[lac-discuss-es] recuperacion de dominios

[José Luis Barzallo]

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.

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.

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.

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.

No se deben aceptar las transferencias entre empresas u organizaciones relacionadas porque entrarían en situaciones dudosas respecto de su origen.

Esto desde mi visión personal bajo parámetros de Usuarios.

Saludos cordiales,

José Luis Barzallo


AEDIT

www.aedit.org.ec

Colón 535 y 6 de diciembre. 
Edif. Cristóbal Colón Of. 602
Telf: (593 2) 2528774/ 2544464
Fax:  593 2 2564530
Email: joseluis en barzallo.com
Quito- Ecuador

-----Mensaje original-----
De: lac-discuss-es-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:lac-discuss-es-bounces en atlarge-lists.icann.org] En nombre de jose arce
Enviado el: Domingo, 23 de Agosto de 2009 10:01
Para: lac-discuss-es en atlarge-lists.icann.org
Asunto: [lac-discuss-es] Documento del NCUC!!!

Por alguna Razón no llego el archivo adjunto. Va de nuevo con el texto en el
mensaje también.
Saludos


 José F. Arce.

www.ar.ageiadensi.org




TOP TEN MYTHS ABOUT CIVIL SOCIETY PARTICIPATION IN ICANN
>From The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC)
21 August 2009
______________________________________________________________________________
Myth 1
“Civil Society won’t participate in ICANN under NCUC’s charter proposal.”
False. ICANN staffers and others claim that civil society is discouraged
from engaging at
ICANN because NCUC’s charter proposal does not guarantee GNSO Council seats
to
constituencies. The facts could not be further from the truth. NCUC’s
membership includes 143
noncommercial organizations and individuals. Since 2008 NCUC’s membership
has increased
by more 215% – largely in direct response to civil society’s support for the
NCUC charter. Not
a single noncommercial organization commented in the public comment forum
that hard-wiring
council seats to constituencies will induce their participation in ICANN.
None of the
noncommercial organizations that commented on the NCSG Charter said they
would participate
to ICANN only if NCSG's Charter secured the constituencies a guaranteed seat
on the GNSO.
Myth 2
“More civil society groups will get involved if the Board intervenes.”
A complete illusion. Board imposition of its own charter and its refusal to
listen to civil society
groups will be interpreted as rejection of the many groups that commented
and as discrimination
against civil society participation. ICANN’s reputation among noncommercial
groups will be
irreparably damaged unless this action is reversed or a 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 Board disenfranchises noncommercial
groups and
individuals. The constituency-based SIC structure requires too much
organizational overhead for
most noncommercial organizations to sustain; it also pits groups against
each other in political
competition for votes and members. Most noncommercial organizations will not
enter the
ICANN GNSO under those conditions.
Myth 3
The outpouring of civil society opposition can be dismissed as the product
of a 'letter writing
campaign.'
An outrageous claim. Overwhelming civil society opposition to the SIC
charter emerged not
once, but twice. In addition, there is the massive growth in NCUC membership
stimulated by
the broader community’s opposition to the staff and Board actions. Attempts
to minimize the
degree to which civil society has been undermined by these developments are
simply not going
to work, and reveal a shocking degree of insularity and arrogance. ICANN is
required to have
public comment periods because it is supposed to listen to and be responsive
to public opinion.
Public opinion results from networks of communication and public dialogue on
controversial
issues, including organized calls to action. No policy or bylaw gives ICANN
staff the authority
to decide that it can discount or ignore nearly all of the groups who have
taken an interest in the
GNSO reforms, simply because they have taken a position critical of the
staff’s. ICANN's
“Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN” by NCUC 2
attempt to discount critical comments by labeling them a "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 has never been such an overwhelmingly lopsided public comment
period in
ICANN’s history. While ICANN’s staff is telling the Board that civil society
is divided, the
clear, documented consensus among civil society groups has 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 can see the solidarity of civil society against what ICANN
is trying to impose
on them.
Myth 5
"Existing civil society groups are not representative or diverse enough."
Untrue by any reasonable standard. The current civil society grouping, the
Noncommercial
Users Constituency (NCUC), now has 143 members including 73 noncommercial
organizations
and 70 individuals in 48 countries. This is an increase of more than 215%
since the parity
principle was established.1 Noncommercial participation in ICANN is now more
diverse than
any other constituency, so it is completely unfair to level this charge at
NCUC without applying
it to others. Even back in 2006, an independent report by the London School
of Economics
showed that NCUC was the most diverse geographically, had the largest number
of different
people serving on the GNSO Council over time, and the highest turn-over in
council
representatives of any of the 6 constituencies. In contrast, the commercial
users’ constituency
has recycled the same 5 people on the Council for a 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 over the civil society drafted
charter."
False. One ALAC 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 of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that “the de-linking of
Council seats from
Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction.”
Myth 7
"The NCUC charter would give the same small group 6 votes instead of 3."
False. For the past 8 months, NCUC has stated that it will dissolve when the
NCSG is formed.
It does not make sense to have a "Noncommercial Users Constituency" and a
"Noncommercial
Stakeholders Group,” as they are synonymous terms. Thus, NCUC leaders would
not be in
1 We encourage those GNSO constituencies who claim is NCUC is insufficiently
large enough to
deserve representational parity with commercial users on the GNSO Council to
publish their own
constituency’s current membership roster, as NCUC does at:
http://ncdnhc.org/page/membership-roster.
“Top 10 Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN” by NCUC 3
control of a new NCSG – a completely new leadership would be elected. Under
the NCUC
charter proposal, all noncommercial groups and individuals would vote on
Council seats, not just
former NCUC members. Strict geographic diversity requirements would mean
that candidates
from throughout the world would have to be selected even if they could not
get a majority of
total votes.
Myth 8
"NCUC will not share council seats with other noncommercial constituencies."
Wrong. NCUC’s proposed charter was designed to allow dozens of new
noncommercial
constituencies to form at will and to advance their own candidates for
Council seats. Given the
diversity and breadth of NCUC's membership, many different constituencies
with competing
agendas are likely to form. The organic, bottom-up self-forming approach to
constituency
formation is much better than the board/staff approach – and more consistent
with the BGC
recommendations. The SIC charter makes constituency formation very top-heavy
and difficult,
and gives the staff and Board arbitrary power to decide how “representative”
or “significant”
new participants are. Because it ties constituencies to Council seats, every
new constituency
instigates power struggles 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
under its proposed
charter. Our proposal simply offered to apply some simple, objective
criteria (e.g., number of
applicants) to new constituency groupings and then make a recommendation to
the Board. The
idea was to reduce the burden of forming a new constituency for both the
applicants and the
Board. NCUC’s proposal made it easy to form new constituencies, unlike the
SIC charter, which
makes it difficult to form new constituencies.
Myth 10
“The purpose of a constituency is to have your very own GNSO Council Seat.”
False. Some claim GNSO Council seats must be hard-wired to specific
constituencies because a
constituency is meaningless without a guaranteed GNSO Council
representative. However this
interpretation fails to understand the role of constituencies in the new
GNSO, which is to give a
voice and a means of participation in the policy development process -- not
a guaranteed
councilor who has little incentive to reach beyond her constituency and find
consensus with other
constituencies. Two of the other three stakeholder groups (Registries and
Registrars) adopted
NCUC’s charter approach of decoupling GNSO Council seats to constituencies,
but NCUC has
been prevented from electing its councilors on a SG-wide basis.

