August 2009 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Letter to the Chair of the Board on Status of Liaison Statement on Consumer and Other Constituency Proposals
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 27, 2009

Aug. 27, 2009

To: Peter Dengate-Thrush Peter, You should by now have received the official notification by the Staff of ALAC’s strong support for the proposed GNSO Consumer Constituency; the ALAC voted by consensus to endorse the proposal. In this connection, I have the unhappy duty to inform you that it has come to our attention that the ALAC Board Liaison made statements in connection with the Board discussion about the proposed consumer constituency that were directly contrary to the view of the At-Large Community. It appears that she also made statements about other constituency proposals, many of which we have taken no settled view upon (CityTLD, IDNgTLD). If she did not make it clear that the ALAC and At-Large strongly support the Consumer Constituency proposal, she should have. Any adverse comments or questions that she raised were entirely personal in nature. To be frank, ALAC Liaisons to any part of ICANN have no business making personal statements without making clear that is all that they are; if Wendy failed to do in this case then she was acting inappropriately. All ALAC Liaisons are very clearly instructed to make it clear when they are making statements on behalf of At-Large, and when they are making personal statements. Our Liaisons (all of them) also don’t have any business making personal statements that they know are directly contrary to the formally stated positions of the community that they represent without making the conflict-of-interest situation crystal clear. For the avoidance of doubt, any statement made to the Board by the ALAC Board Liaison which is not clearly stated as “on behalf of At-Large”, is automatically a personal view only. I encourage you and/or your colleagues on the Board to enquire of me, or the Vice-Chairs and Rapporteur of the ALAC if you have any question about the nature of any statement made by our liaison. There is no possibility that Wendy could not have known of the support of the At-Large for the Consumer Constituency. At-Large has sought to recruit consumer organisations into the community for years now, and several internationally known consumer representatives and organisations are long-term At-Large Community members and leaders. In addition, leaders of the international consumer movement in At-Large are parties to the Constituency proposal as you know, and others in At-Large are working hard to recruit more consumer groups to join the constituency should the Board approve it. On a positive note, in preparation for the appointment of a Board Liaison for the upcoming year, At-Large began some months ago considerably upgrading the process by which the ALAC Board Liaison is chosen, and fleshed-out in considerable detail the obligations and requirements for eligibility for this important position. We ask for a statement from all candidates that they are able to meet the obligations, as part of our nominations process, and we recognise that there is nothing (so far) in our planned processes where we do anything resembling due diligence or even try to evaluate/judge how well the candidates meet the eligibility requirements (many of which are subjective in any case); We will shortly be apprising you of these via our At-Large Staff. Based on this experience this may need considerable review in the future but with the planned advent of voting At-Large elected Board Members I suspect the point becomes somewhat moot, but it is something to be considered as we flesh out that electoral process in the future. We believe these measures considerably increase the transparency and accountability of those who speak in our community’s name, and that unfortunate incidents such as the one that causes me to write to you today will be very effectively prevented. Moreover, I think you will find that the new processes and requirements are a considerable step forward in the development of processes that could be used by the At-Large Community to select voting Directors in the happy circumstance that the Board decides to approve At-Large appointing one or more Directors, as we believe that it should. Finally, please do forward this note on to the full Board, in advance of or at, this month's ICANN Board Meeting and discussions. (Digitally signed in the PDF copy attached to this transmission) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) *ALAC Chair 2007-2009* *26**th** August, 2009*

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
by Adam Peake Aug. 26, 2009

Aug. 26, 2009

Perhaps we should ask Robin to amend the document to read: In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that some members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that in particular "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction." Helpful? Thanks, Adam >A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation >in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. >An example is >http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-par…. >According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC. > >Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and >misleading. It reads: > >----------------- >Myth 6 > >"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society >drafted charter." >False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted >charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told >the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted >charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC >said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that >"the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >move in the right direction." >----------------- > >This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal >(verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the >de-linking of seats was a good thing. > >In fact, the statement that they were quoting >(http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) >said: > >"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." > >"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that >the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and >not the ALAC in general. > >I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed >inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing. > >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

