[lac-discuss-en] recovery of dominions
jose arce
josefranciscoarce at gmail.com
Wed Sep 9 23:37:58 CDT 2009
Muchas gracias José Barzallo por este aporte que nos sirve a todos los
miembros de la lista para entender un poco más sobre el tema y
entusiasmarnos por los mismos.
Ahora, por cuestiones de falta de tiempo, venimos a aportar unos pocos
comentarios sumándonos a lo expresado por José, que pensamos que nos pueden
servir a todos, especialmente a los usuarios de Internet y a quienes tienen
que velar por sus intereses.
Van los comentarios interlineados.
2009/9/9 José Luis Barzallo <joseluis at barzallo.com>
> Estimados compañeros ALS y ALAC
>
> Revisé los documentos relacionados con la recuperación de nombres de
> dominio en un plazo adicional o especial. Le remito este resumen para
> facilitar su participación.
>
> Las preguntas esenciales giran alrededor de
>
> - si es factible hacer estos cambios?
> - Si son necesarios?
> - Cuales deben ser los cambios a implementarse?
> - Como deben implementarse los cambios?
>
>
> Para los usuarios la recuperación de los nombres de dominio resulta
> conveniente en tanto en cuanto vaya en su beneficio y la participación del
> GNSO en el análisis en válida y necesaria.
>
Hay que recordar que hay un pedido de ALAC para que el GNSO se pronuncie. Los
representantes de los usuarios son los que deben estar pendientes de que
esto se cumpla.
>
> Es decir, las recomendaciones deberían ir hacia lograr una total
> transparencia en la notificación a los registrantes respecto de la fecha de
> terminación del periodo de registro para evitar posibles fraudes o
> manipulación del aviso.
>
En esto es en donde no hay una política de consenso y por lo tanto no
vinculante para todos los Registradores. Cada uno se maneja por los acuerdos
que haya firmado con ICANN y no hay una solución uniforme que aplique para
todos iguales. Algunos notifican a través de la página web (se insiste en
que sea en un lugar visible; otros a través de un mail (la duda surge
respecto de aquellos que hayan transferido el nombre de dominio con
anterioridad y por lo tanto el mail que está registrado es el del anterior
titular, y por lo tanto el actual, no se estaría notificando, o al menos no
con fehaciencia y certidumbre). No hay una forma “transparente” , fehaciente
y segura que se esté utilizando de notificación. En este punto se debería
lograr un consenso y por lo tanto vinculante, para todos los Registradores.
>
> Es fundamental que la carga de la prueba siempre la tenga el Registrador y
> que este deba justificar el aviso oportuno que se dio, de esta manera se
> tendrá una mayor seguridad respecto de lo que sucede con el dominio del
> usuario.
>
> La retención durante un periodo especial debe ser obligatoria para todos
> los registradores y siempre deben contar con políticas claras y muy
> públicas para conocimiento de los usuarios. Un aviso específico respecto del
> funcionamiento sería apropiado.
>
Se han ensayado opciones sobre esto, como prohibir la transferencia del
nombre de dominio mientras esté en período de retención (que de paso, cada
registrador establece el plazo de Redención que quiere, ya que respecto a
ello tampoco hay una política uniforme), pero dicha opción fue criticada y
dejó de ser “obligatoria” para pasar a manejarlo voluntariamente cada
Registrador.
>
> El costo no debe ser superior o bajo ningún concepto duplicar el original
> pagado por el usuario. El registrador puede retener el dominio durante un
> periodo adicional limitado, luego del cual podrá ponerle un valor superior
> por no ser parte de su responsabilidad.
>
El Registrador *debería *retener el dominio durante un período limitado,
pero que sea un plazo uniforme, de público conocimiento y vinculante para
todos los Registradores. Con respecto al costo, luego de vencido dicho
período y no recuperado por su titular original (o en cuestión) debería
manejarse como un dominio nuevo y con el mismo costo de adquirir un dominio
nuevo, sin ningún valor original. Esto permitiría una igualdad de trato para
todos los registrantes y/o usuarios.
>
> No se deben aceptar las transferencias entre empresas u organizaciones
> relacionadas porque entrarían en situaciones dudosas respecto de su origen.
>
Si existiera una política de consenso para todos los Registradores por
igual, con plazos uniformes, no existiría ningún conflicto en las
transferencias entre empresas u organizaciones relacionadas o no, se
eliminarían muchas posibilidades de fraude o en perjuicio de terceros
ajenos.
