[NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations, next week's call, other issues

[Eduardo Diaz]

Beau:

I can make the call in the morning (EST). Just let us know. Thursday I am
going to be in transit to Singapore.

By the way, I did not see the note about Marc resigning.

-ed

On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 9:29 AM, Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>wrote:

> Greetings.
>
> 1. I am assuming everyone saw the note yesterday about Marc Rotenberg's
> resignation from his nom com slot on ALAC. I think this is a big loss to us
> and to the effort of improving relations with the NCSG/UC but we all know
> what it's like not to have enough time for this work.
>
> 2. I see some consensus over the past week on the possibility of sending a
> brief statement to ICANN on the pre-registration matter that, in effect,
> suggests it take a similar action to what was done a few years back, i.e., a
> sort of "consumer alert" (though the intended audience really would be
> businesses and entities interested in gTLDs). If so I will attempt to draft
> something brief over the next 24 hours and send it to the list for a quick
> round of feedback. If someone else would rather do that, let me know.
>
> 3. I believe there is a NA-RALO call scheduled for early next week. I will
> only be available to do that early Monday EST (say during the 9 a.m. to 12
> noon slot), but not again until Thursday, as I will be in transit to
> Singapore. Please let me know what you would like to do -- reschedule call,
> cancel, etc.
>
> 4. Don't forget that it would be very helpful for us attending the
> Singapore meeting to have some input from all of you on policy issues. I
> have collected what has been said so far (some of it ranging to issues
> outside policy development, such as recruitment), but there's certainly room
> for more requests/input.
>
> 5. I was not able to attend the recent call to discuss the budget. I
> believe we have had a chance to review the document -- NA-RALO got basically
> $5K to do a survey/study and another $1K to produce a recruitment video for
> YouTube and other venues -- all the other requests were turned down. We can
> communicate some more about whether it would be a good idea to try to
> convene an NARALO general assembly at the Toronto meeting, as there should
> be some travel funds to spare -- a number of us are within cheap travel
> distance from there.
>
> More when I have a chance...
>
> Beau
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> >From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler at earthlink.net>
> >Sent: Jun 6, 2011 1:10 PM
> >To: ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net, dannyyounger at yahoo.com
> >Cc: na-discuss at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Pre-registrations
> >
> >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
> redress."
> >
> >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
> >>
> >>Danny,
> >>
> >>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
> point
> >>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
> Cooperatives
> >>project, should engage in communications to their prospective
> communities,
> >>as the default, the current situation, and still a problem for
> cooperatives,
> >>is that no practical alternative exists to Verisign's for-profit "com"
> label.
> >>
> >>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
> application
> >>project, or a cooperating group such as ECLID (Scotland, Wales, Brittany,
> >>Galacia, and the Autonomous Basque Region) communicating to their
> respective
> >>communities.
> >>
> >>I'm not optimistic concerning ICANN's current CEO instructing staff
> counsel
> >>to make a determination that "pre-registration" volates the current
> registrar
> >>contract, but I think 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
> redress.
> >>
> >>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
> ------
>



-- 
NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only
for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If
you have received this communication by error, please notify us immediately
by e-mail, and delete the original message.