evan at telly.org
Mon Jun 6 17:54:26 UTC 2011
If such "services" are offered by non-parties, there's little ICANN can do
about them -- especially if the agents aren't mis-representing themselves as
If a registry applicant wants to sue such agents, or if national anti-fraud
enforcement is to get involved, taht's fine but these are outside our scope
of being able to affect.
A "pre-registrant beware" information campaign (similar to what the FTC did)
might be the best that we can ask for that ICANN itself is able to do -- and
even that is IMO a poor appropriation of limited resources when so many
legitimate At-Large needs go unfunded.
I personally see zero interest in this from the end-user (ie,
non-registrant) perspective. Here as in any form of speculation, the onus is
on the speculator to determine the authenticity of where they're putting
their risk. If there's fraud going on, that is a police matter. If there's
no fraud, it's not (and must not be) the role of ICANN to reduce the risk of
Either way, this is distracting (and IMO unwelcome) mission creep for ICANN
At-Large. Perhaps it could be taken up by the GNSO user house.
On 6 June 2011 13:10, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net> wrote:
> Eric B-W wrote:
> "offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to registry
> application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the
> targeted registry application projects, for which they have private
> After three years in ALAC, I don't recall this topic coming up, or the ALAC
> making a statement on it.
> I would support drafting a statement that pre-registrations in this mode
> are contrary to public interest -- though as chair I don't want to step
> forward and do that without some discussion and consensus.
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net
> >Sent: Jun 6, 2011 9:50 AM
> >To: dannyyounger at yahoo.com
> >Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
> >I do not know if the ALAC offered advice to the Board on the subject at
> >some prior point in time.
> >Similarly, I do not know if the ALAC has offered advice to the FTC or any
> >other agency of a political jurisdiction on the subject at some prior
> >in time.
> >If so, then I suppose that the ALAC advice can be checked for currency and
> >either updated and referenced, or if current, simply referenced again.
> >Application projects like the 2004 Catalan project, or the 2000
> >project, should engage in communications to their prospective communities,
> >as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for
> >is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com"
> >How close pre-application communications offering pre-service information,
> >and of necessity, to meet the ICANN direct fee and additional costs which
> >are identified in the current DAG, also solliciting participation, whether
> >unconditional, or in exchange for some current value, or expectation, can
> >come to "pre-registration" of a hypothetical, I can't speculate upon.
> >The United Domains campaign is clearly not an instance of a single
> >project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany,
> >Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their
> >I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff
> >to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current
> >contract, but I think offers of "pre-registration" by non-parties to
> >application projects are contrary to the public interest, and may harm the
> >targeted registry application projects, for which they have private
> >NA-Discuss mailing list
> >NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org
More information about the NA-Discuss