October 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Follow-up on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

I am way behind on my e-mail, and I am not sure if this has already been relayed to the ALAC. I call your attention specifically to the first item. We have previously taken a strong position that the user perspective should be represented in some way through the Non-Commercial Users Stakeholders Group on the GNSO. The Interim report from the BGC ALAC Review Working Group has now put forward a strong position that individual users should NOT be represented on the GNSO. It is unclear to me exactly what the boundaries are between a group that represents the interest of users, and a group representing users. I think that we will need to make sure we discuss this in Cairo. Alan >Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 14:26:42 -0700 >From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> >Subject: [liaison6c] Re: Follow-up on GNSO Restructuring/Improvements > >Dear Community Members: > >1) Individual Users -- As previously indicated, the ICANN Board has >asked for additional community input on the appropriate role and >representation of individual Internet users in the GNSO. To further >encourage discussion and comment, Staff opened a public comment forum >to solicit online input, and provided a document summarizing the >issues involved. Please see ><http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#gnso-users>. The forum >closes on 28 November 2008. > >2) Board Seat Elections -- As noted previously, Board members also >requested additional community input before making final decisions on >the methodology for GNSO elections of Board Seats #13 and #14. Please >see the attached background document for more information. Comments >are requested by 27 November 2008. > >3) Stakeholder Groups -- Attached is a draft template for new >Stakeholder Groups. Since the establishment of these Stakeholder >Groups is a new endeavor and requires Board approval, Staff is >offering a draft template as a starting point for discussion. > >4) Constituency Renewal -- Staff is working on a draft template to >assist with the development of a streamlined process that will assist >with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing >constituencies. It will be emailed shortly to facilitate constituency >consideration of how this process should be done. > >Please don't hesitate to email me/policy-staff(a)icann.org with any questions. > >Regards, >Denise > > >-- >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy > >On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 2:01 PM, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Dear Community Members: > > > > In advance of the 16 Oct. GNSO Council > meeting, I wanted to provide everyone > > with the follow-up action items from the Board's most recent draft GNSO > > Restructuring Resolution (see draft resolution below and at > > <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-01oct08.htm>). I'd be happy > > to elaborate on these during the Council call, or feel free to email > > questions to <policy-staff(a)icann.org>. > > > > 1) COUNCIL CHAIR -- The Board adopted the WG-GCR recommendation that the > > GNSO Council Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and > > each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting its > > own Vice Chair. To address questions on whether a "back-up" process was > > needed in the event that a vote did not yield a Chair, the Board decided to > > ask the Council to consider this matter. "The Board directs the Council to > > develop a process for subsequent balloting, > if needed, until a Council Chair > > is duly elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair > > election of the newly structured Council." > > > > *ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements > > implementation, this should be addressed and provided to the Board. > > > > 2) BOARD SEATS -- "The Board and General Counsel have outstanding questions > > about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board seat elections and directs > > Staff to share these with the community and seek additional input." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will post outstanding questions and solicit input shortly. > > > > 3) VOTING THRESHOLDS -- The Board adopted all voting thresholds proposed by > > the WG-GCR Report. Concerns that implementation of GNSO Improvements (e.g. > > new PDP, working group model, etc) might necessitate additions to, or > > clarifications of, thresholds, the Board requested that "the GNSO develop > > any additional voting thresholds or > categories that may be needed as part of > > its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be submitted to the > > Board for approval." (Note: this draft wording likely will be changed to > > avoid confusion; the Board expects to receive an overall plan for > > implementing restructuring; this is separate from the GNSO's effort to > > create a structure of committees and teams to start the GNSO Improvements > > implementation work.) > > > > *ACTION: As the Council moves forward with GNSO Improvements > > implementation, this should be addressed and, if changes or additions are > > deemed necessary, they should be provided to the Board. > > > > 4) NEW/EXISTING CONSTITUENCIES -- The Board acknowledged Staff development > > of a "Notice of Intent" document for potential new constituencies (*see > > attached) and directed Staff "to develop a formal petition and charter > > template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative criteria > > (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's evaluation of > > petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is directed to work with > > the existing GNSO constituencies to design > and develop a streamlined process > > along with appropriate mechanisms that will assist with the Board's timely > > recognition and approval of existing constituencies". > > > > *ACTION: Attached is a "Notice of Intent" to solicit and publicly share > > information on entities interested in forming > new constituencies, along with > > a proposed petition and charter template. Staff would appreciate receiving > > any input you may have by 28 Oct. Staff also is developing for your > > consideration a draft template for > constituencies to use to enable the Board > > to "renew" constituencies. Since this is a new endeavor, Staff is offering > > a draft as a starting point for discussion. Staff will collect and share > > input with the community during the Cairo ICANN meeting. > > > > 5) STAKEHOLDER GROUPS The Board "reinforced its support for the following > > principles pertaining to the formation of the new Stakeholder Groups, and > > requests that all constituency members and other relevant parties comply > > with the principles included in the BGC Working Group's GNSO Improvements > > Report approved by the Board in establishing the newly formed structures, > > including: the need to better represent the wide variety of groups and > > individuals that compose the global ICANN > community, in a structure that can > > change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders; and the > > inclusion of new actors/participants, where > applicable, and the expansion of > > constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable." Further, Staff > > was directed to work with the GNSO community to develop "a set of > > streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other > > mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder > > Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of > > those structures." The Board directed that plans for each of the four new > > Stakeholder Groups be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN > > Mexico City Board meeting, and the plans "must be reviewed and approved by > > the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. > > The Board will consider the need for interim > action to fill Council seats in > > the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be deficient or > > delayed." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will provide some initial draft material shortly to support > > community consideration and discussion. > > > > 6) ROLE/REPRESENTATION OF USERS The Board requested additional community > > "dialogue and input on the appropriate role > and representation of individual > > Internet users, including individual commercial and non-commercial Internet > > users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the ALAC and At-Large community, > > and any relevant applicants for new constituencies, would be particularly > > helpful and should address the inclusion of > registrants and individual users > > in the GNSO in a manner that compliments the ALAC and its supporting > > structures, and ensures that registrants' and individual Internet users' > > gTLD interests are effectively represented within the GNSO." > > > > *ACTION: Staff will post a public comment solicitation and will provide > > background information to encourage community > consideration and input to the > > Board. > > > > 7) IMPLEMENTATION TIMETABLE The Board amended its previous implementation > > timetable and directs that the transition to a new bicameral GNSO Council > > voting structure take place over a phased implementation schedule that > > begins immediately and ends in June 2009 with the seating of the new > > Council. The implementation phases will be as follows: > > > > -Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in > > advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; > > > > - Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the > > Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; > > > > - Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for > > consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and > > > > - Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select > > Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated > > by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. > > > > *ACTION Staff will assist the GNSO in developing a restructuring > > implementation plan that the Board expects to receive later this year. > > > > =================== > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Membership and Leadership Selection:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.06), as recommended by the WG-GCR, the Board > > authorizes a third Council-level non-voting Nominating Committee > > Appointee to serve on the Council whose presence could preserve an > > independent aspect on the Council and could provide useful management > > support as the Council moves toward a working group management function. > > > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.07), the Board authorizes the GNSO Council > > to elect a Chair consistent with the recommendation of the WG-GCR - that > > the GNSO Chair be elected by a vote of 60% of both voting houses and > > each voting house has the flexibility to create a process for selecting > > its own Vice Chair. The Board directs the Council to develop a process > > for subsequent balloting, if needed, until a Council Chair is duly > > elected. This process should be developed before the first Chair > > election of the newly structured Council. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.08), the Board and General Counsel have > > outstanding questions about the WG-GCR recommendations regarding Board > > seat elections and directs Staff to share these with the community and > > seek additional input. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Operational/Voting Considerations:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.09), the Board adopts all voting thresholds > > proposed in the WG-GCR Report. The Board requests that the GNSO develop > > any additional voting thresholds or categories that may be needed as > > part of its proposed GNSO Improvements Implementation Plan to be > > submitted to the Board for approval. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Stakeholder and Constituency Organizational > > Concerns:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.10), the Board acknowledges Staff's > > development of the "Notice of Intent" documentation for potential new > > constituencies and directs Staff to develop a formal petition and > > charter template that will assist applicants in satisfying the formative > > criteria (consistent with the ICANN Bylaws) to facilitate the Board's > > evaluation of petitions to form new constituencies. Staff also is > > directed to work with the existing GNSO constituencies to design and > > develop a streamlined process along with appropriate mechanisms that > > will assist with the Board's timely recognition and approval of existing > > constituencies. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.11), the Board reinforces its support for > > the following principles pertaining to the formation of the new > > Stakeholder Groups, and requests that all constituency members and other > > relevant parties comply with the principles included in the BGC Working > > Group's GNSO Improvements Report approved by the Board in establishing > > the newly formed structures, including: > > > > - The need to better represent the wide variety of groups and > > individuals that compose the global ICANN community, in a structure that > > can change more easily with the gTLD environment and stakeholders. > > > > - The inclusion of new actors/participants, where applicable, and the > > expansion of constituencies within Stakeholder Groups, where applicable. > > > > > > It is, further Resolved (2008.10.01.12), that the Board further directs > > Staff to work with existing constituencies to develop a set of > > streamlined processes (along with appropriate templates, tools, or other > > mechanisms) that will assist in the formation of these new Stakeholder > > Groups and also facilitate the Board's subsequent review and approval of > > those structures. > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.13), the Board directs that plans for each > > of the four new Stakeholder Groups, that are consistent with the above > > principles, be submitted to the Board for consideration at the ICANN > > Mexico City Board meeting. The plans must be reviewed and approved by > > the Board before a newly structured GNSO Council is seated in June 2009. > > The Board will consider the need for interim action to fill Council > > seats in the event that it finds any Stakeholder Group plans to be > > deficient or delayed. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (The Role of Individual Internet Users in the > > GNSO:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.14), The Board requests additional community > > dialogue and input on the appropriate role and representation of > > individual Internet users, including individual commercial and > > non-commercial Internet users, in the GNSO. Input from the GNSO, the > > ALAC and At-Large community, and any relevant applicants for new > > constituencies, would be particularly helpful and should address the > > inclusion of registrants and individual users in the GNSO in a manner > > that compliments the ALAC and its supporting structures, and ensures > > that registrants' and individual Internet users' gTLD interests are > > effectively represented within the GNSO. > > > > > > -- GNSO Restructuring -- (Implementation Timing:) > > > > It is, Resolved (2008.10.01.15), the Board amends its previous > > implementation timetable and directs that the transition to a new > > bicameral GNSO Council voting structure take place over a phased > > implementation schedule that begins immediately and ends in June 2009 > > with the seating of the new Council. The implementation phases will be > > as follows: > > > > Phase 1 - GNSO Council restructuring implementation plan submitted in > > advance of the December 2008 Board Meeting; > > > > Phase 2 - Existing Constituencies submit confirmation documents to the > > Board for review in advance of the February 2009 Board Meeting; > > > > Phase 3 - Stakeholder Groups submit formal plans for Board approval for > > consideration at the ICANN Mexico City Board meeting; and > > > > Phase 4 - Stakeholder Groups with plans approved by the Board select > > Council representatives, and the newly structured GNSO Council is seated > > by the June 2009 Asia-Pacific ICANN Meeting. > > > > > > > > > >Content-type: application/msword; name="DRAFT Stakeholder Template.doc" >Content-disposition: attachment; filename="DRAFT Stakeholder Template.doc" >X-Attachment-Id: f_fmuzlnus2 > >Content-type: application/msword; > name="REQUEST FOR GNSO COMMUNITY INPUT ON > BOARD ELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS FROM" > WG-GCR.doc" >Content-disposition: attachment; > filename="REQUEST FOR GNSO COMMUNITY INPUT ON > BOARD ELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS" > FROM WG-GCR.doc" >X-Attachment-Id: f_fmv196yu3