2 2

At-Large Guide to gTLDs
by At-Large Staff Aug. 26, 2009

Aug. 26, 2009

Dear Members: As you may recall, there has been a long-standing publication development initiative slowly moving towards completion: the publication of the "At-Large Guide to gTLDs". This effort actually began even before I began working with ICANN. The last time this was reviewed by the community it was said that it would be revised, your comments included (they have been), the language made more accessible and brought up-to-date, and then the text in prospectively final form sent to all of you for review, in translated form. I have attached the English, French, and Spanish versions. If you could provide any final specific comments that you think should be reflected in the text, we could then incorporate those. Wwe would then create the publication-ready text for you, complete with some relevant graphics, so you could see the final-final text - and we could then publish it in time for the Seoul meeting. -- Regards, *ICANN At-Large Staff* Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella Gruber-White staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Your attention is drawn to and Announcement re ACSO in Sydney from ICANN
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

Your attention is drawn to the following ICANN Announcement => Please log in and use this tool to give feedback on the ASCO meeting in Sydney and further the important discussions raised therein... http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-25aug09-en.htm Staff can we ensure this also goes to the Announce List please... -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] And part 2
by Beau Brendler Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

The board rejected their power grab. That's gotta hurt. Wish they weren't using the tried-and-true methods totalitarian governments use to quash free speech, though, to make their case. Ironic. I got lots of other things I'd rather be doing, believe me. Good luck to the next NCUC/NCSG liaison. -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 10:51 AM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] And part 2 > >Beau Brendler wrote: >> Here's some more haranguing, including a public posting by the former chairman of the NCUC, Milton Mueller, which details his perceptions of my failings in the job of NCUC liaison. >> >> And we wonder why we are having trouble getting volunteers? >> >Some of the grievances of NCUC may be legitimate, but the depth of >bitterness, paranoia and personal attack shown in the exchange is >inexcusable. Even if they had a point it was lost amidst the, er, unique >style of debate. > >This a really unhelpful distraction. We have a massively complex gTLD >infrastructure coming up rapidly, registrar and registry practices to >monitor, intense pressure by the trademark lobby to inflict major >mission-creep, increased threats to Internet user security and privacy >.... and this crap. > >I find it unfortunate that the unprecedented level of civil society >mobilization recently undertaken by NCUC comes not a a result of any >policy-driven initiative, but rather as a result of an internal power >struggle. What a waste. > >- Evan

1 0

inter constituency meetings on IDN at the Seoul Meeting.
by Sivasubramanian Muthusamy Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

Hello CLO, I have earlier proposed that ALAC proposes a full day of meetings, organized as inter-constituency meetings, focused on IDN, to resolve pending issues and conclusively expedite the process of IDN TLD implementation. Though not submitted as an alac comment, the suggestion was sent as an introductory statement to the alac comments on the 3rd revision of the Draft Implementation Plan. "With the view to expeditiously complete the IDN related tasks, it is proposed that ICANN incorporates in its agenda for the Seoul meeting a full day of meetings to focus on IDNs, scheduled as inter‐constituency meetings attended by invited experts, staff and finance committees to resolve all pending issues related to IDN Policy and pave the way for implementation." http://forum.icann.org/lists/ft-implementation/pdfXrLMi2klCu.pdf As the schedule for the Seoul Meeting is drawn up, may I request that this proposal be passed on to other constituencies and also to the team that is working on the schedules? The IDN meetings could be organized as inter-constituency meetings on Wednesday, 28th October. In one unified session all constituencies could together review developments so far, and arrive at solutions for all pending issues - technical, cultural, political, financial and administrative- related to IDN implementation. (Other pressing business of different constituencies could be discussed in concurrent sessions) Thank you Sivasubramanian Muthusamy ALAC IDN Liaision.

