March 2010 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Note of Congratulations on your appointment to the ICANN Board by the ASO from the ALAC
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 23, 2010

March 23, 2010

To: Mr. Kuo-Wei Wu Re: Your recent appointment to the ICANN Board by the ASO. Dear Mr. Wu, It is with great personal pleasure as a serving APRALO representative on the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) and its current Chair, to write a short note of congratulations on your announced appointment by the ASO to the ICANN Board for seat no. 10 (you should also note these sentiments are being echoed and underlined with messages of congratulations and support in our At-Large and ALAC mailing lists by our community) As CEO of the National Information Infrastructure Enterprise one of our greatly valued and long standing active APRALO ALSes we (At-Large and the ALAC) are most pleased to see that with your appointment the ICANN Board will be gaining a great deal from not only your technical expertise but your value experience of the importance of At-Large and Internet end-users within ICANN processes and policy development, as well as a much needed Asia Pacific Regional focus and internet governance experience, and all of ICANN will no doubt benefit from your ongoing active involvement and leadership with other key stakeholders in the Internet Ecosystem. ALAC and At-Large look forward with keen anticipation to the opportunities we will have during your term as a Director of ICANN to work with you, and indeed hope you will be directly involved in some of the Board Committees that we currently work quite closely with. With my kindest regards and best wishes from the ALAC; Again Congratulations! Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2010 (CLO)

1 0

Interesting little addition to the issue of the cost of a new gTLD.
by Alan Greenberg March 22, 2010

March 22, 2010

>From: Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin(a)melbourneit.com.au> >To: "GNSO Council " <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 23:58:58 -0400 >Subject: [council] Continued Operations Instrument for new gTLDs > > > >Hello All, > >Note that a key component of new gTLDs, is that a new gTLD will be >stable and that registrants in a new gTLD are protected in the event >that a new gTLD applicant no longer operates the domain. > >The draft registry agreement in the Draft Applicant Guidebook contains >the following provisions in Specification 8 - that requires a financial >instrument to guarantee funds to continue to operate the registry for a >further 3 years. > >I point this out - as it is an additional cost once a TLD is awarded - >that funds would need to be allocated for the Continued Operations >Instrument. > >Regards, >Bruce Tonkin > > >CONTINUED OPERATIONS INSTRUMENT > >1. The Continued Operations Instrument shall > >(a) provide for sufficient financial resources to ensure >the continued operation of the basic registry functions related to the >TLD set forth in Section [__] of the Applicant Guidebook posted at [url >to be inserted upon finalization of Applicant Guidebook] (which is >hereby incorporated by reference into this Specification 8) for a period >of three (3) years following any termination of this Agreement on or >prior to the fifth anniversary of the Effective Date, and > >(b) shall be in the form of either (i) an irrevocable standby letter of >credit, >or (ii) an irrevocable cash escrow deposit, each meeting the >requirements set forth in Section [__] >of the Applicant Guidebook posted at [url to be inserted upon >finalization of Applicant >Guidebook] (which is hereby incorporated by reference into this >Specification 8).

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the WorkingGroup for the Vertical Integration PDP
by carlosaguirre62＠hotmail.com March 19, 2010

March 19, 2010

I also propose to be here Andrres Piazza. He knows about it and he can make a great contrivutions . Enviado desde mi BlackBerry® de Claro Argentina -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 10:57:05 To: At-Large Worldwide<at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Cc: ALAC Working List<alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP I am thinking that my presence here would merely be bouncing the rubble. I know of situations where the registry also act as registrar even as it appoints registrars. It is often times a size-appropriate response but undeniably, it is a business decision. I cannot see a threat to user interest here and no compelling reason for an intervention. I believe that the practice of registries choosing who might represent them as registrars not only supportable but also impact-neutral to users. Caribbean ccTLDs, for example, are always courted by registrars wanting to represent us from all over the world. I like the idea that we can decide who we do business with and for that to remain unfettered. Not to make too fine a point of it, ccTLDs - who are variously constituted in the public interest - can decide without being coerced and on their own what their interests ought to be. I'm with Evan on this. The vertical integration issue is a business model among competing business models. So long as the ability remains with users to decide who you do business with, then it does not make a compelling case for outlawing. Carlton Samuels ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>wrote: > To date, I believe that very few At-Large people have volunteered to join > this group. The deadline for volunteering is 22 March. > > Note that this is a time-limited PDP and is scheduled to deliver its final > report by 20 Jun, so the work will likely be intensive. > > The issue could have great impact on new TLDs. The proposal in DAGv2 was to > allow a registrar related to (ie some sort of ownership relationship) to > distribute up to 100,000 names for the TLD. Presumably in part, this was to > address situations where the domain had very limited requirements to sell > second level domains (corporate TLDs for example) or to ensure that startup > TLDs had some marketing path if registrars were not interested in carrying > them. > > If you are considering volunteering, please read the Issues Report and > Charter pointed to below. > > Alan > > > From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >> To: 'GNSO Council ' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >> Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:34:11 -0500 >> Subject: [council] Revised: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for >> the Vertical Integration PDP >> >> Dear All, >> >> The GNSO Council has initiated a policy development process (PDP) on the >> topic of Vertical Integration between Registrars and Registries. At its 10 >> March 2010 meeting, the GNSO Council formed a working group to perform the >> activities of this PDP, and is now seeking volunteers to serve on the >> working group. >> >> This working group will evaluate and propose policy recommendations for >> new gTLDs and existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical integration between >> registries and registrars. The working group expects to define the range >> of restrictions on vertical separation that are currently in effect, to >> serve as a baseline to evaluate future proposals. The work will be done an >> expedited basis, with an expected completion date of 30 June 2010, and will >> follow the parameters of the charter approved by the GNSO Council for this >> PDP. >> >> If you would like to participate in this working group as a volunteer, >> kindly respond by email to <<gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.htm> >> gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> by Monday, 22 March. You will need >> to submit your Statement of Interest in order to serve on this working >> group. The template for the Statement of Interest is described in the GNSO >> Working Group Guidelines. >> >> The working group plans to schedule its first meeting during the week of >> 22-26 March 2010. At that meeting, the first agenda item will be to >> select the Chair of the working group. The chair is expected to serve >> his/her duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with the GNSO Working >> Group guidelines. Please be prepared to nominate and vote an individual >> to serve as chair for this working group. >> >> For more information on this policy development process, please refer to: >> >> Issues Report on Vertical Integration: >> >> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf> >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf >> >> Charter: >> >> < >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… >> > >> http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… >> >> Working Group Guidelines: >> >> < >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… >> > >> http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Glen >> >> Glen de Saint Géry >> GNSO Secretariat >> <mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >> http://gnso.icann.org >> >> >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance _______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
by Evan Leibovitch March 18, 2010

