April 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

***SPAM*** The best career with us USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** Work oportuinity USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** Build a better career USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** Build a better career USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** Best job USA.
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

Voting on new gTLD Statement - currently not quorate
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Dear Members: Allow me to give those of you who have yet to vote in the balloting for the new gTLD statement a gentle reminder to do so - voting closes tomorrow and at the present time only six of the 15 possible voters have cast their vote. -- -- 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) 301-8637 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

5 4

Re: [ALAC] Voting on new gTLD Statement - currently not quorate
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Liaison who are not ALAC members do not have a vote. Alan At 16/04/2009 06:35 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >Just to make sure once again, liaisons do not have a vote ? > >Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > >On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart < >nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > Dear Members: > > > > Allow me to give those of you who have yet to vote in the balloting for the > > new gTLD statement a gentle reminder to do so - voting closes tomorrow and > > at the present time only six of the 15 possible voters have cast > their vote. > > -- > > > > -- > > > > > > 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) 301-8637 > > > > 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

At 16/04/2009 02:48 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >Hello Alan, > >At 16/04/2009 06:59 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >Do we have separate gTLD Registrar constituency, a ccTLD Registrar >constituency and an IDN Registrar constituency within ICANN or one >single constituency for Registrars ? > > >ccTLD registrars do not come into this discussion, because they do >not necessarily have contracts with ICANN, and if they did, it would >be under the auspices of the ccNSO. An IDN Registrar Constituency? >One does not exist today, but it is quite possible that one could >form and be part of the Registrar Stakeholders Group under the reformed GNSO. > > >The essence of what I said seems to be missed. I was saying that >Registrars as as an example of a business group are present within >the ICANN structure in unison, whereas the users are demarcated... > >Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. I think it is exactly the opposite! Registrars are demarcated - that is limited to specific areas, in the case of ICANN, they are limited to issues related to gTLDs and thus the GNSO. Users have a MUCH broader scope, limited only by our own ability to participate. Alan

2 2

URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Cheryl asked me to try to draft something that illustrates the divided nature of the ALAC on this issue, and for those opposed to the charter, to try to explain in as simple a way as possible what the issues are. Any comment that is formally submitted must be done so within about 8 hours of my sending this message, so we do not have much time left. The only ALAC members who have spoken on the subject to date (in this thread) are Adam, me and Cheryl. Others have participated earlier, and I have tried to capture their thoughts and feelings as well. Hopefully Cheryl and Adam will say whether I have captured their views properly. If not, adjustments will be made. Other comments are welcome as well. But we do not have much time. I do not believe that we can be completely silent on this issue. We need to say something. Alan ================================= Comment on the NCSG proposals The following comment has the support of a number of ALAC members including the Chair, but has not yet been subjected to a formal ALAC vote. That will happen during our next teleconference on April 28. The ALAC is divided on the support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC. Some members feel that although there are some problems with the proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive Board approval. Others feel that the issues still outstanding are sufficient to withhold Board support at this time. These issues include: · The issue of Council seats cannot be ignored. Although policy will likely be architected by Working Groups with open participation, it will be Council that decides what policies to address and what the WG charters will include. Without a voice on Council, a Constituency may not be able to effectively participate in the discussions leading to these decisions. And without an effective voice, there will be little incentive to bring new, non-commercial players into the gTLD policy arena one of the main reasons for the current reorganization and for the significant growth in the NCSG weighting compared to the NCUC in the current model. · Although the inclusion of individuals is satisfying on a number of levels, the proposed voting structure makes the NCSG very vulnerable to take-over, particularly with the lack of a fee structure being specified, and the lack of rules or proposed process which could even verify that all individual members are in fact identifiable people acting on their own accord. This could, over a period straddling two annual meeting, allow takeover of all council seats, reinforcing the first bullet above. · There is little evidence that those submitting this charter accept these potential problems and have identified a way to resolve them through some sort of amendments once Board approval is given. · It now looks like there may be one or more actual new non-commercial Constituencies that could receive Board approval. It would be far more satisfying to defer the long-term charter of the NCSG until these Constituencies could be present at the table and speak on their own behalf. Until such time, an interim model linking seats to Constituencies could be used. Clearly that model would need to be replaced prior to the existence of more than six constituencies. In summary, the ALAC is not of a single mind. Some people feel very strongly that the inadequacies of the proposed charter are sufficient reason to not accept it .Others feel that although there are some problems, it has sufficient merit to receive approval with the belief that any problems will be addressed as time goes on. The charter proposed by Cheryl Preston does not have the exact same failings as the NCUC version, but for a number of reasons has not received any strong support within the ALAC and for this reason we cannot advocate approval.