3 2

Fwd: [council] Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 30, 2008

Oct. 30, 2008

Just released. The issues was discussed in my GNSO Liaison report for the Oct. 14 meeting - https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?gnso_liaison_report_01_10_2008. Alan >Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:03:49 -0700 >From: Marika Konings <marika.konings(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Issues Report on Registration Abuse Policies >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Dear All, > >As requested by the GNSO Council, please find attached the Issues >Report on Registration Abuse Policies. > >With best regards, > >Marika

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Call for nominations to ALAC Liaison and Appointment Positions for 2008 - 2009
by Adam Peake Oct. 29, 2008

Oct. 29, 2008

Jacqueline, Alan. Thank you. I accept the nomination. Adam At 10:51 AM -0400 10/27/08, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Although we do not have any rule which requires a second for >nominations, we do seem to have a tradition. > >Being a great fan of traditions, I second this nomination. > >Alan > >At 24/10/2008 10:40 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >>Dear all >> >>I would like to nominate Adam Peake for ccNSO liaison. >>Jacqueline A. Morris > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

2 1

Updated Cairo Documents page
by At-Large Staff Oct. 29, 2008

Oct. 29, 2008

Dear Members: We have revised the Cairo Documents page to (hopefully) contain references to all the relevant documents for the main areas of work during Cairo. This can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents Please note: We will provide paper copies of the main texts, in particular a compilation of the various documents associated with the draft applicant guidebook for new gTLDs, during the meeting. I hope you all travel safely and uneventfully and look forward to seeing you again in Cairo in a few days time! -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Cairo Public Board Meeting Agenda
by At-Large Staff Oct. 29, 2008

Oct. 29, 2008

Dear Members: For your information, attached please find the current agenda for the Board meeting on 7th November in Cairo. You may also review this at http://www.icann.org/en/minutes. 7 November 2008 Board Meeting Agenda (approved by Executive Committee 23 October 2008) * Approval of Minutes and Approval of BGC Recommendation regarding Board Committee Minutes Standard and Publication For Board Action - John Jeffrey * Update on GNSO Improvements Implementation For Board Discussion Denise Michel * Single Letter Domains at the Second Level, including Proposed Contract Amendments for DotCoop and dotMobi - For Board Discussion and possible action - Patrick Jones * Inter-Registar Transfer Policy - Denial Reasons Policy Development Project For Board Action Denise Michel * Proposed Bylaw Revisions Requested by Nominating Committee For Board Action Patrick Jones * Approval of site of Asia Pacific Meeting For Board Action - Paul Levins * Consideration of Proposal for At-Large Community Summit Planning Status Report For Board Action Denise Michel * Proposed Creation of A Community-Wide Working Group to Review The Structure of ICANN¹s Present Geographic Regions For Board Discussion Denise Michel * President's Strategy Committee Update For Board Discussion * Receipt of Reports from Other Board Committees, Finance, Compensation, et. Al. (possible actions) Various Committee Chairs * Board Response to Discussions arising from Cairo Meeting Thrush * Independent Reviews Update For Board Discussion * Registrar Accreditation Agreement Amendments Update For Board Discussion Kurt Pritz * Other Business 7 November 2008 Organizational Meeting Agenda (Approved by Executive Committee 23 October 2008) * Election of Chair * Election of Vice-chair * Creation of New Committees * Appointment of committee leadership/membership * Confirmation of Officers of ICANN * Other Business -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Dot-Mobi Policy Advisory Board Position
by carlos aguirre Oct. 27, 2008

Oct. 27, 2008

Dear Cheryl and all, I would like to nominate Andrés Piazza for the position of Liason at Dot-Mobi Policy Advisory Board. This position could be an interesting opportunity to create a broader participation for Individual Users Community. We need an improvement in this subject and incorporating one member of the ALAC-Ralo process would mean an improvement here, letting committed people from the regions to contribute, to spread the information in more languages than just in English. However, this nomination is not agains John Levine´s work, because I admire and respect him, personally and professionally. I introduce some information about Andrés Piazza, that I consider very useful at this moment: He is an Argentinian Lawyer from Cordoba, who works in Computer Law, in Consulting and advisory. He is also Teacher in the National University of Córdoba and in Blas Pascal University, in 2 postgraduate courses related to Law in Information Society and Internet Governance, and Member of some International Prestigious Academic Organizations such as LASA (Latin American Studies Association), FIADI (Iberoamerican Federation of Computer Law Associations) or DiploFoundation (He is recently developing a Research in IG there) . At ICANN, he is AGEIA DENSI´s reprresentative in LACRALO from Argentina (since he works as Research Director in that ALS), being one of the most commited participants for the last years at the General Assembly. Also taked participation in other related multistakeholder forums in Internet Governance. In the past, he used to work in an Information Techonology Consulting. Definitely he has sufficient knowledge in gTLD issues and could make a contribution to ALAC as a Liason. Regards, Carlos Dionisio Aguirre abogado - Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 www.sitioderecho.com.ar www.densi.com.ar _________________________________________________________________ Descargá GRATIS el poder del nuevo Internet Explorer 7. http://optimized.msn.com/Default.aspx?mkt=es-ar

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC Rules of Procedure - draft amendments to Rule 21 - versions espanol and francais
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 27, 2008

