Re: [NA-Discuss] [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration
Olivier wrote: "just to let you know that I mentioned it in AOB - but there was little support from Evan, Garth or Alan." Really? Does the NA-RALO need to have a discussion with its >elected< representatives to ALAC about what bottom-up consensus means, and about the importance of listening to your constituency? Thanks for making me aware of this. Beau -----Original Message-----
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Aug 23, 2011 1:15 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> Cc: "Thompson,Darlene" <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration
Hello Beau,
just to let you know that I mentioned it in AOB - but there was little support from Evan, Garth or Alan. I have left it at that for the time being, saying that the follow-up will take place on email. Kind regards,
Olivier
On 23/08/2011 15:48, Beau Brendler wrote :
Hello Olivier...
We got an enthusiastic response from LAC RALO and I believe they are planning to adopt the statement.
Wolf from EURALO likes the statement and he has passed it along to the rest of the members for consideration.
Nothing to my knowledge from AP or AF.
I understand how quickly agendas can fill up. You won't hurt my feelings if it does not find a place. I can't join the call to present it in "other business" but if you have time and interest in doing that, great.
Thanks for your support,
Beau
-----Original Message-----
From: Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Aug 22, 2011 7:59 PM To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson1@gov.nu.ca> Cc: ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Re: [ALAC] NARALO statement on pre-registration
Hello Beau, Hello Darlene,
just checking what kind of response have you been receiving for this? The ALAC call tomorrow is already way over the usual 90 Minutes, so I could not include this as a standard agenda item. Would you like to include this as an item in "Any Other Business"? Kind regards,
Olivier
On 08/08/2011 20:18, Beau Brendler wrote :
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-pre...).
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.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
On 24/08/2011 01:22, Beau Brendler wrote :
Really? Does the NA-RALO need to have a discussion with its >elected< representatives to ALAC about what bottom-up consensus means, and about the importance of listening to your constituency?
Thanks for making me aware of this.
I do not think at all that the response from NARALO's elected representatives is a case of not listening to their constituency. It is a case of NARALO reaching consensus, declaring it, bringing consensus to the other RALOs and having the ALAC reach consensus on this. Noting that I have not seen this process mature yet, I suggested that the matter continue on email. Clearly Beau, the ALAC will need to discuss processes by which such bottom-up action could be formalised and promoted so as to avoid the current tendency to let subjects hang unresolved. In my opinion, RALOs also need to work on formalising such processes. If we wish to be proactive at promoting the view of the Internet users, this will need to be discussed with all present in Dakar, with regional leadership as well as ALAC members present around the table. In such bottom-up processes, I am well aware of the risk of promoting the views of a vocal minority at the expense of a silent majority - and therefore if there is any doubt that a process has matured, I'd rather kick it back to its originator to work out a plan of action together. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
And who is gonna pay for that «bottom-up» participation Olivier? Louis Houle Président La Société Internet du Québec (ISOC Québec) Louis.Houle@isocquebec.org Le 2011-08-23 21:26, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond a écrit :
On 24/08/2011 01:22, Beau Brendler wrote :
Really? Does the NA-RALO need to have a discussion with its>elected< representatives to ALAC about what bottom-up consensus means, and about the importance of listening to your constituency?
Thanks for making me aware of this. I do not think at all that the response from NARALO's elected representatives is a case of not listening to their constituency. It is a case of NARALO reaching consensus, declaring it, bringing consensus to the other RALOs and having the ALAC reach consensus on this. Noting that I have not seen this process mature yet, I suggested that the matter continue on email.
Clearly Beau, the ALAC will need to discuss processes by which such bottom-up action could be formalised and promoted so as to avoid the current tendency to let subjects hang unresolved. In my opinion, RALOs also need to work on formalising such processes. If we wish to be proactive at promoting the view of the Internet users, this will need to be discussed with all present in Dakar, with regional leadership as well as ALAC members present around the table.
In such bottom-up processes, I am well aware of the risk of promoting the views of a vocal minority at the expense of a silent majority - and therefore if there is any doubt that a process has matured, I'd rather kick it back to its originator to work out a plan of action together.
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 23 August 2011 19:22, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Olivier wrote:
"just to let you know that I mentioned it in AOB - but there was little support from Evan, Garth or Alan."
Really? Does the NA-RALO need to have a discussion with its >elected< representatives to ALAC about what bottom-up consensus means, and about the importance of listening to your constituency?
That's a needless cheap shot. The documentation from the August 8 NARALO meeting still lists the pre-registration statement as an action item rather than a closed and approved doc. Neither Gareth nor I are -- nor should we be arbiters of whether the pre-registration issue had reached closure. As a result, it was brought up as a "what's the state of this?" question for Gareth and me at today's ALAC meeting, and neither of us had an answer. Further, it was raised when the meeting was into AOB, more than half an hour overtime and into its third hour, and there was little patience from anyone after a gruelling debate over controversial NomCom appointments, JAS, Strategic Plan and other such stuff. So I make no apologies for an unwillingness to open a debate at that time about a previosuly-undiscussed issue about which I did not have any more substantive information than what was in Beau's letter (my so called "lack of support"). Nor did I personally think the pre-registration statement to be more important than the other priority items on the call, which *had* been placed on the core agenda. This is a stressful time for many in ALAC who are trying to advance some very serious issues, under awful deadlines, while horribly understaffed and dealing with summer vacation time taken by volunteers. If there is a desire to do so, the pre-registration issue can -- and probably should -- be introduced by mailing list to ALAC members so an issue can be raised and consensus can be reached -- on the regular agenda of the next meeting, if need be -- in a less stressful manner. I'm more than happy to discuss my choice of the priorities that I believed best served the region and the community at large, either at a NARALO meeting or elsewhere. - Evan
participants (4)
-
Beau Brendler -
Evan Leibovitch -
Houle Louis -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond