[NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
Carlton Samuels
carlton.samuels at gmail.com
Thu Dec 9 21:55:09 UTC 2010
If I may be accommodated, I'm not sure that all of the issues Danny proposed
should be taken but I certainly endorse the idea of such a workshop.
Since the issues are indeed global, I would also suggest that the proposal
be sent to all regions for possible endorsement and, thus, a global
workshop.
Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 3:11 PM,
<na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org>wrote:
> Send NA-Discuss mailing list submissions to
> na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> na-discuss-request at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> na-discuss-owner at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of NA-Discuss digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Eric Brunner-Williams)
> 2. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Beau Brendler)
> 3. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Beau Brendler)
> 4. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Evan Leibovitch)
> 5. Re: Funded Workshop Proposal (Chris Grundemann)
> 6. Response to the ICANN Complaince Letter to Myself
> (Garth Bruen at KnujOn)
> 7. NCSG/consumer candidate constituency (Beau Brendler)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 07:02:54 -0500
> From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Message-ID: <4D00C56E.5010006 at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Danny,
>
> It is early in the morning, pre-coffee, but I know you appreciate
> prompt feedback, so I'm just looking at the topics, item 2, bullet
> items of the final paragraph.
>
> The list offered of topics the proposed workshop will consider is
> somewhat backwards looking, that is, some of the topics of
> consideration have been the subjects of past policy making efforts:
>
> o gaming by registrars
> o vertical integration
> o domain tasting
> o speculation and warehousing
> o front-running
>
> I'd like to cover new ground before the actual transition to
> delegation period is experienced for the cohort of new applications
> that will affect North American users of the DNS and the North
> American public interest.
>
> Eric
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:48:41 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
> From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
> To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>,
> na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Message-ID:
> <
> 14840407.1291898922048.JavaMail.root at mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> I think it's an excellent proposal, well-thought out. To the list of
> workshop items:
>
> ? whether the current process is amenable to gaming by registrars
> ? the risks to the consumer associated with Vertical Integration
> ? the possible re-emergence of the domain tasting phenomenon
> ? risks associated with the current lack of articulated graduated
> sanctions in the current Applicant Guidebook
> ? issues associated with the Independent Objector procedures
> ? the lack of any policy governing domain name speculation and/or
> warehousing by registrars
> ? front-running scenarios
> ? potential issues associated with pre-registration practices
>
> I might add: safety and stability issues potentially incurred by new
> "holes" in the DNS opened by new gTLD operators.
>
> As far as funding a workshop goes, I'm afraid I have no clue what money is
> available. Whatever is budgeted, though, should include a substantial amount
> for publicity, as you will want a strong attendance for a variety of
> reasons.
>
> Lastly, should the money not be available, we could take the workshop items
> above and fashion them into a NARALO statement we could present (whether
> ALAC supports it or not)
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com>
> >Sent: Dec 9, 2010 12:28 AM
> >To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >Cc: beaubrendler at earthlink.net, langdonorr at gmail.com
> >Subject: Funded Workshop Proposal
> >
> >Dear Beau and members of the NARALO:
> >
> >As I remain troubled by the consumer issues that may arise in conjunction
> with the launch of an unprecedented amount of new gTLDs, I have attached a
> proposal for your review.
> >
> >Feedback will be highly appreciated.
> >
> >Thanks,
> >Danny Younger
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 07:50:50 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
> From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
> To: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>,
> na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Message-ID:
> <
> 15060822.1291899051372.JavaMail.root at mswamui-thinleaf.atl.sa.earthlink.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> indeed, vertical integration may be off the table at this point. but we
> have heard several examples already of warehousing -- something Danny and I
> tried to bring to the attention of ICANN at least two years ago.
>
> there may be a separate PDP process for warehousing
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
> >Sent: Dec 9, 2010 7:02 AM
> >To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
> >
> >Danny,
> >
> >It is early in the morning, pre-coffee, but I know you appreciate
> >prompt feedback, so I'm just looking at the topics, item 2, bullet
> >items of the final paragraph.
> >
> >The list offered of topics the proposed workshop will consider is
> >somewhat backwards looking, that is, some of the topics of
> >consideration have been the subjects of past policy making efforts:
> >
> > o gaming by registrars
> > o vertical integration
> > o domain tasting
> > o speculation and warehousing
> > o front-running
> >
> >I'd like to cover new ground before the actual transition to
> >delegation period is experienced for the cohort of new applications
> >that will affect North American users of the DNS and the North
> >American public interest.