1 1

And part 2
by Beau Brendler Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

Here's some more haranguing, including a public posting by the former chairman of the NCUC, Milton Mueller, which details his perceptions of my failings in the job of NCUC liaison. And we wonder why we are having trouble getting volunteers? -----Original Message----- >From: Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> >Sent: Aug 23, 2009 4:04 PM >To: 'Beau Brendler' <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison > >OK, Beau, >Once again you indicate that you are not interested in the charter issue, only in your little personal disputes. And if you think an allegedly insulting email qualifies for an Ombudsman complaint, and staff actions to manipulate the entire GNSO representational strucure don't, then I can write off your judgment pretty thoroughly anyway. See ya! > >Milton Mueller >Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies >XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology >------------------------------ >Internet Governance Project: >http://internetgovernance.org > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Beau Brendler [mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net] >> Sent: Saturday, August 22, 2009 12:01 PM >> To: Milton L Mueller >> Subject: Re: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> >> Not interested, thanks. Your chairman acted unacceptably and I'm >> pursuing recourse via the ombudsman and other means, and will be >> making the whole exchange public to the ALAC. I have nthong more to >> say to you or Robin, and if I hear any more allusions to some >> sort of >> alleged collusion with staff, or any other baseless attempt to smear >> my personal reputation, there will be consequences. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 22/08/2009, at 9:39 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller(a)syr.edu> wrote: >> >> > OK looks like Robin is as pissed at you as you are at her. If you >> > can move beyond that (nothing worse than the kind of abuse we are >> > routinely subjected to by staff and ALAC), understand that >> the issue >> > is THE NCSG CHARTER, and once again I don't see any effort to >> > address the points I made about that below. >> > If this disagreement is about you and your personal constituency I >> > am not interested. If it's about the best way to organize >> the NCSG >> > I remain wiling to talk any time. >> > >> > ________________________________________ >> > From: Beau Brendler [beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net] >> > Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 6:49 PM >> > To: Milton L Mueller; 'Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive >> > Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion' >> > Cc: Avri Doria >> > Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> > >> > Catch up on your e-mail. I don't see anything ambiguous >> about the e- >> > mail from Robin I pasted right beneath this one. >> > >> > That the chairman of the NCUC, or soon to be former NCUC, or >> > whatever it is, chooses these words is troubling: >> > >> > "You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look >> forward to your >> > continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared >> to debunk >> > it every time." >> > >> > Are you people nuts? Would you appreciate, as a volunteer, being >> > told that? This statement was sent to several mailing lists >> without >> > my consent. Legally speaking, I don't take it lightly at all. >> > Misinformation campaign? Your chairman asked me why I resigned. >> > >> > On a personal, human level: Would it encourage you to read >> any more? >> > Or see your point of view? >> > >> > Maybe this sort of behavior is prompting some of the >> "demonization" >> > you refer to below. >> > >> > Yeah, Milton. Just tell everyone it was about non-performance. >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Robin Gross >> > Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM >> > To: Beau Brendler >> > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users >> > Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , >> Avri Doria >> > Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> > >> > Just for the record: >> > >> > - Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE >> within the EC >> > at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this >> > resigation. >> > >> > >> > >> > - Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY >> > discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although >> you did >> > insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great >> > inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped >> > contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly). >> > >> > >> > >> > - Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended >> > Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the >> > listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called >> > dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our >> > "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not >> > just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you). >> > >> > You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward >> to your >> > continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared >> to debunk >> > it every time. >> > >> > Thank you, >> > Robin >> > >> > >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Milton L Mueller >> > Sent: Aug 21, 2009 6:27 PM >> > To: 'Beau Brendler' , "'Non-Commercial Users Constituency >> Executive >> > Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion'" >> > Cc: Avri Doria >> > Subject: RE: [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> > >> > Beau, >> > >> > ________________________________ >> > From: Beau Brendler [mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net] >> > >> > I sent a resignation letter to Cheryl Langdon-Orr and Robin Gross >> > and no one else. It did not go into detail. Robin chose to >> make that >> > letter public without my permission, which is a violation of my >> > privacy, not to mention bad etiquette. >> > >> > Robin's request to you contained the NCUC Exec Committee email >> > address in the header. Your email did not ask that it not be >> > forwarded or say that it was private. This is still a relatively >> > professional environment, and both ALAC and NCUC members have a >> > reasonable expectation to know what is going on and why. >> > >> > She asked for an explanation. I gave it. And I got a >> personal attack >> > in response that didn't deal with a single issue I raised >> > >> > There is absolutely nothing personal in my response. And my >> response >> > dealt with all the issues you raised, to the best of my ability >> > >> > Then I got a response accusing me of engaging in some sort of >> > disinformation campaign in collusion with Denise Michel. >> > >> > Huh? I have no idea what you are talking about here. >> > >> > I told you what I thought of that, and now I get some sort of >> > attempt at smoothing things over that quickly degenerates into A >> > PROFESSORIAL LECTURE WITH LOTS OF CAPS. >> > >> > Huh? >> > >> > Just who the hell do you think you are? Why would anyone want to >> > volunteer their time to become involved with you? >> > >> > Lots of people are currently getting involved with us; many >> have in >> > the past. It takes a long time to build a constituency with self- >> > generated resources, and frankly you ought to show more >> respect for >> > that if you intend to do it. I am really tired of this >> demonization >> > of NCUC, which seems to be occurring precisely because it is >> > successful. >> > >> > As for the consumer constituency, which deserves >> defending, here's >> > at my part in it: When I was employed by Consumers Union, I >> started >> > it. So Consumers Union was a part of it, and I got signoff on it >> > from our Washington policy office. It seemed like a good >> thing to do. >> > >> > Yes, but....once again, you fail to address the structural issue >> > about the role of constituencies in the NCSG. This is what the >> > controversy is about, Beau. You are just thinking about your own >> > place and not about the overall structure of the NCSG and >> what works >> > best for all groups. That is the reason there has been a fatal >> > disconnect between us. >> > >> > I have left CU, as has the person who signed off on it, and trying >> > to get CU to be a part of it again won't happen, because they are >> > focusing on health care, not telecommunications. There are >> consumer >> > organizations who have joined it, from Slovenia and Belgium and >> > Canada. >> > >> > There are just as many consumer organizations currently in >> NCUC. So >> > why do three organizations warrant a new constituency and a >> claim to >> > an equal share of all Council seats and Executive committee seats? >> > This is the issue, Beau. Why did you join forces with those >> > attempting to fragment and divide the NCSG and never give our >> > charter proposal the time of day? Why did you never offer to make >> > amendments to it that would make it acceptable? That's the >> only beef >> > I have with you and Cheryl. >> > >> > What do you think of the work of Knujon, whom I helped get >> involved >> > in ICANN? >> > >> > Knujon is a commercial brand protection firm, a hired gun for >> > corporations. Have you looked at their web site? Do you know what >> > they do? They get involved in ICANN (and the RIRs) to >> promote their >> > business. They apply for consulting contracts with ICANN. >> They made >> > fools of themselves at the last RIPE meeting by claiming, among >> > other things, that people who use their own language scripts in >> > Whois records (e.g., Korean, Japanese) ought to be forced to use >> > English because otherwise Knujon can't read their Whois records. A >> > bit parochial, wouldn't you say? >> > >> > Or ArtistsAgainst419? Or the work of Jart Armin? Have you reached >> > out to them? >> > >> > No, I haven't. They seem fine. And I could list 20 >> individuals that >> > I have drawn in that you haven't reached out to. What exactly is >> > your point? If these people want to join a new NCSG and form a >> > "security" constituency it's fine with me and everyone else. The >> > issue is the charter. >> > >> > Let's remain focused on the only important issue: the >> debate we are >> > having right now pertains to the structure of the NCSG and whether >> > new players will join an integrated SG in which everyone works >> > together to make collective decisions, or divide themselves into >> > segregated silos and then fight over the allocation