> La visión que tiene la asociación de los usuarios finales de Internet, que
>> son consumidores de Dominios, y en especial con respecto a la recuperación
>> de los dominios expirados, empieza con la preocupación de la falta de
>> información de los usuarios de cómo es la cadena de distribución de los
>> Dominios; es decir, existen los registradores y luego de ellos hay una serie
>> de empresas que revenden los mismos, y estas empresas abundan y se crea
>> lo que se llama “*El mercado secundario de dominios” o aftermarket*, esto
>> produce en los usuarios una verdadera confusión; sumado a que muchos de
>> ellos administran varios dominios y no pueden recordar el vencimiento de
>> todas, si bien existen algunas herramientas para lograrlo. Esto sumado a que
>> a la hora de querer transferir algún dominio el registrador debe, en algunos
>> casos otorgarle al Usuario Final un código, el cual varias empresas son
>> reacias a hacerlo. Se agrava el asunto a la hora de tratar con dominios
>> que tratan de venderse en 1.4 millones de dólares, en donde los intereses en
>> juego no permiten equivocaciones , ni dobles interpretaciones.
>>
> Creemos que es necesario debatir estas cuestiones y ayudar a los usuarios a
entender cual son las alternativas de los caminos que recorre un gTLD desde
ICANN hasta que el usuario adquiere el mismo.
Nuestro trabajo aquí se bifurca en dos. Uno para con ALAC informándole la
visión del usuario final de la Región y otro para con los usuarios finales
en darles las herramientas e información básica para que pueda desenvolverse
en libertad.
Desde la asociación, con Fátima Cambronero, ambos de Ageia Densi Argentina,
estamos en proceso de elaboración de un documento más extenso para difundir
estos conocimientos a los distintos usuarios y para que tengan la
información en un solo documento y en varios idiomas, y no tengan que
divagar en páginas y foros en busca de una respuesta. El mismo favorecerá a
los actores de la región para animarse a tocar estos temas y debatir en
profundidad los mismos a los fines de poder subirle a ALAC un conocimiento
cierto de las necesidades de los temas en debate e ideas y aportes que vayan
dirigidos a favorecer al usuario.
Saludos a Todos
José F. Arce Fátima Cambronero
http://ar.ageiadensi.org/ http://ar.ageiadensi.org/
2009/9/9 <joseluis at barzallo.com>
>
> [[--Translated text (es -> en)--]]
>
>
> Subject: recovery of dominions
> From: joseluis at barzallo.com
>
> Considered compañeros ALS and ALAC
>
> Revisé the documents related to recuperación of names ofdominion in
> an additional or special term. I send east summary to him to facilitate his
> participación.
>
> The essential questions turn around
>
> - if he is feasible to make these changes?
> - If they are necessary?
> - As they must be the changes to implement itself?
> - As the changes must be implemented?
>
>
> For the users recuperación of the dominion names is advisable in as much
> as soon as participación of the GNSO in anà goes in its benefit and lida
> and necessary lisis in vÃ.
>
> That is to say, the recommendations deberÃan to go towards managing atotal
> transparency in notificación to registrantes the respect to thedate of
> terminación of the period of registry to avoid possible frauds or
> manipulación of the warning.
>
> It is fundamental that the burden of proof always has the Recorder andwho
> this must justify the opportune warning that occurred, this way tendrà a
> greater security respect to which happens to the dominion of the user.
>
> Retención during a special period must be obligatory for all the recorders
> and they always must count on clear and very públicas polÃticas for
> knowledge of the users. A especÃfico warning respect to the appropriate
> operation serÃa.
>
> The cost does not have to be superior or low ningún concept to duplicate
> the original one paid by the user. The recorder can retain the dominion
> during a limited additional period, soon of which podrà to put a superior
> value to him not being part of its responsibility.
>
> The transferences between related companies or organizations are not due to
> accept because they entrarÃan in doubtful situations respect to his origin.
>
> This from personal my visión under parà meters of Users.
>
> Warm greetings,
>
> José Luis Barzallo
>
>
> AEDIT
>
> www.aedit.org.ec
>
> Colón 535 and 6 of December.
> Edif. Cristóbal Colón Of. 602
> Telf: (593 2) 2528774/ 2544464
> Fax: 593 2 2564530
> Email: joseluis at barzallo.com
> Quito Ecuador
>
> Original -----Mensaje
> Of: lac-discuss-he is -bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org [ mailto:
> lac-discuss-is -bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org ] In name of jose maple
> Sent: Domingo, 23 of August of 2009 10:01
> He stops: lac-discuss-es at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Subject: [ lac-discuss-is ] Document of the NCUC!
>
> By some Razón I do not arrive the attached file. It goes again with the
> text in
> message también.
> Greetings
>
>
> José F. Arce.
