Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] [Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
I'm replying within region - if members within NARALO share some of Danny's concerns below - what can best be done within NARALO to address them? Danny - have you participated in the NARALO conference calls? Have you raised these issues there? I am not answering in this way to attack. My thought is that from NARALO standpoint we can address many of these points. To make my position clear - many of the issues Danny raises point to problems we should address. Not that I agree with everything - whether priorities or analysis or conclusion - but it seems to me that there is a lot of structure that winds up protecting the interests of certain constituencies at the expense of many others, and of the health of the Net. What is the relevance of Internet Governance to/for the average user? (now further circumscribe the issues to the domain name system) Two dimensions draw my attention --- structural-policy decisions affecting everyone and conflicts within the space those decisions have established ( i.e. the equivalent of torts). In terms of the latter: When there are grievances, what are the meaningful options? Is there a place we can direct people where we can say that their grievance will be handled fairly? In the absence of these, what are the options? This brings us to the former - the policy that gets set by ICANN and other bodies. Either groups/classes/individuals feel there is a clear, reasonable and fair venue in which to address maters and modify policy, or the legitimacy of the system is brought into question. Even where there are clear issues (Tasting in it's several flavors; Artificial Scarcity in the Name System) - what is the most effective manner in which to bring them to the fore? What is our expectation for change to a better policy? What are the forces we have to contend with? How do we educate others on these points? On Feb 17, 2008 12:50 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Michael,
Thanks for the feedback. I would be sympathetic with your position regarding weighted support for the end-user community if it could be demonstrated that ALAC reps in other regions have been busy formulating policy to deal with non-registrant end-user concerns that theoretically could take precedence over current registrant concerns... but this hasn't happened.
What we have instead is a bunch of folk who by dint of their Civil Society involvement are now being paid to attend ICANN sessions, folk that seem to have no real interest in anything other than networking and getting together for the next IGF session.
These aren't the representatives of "the people". They don't speak for the at-large as do the voices on Slashdot, the voices in the tech blogs, or the complainants in the public forums. At the ALAC helm we tend to find the ivory tower crowd that would rather spend their time theorizing about Internet Governance than actually dealing with immediate problems in the DNS.
Just have a look through the Euralo discussion list and see if you can find a single policy initiative pursued in the last twelve months. You won't. That discussion list (and others) are a wasteland bereft of any real work or attention to either registrant or non-registrant concerns.
Those that are getting a free ride are offering up no more than a token amount of work and our region suffers as a consequence.
If you look at the track record of the SSAC, you can point to a number of significant achievements -- documents on timely issues emerge on a frequent basis. Since LA we have seen no less than five serious documents prepared: on WHOIS and spamming, on fast-flux, on front-running, on DNSSEC.
Where is the ALAC equivalent? Where is the well-considered advice? Perhaps some consider waiting until the last day of the JPA comment period before soliciting advice from constituent orgs to be an appropriate way of handling things... I don't... but it demonstrates how the ALAC currently handles things -- irresponsibly and at the last minute.
This is no longer acceptable. After six years of this BS so far, how much longer can we patiently sit back listening to the refrain that "these are new people and we have to give them time"?
The structure is flawed and the current dynamic is failing to produce results. If our region is not to be protected in the midst of this morass, then we should scrap the ALAC in its entirety or arrive at a weighted formula that will serve to better protect our own interests.
regards, Danny
--- Michael Maranda <mm@michaelmaranda.net> wrote:
I am sympathetic to part of the argument here, but not the entirety. Namely, I dont see At Large as exclusively about those participating in domain registration market. The end-users (and potential end users) are the widest possible set (i.e. everybody) under at-large. How then does the math of apportionment break down then?
Nonetheless - organizing the concerns of those who do or might wish to register a domain - should be one of our goals. How best to achieve that? It's generally those who find themselves in an unfortunate situation that find themselves motivated to do something but with no obvious remedy. I assume some of the ALSs (perhaps a small few) may be documenting these complaints. I suggest that it would be a great service to have some sort of clearinghouse on complaints (if one is not in existence - and if one already does - make it globally useful) and use At-Large leverage to make it meaningful for end-users.
On Feb 17, 2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Evan,
I'm more than happy to discuss why the ALAC isn't working and what can be done to correct the situation.