of >> Council seats >> > and EC decisions. We favor the former. So does the vast >> majority of >> > CS groups. Stop pretending these are all zombies invoked by the >> > "NCUC Power Structure" and get serious about that issue. >> Then we can >> > have a reasonable dialogue. >> > Why is the existence of a consumer constituency threatening >> to you? >> > You should be welcoming it. >> > >> > No constituency is threatening to us if it is formed under >> the right >> > charter. All constituencies are threatening to _each other_ >> if they >> > form under the SIC-imposed charter. That is the point we have been >> > making - and you have been missing - for nearly a year now. >> > >> > You should be seeking alliance with these people, not >> singling them >> > out for ridicule. One of them, Breda Kutin of the Slovenian >> consumer >> > organization, is a colleague of mine, and knows more about >> consumer >> > advocacy than me or you (well, not you, of course). Find a >> > reasonable way to reach out to these people, Milton, and Mary, and >> > Brendan, and Robin. Don't insult them or call their >> personal ethics >> > into question when they disagree with you. Your credibility is at >> > stake otherwise. >> > >> > I have never even heard of these people so I am surprised to learn >> > that I am insulting them, ridiculing them and calling their >> personal >> > ethics into question. Care to retract? >> > >> > You well know, I didn't "demand" the NCUC meet in Yonkers. >> > >> > Who said you did? Not me. >> > >> > Third, I did spend a lot of time with you, Milton, and Brendan >> > Kuerbis (bought him lunch in Mexico, in fact, with my at-large >> > perdiem) and Mary, and other people in your group. >> > >> > I spent a lot of time talking to you and truly regret the >> breakdown >> > here. When we spoke you always seemed reasonable and open to >> > discussion. I haven't changed. >> > But clearly, things are going on in the background that are making >> > you hostile to us. And frankly, no, you didn't do much as >> liaison. I >> > understand what a frigging time sink this stuff is, so I >> don't hold >> > that against you, esp after losing your job. >> > >> -----Original Message----- >From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 9:42 AM >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN > >Maybe it's time for the ALAC to read this exchange that resulted when I resigned from the NCUC liaison position on Friday, in part over just this sort of behavior, which has been going on since the start of the Sydney meeting. This exchange was posted to a variety of lists without my initial consent, so I am violating no one's privacy by posting it here. I note, in particular, the following quote: > >"You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time." > >--------------------------- > From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >To: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> >Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" <ncu-exec(a)ipjustice.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >Date: Aug 21, 2009 4:13 PM > >Robin...please stop. You're making a fool of yourself. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Gross > Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM > To: Beau Brendler > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison > > Just for the record: > > - Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE within the EC at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this resigation. > > > - Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although you did insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly). > > > - Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you). > > You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time. > > Thank you, > Robin > > > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> Robin: >> >> You make my points well. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Gross >> Sent: Aug 21, 2009 3:20 PM >> To: Beau Brendler >> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> >> Beau, >> >> Any time you would like to have substantive discussions on issues, you are welcome to participate. But the reality is, you have never once engaged with us on a substantive discussion as long as I have been involved in ICANN, despite our requests. >> >> You are free to engage in revisionist history now if you like, but those of us who have tried to engage you in substantive discussions along the way know a different story very well. >> >> Regards, >> Robin >> >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> >>> Sure. >>> I'm concerned with the way some vocal members of the NCUC are trying to represent themselves as being a unified voice of "civil society" (they aren't), and that "civil society" is in complete agreement with the NCUC on every point ("civil society" doesn't agree with itself on a whole range of things). >>> There are a number of people in ALAC who feel alienated by this approach, and it's counterproductive to what's supposed to be going on -- which is policy work, not internal politics and power-grabbing. The NCUC, and ALAC, for that matter, have spent far too much time over the past year babbling about the NCSG charter when they should have been working on policy. >>> Also, in my opinion, the NCUC is basically a one-issue