Oct. 27, 2008

At 23/10/2008 02:48 PM, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >Hi all, > >In my mind, this draft may go somewhat over the top and I do agree that >a re-draft needs to be done but we DO need something like this in place. >When we see charts of approximately 50% of our ALAC members NOT meeting >minimum participation standards then we have a huge problem that must be >addressed. > >For what Wendy said about counting minutes - nothing in this paper calls >for that. Your attendance is automatically counted at each meeting and >conference call. Your e-mails are automatically counted on the lists. >Your participations in groups is automatically logged. This will not >mean any extra time for anybody (except to actually DO what they >volunteered to do). > >As Alan mentioned, there does seem to be a lot of onus put on the Chair >but there is a point there that the chair needs to contact the RALO for >input into what needs to be done. There is also a system where the >Chair must give several cautions before anything is done. It also has >the provision that if an ALAC member has extreme illness or family >difficulties, they can be excused from the provisions. This seems >pretty fair to me. I have no problem with the Chair being the "doer". I think that when decision are delegated to the chair in any rules, it must be in an explicit and open way, with appropriate reporting back. And my preference is to do it as little as possible. >Alan, you also mentioned, "But writing rules such as these almost sets >the expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation >of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully >rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action." >Unfortunately, as I mentioned in the first paragraph, we seem to have >about 50% of ALAC members not complying with minimum standards so these, >unfortunately, aren't rare cases. True, we do have a problem, as I also said. But we don't want to get into the mode similar to the old joke where among the rules of behaviour that a boss posts for the employees, is one that says "The whippings will continue until moral improves". As I mentioned, we really need to define our expectations ahead of time and make sure that the bodies SELECTING our members know what they are. Alan >Also, this document gives actual time lines as to when the Chair must >get involved. This way, the problem doesn't drag on for months and >months as it seems to be doing right now. > >The wording about liaisons giving only the ALAC views and NOT their own >views is excellent and needs to be enforced. > >Personally, I'm getting rather tired of seeing certain ALAC >members/liaisons doing little or nothing within the ICANN mandate but >going off three times a year to lovely junkets. I signed on as >Secretariat thinking that I wasn't going to get ANY travel and have >still maintained better stats than a lot of the ALAC members. Those who >object to performance measurements are usually those who have the >greatest need to fear them. (Not you, Alan - your performance is >sterling and I look forward to hearing from you on how you would fix >this wording when you have time). > >Darlene > >Darlene A. Thompson >Community Access Program Administrator >Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP >P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 >Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 >Phone: (867) 975-5631 >Fax: (867) 975-5610 >E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of At-Large >Staff >Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 4:31 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide >Subject: [ALAC] ALAC Rules of Procedure - draft amendments to Rule 21 - >versions espanol and francais > >Dear members: > >We have today posted the french and spanish versions of the discussion >draft >of changes to Rule 21 of the ALAC Rules of Procedure. These can be found >at: >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

2 1

The work of Knujon and the forthcoming summit
by Brendler, Beau Oct. 27, 2008

Oct. 27, 2008

Greetings... You're probably familiar by now with the work of Garth Bruen and his small operation Knujon, and some of the work they have done documenting domain registration abuse and other safety, security and stability problems. Danny Younger first started posting some of the results of this work a couple of months back. You may also be aware of the controversy Knujon's work has generated among those who are concerned about enforcement of the RAA and other rules and provisions designed to promote safety, stability and security of the DNS. Garth and his father Bob, with whom he collaborates, have asked for time to present their findings in Cairo. I told Bob we could find some time for him during the week in Cairo to address the ALAC. I've also offered to help back him up in the public meeting forums. It may also be interesting for Bob to present some of Knujon's findings in forthcoming meetings with the registrar constituency. The questions raised by Knujon's findings, in my opinion, also cross into the realm of new gTLDs, and whether the implementation plan pays sufficient attention to the significant problems that already exist among current domains. It should also be noted that Bob (and possibly Garth as well, I'm not clear yet) is paying out-of-pocket to go to Cairo. Anyone interested in this, please let me know -- I think we need to try to be supportive of the Bruens' efforts. Beau Brendler ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

4 3

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Call for nominations to ALAC Liaison and Appointment Positions for 2008 - 2009
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 27, 2008

Oct. 27, 2008

Although we do not have any rule which requires a second for nominations, we do seem to have a tradition. Being a great fan of traditions, I second this nomination. Alan At 24/10/2008 10:40 AM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >Dear all > >I would like to nominate Adam Peake for ccNSO liaison. >Jacqueline A. Morris

1 0

Re: [ALAC] The work of Knujon and the forthcoming summit
by Thompson, Darlene Oct. 27, 2008

Oct. 27, 2008

Yes, me too! Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Friday, October 24, 2008 7:57 PM To: 'Brendler, Beau'; 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [ALAC] The work of Knujon and the forthcoming summit Mark me down for support. And by signalling its support, the ALAC could hardly demonstrate a finer example of user advocacy. Carlton -----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Brendler, Beau Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 06:17 PM To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: [ALAC] The work of Knujon and the forthcoming summit Greetings... You're probably familiar by now with the work of Garth Bruen and his small operation Knujon, and some of the work they have done documenting domain registration abuse and other safety, security and stability problems. Danny Younger first started posting some of the results of this work a couple of months back. You may also be aware of the controversy Knujon's work has generated among those who are concerned about enforcement of the RAA and other rules and provisions designed to promote safety, stability and security of the DNS. Garth and his father Bob, with whom he collaborates, have asked for time to present their findings in Cairo. I told Bob we could find some time for him during the week in Cairo to address the ALAC. I've also offered to help back him up in the public meeting forums. It may also be interesting for Bob to present some of Knujon's findings in forthcoming meetings with the registrar constituency. The questions raised by Knujon's findings, in my opinion, als o cross into the realm of new gTLDs, and whether the implementation plan pays sufficient attention to the significant problems that already exist among current domains. It should also be noted that Bob (and possibly Garth as well, I'm not clear yet) is paying out-of-pocket to go to Cairo. Anyone interested in this, please let me know -- I think we need to try to be supportive of the Bruens' efforts. Beau Brendler ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1742 - Release Date: 23/10/2008 03:29 PM _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
by Jacqueline A. Morris Oct. 25, 2008