7 9

Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Beau, as I understand it, the Board will accept or reject presumably based on the their own perspective and the input received from the public comments. The only opportunity for change is if the Board rejects. If they accept, it is (until a change is required or forced) cast in concrete. Alan At 15/04/2009 07:26 PM, Brendler, Beau wrote: >I feel like I have something of a conflict of >interest, since I have a constituency proposal >before the community for consumers. I can go as >far as to say I have some concerns with both >charters that I hope will be ironed out during >the public comment and review process. > >________________________________________ >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf >Of Alan Greenberg [alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca] >Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 7:11 PM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s) > >Cheryl asked me to try to draft something that >illustrates the divided nature of the ALAC on >this issue, and for those opposed to the charter, >to try to explain in as simple a way as possible what the issues are. > >Any comment that is formally submitted must be >done so within about 8 hours of my sending this >message, so we do not have much time left. The >only ALAC members who have spoken on the subject >to date (in this thread) are Adam, me and Cheryl. >Others have participated earlier, and I have >tried to capture their thoughts and feelings as well. > >Hopefully Cheryl and Adam will say whether I have >captured their views properly. If not, >adjustments will be made. Other comments are >welcome as well. But we do not have much time. > >I do not believe that we can be completely silent >on this issue. We need to say something. > >Alan > > >================================= >Comment on the NCSG proposals > >The following comment has the support of a number >of ALAC members including the Chair, but has not >yet been subjected to a formal ALAC vote. That >will happen during our next teleconference on April 28. > >The ALAC is divided on the support of the >proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC. > >Some members feel that although there are some >problems with the proposal, it generally >addresses their concerns, and in particular, the >de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies >is a very good move in the right direction. >Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive Board approval. > >Others feel that the issues still outstanding are >sufficient to withhold Board support at this time. These issues include: > >· The issue of Council seats cannot be >ignored. Although policy will likely be >architected by Working Groups with open >participation, it will be Council that decides >what policies to address and what the WG charters >will include. Without a voice on Council, a >Constituency may not be able to effectively >participate in the discussions leading to these >decisions. And without an effective voice, there >will be little incentive to bring new, >non-commercial players into the gTLD policy arena > one of the main reasons for the current >reorganization and for the significant growth in >the NCSG weighting compared to the NCUC in the current model. > >· Although the inclusion of individuals >is satisfying on a number of levels, the proposed >voting structure makes the NCSG very vulnerable >to take-over, particularly with the lack of a fee >structure being specified, and the lack of rules >or proposed process which could even verify that >all individual members are in fact identifiable >people acting on their own accord. This could, >over a period straddling two annual meeting, >allow takeover of all council seats, reinforcing the first bullet above. > >· There is little evidence that those >submitting this charter accept these potential >problems and have identified a way to resolve >them through some sort of amendments once Board approval is given. > >· It now looks like there may be one or >more actual new non-commercial Constituencies >that could receive Board approval. It would be >far more satisfying to defer the long-term >charter of the NCSG until these Constituencies >could be present at the table and speak on their >own behalf. Until such time, an interim model >linking seats to Constituencies could be used. >Clearly that model would need to be replaced >prior to the existence of more than six constituencies. > >In summary, the ALAC is not of a single mind. >Some people feel very strongly that the >inadequacies of the proposed charter are >sufficient reason to not accept it .Others feel >that although there are some problems, it has >sufficient merit to receive approval with the >belief that any problems will be addressed as time goes on. > >The charter proposed by Cheryl Preston does not >have the exact same failings as the NCUC version, >but for a number of reasons has not received any >strong support within the ALAC and for this >reason we cannot advocate approval. > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 > >*** >Scanned > >** >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.

