MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation
I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency in the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever seen a detailed redelegation request posted for consideration prior to action being taken by the Board? The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes to declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm I certainly don't want the relevant Internet community being kept in the dark should the delegation of the .us namespace become an issue. I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager.") ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
Hi Danny This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set up several meetings with ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work together on issues such as this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO MoU, but rather is a global issue that ALL regions should work on together. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency in the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever seen a detailed redelegation request posted for consideration prior to action being taken by the Board? The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes to declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm I certainly don't want the relevant Internet community being kept in the dark should the delegation of the .us namespace become an issue. I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager.") ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469 _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
Hi Jacqueline, Sorry to disagree, but the NeuStar contract with the USG is scheduled to expire by the end of October (posing a potential redelegation issue), and frankly we don't have the luxury of waiting for the ALAC and the CCNSO to come to grips with the global aspects of the problem. This is a timely regional issue for us that we should be at liberty to handle by way of positing an ICANN obligation in the MOU (which is within our rights to request). The RALOs exist to deal with regional concerns. Let us handle this matter in our own fashion or let's just scrap the RALO concept. regards, Danny --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set up several meetings with ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work together on issues such as this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO MoU, but rather is a global issue that ALL regions should work on together. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation
I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency in the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever seen a detailed redelegation request posted for consideration prior to action being taken by the Board?
The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes to declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm
I certainly don't want the relevant Internet community being kept in the dark should the delegation of the .us namespace become an issue.
I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager.")
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica
nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
____________________________________________________________________________________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
Danny: Well, let's both raise it at the NA as well a the global level. For me .US less so a regional issue, as we've taken care of the issue here in canada long ago. At least, I think that those in the USA should play more a leading role then us crazy canucks up north. I would be keen to have the issue addressed as a priority item, but would prefer that opinions and concerns come from users and experts like you who are based in the southern part of the ICANN NA region. Curious to know if you think a structure like CIRA (cira.ca) might be possible for the US ccTLD. it has worked out well for us here in Canada, but not sure if the politics in the US would permit such type of collaboration between stakeholders to occur under the current administration. On 14-Jun-07, at 9:42 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Hi Jacqueline,
Sorry to disagree, but the NeuStar contract with the USG is scheduled to expire by the end of October (posing a potential redelegation issue), and frankly we don't have the luxury of waiting for the ALAC and the CCNSO to come to grips with the global aspects of the problem. This is a timely regional issue for us that we should be at liberty to handle by way of positing an ICANN obligation in the MOU (which is within our rights to request). The RALOs exist to deal with regional concerns. Let us handle this matter in our own fashion or let's just scrap the RALO concept.
regards, Danny
--- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set up several meetings with ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work together on issues such as this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO MoU, but rather is a global issue that ALL regions should work on together. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation
I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency in the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever seen a detailed redelegation request posted for consideration prior to action being taken by the Board?
The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes to declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm
I certainly don't want the relevant Internet community being kept in the dark should the delegation of the .us namespace become an issue.
I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager.")
______________________________________________________________________ ______
________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.ica
nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
______________________________________________________________________ ______________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
Robert, I admire the CIRA accomplishments and would prefer a structure like CIRA instead of what we now have in the US. The .us Policy Council is a joke. There are no provisions for member succession and the Council hasn't posted any meeting minutes since 9 January 2003. We have lost the right to proxy registrations stemming from the Peterson V. NTIA case (in which the Policy Council took no position), and there are no success stories regarding subdomains within .us (kids.us is an abject failure). regards, Danny --- Robert Guerra <lists@privaterra.info> wrote:
Danny:
Well, let's both raise it at the NA as well a the global level.
For me .US less so a regional issue, as we've taken care of the issue here in canada long ago. At least, I think that those in the USA should play more a leading role then us crazy canucks up north. I would be keen to have the issue addressed as a priority item, but would prefer that opinions and concerns come from users and experts like you who are based in the southern part of the ICANN NA region.
Curious to know if you think a structure like CIRA (cira.ca) might be possible for the US ccTLD. it has worked out well for us here in Canada, but not sure if the politics in the US would permit such type of collaboration between stakeholders to occur under the current administration.