March 18, 2010

On 18 March 2010 14:07, Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote: > The issue of vertical integration and Registrar/Registry separation is > basically a matter of competition law, in the EU and the US and probably > elsewhere. > I see it from the completely reverse angle. IMO the current situation exists to benefit registrars and domainers, to the detriment of registry choice and general pubic good by unfairly restricting trade. In a world with a suitably free market, a producer of good or services is free to: - choose a business model that completely bypasses distribution channels and sells directly (think Southwest and Ryanair selling flights without travel agents or Dell selling PCs without VARs or retail outlets). Such freedom is not restricted to a specific sales volume or size/category of producer and it may be modified at any time; - choose which and how many resellers it wishes to sell through. Ford is not obligated to sell their cars through any dealerships except those who meet its criteria, and not every dealer that meets the criteria will necessarily be authorized. Furthermore, Ford is allowed to set fairly arbitrary criteria (ie, how many dealers will suit a specific geographical area according to its own proprietary formula). - enter into direct competition with its independent distribution channel, though it risks upsetting that channel (ie the Apple Store) - limit its sales to certain geographies or other arbitrary demographic boundaries. None of these freedoms appears to exist for gTLD registries. In other words, it is fairly easy to demonstrate how the status quo -- demanding separation of registrars and registries, and forcing registries to make their goods available to all registrars -- is what is anti-competitive. If a registry wants to engage in rampant speculation in its own second-level domains, it should have as much right to do so as any registrant -- arguably more right since it has more risk invested. Don't like the asking price? Don't buy. Choose another TLD. Does it really matter to the public whether it is a registry or domainer selling a choice name at a high price? Registries don't owe Sedo an existence The current situation is based on a presumed monopoly in registries, while in fact there are already a number of gTLDs with substantial unsold capacity. And the likelihood that more TLDs are on their way further weakens the need for monopoly-based distribution regulations. Yet why is no registry freely able to act as its own registrar, with potential cost saving that can be passed to the registrant? Simply declaring myself a computer store -- and meeting all local requirements to open one -- does not allow me to force IBM to let me resell its products. Yet this forcing of registries to sell through all registrars is EXACTLY the situation we have. What is more amazing is that the status quo is promoted as helping competition! If one registrar has received the authorization to sell domains in .blah and the other hasn't, that is a competitive advantage. If registries are obligated to sell through all willing registrars, that is a cartel. If anything, I would argue that it is the status quo that enables uncompetitive behaviour, and it has been ICANN's traditional relationship with the US DOC that has kept it from further scrutiny in this respect. I suspect that my views would be a bit too radical for the PDP group and my participation would probably not be sufficiently constructive. I could be absolutely wrong here, but I have yet to hear any argument in favour of preserving registry/registrar separation that doesn't primartily serve the interest of registrars and domainers. Registries and non-speculative registrants are served poorly by the current situation, a fact that is unlikely to change given the power of its beneficiaries within GNSO. - Evan

1 0

Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
by Alan Greenberg March 18, 2010

March 18, 2010

To date, I believe that very few At-Large people have volunteered to join this group. The deadline for volunteering is 22 March. Note that this is a time-limited PDP and is scheduled to deliver its final report by 20 Jun, so the work will likely be intensive. The issue could have great impact on new TLDs. The proposal in DAGv2 was to allow a registrar related to (ie some sort of ownership relationship) to distribute up to 100,000 names for the TLD. Presumably in part, this was to address situations where the domain had very limited requirements to sell second level domains (corporate TLDs for example) or to ensure that startup TLDs had some marketing path if registrars were not interested in carrying them. If you are considering volunteering, please read the Issues Report and Charter pointed to below. Alan >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >To: 'GNSO Council ' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:34:11 -0500 >Subject: [council] Revised: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for > the Vertical Integration PDP > >Dear All, > >The GNSO Council has initiated a policy >development process (PDP) on the topic of >Vertical Integration between Registrars and >Registries. At its 10 March 2010 meeting, the >GNSO Council formed a working group to perform >the activities of this PDP, and is now seeking >volunteers to serve on the working group. > >This working group will evaluate and propose >policy recommendations for new gTLDs and >existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical >integration between registries and >registrars. The working group expects to >define the range of restrictions on vertical >separation that are currently in effect, to >serve as a baseline to evaluate future >proposals. The work will be done an expedited >basis, with an expected completion date of 30 >June 2010, and will follow the parameters of the >charter approved by the GNSO Council for this PDP. > >If you would like to participate in this working >group as a volunteer, kindly respond by email >to ><<gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.htm>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >by Monday, 22 March. You will need to >submit your Statement of Interest in order to >serve on this working group. The template for >the Statement of Interest is described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. > >The working group plans to schedule its first >meeting during the week of 22-26 March >2010. At that meeting, the first agenda item >will be to select the Chair of the working >group. The chair is expected to serve his/her >duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with >the GNSO Working Group guidelines. Please >be prepared to nominate and vote an individual >to serve as chair for this working group. > >For more information on this policy development process, please refer to: > >Issues Report on Vertical Integration: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf > >Charter: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective…>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… > >Working Group Guidelines: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… > >Best Regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > > >

1 0

[council] Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
by Alan Greenberg March 12, 2010

March 12, 2010

>From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >To: 'GNSO Council ' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:34:11 -0500 >Subject: [council] Revised: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for > the Vertical Integration PDP > >Dear All, > >The GNSO Council has initiated a policy >development process (PDP) on the topic of >Vertical Integration between Registrars and >Registries. At its 10 March 2010 meeting, the >GNSO Council formed a working group to perform >the activities of this PDP, and is now seeking >volunteers to serve on the working group. > >This working group will evaluate and propose >policy recommendations for new gTLDs and >existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical >integration between registries and >registrars. The working group expects to >define the range of restrictions on vertical >separation that are currently in effect, to >serve as a baseline to evaluate future >proposals. The work will be done an expedited >basis, with an expected completion date of 30 >June 2010, and will follow the parameters of the >charter approved by the GNSO Council for this PDP. > >If you would like to participate in this working >group as a volunteer, kindly respond by email >to ><<gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.htm>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >by Monday, 22 March. You will need to >submit your Statement of Interest in order to >serve on this working group. The template for >the Statement of Interest is described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. > >The working group plans to schedule its first >meeting during the week of 22-26 March >2010. At that meeting, the first agenda item >will be to select the Chair of the working >group. The chair is expected to serve his/her >duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with >the GNSO Working Group guidelines. Please >be prepared to nominate and vote an individual >to serve as chair for this working group. > >For more information on this policy development process, please refer to: > >Issues Report on Vertical Integration: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf > >Charter: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective…>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… > >Working Group Guidelines: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… > >Best Regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > > >

1 0

Fwd: Re: URGENT: ICANN Affirmation of Commitments Reviews - ALAC Endorsement
by Alan Greenberg March 11, 2010

March 11, 2010

Additional comments from Roxana Goldstein. >From: Roxana Goldstein <goldstein.roxana(a)gmail.com> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:59:51 -0500 >Subject: Re: URGENT: ICANN Affirmation of Commitments Reviews - ALAC > Endorsement > >Dear Alan, > >In order to answer to your requested statements, >I have reviewed my application, and I think that >there are some important topics that can be added: > >1 - I am starting a PhD, its thesis on Global >Governance and Information and Knowledge >Society, being of course the ICANN a fundamental >organization to study in depth, and transparency >a core issue. I being studing the links between >IKS, democracy and public participation, an >development, for the last 10 years, having many >papers published and researching done. > >2 - I am an active participant at the IGF and >LACRALO´s activities, for the Latin American >Region mainly, and I am part of the network of >key actors working actively in all civil society >and internet users activities related to >Internet Governance and, in particular, to the ICANN organisation. > >3 - I am part of the Internet Governance Team at >the eLAC2010 programme, conducted by ECLAC. The >eLAC2010 Programme aims to stablish regional >policies, strategic lines, and iniciatives >related to the Information and Knowledge Society >in Latin America and the Caribbean Region. > >4- I have strong commitment with the >transparency and accountability principles, and >I am following all this process since the One >World Trust Independant Consultancy on Transparency for ICANN. > >5 - I am part of many specialists and >researchers networks and communities on this >topics, for example GIGANET, EBPDN, GDNEt, IGCBP >Community, etc. where the Accountability and >Transparency Review for ICANN is an strategic issue. > >6 - I am presenting myself to participate not >only on my own interest, but on pursuing to >represent the interest of all the networks I am >part of, and in particular the common interest >of civil society and internet users. > >At the moments these are the main issues I can mention. > >I keep in contact for any further question, and >thanks again for this opportunity. > >Kind regards, >Roxana

