ALAC Monthly Teleconference
Meeting Number: AL.ALAC/CC.0901/1
Date: Tuesday, 13 January 2009
Time: 1230-1400 UTC
(For the time in various timezones click here)
Interpretation Available: Yes (EN, FR, ES - Simultaneous)
Who is on the dial-out list for this call?
Participants ALAC: C Langdon-Orr, A Greenberg, S Bachollet, V Scartezini, A Peake, , P Vande Walle , B Brendler, F Seye Sylla, C Aguirre, J Ovidio Salgueiro (joined at 1400 UTC)
Apologies: H Diakite, W Ludwig
Absent: V Vivekandan, R Guerra, TH Nguyen (technical reasons), M El Bashir
Liaisons: W Seltzer, A Piazza
Guests: Liz Gasster
Staff: H Ullrich, M Langenegger, MH Bouchoms
Summary Minutes: 13 January 2009 Summary Minutes
Action Items: 13 January 2009 Action Items
Transcription (EN): 13 January 2009 Transcription
A G E N D A
Standing Agenda Items
- Adoption of the Agenda – 1 min
- Roll Call Apologies from Members (if any) - 1 min
- Adoption of the 09 December 2008 Summary Minutes
- Review of the 09 December 2008 Action Items - 8 mins
- Review of current status of ALS applications (Google Docs account needed to access) - 5 mins
The Application from Knujon is ready for adoption. The Due Dilligence form and the regional advise for this applicatioin have been sent to the ALAC-internal list on December 24, 2008.
- ExCom Report
- Liaison reports
Note: There will be no discussion of liaison reports during the meeting; these links are by way of information only. Any Liaison who wishes a discussion to take place on an item related to their brief, or has an item for which a decision is required, is to use this wiki to edit the sections under Items for Decision, or Items for Discussion, as relevant.
- IDN Report - at https://st.icann.org/idn-policy/index.cgi?liaison_monthly_report
- Board Liaison Report - Report 13 January 2009, ICANN Board Liaison
- ccNSO Report - ccnso liaison
- NCUC - Report 13 January 2009, https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?ncuc_liaison
- SSAC - SSAC Liaison
- GNSO Liaison report 13-01-2009
- dotMOBI Liaison Reports
9. Working Group Reports: (Please insert below)
10. RALO Reports: (may be inserted below)
- AFRALO - at https://st.icann.org/afralo/index.cgi?07_january_2009
- APRALO - at https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?23_december_2008
- EURALO - at https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_09_december_2008
- LACRALO - at https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?18_december_2008
- NARALO - at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?15_december_2008
11. Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting
12. Ratification and Status of ALAC Statements (see Decision Items below)
13. Update on recent summit activities - Summit WG participants
Items for Decision at This Meeting:
- Proposal to move the monthly ALAC Meeting from the second Tuesday of the month at 1230 UTC to the 4th Tuesday. If accepted, please use the meeting planer to help find the most suitable time.
- Proposal that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively represented within the GNSO.
The chairs of ALAC and GNSO propose the following: nominate 14 people, approximately 5-7 from each, to work out a proposal that can be
brought to the GNSO and ALAC and then passed on to the Board when it is agreed upon by both organisations. This can be done in two stages 1st
the terms of reference, activity time line, etc. should be done by the 24th of Janaury with a request to the Board for an extension of time
to complete the planned activities to accompany this interim report (or to follow).
- ALAC Statement on the new gTLD Applicant Guidebook (see resource_page_for_alac_statement_on_new_gtld_guidebook
- What are the most useful issues to discuss at the joint SO/AC meeting in Mexico? Each ICANN constituency can propose 3 - 5 essential topics (see current results of the 2nd At-Large summit survey regarding issues of interest to ALSes)
Interim%20Results%20of%202nd%20Survey%20(1-12-09).pdf (PDF)(please note that the lower the number of total votes, the higher the issue is ranked)
Items for Discussion
- Draft ALAC comment on the PSC
- GNSO Whois Study (Liz Gasster will make herself available from 13:50 UTC onwards)
> For more information, please see: ALAC WHOIS Discussion 13 January 2009 and https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion
Any Other Business
- Review of the current ALAC WG's in terms of nomenclature, function, and structure including membership and leads. See: at large policy working groups
Reference Materials for Review
What is the process for adding additional items to the Agenda?