constituency dominated by privacy rights and free speech voices. Those are incredibly important issues, but they are not the only ones. There are a number of members of the at-large (and the general public -- see http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/to-some-its-the.html) who believe, for instance, that WHOIS is a valuable tool for consumer recourse from fraud and abuse. I don't think you'd find a single member of at-large who "opposes" free speech or privacy rights, but you would find some who believe there should be a balanced or nuanced approach, especially in places like the United States, where consumers don't share the same protections they do in, say, Europe. Back a couple of years ago when I was trying to recruit consumer groups to join the ALAC (and to the NCUC, for that matter), I took the trouble to ask a couple of privacy rights organizations I knew, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the World Privacy Forum, what they thought about the WHOIS issue. I was surprised at the nuanced response, which I circulated (with permission) to a couple of the ongoing WHOIS study groups at the time. Their outlook may have changed by now, I don't know and haven't asked. Have they joined the NCUC's one unified voice of civil society and consumers etc.? I haven't checked. >>> And I also think that what some vocal members of the NCUC have been saying about the consumer constituency is appalling -- certainly counterproductive and a missed opportunity. Their actions have convinced me that the NCUC is interested solely -- at the moment, anyway, until various matters are decided -- in consolidating its power, not building coalitions or working within the system to improve Internet policy or ICANN policy on behalf of users. >>> Ironically, I used to work for a consumer organization (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/, the site, eight years' worth of work, is still up) that was very hesitant to join any sort of coalition, for these sorts of reasons. When I was an employee of that organization, I often felt I had to hold back from voicing certain opinions or aligning myself with certain groups within the ICANN community. And I took a fair amount of browbeating from at least one member of the NCUC for that, though mercifully, I don't seem to be getting those e-mails anymore. Maybe that's because I'm no longer a marquee member of "civil society," and more of an average Joe consumer. >>> >>> Now, looking at the whole ICANN constituency and community enterprise as a whole, today, as a sort of free man, I can say: If I were to come in cold, and try to make up my mind, I would want no part of the NCUC. >>> >>> And I don't now, because I just don't like the way a number of members of your group are doing business. And that's why I'm resigning. >>> >>> Beau Brendler >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Robin Gross >>> Sent: Aug 21, 2009 2:19 PM >>> To: Beau Brendler >>> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria >>> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >>> >>> Beau, >>> >>> Thanks for letting us know. Can you say why you are resigning? Thank you. >>> >>> Best, >>> Robin >>> >>> >>> On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >>> >>>> Cheryl, Robin: >>>> >>>> Please consider this my immediate resignation from the ALAC liaison position to the NCUC. I leave it to Cheryl to inform the ALAC of my decision at a particularly opportune time, as my term is up by the next ICANN meeting. However, my decision has nothing to do with timing. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Beau Brendler >>>> > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>Sent: Aug 25, 2009 6:52 AM >>To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN >> >>A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation >>in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An >>example is >>http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-par…. >>According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC. >> >>Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and >>misleading. It reads: >> >>----------------- >>Myth 6 >> >>"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society >>drafted charter." >>False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted >>charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the >>ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted >>charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC >>said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that >>"the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >>move in the right direction." >>----------------- >> >>This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal >>(verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the >>de-linking of seats was a good thing. >> >>In fact, the statement that they were quoting >>(http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said: >> >>"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." >> >>"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that >>the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and >>not the ALAC in general. >> >>I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed >>inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing. >> >>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