1 0

AoC Endorsements
by Alan Greenberg March 11, 2010

March 11, 2010

A special ALAC meeting will be held at 8:00 to 10:00 am (Nairobi time - 05:00-07:00 UTC) to decide on who the ALAC will endorse for the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. The meeting will be held in the VIP Lounge In Nairobi, 9 of the 11 ALAC members present will be able to attend the meeting. The other two have indicated their willingness to give another Committee member their proxy to act on their behalf (if a formal vote is actually necessary). I do not know if any remote participation will be possible due to the late timing of scheduling this meeting, but I will be looking into it. Based on recent statements by the Chairs of the ICANN BOard and the GAC (the final selectors of the review team members), we will likely have more than one team member, but I personally cannot imagine more than three. The Motivation Letters and CVs are posted on our wiki at https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?volunteer_aoc_review_team_applicat…. We have given all candidates the opportunity to reply to two ALAC-specific questions: 1. that you are in a position to fairly assess ICANN's accountability, transparency and the focus on the interests of global Internet users; 2. that you will be able to do this from the perspective of the global ICANN At-Large Community and the ALAC. In some cases, the answers are already implied or included in their initial reply. The candidates were given a time limit of 13:00 Nairobi time on Thursday to reply. To date I have received confirmation from 3 of the 8 candidates that they have received the explicit request for these answers, but no statements as of yet. I will forward any as received. PLEASE REVIEW THE POSTED DOCUMENTS FACTORING IN: - How well the candidates are positioned to represent ALAC and At-Large - How well the candidates are positioned to evaluate ICANN's transparency, accountability and focus on the interests of global Internet users For those who cannot participate, please let us know who your proxy will be. Alan

4 4

Fwd: Re: URGENT: ICANN Affirmation of Commitments Reviews - ALAC Endorsement
by Alan Greenberg March 11, 2010

March 11, 2010

I will Be integrating this reply into the documents on the wiki. Alan >From: Raul Bauer <raulbauer(a)gmail.com> >To: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:30:49 -0500 >Subject: Re: URGENT: ICANN Affirmation of Commitments Reviews - ALAC >Endorsement > >Hi Alan: > >Short and sweet: > >o Why I believe I'm in a position to fairly assess ICANN's >accountability, transparency and the focus on the interests of >global Internet users?: > >I have a background of more than 40 years dealing with ITC issues as >well as experience managing complex projects. In most of them we got >tangible achievements on time on budget. > >I think that those abilities can be helpful for an organization as >complex as ICANN that needs to be transparent as well as effective. > >o Why I believe that I will be able to do this from the >perspective of the global ICANN At-Large Community and the ALAC? > >I am founder and board member (since 1982) of the eldest NGO in >Southern Cone of Latin America that represents ITC users. That >activity shows my definite commitment with the interest of Internet >users, key part of the At-Large Community. > >I do know that open mind and huge team spirit is needed. It is my >standard way of working. > >It will help everybody if we can actively participate at all ICANN's >activities defending At-Large Community interests with >professionalism and efficiency. > >Best regards > >Raul Bauer

1 0

ICANN Affirmation of Commitments Reviews - ALAC Endorsement
by Alan Greenberg March 10, 2010

March 10, 2010

Here is the status of the candidates with respect to the two ALAC questions: Kurt Snyder Existing statement addresses questions Christopher Wilkinson Replies on wiki James Corbin Existing statement addresses questions Matias Altamira See below Roxana Laura Goldstein Pending John R. Levine Existing statement addresses questions ALAC Chair or designee Existing statement addresses questions Raul Bauer Pending At 10/03/2010 09:43 AM, Matías Altamira wrote: >I think that both questions are fairly addressed in my application as well >as in my Resume. > >Your 2nd question may be also responded by reviewing my role within the >NomCom. Even if what I did and how we reached agreement are confidential, I >fully defended together with my other colleagues appointed by ALAC, the >interests of global users.

1 0