Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] ALAC Draft Resolution on Domain Tasting
just quick reaction - I guess all ALAC meetings here in Lisbon
is open to remote participation - could you try to see ALAC wiki
with instructions? Right now we are having meeting with the Board
which is unfortunately not open to public parcitipation including
ALSes.
more later,
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