Let's start by having a look at the worldwide distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over which ICANN exerts policy control).
com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000 registrations. Our region holds 65,000,000 of those registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region has only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC -- a situation which does little to protect our interests.
So when rogue registrars impact the DNS our region feels the brunt of it while the bulk of the ALAC members could care less as they tend to live mostly in the ccTLD world.
Why are we at this point? Why is it that our region doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the ALAC? This is purely based on a distribution that reflects "political correctness" moreso than the realities of the marketplace. That may be acceptable to civil society types that only comment on the lists as the time approaches for another IGF session; it's not acceptable to most North Americans that continue to be affected by damaging gTLD registrar behaviors, and who are counting upon those in ICANN to deliver results.
The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend the user interest; instead, they have chosen to tacitly discriminate against North Americans by ignoring their immediate and ongoing concerns.
It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC will continue to stumble along and produce statements on ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead of dealing with the serious problems at hand.
It's time for not only an operational overhaul of the ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and assigns representation that reflects actual current worldwide participation in the DNS. Weighted voting is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new reality in the ALAC.
If that means that North America will be assigned 66 percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time -- so be it. At some point soon the balance will switch to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the weighting to be changed to relect the new mix.
The politically correct distribution that we suffer under has not worked out. A change is most certainly in order.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
Re: When there are grievances, what are the meaningful options? Is there a place we can direct people where we can say that their grievance will be handled fairly? ICANN does not have the equivalent of auDa'a Customer Complaint Resolution Mechanism, so there is no place to direct people. Re: In the absence of these, what are the options? One option would be to have such a mechanism created. ALAC could invoke the GNSO Policy Development Process to make this happen if it had the will to do so. Re: Even where there are clear issues (Tasting in it's several flavors; Artificial Scarcity in the Name System) - what is the most effective manner in which to bring them to the fore? Over the years, issues have been brought to the attention of the GNSO, but if the issue does not have a supporting advocate to press the issue forward, then the issue can wither on the vine for years. A good recent example may be found in the recent ICANN decision to consider accrediting back-end registry providers in advance of the new gTLDs cycle. This excellent idea was introduced by Ross Rader many many years ago but had no constituent advocate to champion the position. Without a strong focused advocate to support policy development, action does not happen in a timely manner. The only solution is to ensure that a structural advocate for addressing these issues is built into the system. Accordingly, today I have petitioned Peter Dengate-Thrush to establish a Registrant Advisory Committee. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
I'd like to see NARALO back this proposal. I'd also like to see other RALOs take a position. Perhaps if NARALO signs on support from At-Large could be solicited. On Feb 17, 2008 2:23 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com> wrote:
Accordingly, today I have petitioned Peter Dengate-Thrush to establish a Registrant Advisory Committee.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
I'd like to see NARALO back this proposal. I'd also like to see other RALOs take a position. Perhaps if NARALO signs on support from At-Large could be solicited.
I'm only in favor of it if at the same time they change the bylaws to make it clear that the ALAC represents all Internet users, in particular the 99.9% who have never registered a domain and never will. Among ALAC's problems is that we've never been able to make up our mind whether we represent non-institutional registrants or all users. To me it's obvious that the right answer is the latter, but many ALAC members have felt otherwise. R's, John
For the record, I also support John's general view here. At Large must be definitively inclusive of all Internet users (and perhaps further - all potential users?) and not in any way restricted to domain registrants. What current language leaves this ambiguous? What specific changes if any would be required to address the point John raises? Is there support within NARALO to bring this case to ALAC, and short of ALAC interest, to ICANN directly? Also, for the record, I am greatly offended by Mr. Kieran McCarthy's tone on the At Large listserv. His recent statement there is antithetical to the spirit of the At Large community. For a staff of ICANN, especially one charged with public relations to offer such a callous statement demands a formal response. I have addressed my concerns directly to the NARALO chair. MM On 17 Feb 2008 17:13:02 -0500, John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I'd like to see NARALO back this proposal. I'd also like to see other RALOs take a position. Perhaps if NARALO signs on support from At-Large could be solicited.
