March 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

When will ALAC make its conflict of interest statement?
by Beau Brendler March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Hope everyone had good journeys back. I assume you all have seen this story in the New York Times? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/technology/private-fight-at-internet-nami… ALAC is frequently concerned with how it is perceived by others, especially when it comes to representing the user community. For the New York Times to have written a story like this, it must have deemed the story to be relevant to the general public. Yet ALAC, despite having ample opportunity and guidance during the week, failed to make a statement, even when it was already written for them, twice, by me. It distracted itself by claiming the story was no big news, or out of scope, or too confrontational for its multicultural nature, etc. etc. And it was distracted by the failure of LACRALO to conduct a meaningful general assembly. Rather than focus on policy issues, such as this one, it focused on elections of its own officers. Fortunately, I do believe Jean-Jacques Subrenat raised the conflict of interest issue in the public forum, but, as he eloquently pointed out to the list, he was something of a lone voice in doing so. Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all). Beau Brendler

6 6

Updating website information
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 21, 2012

March 21, 2012

Dear All, The http://archive.icann.org/en/committees/alac/ has to be updated to show Julie's inclusion. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

response
by Beau Brendler March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

1 0

Re: [ALAC] When will ALAC make its conflict of interest statement?
by Beau Brendler March 20, 2012

March 20, 2012

1 0

Re: [ALAC] When will ALAC make its conflict of interest statement?
by Beau Brendler March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012

Avri, as I recall, you weren't in many of the ALAC meetings in Costa Rica. The topic of the statement was brought up early in the week, and several members of the ALAC expressed interest in it, but wanted to see it rewritten for a variety of reasons. It was sent to the ALAC ex com on Thursday. It was discussed all week. Also, you wrote: "As you are one of the leaders of ALAC..." Not really. I have no vote or position in ALAC. I'm not on the executive committee. Haven't had for about a year and a half. -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >Sent: Mar 19, 2012 4:31 PM >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] When will ALAC make its conflict of interest statement? > >Hi, > >I have a question: as the chair of NARALO, has NARALO made such a statement yet? > >Also I think it is a long stretch from the evidence that the ALAC did not take an issue that you, and the NYT, think is of primary important to the conclusion that ALAC is incapable of carrying out its mission. As you are one of the leaders of ALAC, I wonder whether taking the journalists approach is the right approach. > >avri > >On 19 Mar 2012, at 15:14, Beau Brendler wrote: > >… > >> >> >> Since the ALAC does not consider such issues as those that appear in the New York Times story to be of importanance, then I am forced to conclude that ALAC is not capable in its current construction to carry out its mission to speak for the Internet user. I have been asked by one of the publications I write for to put together a story about what's going on here, and I believe I have no other choice, in fact, am obligated as a journalist to cite ALAC's failure to raise this issue sooner (or at all). >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

ALAC's 10th Anniversary?!
by Wolf Ludwig March 19, 2012

March 19, 2012

Hi, I don't know whether you are aware that ALAC has good reasons to celebrate its 10th Anniversary soon? I just found this reference http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-24apr02-en.htm and according to the info, the 22 April, 2002, was the date of the ICANN Board decision and, let's call it, "birth permission" and; I think, there would be some good reasons for an ALAC Anniversary celebration. Just an idea from the RALO front (we are much younger and less mature ;-) Best, Wolf EuroDIG Secretariat http://www.eurodig.org/ mobile +41 79 204 83 87 Skype: Wolf-Ludwig EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation http://euralo.org Profile on LinkedIn http://ch.linkedin.com/in/wolfludwig

2 1

Fwd: Hi there!
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mariana Estrade <mestrade(a)hughes.com.uy> Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 1:51 AM Subject: RE: Hi there! To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> Hi dear! **** ** ** What will you be doing on this side of the world? On vacations or working? * *** ** ** Yes, of course. I suppose you are referring to the “Asociación de Escribanos del Uruguay”. It is a professional association in which Uruguayan Notary Publics can be members, however, it is not mandatory to be registered before it in order to practice as Notary Public. It is just like for example the Uruguayan Bar Association, in which Uruguayan lawyers are members. The web page of the Asociación de Escribanos is: http://www.aeu.org.uy/index_1.html**** ** ** Kisses! **** Mariana**** ** ** Mariana Estradé HUGHES & HUGHES 25 de Mayo 455 2° piso 11000 Montevideo - Uruguay Tel: (598) 2916 0988 Fax: (598) 2916 1003 E-mail: mestrade(a)hughes.com.uy**** www.hughes.com.uy**** ** ** ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ **** The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from your system.**** La información transmitida está destinada exclusivamente a la persona o empresa a quien está dirigida y puede contener material confidencial. Su revisión, retransmisión, propagación o cualquier otra acción sobre o basada en esta información por parte de personas o empresas que no sean el destinatario, está prohibida. Si recibe este mensaje por error, por favor contacte al remitente y borre la información de su sistema.**** ___________________________________________________________________________________________________ ___________________**** ** ** *De:* Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro [mailto: salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com] *Enviado el:* miércoles, 29 de febrero de 2012 06:32 p.m. *Para:* Mariana Estrade *Asunto:* Hi there!**** ** ** Dear Mariana,**** ** ** I will be in Costa Rica soon. I was curious, do you know anything about Association of Notary Public Professionals of Uruguay.**** Hugs, **** ** ** -- **** Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala**** ** ** Tweeter: @SalanietaT**** Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro**** Cell: +679 998 2851**** **** ** ** ** ** -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

