- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Chat Site
by Glenn McKnight Feb. 28, 2009

Feb. 28, 2009

Hi I was told that the coordinates for the Online Chat was emailed. I did not get this email G -- Glenn McKnight 868 Corbetts Road Oshawa, Ontario L1K 2E1 905-434-6655 mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

1 0

Follow-up re: Approval of Ombudsman (Framework)
by Edward Hasbrouck Feb. 28, 2009

Feb. 28, 2009

The person claiming to act as Ombudsman has posted comments on my previous message in his blog: https://omblog.icann.org/?p=105 I posted a comment "Ombudsman blog", but it was deleted less than an hour later. So I'm re-posting it here (and at ICANNwatch.org) Mr. Fowlie: You say that, “The Ombuds Blog has the information concerning the Board of Directors meeting item correctly, while Mr. Hasbrouck does not.” I accurately quoted from the page on the ICANN web site to which I linked, as it read at the time of my post. That page was updated on 24 February 2009, after my article was published, to change the agenda item from “Approval of Ombudsman” (as I had quoted) to “Approval of Ombudsman Framework”. As of today, the original lannguage I quoted, “Approval of Ombudsman”, remains on another page on the ICANN Web site at: http://mex.icann.org/node/2689 I stand by my story. It was based, as it clearly stated, on what was posted on ICANN’s Web site, which I reported accurately. You say that, “The Ombudsman was appointed on November 1, 2004, with the appointment consistent with ICANN’s Bylaw V.” That is not correct. That Bylaw requires that, “The Ombudsman shall be appointed by the Board for an initial term of two years, subject to renewal by the Board.” No notice or minutes of any Board meeting on 1 November 2004 have been posted. So whatever happened on that day, it didn’t constitute appointment of an Ombudsman in accordance with the Bylaws. And any appointment would have been for 2 years, unless renewed by the Board, and would have expired unless renewed. There is no record of any such renewal by the Board. Your failure to notice that your appointment as Ombudsman would require Board action, both initially and for renewal after 2 years, reflects poorly on your fitness for the position. Obviously, that would be a factor to be considered were you now to be proposed for appointment as Ombudsman. The portion of the transcript that you reproduce makes explicit that you communicated with the Reconsideration Committee about a request I had made for reconsideration, and about what you describe as “MR. HASBROUCK’S APPLICATION FOR INDEPENDENT REVIEW THAT HAD NOT YET BEEN FILED, WHICH WAS BEING DISTRIBUTED AND WAS BASICALLY ON THE SAME GROUNDS”. (As I have written previously, I don’t know what is meant by the latter reference, since at no time before I filed it was my request for independent review “being distributed” to you or anyone else, to the best of my knowledge and belief.) Your communications with the Reconsideration Committee about my request for your assistance (on a separate matter than the subject of my request for reconsideration) were in violation of your obligation to me of confidentiality. This is your obligation under the Bylaws, under the Ombudsman Framework, and under the principles of professional ethics to which you claim to subscribe. I hereby request that you refer me to any professional ethics oversight bodies to which you subscribe, for investigation of this complaint that you have violated your obligation of confidentiality, and imposition of sanctions, or that you refer this matter directly to them, in accordance with their procedures for such complaints, with a request that they contact me. Whatever was contained in your communications with the Reconsideration Committee, they were not, are not, and cannot be (without further violations of confidentiality and the Bylaws) placed in the public record. By basing its decisions on those communications, the Reconsideration Committee violated its obligation under the Bylaws: “The Reconsideration Committee shall act on a Reconsideration Request on the basis of the public written record.” I do not know why you chose to breach the confidentiality of our communications, to intervene in the proceedings of the Reconsideration Committee, or to engage in communications with them which you knew, or reasonably should have known, could not be used as any part of the basis for their decision. These, too, would be factors to be considered were you now to be proposed for appointment as Ombudsman. Sincerely, Edward Hasbrouck http://hasbrouck.org/icann ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] approval of Ombudsman?
by Annette Muehlberg Feb. 25, 2009

Feb. 25, 2009

hi john, what a funny story - all these foolish inquisitionary discussions with someone who never got appointed? what a lot of work 2 years ago, and one of the reasons you left the alac. too bad. all the best to you annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> > Gesendet: 24.02.09 21:21:48 > An: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Betreff: [NA-Discuss] approval of Ombudsman? > A mysterious item has appeared on the Board meeting page in the agenda for > the 6 March 2009 Board meeting in Mexico City: "Approval of Ombudsman". > > I suspect this means that ICANN has finally noticed from my recent > comments on the abolition of the Reconsideration Committee that they have > never appointed an Ombudsman, and have thus been in violation of their > Bylaws. I don't know why they have finally noticed or decided to act: > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/recon-bylaws-revision/msg00001.html > > There is no formal proposal yet posted for the appointment of an > Ombudsman. > > In any event, the (illegal) "incumbent" is clearly disqualified: > > http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001196.html > > It's apparently now time for the community, or would-be candidates > themselves, to put forward nominations for the position of ICANN Ombudsman > -- if you can figure out the correct point of contact for such > nominations. It would seem that the choice of Ombudsman would be > especially important to individual Internet users, and thus to ALS's and > ALAC. > > I pointed out the failure to have a properly appointed Ombudsman in 2007: > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06893.html > > I have more comments on this at ICANNwatch: > > http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/24/0023205 > > > ---------------- > Edward Hasbrouck > <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> > <http://hasbrouck.org> > +1-415-824-0214 > > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > --

1 0

Another Joke from Westlake Consulting
by Danny Younger Feb. 25, 2009

Feb. 25, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/rssac/rssac-final-report-24feb09-en.pdf

3 2

Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] gTLD applicant's guide - version 2
by WWWhatsup Feb. 24, 2009

Feb. 24, 2009

Thanks Patrick I have posted a few passages of interest to our local community (NYC) at http://www.isoc-ny.org/?p=576 joly At 07:27 AM 2/19/2009, you wrote: >FYI > >http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-redline-18feb09-en.pdf > >Patrick > > Joly MacFie 212 608 1334 http://wwwhatsup.com http://punkcast.com http://pinstand.com

1 0

approval of Ombudsman?
by Edward Hasbrouck Feb. 24, 2009

Feb. 24, 2009

A mysterious item has appeared on the Board meeting page in the agenda for the 6 March 2009 Board meeting in Mexico City: "Approval of Ombudsman". I suspect this means that ICANN has finally noticed from my recent comments on the abolition of the Reconsideration Committee that they have never appointed an Ombudsman, and have thus been in violation of their Bylaws. I don't know why they have finally noticed or decided to act: http://forum.icann.org/lists/recon-bylaws-revision/msg00001.html There is no formal proposal yet posted for the appointment of an Ombudsman. In any event, the (illegal) "incumbent" is clearly disqualified: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001196.html It's apparently now time for the community, or would-be candidates themselves, to put forward nominations for the position of ICANN Ombudsman -- if you can figure out the correct point of contact for such nominations. It would seem that the choice of Ombudsman would be especially important to individual Internet users, and thus to ALS's and ALAC. I pointed out the failure to have a properly appointed Ombudsman in 2007: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06893.html I have more comments on this at ICANNwatch: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/24/0023205 ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> <http://hasbrouck.org> +1-415-824-0214