>
> www.ar.ageiadensi.org
>
>
>
>
> CIVIL TOP TEN MYTHS ABOUT SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN ICANN > From The
> Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)
> 21 August 2009
>
> ______________________________________________________________________________
> Myth 1
> “Civil Society won’t participate in ICANN to under NCUC’s
> charter proposal.â€
> False. Civil ICANN staffers and others claim that society is discouraged
> from engaging AT
> ICANN because NCUC’s proposal charter does not guarantee GNSO
> Council seats
> to
> constituencies. The facts could not be to further from the truth.
> NCUC’s
> membership includes 143
> noncommercial organizations and individuals. Since 2008 NCUC’s
> membership
> there are increased
> by dwells civil 215% â € "largely in direct response to for™societyâ€
> s support the
> NCUC charter. Not
> to single noncommercial organization commented in the public comment forum
> that hard-wiring
> council seats to constituencies will induces to their participation in
> ICANN.
> None of the
> noncommercial organizations that commented on the NCSG Chartersaid they
> would participate
> to ICANN only if NCSG's Charter secured the constituencies to guaranteed
> seat
> on the GNSO.
> Myth 2
> “More civil society groups will get involved if the Board intervenes.â€
> To it completes illusion. Board imposition of its own refusal charter and
> its to
> list to civil society
> groups will be interpreted ace rejection of the many groups that commented
> and ace discrimination
> against civil society participation. Noncommercial™ICANN†s
> reputation among
> groups will be
> irreparably damaged unless this action is reversed or to compromise is
> found.
> Even if we were to
> accept these actions and try to work with them, the total impact of the
> staff/SIC NCSG charter
> will be to handicap noncommercial groups and make them less likely to
> participate. The
> appointment of representatives by the noncommercial Board disenfranchises
> groups and
> individuals. The constituency-based SIC structure requires toomuch
> for organizational overhead
> most noncommercial organizations to sustain; it also pits groups against
> each to other in political
> competition for you vote and members. Noncommercial Most organizations will
> not
> to enter the
> ICANN GNSO to under those conditions.
> Myth 3
> Civil The outpouring of society opposition dog be dismissed ace the product
> of to ' letter writing
> campaign.'
> An outrageous claim. Civil Overwhelming society opposition to the SIC
> charter you emerge not
> eleven, but twice. In addition, there is the massive growth in NCUC
> membership
> stimulated by
> the to broader community’s opposition to the staff and Board
> actions. Attempts
> to minimize the
> degree to which civil society you have been undermined by these
> developments plows
> simply not going
> to work, and reveal to shocking degree of insularity and arrogance. ICANN
> is
> required to have
> public comment periods because it is supposed to lists to andbe responsive
> to public opinion.
> Public opinion results from networks of communication and public engages in
> a dialog on
> controversial
> issues, including organized calls to action. Not policy or bylaw gives
> ICANN
> staff the authority
> to decides that it dog discount or ignores nearly all of the groups who
> have
> they taken an interest in the
> GNSO reforms, simply because they have taken to position critical of the
> staff’s. ICANN's
> “Top 10 Myths Civil About Society Participation in ICANN†by NCUC 2
> attempt to discount critical comments by labeling them to "letter writing
> campaign "undermines
> future participation and confidence in ICANN public processes.
> Myth 4
> "Civil society is divided on the NCSG charter issue."
> Wrong. There you have to never been such an overwhelmingly lopsided public
> comment
> period in
> ICANN’s history. While ICANN’s staff is telling the civil
> Board that society
> is divided, the
> to clear, documented consensus among civil society groups youhave been
> against the
> ICANN drafted
> NCSG charter and in favor of the NCUC one. Board members who rely only on
> staff-provided
> information may believe civil society is divided, but Board members who
> have
> actually read the
> public comments civil dog see the solidarity of society against what ICANN
> is trying to impose
> on them.
> Myth 5
> "civil Existing society groups plows not representative or todiver enough."
> Standard Untrue by any reasonable. Civil The current society grouping,the
> Noncommercial
> Users Constituency (NCUC), now there are 143 members including 73
> noncommercial
> organizations
> and 70 individuals in 48 countries. This is an increase of dwells than 215%
> since the parity
> principle was established.1 Noncommercial participation in ICANN is now
> dwells
> to diver itself they than
> any to other constituency, under it is completely to unfair to level this
> charge AT
> NCUC without applying
> it to others. Even back in 2006, an independent report by theLondon School
> of Economics
> showed that NCUC was the most to diver geographically, had the largest to
> number
> of different
> people serving on the GNSO Council to over Time, and the highest to
> turn-over in
> council
> representatives of any of the 6 constituencies. In contrast, the commercial
> users’ constituency
> there are recycled the same 5 people on the for Council to decade and upon
> the GNSO
> “reform†, the
> first 3 of 6 GNSO Councilors from the Commercial Stakeholder Group will
> represent the United
> States.