7 11

Re: [ALAC] GNSO Stakeholder Group Petition and Charters
by Adam Peake April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009

Alan, Hi. >Adam, I had meant to reply to this yesterday, but real life got in >the way. And we are now at the formal deadline. > >I will address solely the NCSG charter. I do not believe that we >need to comment on the Constituency proposals outlines that are on >the table, nor on the other SG charters. > >I cannot support your position on the NCSG charter, but perhaps can >propose something that is acceptable to all. First let me say why I >have a problem with it. I can live with Council seats not being tied >to Constituencies, and indeed in the long term, that may be >mandatory, if the number of Constituencies grow and the number of >seats remains static. I have already gone on records saying in the >interim, it may well be a good idea to tie Council representation to >Constituencies. The reason is simple. We are in a mode where we are >trying to encourage new players to come to the table. This is a >relatively hard sell, since there is a lot of work involved. The >ONLY incentive that people have is if they have a high degree of >certainty that they will actually be heard and have a chance of >effecting change. The future model may have policy developed in >working groups that are open to all, but it is still Council that >will decide WHAT policy to look at, and what the WG charters will be. NCUC's proposal considers this, copy of the relevant text: One approach suggested that an interim system in which each Constituency would be granted an automatic seat at the GNSO Council could be created as long as no more than six Constituencies exist within the NCSG structure. This suggestion not only fails to provide a long-term solution for the issue, it also creates artificial incentives for the formation of groups that have little concern for the wider range of the membership who the NCSG Council must serve. The outcome of an interim decision like that would encourage the election of NCSG Councilors who have little or no incentive to reach out to other views and constituencies that naturally constitute the non-commercial interest in ICANN. My view's less subtle, I also don't see "interim" as workable. Long ago there was a kind of interim arrangement where Supporting Organizations were created and took their board seats while an At Large was slowly constructed. Those that then had power changed the rules on those that didn't... first they'd take just a few of their seats, and then they'd take none. And in the GNSO there has always been the opportunity to create new constituencies, yet none has, I think in part because the entrenched structures wouldn't have made it easy. In many ways ICANN's an incredibly transparent organization, ignoring any legitimate voice will be noticed and acted on. I agree getting new people involved will be hard. But it will come through efforts to inform groups about why ICANN needs their input. ICANN needs to do the same kind of outreach it's been doing for business for the non-commercial side, particularly consumer organizations. Creating the Seoul meeting agenda so it's attractive for non-commercial organizations could be a start. I don't think we'll make much headway unless there's outreach. Anyone who needs the lure of a council seat to join the new SG isn't very likely to give that seat up for some newcomer a few months or years later. And I know promise of a council seat isn't exactly what you're saying, but hope you see my point. >With the proposed NCSG model, a newcomer, particularly a small >constituency (even if they represent a very large body of users), >will potentially have to convince others of the merits of their >arguments. If they differ from the majority of the NCSG, there is a >good probability that their voices will never reach council. Three points: 1. A small constituency representing a large number of users will collectively also have a large number of votes (i.e. their members will be classed as large and so have a larger number of votes. I think the NCUC's vote weighting needs to be thought about a bit more, but further comment below...) 2. NCUC proposal does a good job in ensuring there's a low threshold for the formation of working groups, I think minority submissions will be heard. (And isn't convincing others of the merits of our arguments the basis of consensus policy making?) 3. I think your suggestion risks a bad person like me deciding to create a constituency, then encouraging a few like-minded people to give me support, a bit of outreach to a few more friends to bolster my numbers, all of a sudden my pet cause has a council seat. >In addition, the concept of individual users in the NCSG is very >attractive on many levels. But it also leaves the SG potentially >open to takeover, as a large number of individuals (and likely >virtual individuals who may have no more identity than an e-mail >address) could swamp the rest of the SG in votes. The NCUC proposal isn't perfect. I'd like to see the vote weighting changed, or at least a few options looked at, with probably a greater distinction between large and small organizations and individuals. But mobilizing a few hundred individuals would not be easy (ALAC proof of that) and would also be noticed. But we also need to ensure the bottom-up process is maintained and direct participation is encouraged and not replaced by a representative model. Individuals need to want to get involved, we're looking for balance. >The two together means that some group of people who decide they >want to dominate the SG have all the tools at their disposal to do >this. As such, I think that this could radically decrease the >attractiveness of getting new players into the game that will really >support the needs of the users. > >MY PROPOSAL: I would suggest that we NOT explicitly support the >proposal, but