1 0

Fwd: ALAC Statement on IOC/Red Cross Issue
by Alan Greenberg March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

fyi >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: ALAC Statement on IOC/Red Cross Issue > >As approved a few minutes ago. > > >ALAC STATEMENT ON THE RESERVATION OF OLYMPIC AND RED CROSS NAMES IN >THE GTLD APPLICATION PROCEDURE: > >The ALAC notes with concern the recent activities of the ICANN >Board, its staff, and the GNSO regarding the reservation of domain >names related to the Olympic and Red Cross movements. We object to >the poor precedents these activities set forward both on substance >and on process: > >On substance, we see no substantial reason to afford to the Red >Cross and the International Olympic Committee protections not >available to other rights holders. Substantial objection procedures >were put in place regarding the gTLD program, well capable of >addressing all concerns about confusion and misuse. ICANN's >Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC), which has raised the concerns >about these names, indeed has its own hard-won objection mechanisms in place. > >Moreover, there are many in the At-Large Community who believe >specifically that specially entrenched protection of olympic-related >names is against the global public interest. We note that many >legitimate uses of the word "olympic" and its derivatives are used >for airlines, cameras, restaurants, paint, and numerous businesses >around the world with no connection to the Olympic athletic movement >or the IOC. These businesses are not currently seen to be confusing >with the olympic movement, and we believe that needless restriction >on these names -- beyond what already exists -- is publicly harmful. > >On process, it is regrettable to see the domain naming policy (a >hard-bargained consensus amongst many stakeholders) being overridden >as a result of a bilateral engagement by the ICANN Board. We accept >that the GAC, in advancing its concerns over these names, was >performing its role according to its members' wishes. However, the >ICANN Board's imposition of these wishes upon the community without >prior consultation demonstrates numerous flaws and poor precedents: > * It is our understanding that the scope given the GNSO Drafting > Team, in debating this matter, precluded it from rejecting outright > the proposed changes because the Board had already forced the > matter. The Drafting Team was left in a position of refining -- and > indeed legitimizing -- a Board directive that many community > members thought to be objectionable outright; > * The overriding of broad consensus-based policy based on a > bilateral negotiation calls into question ICANN's publicly > expressed commitment to maintaining (and indeed strengthening) its > "multi-stakeholder model". How can ICANN's multi-stakeholder model > claims be trusted when the community consensus can be so easily > overridden due to perceived political expediency? > * The late date of this activity, changing the Applicant > Guidebook so long after its "final" version was published, reduces > public confidence and destabilizes the application process > * Why is this only about generic names? That is, why would > "co.redcross" be subject to pre-restriction but "redcross.co" not? > The uneven and unequal application of such a demand is the source > of both instability and confusion. The debate on such policy should > not be limited to the GNSO, since it is an issue affecting all domain names. > >We note many of our concerns about this process have been expressed >in Kurt Pritz's March 2 letter to the GNSO Drafting Team. We >believe, though, that rather than simply requesting further details >and refinement, staff's concerns call into question the value of the >entire initiative. > >In view of the above, the ALAC specifically advises and requests the >ICANN Board to reconsider its directions regarding the Red Cross and >Olympic names as being ultimately against the global public >interest. This matter should be reviewed with the purpose of giving >the ICANN Board guidance on the global public interest related to >making changes to previously-approved multi-stakeholder >consensus. ALAC further advises the ICANN Board to leave the >Applicant Guidebook unmodified in this regard . As the body mandated >by ICANN to represent the interests of Internet end-users around the >world, we believe that this initiative damages the credibility of >ICANN's multi-stakeholder model without providing substantial >end-user benefit, but has the effect of creating new potential >sources of public confusion and instability.

1 0

Fwd: Objection process proposal
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

Dear all, please find attached, the proposal from the At-Large New gTLD Working Group which was discussed earlier this week. The working group has come to consensus on this latest version. Also downloadable from: https://community.icann.org/x/EZnbAQ I will be calling a ratification vote in the ALAC & Regional Leadership Wrap-up session on Wednesday. https://community.icann.org/x/j4nbAQ Kind regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Objection process proposal Date : Sun, 11 Mar 2012 23:15:21 -0600 De : Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Pour : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Dear Olivier, Please consider this the formal delivery of the ANgWG Objection Process Proposal. I would appreciate ALAC review and its approval of this document Thank you Avri Doria Chair, At-Large New gTLD WG

1 0

Outreach contact details
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro March 14, 2012

March 14, 2012

Dear ALAC, With your respective RALOs, do you have an assigned officer(s) who deals with Outreach? Or are the Secretariats the default contact point? Charles Mok and I are the contact point for Outreach within APRALO. Grateful if you could send me this information so that can compile the information for Staff. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala Tweeter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Cell: +679 998 2851

3 2