1 0

Article from Tech Liberation
by Glenn McKnight Feb. 21, 2009

Feb. 21, 2009

http://techliberation.com/2009/02/20/icanns-revised-gtld-proposal-still-com… Berin Szoka ICANN's Revised gTLD Proposal Still Comes Up Short ICANN has just released a second draft<http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-2-en.htm>of its Applicant Guidebook, which would guide the creation of new generic topmore generic top-level domains (gTLDs) such as .BLOG, .NYC or .BMW. As ICANN itself declared (PDF<https://par.icann.org/files/paris/BAA_Intro_NewGTLDs_Paris_23Jun08.pdf>), "New gTLDs will bring about the biggest change in the Internet since its inception nearly 40 years ago." PFF Adjunct Fellow Michael Palage and former ICANN Board member addressed the key problems with ICANN's original proposal in his paper *ICANN's "Go/ No-Go" Decision Concerning New gTLDs* ( PDF <http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/2009/pop16.3gTLDgonogo.pdf> & embedded below), released earlier this week. ICANN deserves credit for its detailed analysis<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-18feb09-en.htm> of the many comments on the original draft which Mike summarized<http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-18feb09-en.htm> back in December. ICANN also deserved credit for addressing two strong concerns of the global Internet community in response to the first draft: - ICANN has removed its proposed 5% global domain name tax on all registry services, something Mike explains in greater detail in his "Go/No-Go" paper. - ICANN has commissioned a badly-needed economic study on the dynamics of the domain name system "in broad." But such a study* must* address how the fees ICANN collects from specific user communities relate to the actual costs of the services ICANN provides. The study should also consider why gTLDs should continue to provide such a disproportionate percentage of ICANN's funding—currently 90%—given increasing competition between gTLDs and ccTLDs (e.g., the increasing use of .CN in China instead of .COM). These concerns are part of a broader debate: Will ICANN abide by its mandate to justify its fees based on recovering the costs of services associated with those fees, or will ICANN be free to continue "leveraging its monopoly over an essential facility of the Internet (*i.e.*, recommending additions to the Internet's Root A Server) to charge whatever fees it wants?" If, as Mike has discussed<http://techliberation.com/2009/01/13/icanns-game-of-chicken-with-the-usg-th…>, ICANN walks away from its existing contractual relationship with the Department of Commerce and claims "fee simple absolute<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple>" ownership of the domain name system, who will enforce such a cost-recovery mandate? But ICANN simply "kicked the can down the road on the biggest concern": how to minimize abusive domain name registrations (*e.g.*, cybersquatting, typosquatting, phishing, etc.) and reduce their impact on consumers. ICANN seems only to have made a vague promise to engage in additional outreach and consultation on this problem. But Mike has proposed a number of potential solutions that are narrowly tailored to protect brand holders while respecting the fair use rights of other, including: - A *Rebuttable Reserve Names List *that would minimize the need for defensive registrations of marks that have been subject to abusive registrations by freezing registration of domain names (e.g., DELTA.AIR) that precisely correspond to those marks (e.g., Delta Airlines' "Delta" trademark) for the 60 days leading up to the opening of a new TLD (*e.g. *, .AIR)—although anyone can rebut this presumption upon making a fair use showing under existing UDRP principles. - An* Expedited Domain Suspension Policy*, either as a new policy, or an amendment to the existing UDRP, that would provide a faster and more cost-effective remedy for abusive domain name registrations on an ongoing basis, but only for marks that have been registered with a national trademark authority (or the equivalent thereof). - A *Uniform Proxy Registration Policy *governing the use of proxy services that substitute their own contact information for the registration's information in the Whois database<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHOIS>; such baseline practices and safeguards would reduce abuse that could harm legitimate users while preserving the option of proxy registration for privacy-sensitive users. Washington Internet Daily (subscription-only) reports that: ICANN is also rethinking its timeline for launching the gTLD application process, it said. There will be a third draft guidebook, making it unlikely applications will be accepted before December, it said. The new draft leaves provisions on four major issues – security and stability, malicious misconduct, trademark protection and demand/economic analysis of the need for new gTLDs - unchanged pending further discussion, ICANN said. Comments are due April 13. PFF wil continue to respond to ICANN's call for comment to promote responsible expansion of the domain name space. Here's Mike's paper (click on the rectangle-in-rectangle button at the top right to maximize the iPaper viewer): -- Glenn McKnight 868 Corbetts Road Oshawa, Ontario L1K 2E1 905-434-6655 mcknight.glenn(a)gmail.com skype gmcknight http://newsocialmedia.wordpress.com

1 0

NARALO Opinions - 5 More Please!
by Dharma Dailey Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

I'm super happy that 14 of you on this list have taken the Summit Survey. I'll start levitating if 5 more of you take it by Monday. -Dharma Begin forwarded message: > Dear NARALO colleagues, > > I created a brief survey to help NARALO members to collectively > reflect on their ICANN related work. Findings will be presented at > the Internet Users Summit in Mexico City. Responses will be > aggregated and anonymized. There are no wrong answers, no trick > questions. Whether you are coming to Mexico City or not, please > take a few minutes to share your thoughts. I will accept survey > results through Monday February 23. > > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=_2fEwKsAoy8nzMbcM2M8CYCA_3d_3d > > > Best Regards, > > Dharma Dailey >

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Update
by Garth Bruen at KnujOn Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