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-12-28 15:18:18 GMT
I suggest Danny, that you write here your items and all the ALAC members will be able to see them.
contributed by email@example.com on 2008-12-29 13:03:54 GMT
Sebastien, please endeavor to get this item on the agenda.
Topic: Proposed Letter to the Board
Dear members of the Board,
An ICANN-accredited registrar, OnlineNic, has been found guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction of cybersquatting (violations of the U.S. Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act); the court has awarded a $33.15 million judgment. OnlineNic currently has almost 1.2 million domain names under management and the registrant community must be protected from the inevitable impending demise of this registrar (who still faces additional lawsuits from Yahoo! and Microsoft). We are of the view that ICANN should send a strong message that (1) cybersquatting will never be tolerated and that (2) registrants will always be protected, by immediately invoking section 188.8.131.52 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and terminating OnlineNic’s accreditation. We ask you to commence bulk transfer arrangements in order to shift all registrations away from OnlineNic to a more suitable registrar.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-12-30 01:30:04 GMT
Topic: Continued Violations of Consensus Policy by GoDaddy
There is nothing more disgusting than watching ICANN doing nothing in the face of continued ongoing violations of Consensus Policy by a major registrar. On the Radio GoDaddy show CEO Bob Parsons and his General Counsel Christine Williams discuss their firm's deliberate violations of the Consensus Policy on Inter-Registrar Tranfers – see http://bp.bobparsons.com/gdshop/bp/show.asp?ci=9963# (the 12-17 segment featuring Andrew Alleman of Domain Name Wire – the discussion starts at 15 minutes and 30 seconds into the segment). Registrants expect the rules to be enforced (no matter who is breaking the rules). Will the ALAC ever speak out about this abuse and defend the registrant community? ...or will it continue to bury its head in the sand?
contributed by email@example.com on 2008-12-30 15:54:19 GMT
Issues to be raised at the ICANN Board Meeting: Transparency
The bylaws state: "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner and consistent with procedures designed to ensure fairness."
The BC never had a transparent publicly-archived list. The registries have never had a transparent list. We have seen the registrars move their discussions to a private non-transparent forum. The IPC no longer has a transparent discussion list. This situation does not exemplify operating "to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner"; instead it demonstrates a willingness on the part of ICANN constituencies to flagrantly disregard the bylaws. We expect ICANN to get its house in order. It would be appropriate to ask the Board to show its resolve not to re-certify any ICANN constituency that has failed to demonstrate a maximum effort to ensure transparency.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2008-12-30 16:32:30 GMT
Topic: URGENT – ALAC action required
"Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies to jointly develop a recommendation for the composition and organizational structure of a Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group that does not duplicate the ALAC and its supporting structures, yet ensures that the gTLD interests of individual Internet users (along with the broader non-commercial community) are effectively represented within the GNSO. This recommendation should be submitted no later than 24 January 2009 for consideration by the Board."
As of the ALAC's meeting date, the ALAC will have only 11 days to come up with a plan for a NCSG Charter, and this plan must be the result of collaboration with GNSO community members and constituency-in-formation representatives. When do you plan to get started? ...or will the ALAC just ignore yet another deadline? You know, for a group that promised to act as a "facilitator" on GNSO improvement matters, you sure haven't done much facilitation.
