| John Berryhill ( )|
ccTLDs and US Anti-Terror Measures (Reporting Session, 9:40:01 AM, #1385)
Does ICANN, a US corporation, intend to maintain delegation of the .ly ccTLD to an organization in Libya, given that the performance of service contracts with entities in Libya is prohibited by US anti-terrorism regulations at 31 CFR 550 et seq.?
Can ICANN engage in negotiations with governments designated by the US Treasury Department Office of Foreign Assets Control?
| Jon Zittrain (Berkman Center)|
ICANN's role in registrar accountability (Open Microphone on other topics, 11:14:57 AM, #1386)
Last July I transferred a domain name from NSI/Verisign to another registrar.
Since then I've gotten regular notices from Verisign that tell me, inaccurately, that it is only by their grace that the name hasn't been turned off, and that it will be disabled unless I pay up. It's easy enough for me, as an alert consumer, to simply ignore these blandishments/threats, but I'd guess a lot of consumers, or businesses where there is a diffusion of responsibility, believe such warnings and pay twice for the same name, transferring the registration back to Verisign.
This doesn't seem fair, and while it may simply be a mistake, I'm curious to know what role ICANN plays in monitoring the range of mistakes which make $ in the mistaken registrar's favor. Is this a sort of matter for ICANN to take up under its registrar accreditation agreements, or is it to be handled through standard consumer protection laws?
| daniel karrenberg ( )|
(Open Microphone on DNS security/stability, 11:32:15 AM, #1387)
There appears to be rough consensus that many of them on the US east cost can be improved. The board have requested a study to help them select possible alternative locations. This is a hard problem and the board may not receive an answer making this decision easy. But the board needs to be be prepared to make a decision in order not to fail by indecision. My personal guidance: the most important element is the operator of the server. Obviously you want to look for capability and competence. More importantly you want to look for dedication to provide high quality service; on this critical level I firmly believe you cannot get or enforce this by contracts. You also want to look for independence from
particular interests and most of all you want to look for diversity of the group of operators. The current group of operators has been selected by Jon Postel and the success of that selection is one of his legacies. The board needs to take good care of this.
| Joop Teernstra (IDNO)|
Names Council Task Force (Open Microphone on other topics, 2:18:47 PM, #1388)
Further to the remarks of the GA Chair:
I want to convey to the Board strong dissatisfaction with the task force that the Names Council has created to address DNSO reforms, with regards to criteria and questions asked from prospective new constituencies. (i.c. the Individual DN holders)
Such questions have been answered on the firstname.lastname@example.org , but they have NOT been acknowledged in the final report of the Task Force, for presentation to the Board.
I would like to ask the Board to question the NC Chair on this point.
| Judith Oppenheimer (http://ICBTollFreeNews.com)|
ALSC (Open Microphone on other topics, 2:53:20 PM, #1389)
On November 8th ICANN President Stuart Lynn held a press conference, during which he said, and I quote, "No decision could be taken on the ALSC. ICANN's ByLaws require a period for comment from it's Supporting Organizations and that would be the case whatever the agenda next week."
Did I just hear Dr. Cerf say that a decision would be taken today, whether on the "basics" or the details of the report? What about Mr. Lynn's assurance of November 8th that no decision would be taken?
All times are Marina del Rey (GMT -7)This file is automatically generated.