Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
Eric B-W wrote: "offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress." After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it. I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus. -----Original Message-----
From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
Danny,
I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at some prior point in time.
Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point in time.
If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again.
Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label.
How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon.
The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective communities.
I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress.
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 ------
If such "services" are offered by non-parties, there's little ICANN can do about them -- especially if the agents aren't mis-representing themselves as ICANN-accredited. If a registry applicant wants to sue such agents, or if national anti-fraud enforcement is to get involved, taht's fine but these are outside our scope of being able to affect. A "pre-registrant beware" information campaign (similar to what the FTC did) might be the best that we can ask for that ICANN itself is able to do -- and even that is IMO a poor appropriation of limited resources when so many legitimate At-Large needs go unfunded. I personally see zero interest in this from the end-user (ie, non-registrant) perspective. Here as in any form of speculation, the onus is on the speculator to determine the authenticity of where they're putting their risk. If there's fraud going on, that is a police matter. If there's no fraud, it's not (and must not be) the role of ICANN to reduce the risk of domain speculators. Either way, this is distracting (and IMO unwelcome) mission creep for ICANN At-Large. Perhaps it could be taken up by the GNSO user house. - Evan On 6 June 2011 13:10, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler@earthlink.net> wrote:
Eric B-W wrote:
"offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress."
After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it.
I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus.
-----Original Message-----
From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
Danny,
I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at some prior point in time.
Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point in time.
If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again.
Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label.
How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon.
The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective communities.
I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress.
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 ------
------ 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 ------
-- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
Hi, I guess I do not understand why they are harmful in and of themselves. Certainly if they are false advertising in any way, that is an issue. But if they are an investment method or come with a money-back guarantee, I do not understand the public harm as long as they are sold with an appropriate description. a. On 6 Jun 2011, at 13:10, Beau Brendler wrote:
Eric B-W wrote:
"offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress."
After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it.
I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus.
-----Original Message-----
From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
Danny,
I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at some prior point in time.
Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point in time.
If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again.
Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label.
How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon.
The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective communities.
I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress.
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 ------
------ 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 ------
------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!
In announcing the final countdown to .eu, the European Commission used this language: "Given a risk of confusion and even fraud, use of "pre-registration" services is not recommended by the Commission. In any case consumers and companies are encouraged to check exactly what is and what is not being offered." I see no harm in recommending the issuance of a similarly-worded ICANN Advisory. --- On Mon, 6/6/11, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations To: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 2:04 PM Hi,
I guess I do not understand why they are harmful in and of themselves.
Certainly if they are false advertising in any way, that is an issue. But if they are an investment method or come with a money-back guarantee, I do not understand the public harm as long as they are sold with an appropriate description.
a.
On 6 Jun 2011, at 13:10, Beau Brendler wrote:
Eric B-W wrote:
"offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress."
After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it.
I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus.
-----Original Message-----
From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
Danny,
I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at some prior point in time.
Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point in time.
If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again.
Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label.
How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon.
The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective communities.
I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress.
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 ------
------ 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 ------
------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!
------ 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 ------
Hi, That makes sense. a. On 6 Jun 2011, at 15:25, Danny Younger wrote:
In announcing the final countdown to .eu, the European Commission used this language:
"Given a risk of confusion and even fraud, use of "pre-registration" services is not recommended by the Commission. In any case consumers and companies are encouraged to check exactly what is and what is not being offered."
I see no harm in recommending the issuance of a similarly-worded ICANN Advisory.
--- On Mon, 6/6/11, Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> wrote:
From: Avri Doria <avri@ella.com> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations To: "NARALO Discussion List" <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Monday, June 6, 2011, 2:04 PM Hi,
I guess I do not understand why they are harmful in and of themselves.
Certainly if they are false advertising in any way, that is an issue. But if they are an investment method or come with a money-back guarantee, I do not understand the public harm as long as they are sold with an appropriate description.
a.
On 6 Jun 2011, at 13:10, Beau Brendler wrote:
Eric B-W wrote:
"offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress."
After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it.
I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus.
-----Original Message-----
From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
Danny,
I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at some prior point in time.
Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point in time.
If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again.
Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label.
How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon.
The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective communities.
I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress.
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 ------
------ 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 ------
------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!
------ 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 ------
------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!
Hi, I agree with Avri here. It is not like they are charging anything for the pre-registrations. From what I see these pre-registrations are in no way binding and essentially only constitute an expression of interest by the potential registrant that would allow the registrar to send him a notice once the TLD becomes available. It seems to me to be more of a tool to generate interest in new TLDs in general and to measure which TLDs may generate enough interest to warrant the cost of implementation. I do not really see the harm. Volker Greimann
I guess I do not understand why they are harmful in and of themselves.
Certainly if they are false advertising in any way, that is an issue. But if they are an investment method or come with a money-back guarantee, I do not understand the public harm as long as they are sold with an appropriate description.
a.
On 6 Jun 2011, at 13:10, Beau Brendler wrote:
Eric B-W wrote:
"offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress."
After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC making a statement on it.
I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step forward and do that without some discussion and consensus.
-----Original Message-----
From: ebw@abenaki.wabanaki.net Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM To: dannyyounger@yahoo.com Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
Danny,
I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at some prior point in time.
Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior point in time.
If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again.
Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000 Cooperatives project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities, as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for cooperatives, is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com" label.
How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information, and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon.
The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single application project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany, Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their respective communities.
I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff counsel to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current registrar contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the targeted registry application projects, for which they have private redress.
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 ------
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 ------
------ Pick your poison: Kool-Aid or Hemlock!
I'd agree with both Volker and Avri Having said that, it wouldn't hurt if ICANN were to restate something along the lines of: http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/icann-pr29sep00.htm Regards Michele Mr Michele Neylon Blacknight Solutions Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection ICANN Accredited Registrar http://www.blacknight.com/ http://blog.blacknight.com/ http://b.log.ie/ http://invadeeurope.eu/ http://www.gettingbusinessonline.ie/ http://rss.me/ http://mneylon.tel Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 US: 213-233-1612 UK: 0844 484 9361 Locall: 1850 929 929 Twitter: http://twitter.com/mneylon PS: Check out our latest offers on domains & hosting: http://domainoffers.me/ ------------------------------- Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business Park,Sleaty Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845
participants (6)
-
Avri Doria -
Beau Brendler -
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Michele Neylon :: Blacknight -
Volker Greimann