April 2012 - ALAC - lists.icann.org

Fwd: Action Items from GAC-ALAC Costa Rica meeting
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond May 1, 2012

May 1, 2012

FYI. I spoke to Heather Dryden when I met her at the INET in Geneva last week and having already discussed the subject, this is our way forward. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Action Items from GAC-ALAC Costa Rica meeting Date : Mon, 30 Apr 2012 21:51:17 +0100 De : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> Pour : Heather.Dryden Dryden <Heather.Dryden(a)ic.gc.ca> Copie à : Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com>, ICANN AtLarge Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com>, Jean-Jacques Subrenat <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> Dear Heather, after reviewing the transcript of our very successful meeting in Costa Rica, I am now following up with you regarding the two action items from the meeting. 1. Following-up on human rights issues feeding into the policy rule-making, I extended an invitation to all interested GAC members, to our ALAC Registrant Rights Working Group which is open and would welcome input. This working group is tasked with extending the concept of "Registrant Rights" into the rights of Internet users with regards to Domain Names -- since it is not only registrants that are affected by Domain Names but also every Internet user out there. I therefore invite any of your members interested in taking part in such a group, either officially as a GAC member, but also individually, whichever is more doable, to email me and staff(a)atlarge.icann.org and we'll take it from there. I note from the transcript that during the meeting, there was interest from the EU Commission, Portugal, Australia, Mexico and the Council of Europe and hope that they will volunteer to follow-up in the working group. 2. Action Item: ALAC and GAC to form a small working group which will draft a joint statement on ICANN Conflicts of Interest There is very successful precedent in a small working group being set-up to draft a joint GAC-ALAC statement with the Joint Statement on Applicant Support, which can be found on: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-04aug11-en.htm The ALAC has taken a very strong line about the current ICANN Conflicts of Interest and has drafted TWO statements submitted to a recent public comment period. I invite you and your members to read them from: http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-02apr12-en.htm http://www.atlarge.icann.org/correspondence/correspondence-24apr12-en.htm The action item from our meeting in Costa Rica calls for a small working group to draft a joint GAC-ALAC Statement and once again, I'd be happy to receive emails from volunteers, Cc'ed to staff(a)atlarge.icann.org . I note from the session's transcript that Australia and the European Commission contributed to the dialogue and that this needs to be explored. As a reminder, Jean-Jacques Subrenat's suggestion for a starting point was: /"And what I'm thinking of is that there should be a closer examination of, perhaps, real cases of conflict of interest which appear in ICANN, and to study what these conflicts of interest are. Are they supposed? Are they real? Are they perceived? On the one hand. And on the other hand, it's to try to define more precisely the limits within which it is possible to operate. For instance, it so happens that someone noticed and put on a blog recently that at a recent vote of the board of ICANN, nine of the board voting members were conflicted. I mean, that's something which is quite -- quite amazing."/ I should therefore be grateful if you could forward these follow-up action items to your members and look forward to receiving an enthusiastic response. The GAC and the ALAC have a very important part to play in making sure that ICANN acts in the public interest and we have to seize the opportunity of this synergy to make sure it indeed does so. To miss this opportunity would be letting down 2.4Bn Internet users out there. Kindest regards, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair

2 1

US Government Reissues IANA Tender
by Fouad Bajwa April 23, 2012

April 23, 2012

http://www.domainpulse.com/2012/04/19/us-government-reissues-iana-tender/ -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa

1 0

Re: [ALAC] .berlin Letter on Batching - Help to protect the Global Public Interest
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

Dear Dirk, thank you for your kind email which raises very valid points. I am CC'ing the ALAC working list for discussion. Warmest regards, Olivier Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 19/04/2012 14:54, Dirk Krischenowski wrote : > Dear Olivier, > > we write to you to express our serious concern regarding the proposed > batching procedure, known as digital archery. > > Taking the recent activities of domain industry players into account, we > expect that the first and second batch will be populated with generic .com > clone standard applications such as .web, .shop, .wine, .beach or .horse. > > Most of the applicants outside the US, especially small language and culture > communities will be pushed aside to a much later batch. Also Geographic and > Community gTLD applicants with public interest support of governments and > communities will be pushed aside and will suffer serious economic > disadvantages. > > We urgently ask you to not sit back and watch how your achievements and > safeguards for Geographic gTLDs, the Applicant Support Program and other > public interest provisions in the Applicant Guidebook are watered down by a > crude digital archery system which clearly privileges a few "clever" domain > investors from the developed world. > > Some ideas have already been circulated, such as the one giving applicants > with a single application preference over those who apply for up to 50 > strings with the same entity. Another approach could be to incorporate the > different categories of applications in a fairly balanced manner in the > global public interest. > > Please put this topic on the ALAC agenda with urgency to ensure equal > opportunities to all applicants! > > Sincerely, > > Dirk Krischenowski > Founder and Managing Director > _______________________ > dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG > Akazienstrasse 2 > 10823 Berlin > Germany > Tel +49 30 49782354 > Fax +49 30 49782356 > Mobile +49 173 2339156 > E-Mail krischenowski(a)dotberlin.de > Skype "krischenowski" > Web www.dotberlin.com > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem?
by Beau Brendler April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

I'm not suggesting the ALAC make a pronouncement that this is a PR disaster. I am suggesting trying to mitigate the PR disaster by sharply prodding ICANN to provide more solid information not only about the system failure, but about the how and the why, along with information about steps taken internally to assure better quality control, if that's the issue. That Rod Beckstrom has now joined the response team is at least a sign the organization is acknowledging the seriousness of at least the perception of a problem. -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch Sent: Apr 19, 2012 11:15 AM To: Beau Brendler Cc: JJS , Carlton Samuels , alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? It's for this reason why I wonder what ALAC should be doing. From my PoV, the reputational damage has already been done. To indicate that this was a PR disaster which requires damage control would appear to be stating the obvious, and thus just "piling on" IMO. - Evan On 19 April 2012 10:31, Beau Brendler <[1]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> wrote: Happy to help out. Regardless of what happens tomorrow I believe ALAC at minimum needs to push for a full accounting of what happened here, emergency process issues and whatever potential issues may be at stake regards the stability of the Internet. The public perception is that this flagship TAS has been on ice now several days, just after extensive reporting about the new gTLD process in the mainstream press. No matter how you look at it, from the outside this is a public relations disaster -- it would be less so, perhaps, if the organization involved was not mandated with Internet stability, safety and security. "We're working on it, we'll get back to you" might be an acceptable response for a corporate IT department, but not for the IT department of the Internet. -----Original Message----- From: JJS Sent: Apr 19, 2012 3:03 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: Beau Brendler , [2]alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? I agree with Carlton that we can/should wait until the next (hopefully conclusive) statement by the COO. That being said, Beau makes several good points: - this does seem to have the potential of impacting the user community, but also of harming user trust in ICANN; - we require a thorough account of what went wrong, in order to understand whether the design was faulty, or the implementation; - and yes, within ALAC and At-Large we should be mindful of the context in which this incident is taking place: NTIA sending ICANN back to the drawing board to better claim the IANA contract, a period of expectation before the nomination of the next CEO, an overall sense of uncertainty regarding the capability to receive numerous applications for new gTLDs and to process them correctly. So, if ICANN's report in the next few days does not properly address the TAS problems, I think the ALAC should be prepared to voice its concern and offer recommendations where necessary. In light of this, may I suggest that Beau, Carlton and a handful of volunteers if required, make a note of what an ALAC statement would have to include, in terse prose? As to the most efficient delivery, I would suggest a letter from the ALAC Chair to the Chair of the Board (we did this a few months ago, and it did have an impact), which could also be posted on a couple of influential sites. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Le 19 avril 2012 07:16, Carlton Samuels <[1][3]carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> a ÃÂ©crit : Beau: Yes, I do agree that there is a PI angle here. And the ALAC has a duty of care. I have been following the updates from both thru my 'watcher' on the Announcements page as well as the Skype chat. Those of us with some technical skills do indeed have worries; Dev, for one, has privately shared a few, in fact in line with some of the questions you raised. I've run a few operating support systems for a living so I confess some sympathy here. In my view, Akram's statement should give us pause; we now have a proximate cause, a better understanding of the risk profile but less than useful hard facts on impact or origination/initiation. So, let's keep our powder dry and wait till we see what they come with in the promised 'details' on Friday. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: [4]876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Beau Brendler <[2][5]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>wrote: > Greetings, colleagues. > > Some discussions are taking place on the NCSG list about the TAS problem > and the way ICANN is handling it. I do not see similar discussions taking > place among the at-large. Pardon me if I have missed them. Indeed, I > believe some have raised the issue in the skype chat of the TAS SNAFU (or, > as my English relatives would call it, monumental cock-up), but with the > opinion that end-users are not affected, so it's not worth worrying about. > > In my opinion the situation has become worse, to the degree I beg to > differ -- the public interest is indeed affected. Note the most current > communique from ICANN staff April 17: > --------------------------------------------------- > TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) > Statement by Akram Atallah, COO > 17 April 2012 > ICANN's review of the technical glitch that resulted in the TLD > application system being taken offline indicates that the issue stems > from a problem in the way the system handled interrupted deletions of > file attachments. This resulted in some applicants being able to see > some other applicants' file names and user names. > As reported yesterday, we are seeking confirmation that the solution we > have implemented for this issue is effective. > We are also conducting research to determine which applicants' file > names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which > applicants had the ability to see them. > Many organizations are seeking information on whether we will proceed > with the planned publication of applied-for domain names on 30 April. We > will update the target date for publication as part of our update on the > timing of the reopening, no later than Friday, 20 April at 23.59 UTC. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Note that ICANN was aware of this "glitch" almost a month previously, but > apparently took no action. In my opinion (and others), this situation is > going to escalate. Certainly it is in the public interest, even beyond the > obvious issue that there may be problems with applications from would-be > public-interest gTLD sponsors. > > * Is it not within the public interest to demand a full accounting of what > went wrong with an integral system, indeed, the first "system," to be > publicly rolled out in the "mechanical" application process for new gTLDs? > > * Was the TAS hacked? Coded incorrectly? Who performed the work? Who > reviewed it? Can ICANN as an organization address the credibility problem > created by this? How can the public expect that the safety, stability and > security of the Internet will be safeguarded by ICANN, if at the first > phase of the process the organization cannot field a working system for > gTLD applications? > > * Is ICANN aware, regardless of the bureaucratic or technical processes > involved, that together with the temporary loss of the IANA contract, the > back-and-forth of the IOC/RC process, and now the TAS problem, an observer > may conclude that the organization can't fulfill its mandate? > > What should the ALAC do (in my opinion)? > > * Call for a full, independent review of the TAS process from soup to > nuts. Why was the technical problem not acted upon sooner? What emergency > response protocols are in place? Any? > * Offer to coordinate candidate selection for such a review, to help > ensure the same people who made the mistakes are not reviewing their own > work. > * Determine what organizational problems within ICANN led to this failure. > * Undertake an analysis of those problems to address whether such > incompetence could spill over into the actual process of bringing new gTLDs > online, vis-a-vis the stability, safety and security of the Internet. Make > that analysis comprehensive and, most important, public. > * Undertake a review to determine if ICANN does, in fact, have the > technical and organizational capabilities to actually execute its mission, > and if not, fess up and hire some people who know what they are doing. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > [3][6]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [4][7]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: [5][8]http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > [6][9]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Commit tee+( ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [7][10]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [8][11]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [9][12]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [10][13]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Comm ittee+ (ALAC) References 1. mailto:[14]carlton.samuels@gmail.com 2. mailto:[15]beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:[16]ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 4. [17]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 5. [18]http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 6. [19]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(ALAC) 7. mailto:[20]ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 8. [21]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 9. [22]http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 10. [23]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committe e+(ALAC) _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [24]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [25]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [26]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [27]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 References 1. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 2. mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org 3. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 4. tel:876-818-1799 5. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 6. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 7. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 8. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 9. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+( 10. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 11. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 12. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 13. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ 14. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 15. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 16. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 17. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 18. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 19. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 20. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 21. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 22. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 23. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 24. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 25. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 26. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 27. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem?
by Beau Brendler April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

Happy to help out. Regardless of what happens tomorrow I believe ALAC at minimum needs to push for a full accounting of what happened here, emergency process issues and whatever potential issues may be at stake regards the stability of the Internet. The public perception is that this flagship TAS has been on ice now several days, just after extensive reporting about the new gTLD process in the mainstream press. No matter how you look at it, from the outside this is a public relations disaster -- it would be less so, perhaps, if the organization involved was not mandated with Internet stability, safety and security. "We're working on it, we'll get back to you" might be an acceptable response for a corporate IT department, but not for the IT department of the Internet. -----Original Message----- From: JJS Sent: Apr 19, 2012 3:03 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: Beau Brendler , alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? I agree with Carlton that we can/should wait until the next (hopefully conclusive) statement by the COO. That being said, Beau makes several good points: - this does seem to have the potential of impacting the user community, but also of harming user trust in ICANN; - we require a thorough account of what went wrong, in order to understand whether the design was faulty, or the implementation; - and yes, within ALAC and At-Large we should be mindful of the context in which this incident is taking place: NTIA sending ICANN back to the drawing board to better claim the IANA contract, a period of expectation before the nomination of the next CEO, an overall sense of uncertainty regarding the capability to receive numerous applications for new gTLDs and to process them correctly. So, if ICANN's report in the next few days does not properly address the TAS problems, I think the ALAC should be prepared to voice its concern and offer recommendations where necessary. In light of this, may I suggest that Beau, Carlton and a handful of volunteers if required, make a note of what an ALAC statement would have to include, in terse prose? As to the most efficient delivery, I would suggest a letter from the ALAC Chair to the Chair of the Board (we did this a few months ago, and it did have an impact), which could also be posted on a couple of influential sites. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Le 19 avril 2012 07:16, Carlton Samuels <[1]carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> a Ã©crit : Beau: Yes, I do agree that there is a PI angle here. And the ALAC has a duty of care. I have been following the updates from both thru my 'watcher' on the Announcements page as well as the Skype chat. Those of us with some technical skills do indeed have worries; Dev, for one, has privately shared a few, in fact in line with some of the questions you raised. I've run a few operating support systems for a living so I confess some sympathy here. In my view, Akram's statement should give us pause; we now have a proximate cause, a better understanding of the risk profile but less than useful hard facts on impact or origination/initiation. So, let's keep our powder dry and wait till we see what they come with in the promised 'details' on Friday. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Beau Brendler <[2]beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>wrote: > Greetings, colleagues. > > Some discussions are taking place on the NCSG list about the TAS problem > and the way ICANN is handling it. I do not see similar discussions taking > place among the at-large. Pardon me if I have missed them. Indeed, I > believe some have raised the issue in the skype chat of the TAS SNAFU (or, > as my English relatives would call it, monumental cock-up), but with the > opinion that end-users are not affected, so it's not worth worrying about. > > In my opinion the situation has become worse, to the degree I beg to > differ -- the public interest is indeed affected. Note the most current > communique from ICANN staff April 17: > --------------------------------------------------- > TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) > Statement by Akram Atallah, COO > 17 April 2012 > ICANN's review of the technical glitch that resulted in the TLD > application system being taken offline indicates that the issue stems > from a problem in the way the system handled interrupted deletions of > file attachments. This resulted in some applicants being able to see > some other applicants' file names and user names. > As reported yesterday, we are seeking confirmation that the solution we > have implemented for this issue is effective. > We are also conducting research to determine which applicants' file > names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which > applicants had the ability to see them. > Many organizations are seeking information on whether we will proceed > with the planned publication of applied-for domain names on 30 April. We > will update the target date for publication as part of our update on the > timing of the reopening, no later than Friday, 20 April at 23.59 UTC. > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Note that ICANN was aware of this "glitch" almost a month previously, but > apparently took no action. In my opinion (and others), this situation is > going to escalate. Certainly it is in the public interest, even beyond the > obvious issue that there may be problems with applications from would-be > public-interest gTLD sponsors. > > * Is it not within the public interest to demand a full accounting of what > went wrong with an integral system, indeed, the first "system," to be > publicly rolled out in the "mechanical" application process for new gTLDs? > > * Was the TAS hacked? Coded incorrectly? Who performed the work? Who > reviewed it? Can ICANN as an organization address the credibility problem > created by this? How can the public expect that the safety, stability and > security of the Internet will be safeguarded by ICANN, if at the first > phase of the process the organization cannot field a working system for > gTLD applications? > > * Is ICANN aware, regardless of the bureaucratic or technical processes > involved, that together with the temporary loss of the IANA contract, the > back-and-forth of the IOC/RC process, and now the TAS problem, an observer > may conclude that the organization can't fulfill its mandate? > > What should the ALAC do (in my opinion)? > > * Call for a full, independent review of the TAS process from soup to > nuts. Why was the technical problem not acted upon sooner? What emergency > response protocols are in place? Any? > * Offer to coordinate candidate selection for such a review, to help > ensure the same people who made the mistakes are not reviewing their own > work. > * Determine what organizational problems within ICANN led to this failure. > * Undertake an analysis of those problems to address whether such > incompetence could spill over into the actual process of bringing new gTLDs > online, vis-a-vis the stability, safety and security of the Internet. Make > that analysis comprehensive and, most important, public. > * Undertake a review to determine if ICANN does, in fact, have the > technical and organizational capabilities to actually execute its mission, > and if not, fess up and hire some people who know what they are doing. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > [3]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [4]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: [5]http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > [6]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+( ALAC) > _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [7]ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [8]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [9]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [10]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) References 1. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 2. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 4. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 5. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 6. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… 7. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 8. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 9. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 10. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL…

