who in different countries will support the AL... (At Large Study Committee Report, 9:29:09 AM, #1330)
who in different countries will support the AL election process?
Can you suggest this to ISOC chapters, ccTLDA, ISP associations, etc?
We can't make Internauts vote, as can't democratic governments have 99.99 % voters activity, as we did in the past, under communism.
After all, one of the basic rights is the right to choose. And choosing not to use this right, is also a choice.
Reduction of number of BD seats (At Large Study Committee Report, 9:38:28 AM, #1331)
Both the MOU and bylaws mandate nine board seats based on the fact that there are a total of nineteen board seats.
How do you reconcile reducing the number to six in violation of both of those documents and the overwhelming opposition of the at-large community?
(At Large Study Committee Report, 10:17:50 AM, #1332)
Although I have a car, I can understand why those who do not, would want to have a voice in the traffic rules about what cars can and cannot do. Similarly, though I have some domains, I do understand that 'users' who do not (for whatever reason), need a voice in domain name policy. Not to mention IP, protocols, and depending topics. No land, not vote?
ALSO vs. IC (DNSO) (At Large Study Committee Report, 10:38:42 AM, #1333)
Pindar,
Do you see the proposed ALSO as a body which negates the need for an Individual's Constituency within the Domain Name Support Organization?
The success of .info Sunrise!!! (Issues and process for evaluation of new TLDs, 10:57:31 AM, #1334)
Number 1 on this list has admitted that his "Sunrise" registrations were all faruds.
Afilias and ICANN have to explain and be accountable to the Internet community at large
and the "Landrush" participants who were defrauded out of hundreds of thousands of dollars
lost in good faith to a process that is rife with bad faith and bad management.....
1 Konrad Plankenstein - Tiscover 4981
2 C J Lovik 360
3 Siegfried Langenbach - Joker.com 333
4 Yesnic 261
5 New-Top-Domain - Valetta 252
6 OMPC 235
7 Spy Productions 177
8 Fred Miller - John Hard (Landbase) 176
9 Nam Jeong Woo 165
10 Cass Foster 164
11 Steven Nelson 132
12 William Robathan 128
13 Patrick Nobriga 114
14 Rainer Weiss 112
15 Peter Morgan 105
DOT Force Action Plan (GAC Report, 11:20:12 AM, #1336)
DOT Force, Governments, Private Sectore and Non-profit organizations (NPOs) under "G8" issued Genoa Action Plan was officially endorsed by G8 Leaders at Genoa Summit.
In its Action Point 5, (www.dotforce.org/reports/), it says:
d) Global policy and technical fora and organizations working on Internet and ICT issues should make a special effort to bring representatives of developing nations into their discussions and decision-making processes;
For that we are organizing "Universal Participation WG", today right
after Public Forum at Gauguin Room, here.
ISO 3166-1: The Code List (GAC Report, 11:24:27 AM, #1337)
With respect to your stated concern over the ISO 3166-1 List in the .info TLD (among others), do your concerns extend to the names of cities, provinces/states, and even streets?
Use of ccTLD or Territory/nation/locality name inf (GAC Report, 11:31:29 AM, #1338)
Mr. Twoomy:
Is it the opinion of GAC that either just national units, or perhaps all units of government world wide, on all levels, somehow "own" or have some claim to the IP rights to names, letters or other words or codes that describe their geographical or geopolitical areas, or should at least have a claim on these?
How sacrosanct is the testbed process? (Issues and process for evaluation of new TLDs, 12:28:27 PM, #1340)
In the light of the following facts: 4981 names registered to one Austrian applicant who admits his claims are false : none deleted. 5000 other applications, many with facially ludicrous details : none deleted. False applications, like hawaii and maui.info, made for Afilias Board members : none deleted. Requests from applicants themselves to delete their false names : none deleted. Failure of Afilias to protect the interests and expenses of Landrush customers, through inadequate scrutiny of appliactions, and loss of 95% of most popular generic names to fraudsters. In the light of all these facts: Is the Afilias Sunrise an "outstanding performance" as RlaPlante says, or is Robert Connelly's criticism of an "abomination" Sunrise justified? Is the 'testbed' process so sacrosanct that it is more important than honesty, the protection of honest Landrush customers, and the good name of Afilias and ICANN?