reiterate what was said in the statement on user >involvement in the GNSO. Specifically, that we will support any >proposal that makes it VERY attractive to new GNSO NC participants >and that we caution the Board to ensure that the proposals that they >ratify meet this criteria. Given lack of time I would support this position. However, we've been invited to these discussions for months, it's time we proposed solutions, say what we want rather than what we do not. Otherwise all we are doing is creating a barrier to the NCSG being created, and that is worse than picking a model and saying we'll work with it. We need to propose something. I am very concerned linking of constituencies to council seats will be a disaster (I almost know it will, it has an ICANN-style cock-up written all over it). I think the NCUC proposal is workable, and I support it noting that it needs work. Thanks, Adam (cock-up: blunder or error) >I also do not know how we formally do this in the few hours that we >have left, but that is where we are. > >I am sure that your position is supported by at least some ALAC >members, and I also know that mine is as well. Perhaps the only >alternative is to submit a dual answer showing the diversity, or >several individuals say what they feel, recognizing that the ALAC is >divided. > >Alan > > > >At 12/04/2009 06:09 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >>My apologies, just noticed I have an action item from the March 24 >>ALAC call, not only had I forgotten I had it, when I read it I >>still didn't recognize it! follows: >> >>"New GNSO Stakeholder Group Petition and Charters - Deadline: 15 April 2009 >>A Peake will try to summarize the statements made in Mexico City >>and see how they corrolate to the previous ones" >> >>Again, apologies for missing this. >> >>Give the short time to the deadline, I think it is too late for a >>comprehensive statement, certainly no time to draft, comment and >>vote. >> >>All SG charters are online >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/stakeholder-process-en.htm> >> >>Two NCSG drafts have been submitted, from the Non-Commercial Users >>Constituency (NCUC) (current GNSO constituency) and a new group, >>the "CyberSafety Constituency". I strongly favor the NCUC >>submission, particularly because it de-links the creation of >>constituencies from voting seats on the GNSO council. I think this >>essential. If constituencies are competing for seats and power then >>they are less likely to be effective in collaboration and >>representation of non-commercial interests. And we'd likely see >>barriers to the creation and acceptance of new constituencies (I >>believe we've seen this throughout ICANN's history, in the GNSO and >>also to some extent early creation of the At Large which was >>resisted by the first created supporting organizations). >> >>NCUC proposal is not perfect, but I think an acceptable starting >>point and support it. Note: the organization I work for, GLOCOM, >>is a member of the NCUC and I represent GLOCOM in the constituency. >>I also supported the NCUC SG charter as a member of the Internet >>Governance Caucus <http://www.igcaucus.org/>) >> >>New constituency submissions >><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm>, in >>addition to the CyberSafety Constituency charter, there's a >>Consumers Constituency (Beau) and City Top-Level-Domain (CTLD) >>Constituency (applicants hoping to run new gTLDs, they are >>potential applicants under the new gTLD round. Not completely clear >>to me why they wish to apply for the user house, when if they are >>successful in their TLD applications they will move over to the >>registrar Stakeholder Group.) >> >>The application from the consumers organizations is important. The >>Board Governance Committee Working Group (BGC WG) recommended that >>in the creation of stakeholder groups: >> >>"We want to emphasize that a new non-commercial Stakeholders Group >>must go far beyond the membership of the current Non-Commercial >>Users Constituency (NCUC). We must consider educational, research, >>and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members >>of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial >>organizations, as well as individual registrants, as part of a >>non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group." This has been >>echoed by members of the current GNSO commercial constituencies. >>NCUC has attempted outreach and growth with limited success -- it >>has no resources. >> >>BGC WG went on to say: >>"We also want to point out that the effort to have a balance within >>ICANN between commercial and non-commercial registrants reflects >>only a sense of equity. We welcome ongoing efforts to forge a >>stronger partnership between the international business community >>and ICANN, and would be surprised if Council restructuring were to >>be viewed as an impediment. On the contrary, we believe that an >>improved Council will yield concrete benefits for business and >>other stakeholders. In addition, all stakeholder groups and the >>constituencies that form them will be expected to conduct greater >>outreach and seek to recruit a broader, more diverse membership." >> >>ICANN has recently been actively courting the international >>business community, I suggest ALAC recommend ICANN should begin >>similar outreach to the non-commercial sector, particularly >>consumer organizations. For example designing the agenda of one of >>this year's meetings (has to be Seoul) so its has sessions oriented >>to the interests of consumers organizations and other NC interests, >>as ICANN held special sessions for business during the Paris >>meeting. I think this proposal would also fit with recommendations >>in the ALAC review and could also be a response to that process. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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