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
by Beau Brendler Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

Maybe it's time for the ALAC to read this exchange that resulted when I resigned from the NCUC liaison position on Friday, in part over just this sort of behavior, which has been going on since the start of the Sydney meeting. This exchange was posted to a variety of lists without my initial consent, so I am violating no one's privacy by posting it here. I note, in particular, the following quote: "You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time." --------------------------- From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> To: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" <ncu-exec(a)ipjustice.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison Date: Aug 21, 2009 4:13 PM Robin...please stop. You're making a fool of yourself. -----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison Just for the record: - Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE within the EC at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this resigation. - Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although you did insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly). - Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you). You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time. Thank you, Robin On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > Robin: > > You make my points well. > > Thanks, > > Beau Brendler > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Gross > Sent: Aug 21, 2009 3:20 PM > To: Beau Brendler > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison > > Beau, > > Any time you would like to have substantive discussions on issues, you are welcome to participate. But the reality is, you have never once engaged with us on a substantive discussion as long as I have been involved in ICANN, despite our requests. > > You are free to engage in revisionist history now if you like, but those of us who have tried to engage you in substantive discussions along the way know a different story very well. > > Regards, > Robin > > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> Sure. >> I'm concerned with the way some vocal members of the NCUC are trying to represent themselves as being a unified voice of "civil society" (they aren't), and that "civil society" is in complete agreement with the NCUC on every point ("civil society" doesn't agree with itself on a whole range of things). >> There are a number of people in ALAC who feel alienated by this approach, and it's counterproductive to what's supposed to be going on -- which is policy work, not internal politics and power-grabbing. The NCUC, and ALAC, for that matter, have spent far too much time over the past year babbling about the NCSG charter when they should have been working on policy. >> Also, in my opinion, the NCUC is basically a one-issue constituency dominated by privacy rights and free speech voices. Those are incredibly important issues, but they are not the only ones. There are a number of members of the at-large (and the general public -- see http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/to-some-its-the.html) who believe, for instance, that WHOIS is a valuable tool for consumer recourse from fraud and abuse. I don't think you'd find a single member of at-large who "opposes" free speech or privacy rights, but you would find some who believe there should be a balanced or nuanced approach, especially in places like the United States, where consumers don't share the same protections they do in, say, Europe. Back a couple of years ago when I was trying to recruit consumer groups to join the ALAC (and to the NCUC, for that matter), I took the trouble to ask a couple of privacy rights organizations I knew, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the World Privacy Forum, what they thought about the WHOIS issue. I was surprised at the nuanced response, which I circulated (with permission) to a couple of the ongoing WHOIS study groups at the time. Their outlook may have changed by now, I don't know and haven't asked. Have they joined the NCUC's one unified voice of civil society and consumers etc.? I haven't checked. >> And I also think that what some vocal members of the NCUC have been saying about the consumer constituency is appalling -- certainly counterproductive and a missed opportunity. Their actions have convinced me that the NCUC is interested solely -- at the moment, anyway, until various matters are decided -- in consolidating its power, not building coalitions or working within the system to improve Internet policy or ICANN policy on behalf of users. >> Ironically, I used to work for a consumer organization (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/, the site, eight years' worth of work, is still up) that was very hesitant to join any sort of coalition, for these sorts of reasons. When I was an employee of that organization, I often felt I had to hold back from voicing certain opinions or aligning myself with certain groups within the ICANN community. And I took a fair amount of browbeating from at least one member of the NCUC for that, though mercifully, I don't seem to be getting those e-mails anymore. Maybe that's because I'm no longer a marquee member of "civil society," and more of an average Joe consumer. >> >> Now, looking at the whole ICANN constituency and community enterprise as a whole, today, as a sort of free man, I can say: If I were to come in cold, and try to make up my mind, I would want no part of the NCUC. >> >> And I don't now, because I just don't like the way a number of members of your group are doing business. And that's why I'm resigning. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Gross >> Sent: Aug 21, 2009 2:19 PM >> To: Beau Brendler >> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> >> Beau, >> >> Thanks for letting us know. Can you say why you are resigning? Thank you. >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> >>> Cheryl, Robin: >>> >>> Please consider this my immediate resignation from the ALAC liaison position to the NCUC. I leave it to Cheryl to inform the ALAC of my decision at a particularly opportune time, as my term is up by the next ICANN meeting. However, my decision has nothing to do with timing. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Beau Brendler >>> -----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 6:52 AM >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN > >A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation >in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An >example is >http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-par…. >According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC. > >Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and >misleading. It reads: > >----------------- >Myth 6 > >"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society >drafted charter." >False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted >charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the >ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted >charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC >said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that >"the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >move in the right direction." >----------------- > >This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal >(verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the >de-linking of seats was a good thing. > >In fact, the statement that they were quoting >(http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said: > >"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." > >"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that >the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and >not the ALAC in general. > >I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed >inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing. > >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

