Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
Here is the information for remote participation:
https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?second_session
izumi
2007/3/27, cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> I'm glad our Australian feedback was or may be of some use, but I must
> make (or more accurtely remake the point that in the limited time
> available for specific feedback on the draft text per se... our small
> reply to you does it's best to show a tryue representaion of the
> responces elicited and this was quite limited... to this end
> particular attention needs to be drawn to the comments ellicited in
> the public comment phase of our own monitisation review (within the
> context of our users experience in the far more controlled ccTLD of
> .au) as being highy representtive of our users and vested interest
> sectors opinion...
>
> Regarding the consumer protection desire/ requirement within the gTLD
> area:- there may be no real impediment (though I doubt it would be a
> quick or easy task) for internationaalised codes of conduct to be
> considered as worthy of development (we could even use the basis of
> offers made by counties or trade / economic developemt groups such as
> ASEAN within the negotiation(s) FTA's and mulitlateral trade agreement
> offers... (which is another area I'm interested in passionate about
> and work in) to further this...
>
> With so many views and reactions to your dradft being considered in
> the ALAC session, I look forward to hearing about the final results...
> but feel it worthy of note that whilst at 2050 hrs in the evening as
> I'm writting this email I can be listening & watching the ccNSO
> meeting I have not got (and neither does any one else in the atlarge
> constituancy) have the same opportunity to "watch" or be included in
> the ALAS sessions *sigh*... I almost miss the days of the ad hoc ICQ
> feeds :-)
>
>
> kindest regards
>
> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> (CLO)
>
>
> Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza@xxxxxxx>:
>
> > Hi, I managed to put your comment at the ALAC wiki, as comments
> > to the draft.
> >
> > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_2007_r_1
> >
> > As for the substance, about the "monetization", I agree that ICANN is
> > not a consumer protection agency, and consumer protection is not
> > in the "main" business of ICANN, I still like to maintain most of the text
> > in the draft. My rationale is as follows:
> >
> > In the Core Value 6, there is the following statement:
> > "6. Introducing and promoting competition in the registration of
> > domain names where practicable and beneficial in the public
> > interest."
> >
> > We question that the way it is handled by "domain monetization" is
> > practicable and beneficial in the public interest – my hunch is No.
> >
> > And there is another Core Value as follows:
> > "9. Acting with a speed that is responsive to the needs of the
> > Internet while, as part of the decision-making process, obtaining
> > informed input from those entities most affected."
> >
> > I think individual users are the ones most affected in this case.
> >
> > And for the Consumer protection, I agree that it applies to the ccTLD
> > area, but wonder if it also applies to the gTLD area such as dot com.
> > That is why we think it is appropriate for gNSO to work on.
> >
> > But in any case thanks so much for raising the important ponints.
> >
> > izumi
> >
> >
> > 2007/3/27, Izumi AIZU <iza@xxxxxxx>:
> >> I have received the following comments on Domain Tasting from
> >> ISOC-AU, one of AP ALSes. I think they are great comments
> >> for our reference.
> >>
> >> izumi
> >>
> >> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> From: cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <cheryl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Date: 2007/03/26 14:31
> >> Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
> >> To: iza@xxxxxxx
> >>
> >> Hello Izumi, I trust this email (later than I'd planned I'm afraid)
> >> finds you in Lisbon and in good health...
> >>
> >> I did manage to elicit some responses from my outreach efforts
> >> regarding your draft... Realising that our small contribution will be
> >> only part of what you receive rather than edit the text per se I
> >> include below the following comments, points and sentiments from those
> >> organisations / people who did respond... by COB Friday.
> >>
> >> Firstly, we must recognise that our experience here in .au is very
> >> different from the gTLD world? here we have considerable public
> >> interest and individual user input into our Domain Name system and
> >> policy development and we also (in many ways *because* of this input)
> >> have strong rules such as our eligibility criteria for all of our Open
> >> 2ld?s? see http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2005-02/
> >>
> >> These rules go a long way towards giving our Domain Name users and
> >> general public interest of the Internet a great deal of security and
> >> confidence in names in the .au space? so even our consumer advocacy
> >> groups such as CTN see www.ctn.org.au have had little direct
> >> experiences of the types of frustrations that those only accessing the
> >> open slather gTLD?s and may therefore be at some variance with those
> >> public interest and consumer protection driven views?
> >>
> >> Further in October 2005
> >> http://www.auda.org.au/news-archive/auda-14102005/ & March 2006
> >> http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-domainmon-public.pdf auDA undertook
> >> a public consultation process regarding Domain Monetisation and this
> >> resulted in the publication of our auDA Policy Clarification of Close
> >> and Substantial Connection Rule - Domain Monetisation (2006-03) on 20
> >> July 2006.