3 2

GNSO Stakeholder Group Petition and Charters
by Adam Peake April 15, 2009

April 15, 2009

My apologies, just noticed I have an action item from the March 24 ALAC call, not only had I forgotten I had it, when I read it I still didn't recognize it! follows: "New GNSO Stakeholder Group Petition and Charters - Deadline: 15 April 2009 A Peake will try to summarize the statements made in Mexico City and see how they corrolate to the previous ones" Again, apologies for missing this. Give the short time to the deadline, I think it is too late for a comprehensive statement, certainly no time to draft, comment and vote. All SG charters are online <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/stakeholder-process-en.htm> Two NCSG drafts have been submitted, from the Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) (current GNSO constituency) and a new group, the "CyberSafety Constituency". I strongly favor the NCUC submission, particularly because it de-links the creation of constituencies from voting seats on the GNSO council. I think this essential. If constituencies are competing for seats and power then they are less likely to be effective in collaboration and representation of non-commercial interests. And we'd likely see barriers to the creation and acceptance of new constituencies (I believe we've seen this throughout ICANN's history, in the GNSO and also to some extent early creation of the At Large which was resisted by the first created supporting organizations). NCUC proposal is not perfect, but I think an acceptable starting point and support it. Note: the organization I work for, GLOCOM, is a member of the NCUC and I represent GLOCOM in the constituency. I also supported the NCUC SG charter as a member of the Internet Governance Caucus <http://www.igcaucus.org/>) New constituency submissions <http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/newco-process-en.htm>, in addition to the CyberSafety Constituency charter, there's a Consumers Constituency (Beau) and City Top-Level-Domain (CTLD) Constituency (applicants hoping to run new gTLDs, they are potential applicants under the new gTLD round. Not completely clear to me why they wish to apply for the user house, when if they are successful in their TLD applications they will move over to the registrar Stakeholder Group.) The application from the consumers organizations is important. The Board Governance Committee Working Group (BGC WG) recommended that in the creation of stakeholder groups: "We want to emphasize that a new non-commercial Stakeholders Group must go far beyond the membership of the current Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC). We must consider educational, research, and philanthropic organizations, foundations, think tanks, members of academia, individual registrant groups and other noncommercial organizations, as well as individual registrants, as part of a non-commercial registrants Stakeholders Group." This has been echoed by members of the current GNSO commercial constituencies. NCUC has attempted outreach and growth with limited success -- it has no resources. BGC WG went on to say: "We also want to point out that the effort to have a balance within ICANN between commercial and non-commercial registrants reflects only a sense of equity. We welcome ongoing efforts to forge a stronger partnership between the international business community and ICANN, and would be surprised if Council restructuring were to be viewed as an impediment. On the contrary, we believe that an improved Council will yield concrete benefits for business and other stakeholders. In addition, all stakeholder groups and the constituencies that form them will be expected to conduct greater outreach and seek to recruit a broader, more diverse membership." ICANN has recently been actively courting the international business community, I suggest ALAC recommend ICANN should begin similar outreach to the non-commercial sector, particularly consumer organizations. For example designing the agenda of one of this year's meetings (has to be Seoul) so its has sessions oriented to the interests of consumers organizations and other NC interests, as ICANN held special sessions for business during the Paris meeting. I think this proposal would also fit with recommendations in the ALAC review and could also be a response to that process. Thanks, Adam

3 2

Re: [ALAC] [lac-discuss-en] Texting Toward Utopia - Does the Internet spread democracy?
by Carlton Samuels April 13, 2009