Oct. 25, 2008

I agree 100% Jacqueline Carlton Samuels wrote: > This is a very measured response because quite frankly, this entire chapter > tends to make this *voluntary* situation seems like work for fee. Secondly, > it is offends reason and vex the spirit to think that minutes spent in a > meeting is being equated with participation! [Do indulge and give me relief > on this notion!] > > All in all, I support the general thrust of Alan's views. And if this > proposal came to a vote as is, I would *strongly recommend and encourage* > LACRALO representatives to ALAC to vote NO. > > Carlton > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2008 02:09 PM > To: ALAC Working List > Subject: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements > > (Comment also posted to the wiki.) > > There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 - > Minimum Participation Requirements posted at > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets > out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes > remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this > proposal. > > First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about > ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that > I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the > documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways. > > If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will > vote against it. > > I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and > hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns: > > - The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 > page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that > level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently > professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this. > > - As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative > targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance > or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it > gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on > an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could > be implemented by a computer without human intervention). > > - I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the > Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist > in the rest of the RoP). > > I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly > advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the > expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation > of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully > rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action. > > If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get > effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and > THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority. > > Alan > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1737 - Release Date: 21/10/2008 > 02:10 PM > > > _______________________________________________ > lac-discuss-en mailing list > lac-discuss-en(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/lac-discuss-en_atlarge-list… >

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
by Izumi AIZU Oct. 25, 2008

Oct. 25, 2008

I just made the following comment on the wiki. -------------- I was surprised to read this draft. I share most of opinions and sentiments written above. If we adopt this, I would suggest to change the title from "Minimum Participation Requirements" to "Detailed Participation Obligations", which of course is not what we need. I am also concerned about the "tone" of this document. While I do agree and understand that our performance should be measured, both individually and collectively, and improved, we have different ideas and habits for "volunteers" or "work" or how to conduct in the meetings etc. By applying "whips", as this document suggests, or detailed text-book like obligations, may be, to me, quite counter-productive. I also note that there is no mention of kind of "support" ALAC members and Liaisons are expected to receive from Staff or from ICANN. I also think that there is a need, perhaps, to define the Executive Commitee clearly, in the RoP. Finally, I like to see the "functional ALAC", that means, have reasonable division of labor, help each other, work as a team in trust. I hope the "minimum" requirements will lead to produce that. izumi

2 1

Re: [ALAC] The work of Knujon and the forthcoming summit
by Izumi AIZU Oct. 25, 2008

Oct. 25, 2008

Yes, I am interested in hearing from them more. izumi 2008/10/25 Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm>: > Mark me down for support. And by signalling its support, the ALAC could > hardly demonstrate a finer example of user advocacy. > > Carlton > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Brendler, Beau > Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2008 06:17 PM > To: 'At-Large Worldwide' > Subject: [ALAC] The work of Knujon and the forthcoming summit > > Greetings... > > You're probably familiar by now with the work of Garth Bruen and his small > operation Knujon, and some of the work they have done documenting domain > registration abuse and other safety, security and stability problems. Danny > Younger first started posting some of the results of this work a couple of > months back. You may also be aware of the controversy Knujon's work has > generated among those who are concerned about enforcement of the RAA and > other rules and provisions designed to promote safety, stability and > security of the DNS. Garth and his father Bob, with whom he collaborates, > have asked for time to present their findings in Cairo. I told Bob we could > find some time for him during the week in Cairo to address the ALAC. I've > also offered to help back him up in the public meeting forums. It may also > be interesting for Bob to present some of Knujon's findings in forthcoming > meetings with the registrar constituency. The questions raised by Knujon's > findings, in my opinion, als > o cross into the realm of new gTLDs, and whether the implementation plan > pays sufficient attention to the significant problems that already exist > among current domains. > > It should also be noted that Bob (and possibly Garth as well, I'm not clear > yet) is paying out-of-pocket to go to Cairo. > > Anyone interested in this, please let me know -- I think we need to try to > be supportive of the Bruens' efforts. > > Beau Brendler > > ** > This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named > above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be > confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, > you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any > attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If > you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender > by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from > your computer system. > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com > Version: 8.0.175 / Virus Database: 270.8.2/1742 - Release Date: 23/10/2008 > 03:29 PM > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Request for an Issues Report on the recovery of expired domain names
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 23, 2008

Oct. 23, 2008

A reference to enforcement is made in the request, but enforcement is NOT an issue that can be fixed by a PDP. But it is EXACTLY the kind of thing that that ALAC should use its "Advice to the Board" channel for. And to be useful it does need to be thoughtfully worded and include a "catalogue of ICANN's wishy-washy enforcement of its own rules", not just in relation to this particular problem, but in a wider sense. And it should make concrete implementable suggestions regarding how to fix the problem (perhaps as a attachment). Alan At 23/10/2008 04:59 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Still unable to shake the view formed by logic and the facts recited in the >preamble to the request for the report; the optimal response is a memorandum >from ALAC to the Board cataloguing ICANN's wishy-washy enforcement of its >own rules and encouraging them to get busy and hold somebody accountable. > >Carlton

1 0

Request for an Issues Report on the recovery of expired domain names
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 23, 2008

Oct. 23, 2008

At its October 14th teleconference, the ALAC voted to request an Issues Report on the subject of registrants being able to recover domain names after their formal expiration date. Details can be found at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?recovery_of_expired_domain_names. An Issues Report is the first step in a possible Policy Development Process. The motion calls for the draft request to be revised before and at the Cairo ICANN meeting. A number of people have already volunteered to work on the initial effort, and unless I hear otherwise, will assume that they will continue to do so (I will verify). The ALAC formed a small Working Group. According to the motion "The working group may include representatives from At-Large, GNSO constituencies and other interested individuals but due to tight time constraints, will be limited to those with specific knowledge of the subject being discussed." If anyone else would like to participate, please let me know. I am also formally calling for statements of support for this initiatives from ALSs and RALOs. Statements need not be long. Lastly, if people can send me concise descriptions of situations where a domain name had inadvertently been allowed to expire, telling what happened, that would be very useful. Regards, Alan

3 3

ALAC Rules of Procedure - draft amendments to Rule 21 - versions espanol and francais
by At-Large Staff Oct. 23, 2008

Oct. 23, 2008

Dear members: We have today posted the french and spanish versions of the discussion draft of changes to Rule 21 of the ALAC Rules of Procedure. These can be found at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

5 4

Draft revised Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2008

Oct. 22, 2008

(Comment also posted to the wiki.) There is a draft revision of the ALAC Rules of Procedure Rule 21 - Minimum Participation Requirements posted at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?cairo_documents. The draft sets out the expectations of ALAC members and others, and includes remedies for non-performance. I have quite strong feelings about this proposal. First, those of you who have heard me talk or read my comments about ALAC members who cannot or do not participating effectively know that I fell that this problem must be addressed. However, I feel the documents is totally inappropriate in a number of ways. If it comes to a vote in anywhere near the current version, I will vote against it. I could write a lot on this, but I will try to keep this short, and hopefully start a dialogue. Here is gist of my concerns: - The fact that this is a 10 page document, up from the previous 1 page is a first symptom. We should not need to go into things at that level. The people participating in our group should be sufficiently professional and intelligent that we do not have to do this. - As with the previous version, it sets specific, quantitative targets for some aspects of performance and demands 100% compliance or be subject to removal. This version is slightly better in that it gives some option for correction. But it is still relies too much on an automata view of process (that is, prescribed such that it could be implemented by a computer without human intervention). - I object to decision making delegated in such a broad way to the Chair and the Executive Committee (a concept that does not even exist in the rest of the RoP). I have no problem describing expectations and in fact I strongly advocate it. But writing rules such as these almost sets the expectations that we are going to have a lot of people in violation of them. We should set reasonable expectations, and in the (hopefully rare) cases that people are not meeting them, take effective action. If we feel that we need such detailed and rigid rules to get effective participation, we are not selecting the right people, and THAT is something that we should be addressing with the highest priority. Alan

2 1

FW: ALAC vote on two new ALS applications
by Matthias Langenegger Oct. 22, 2008

Oct. 22, 2008

Dear all, The below announcement of the ALS vote was supposed to be sent out to you last Wednesday but got stuck in my outbox unfortunately. There are currently 11 out of 15 ALAC members who voted on the first question and 9 out of 15 ALAC members who voted on the second question. The vote closes on October 14th. Regards, -- Matthias Langenegger At-Large Coordination Officer Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger Dear all, Cheryl asked us to set up an online vote for the ALAC on two new ALS applications ready for accreditation: the Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities from Ontario, Canada and Internauta Chile. You can download the application by clicking on the following URL: 114 FSBC: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/files/atlarge/fbsc-en-10jul08.pdf 115 Internauta Chile: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/files/atlarge/internauta-chile-en-23jul08.p… The ALAC members will shortly receive a separate email with their voting credentials. NARALO decided during their August meeting that positive regional advise would be given for FBSC if no contrary opinions were received on the mailing list in the following week ( https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_11_august_2008) No such comment was sent to the list the following week. LACRALO advised to approve the application during their monthly teleconference on September 18th. ( https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?meeting_summary_18_september_2008_en) The two questions to be put are: 1. Should the regional advise from NARALO for applicant (114) Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities (FBSC) be rejected? The regional advise was to accept the application. 2. Should the regional advise from LACRALO for applicant (115) Internauta Chile be rejected? The regional advise was to accept the applications. Possible answers are Yes, No and Abstain, whereas -"Yes" means that you would like to reject the application -"No" means that you would like to accept the application This vote remains open until the next ALAC meeting on October 14th at 1400 UTC (the ALAC meeting starts at 1330 UTC). It is not anonymous. Please contact the Staff if you have additional questions. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 2

ALAC vote on two new ALS applications
by At-Large Staff Oct. 21, 2008

Oct. 21, 2008

Dear all, Cheryl asked us to set up an online vote for the ALAC on two new ALS application, which are ready for accreditation: the Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities from Ontario, Canada and Internauta Chile. You find the applications attached to this mail. The ALAC members will shortly receive a separate email with their voting credentials. NARALO decided during their August meeting that positive regional advise would be given for FBSC if no contrary opinions were received on the mailing list in the following week ( https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?summary_minutes_11_august_2008) No such comment was sent to the list the following week. LACRALO advised to approve the application during their monthly teleconference on September 18th. ( https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?meeting_summary_18_september_2008_en) The two questions to be put are: 1. Should the regional advise from NARALO for applicant (114) Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities (FBSC) be rejected? The regional advise was to accept the application. 2. Should the regional advise from LACRALO for applicant (115) Internauta Chile be rejected? The regional advise was to accept the applications. Possible answers are Yes, No and Abstain, whereas -²Yes² means that you would like to reject the application -²No² means that you would like to accept the application This vote remains open until the next ALAC meeting on October 14th at 1400 UTC (the ALAC meeting starts at 1330 UTC). It is not anonymous. Please contact the Staff if you have additional questions. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Summary Minutes 14 October 2008
by At-Large Staff Oct. 16, 2008

Oct. 16, 2008

Dear all, The summary minutes and action items of yesterday¹s ALAC teleconference are now up on the meeting page: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?14_october_2008_summary_minutes You can also find them attached below. Please note that the the summary minutes are not final until adoption by the ALAC. Due to a technical problem the audio recording of this meeting is currently unavailable. If we missed parts of the conversation, it is noted in the minutes. Please edit the summary minutes directly online if you believe that something is missing or misrepresented. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Summary Minutes ALAC Teleconference 14 October 2008 The Chair started the meeting at 1347 UTC. The meeting agenda was slightly changed to ensure a short discussion on the Statement of the ALAC on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies Report The meeting minutes of the previous meeting were accepted. Statement of the ALAC on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies Report. P Vande Walle provided a summary on the Statement of the ALAC on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies Report he helped preparing. A vote was held on whether the Statement on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis WG should be endorsed as an official ALAC document. Voting results: Against: B Brendler Abstain: None Support: R Guerra, I Aizu, V Scartezini, P Vande Walle, C Aguirre, J L Salgueiro, S Bachollet, H Diakite, C Langdon-Orr (A Greenberg and F Seye Sylla were not on the call during the vote) The Statement of the ALAC on the GNSO WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group Studies Report was endorsed as an official ALAC statement. D Younger asked if Staff could organize a briefing on the IRIS Protocol Standard, which many believe will be the next generation of WHOIS. R Guerra supported this proposal.The Staff will organize a briefing session on the IRIS Protocol Standard after the Cairo meeting. The Chair noted that this could be a subject for the SSAC-ALAC meeting in Cairo. The ExCom and the ALAC/SSAC Liaison will pursue this issue further. ALAC Overview Report on ALAC Review Final Report A Greenberg gave a short overview on the history of domain name expiration policy and, in particular, the redemption grace period. Motion 1 A Greenberg, seconded by P Vande Walle, moved the following motion: ³Whereas domain names can expire without the conscious agreement of the domain holder who would otherwise renew the registration; Whereas the loss of a domain name under these circumstances can have serious negative impact on both the registrant and the wider community of users of the registrant's services; Whereas ICANN has several times taken action to ensure that a domain name can be recovered by the original owner prior to it being available to others; Whereas such actions have proven to be ineffective; I move that the At-large Advisory Committee will request that an Issues Report be created on the subject of the Post-Expiry Domain Recovery. The request will be based _on_the draft circulated prior to the ALAC meeting of October 14, 2008, and will be revised prior to and at the Cairo ICANN meeting by an ALAC Working Group, with the_ request to be formally issues by the end of the Cairo meeting.² The motion carried unanimously. Motion 2 A Greenberg, seconded by C Aguirre, moved the following motion: ³That the ALAC convene a Working Group, with Alan Greenberg as the ALAC Coordinator to finalize the draft of the request for an Issues Report on Post-Expiry Domain Recovery, with the draft to be approved by the ALAC at the ICANN meeting in Cairo. The working group may include representatives from At-Large, GNSO constituencies and other interested individuals but due to tight time constraints, will be limited to those with specific knowledge of the subject being discussed.² The motion carried unanimously. Action Items The Chair gave a short status update on the action items from the last meeting. S Bachollet gave a short summary of the recent Summit Working Group activities and noted that the ALSes had until the 22nd of October to send in their answers to the Summit questionnaire. Status of ALS applications The Staff noted that two new ALSes have been accepted recently as the online vote ended today. The newly admitted ALSes are Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities from Canada and Internauta Chile. The details of this vote will be communicated shortly. The Chair suggested that links to recent RALO teleconference summary minutes should be put under the standing agenda items for the monthly ALAC meeting. This issue will be further discussed in Cairo. ALAC Overview Report on ALAC Review Final Report The Chair moved the following motion: ³That the ALAC Overview Report on ALAC Review Final Report (PDF) be endorsed as an official ALAC Statement." The motion carried unanimously. 1443 UTC: missed what H Diakite said please fill in Draft Agenda Cairo The Chair asked the ALAC members to make suggestion for the OneDay Workshop in Cairo directly on the agenda page. Any other Business ALAC seat on dotMobi Board S Bachollet suggested that the seat on the dotMobi Board should be part of the call for nominations for liaisons. The Chair noted that she hoped that there would be more frequent reports from the ALAC liaisons in the future. ³Initial Thinking² Report of the Board Governance Committee ALAC Review Working Group on ALAC Improvements The Chair noted that the ³Initial Thinking² Report should be published in English later that week and in the six UN languages shortly after. The Chair asked the ALAC members to get in touch with their regional ALSes before the Cairo meeting so that the ALAC could speak on behalf of the whole community. She further commented that there a preparatory meeting should be planned once the document comes out. What are the next steps on the RAA? D Younger asked the ALAC members what the next steps were on the RRA amendments. B Brendler suggested that he and D Younger could get in touch off-line to discuss this matter further. D Younger commented that ALAC members should read the emails on the At-Large discuss list and take up topics that were being discussed heavily. As an example, he mentioned the thread which started with the email sent by D Younger on October 8t The Chair noted that the comment D Younger made would be discussed more in detail at the ALAC OneDay session in Cairo. The meeting was then adjourned (1507 UTC)

6 5

Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 15, 2008

Oct. 15, 2008

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Carlton Samuels wrote: > To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. :-) > It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and > usurpations" experienced by registrants; the lack of contract > enforcement by ICANN and the disability/disinclination of some > registrants to access remedies via the UDRP. I would add to "disability/disinclination of registrants", the lack of easy to access information to registrants detailing any recourse they may have. > There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well > dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and > equity. > > So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum > total of which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep > on its own contract enforcement! Do we even need an issues report to enable ALAC to assert this position to the Board? I thought that one of the great things about ALAC (often touted as a reason At-Large doesn't get a seat on the Board) is that we have the ability to advocate user issues and concerns directly to the Board. We should be getting the Board to direct their own resources to confirm the problem (if that is even necessary) and then to itself act. Issues reports appear to be SO mechanisms to which ALAC is not bound. Can we not be more creative -- or at least more direct -- on this issue? - - Evan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFI9jFHB6WWYxnsgmwRAn8WAJ9OqveDESn/ZkE7DRDwNug6XA/i5ACfUDq/ nKEDSg+Bk35kdlGtIIGnZ6U= =Uef0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

DNSSEC
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 15, 2008

Oct. 15, 2008

Dear Members: As you will notice there is a DNSSEC Briefing during the Cairo meeting. It seems that it might be useful to have an additional telephonic briefing, perhaps just after the Cairo meeting, for the community to learn more about the subject. Does this sound like a good idea? I would like to keep organising monthly briefings for the community - so any proposals for new subjects are most welcome :) Perhaps another should be the New GTLD RFP? -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