> >>
> >> A full list9ing of the public submissions received can be found at
> >> http://www.auda.org.au/reviews/monetisation-2006/ and I specifically
> >> stated in my distribution of your draft document that I would be
> >> pointing these references out to you for use by the ALAC, and that
> >> therefore no reiteration of those specific points needed to be made by
> >> the respondents.
> >>
> >> In general, support, was received for the intent of the text you
> >> provided as Draft resolutions to the various councils on Domain
> >> Tasting but not for the text titled ?On Domain Monitization?
> >>
> >> Based upon this and on the background information provided previously
> >> in this report, the following important points were made by our
> >> respondents.
> >>
> >> -That the ALAC is to be encouraged to express their request in terms
> >> relating specifically to ICANN's mission and core values. e.g. part
> >> of ICANN's
> >> mission is to ensure the stable and secure operation of the Internet's
> >> unique identifier systems, and one of its core values is preserving and
> >> enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global
> >> interoperability of the Internet.
> >>
> >> -Any issues report that is produced through the ICANN policy development
> >> process, will need to answer whether the issue is within ICANN's mission
> >> and core values - rather than whether the issue is indeed something of
> >> importance to end users. SO rewording of the draft should consider
> >> this point to maxamise the likelyhood of a successful outcome.
> >>
> >>
> >> -ICANN is not explicitly a consumer protection body. If it is purely a
> >> consumer protection issue - then the first point of contact could well
> >> be a registrar code of conduct, or perhaps alerting the relevant
> >> consumer protection bodies in each country - e.g Australian Competition
> >> and Consumer Commission (ACCC) in Australia, or the Federal Trade
> >> Commission (FTC) in the USA to investigate.
> >>
> >> An example of such a code of conduct, as it operates in Australia, can
> >> be found at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2004-04/ and the
> >> committee process by which this was developed can be followed in
> >> documents linked from the following page
> >> http://www.auda.org.au/cop/cop-index/ and a full list of auDA Panels
> >> and committee activities past and present can be found at
> >> http://www.auda.org.au/panels/panels-index/
> >>
> >> I've attached this text as a word doc and a .PDF so the links will be
> >> live for you to use with the ALAC should you see fit.
> >>
> >> Kindest regards,
> >>
> >> Cheryl Langdon-Orr
> >> (CLO)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Quoting Izumi AIZU <iza@xxxxxxx>:
> >>
> >>> Dear ALAC/RALO/ALS people,
> >>>
> >>> At the last ALAC conference call, I volunteered to write some draft
> >>> resolution for ALAC on Domain Tasting (and Domain monetization).
> >>>
> >>> With my limited knowledge, I rather hesitate, but put forward the
> >>> following
> >>> as a very crude draft. I owe much part to John Levin's comment (on
> >>> internal
> >>> list months ago), who unfortunately left ALAC recently. I hope John still
> >>> watch this open list and make further contribution, together with all
> >>> others.
> >>>
> >>> I repeat this is very very crude, and I am aware that some porposals
> >> may not
> >>> be readily accepted by you guys, especially in the area of domain
> >>> monetization.
> >>>
> >>> I still feel that the speculation is not for the interest of
> >> ordinary users,
> >>> perhaps OK with Domainers as new and innovative industry. For that,
> >> I really
> >>> like you to come up with clear and convincing ideas and solutions. This
> >>> draft is just a step stone for that.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> izumi
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
> >>> ICANN AtLarge Advisory Committee (ALAC)
> >>>
> >>> V. 0.8
> >>> Mar 12 2007*
> >>> *
> >>>
> >>> *
> >>> On behalf of the ordinary Internet users, AtLarge Advisory Committee
> >>> (ALAC)
> >>> would like to propose the following actions to be taken by the ICANN
> >>> Community on Domain Tasting and Domain Monetization.
> >>>
> >>> *To gNSO Council:*
> >>> Start a Policy Development Process on Domain Tasting. We believe
> >> that Domain
> >>> Tasting is an abuse of existing Five-day Add Grace Period which results
> >>> confusion for the ordinary Internet users and give unfair treatment to
> >>> peculiar speculators. We propose to abandon the five day "Add Grace
> >> period".
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> *To Registrars Constituency:*
> >>> Finalize and implement Registrars Code of Conduct that prohibits unfair
> >>> speculation and exploitation on Domain name registration including the use
> >>> of five day Add Grace period.
