na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] "Chicken and Egg" Problem > >I doubt that Moniker does this as a benevolent way to fund ICANN. >Multiple accreditations allow them (perhaps among other things) them >to pick up more dropped names quickly, overcoming the rules some >registries have in place regarding the number (or rate) of pickups of >dropped names. My understanding is that some registries (.org in >particular) place additional limits on drop-catching, but I don't >recall the details. > >Alan > >At 02/04/2012 01:25 PM, Eduardo Diaz wrote: > >Wow! This is very interesting. Why somebody will pay ICANN $436k for a no > >return on investment? > > > >-ed > > > >On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 12:27 PM, Garth Bruen at Knujon.com < > >gbruen(a)knujon.com> wrote: > > > > > (Apologies for list cross-posts) > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > Recent discussions with ICANN compliance have revealed what > appears to be a > > > new standard (or perhaps it was always the standard) for triggering > > > Registrar contract obligations. According to compliance, certain contract > > > obligations (like posting of policies, terms, pricing and > WHOIS) cannot be > > > enforced until the Registrar actually sponsors domain names. > > > > > > This came up because several new Registrars did not appear to have these > > > basic components on their websites (some had no website at > all). Compliance > > > stated the obligations could not be enforced because the Registrars in > > > question had no domains yet. > > > > > > In my view this presents a number of problems. The first is > that Registrars > > > should demonstrate their ability and willingness to provide required > > > services before sponsoring domain names. The second is that it > would seem a > > > Registrar could be non-transparent to their first customer, hence > > > "chicken-and-egg." Signing of the contract should the trigger these > > > requirements not the presence of domain names. > > > > > > One additional problem is a little more complex. A Registrar called > > > Nameescape.com LLC has no operational website, this has been the case for > > > several years and possibly since they were accredited. This > Registrar is a > > > Moniker shell company, who already has 109 superfluous accreditations. At > > > one point the cartels would at least attempt to appear > independent, now it > > > seems there is no long even a pretense and accreditations can > simply become > > > "placeholders." This isn't a simple problem since these additional > > > accreditations allow Moniker to add $436,000 to ICANN's coffers > each year, > > > and now it appears they don't have to pretend to actually want to sell > > > domain names. It's something to think about as we continue to > discuss COI. > > > > > > Thanks, Garth > > > > > > ------------------------------------- > > > > > > Garth Bruen > > > gbruen(a)knujon.com > > > > > > 617-947-3805 > > > http://www.knujon.com > > > http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 > > > The Death of the Internet: How It May Happen and How It Can Be Stopped, > > > ISBN:1118062418 > > > Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 > > > Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ > > > Twitter: @Knujon > > > > > > > > > ------ > > > 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 > > > ------ > > > > > > > > > > >-- > >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. > >------ > >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 > >------

2 1

"Chicken and Egg" Problem
by Garth Bruen at Knujon.com April 2, 2012

April 2, 2012

(Apologies for list cross-posts) Folks, Recent discussions with ICANN compliance have revealed what appears to be a new standard (or perhaps it was always the standard) for triggering Registrar contract obligations. According to compliance, certain contract obligations (like posting of policies, terms, pricing and WHOIS) cannot be enforced until the Registrar actually sponsors domain names. This came up because several new Registrars did not appear to have these basic components on their websites (some had no website at all). Compliance stated the obligations could not be enforced because the Registrars in question had no domains yet. In my view this presents a number of problems. The first is that Registrars should demonstrate their ability and willingness to provide required services before sponsoring domain names. The second is that it would seem a Registrar could be non-transparent to their first customer, hence "chicken-and-egg." Signing of the contract should the trigger these requirements not the presence of domain names. One additional problem is a little more complex. A Registrar called Nameescape.com LLC has no operational website, this has been the case for several years and possibly since they were accredited. This Registrar is a Moniker shell company, who already has 109 superfluous accreditations. At one point the cartels would at least attempt to appear independent, now it seems there is no long even a pretense and accreditations can simply become "placeholders." This isn't a simple problem since these additional accreditations allow Moniker to add $436,000 to ICANN's coffers each year, and now it appears they don't have to pretend to actually want to sell domain names. It's something to think about as we continue to discuss COI. Thanks, Garth ------------------------------------- Garth Bruen gbruen(a)knujon.com 617-947-3805 http://www.knujon.com http://www.linkedin.com/pub/4/149/724 The Death of the Internet: How It May Happen and How It Can Be Stopped, ISBN:1118062418 Linkedin Group: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=1870205 Blog: http://www.circleid.com/members/3296/ Twitter: @Knujon

3 2

Nomcom Deadline Approaching -- Get your applications in!
by Beau Brendler March 31, 2012

March 31, 2012

Greetings, NA-Region... The deadline is rapidly approaching for the next year's nom com representative position from North America. The nom com is a vital part of ensuring a diverse range of people from different walks of life join the ICANN community. If you are not interested, perhaps you know someone who might be. We need a strong showing from the region! It all starts here: http://nomcom.icann.org Thanks! Beau

2 1

Re: [NA-Discuss] [community] North-American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) > NARALO Video Project
by Joly MacFie March 29, 2012

March 29, 2012

Not content with hacking the world, Anonymous is now using our confluence to hawk designer handbags. On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:24 PM, Anonymous (Confluence) <no-reply(a)icann.org > wrote: > NARALO Video Project<https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+Video+Project?focusedComm…> Page > *comment added* by Anonymous > > Zen will be a senior<h1><a href=" > http://www.louisvuittonpursess.com/"title="Louis Vuitton Purses">Louis > Vuitton Purses</a></h1> > <https://community.icann.org/display/NARALO/NARALO+Video+Project?replyToComm…> > <snip> -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [offlist] Concerning the NeuStar ~ New York City "public hearing"
by Joly MacFie March 27, 2012

March 27, 2012

In defence of DoITT, Nancy Scola just fwded to me a set of bullet points that she, as an accredited journalist, did obtain from a contact there. She's asked me not to make them public until she gets her article out, but the $185k + $25/yr is not recoupable against the city's 40%, and that 40% includes all .nyc related revenues such as advertising etc. Guaranteed city income starts at $300K and rise to $1m in the 5th year, and some nexus clauses. j On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 3:23 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > At 27/03/2012 02:54 PM, Joly MacFie wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Thomas Lowenhaupt >> <toml(a)communisphere.com>wrote: >> >> > >> > I did take some notes >> > >> >> When Nancy Scola and I were in there we were forbidden to even put pen to >> paper. They did genrously extend the deadline to 4.15 since we couldn't >> get >> in there til 4pm since we chose to wait until Jay Sulzberger and Robert >> Pollard had finished (there was only one copy available.) >> >> >> j >> > > Sounds rather Draconian - the kind of thing you would expect of a > Soviet-era archives and not the City of New York. > > Alan > > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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

Re: [NA-Discuss] Concerning the NeuStar ~ New York City "public hearing"
by Alan Greenberg March 27, 2012

March 27, 2012

I may be missing something here, but as I see it, if New York willingly (or perhaps willfully in this case) enters into an agreement with a private company to provide services, I don't see how ICANN is even involved. ICANN has a duty to ensure that the TLD operator has the ability to operate the domain (which presumably Neustar can demonstrate), but not to judge whether the contract was a good deal or follows the rules of New York. In fact, although the application may list Neustar as the projected operator, New York is not bound (by the application) to actually use them. ICANN has made it clear that changing back-end operators for whatever reason is an applicant's right, so the details of the contract are not really linked to the application. Whether New York can actually back out or not would depend on the contract with Neustar, which I am pretty sure is not part of the application documentation. ICANN's prime involvement would be to verify that prior to actual insertion into the root, the back-end operator is capable. ALAC could comment or perhaps object if there were grounds indicating that .NYC TLD was a bad idea, or should not be managed by whoever submits the application, but I find it hard to stretch that to judging whether the city is sufficiently astute as to negotiate good (or perceived good) contracts. Alan At 27/03/2012 01:19 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >It certainly does seem -- at this point -- as if the opaqueness is >happening between the city and Neustar. Until an application >actually shows up in the pipeline, it's not yet an ICANN issue. > >I believe the AG does allow cities to grant or bestow consent on >whomever they wish, however they wish. At this stage it's very much >a city politics issue more than an ICANN one. > >Now... *here's* where things get interesting.... > >ALAC has the ICANN-given right and ability to launch public interest >objections to applications, and some people in our community have >worked extremely hard to develop the procedures to process such >objections. If the case can be made that the ACTUAL .nyc application >(not the current rumours and vagueness) is against the public >interest, ALAC has legitimate grounds to object. > >Perhaps even the threat of an ALAC objection might be enough to get >the city and Neustar to open things up. > >But before Thomas goes and suggests such threats, what do others >here say? Is this a legitimate course of action? > >- Evan

1 0