> >
> >Eric
> >------
> >NA-Discuss mailing list
> >NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> >
> >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> >------
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 08:10:28 -0500
> From: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
> To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
> Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTim=P22E246QLhwWkLshDUJZ68hHo0mQV2Sut+Xo at mail.gmail.com<P22E246QLhwWkLshDUJZ68hHo0mQV2Sut%2BXo at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> Hi Danny,
>
> This is all extremely useful. However I don't think it's appropriate to
> keep
> this within the region. For us to be effective in moving this worward as
> advice (to both polcy and implementation) it needs to be brought to the
> wider, global forum of At-Large. There is nothing in the propoal that is
> limited in scope to North America.
>
> As I hope you are aware, ALAC has already take taken an official (and
> unanimously endorsed) position that the current Applicant Guidebook is
> unacceptable and against the public good. As such, an opportunity to
> address
> deficiencies is both welcome an appropriate IMO.
>
> - Evan
>
>
> On 9 December 2010 07:50, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > indeed, vertical integration may be off the table at this point. but we
> > have heard several examples already of warehousing -- something Danny and
> I
> > tried to bring to the attention of ICANN at least two years ago.
> >
> > there may be a separate PDP process for warehousing
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > >From: Eric Brunner-Williams <ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net>
> > >Sent: Dec 9, 2010 7:02 AM
> > >To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
> > >
> > >Danny,
> > >
> > >It is early in the morning, pre-coffee, but I know you appreciate
> > >prompt feedback, so I'm just looking at the topics, item 2, bullet
> > >items of the final paragraph.
> > >
> > >The list offered of topics the proposed workshop will consider is
> > >somewhat backwards looking, that is, some of the topics of
> > >consideration have been the subjects of past policy making efforts:
> > >
> > > o gaming by registrars
> > > o vertical integration
> > > o domain tasting
> > > o speculation and warehousing
> > > o front-running
> > >
> > >I'd like to cover new ground before the actual transition to
> > >delegation period is experienced for the cohort of new applications
> > >that will affect North American users of the DNS and the North
> > >American public interest.
> > >
> > >Eric
> > >------
> > >NA-Discuss mailing list
> > >NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> > >
> > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> > >------
> >
> > ------
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> >
> > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> > ------
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:03:37 -0700
> From: Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at coisoc.org>
> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Funded Workshop Proposal
> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org>
> Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Message-ID:
> <AANLkTi=V_8w5oLNGQSwph-m4G5Sz7U+r8Ytv6MXFDoV7 at mail.gmail.com<V_8w5oLNGQSwph-m4G5Sz7U%2Br8Ytv6MXFDoV7 at mail.gmail.com>
> >
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 06:10, Evan Leibovitch <evan at telly.org> wrote:
> > Hi Danny,
> >
> > This is all extremely useful. However I don't think it's appropriate to
> keep
> > this within the region. For us to be effective in moving this worward as
> > advice (to both polcy and implementation) it needs to be brought to the
> > wider, global forum of At-Large. There is nothing in the propoal that is
> > limited in scope to North America.
>
> While the scope of the issues are not local to North America, their
> effects may be best understood from a regional viewpoint. Also,
> globally scoped workshops can make travel, coordination and cost much
> more onerous. I support the idea of this being a NARALO workshop and
> believe that having a regional focus will be beneficial.
>
> ~Chris
>
> > As I hope you are aware, ALAC has already take taken an official (and
> > unanimously endorsed) position that the current Applicant Guidebook is
> > unacceptable and against the public good. As such, an opportunity to
> address
> > deficiencies is both welcome an appropriate IMO.
> >
> > - Evan
> > ------
> > NA-Discuss mailing list
> > NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
> >
> > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> > ------
> >
>
> --
> @ChrisGrundemann
> weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
> www.burningwiththebush.com
> www.coisoc.org
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:09:21 -0700
> From: "Garth Bruen at KnujOn" <gbruen at knujon.com>
> Subject: [NA-Discuss] Response to the ICANN Complaince Letter to
> Myself
> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Message-ID:
> <
> 20101209120921.4ea5342b4f0c5bb9c50429b56f1eb1a7.80a08b7150.wbe at email13.secureserver.net
> >
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Folks,
>
> I have just sent a response to Stacy Burnette's public letter to
> me(http://www.icann.org/en/correspondence/burnette-to-bruen-08dec10-en.pdf
> ).
> As many of you know the issues I have been raising were reported in June
> to compliance staff. I note that response from Ms. Burnette is welcomed
> because it is all we asked for originally, a declaration from the
> department of what is compliant and what is non-compliant.
>
> -Garth
>
>
> ###################################################################
> Dear Ms. Burnette,
>
> Thank you for your response, albeit in an unexpected location, in the
> ICANN Compliance pages. To my knowledge, this is the first time a
> non-contracted party has been admonished within the Compliance area; I
> will consider it a distinction. While I would encourage a robust debate,
> a direct response to the report by ICANN press relations or a
> ?counter-point? rebuttal article at the venue (CricleID) would have
> been expected. Using the Compliance area to address a public reporter in
> a similar manner as non-compliant Registrars may set a dangerous
> precedent for your office. Alternatively, it may provide a path to
> transparency as more responses to public complaints are posted in this
> space.
>
> I am disappointed in the fact that only ?nine registrars appeared
> non-compliant? is being celebrated when all nine violations were
> reported to compliance staff nearly six months ago. That only now is
> ICANN following up with the normal process is an embarrassment.
>
> As for some particular items cited in your response, there are problems
> with what you consider ?inaccurate.? First, the termination COMPANA
> LLC is not posted publicly within the Compliance area at ICANN.ORG so it
> would be impossible for us to know it was a moot issue. Additionally,
> the lack of this public disclosure points to a deficit in transparency.
>
> Until recently, the InterNIC directory listed the home page of YNOT
> DOMAINS as ?myorderbox.com?, which is still an inoperable site. The
> clarification is suitable.
>
> As for ONLINENIC, this is a more serious situation. Their address is not
> readily available on their site, nor is listed at "contact us", "company
> info", "support" or "about us.? Buried within the site is this
> address: ?909 Marina Village Pkwy #236 Alameda, CA? which is a UPS
> box and the third purported California address for ONLINENIC in as many
> years. ONLINENIC?s first purported address was determined to be an
> empty lot. The second purported address is associated with a business
> registration which has been suspended by the California Secretary of
> State. ONLINENIC?s real address is likely: ?7F International Trade
> Building, 388 South Hubin Road, Xiamen China? which is far from
> California?s Bay Area. While ICANN considers this compliance some
> would call it concealment and others an effort of anti-transparency.
>
> As for the remainder, there is no correction required since they did not
> display their address. The theme of our article concerns the slow pace
> of disclosure. The fact that these Registrars, by your admission, are
> party to a contract ten-year?s out of date and apparently excluded
> from ICANN consensus policies. Once again, the apparent success touted
> in your memo is that Compliance has no power over their contracted
> parties in this area. While it may temporarily be seen a failure of
> Garth Bruen, it is in fact a serious loss for the whole community.
>
> In response to your question about reinstated Registrars I point to the
> termination reversal of A Technology Company, of which you are already
> aware. A Technology co. was issued a non-renewal by ICANN on June 30,
> 2010 for failure to pay accreditation fees. The termination was reversed
> thirteen days later after the fee was paid. As you will recall they were
> still manipulating the WHOIS record for their website and not posting
> the business address after being accredited under the 2009 RAA. They
> were in fact non-compliant for a month and this was only corrected
> because KnujOn raised the issue. Incidentally, A Technology co. was
> allowed to cure its breaches after approximately 61 days which is well
> beyond the 15-day period stated in the RAA. As another example I would
> point to Naugus Limited LLC (naugus.com), a Registrar terminated in 2009
> (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-goodwin-09oct09-en.pdf)
> which has apparently been re-instated and accredited under the new RAA.
> If they are in fact accredited they are in violation of RAA 3.3.1 for
> linking their WHOIS to a third-party paid WHOIS service. As you stated
> all prior to renewal Registrar?s websites are checked for compliance,
> but this issue was apparently overlooked.
>
> While you consider our claims about Registrar terminations being mostly
> related to money ?baseless?, I invite you to review the 14
> terminations from 2010. Thirteen we terminated chiefly for failure to
> pay fees. One, as you mentioned, was terminated for insolvency.
> Insolvency is the inability to pay debts, hence their inability to pay
> ICANN accreditation fees. Yes, there are other violations cited and
> breach notices issued for additional problems, but the outcome of these
> breach notices is not made public regularly which is why the only
> terminable violation remains failure to pay fees.
>
> Regretfully, I must also cite that address disclosure is but one problem
> area reported to compliance staff by KnujOn nearly six-months ago. To
> reiterate some of the issues (sent separately yesterday) we are
> concerned about:
>
> (A) Registrars without Apparent Functioning Web-Based WHOIS
>
> ?3.3.1 At its expense, Registrar shall provide an interactive web page
> and a port 43 Whois service providing free public query-based access to
> up-to-date (i.e., updated at least daily) data concerning all active
> Registered Names sponsored by Registrar for each TLD in which it is
> accredited.?