Total Failure of New TLD's (Issues and process for evaluation of new TLDs, 12:48:18 PM, #1341)
I keep coming back to the thought that the introduction of new TLD's is unresolvably flawed, unfair, and problematic. The preasure being applied to move these TLD's forward further enforces my concerns. What consideration is there to abort all new TLD introduction and fully embrace the regional domain structure?
Chuck Scott
.info pre-registrations (Open Microphone, 12:57:58 PM, #1342)
I am quite disapointed about the .info pre-registration process. I invested several thousand dollars in landrush applications for names that were then fraudulently registered by sunrise registrants.
I am disappointed (1) that Afilias did not take active steps to prevent these fraudulent registrations, (2) that public statements from Afilias seem to minimize the magnitude of this problem and its impact on legitimate landrush registrants, and (3) that Afilias has not announced actions to more aggressively correct the problem and help protect the rights and investments of landrush participants.
There are many possible actions that Afilias could take. I hope Afilias will act fairly, quickly, and aggressively. Thank you.
ccTLD redelegation (Open Microphone, 12:59:20 PM, #1344)
Vint,
the problems with redelegation should not be avoided, or delayed by ICANN. As you, and the BoD is well aware of, in Bulgaria we have reached an agreement between the government, ISOC, the ISP association, the academic network, and the educational network.
The only party not agreed (of course) is the current TLDA, who are also authors of the current rules, ISP, and there is no appeal body to complain to..
In situations like this ICANN should be more flexible with redelegation.
veni
(At Large Study Committee Report, 1:20:55 PM, #1345)
I understand the Committees atempts to consider the secure and reliable franchisment of ICANN members. And aplaud their efforts to ensure one person one vote.
However, on the subject of raising the bar to require Domain Name ownership, I would like to aks if alternatives to this will be asessed first?
It is noted in the paper that Entities that bulk register such as ISPs should inform the domain holders that they are eligable for membership. Could it not follow that ISPs could instead be used as points of verification for members other than domain ownership?
Has the commitie considered groups who bulk register for third parties but who hold all domains rather than placing the third parties as the name holders?
On the Subject of Outreach. (Open Microphone, 1:37:33 PM, #1346)
Does the ICANN board understand how it is curently viewed from the outside?
Wether or not there is truth to it, there is a lot of bad feeling, rumours of witholding member ship, and talk that ICANN has been poorly handled.
If any atempt at outreach is to be made, ICANN must become seen as a more open and honest organisation. Curently, it is viewed by many as buerocratic and closed. Many at large members claim to have been stifled of information about the processes and meetings. And popular industry press such as 'The Register' have run many an article on the matter.
What is the boards reaction to this?
new gTLDs (Internationalized Domain Names, 1:38:50 PM, #1347)
Dear Folks at Montevideo,
My study of a random 11,000+ Sunrise registrations estimated around half were technically inconsistent with TM rules. Manual review gave plausible ones the benefit of the doubt -- including companies registering variations on a TM as originally requested by the IPC -- leaving 15-25% as probably bogus. The percentage is much greater for valuable non-trademarked names.
People who registered non-trademarked names in the Land Rush are being cheated out of a chance at those names and their pre-registration fees. The DomeBase Proposal (see DomeBase.com) would correct this to the benefit of ICANN, Afilias, legitimate trademark holders, registrars, and LandRush pre-registrants. Without correction, future Sunrise periods may be in doubt. Afilias' current course of action leaves LandRush pre-registrants, and registrars as well, twisting in the wind. Please adopt the DomeBase Proposal. Thank you.
Sincerely, Bob Connor
Honest answers to difficult questions. (Open Microphone, 1:41:24 PM, #1348)
Earlier today, Stuart Lynn made a statement that needs to be challenged.
He said that while many accuse ICANN of moving slowly, when ICANN does something, it does it right.
Given the lawsuits surrounding the .info and .biz registries, given the extent to which we see registrations being fraudulently entered, given the ("alleged") illegal lottery surrounding .biz in particular, given the lack of readiness we see demonstrated by the other chosen applicants, where is the evidence that ICANN is doing things right with regard to this rollout?
Please cite specifics and suspend all rhetorical fluff. I don’t suspect these questions will be entered into the record at the conference as answering them honestly would require grappling with very raw and unsettling matters.