On 14-Jun-07, at 9:42 AM, Danny Younger wrote:
Hi Jacqueline,
Sorry to disagree, but the NeuStar contract with the USG is scheduled to expire by the end of October (posing a potential redelegation issue), and frankly we don't have the luxury of waiting for the ALAC and the CCNSO to come to grips with the global aspects of the problem. This is a timely regional issue for us that we should be at liberty to handle by way of positing an ICANN obligation in the MOU (which is within our rights to request). The RALOs exist to deal with regional concerns. Let us handle this matter in our own fashion or let's just scrap the RALO concept.
regards, Danny
--- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set up several meetings with ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work together on issues such as this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO MoU, but rather is a global issue that ALL regions should work on together. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation
I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency in the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever seen a detailed redelegation request posted for consideration prior to action being taken by the Board?
The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes to declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm
I certainly don't want the relevant Internet community being kept in the dark should the delegation of
the
.us namespace become an issue.
I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager.")
______________________________________________________________________
______
________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-
lists.ica
nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
______________________________________________________________________
______________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search
http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-
lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
=== message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for a deal? Find great prices on flights and hotels with Yahoo! FareChase. http://farechase.yahoo.com/
Danny My email was to inform you that it is not ONLY a NA concern, and that the rest of the regions are working on cc issues as well. This was informational and there is no reason to threaten the existence of the NARALO. The NA region is part of the global AtLarge, and should be interested in working together with the rest of the world, and not only in isolation. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:42 AM To: jam@jacquelinemorris.com; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation Hi Jacqueline, Sorry to disagree, but the NeuStar contract with the USG is scheduled to expire by the end of October (posing a potential redelegation issue), and frankly we don't have the luxury of waiting for the ALAC and the CCNSO to come to grips with the global aspects of the problem. This is a timely regional issue for us that we should be at liberty to handle by way of positing an ICANN obligation in the MOU (which is within our rights to request). The RALOs exist to deal with regional concerns. Let us handle this matter in our own fashion or let's just scrap the RALO concept. regards, Danny --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam@jacquelinemorris.com> wrote:
Hi Danny This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set up several meetings with ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work together on issues such as this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO MoU, but rather is a global issue that ALL regions should work on together. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation
I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency in the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever seen a detailed redelegation request posted for consideration prior to action being taken by the Board?
The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes to declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm
I certainly don't want the relevant Internet community being kept in the dark should the delegation of the .us namespace become an issue.
I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager.")
____________________________________________________________________________
________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica
nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
Jacqueline: I was just about to respond to Danny's message when I saw that you had already. Agree that the issue is also of great interest outside NA . let me suggest the following: - that Danny's message be forwarded to the larger at-large list, as its more an international issue then one exclusively of interest to NA - if there's interest in ccNSO, then might it be of interest to invite CIRA - The Canadian Internet Registry Authority - to come to speak to at-large @ San Juan. I know for sure they will at the meeting, and likely - time & schedules permitting - they would open to meeting with at-large. As a Canadian, well, keen to share what's been developed here. If there's interest, do let Luc Faubert and I know as we can get in touch with CIRA and see what times they might be available to meet with At-large. regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra@privaterra.ca> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 14-Jun-07, at 9:29 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
Hi Danny This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set up several meetings with ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work together on issues such as this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO MoU, but rather is a global issue that ALL regions should work on together. Jacqueline
-----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM To: NA Discuss Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation
I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency in the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever seen a detailed redelegation request posted for consideration prior to action being taken by the Board?
The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes to declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm
I certainly don't want the relevant Internet community being kept in the dark should the delegation of the .us namespace become an issue.
I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for interested parties to have some voice in selecting the designated manager.")
______________________________________________________________________ ______ ________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM
_______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- lists.icann.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU
Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP
Draft Code of Conduct: http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct
I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided
Don't forget .as .gu .pr .vi and the always trendy .um. An additional specific concern for the US is the legacy registrars of geographic domains, of whom I am one. Back before the Neustar contract, all addresses in .us were geographic, like trumansburg.ny.us, and many of the legacy local domains were delegated to local volunteer registries, of whom I am one. Neustar's attitude toward the legacy volunteers has been quite hostile, demanding among other things unlimited indemnification for any legal costs. They may have been following directions from DOC, hard to say. Although the number of legacy domains is relatively small, they tend to be long established and important community resources. For example, www.trumansburg.ny.us has been our community web site for a decade, and my church has had web and mail at unitarian.ithaca.ny.us for nearly as long. Whatever they do to .US, it's important to do something reasonable to keep the legacy domains working, preferably with the established knowledgable community registries. Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.
participants (4)
-
Danny Younger -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John L -
Robert Guerra