4 4

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] dot-mobi policy advisory board positions
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Thank you for your report John... If you agree we will include this text (or you can provide a separate document directly to the ALAC Wiki for the Oct 14th meeting because as you are an ALAC appointment you could and I believe should be reporting their) such text will then be included as part of our annual Working Group, Liaison and general activity reporting at the Cairo meeting (for annual Reporting to ICANN and internally to the One Day workshop where we will be (amongst other things) reviewing all our job descriptions (as currently listed in the ROP's) and any participation requirements (Rule 21 of the ROP's) along with related accountability (reporting KPI's etc.,) that may be associated with all of the ALAC Roles, specifically in relation to whatever recommendations are going to be coming forward from the ALAC Review WG, which will be public by then. The specific matter of next year's dotMobi appointment form the ALAC was on the ALAC Meeting Agenda last night, (as we had received both the request you mentioned and background information from Caroline Greer {which is all appended to the meeting page}) and we agreed that this appointment will be included with the call for nominations for all our ALAC Liaisons and appointments for 2008-2009. It is intended that this call will go out before the end of the week. I trust you will either be nominated or self nominate for this important appointment at that time... It is also intended and I have let Caroline know that the matter of this appointment (and all the other liaison or appointment roles) will be finalized by the ALAC during the Cairo meeting and after the Sunday OneDay workshop. Cheryl (CLO) -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of John L Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2008 2:05 AM To: At-Large Worldwide Subject: [At-Large] dot-mobi policy advisory board positions Speaking of elections, the .MOBI domain has a policy advisory board which includes a seat selected each year by the ALAC, and it's time to make this year's selection. I've held that seat for the two years that it has existed, and would like another year. The PAB meets quarterly by phone and once a year in person. Its task is to provide policy advice for the management of the .MOBI domain. As you may know, .MOBI is intended for users of mobile devices, and the idea is that content in the .MOBI domain works on your mobile. So far that's been mostly a technical goal, since the state of the mobile web is sort of like the PC web ten years ago, with slow connections, small screens, and browsers with varying and sometimes incompatible features and capabilities. (There is a guy at .MOBI whose full time job is to maintain an encyclopedia of devices and browsers.) This year in the PAB we've addressed a variety of issues that affect users. The biggest problem is that in .MOBI there are a lot of domains owned by domain speculators who care little for the interests of users. In many cases they just leave their domains parked, which isn't great, but at least follows the rules, but sometimes they just point the domain at random parking sites that don't work on mobiles at all, due to large images, frames, etc. The domain has a compliance process so they know which sites don't work, and I've been helping them develop a combination of carrots and sticks to get the sites to do something reasonable on mobile phones. Farther out I'm trying to figure out ways to encourage domains to build useful content rather than link farms, with weather.mobi being a good example of a site that could have been a link farm but instead has useful weather forecasts. Even farther out than that, it seems pretty likely that mobile devices will catch up to PCs in capability, so any site that works on a PC will work on a mobile. At that point the other characteristics of mobiles become more important, that people tend to keep them with them much more than they keep their PCs with them, and that they physically move around so you can do stuff like have a site that uses geolocation to recommend restaurants near where you are right now. It'll still be important for .MOBI content to be good for mobile users, although the issues will be quite different. Anyway, I've enjoyed doing this with .MOBI and would like to keep at it for at least another year. The .MOBI management has sent Cheryl a note explaining when they'd like to hear back (fairly soon). As far as I know I'm the only candidate for this position this year, but the ALAC should set some dates so we can be sure and so if need be there can be a vote. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann .org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Documents for the meeting today
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Dear Members: I have made a few updates to the agenda page for today, to incorporate the various documents announced at various points earlier, and also to incorporate into the wiki the changes made by Patrick to the draft Statement on the WHOIS Hypothesis Working Group report. There is also a link which allows you to easily see on the wiki the changes between versions - for those of you who do not like reviewing text in Word, this should prove helpful. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 14, 2008

Oct. 14, 2008

Late for appointment now. Will reply when next have connectivity. Alan At 13/10/2008 08:56 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Alan: >Actually, this issues report might just be doing exactly what you caution me >against; "blow this out of proportion"! > >Plainly put, I'm saying an Issues Report is premature.....at best! And I'm >saying this against the background of the several others that have coursed >themselves through the process with, well, uneven results to date. > >Here's the killjoy. By your own reckoning, "the vast majority are honouring >all contracts and agreements 100%"; presumably, that "vast majority" phrase >refers registrars and/or resellers? > >Which begs the question...... > >Ach...the irony of my response..even by invoking an "Evanism"......got lost >in the shuffle.......... > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Monday, October 13, 2008 05:31 PM >To: 'ALAC Working List' >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report > >The draft request does allude to some possible violation of >contracts, specifically cases where a registrar or reseller acts in >bad faith by not issuing appropriate notices or honouring >auto-renewal agreements. > >But please do not blow this out of proportion. In my estimation (and >there is no body of actual statistics available), this is a small >fraction of the cases we are talking about in the overall Issues >Report request. The vast majority are honouring all contracts and >agreements 100%. > >We may not like the terms of those agreements, and this is a way to >go about having them unilaterally changed. Even if registrars don't >like it. That is what the concept of consensus policies is all about. >If enough of the community supports a change, it will happen. > >For cases that actually do include a breach of contract, we are also >asking that ICANN ramp up enforcement and provide paths for >registrant complaint. > >Alan > >At 13/10/2008 02:44 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > >To use an "Evanism", let me see if I get this straight. > > > >We believe we have a situation with "Post-expiry Domain Recovery by the > >original registrant" that undermines the interests of users; the > >registrants. The updated draft request document - a well-written tome, in >my > >opinion! - gives chapter and verse, the background to the problem and the > >existing ICANN Registrar/Registry related policies that were intended to > >ameliorate said problem; the RGP and the AGP. > > > >It identifies the reason for the "repeated injuries and usurpations" > >experienced by registrants; the lack of contract enforcement by ICANN and > >the disability/disinclination of some registrants to access remedies via >the > >UDRP. > > > >There is no acknowledgement that contracts between parties are well > >dissected in the tort law with remedies available in law and equity. > > > >So what is the ALAC recommending here? An issues report, the sum total of > >which cannot be more than to tell ICANN it went to sleep on its own >contract > >enforcement! > > > > > > > >I say again: IMHO, the ALAC pronouncements around contracts of one or other > >kind tends to impairment on the applicability of tort laws to commercial > >transactions. So now, I dare to ask this: "What do we know and when did we > >know it?" > > > >Carlton Samuels > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg > >Sent: Friday, October 10, 2008 06:47 PM > >To: ALAC Working List > >Subject: [ALAC] Draft of the Request for Issues Report > > > >A revised draft (based in comments received) is now posted on the > >wiki pointed to from the agenda of our Oct 14 meeting. > > > >Alan > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.or >g > > > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0