Image Online Design (Open Microphone, 2:00:45 PM, #1349)
I am a supporter of Image Online Design. There are many of us around the world who feel that their dot web application should be well received during the next round of TLD selections. The people who support Image Online Design come from the US, China, the UK, Germany, South Korea, Greece and many other countries. This shows legitimate, "qualified" international support for this company.
We all have written congress numerous times and even the president of the United States with respect to how this company should have a chance to upload it's registry into the legacy root. Nothing but praise has been heaped on this company for it's foresight, and commitment to the integrity of the DNS.
Therefore I ask all ICANN board members to seriously consider Image Online Design's application in the next round of domain name selections.
The Future of .org (Open Microphone, 2:33:24 PM, #1350)
There is an extensive list of companies, organizations,
and websites that have voiced their opposition to ANY change in the current web format for .org.
1. The formal definition of "Non Profit" is too narrow to justify the huge disruption this will cause with
current .org owners.
2. How will ICANN police the web content to insure it is indeed non profit?
3. Many people have made sizeable investments in .org as a general use domain name.
4. After years of common law acceptance as a general use domain, it is not logical to
disrupt the hundreds of thousands of .org owners and initiate a "new" strict format.
5. .The circumstances surrounding domain sale did not specify that
the corporation be a non-profit.
6. Will the US government and/or ICANN sieze these names from the owners? The ends do not
justify the means, because so many people will be negatively affected for the benefit of nobody.
7. Website content cannot be controlled by any government.
deleted names (DNSO Names Council Report, 2:45:03 PM, #1351)
On the problem of deleted names, would this problem have been mitigated or reduced if there was less of a bottle neck of a small root. Would this problem still have arived with multiple roots?
(Open Microphone, 3:20:56 PM, #1352)
Extent of .info unqualified registrations have raised serious doubts about Afilias capability to manage the .info registry in a fair and equitable manner. This impression is leading to cyncism and frustration that bode ill for future rollout of tlds and Internet community’s participation in it. I request this meeting asks Affilias to spell out: (1) Steps they are taking to undo the false registrations during Sunrise Period. The steps announced so far will not even scratch the surface of problem. (2) Why Affilias is not willing to accept the help of Internet community, such as Domebase proposal/Simple solution put forward by ICANN forum. (3) Steps they are taking to protect the interests of pre-registrants who have spent considerable time and money to get fair chance during Landrush Period.(4) Steps they are taking to advise registrars to maintain the sanctity of pre-registration requests for the names which have been falsely registered during sunrise period.
Regisrar Agreement needs specific language (Registration Transfer Rules, 3:37:13 PM, #1353)
Registrar agreement should include the following:
maintain current policy
1. mandatory default ACK by losing Registrar regardless of expiry date
2. automatic removal of domain from the zone file at expiry date (Registry controlled)
3. automatic deletion of domain name at some agreed upon grace period (i.e., 40 days for example) -- (also Registry controlled)
This solves all the problems, no room for interpretation.
This needs to be done ASAP, not at some undetermined date in the far future!
Eric Beck
(Registration Transfer Rules, 3:58:16 PM, #1354)
Registrar Transfer Policy
Does ICANN take any responsibility for enforcing the agreements it makes?
Also, which Constituency does Mr Lynn recommend Registrants address their concerns and how, if they are not a member of a Constituency?
(Registration Transfer Rules, 4:01:37 PM, #1355)
It is good to have a losing registrar send out a receipt/confirmation request as a "last line of defense" against a fraudulent transfer. However, it should be quite sufficient to block a transfer if the registrant DENIES it. There is no need for an "auto-nack" procedure. Auto-nack is simply a means of trying to stop clients to leave a supplier they are not satisfied with. The specific format required (and different for each registrar), the short time and the fact that registrant's are getting asked TWICE puts too much confusion and hurdles in this process.