Thanks for the opportunity to comment Danny. I have two main concerns in response to your items. <<2. Which of the proposed amendments would have full consensus if drafted differently, and what specific revisions are required to gain full consensus?>> Recently I and many others submitted a request to ICANN to add wording in the RAA similar to the following: "All Accredited Registrars must submit main office location, including country, to be publicly disclosed in ICANN web directory. Post Office boxes, Incorporation addresses, and mail-forwarding locations will not be acceptable. Registrars must also provide for public display the name of CEO or President. ICANN must be notified within 30 days of a location or presiding officer change.” While we are pleased the general topic is on the list amendments, the language has been seriously watered down to read: "Registrar Contact Information – Requires registrars to provide their accurate contact details on their websites including valid email and mailing addresses." The new language does not address issues concerning the use of "mail-drop" or "mail-forwarding" addresses. Nor does it address disclosure of ownership or actual location. We are aware of many Registrars claiming to be located in the United States which are truly located in a variety of countries. This lack of disclosure erodes public trust and does not contribute to transparency. The above language does not even mention an accurate phone number. <<4. What other issues with the RAA are not addressed by the proposed set of Amendments? >> Section 3.7.8 of the RAA reads: "Registrar shall abide by any specifications or policies established according to Section 4 requiring reasonable and commercially practicable (a) verification, at the time of registration, of contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar or (b) periodic re-verification of such information. Registrar shall, upon notification by any person of an inaccuracy in the contact information associated with a Registered Name sponsored by Registrar, take reasonable steps to investigate that claimed inaccuracy. In the event Registrar learns of inaccurate contact information associated with a Registered Name it sponsors, it shall take reasonable steps to correct that inaccuracy." The word "or" in line 4 should be changed to "and". This is an ambiguous situation that could be easily remedied by requiring both activities. Verification at registration and regular checking should go hand in hand. Checking at the origin point can prevent the need for checking later and would improve security and general stability of the registry system. Also, how is one to determine which action a Registrar opted to use? How is this verified? It is better to know that both verifications are occurring, it will save the Registrars many headaches in dealing with abusive registrants BEFORE they get in as opposed to after. > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Update > From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> > Date: Mon, February 16, 2009 2:49 pm > To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: ga(a)gnso.icann.org > > > The BC's Mike Rodenbaugh has introduced the following motion to the GNSO Council; the motion has been seconded by Nominating Committee appointee Terry Davis: > > > Whereas, the RAA has not been amended since inception, and there is > widespread community support for amendments to various provisions of the > RAA. > > Whereas, the Registrars Constituency and ICANN Staff have agreed on a set of proposed amendments to the RAA, and that set of amendments has been > considered for approval by the GNSO Council. > > Whereas, a majority of GNSO Council members have refused to support the set > of proposed amendments as drafted, but many of those members support many of the proposed amendments. > > Whereas, the Council wishes to approve the non-contentious, proposed > amendments agreed between Staff and the Registrars Constituency as quickly > as possible so that the ICANN Board may review them, and if approved then > implement them as quickly as possible. > > RESOLVED: > > The GNSO Council will form a fast-track Working Group to convene and discuss the proposed set of RAA Amendments, reporting back to Council within 30 days with answers to the following questions: > > 1. Which of the proposed amendments have full consensus as drafted? > > 2. Which of the proposed amendments would have full consensus if drafted > differently, and what specific revisions are required to gain full > consensus? > > 3. Which of the proposed amendments do not have consensus? > > 4. What other issues with the RAA are not addressed by the proposed set of > Amendments? > > > > > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------

1 0

An ICANN Staff Assault on our Rights
by Danny Younger Feb. 18, 2009

Feb. 18, 2009

In a post to the GNSO Council, ICANN Staffer Kurt Pritz points to section 4.2 of the RAA and claims "These topics mark the boundaries of the "picket fence" within which policy development under the current RAA is possible." He then goes on to outline a series of topics that "could not be imposed on registrars via Consensus Policies". Such statements are an insult to our intelligence and seek to re-define and denigrate our rights. The current incarnation of the RAA was formalized in 2001 -- long before the notion of a "picket fence" was ever conceptualized. The language of the contract indicates that new and revised specifications and policies "may" be established on the certain topics; it does not preclude the establishment of policies on other topics. Unlike the registry contracts that have clauses explicitly stating "In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: (A) prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services;" etc., the RAA has no such language. Kurt would have us believe that Registrar Auditing, Graduated Sanctions, and numerous other matters can not be addressed by way of Consensus Policy formulations -- he is dead wrong, and this is a dangerous step that he is taking. Consensus Policy declarations are our only avenue to restrain rogue registrar behaviors. Seeking to limit the possible scope of Consensus Policies as they pertain to registrars is an assault on the multi-stakeholder model that should not be tolerated. Kurt's apparent goal is to convince the Council to pursue a course of action that would allow ICANN to offer "incentives" to registrars that comply with the new amendments. We don't need to further coddle the registrar community. The approach being suggested is wrong on a great many levels. One can only hope that the ICANN board will start paying attention to these developments and will act to reign in a Staff that has now strayed far from the straight and narrow. Kurt's post is here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06318.html

1 0