1 0

Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An example is http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-par…. According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC. Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and misleading. It reads: ----------------- Myth 6 "ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted charter." False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction." ----------------- This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal (verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the de-linking of seats was a good thing. In fact, the statement that they were quoting (http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said: "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." "Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and not the ALAC in general. I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing. Alan

1 0

Motion on RAA visibility
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

French and Spanish follow. Also on Wiki. ====================== Last week I posted a motion related to making registrants more aware of the new RAA and having ICANN take additional visible responsibility for registrant issues. Soon after, we were told that part of our request was already in process. In particular, there are already plans to make it clear to registrants and potential registrants which registrars are using the newly amended RAA. I have since been told that this changes in the web site is planned to occur at the end of the first fiscal quarter, that is by the beginning of October (before the Seoul meeting). Given that, the proposed motion cannot be used as is. I would suggest that we have two choices: A) delay any action for the moment, and possibly until Seoul; B) Consider a modified motion. As a possibility for B, I would suggest the following: Add: Whereas ICANN is planning to identify which registrars have adopted the new RAA on their web site; Replace: The ALAC recommends to the ICANN Board that it take steps to ensure that the official list of ICANN Registrars (<http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) include an statement, for each accredited registrar, of which RAA currently applies, and the date that the new RAA will become effective. With: The ALAC recommends that ICANN take ensure that the official list of ICANN Registrars (<http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) include an statement, for each accredited registrar, of the date that the new RAA will become effective if not already in effect. Français La semaine dernière j'ai posté une requête relative à la prise de déclarants plus conscients de la RAA nouvelles et prendre la responsabilité de l'ICANN ayant visibles supplémentaires pour les questions déclarant. Peu après, on nous a dit qu'une partie de notre demande était déjà en cours. En particulier, il est prévu déjà de faire comprendre aux personnes inscrites et les déclarants potentiels qui sont des bureaux d'enregistrement en utilisant le nouveau modifiée RAA. J'ai appris depuis que cela change dans le site web est prévu de se produire à la fin du premier trimestre fiscal, qui est ici le début de Octobre (avant la réunion de Séoul). Étant donné que, la motion proposée ne peut être utilisé tel quel. Je dirais que nous avons deux choix: A) de retarder toute action pour le moment, et éventuellement jusqu'à Séoul; B) d'envisager une motion modifiée. Comme une possibilité pour B, je suggère ce qui suit: Ajouter: considérant que l'ICANN envisage d'identifier les registrars ont adopté le RAA nouvelle sur leur site web; Remplacer: L'ALAC recommande au conseil de l'ICANN de prendre des mesures pour veiller à ce que la liste officielle des registrars (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) comporter une déclaration, pour chaque accrédité registraire, du RAA, qui s'applique actuellement, et la date à laquelle le RAA sera effective. Avec: L'ALAC recommande l'ICANN de prendre en sorte que la liste officielle de l'ICANN Registrar (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) comporter une déclaration, pour chaque bureau d'enregistrement accrédité, de la date à laquelle le nouveau RAA entrera en vigueur s'il n'est pas déjà en vigueur. Español La semana pasada me envió una propuesta en relación con la toma de registro más conscientes de la RAA nuevo y asumir la responsabilidad de la ICANN con visibles adicionales para cuestiones de registro. Poco después, se nos dijo que parte de nuestra solicitud ya estaba en proceso. En particular, ya hay planes para dejar claro a los solicitantes de registro y de posibles solicitantes de registro que los registradores están utilizando la nueva versión modificada RAA. Desde entonces he dicho que estos cambios en el sitio web está previsto que se produzca al final del primer trimestre fiscal, es decir a principios del mes de octubre (antes de la reunión de Seúl). Teniendo en cuenta que, la moción propuesta no puede ser utilizado como está. Yo diría que tenemos dos opciones: A) aplazar cualquier acción por el momento, y posiblemente hasta de Seúl; B) considerar una propuesta modificada. Como una posibilidad para el B, me permito sugerir lo siguiente: Añadir: Considerando que la ICANN tiene la intención de identificar a los registradores que han adoptado la RAA nuevo en su sitio web; Reemplazar: El ALAC recomienda a la Junta de la ICANN que tomara medidas para garantizar que la lista oficial de los Registradores de la ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) incluir una declaración, para cada acreditado Secretario, de los cuales RAA se aplica actualmente, y la fecha en que la RAA sean efectivas las nuevas. Con: El ALAC recomienda que la ICANN tome garantizar que la lista oficial de los Registradores de la ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) incluir una declaración, para cada registrador acreditado, de la fecha en que la RAA nuevo será efectiva si no está ya en vigor.

1 0