Our clients have NOT "chosen" NSI as NSI claims. They came to US (not to NSI) and ordered a domain and some internet service. We ordered that domain from the single supplier available back then. Now we change the supplier because of the bad service and it's in our sole discretion to choose a new supplier. It's not up to NSI as the loosing registrar to question our choice of supplier.
recalcitrant registrars (Registration Transfer Rules, 4:10:14 PM, #1356)
The issue here is a registrant rights issue. With ICANN unprepared to enforce registrant rights, why doesn't ICANN strengthen the registrant contracts with registrars, to provide for enforceability by the registrants themselves?
registrant domain name transfer problems (Registration Transfer Rules, 4:12:46 PM, #1357)
Much of the empirical data collected by Verisign is flawed simply because when ISPs changed registrars they do business with, they changed all registrations completed by them on behalf of THEIR clients, as they had always done. Clients, for the most part did not care and did not know. Remember that at one time it was the ONLY way to register a domain name - via a provider
Should ICANN, as regulator, intervene at Afilias (Open Microphone, 4:35:42 PM, #1358)
Although the Afilias roll-out is a 'proof of concept' testbed, does ICANN as regulator have any moral obligation to .info Landrush customers to intervene and suspend the .info Landrush since thousands of honest customers have been defrauded by false Sunrise claims and that loss will be cemented if the Landrush proceeds? Does ICANN as regulator have the authority to impose the so-called Domebase solution or an alternative mechanism that protects defrauded customers whose place in queues otherwise become valueless? Do the moral obligations of ICANN as regulator over-rule the experimental rigidity of the Afilias roll-out, because the "experiment" needs to be adapted or abandoned if the process has resulted in negligence?
.info and .biz (Open Microphone, 4:59:38 PM, #1359)
Does the ICANN Board have any comments regarding the legality of the .info and .biz "lottery" that has come under fire lately?
Triangular Agreement (Update on ccTLD Agreements, 5:00:25 PM, #1360)
1 - How ICANN will decide which situation (Triangular or Legacy) is applicable for a ccTLD?
2 - What will hapen if for any political raison (realty in most Non democratical country), the triangular Agreement create a Dispute on the domain management? What will be ICANN position?
Afilias Landrush (Open Microphone, 5:03:16 PM, #1361)
Afilias did not make it clear that they were not going to have a thorough screening of Sunrise registrations? If they had made this clear then Landrush customers would have been able to decide whether pre-requests were worth submitting to Afilias registrars. The only risk advertised by Afilias and their registrars was that a bona fide trademark holder could get the name first, NOT that a Sunrise fraudster could lock the name out of the system before the Landrush phase. Therefore does Afilias not have a moral obligation to compensate Landrush customers who have lost money.
GAC principles not developed by bottom up process (Update on ccTLD Agreements, 5:11:23 PM, #1362)
I am distressed to see that the ICANN staff continues to accept the GAC principles as the primary set of principles for ccTLD management, redelegation and policy setting. The GAC principles are merely a recommendation to the ICANN Board, the Board has not accepted them, they have not been approved by the DNSO, or by the Names Council and the constituencies. If only the GAC principles are presented as the sole alternative to the proposed legacy model of agreements, then ICANN will be setting up a situation where many ccTLDs will be unable to sign any agreement with ICANN. If a ccTLD's government insists on using the GAC principles, but the ccTLD manager prefers to use the legacy agreement, by implication, ICANN staff will not move forward with an agreement.
I strongly urge the Board to consider using the Best Practices Principles developed by the ccTLD constituency as the alternative to legacy agreements.
When will we have the 2nd round? (Open Microphone, 5:53:37 PM, #1367)
When will the ICANN Board introduce more Top Level Domains? Will Image Online Design's .web be added to the root servers in the 2nd round of new TLDs?
(please ignore prior under wrong agenda item) (Open Microphone, 6:02:03 PM, #1368)
Dear Folks at Montevideo,
My study of a random 11,000+ Sunrise registrations estimated around half were technically inconsistent with TM rules. Manual review gave plausible ones the benefit of the doubt -- including companies registering variations on a TM as originally requested by the IPC -- leaving 15-25% as probably bogus. The percentage is much greater for valuable non-trademarked names.
People who registered non-trademarked names in the Land Rush are being cheated out of a chance at those names and their pre-registration fees. The DomeBase Proposal (see DomeBase.com) would correct this to the benefit of ICANN, Afilias, legitimate trademark holders, registrars, and LandRush pre-registrants. Without correction, future Sunrise periods may be in doubt. Afilias' current course of action leaves LandRush pre-registrants, and registrars as well, twisting in the wind. Please adopt the DomeBase Proposal. Thank you.
Sincerely, Bob Connor