April 13, 2009

Dear Omar: Yes, well worth reading. Thanks for sharing. I teach Information Science at university-level and I always tell my students that they should always remember that information technology, especially the developments in social networking, are mere tools to be utilized. In the final analysis, these tools still require an enabling environment to be productive. I do not agree with the author that the Internet drives us to political extremism. Birds of a feather have always flocked together. So all the Internet does is accommodate easier "flocking" and with this, more sharing of information thus leading to a deeper understanding of the shared condition or presumption. I would argue that the Internet as a collection of technology tools drives the idea that some principles embedded in culture and by acculturation could do with some re-visioning and updating. In some common law jurisdictions, for example, the Evidence Act has been transformed to account for inclusion and handling of digital information, thereby driving changes in cross-border evidence collection and criminal procedures. So too, the discovery process. To me it is clear that what these tools deliver on the ability to collaborate and harness the wisdom [and yes, the absolute stupidity, depending!] of the crowd. They undermine the fundamentals of what could be termed the economics of "means" in furtherance of a specific outcome much more profoundly than anything else to date. And in the context of democracy, these enable disruptive messaging, exemplifying the changes to the existing political economy and the gravamen of Cass Sunstein's complaint. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Omar Kaminski <omar(a)kaminski.adv.br> wrote: > http://bostonreview.net/BR34.2/morozov.php > Worth reading. Happy Eastern! > > Omar > >

1 0

FW: Follow-Up to the e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum in Mexico City
by Heidi Ullrich April 9, 2009

April 9, 2009

Dear All, Please see the message below regarding the summary of the e-Crime and the Abuse of the DNS Forum that was held during the 34th ICANN Meeting as well as a request for feedback and suggestions on possible follow-up sessions at the 35th ICANN Meeting to be held in Sydney. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org From: Margie Milam Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2009 8:10 PM To: council(a)gnso.icann.org; liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org; ceo(a)auda.org.au; Steve Crocker Cc: Denise Michel; Liz Gasster; Dave Piscitello; Nick Ashton-Hart; Gabriella Schittek; Bart Boswinkel; Heidi Ullrich Subject: Follow-Up to the e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum in Mexico City Dear All, We would like to thank the ICANN Community for its participation in the e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum that took place during the 34th ICANN Meeting in Mexico City. We greatly appreciate the information that was shared during the Break-Out Sessions and the Q&A. The Forum was very well-received and was effective in communicating the complex issues faced by those in the Community tackling this multifaceted subject. To continue the dialogue in the Community, ICANN has posted additional information on the e-Crime Forum and recommendations from the Break-out Sessions held in conjunction with the e-Crime Forum on the following topics: ccTLDs and Law Enforcement Protecting Consumers in New and Existing TLDs The Role of ICANN in Responding to e-Crime E-Crime in Latin America We invite you to review at your convenience the summary of the e-Crime and Abuse of the DNS Forum at the link below. http://mex.icann.org/node/3638 We also would like to receive feedback and suggestions from the Community on whether follow-up sessions would be appropriate at the 35th ICANN Meeting to be held in Sydney June 21-26. We have already received suggestions for additional in-depth sessions on ccTLDs and Law Enforcement, and on protecting consumers from e-Crime and DNS abuse. If you believe that it is important to continue to address this topic in Sydney, please reply by Friday, April 17th with your thoughts on the format, topics, and other ideas for additional sessions on this topic. Thank you for your assistance in this regard. Best regards, Margie Milam Senior Policy Counselor ICANN

3 2

Opened beyond the close? (was NOW OPEN: Public Comment Period for ATLAS Working Group Statements)
by Evan Leibovitch April 6, 2009

April 6, 2009

>From the ALAC announce list: > Statement on the New gTLD Programme Application Process v2 (ATLAS WG3). > Consultation closes 25 April, 2009. > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_new_gtlds_application… > According to the timetable at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?at_large_policy_development_schedu… the deadline for submitting comments on the second draft gTLD guidebook is April 13. However, the proposed ALAC vote to ratify the gTLD working group's statement for that consultation is not to be completed until April 20. Furthermore, this timetable provides 11 days of consultation but only one day to incorporate the comments into revised wording. Is that fair to the volunteers? Who is responsible for creating a timetable that has the "official" ALAC statement on the gTLD guidebook missing the published deadline by a full week? What is the point of an extended consultation if the resulting statement gets ignored on a technicality? Why did the consultation process not even start until this week, knowing in advance the short timelines? I fully agree with the need for an ongoing, thoughtful and open evolution of the WG's activity. But we need to deal with this deadline that is not of our making. How do ALAC and staff intend to address this? I was promised at the last ALAC call that would have a timely solution, not one that misses ICANN's deadline by design. - Evan PS: So far there is only one comment posted on the wiki designed to attract community comment for this working group -- and it's mine. I invite anyone here to contribute, even if it's with a comment or question. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?statement_on_new_gtlds_application…

1 1

ICANN, the JPA and Draft Cybersecurity Act 2009
by Carlton Samuels April 3, 2009

April 3, 2009

I have always had a difficulty seeing how my Uncle Sam would let go of something so clearly strategic, especially when most Americans hold it was bought and paid for by American money. So when I opined to some of you that the JPA - or some form thereof - shall forever be with us, some said this was an "over the top" assessment. Follow the link and see the rattles of the the ordinary American political mind. Note well that the politicians named here are not your usual klavern of rightwing firebreathing nativists. These - Snow and Rockefeller - tend to sterling centrist perspectives, if not actively liberal. The *draft* *Cybersecurity Act 2009* [http://cdt.org/security/CYBERSEC4.pdf] establishes some facts on the ground. Read *Sec 2: Findings* carefully. The *recitals* in this part justify what is proposed: the maintenance of the DNS infrastructure currently jobbed out to ICANN is a strategic and critical infrastructure resource which is fundamental to the security and continued well-being of the United States. Plainly put, it is ineligible for "foreign" control. Focus on *Sec 3: Cybersecurity Advisory Panel* and note who are the persons elegible for appointment to help USG/DOC make the decisions on JPA. Be sure to read carefully *Sec 8: Review of NTIA Domain Name Contracts*. The provision for extending USG oversight of ICANN is documented here and the mechanism by which that will be assured. Here is further grist for the mill, compliments of Milton Mueller's blog: http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2009/4/2/4141451.html http://www.cdt.org/ Kind regards, Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies.

3 4

FW: Brand Owners Divided on New gTLDs
by Carlton Samuels April 3, 2009

April 3, 2009

Follow the link to see what others are saying about it..... http://www.domainpulse.com/2009/04/01/melbourne-it-survey-finds-brand-owner… Carlton Samuels The University of the West Indies

1 0

ALAC/At-Large budgets
by Alan Greenberg April 2, 2009

April 2, 2009

Nick, with the rest of the community, the ALAC has been asked to comment on the FY10 Operating Plan and Budget Framework. Although perhaps not unreasonable, there is virtually nothing there for us to directly comment on with respect to ALAC and At-Large. It would be very helpful, and perhaps allow us to better focus, if we could see what the projected components are of the budget framework which directly impact us - both from an absolute sense, and understanding how it compares to previous years. As I understand it, this would be in line with the ALAC independant review comments of fiscal transparency. Alan

5 4

Board Request for Community Views on Constituency Day
by At-Large Staff April 1, 2009

April 1, 2009

Dear All: In case this has slipped below the radar screen, we forward the below message from Diane Schroeder for you to consider. To the Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees: > > The Board is interested in your views on the best ways for the Board and > Supporting Organizations & Advisory Committees to interact at the ICANN > international meetings. As the community grows and the issues become more > complex, it has become a greater challenge to find a way to effectively and > efficiently organise this interaction. > > In particular, the Board would like to come to a shared understanding of what > Constituency Day should be, with a view to trying out different ways of > interaction during the Constituency Day at next ICANN international meeting in > Sydney.. > > At present the Constituency Day is organised as follows: the Board is divided > up and a number of members are assigned to various constituencies for > different amounts of time depending on the constituency. The idea behind this > approach was to give the Board members an opportunity to listen to some of the > constituency business, not just rely on the question and answer time with the > Board. To prepare for the visit by the Board members, each constituency is > asked to provide a list of topics that they would like to discuss with the > Board. Some constituencies are better at providing this than others. Board > Members are assigned to constituencies other than the one with which they are > most familiar. In addition, the CEO and the Chair visit all constituencies. > At the end of the day, after all the visits, the Board comes together and > exchanges the views they have heard from the various groups. > > To assist in the discussion about the future of Constituency Day, the Board > would like your thoughts on the following specific questions, by the end of > April. > 1. What is the goal of having the Board meet with a Supporting Organization, > Constituency, or Advisory Committee during the ICANN meeting? > 2. What is the best communication method between the Board and a Supporting > Organization, Constituency or Advisory Committee during the ICANN meeting? > 3. How much time is needed for effective communication with the Board? > 4. Who of the Board should come to such meetings the CEO & the Chair? A > representative group of board members? All Board members? > > Thank you for your help in this process. > Diane Schroeder -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Heidi Ullrich, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0