October 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

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