Page History

...

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^{Image Removed}
  • 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^{Image Removed}
  • 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^{Image Removed}
  • APRALO - at https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?23_december_2008^{Image Removed}
  • EURALO - at https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_09_december_2008^{Image Removed}
  • LACRALO - at https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?18_december_2008^{Image Removed}
  • NARALO - at https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?15_december_2008^{Image Removed}

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

...

> For more information, please see: ALAC WHOIS Discussion 13 January 2009 and https://st.icann.org/gnso-council/index.cgi?whois_discussion^{Image Removed}

• Registration Abuse Drafting Team and possible PDP

...

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#^{Image Removed} (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?

...

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^{Image Removed}

Danny

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2009-01-05 21:16:14 GMT

...

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^{Image Removed}

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2009-01-08 01:07:56 GMT

...

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.

See:

http://www.thedomains.com/2009/01/06/the-org-registry-adopts-anti-abuse-policy-allows-for-domain-cancellation/^{Image Removed}http://opensrs.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=30^{Image Removed}http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=97280^{Image Removed}http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=91572^{Image Removed}

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
provider:

http://www.informationweek.com/news/internet/google/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212700927&subSection=All+Stories^{Image Removed}

If a similar policy was in place for .com, would VeriSign have the
discretion to delete Google.com?

...

There are numerous other "false positives" stories that we've discussed
previously in the fast-flux working group:

http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/^{Image Removed}

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.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos http://www.leap.com/^{Image Removed}

It would be appreciated ith the ALAC could undertake discussions on this topic with all due haste.
Thanks,
Danny

...

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^{Image Removed}
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^{Image Removed}

contributed by guest@socialtext.net on 2009-01-08 20:33:44 GMT

...

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^{Image Removed}

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^{Image Removed}

We look forward to further ALAC member participation in this endeavor.

...

Danny, PIR have posted some details of their policy http://blog.pir.org/?p=108^{Image Removed}
Suggest we take this to Mexico and ask for a meeting with PIR to make sure ALAC's satisfied. OK?

...