> Myth 6
> "ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter to over the civil society
> drafted
> charter."
> False. One ALAC to leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter.
> ICANN staff ran away
> with this comment and falsely told the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC
> prefers the staff
> drafted charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC
> said that many
> members proposal of ALAC supported the NCUC and that “the of-linking of
> Council seats from
> Constituencies is to very good move in the right direction.â€
> Myth 7
> "The NCUC charter would give the same small group 6 you vote instead of 3."
> False. For the past 8 months, NCUC there are stated that it will dissolve
> when the
> NCSG is formed.
> Sense It does not make to have to "Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a
> "Noncommercial
> Stakeholders Group, †ace they plows synonymous terms. Thus, NCUC leaders
> would
> not be in
> 1 We encourage those GNSO constituencies who claim is NCUC isinsufficiently
> large enough to
> deserve representational parity with commercial users on the GNSO Council
> to
> publish to their own
> constituency’s current membership to roster, ace NCUC does AT:
> to http://ncdnhc.org/page/membership-roster.
> “Top 10 Myths Civil About Society Participation in ICANN†by NCUC 3
> control of to new NCSG â € "to completely new leadership would be elected.
> Under
> the NCUC
> proposal charter, all noncommercial groups and individuals would votes on
> Council seats, not just
> to former NCUC members. Strict geographic diversity requirements would
> pisses
> that candidates
> from throughout the world would have to be selected even if they could not
> get to majority of
> total you vote.
> Myth 8
> "council NCUC will not share seats with to other noncommercial
> constituencies."
> Wrong. NCUC’s proposed charter was designed to allow dozens of new
> noncommercial
> constituencies to form AT will and to advance to their own candidates for
> Council seats. Given the
> diversity and breadth of NCUC's membership, many different constituencies
> with competing
> agendas to plows likely form. The organic, bottom-up self-forming approach
> to
> constituency
> formation is much to better than the board/staff approach â €"and dwells
> consistent
> with the BGC
> recommendations. The SIC charter makes constituency formationvery top-heavy
> and difficult,
> and gives the staff and Board arbitrary to power to decides how
> “representativeâ€
> or “significantâ€
> new participants plows. Because it ties constituencies to Council seats,
> every
> new constituency
> instigates to power struggles to over the allocation of Council seats.
> Myth 9
> "The NCUC wants to take away the Board's right to approve constituencies."
> False. People who said this have obviously not read the NCUC-proposed
> charter. NCUC’s
> proposal let the board approve or disapprove of new constituencies formed
> to under its proposed
> charter. Simple proposal Our simply offered to apply some, objective
> criteria (e.g., to number of
> applicants) to new constituency groupings and then make to recommendation
> to
> the Board. The
> idea was to reduces the burden of forming to new constituencyfor both the
> applicants and the
> Board. Proposal™NCUC†s made it easy to form new constituencies,
> unlike the
> SIC charter, which
> makes it difficult to form new constituencies.
> Myth 10
> “The purpose of to constituency is to have your very own GNSO Council
> Seat.â€
> False. Some claim GNSO Council seats must be hard-wired to specific
> constituencies because a
> constituency is meaningless without to guaranteed GNSO Council
> representative. However this
> interpretation fails to understand the role of constituenciesin the new
> GNSO, which is to give a
> voice and to means of participation in the policy developmentprocess -- not
> to guaranteed
> councilor who there are little stimulates to reach beyond to her
> constituency and find
> consensus with to other
> constituencies. Two of the to other three to stakeholder groups (Registries
> and
> Registrars) adopted
> NCUC’s charter approach of decoupling GNSO Council seats to
> constituencies,
> but NCUC you have
> electing been prevented from its councilors on to SG-wide basis.
>
> JOIN NCUC
> Noncommercial All organizations and individuals plows invitedto join NCUC
> and
> participate in
> policy development in ICANN’s GNSO. Bring your experience and your
> perspective to Internet
> policy discussions and help protect noncommercial users of the Internet by
> participating AT
> ICANN via the NCUC. Join today:
> http://icann-ncuc.ning.com/main/authorization/signUp?
> “Top
>
> GLOSSARY OF ICANN ACRONYMS
> ALAC - AT-Large Advisory Committee
> ICANN's AT-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is responsible forconsidering
> and providing
> advice on the activities of the ICANN, ace they relates to the interests of
> individual Internet users
> (the "AT-Large" community).
> gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain
> Most TLDs with three or dwells characters plows referred to ace "generic"
> TLDs,
> or "gTLDs". They
> dog be subdivided into two types, "sponsored" TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored
> TLDs (uTLDs),
> ace described in dwells detail below.
> In the 1980s, seven gTLDs (com, edu, gov, int, mil, net, and org)
> were created. Domain
> names may be registered in three of these (com, net, and org)without
> restriction; the to other four
> have limited purposes. Over the next twelve years, various discussions
> occurred concerning
> additional gTLDs, leading to the selection in November 2000 of seven new
> For TLDs
> introduction. These were introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four ofthe new TLDs
> (biz, info,
> name, and pro) plows unsponsored. The to other three new TLDs(aero, coop,
> and museum) plows
> sponsored.
> GNSO - Generic Names Supporting Organization
> The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendationsto the ICANN
> Board that
> generic relates to top-level domains (gTLDs).
> The GNSO is the body of 6 constituencies, ace follows: the Commercial and
> Business
> constituency, the gTLD Registry constituency, the ISP constituency, the
> non-commercial
> constituency, the registrar's constituency, and the IP constituency.
> However, the GNSO is in the process of restructuring away from to framework
> of 6
> constituencies to 4 to stakeholder groups: Commercial, Noncommercial,
> To register, Registry. The
> Noncommercial and Commercial Stakeholder Groups to together make up the
> “Non-contracting
> Parties House†in the new bicameral GNSO; and the Registrarand Registry
> Stakeholder Groups
> will to together comprise the “Contracting Parties House†in the new
> GNSO
> structure (beginning
> Oct. 2009).
> ICANN - for The Internet Corporation Assigned Names and Numbers
> For The Internet Corporation Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an
> internationally
> organized, non-profit corporation that there are responsibility for
> Internet
> Protocol (IP) address space
> allocation, protocol to identifier assignment, generic (gTLD)and country
> code
> (ccTLD) Top-Level
> Domain Name System management, and root server system management functions
> “Top 10 Myths Civil About Society Participation in ICANN†by NCUC 5
> NCUC - Noncommercial Users Constituency
> The Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC) is the home for noncommercial
> organizations
> and individuals in for the Internet Corporation Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN) Generic
> Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). Real With voting to power in ICANN
> policy
> making and
> Board selection, it develops and supports positions that protect
> noncommercial communication
> and activity on the Internet. NCUC works to promote the public interest in
> ICANN policy and is
> the only noncommercial constituency in ICANN’s GSNO(there plows 5
> commercial
> constituencies). The NCUC is open to noncommercial organizations and
> individuals involved in
> education, community networking, public policy advocacy, development,
> promotion of the arts,
> digitalis rights, children's welfare, religion, to consumer protection,
> scientific research, human rights
> and many to other area. NCUC maintains to website AT http://ncdnhc.org.
> NCSG - Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
> The GNSO is in the process of being restructured from “6 constituenciesâ€
> to
> “4 to stakeholder
> groups†, including to Noncommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) into which
> all
> noncommercial
> organizations and individuals will belong for policy development purposes,
> including members
> of the Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC). The NCSG and the Commercial
> Stakeholder Group (CSG) will to together comprise the “Non-contracting
> Parties
> House†in the
> new bicameral GNSO structure beginning October 2009.
> LINKS TO BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
> NCUC Letter to ICANN Board and CEO on NCSG Controversy Charter:
> http://bit.ly/BiOg8
> Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC):
> http://ncdnhc.org
> NCUC submitted NCSG proposal charter:
> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/ncsg-petition-charter.pdf
> Robin Gross on “Is ICANN Accountable to the Public Interest?†:
> http://ipjustice.org/ICANN/NCSG/NCUC-ICANN-Injustices.html
> ICANN GNSO Chair Avri Doria on “Why I Joined the NCUC†:
> http://tiny.cc/EPDtx
> Internet Governance Project: “4 ICANN Board members dissentin votes on
> NCSG
> charter†:
> http://tiny.cc/S5CjP
> 2006 London School of Economics Independent Report on GNSO:
> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-15sep06.htm
>
>
>
> __________ NOD32 4357 (20090821) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>
>
>
>
> [[--Original text (es)
> http://mm2.icann.org/transbot_archive/71240f8fb9.html
> --]]
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> lac-discuss-en mailing list
> lac-discuss-en at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
>
--
Arce, Jose Francisco
www.corexglobal.com.ar
www.corexfoods.com.ar
+ 54 351 9 6788920
More information about the lac-discuss-en
mailing list