On the RAA issue - forwarded
*From:* Kieren McCarthy <kierenmccarthy@gmail.com> *Date:* April 23, 2011 7:34:31 AM PDT *To:* "na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org" < na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> *Subject:* *Re: NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 54, Issue 26* Hello all, My two cents worth on the RAA statement. It seems a little one-sided and demanding. I don't think it does the ALAC any good to 'pick sides' in another SO's dispute. As such, It would have far greater impact if you acknowledged the statement put out by the Contracted House, and then explained why, in the ALAC's view, this was not sufficient to pull away from allowing other stakeholders to view the process. You could even try to act as peacemaker and suggest to the Board that both sides find a mutually agreeable observer - who could be from anywhere in the community (ALAC?). The last thing I'd note is that the statement doesn't really explain why individual Internet users are impacted by this. The average Internet Joe doesn't care about the multistakeholder model - but he does care about the rules surrounding domain names. I think the statement would be much stronger if it was clearer why the ALAC was sticking its oar in- because this has an impact far beyond the GNSO Council. Hope this is helpful, Kieren [from mobile device]
On 25/04/2011 09:23, Kieren McCarthy wrote :
As such, It would have far greater impact if you acknowledged the statement put out by the Contracted House, and then explained why, in the ALAC's view, this was not sufficient to pull away from allowing other stakeholders to view the process.
Statement found on: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/contracted-parties-to-gnso-council-16ma... Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
Hi, The reason it might concern Internet Joe, is that what is being discussed among other things is Registrant rights and responsibilities and User protections, both for commercial and non commercial Registrants and Users, i.e. both regular Internet Joe and his Mom and Pop business; that is largely what the RAA is about. As for the Contracted House Postiion, I responded to that in a comment to blog entry. http://www.circleid.com/posts/registrar_stakeholder_group_gnso_works_against... Finally, when has any advisory committee, including ALAC, needed special leave to give advice to the Board, or as Kieren put it, to stick its oar in? This is not a one side of the GNSO versus another part of the GNSO issue, though that is certainly where the last skirmish took place. the At-large took part in the WG whose recommendations were ignored by the Council based on the Contracted party's voting position and the Registrar Stakeholder Group's decisions to not accept outside 'interference'. This is an issue of the Contracted parties against the entire community. To cast it as an internal GNSO issue is to diminish the importance of what is going on. It is a serious process issue that the Board needs to be advised about. a. On 25 Apr 2011, at 11:41, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 25/04/2011 09:23, Kieren McCarthy wrote :
As such, It would have far greater impact if you acknowledged the statement put out by the Contracted House, and then explained why, in the ALAC's view, this was not sufficient to pull away from allowing other stakeholders to view the process.
Statement found on: http://gnso.icann.org/correspondence/contracted-parties-to-gnso-council-16ma...
Kind regards,
Olivier
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/icanns-commitment-to-contract-compli... "a test of ICANN's credibility in the run-up to the launch of the new generic top-level domain ("gTLD") initiative"
Danny, It isn't that well written, or I'm just not very smart. I can't figure out from the article just what the monitization scheme of the operator is. How is the behavior producing revenue? Is it steering, a la SiteFinder, all traffic to operator-owned monitization resources? How is this different from the repurposing of .travel? Clues appreciated. Eric
Eric, A clue to the monetization scheme may be found in the original breach notice: "The recently launched universe.jobs appears to be a job board that advertises job openings for multiple employers. It is our understanding that one registrant, who is a member of SHRM, registered forty thousand second-level domain names in the .JOBS TLD for use on this job board. It appears that Employ Media and SHRM, through the Direct Employers Association, intend to use the .JOBS TLD primarily to compete with other internet job boards. Such use is inconsistent with the purpose stated in the .JOBS Charter and represented to the ICANN community." You will also note on the SHRM website a reference to possible "premium placement services" (1) which are also cited in the .jobs proposed amendment (2) Yet another monetization effort may likely be found in the proposal's description of a "self-managed class of names" which is described as follows: "Previously, Employ Media began the process of creating a self-managed class of names in the .jobs tld. Called the shared domain beta test, many non-"companyname" .jobs domains were (and in many cases still are) registered to Employ Media. Employ Media "used" these domains in the DNS by redirecting them to a third party (the Direct Employers Association), who themselves "used" the domains by providing uniform, consistent content to all the domains in the shared beta test." Hope this helps, Danny (1) http://www.shrm.org/about/news/Documents/Dot%20Jobs%20Survey%20Report%20t%20... (2) http://www.shrm.org/about/news/Documents/Employ%20Media%20Proposed%20Amendme... --- On Tue, 4/26/11, Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> wrote:
From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Well written article on the .jobs breach notice To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2011, 5:33 PM Danny,
It isn't that well written, or I'm just not very smart. I can't figure out from the article just what the monitization scheme of the operator is. How is the behavior producing revenue? Is it steering, a la SiteFinder, all traffic to operator-owned monitization resources?
How is this different from the repurposing of .travel?
Clues appreciated.
Eric ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------
Danny, Thanks. That's not the {spam, ...} profile of the repurposed .biz, or the {spam, porn, ...} profile of the repurposed .travel, nor is it the defensive registration exploitive registry operators pursue during Sunrise, as repurposing is year(s) after the Sunrise exploit. I just don't yet see the core of the scheme that has control of this registry, and that corporation legal has been noticing, and also extending. I'll have to look at their monthlies and ask for zone file access, later this week. Eric
participants (5)
-
Avri Doria -
Danny Younger -
Eric Brunner-Williams -
Evan Leibovitch -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond