- NA-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [NA-Discuss] RAA Amendments Package Rejected
by Danny Younger Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

Alan, Having just listened to the GNSO recording, I will admit to being astounded by Staff remarks to the effect that their plan was to invoke the "Right to Substituted Agreement" clause and to pass through the proposed amendements in a fashion that would see these amendments adopted by registrars on a piecemeal basis (whenever their contracts renew which could be anytime between now and the next five years). This was not what I recall being told at our briefing. Did I hear this wrong, or is there an an internal disconnect at the Staff level? --- On Fri, 1/9/09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Subject: Re: RAA Amendments Package Rejected > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com > Cc: "NA Discuss" <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Friday, January 9, 2009, 1:55 AM > I actually posted the results (before the meeting had even > ended), but on reading your note, I realized that I had sent > it to At-Large STAFF instead of the At-Large list > (auto-complete is convenient sometimes, but other times a > pain in the butt). > > The vote has not yet concluded, as there is the option for > some e-mail votes. So it is not clear if it will pass or > fail at the 50% level. I think there is a 3-day period for > the remaining e-mail votes. > > However, based on the vote so far (12 yes, 7 no, 4 abstain > out of a total of 27 votes if I got it correct), the motion > cannot achieve the 66% vote required to be considered a > consensus policy under the RAA rules. It is unclear what > the next steps are. I would expect to hear something from > ICANN legal counsel or Kurt Pritz in the next while. > > There were some other interesting twists during the > discussion that I will present in my GNSO Liaison report in > the next day or so. > > Alan > > At 08/01/2009 11:14 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > > The GNSO Secretariat has posted a list of resolutions > passed at today's GNSO Council session. The motion to > accept the package of RAA amendments was not cited, so > apparently it did not pass the required 2/3 threshold. > > Perhaps Alan can fill us in on the vote tally, and > whatever steps the Council next plans to take... > > > > > >

2 1

ALAC New gTLD statement
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

We need to make a statement of some sort -- it may already be too late, though my guess is that the rather unenthusiastic reception ICANN has received so far makes the concern less acute. That said, our deadline has come and gone. May I ask for guidance from staff to coordinate? And as for process? Are we to put the statement as written up for a vote? Or make it simple and just send up a line of advice to the board (we can cite the other documents as a backup rationale)? Something like this (adopting from some of the language I have seen in reviewing recent notes, mostly from John): The ALAC recommends that the ICANN board delay the new gTLD application and implementation process until the following steps are taken: * The economic impact study promised in 2006 has been released and evaluated. * ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage all requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. * ICANN develops compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs be delayed as well until similar issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community. * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them. May I suggest to the ALAC ex com or whomever the appropriate authority is, to put this statement up for a vote from the ALAC as soon as possible? Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2009 9:37 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement Re: "By asking to suspend the process, we risk killing innovation and we play the game of the incumbents." Patrick, as you have been spearheading the launch of the .sport TLD, your views are necessarily tainted with a conflict of interest. Yes, money is risked when processes are delayed. Stuart Lawley's .xxx initiative risked millions, and many of us recall the folks at SITA going up to the microphone session after session, year after year while burning up money. But we are not in the business of protecting potential TLD operators; we are in the business of acting in the public interest. The new gTLD process must be stopped dead in its tracks and must be significantly re-worked to address the issues raised (and yes, this could take years, many years). While there is a risk to potential new registry operators, the risk to the public of the consequences of a poorly designed and implemented launch cycle are substantially worse. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

1 0

RAA Amendments Package Rejected
by Danny Younger Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

The GNSO Secretariat has posted a list of resolutions passed at today's GNSO Council session. The motion to accept the package of RAA amendments was not cited, so apparently it did not pass the required 2/3 threshold. Perhaps Alan can fill us in on the vote tally, and whatever steps the Council next plans to take...

2 1

Another Small Issue for the Compliance Staff
by Danny Younger Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

"This Registration Agreement ("Agreement") sets forth the terms and conditions of your use of BestRegistrar.com and the Internet Council of Registrars ("CORE") to register a domain name on the Internet... BestRegistrar.com and CORE are accredited registrars with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") under an agreement with ICANN ("ICANN Agreement")." ... and yet we all know that bestregistrar.com's accreditation was terminated on 4 March 08. Question: Is CORE accountable for the misrepresentations made by their reseller?

1 0

How did we get into this new gTLD mess?
by Danny Younger Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

It's a rare day that I decide to focus upon process, but process was the root cause of the GNSO's poor decision-making that led to the sorely deficient Applicant Guidebook. I recall the GNSO's Washington session chaired by Bruce Tonkin at which the position was taken that least-common-denominator agreement constituted consensus. This meant that if Business had a concern that wasn't shared by other parties, that concern was shoved to the sidelines in pursuit of those areas upon which all other parties had sufficient agreement. Similarly, if Intellectual Property concerns were raised that weren't shared by all in the room, then these too were set aside. This approach was a fundamental deviation from the consensus standard that has guided ICANN since its inception. In the article "Why Consensus Matters", Susan Crawford defined the nature of consensus as follows: "The consensus standard calls on all parties to suggest changes that, while not perhaps optimal, will persuade others not to oppose. It is a standard based on the ideal of cooperation (looking for the high ground, not the lowest common denominator that can marshal a majority) on which the net was built." We are in a mess with the new gTLD plans precisely because we failed to act in keeping with consensus principles. The basic premise is simple: if intense opposition is absent or irrational or limited to those who do not bear the impact of the policy in question, then a policy may go forward on a consensus basis, otherwise, legitimate opposition and concerns must be taken into account -- they cannot be trampled upon in the pursuit of a least-common-denominator approach. In view of the public comments tendered, we should have the GNSO go back to the drawing board and begin anew with a process that respects our consensus traditions.

1 0

ICANN Annual Report's Compliance Statistics
by Danny Younger Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

page 73: Complaints in 2007 -- 5,808 Complaints in 2008 (Jan-Oct) -- 9,397 With complaints to ICANN almost doubling this year over the complaints filed last year, its appropriate to ask whether ICANN is devoting enough personnel resources to Compliance and Enforcement. With the revamped WDPRS that should now be accomodating bulk submissions, we can expect the Department's workload to increase dramatically over the course of the next year. The last Operating Plan called for "reacting to compliance issues in a timely, firm manner" -- we haven't seen that happen as we can still point to ongoing Conssensus Policy violations by GoDaddy and to cybersquatting activities on the part of other registrars that have yet to be addressed. Finally, the outpouring of comments on new gTLDs has made it clear that the business community does not believe that ICANN has sufficiently ramped up its efforts to deal with the multitude of issues that will arise if the new gTLD project goes forward as currently planned. The NARALO should take the lead in bringing these concerns to the attention of ICANN management.

1 0

Re: [NA-Discuss] Congressional Caucus State of the Net Event
by Paul Levins Jan. 8, 2009

Jan. 8, 2009

Danny I have no idea whether transcripts will provided. I can ask the organisers and come back. I'm not sure I'll be presenting an 'ICANN' viewpoint as much as a personal one. Paul ----- Original Message ----- From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> To: Paul Levins Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Sent: Wed Jan 07 17:23:57 2009 Subject: Congressional Caucus State of the Net Event Paul, With regard to the upcoming January 14 Congressional Caucus State of the Net event, might you know if post-event transcripts or recordings will be available? I am given to understand that only some State of the Net panel sessions will be podcast... I note that together with Roger Cochetti, AT&T's Jeff Bruggeman, NetChoice's Steve DelBianco and Brazil's Everton Lucero you will be speaking on the topic of the "Future of ICANN and Internet Governance" I am sure that quite a few of us would have an interest in hearing the ICANN viewpoint and the views of your peers on the topic. (please note that I have copied this query to the NARALO list). Thanks, Danny

1 0

OnlineNic's real address
by Danny Younger Jan. 3, 2009

Jan. 3, 2009

Cybersquatting registrar OnlineNic has gone out of its way to hide its primary business address. On ICANN's list of accredited registrars it only posts this info: Carrie Arden Tel: 510-769-8492 Google's residential phonebook shows this phone number registered to: Rex Liu 2251 Mosley Ave,Alameda, CA 94501 Rex is cited as an onlinenic technical contact here: http://www.ratite.com/whois/whois.cgi?domain=registrar+ONLINENIC. Hint: note the large number of Xiamen, China phone numbers Meanwhile, OnlineNic's support page provides a mailing address at 351 Embarcadero E. Oakland, CA 94606 Unfortunately, their office isn't there either -- for an investigative report (complete with pictures) see http://dotsnews.com/domain-name-news/184 So where is their primary place of business? See the link below: http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/pro1/pdf/rop_exhibit_a5.pdf

3 2

Yahoo lawsuit against OnlineNic
by Danny Younger Jan. 2, 2009

Jan. 2, 2009

filed December 19, 2008 Court Papers: http://claranet.scu.edu/eres/documentview.aspx?associd=30304 Interesting that Yahoo is also raising counterfeiting charges per 15 U.S.C. section 1114(1) and section 1117 that allows an award up to $1 million for each instance. The document details at least 544 registrations at issue and does a good job of documenting the kiting practice employed.

1 0

Industry Self-Regulation vs. a Multi-stakeholder Regulatory Regime
by Danny Younger Jan. 1, 2009

Jan. 1, 2009

The debate over the amendments to the RAA has revealed a fundamental tension between those that want the domain name industry to be self-regulated and those that see that self-regulation never goes far enough, is replete with loopholes that a truck could be driven through, and invariably fails to adequately protect consumer interests. While calls for increased compliance and enforcement measures have been echoing throughout ICANN's chambers, there continues to be an ongoing reticence on the part of ICANN Staff to do anything that would actually ruffle the feathers of those that are the direct source of its ever-increasing income. Sadly, ICANN has made its bed with the proponents of the self-regulatory model while the rest of the world has come to realize the need for a much stronger regulatory hand at work. This is why we cheer when we read the bold remarks of the NTIA -- that organization, like many of us, wants ICANN to function as an ethical and forthright "manager" of the DNS rather than as the neutered lapdog of the domain name industry cartel -- it seeks an entity in charge that has the public interest (not the contracted party interest) uppermost in its mind. Unfortunately, ICANN has become so accustomed to offering up only lip-service to public concerns, so comfortable with the PR and spin processes, that we can no longer consider it to be the "honest broker" or "coordinator" of the DNS that we all wanted when the DNS Project was initiated. ICANN has been captured by the contracted parties. That is the reality... and it is a reality that stands starkly at odds with the notion of multi-stakeholderism. ... and this is why we have seen such outrage with regard to the new gTLD implementation phase. The business world has come to realize that base contracts are being drafted that only serve the needs of ICANN and its contracted parties. The RAA is yet another perfect example of this. What is needed is the continued expression of outrage. It is we, the community, that should be setting the rules for the registrars and the registries to follow; not the other way around. When you hire a worker to do a job, does the worker get to call the shots, to set all the rules? Of course not -- the worker is the hired help that needs to behave himself properly if he wants to retain his employment. The RAA amendments exemplify industry self-regulation -- which is why they suck. In the long run you will need to ask yourself this question: can you manage a sustained long-term fight against a cartel aided and abetted by ICANN Staff to continue protecting those that you represent against a series of abuses that will always follow in the wake of the exploitation of new contract loopholes, or are you better off fighting for a stronger multi-stakeholder regulatory regime that can manage the registries and registrars in much the same manner as telecommunications carriers are managed today? The self-regulatory approach is not working. That model needs to be replaced by a multi-stakeholder model where the public writes the contracts that the registrars and registries will necessarily follow. The way that ICANN is managing the process is bass-ackwards. It has to be changed.

1 0