.org comments posted

The .org applicants’ comments on the preliminary staff report have been posted to the ICANN web site. From a quick first glance on some of the reports, several (if not most) applicants were not at all amused by the process and by the quality of th…

The .org applicants’ comments on the preliminary staff report have been posted to the ICANN web site. From a quick first glance on some of the reports, several (if not most) applicants were not at all amused by the process and by the quality of the underlying evaluations, offering detailed comments and corrections. I’m looking forward for the responses from those who did the evaluation. But maybe this entire process is unnecessary anyway.

For some nice quotes picked from the individual comments, I’d recommend you read this selection which was just posted to the GA list.

DNSO’s ICANN Board Seat: Endorsements Sought.

The DNSO secretariat has announced that the nomination period for the ICANN board member to be determined by the DNSO is closed. Candidates who accepted their nomination: Vivek Durai, Alejandro Pisanty (current board member), and Youn Jung Park. F…

The DNSO secretariat has announced that the nomination period for the ICANN board member to be determined by the DNSO is closed. Candidates who accepted their nomination: Vivek Durai, Alejandro Pisanty (current board member), and Youn Jung Park. For a candidate to be accepted, the candidate will need 10 endorsements from members of the DNSO’s GA. Endorsements can be made until September 20, 2002. Accepted candidates will then be forwarded to the Names Council for selection. For more details, see the nomination procedure document posted to the DNSO’s web site.

Names Council Meeting from August 29

The DNSO secretariat has posted preliminary minutes of yesterday’s Names Council telephone conference; an MP3 recording is also available. Besides the election of Bruce Tonkin as the NC’s new chair, there was some decision on whether or not the Tr…

The DNSO secretariat has posted preliminary minutes of yesterday’s Names Council telephone conference; an MP3 recording is also available. Besides the election of Bruce Tonkin as the NC’s new chair, there was some decision on whether or not the Transfer Task Force should also handle deleted domain name issues in general.

A remarkable comment on the .org process.

Just in case you didn’t already see it on ICANNwatch: There’s a highly remarkable comment in the public forum on the preliminary .org evaluation report. It’s certainly worth reading.

Just in case you didn’t already see it on ICANNwatch: There’s a highly remarkable comment in the public forum on the preliminary .org evaluation report. It’s certainly worth reading.

Partial WHOIS Primer

Here’s a first fragment of a draft for a WHOIS policy primer. This one’s a walk-through of the registrar accreditation agreements (actually, there are two of these, with small differences), which is hopefully at least a bit more understandable tha…

Here’s a first fragment of a draft for a WHOIS policy primer. This one’s a walk-through of the registrar accreditation agreements (actually, there are two of these, with small differences), which is hopefully at least a bit more understandable than the agreements themselves. Missing bits: A review of the .name appendix to the RAA (which is currently missing from the ICANN web site), which may contain changes to query-based access, and an overview of registries’ WHOIS provisions. In any event, the most important policies (at least from a privacy point of view…) are contained in the RAA: Even the thick registries basically make the same query-based access available as registrars (with .name as an exception), with the same non-restrictions on use of the data, and, possibly, advanced query possibilities. Bulk access to thick registries’ whois data is more limited than with registrars. So I hope that this is useful even in its current incomplete state. I’ll add more when I find the time. That means, in particular, not this week.

ccTLDs to Cerf: Is ICP-1 policy? (updated)

Peter Dengate Thrush has sent a message to ICANN chairman Vint Cerf and to the GA mailing list in which he asks a couple of questions on the status of ICP-1, and points to the ccTLDs’ response to the ERC’s Blueprint for ICANN Reform.In his respons…

Peter Dengate Thrush has sent a message to ICANN chairman Vint Cerf and to the GA mailing list in which he asks a couple of questions on the status of ICP-1, and points to the ccTLDs’ response to the ERC’s Blueprint for ICANN Reform.

In his response, Cerf claims that ICP-1 is simply a statement of long-standing practice and doesn’t seem to represent new policy. ICP-1 makes explicit a way to implement the policy outlined in RFC 1591 but doesn’t appear to create new policy, as I understand it. The response does not address Thrush’s comments about ICANN’s zone transfer requirement.