I'm only in favor of it if at the same time they change the bylaws to make it clear that the ALAC represents all Internet users, in particular the 99.9% who have never registered a domain and never will.
Among ALAC's problems is that we've never been able to make up our mind whether we represent non-institutional registrants or all users. To me it's obvious that the right answer is the latter, but many ALAC members have felt otherwise.
R's, John
Michael Maranda wrote:
Also, for the record, I am greatly offended by Mr. Kieran McCarthy's tone on the At Large listserv. I will reserve comment on Kieren's general competence, given what were IMO serious mis-handling of a number of issues at the Delhi meeting (translations, web sites, outreach, public feedback, etc.).
On this issue, I strongly agree with Michael. What do others think? I'm fully prepared to escalate Michael's complaint up the ICANN food chain. - Evan
I recall the amount of time that I invested in an Ombudsman complaint just to ensure that ICANN would finally fill the position of Public Participation Manager. As such, I have been frustrated to see the misuse of this office by its current occupant. Kieren's recent message is not a one-off aberration (as evinced by the similar tone of a message that was sent to the cpsr governance list last year): [excerpt] Kieren: "I recognise that raising this may be the online equivalent of throwing a lump of meat to a pack of starving wolves, but then *not raising it* seemed more stupid to me because of the depth of knowledge and expertise on this list. I am ICANNs general manager of public participation. That means I consider it *my job* to encourage participation and input from the Internet community. I also consider it my job to make sure that input is heard at the relevant levels within ICANN. I am sure this post will attract the usual personal insults but my record stands for itself when it comes to publicly raising issues in this field. I would request that people make use of that. Let me make it quite plain though, the RFC is not about rolling out the usual fantasies about how ICANN can be restructured, or moaning about something that happened three or more years ago. As far as ICANN is concerned, those days are over and now it is all about getting the job done. So any feedback that focuses on helping ICANN get the job done will be gratefully received. Plus feedback on recent changes in ICANN if ICANN is going along the right path. Do provide your views with as many facts as possible. They will be listened to. If you do not want to provide this sort of feedback, for whatever reason, then please do not waste your time and mine writing a diatribe and then expect it to be included in discussions. You can continue trying to get your issues raised outside ICANN. For those that want to provide ICANN with a helpful outside perspective however, please do respond. The deadline is 5 June. If there is enough material on ICANNs sites on 6 June (note: not on this governance mailing list I will not be considering material in response to this post) to justify it, I will put in a request for a meeting at San Juan where we can discuss this topic openly and freely and Ill stick myself in as the organiser. I will then produce a report on what is discussed and I will make sure that everyone in ICANN knows about it, from the receptionist to the CEO. But thats only if the material is useful and if there is enough of it. If it is, as I fear it will be, the usual rants with a smattering of other comments, I have plenty of other things to take up my time." http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/arc/governance/2007-05/msg00158.html I would endorse an escalation. --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Michael Maranda wrote:
Also, for the record, I am greatly offended by Mr. Kieran McCarthy's tone on the At Large listserv. I will reserve comment on Kieren's general competence, given what were IMO serious mis-handling of a number of issues at the Delhi meeting (translations, web sites, outreach, public feedback, etc.).
On this issue, I strongly agree with Michael.
What do others think? I'm fully prepared to escalate Michael's complaint up the ICANN food chain.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
I strongly agree with yourself and Michael. Actually, towards the end of the 100 e-mails, there are actually some good suggestions coming forth. It may have been a painful process but sometimes pain=gain. If the PR person at ICANN's only suggestion is censorship then there is a serious problem here. D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Sun 2/17/2008 5:59 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] registrant advisory committee Michael Maranda wrote:
Also, for the record, I am greatly offended by Mr. Kieran McCarthy's tone on the At Large listserv. I will reserve comment on Kieren's general competence, given what were IMO serious mis-handling of a number of issues at the Delhi meeting (translations, web sites, outreach, public feedback, etc.).
On this issue, I strongly agree with Michael. What do others think? I'm fully prepared to escalate Michael's complaint up the ICANN food chain. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
I am in complete agreement. So ironic the public participation guy wants to shut down public participation!! And by the way, speaking of transparency, is the "internal" ALAC list archived and available for view? I'd sure like to track all the policy development that goes on in there. I feel another call for abandoning ALAC and creating an Internet User's Union or something else coming on-- Jean Armour Polly At 1:02 AM -0500 2/18/08, Thompson, Darlene recently said:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C871F4.24E6C131"
I strongly agree with yourself and Michael.