Please let us know what you plan to do and by when so that the members of the NARALO's WG on New Constituencies may be kept informed.
contributed by email@example.com on 2008-12-30 17:10:01 GMT
Topic: PSC comments
To engender discussion, you may wish to review the GAC Comments on the PSC Report 2 November 2008 – see http://open.nat.gov.tw/OpenFront/report/show_file.jsp?sysId=C09702989&fileNo=007
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-01-05 21:16:14 GMT
> RE :Topic: URGENT – ALAC action required
> "Resolved, (2008-12-11-02) the Board requests that members of the GNSO community work with members of the ALAC/At-Large community and representatives of potential new "non-commercial" constituencies
I cannot find any formal notification to the ALAC about this. It looks indeed difficult to participate in such a process on a short notice. How can we fix the processes so that the ALAC is actually informed on what it is expected to act on ?
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-01-06 11:27:39 GMT
Regarding informing the ALAC, there are several tools in place to make sure that the ALAC is informed:
1. The ALAC has Staff Support and we should be expecting the Staff to attend to their duties.
2. The ALAC has a board liaison who should be keeping the ALAC informed of board resolutions.
3. The ALAC has a GNSO liaison and the board resolution was indeed posted to the GNSO Council list (by board member Tonkin).
4. The ALAC has an Executive Committee that should be placing important matters onto the Agenda.
5. The ALAC has fifteen members that as user representatives should be alert to ICANN proceedings.
6. ICANN does post the board minutes and we are all aware of the board's meeting schedule.
Presumably, no one on the board thought that the ALAC required spoon-feeding.
Perhaps the ALAC will need to inform the board that they are incapable of paying attention, and require the benefit of a more aggressive notification process.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-01-06 20:45:09 GMT
Reminder: GNSO WHOIS Studies
The ALAC now has 7 days left within which to submit WHOIS Studies preferences (feasibility/priority) to the GNSO Working Group (otherwise the views of the ALAC will be disregarded). Thus far the NCUC and Registrars have entered zero values for each proposed study (as they do not wish these studies to proceed) while the BC and Registries have chosen to rank their choices; the IPC, ISPCP, GAC and NomCom reps have also not yet tendered a submission. The latest spreadsheet documenting community views may be seen at https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-01-08 01:07:56 GMT
Message of concern posted to the GA list:
PIR's anti-abuse policy for .org offers no due process for innocent domain registrants
PIR, the registry operator for .org, has sent notices to registrars
that it is implementing an anti-abuse policy similar to that of .info
that has previously been discussed on this mailing list and elsewhere.
http://www.thedomains.com/2009/01/06/the-org-registry-adopts-anti-abuse-policy-allows-for-domain-cancellation/ http://opensrs.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=30 http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=97280 http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=91572
While it's good intentioned, there is great potential for innocent
domain registrants to suffer harm, given the lack of appropriate
safeguards, the lack of precision and open-ended definition of "abuse",
the sole discretion of the registry operator to delete domains, and the
general lack of due process.
For example, Google was just ranked the third worst spam service
If a similar policy was in place for .com, would VeriSign have the
discretion to delete Google.com?
Wikipedia.org was blacklisted in the UK recently (and temporarily) for
allegations of hosting child pornography, due to a hosted image of an
There are numerous other "false positives" stories that we've discussed
previously in the fast-flux working group:
PIR has proceeded unilaterally without the input of the public, and
also without regard to the GNSO which is contemplating a PDP for abuse
policies, one that would likely lead to a far more balanced policy that
protects registrants while still permitting the worst abusers to be
targeted. Graduated measures like suspension make more sense than
domain deletions, for example. The age of the domain should be taken
into account (the most abuse comes from freshly registered domains).
With registry operators actively seeking tiered-pricing for domains,
their first goal would be to get it for new registrations, as opposed
to renewals. If they were allowed to get tiered-pricing for new
registrations, there would be a financial incentive to delete the
domains of innocent registrants, as it would be a backdoor way of
increasing their income from the best already-registered domains.
This represents a failure of ICANN when registry operators proceed in
an ad hoc manner, rather than looking out for the interests and safety
of millions of legitimate registrants.
