[announce] GA summary April 10 to April 15, 2002

["DNSO Secretariat" <DNSO.secretariat@dnso.org>]

This summary covers the DNSO GA mailing list's (and related)
discussions and news between April 10, 2002, and April 15, 2002.

GA list archives are available online at
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/maillist.html>.

Please feel free to forward this summary as you believe to be
appropriate.

   Deadline: 14 days until E&R-day

The deadline for useful input to the Evolution and Reform Committee
expires on April 29, i.e., in 14 days.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc10/msg00004.html>


Topics

(i) OECD report on whois issues.  Danny Younger forwarded an excerpt
 from an OECD report
<http://www.oecd.org/pdf/M00027000/M00027316.pdf> on WHOIS and
cybersquatting experience.  The report claims, based on OECD's own
experience with ocde.org [the French abbreviation of the
organization's name], that "the registrars' interest is to keep the
cybersquatters as client for the volume of registration fees they
generate and to avoid helping the victim." In a follow-up message,
Dan Steinberg notes that "a determination of 'cybersquatting' is
really something no one can make in advance." "Only the courts have
the right to act as courts," Dan writes.  Ross Rader added that "the
OECD statements make statements concerning the whole based on
observations of the parts.  As a result, the conclusion doesn't
hold, despite its base in a valid root observation."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00251.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00253.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00254.html>.


(ii) The UDRP, and court orders.  James Love forwarded some
information on the CNNews.com case: "The registrar is apparently in
Hong Kong.  ICANN has recently written the registrar, telling them
to turn over the domain to Time-Warner's CNN subsidiary.  There is a
complicated legal dispute over whether or not the Virginia court has
jurisdiction over Eastcom, and even whether or not the Virginia
court has ordered Eastcom to do anything.  But CNN's lawyers wrote
the ICANN, who then wrote Eastcom, and say that Eastcom is obligated
to comply with the Virginia court order under the terms of its
accreditation agreement." James' message included links to some of
the correspondence.  Finally, he asks whether there is "some policy
guidance as to when ICANN should jump in and take matters into its
own hands to enforce one nation's court orders in a cross border
dispute over jurisdiction?"
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00255.html>

I posted a follow-up note stating that "I seem to understand that
paragraph 3(b) of the UDRP is believed to be applicable." Dan
Steinberg (who represents the GA on the UDRP task force) followed up
to this and reminded participants to be careful what exactly we are
talking about.  In particular, he notes that paragraph 3(b) of the
UDRP governs the actions of the registrar, not ICANN's.  (The
paragraph in question says that the registrar will "cancel,
transfer or otherwise make changes to domain name registrations
under the following circumstances: [...] receipt of an order from a
court or arbitral tribunal, in each case of competent jurisdiction,
requiring such action")

As a conclusion, Dan writes: "Given that apparently 3b does not
oblige ICANN to intervene, we must ask does it mean that ICANN
cannot or should not intervene? or does it fall under general
discretionary authority?"
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00264.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00270.html>.

Maybe the UDRP task force should cover this question in its work?

(iii) Independent Review.  I sent a couple of possible options for
independent review mechanisms to the GA list.  Joop Teernstra
replied that he thinks "it is misguided to now start casting about
for watered-down alternatives." The only idea he likes "is that of
an industry Ombudsman, but this office could be separated from ICANN
altogether and should not be used for review of board decisions."
Peter Dengate-Thrush followed up to state his agreement.  "As a
member of the IRAC," he writes, "I can say this was one of the early
successes of ICANN - a policy worked out by an industry led group in
transparent bottom up style, passed to the board posted for public
comment and approved by the community." He then gives some details
on the implementation process, in which three out of six members of
the nomination committee proposed a list of names for an independent
review panel, while the other three did not actively support that
list.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00257.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00258.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00259.html>.

In related news, another member of the Independent Review Advisory
Committee, Ethan Katsh, has sent a reconsideration request to ICANN.
He specifically asks for the board resolutions 02.46 and 02.47 to be
reconsidered.  In these resolutions, the independent review issue is
passed on to the Evolution and Reform Committee.  Katsh argues that
the board based its decision exclusively on implementation problems,
which could be solved by, for instance, replacing some of the
members of the nomination committee.  "The response of the Board to
disband the committee, rather than to attempt to get new members or
replace non-participating ones, cannot be an action that is
consistent with what the MOU requires," Katsh writes.
<http://www.umass.edu/cyber/icannreview.htm>,
<http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=670&mode=nested&order=1&thold=1>,
<http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-14mar02.htm#02.46>.

Finally, yet another proposal for an independent review panel can be
found in a business constituency draft quoted and criticized by
Danny Younger: "a <<committee which could include, the GAC chair,
the IAB chair, two board members or past board members, and an
appointed and paid ombudsman>>."
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00292.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00296.html>.

(iv) Evolution / GA.  Philip Sheppard posted a personal reflection
on the relationship between the NC and GA.  In his message, he
suggests to get all groups who represent significant stakeholders to
form a constituency, and participate in the NC.  For individual
domain name holders, the at-large structure is used. Finally, all
constituencies vote for a DNSO chair "who simultaneously chairs the
NC and GA." Alexander Svensson agreed that "individual gTLD
registrants must have a recognized place in gTLD policy
development," but disagrees on using an at large structure for this
representation since an at large membership would encompass more
than just domain name holders.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00265.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00268.html>.

Roberto Gaetano followed up to Philip with some doubts, too: "First
of all, the GA should also be an open forum, hence not restricted in
principle, although one would expect that the core would be built
around the participants in the constituencies." As examples for
people who may not be constituency members, but could still wish to
participate, he mentions people from the PSO or ASO.  "So the GA
will include all constituencies, but not limited to." Also, he
notes that "the logic of the representativity in the GA is 'one
individual - one voice', which is different from the
NC/constituencies" - and can lead to results different from what a
vote which is counted by constituencies would yield.  Roberto also
disagrees about using an at large membership as an "eight
constituency" because (1) it should include individuals who may just
have an interest in non-DNSO ICANN issues, and (2) such a
constituency would be unmanageable.  Starting from the same
assumptions as Philip, Roberto ends up with two options for a
solution: "1. dynamically correct the constituency structure with a
mechanism to add/delete/modify the number of constituencies when
needed (remember the 'Paris Draft'?) 2. get rid altogether of the
constituency structure and replace it with a GA type structure (Karl
Auerbach's solution, identifiable to a certain extent with the BWG
draft)." <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00266.html>.

(v) Unrelated reregistrations.  Ben Edelman asked for assistance
with "unrelated reregistrations." The example which prompted his
research was a search for a bicycle dealer, which lead him to a
"sexually-explicit" site which resides under the domain name no
longer used by Bicycle Bill.  The links below lead to the
discussion on this, which includes a couple of suggestions how to
find more examples of the kind of reregistration Ben mentioned;
these suggestions included mining old and current versions of TLD
zone files, and looking at older SnapNames.com lists of successful
SnapBacks.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00304.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00305.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00306.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00307.html>,
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00310.html>.

George Kirikos noted that "from an ICANN policy point of view these
matters are related to:" 1. uniform deletions regulation and
transfer policies, 2. whois data correctness, 3. better education of
the end user community.
<http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/ga/Arc10/msg00311.html>.

If you want to help Ben with his research, please go to
<http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/renewals/submit/> and
submit more examples.

--
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/