Actually, towards the end of the 100 e-mails, there are actually some good suggestions coming forth. It may have been a painful process but sometimes pain=gain. If the PR person at ICANN's only suggestion is censorship then there is a serious problem here.
D
From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Sun 2/17/2008 5:59 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] registrant advisory committee
Michael Maranda wrote:
Also, for the record, I am greatly offended by Mr. Kieran McCarthy's tone on the At Large listserv. I will reserve comment on Kieren's general competence, given what were IMO serious mis-handling of a number of issues at the Delhi meeting (translations, web sites, outreach, public feedback, etc.).
On this issue, I strongly agree with Michael.
What do others think? I'm fully prepared to escalate Michael's complaint up the ICANN food chain.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at <https://st.icann.org/naralo/>https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
Hiya Jean, Actually, since the Secretariats and Chairs were allowed into that internal list there has been a huge push on to move all policy development conversations over to the publicly accessable ALAC list. When too much conversation on policy matters happens there, there are several of us that speak up and say this. So, since the LA conference there really hasn't been much of that happening there. The internal list is now mainly used for strictly internal matters (like coordinating plans for who arrives when in Delhi and other things about who does what). There is an extremely strong voice on that list that demands transparency, me being one of them. D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jean Armour Polly Sent: Mon 2/18/2008 8:24 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] registrant advisory committee I am in complete agreement. So ironic the public participation guy wants to shut down public participation!! And by the way, speaking of transparency, is the "internal" ALAC list archived and available for view? I'd sure like to track all the policy development that goes on in there. I feel another call for abandoning ALAC and creating an Internet User's Union or something else coming on-- Jean Armour Polly At 1:02 AM -0500 2/18/08, Thompson, Darlene recently said: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C871F4.24E6C131" I strongly agree with yourself and Michael. Actually, towards the end of the 100 e-mails, there are actually some good suggestions coming forth. It may have been a painful process but sometimes pain=gain. If the PR person at ICANN's only suggestion is censorship then there is a serious problem here. D ________________________________ From: na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch Sent: Sun 2/17/2008 5:59 PM To: na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] registrant advisory committee Michael Maranda wrote: > Also, for the record, I am greatly offended by Mr. Kieran McCarthy's > tone on the At Large listserv. I will reserve comment on Kieren's general competence, given what were IMO serious mis-handling of a number of issues at the Delhi meeting (translations, web sites, outreach, public feedback, etc.). On this issue, I strongly agree with Michael. What do others think? I'm fully prepared to escalate Michael's complaint up the ICANN food chain. - Evan ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ <https://st.icann.org/naralo/> ------ ------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
Hi Darlene Actually it seems as if there's more discussion on policy on the internal list recently (Delhi and lead up to) than there actually has been in the past 2 years. There's also a lot of policy discussion on the individual WG lists, and much less (almost none) on the public At Large list. If you recall, the call for the drafting of the At Large response on the JPA to be moved to the public list (and the actual moving) was done by Vittorio, Izumi and myself. Jacqueline Thompson, Darlene wrote:
Hiya Jean,
Actually, since the Secretariats and Chairs were allowed into that internal list there has been a huge push on to move all policy development conversations over to the publicly accessable ALAC list. When too much conversation on policy matters happens there, there are several of us that speak up and say this. So, since the LA conference there really hasn't been much of that happening there. The internal list is now mainly used for strictly internal matters (like coordinating plans for who arrives when in Delhi and other things about who does what). There is an extremely strong voice on that list that demands transparency, me being one of them.
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jean Armour Polly *Sent:* Mon 2/18/2008 8:24 AM *To:* Thompson, Darlene *Cc:* na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] registrant advisory committee
I am in complete agreement. So ironic the public participation guy wants to shut down public participation!! And by the way, speaking of transparency, is the "internal" ALAC list archived and available for view? I'd sure like to track all the policy development that goes on in there.
I feel another call for abandoning ALAC and creating an Internet User's Union or something else coming on-- Jean Armour Polly
At 1:02 AM -0500 2/18/08, Thompson, Darlene recently said:
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C871F4.24E6C131" I strongly agree with yourself and Michael.
Actually, towards the end of the 100 e-mails, there are actually some good suggestions coming forth. It may have been a painful process but sometimes pain=gain. If the PR person at ICANN's only suggestion is censorship then there is a serious problem here.
D
------------------------------------------------------------------------ *From:* na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Evan Leibovitch *Sent:* Sun 2/17/2008 5:59 PM *To:* na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org *Subject:* Re: [NA-Discuss] registrant advisory committee Michael Maranda wrote:
Also, for the record, I am greatly offended by Mr. Kieran McCarthy's tone on the At Large listserv. I will reserve comment on Kieren's general competence, given what were IMO serious mis-handling of a number of issues at the Delhi meeting (translations, web sites, outreach, public feedback, etc.).
On this issue, I strongly agree with Michael.
What do others think? I'm fully prepared to escalate Michael's complaint up the ICANN food chain.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
I think it's *all potential users*. I'd be willing to support an initiative to make it VERY clear in the Bylaws.I'd also be willing to solicit LACRALO support on this. Jacqueline Michael Maranda wrote:
For the record, I also support John's general view here. At Large must be definitively inclusive of all Internet users (and perhaps further - all potential users?) and not in any way restricted to domain registrants. What current language leaves this ambiguous? What specific changes if any would be required to address the point John raises? Is there support within NARALO to bring this case to ALAC, and short of ALAC interest, to ICANN directly?------
I consider John's friendly amendment to be quite reasonable. --- John L <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
I'd like to see NARALO back this proposal. I'd also like to see other RALOs take a position. Perhaps if NARALO signs on support from At-Large could be solicited.
I'm only in favor of it if at the same time they change the bylaws to make it clear that the ALAC represents all Internet users, in particular the 99.9% who have never registered a domain and never will.
Among ALAC's problems is that we've never been able to make up our mind whether we represent non-institutional registrants or all users. To me it's obvious that the right answer is the latter, but many ALAC members have felt otherwise.
R's, John
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Hello all, So far as I can tell, registrants are already 'represented' by two existing ICANN constituencies; for-profits through the Business Constituency and non-profits through NCUC. Certainly, looking through things such as the two above groups' responses to the Domain Tasting issue, they certainly took the point of view of those two groups. This means, the remaining "unrepresented" group is the that of "individual" registrants, who probably don't share much interest in common with those who -- to use ICANN lingo -- "monetize" domains through a number of tactics, many of which do no serve the public good. I've certainly taken to heart comments about mission bloat of ICANN and, indeed, general bloat. Could it not be said that the interest-group of "individual registrants is, indeed, a subgroup of At-Large that shares most of ALAC's interests but has some additional ones of its own? Is this group -- which probably represents a single-digit percentage of total domain registrations -- really in need of a whole separate ICANN infrastructure? I'd like to offer a counter-proposal to Danny's, one that's easier to implement and serves a wider audience. It'd like to suggest a permanent Working Group of ALAC devoted to registrant issues, led by Danny. That could be implemented quickly, and provide a source for policy and resources that could be very valuable to the whole community, including Internet users who are potential registrants. While not everyone in the world cares about Registerfly, ALAC _should_ care about the manner in which non-corporate registrants are treated by all registrars and registries be the gTLDs or ccTLDs. Personal registrants probably domain tasting, while corporate registrants are -- almost by definition -- the only group that would prefer retaining the practice. Anyway, I'll suggest that as something to consider. - Evan
Hello Evan, Thanks for the input, but allow me to note that your observations, while logical, unfortunately are not correct. If you are making the claim that registrants are adequately represented by the BC and the NCUC in the GNSO, then unfortunately this claim is not borne out by the facts. You will recall that ICANN CEO Paul Twomey put forward a well-publicized call for input regarding registrant protections in the wake of the RegisterFly debacle. A public comment forum was established that allowed for input on revisions to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement. Neither the BC nor the NCUC provided any comments to this forum -- none at all -- that pretty much sums up the degree of interest they have in protecting the general registrant community. best regards, Danny --- Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Hello all,
So far as I can tell, registrants are already 'represented' by two existing ICANN constituencies; for-profits through the Business Constituency and non-profits through NCUC. Certainly, looking through things such as the two above groups' responses to the Domain Tasting issue, they certainly took the point of view of those two groups.
