[ga] Re: [NA-Discuss] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA-- please read

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Danny and all,

  I am sure you realize by now if not long before the ALAC has
little or no concern about users/stakeholders or Registrants.  It's
tiny band of misfits is only interested in self aggrandizement and
endless social engineering discourse and debate.  We've been
here before.

Danny Younger wrote:

> Beau,
>
> I must begin by expressing my discomfort with this situation.
>
> ICANN Staff graciously extended a courtesy to the ALAC by way of a 30-day 
> time extension on public comments so as to properly accomodate the needs of 
> those that have aggressively petitioned for document translations.  ICANN 
> Staff did a superlative job of providing an additional briefing session as 
> well as translations for all of the relevant documents in a very timely 
> fashion, yet with the deadline for comments nigh upon us we have yet to 
> receive within this extended window for comment a single submission in any 
> language (including English) from any other member of the ALAC, from any RALO 
> or from any ALS.
>
> This was an opportunity for the ALAC to shine.  After the devastation of the 
> Registerfly meltdown, this was ALAC's opportunity to stand up in defense of 
> the user interest, to aggressively act to right the myriad wrongs exposed in 
> that travesty.  But instead of setting a shining example, it looks like the 
> ALAC has turned their back on the users, on the very registrants whose fees 
> make possible the travel vouchers the ALAC is so keen to obtain.
>
> There are others that can now lay claim to the notion that they represent the 
> user community:  those from the Business Constituency that collaborated on a 
> document, those from the International Trademark Association that put 
> together a significant statement, those from the IPC for incredibly 
> well-researched and articulated multiple submissions, those from the domainer 
> community as represented in the efforts of the Internet Commerce Association, 
> and last but not least the Government of the United States that submitted 
> strong focused comments in defense of the consumer interest.
>
> They all recognized the need to stand up for the user community, to make 
> their voices heard, to champion necessary change.  Yet those that are charged 
> with representing the user interest within ICANN, the ALAC and its gaggle of 
> associate structures, have chosen to be mute, to engage in no discussion of 
> the issues and to contribute nothing.
>
> Rest assured, this will be the albatross around the ALAC's neck that will 
> mark its impending demise.  Absolutely no one needs "participants" that won't 
> "participate".  Absolutely no one needs to actively fund those that will not 
> stand up for their own constituents.
>
> That said, let's get on with the task ahead of us...
>
> My first observation would be that ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey made a 
> promise to the community:
>
> "What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear 
> there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and 
> the content of the RAA."
>
> Thus far we have received the proposed revisions to the RAA but we have yet 
> to hear the results of the comprehensive review of the registrar 
> accreditation process.  In a posting today, the spam mitigation firm Knujon 
> pointed to the nefarious activities of a single registrar associated with 
> illicit pharmaceuticals that has sponsored 48 phantom accreditations.  
> Extending accreditations to these shell/paper companies that are formed for 
> the express purpose of gaming the system must stop.  These phantom registrars 
> are currently being used to game the aftermarket, but as we move into the new 
> gTLD cycle they will next be used to actively game the new gTLD landrush 
> periods.  This is simply not acceptable.
>
> As a community, we are aware of accredited registrars in North America with 
> officers that have been convicted of mail fraud, that continue to be 
> associated with the deceptive marketing practices employed by the notorious 
> Domain Registry of America.  We are not happy about this... Accreditation 
> processes must be reviewed, and that review must be released for public 
> scrutiny.
>
> We are aware of registrars that now stand as defendents in courts of law 
> accused of cybersquatting, and yet ICANN lacks the will to suspend their 
> accreditations.
>
> We are sick and tired of registrars that refuse to craft a Registrar Code of 
> Conduct, and we would ask the ICANN Board to impose a long overdue Code of 
> Conduct upon that community in much the same fashion as the Eurid Registry 
> imposed such a code upon their registrars.
>
> We are disgusted by the fact that while organizations like auDA can 
> responsibly put into place a registrant complaint procedure, ICANN remains 
> intransigent on the point of third-party beneficiary clauses and has no 
> procedures in place whatsoever to remedy legitimate registrant complaints -- 
> this is not how a proper steward of the DNS should be behaving.
>
> We are furious that after years of discussion and hundreds upon hundreds of 
> complaints, there has been no change whatsoever to the language of RAA 
> section 3.7.7.2
>
> Finally, as consumers we are astounded by the lack of a requirement that a 
> registrar prominently post its valid email and street address on its website 
> for contact purposes.
>
> Beau, that's it for tonight...
>
> best wishes,
> Danny
>
>
>
> ------
> NA-Discuss mailing list
> NA-Discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.icann.org
>
> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org
> ------

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827