August 2008 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] FW: Mailing list duplication
by Jacqueline A. Morris Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

Personally, I think that ALAC and RALOs should be required to subscribe to the working lists - that is the ALAC one where only they can post, and which should be used for substantive policy discussion, as well as the regional lists (for regional ppl, like Chair, Secretariat, Board etc) and the announce list (should be required for all ALSes as well) and that should be it. The wild west open discussion list can be monitored by one or two people, in case something of import is raised by someone outside the RALOS or the ALAC, as this is the only place for them to post, but it should not be obligatory as the volume is massive and there are many discussions which do not interest everyone. I like the GA list participation idea for the At Large list.. Jacqueline Carlton Samuels wrote: > I'm concerned about this concept of participation. My "participation" is > driven by my interests. And quite frankly, not all issues gathered on these > lists have the same value or impact for me. > > IMHO, all "addressees" may participate as they deem fit. For any blanket > 'participation' requirement for what is a voluntary chore would be > misplaced. That would be like work. And if it is work, it ought to, of > right, attract a fee. > > 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, August 11, 2008 12:15 PM > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication > > The phrase "and with ALAC" is interesting, and one of the things we > need to discuss. > > Are all ALAC members (or the somewhat larger group, all ALAC members > and RALO management) obliged to monitor all communications on the > At-Large list? If one presumes that this is the way for individuals > with no explicit standing to raise issues with us, the answer is yes. > But clearly at the moment, some do not even subscribe, and others do > not have the stamina or time to go through it all. > > In the case of the GNSO and GA list, it is clearly stated that some > Council members participate, but they are under no obligation to > participate or respond. > > Alan > > At 11/08/2008 12:16 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > >> ALAC - list for ALAC to do work in public. >> At Large - list for all people interested in At Large issues to talk >> amongst themselves and with ALAC >> That's my take on it... >> Jacqueline >> Thompson, Darlene wrote: >> >>> Well, and now after my last e-mail, I'm disagreeing with myself. We >>> have ALAC Announce for announcements. So what is the difference between >>> ALAC and At-Large? No idea whatsoever. Dang! >>> >>> D >>> >>> 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 Alan >>> Greenberg >>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:46 PM >>> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> Subject: Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication >>> >>> You may well be right regarding Internet policy issues in general. >>> But there will certainly be internal communications for >>> administrative issues, or ongoing work on a statement being >>> formulated or discussed that is targeted to a specific RALO). >>> >>> And we need to remember that if a subscriber is flooded with mail >>> that has no direct relevance to them, they may well just get off >>> the list. So targeting is important. >>> >>> Alan >>> >>> At 07/08/2008 03:27 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Based on our mandate, I cannot think of any issue important to ALAC >>>> >>>> >>> that >>> >>> >>>> would have a specificity of interest to just one RALO. >>>> >>>> This is not to say that every issue will resonate the same for every >>>> ALS.......or even RALO! >>>> >>>> Carlton >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan >>>> >>>> >>> Greenberg >>> >>> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:44 PM >>>> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> Subject: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication >>>> >>>> The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, >>>> RALO management and ICANN staff. >>>> >>>> The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the >>>> moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO >>>> >>>> >>> people. >>> >>> >>>> The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. >>>> >>>> Somehow we need to rationalize this. >>>> >>>> Some questions that come to mind are: >>>> - Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. >>>> - Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and >>>> comment when appropriate. >>>> - Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues >>>> that are relevant to that RALO only? >>>> >>>> Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any >>>> reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside >>>> of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? >>>> >>>> Alan >>>> >>>> PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message >>>> on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people >>>> without cross-posting. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> ALAC mailing list >>>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>>> >>>> >>> n.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 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ALAC mailing list >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.o >>> > rg > >>> 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

FW: Mailing list duplication
by Carlton Samuels Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

I'm concerned about this concept of participation. My "participation" is driven by my interests. And quite frankly, not all issues gathered on these lists have the same value or impact for me. IMHO, all "addressees" may participate as they deem fit. For any blanket 'participation' requirement for what is a voluntary chore would be misplaced. That would be like work. And if it is work, it ought to, of right, attract a fee. 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, August 11, 2008 12:15 PM To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication The phrase "and with ALAC" is interesting, and one of the things we need to discuss. Are all ALAC members (or the somewhat larger group, all ALAC members and RALO management) obliged to monitor all communications on the At-Large list? If one presumes that this is the way for individuals with no explicit standing to raise issues with us, the answer is yes. But clearly at the moment, some do not even subscribe, and others do not have the stamina or time to go through it all. In the case of the GNSO and GA list, it is clearly stated that some Council members participate, but they are under no obligation to participate or respond. Alan At 11/08/2008 12:16 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >ALAC - list for ALAC to do work in public. >At Large - list for all people interested in At Large issues to talk >amongst themselves and with ALAC >That's my take on it... >Jacqueline >Thompson, Darlene wrote: >>Well, and now after my last e-mail, I'm disagreeing with myself. We >>have ALAC Announce for announcements. So what is the difference between >>ALAC and At-Large? No idea whatsoever. Dang! >> >>D >> >>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 Alan >>Greenberg >>Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 3:46 PM >>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication >> >>You may well be right regarding Internet policy issues in general. >>But there will certainly be internal communications for >>administrative issues, or ongoing work on a statement being >>formulated or discussed that is targeted to a specific RALO). >> >>And we need to remember that if a subscriber is flooded with mail >>that has no direct relevance to them, they may well just get off >>the list. So targeting is important. >> >>Alan >> >>At 07/08/2008 03:27 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >> >>>Based on our mandate, I cannot think of any issue important to ALAC >>> >>that >> >>>would have a specificity of interest to just one RALO. >>> >>>This is not to say that every issue will resonate the same for every >>>ALS.......or even RALO! >>> >>>Carlton >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan >>> >>Greenberg >> >>>Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2008 12:44 PM >>>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>Subject: [ALAC] Mailing list duplication >>> >>>The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, >>>RALO management and ICANN staff. >>> >>>The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the >>>moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO >>> >>people. >> >>>The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. >>> >>>Somehow we need to rationalize this. >>> >>>Some questions that come to mind are: >>>- Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. >>>- Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and >>>comment when appropriate. >>>- Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues >>>that are relevant to that RALO only? >>> >>>Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any >>>reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside >>>of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? >>> >>>Alan >>> >>>PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message >>>on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people >>>without cross-posting. >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>ALAC mailing list >>>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>> >>n.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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.o rg >> >>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

Re: [ALAC] Board Liaison July/August report
by Annette Muehlberg Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

Totally agree. Third-party beneficiary status would be very helpfull for the individual users. best Annette ...> As for upcoming issues, I would recommend that ALAC review the Registrar > Accreditation Agreement and its amendments. ... -- shouldn't we make another > plug for third-party beneficiary status for the affected public? > > --Wendy >

1 0

Board Liaison July/August report
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

Preliminary minutes from the July 31 Board Meeting are posted at <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-31jul08.htm> As you can see, the Board discussed the GNSO Restructuring and was interested in how it would accommodate new interests. The Board has asked staff for analysis on implementation issues. I raised our concern about the inclusion of "individuals," not limited to "registrants" or existing constituencies. Further At-Large perspective would be welcome in this continuing discussion. You will note further that implementation of new gTLD processes moves forward, with little further opportunity for comments. As for upcoming issues, I would recommend that ALAC review the Registrar Accreditation Agreement and its amendments. As registrars are one of the most individual-facing parts of the ICANN web, and the ICANN contract the uniform requirements they must follow, we should at least be making recommendations (even if they are likely to be ignored, again) as to how these contracts could better serve the interests of individual Internet users. When even the Department of Commerce is concerned about ICANN's lack of contractual enforcement -- shouldn't we make another plug for third-party beneficiary status for the affected public? --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

ALAC Meeting: GNSO restructuring
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 12, 2008

Aug. 12, 2008

I have added two items for our meeting regarding the GNSO restructuring proposal. It should have been done a while ago, but both Cheryl and I have been rather overloaded. My apologies for this. The first item is the augmenting and ratification of the ALAC statement appended to the working group report. It reporduces the already published statemen and makes two additional comments: a. Our disappointment at the negative comments made about the ALAC (and NomCom) members of the working group by some of the constituencies. b. Comments on the new non-commercial stakeholders group partly in response to the belief by some existing constituencies that no more constituencies should be created. For your convenience, I am attaching a copy of the draft ALAC statement. The second agenda item is directly in reply to questions raised by the Board regarding the new structure. Some have already been addressed by the above statement, but some are new. Alan

1 0

Moderation of Jeff Williams
by At-Large Staff Aug. 8, 2008

Aug. 8, 2008

Dear List Members: On Tuesday 5th August, Jeff Williams was notified by the Chair of the ALAC that further off-topic postings such as that entitled ³How to carjack a top Google exec, according to Google² would result in his posting privileges on the public At-Large list being revoked, for a time to be decided by the ALAC. Since that notification, further off-topic postings have been sent, and as a consequence we have been asked to suspend his posting privileges. He will continue to receive messages from the list, however, posts sent to the list will be bounced back to him automatically. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Mailing list duplication
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 7, 2008

Aug. 7, 2008

The ALAC and (presumably) the ALAC-Internal list includes the ALAC, RALO management and ICANN staff. The At-Large list is a self-selected list of people which (at the moment) includes all ALAC members, but not not several of the RALO people. The RALO lists include an unknown subset/superset of these same people. Somehow we need to rationalize this. Some questions that come to mind are: - Where do we want substantive discussions with users to take place. - Are ALAC and RALO people obliged to read the At-Large list and comment when appropriate. - Should the RALO lists be identified as being exclusively for issues that are relevant to that RALO only? Are there more question that we need to consider.? Are there any reasonable answers which will allow interaction with people outside of this lists's members, but will avoid needless cross posting? Alan PS The issue came up in my mind because I am about to post a message on the RAA and see no way to hit a reasonable cross-section of people without cross-posting.

2 1

Registrar Accreditation Agreement Revistions
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 6, 2008

Aug. 6, 2008

The comment period for the RAA revisions closed on Aug 4. All comments can be seen at http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/ There are some very thoughtful and relevant contributions. In specific, I draw your attention to one by the US Dept. of Commerce at http://forum.icann.org/lists/raa-consultation/msg00061.html. Note that for some unknown reason, some of the attachments have had their filetype changes from .doc or .pdf to .bin, so it may take some extra effort to open them. They seem safe to open if you use the correct application program. Alan

1 0

ccNSO Phishing survey results published
by Jacqueline A. Morris Aug. 6, 2008

Aug. 6, 2008

Dear all, A short report with the results of the ccNSO phishing survey is now published at http://www.ccnso.icann.org/surveys/phishing-issues-survey-results-jun08.pdf

1 0

New Lists Operational
by Nick Ashton-Hart Aug. 3, 2008

Aug. 3, 2008

Dear Members: I can confirm the following members of this list: 15 members of the ALAC Regional Secretariats Liaisons At-Large Staff Denise Michel Further details may be found by reviewing the membership list which is accessible to each subscriber. -- 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

2 3