>
> EnetRegistry, Inc. (enetregistry.net): Website does not resolve
> New Great Domains, Inc.(newgreatdomains.com): No content
> VocalSpace LLC (DesktopDomainer.com): ?Login Screen? Only
> Premium Registrations Sweden AB (premiumregistrations.com): Login screen
> only
> Alfena, LLC (alfena.com): Links to Domaintools.com ? a paid WHOIS
> service
>
> The following Registrars have a ?Domain Look-up? service which only
> reveals whether or not the domain is available, this is not a WHOIS
> service:
> Add2Net Inc. (lunarpages.com)
> Bottle Domains, Inc. (bottledomains.com.au)
> Digitrad France (digitrad.com)
> DomainSpa LLC (domainspa.com)
> NetRegistry Pty Ltd. (netregistry.com)
> Nominalia Internet S.L. (nominalia.com)
> Sedo.com LLC (sedo.com)
>
> We could not locate the web-based WHOIS engine for these Registrars
> Porting Access B.V. (portingxs.com)
> VentureDomains, Inc. (upc360.com)
> Verelink, Inc. (verelink.com)
> Hosting.com, Inc. (Hosting.com)
> Zog Media, Inc. (zognames.com)
>
> Domainz Limited (domainz.com): Returns: "Your request could not be
> completed", see below
> And Autica Domain Services Inc. (autica.com): Only thin WHOIS.
>
>
> (B) Registrars Not Displaying Fees and Deletion Policies
>
> ?3.7.5.5 If Registrar operates a website for domain name registration
> or renewal, details of Registrar's deletion and auto-renewal policies
> must be clearly displayed on the website.?
>
> ?3.7.5.6 If Registrar operates a website for domain registration or
> renewal, it should state, both at the time of registration and in a
> clear place on its website, any fee charged for the recovery of a domain
> name during the Redemption Grace Period.?
>
> Domain Services Rotterdam BV (tellus.com): Only reseller information
> available
> Premium Registrations Sweden AB (premiumregistrations.com): Policies not
> posted, ?member login?
> UltraRPM, Inc.(metapredict.com): No conspicuous terms link
> VentureDomains, Inc. (upc360.com): Policies not posted
> Zog Media, Inc. (zognames.com): No conspicuous terms/policy link
>
>
> (C) Terminated Registrars Still Selling gTLD Domains and/or Claiming
> Accreditation
>
> AfterGen, Inc. dba JumpingDot (jumpingdot.com) was terminated by ICANN
> June 10, 2009
> (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-bourov-10jun09.pdf) but
> is still claiming ICANN accreditation.
>
> Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd. (leadnetworks.com) was issued a letter
> of Non-Renewal
> (http://www.icann.org/correspondence/burnette-to-malik-14jul09-en.pdf)
> on July 14, 2009. Are they still in court-ordered receivership? They are
> not listed in the InterNIC directory.
>
> Broadspire Inc. (broadspire.com) has not been listed in the directory
> for some time and while there is no termination document there is a note
> on an ICANN page that Broadspire is ?NO LONGER ACCREDITED?. However,
> this company still sells gTLDs and claims ICANN accreditation.
>
> In conclusion, I also hope this is constructive as I am concerned about
> what appears, from outside ICANN, to be the disintegration of
> compliance.
>
>
> Sincerely and seriously, Garth Bruen
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2010 15:10:25 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
> From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
> Subject: [NA-Discuss] NCSG/consumer candidate constituency
> To: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Message-ID:
> <
> 8393718.1291925426003.JavaMail.root at elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
>
> FYI
>
> Some forward progress
>
> -----Forwarded Message-----
> >From: Avri Doria <avri at LTU.SE>
> >Sent: Dec 9, 2010 2:57 PM
> >To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> >Subject: Welcoming Beau Brendler
> >
> >Hi,
> >
> >The NCSG-EC has unanimously decided to accept Beau Brendler's application
> for individual membership in the NCSG per the charter approved by the NCSG
> on 12 June 2010.
> >
> >Please join me in welcoming Beau to the NCSG. He has been subscribed to
> this list.
> >
> >I would also like to take this opportunity to inform you all that Beau and
> Alex have decided to combine their initiatives, the Consumer Constituency
> and the Consumer Interest Group, into a single Candidate Constituency.
> Rosemary,as the vice-chair of the NCSG-EC and the Board Council appointee
> with responsibility of bringing consumer affairs issues to the GNSO, will be
> working with them to make this happen as soon and as smoothly as possible.
> >
> >I must, personally, indicate how very happy I am about this decision on
> the part of these NCSG members.
> >
> >Best Regard from Cartagena de Indias.
> >
> >a.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss
>
>
> End of NA-Discuss Digest, Vol 50, Issue 12
> ******************************************
>
More information about the NA-Discuss
mailing list