This means, the remaining "unrepresented" group is the that of "individual" registrants, who probably don't share much interest in common with those who -- to use ICANN lingo -- "monetize" domains through a number of tactics, many of which do no serve the public good.
I've certainly taken to heart comments about mission bloat of ICANN and, indeed, general bloat. Could it not be said that the interest-group of "individual registrants is, indeed, a subgroup of At-Large that shares most of ALAC's interests but has some additional ones of its own? Is this group -- which probably represents a single-digit percentage of total domain registrations -- really in need of a whole separate ICANN infrastructure?
I'd like to offer a counter-proposal to Danny's, one that's easier to implement and serves a wider audience. It'd like to suggest a permanent Working Group of ALAC devoted to registrant issues, led by Danny. That could be implemented quickly, and provide a source for policy and resources that could be very valuable to the whole community, including Internet users who are potential registrants. While not everyone in the world cares about Registerfly, ALAC _should_ care about the manner in which non-corporate registrants are treated by all registrars and registries be the gTLDs or ccTLDs. Personal registrants probably domain tasting, while corporate registrants are -- almost by definition -- the only group that would prefer retaining the practice.
Anyway, I'll suggest that as something to consider.
- Evan
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica...
Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
Hi Danny,
Thanks for the input, but allow me to note that your observations, while logical, unfortunately are not correct.
Fair enough. It looked appropriate in theory but I can clearly see how it might not be applied in practice.
If you are making the claim that registrants are adequately represented by the BC and the NCUC in the GNSO, then unfortunately this claim is not borne out by the facts.
I would never make the claim that they are being adequately protected at this time by anyone. I was just trying to figure out if the labyrinth of existing ACs, SOs, constituencies etc would already include a mechanism or forum that -- at least in theory -- was designed to address registrant needs.
You will recall that ICANN CEO Paul Twomey put forward a well-publicized call for input regarding registrant protections in the wake of the RegisterFly debacle. A public comment forum was established that allowed for input on revisions to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
Neither the BC nor the NCUC provided any comments to this forum -- none at all -- that pretty much sums up the degree of interest they have in protecting the general registrant community.
Your comments -- as well as Ross' -- are well taken. It's simply occurred to me that an organization that exists to sufficiently protect the interest of registrants would, by definition, also advocate the interests of phishers, tasters, parkers, kiters and spammers. In this sense it's probably best that such a group not be a part of ALAC since these folks rarely have the public interest in mind; I can see registrants and At-Large taking very different stands on issues such as WHOIS privacy. I would like to see ALAC supporting the interests of "personal" registrants, but I suspect that such number accounts for a single-digit percent of domain registrations. (I would be happy to be proven wrong on this assumption as well...) I will personally neither endorse nor impede efforts to create a separate registrants' AC, though I will gladly represent NARALO should it choose collectively to take an active position on this. This will certainly be on the agenda for the next NARALO conference call, tentatively scheduled March 10. - Evan
Re: what percent are personal registrations... this might help: According to a recent SSAC study on information gathering from WHOIS records, the representative sample that they looked at indicated that 9% of the samples were personal, another 13% used a proxy service (which could point to a personal registration) and 3% indicated a home-based business. See the chart on page 10 at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/information-gathering-28Sep2006.pdf regards, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
You can bring it to the other regions even before NARALO signs on or ALAC even - just remember to have the French and Spanish versions for us. Jacqueline Michael Maranda wrote:
I'd like to see NARALO back this proposal. I'd also like to see other RALOs take a position. Perhaps if NARALO signs on support from At-Large could be solicited.
On Feb 17, 2008 2:23 PM, Danny Younger <dannyyounger@yahoo.com <mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com>> wrote:
Accordingly, today I have petitioned Peter Dengate-Thrush to establish a Registrant Advisory Committee.
____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica... Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ ------
participants (8)
-
Danny Younger -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
Jean Armour Polly -
John L -
Michael Maranda -
Michael Maranda -
Thompson, Darlene