Fwd: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [council] FYI - ALAC letter sent to Board on Domain "Reservation"

Sat Apr 5 02:56:49 CEST 2008

Perhaps NCUC should submit a statement supporting ALAC's letter to
the board on domain name front-running.   What do others think?

Thanks,
Robin

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
> Date: March 25, 2008 10:46:09 AM PDT
> To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
> Subject: [NCUC-DISCUSS] Fwd: [council] FYI - ALAC letter sent to
> Board on Domain "Reservation"
> Reply-To: Robin Gross <robin at IPJUSTICE.ORG>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: "Denise Michel" <denise.michel at icann.org>
>> Date: March 25, 2008 9:44:13 AM PDT
>> To: "Council GNSO" <council at gnso.icann.org>, liaison6c
>> <liaison6c at gnso.icann.org>
>> Subject: [council] FYI - ALAC letter sent to Board on Domain
>> "Reservation"
>> Reply-To: denise.michel at icann.org
>>
>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-
>> lists.icann.org/2008q1/003290.html
>>
>>
>> Dear ICANN board directors:
>>
>> While we are aware that you have been monitoring the
>> public outrage in response to registrar activities
>> that have been variously described as "front-running"
>> and/or "domain reservation" or "cart-hold" or
>> "cart-reserve" activities, we are of the view that the
>> obligation to safeguard the operational stability of
>> Registrar Services now requires the immediate
>> temporary establishment of a consensus policy
>> curtailing such practices to be taken in accordance
>> with the board's authority under the provisions set
>> out in section 4.3.4 of the Registrar Accreditation
>> Agreement, that states:
>>
>> "A specification or policy established by the ICANN
>> Board of Directors on a temporary basis, without a
>> prior recommendation by the council of an ICANN
>> Supporting Organization, shall also be considered to
>> be a Consensus Policy if adopted by the ICANN Board of
>> Directors by a vote of at least two-thirds of its
>> members, so long as the Board reasonably determines
>> that immediate temporary establishment of a
>> specification or policy on the subject is necessary to
>> maintain the operational stability of Registrar
>> Services, Registry Services, the DNS, or the Internet,
>> and that the proposed specification or policy is as
>> narrowly tailored as feasible to achieve those
>> objectives."
>>
>> Please be advised that we have reached this conclusion
>> based in part upon the following considerations:
>>
>> 1.  The use of "cart-hold" or "cart-reserve" systems
>> has been actively under discussion within the
>> registrars constituency since early October 2007 when
>> three different registrars first advanced the concept
>> within the context of a straw poll on the impact to
>> registrants were the AGP to be eliminated
>> in its entirety (footnote 1)
>>
>> -- see
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05123.html
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05130.html
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-
>> lists/archives/registrars/msg05131.html
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05380.html
>> http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05626.html
>>
>> 2. The use of this domain name reservation practice
>> next came to be adopted by a large-volume registrar
>> (Network Solutions) on or about 8 January 2008, and
>> the practice was immediately condemned by the
>> community at large (with extensive coverage in the
>> Tech media, the general press, in blogs world wide, on
>> domain name forums, and on community discussion
>> lists).
>>
>> 3. The actions of Network Solutions has now spawned a
>> similar project on the part of another large-volume
>> registrar (register.com), and we have no reason to
>> believe that other large-volume registrars will
>> refrain from rapidly setting up comparable efforts.
>>
>> (footnote -- see
>> http://help.register.com/cgi-bin/register_help.cfg/php/enduser/
>> std_adp.php?
>> p_faqid=2796&p_created=1185549188&p_sid=*Nq5PxZi&p_accessibility=0&p_
>> lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD01NDI
>> mcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMu
>> c2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1
>> )
>>
>>
>> While we recognize that we are unable to point to an
>> ICANN-approved definition of "operational stability of
>> Registrar Services" (as no such definition exists
>> within either current ICANN contracts or supporting
>> materials), we take guidance from the ICANN Policy
>> Document ICP-3 which posits that activities that do
>> not interfere with the operation of the DNS are,
>> generally speaking, those that operate within
>> community-established norms.
>>
>> Such norms tend to respect a set of long-established
>> principles such as the principle of least
>> astonishment.  When registrants currently search for a
>> domain name at these registrars using normative search
>> practices, they are clearly astonished by that which
>> results from their efforts:  the inability to readily
>> register the domain name of their choice with a more
>> competitive registrar and/or the domain name that they
>> have selected appearing in the WHOIS with the name of
>> the registrar as the registrant of record
>>
>> (footnote -- see
>> http://help.register.com/cgi-bin/register_help.cfg/php/enduser/
>> std_adp.php?
>> p_faqid=2796&p_created=1185549188&p_sid=*Nq5PxZi&p_accessibility=0&p_
>> lva=&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD01NDI
>> mcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMu
>> c2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1
>> ).
>>
>> The community's trust in ICANN's ability to manage the
>> Domain Name System is at stake.  It is inappropriate
>> for such registrar activities to proceed unabated in a
>> policy vaccuum.  Accordingly we call upon the ICANN
>> board to establish a temporary narrowly-tailored
>> policy as a stopgap until such time as the relevant
>> policy-recommending ICANN Supporting Organizations can
>> provide a comprehensive consensus policy solution.
>>
>> [Submitted to Board via At-Large Advisory Committee Board Liaison,
>> Wendy Seltzer]
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>

IP JUSTICE
Robin Gross, Executive Director
1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20080404/7c448a13/attachment.html>