George Kirikos http://www.leap.com/
It would be appreciated ith the ALAC could undertake discussions on this topic with all due haste.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-01-08 17:10:31 GMT
ALAC, Europe & Addressing Policy
The ALAC likes to point out that it's remit goes far beyond the GNSO... so here's an opportunity to get discussion started on addressing policy:
An article written by Harold Feld (NCUC) discusses the new RIPE-NCC policy that allows IPv4 holders to buy and sell their allocations – see http://www.wetmachine.com/item/1428
Perhaps the ALAC would like to weigh in on this policy. Interestingly enough, the NCUC's Milton Mueller has a somewhat different take on the matter – see http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2008/12/20/4029818.html
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-01-08 20:33:44 GMT
Report of the NARALO New Constituencies Working Group:
A consensus emerged at the 15 December 2008 monthly North American Regional At-Large Organization (NARALO) conference call to form a working group tasked with exploring the possibility of launching two new constituencies within the proposed NonCommercial Stakeholders Group (NCSG) of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO), namely (1) a constituency for registrants, and (2) a constituency for consumer groups.
The Working Group’s charter was established and a 72-day timeline was set to meet the objectives of the Working Group. The WG is currently in the outreach phase of its endeavors and over 300 personal invitations were initially sent out soliciting participation, with more invitations scheduled to be sent during the coming week. The Working Group currently has 36 members and over 100 messages have been exchanged in the last 3 weeks. Thus far, working group efforts have resulted in Staff having produced an ICANN announcement pointing to constituency formation efforts – see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-08jan09-en.htm
Further information on the activities of the Working Group may be found at this URL: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/new-constituencies_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2008-December/000001.html
We look forward to further ALAC member participation in this endeavor.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-01-10 13:50:40 GMT
Danny, PIR have posted some details of their policy http://blog.pir.org/?p=108
Suggest we take this to Mexico and ask for a meeting with PIR to make sure ALAC's satisfied. OK?
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-01-13 04:23:42 GMT
I volunteer to join the ALAC/GNSO group working on the new Non-Commercial Stakeholder Group structure. We should also ask the GNSO chair to tell us how individuals can participate in the commercial SG. ALAC is not exclusively non-commercial. Should ensure individuals have the same rights in both stakeholder groups.
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-01-13 04:28:11 GMT
Adam, we don't need to wait until Mexico. We can certainly pick up the telephone to individual PIR Advisory Council members or write an email or arrange a conference call. Most of you should personally know the members of the PIR AC: Hans Peter Dittler, Sebastian Ricciardi, Sadiq Hussain, Angela Siefer, Jaechul Sir, Dave Kissoondoyal, John Zoltner, Frans Gerbosch, Khaled Koubaa,
Milton Mueller, Oscar Robles-Garay, Ala'a Al-Din Kadhem Al-Radhi, Marc Blanchet, George Sadowsky, Dr. Shian-Shyong Tseng, Shahram Soboutipour. Why does ALAC action always need to be delayed?
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-01-13 12:50:07 GMT
Who put up all the bogus liaison links? I am not seeing a current NCUC report or board report (instead I'm seeing a June 2007 board liason report and a page that doesn't indicate that Beau Brendler is the current NCUC liaison). What's going on here?
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-01-13 13:11:14 GMT
Is that Danny asking "we don't need to wait until Mexico"
Are you (and George) satisfied or somewhat satisfied with PIR's blog response. I thought the answer gave enough assurance to remove the immediate concerns of George's email, etc. So talking direct to PIR about this, asking them to clarify and note the policy online, seems something to discuss. I was once on the PIR advisory council and unless things have changed much would prefer to talk direct to PIR staff.
contributed by email@example.com on 2009-01-13 14:45:01 GMT
sorry, that was me asking Danny a question, I thought I was logged in... Adam
contributed by firstname.lastname@example.org on 2009-01-13 14:48:47 GMT