JOIN NCUC
All noncommercial organizations and individuals are invited to 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 for considering
and providing
advice on the activities of the ICANN, as they relate to the interests of
individual Internet users
(the "At-Large" community).
gTLD - Generic Top Level Domain
Most TLDs with three or more characters are referred to as "generic" TLDs,
or "gTLDs". They
can be subdivided into two types, "sponsored" TLDs (sTLDs) and "unsponsored
TLDs (uTLDs),
as described in more 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 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
TLDs for
introduction. These were introduced in 2001 and 2002. Four of the new TLDs
(.biz, .info,
.name, and .pro) are unsponsored. The other three new TLDs (.aero, .coop,
and .museum) are
sponsored.
GNSO - Generic Names Supporting Organization
The GNSO is responsible for developing policy recommendations to the ICANN
Board that
relate to generic top-level domains (gTLDs).
The GNSO is the body of 6 constituencies, as 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 a framework
of 6
constituencies to 4 stakeholder groups: Commercial, Noncommercial,
Registrar, Registry. The
Noncommercial and Commercial Stakeholder Groups together make up the
“Non-contracting
Parties House” in the new bi-cameral GNSO; and the Registrar and Registry
Stakeholder Groups
will together comprise the “Contracting Parties House” in the new GNSO
structure (beginning
Oct. 2009).
ICANN - The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is an
internationally
organized, non-profit corporation that has responsibility for Internet
Protocol (IP) address space
allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code
(ccTLD) Top-Level
Domain name system management, and root server system management functions
“Top 10 Myths About Civil 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 the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
(ICANN) Generic
Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). With real voting 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 are 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,
digital rights, children's welfare, religion, consumer protection,
scientific research, human rights
and many other areas. NCUC maintains a website at http://ncdnhc.org.
NCSG - Noncommercial Stakeholders Group
The GNSO is in the process of being restructured from “6 constituencies” to
“4 stakeholder
groups”, including a 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 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 Charter Controversy:
http://bit.ly/BiOg8
Noncommercial Users Constituency (NCUC):
http://ncdnhc.org
NCUC submitted NCSG charter proposal:
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 dissent in vote 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