> >>>
> >>> *To Registry Constituency:*
> >>> We request the registries to consider how to avoid user confusion
> >> and unfair
> >>> practices by abolishing the five day add grace period. Adding small fee,
> >>> such as 25 cents per Domain to those registrants who kept their names
> >>> using
> >>> add grace period may be one solution, but we are not fully convinced.
> >>> *To ICANN Board:
> >>> *We request ICANN Board to seriously consider how to prohibit unfair
> >>> speculation, enhance consumer trust to Domain Name registration system, by
> >>> a) Initiating a third party study on the impact of Domain Tasting
> >> and Domain
> >>> Monetization/speculation to the ordinary Internet users.
> >>> b) Initiating review of Registry ? Registrar Contract that will promote
> >>> the
> >>> fair trade and restrict unfair speculation.
> >>>
> >>> *Background and Rationale:*
> >>> Domain tasting uses the five day add grace period to register domains
> >>> without paying for them. We think they are unfair acts: somewhere between
> >>> larceny and extortion, because the registration cost is zero and the
> >> purpose
> >>> of these registrations is just to make money taking advantage of automated
> >>> bulk registration to exploit the domain names which are the public goods
> >>> in
> >>> essence.
> >>>
> >>> As many people have noted, it's exploiting a loophole that shouldn't be
> >>> there in the first place. There was a great deal of debate both in the
> >>> ICANN community and on the ICANN board about the deletion grace period,
> >>> but
> >>> none at all about add grace which was apparently tossed into the package
> >>> by
> >>> an ICANN staffer without asking anyone. So says Karl Auerbach, who was on
> >>> the board at the time, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary from
> >>> any
> >>> other board member.
> >>>
> >>> As Bob Parsons wrote in his blog:
> >>> *Millions of good .COM domain names ? on any given day over 3.5 million
> >>> and
> >>> climbing ? are unfairly made unavailable to small businesses and others
> >>> who
> >>> would actually register and use them in ways for which the names were
> >>> intended. Many times businesses accidentally let their domain names
> >>> expire.
> >>> When they go to renew them, they find they have been snapped up ? and
> >>> taken
> >>> away with a huge expensive hassle to follow ? by an add/drop registrar. *
> >>> (http://www.bobparsons.com/adddropscheme.html)
> >>>
> >>> The usual explanation of domain tasting says that the registrars register
> >>> millions of domains, watch the traffic, and then after 4.9 days they
> >>> delete
> >>> the ones that don't seem likely to make back the US$6.00. Often they just
> >>> delete them all and then reregister what they can a few minutes later
> >>> until
> >>> they find the ones which produce enough traffic that yields well above $6
> >>> cost.
> >>>
> >>> The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve
> >>> is
> >>> not and never was an important one. If you let an important domain expire,
> >>> you risk losing the entire investment made in that domain over many years.
> >>> But if one registers a domain by mistake, the most one risks is the ten or
> >>> twenty dollars you paid to register it.
> >>>
> >>> *On Domain Monetization*
> >>> We note that there is a meaningful difference between domain tasting and
> >>> domain monetization. Monetization is a straightforward arbitrage
> >> between the
> >>> cost of domain registrations and the revenue from as much pay-per-click
> >>> traffic as the domain owner can get from people who visit web sites in the
> >>> domain. It's a fundamentally sleazy business, since the web sites have no
> >>> useful content and the way they get the traffic is basically by tricking
> >>> people, either via typos or recently expired domains.
> >>>
> >>> We do not think it is appropriate in this case to make ICANN as a
> >>> regulator
> >>> to watch and prohibit the Domain monetization practice. Instead, we like
> >>> to
> >>> ask those commercial activities such as Google or Overture to stop paying
> >>> for clicks on pages with no content, thereby dealing with a problem that
> >>> is
> >>> not limited to typo and expired domains. We've seen click arbitrage,
> >>> people
> >>> buying Google ads to drive traffic to pages that are simply other Google
> >>> ads. This kind of self-generating traffic for pay-per-click advertising is
> >>> confusing and unnecessary for ordinary Internet users and , in the
> >> long run,
> >>> not healthy for the development of Internet as a whole.
> >>>
> >>> END
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >>
> >> Institute for HyperNetwork Society
> >> Kumon Center, Tama University
> >> * * * * *
> >> << Writing the Future of the History >>
> >> www.anr.org
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> > --
> > >> Izumi Aizu <<
> >
> > Institute for HyperNetwork Society
> > Kumon Center, Tama University
> > * * * * *
> > << Writing the Future of the History >>
> > www.anr.org
>
>
>
--
>> Izumi Aizu <<
Institute for HyperNetwork Society
Kumon Center, Tama University
* * * * *
<< Writing the Future of the History >>
www.anr.org
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
www.alac.icann.org
www.icannalac.org