2 1

Where is ALAC on the TAS problem?
by Beau Brendler April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

Greetings, colleagues. Some discussions are taking place on the NCSG list about the TAS problem and the way ICANN is handling it. I do not see similar discussions taking place among the at-large. Pardon me if I have missed them. Indeed, I believe some have raised the issue in the skype chat of the TAS SNAFU (or, as my English relatives would call it, monumental cock-up), but with the opinion that end-users are not affected, so it's not worth worrying about. In my opinion the situation has become worse, to the degree I beg to differ -- the public interest is indeed affected. Note the most current communique from ICANN staff April 17: --------------------------------------------------- TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 17 April 2012 ICANN's review of the technical glitch that resulted in the TLD application system being taken offline indicates that the issue stems from a problem in the way the system handled interrupted deletions of file attachments. This resulted in some applicants being able to see some other applicants' file names and user names. As reported yesterday, we are seeking confirmation that the solution we have implemented for this issue is effective. We are also conducting research to determine which applicants' file names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which applicants had the ability to see them. Many organizations are seeking information on whether we will proceed with the planned publication of applied-for domain names on 30 April. We will update the target date for publication as part of our update on the timing of the reopening, no later than Friday, 20 April at 23.59 UTC. --------------------------------------------------------------- Note that ICANN was aware of this "glitch" almost a month previously, but apparently took no action. In my opinion (and others), this situation is going to escalate. Certainly it is in the public interest, even beyond the obvious issue that there may be problems with applications from would-be public-interest gTLD sponsors. * Is it not within the public interest to demand a full accounting of what went wrong with an integral system, indeed, the first "system," to be publicly rolled out in the "mechanical" application process for new gTLDs? * Was the TAS hacked? Coded incorrectly? Who performed the work? Who reviewed it? Can ICANN as an organization address the credibility problem created by this? How can the public expect that the safety, stability and security of the Internet will be safeguarded by ICANN, if at the first phase of the process the organization cannot field a working system for gTLD applications? * Is ICANN aware, regardless of the bureaucratic or technical processes involved, that together with the temporary loss of the IANA contract, the back-and-forth of the IOC/RC process, and now the TAS problem, an observer may conclude that the organization can't fulfill its mandate? What should the ALAC do (in my opinion)? * Call for a full, independent review of the TAS process from soup to nuts. Why was the technical problem not acted upon sooner? What emergency response protocols are in place? Any? * Offer to coordinate candidate selection for such a review, to help ensure the same people who made the mistakes are not reviewing their own work. * Determine what organizational problems within ICANN led to this failure. * Undertake an analysis of those problems to address whether such incompetence could spill over into the actual process of bringing new gTLDs online, vis-a-vis the stability, safety and security of the Internet. Make that analysis comprehensive and, most important, public. * Undertake a review to determine if ICANN does, in fact, have the technical and organizational capabilities to actually execute its mission, and if not, fess up and hire some people who know what they are doing.

3 2

Apologies
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro April 18, 2012

April 18, 2012

Dear All, I apologise for missing the APRALO and ALAC call. Murphy's law as I had lost my cell phone and just got a replacement and retained the number. My landline also needs to be tested. I regret that I was unable to participate. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala

1 0

comment for SSRT (English version)-lacralo wg Spanish - abril 2012
by presidencia Internauta Argentina April 16, 2012

April 16, 2012

Dear All: I`m sending this LACRALO commnets in English (sorry for my english version). Was made for LACRALO DNS spanish WG (Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS), created after Costa Rica meeting, I belive this is a good results!!! Kind regards -- * Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org>ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 * * "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano- *

1 0

Fwd: lost the vote credential
by Presidencia Internauta April 15, 2012

April 15, 2012

Dear all and staff: I sent an email to staff on 12/04 / (see below), asking the sending of credentials to vote "ALAC Statement on the Security, Stability of the DNS & Resiliency Review Team (RT SSR) - Draft Report" . Do not know why, but never received reply. My computer crashed and I lost some mails including voting credential. Today is day 14 and I missed, for the records I wanted to vote in favor of work. Kind Regards Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi: +54 9 223 5 215819 "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano- ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- De: presidencia Internauta Argentina <presidencia(a)internauta.org.ar> Fecha: 12 de abril de 2012 19:41 Asunto: lost the vote credential Para: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Dear Staff: I lost my credential for vote in: "ALAC Statement on the Security, Stability & Resiliency of the DNS Review Team (SSR RT) - Draft Report, is posible send a new credential? Thanks! kind Regards -- * Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta ArgentinaAsociación Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>FLUI- Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.fuilain.org> ICANN/LACRALO - ALAC Member facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 223 5 215819 * * "Ojalá podamos ser desobedientes, cada vez que recibimos órdenes que humillan nuestra conciencia o violan nuestro sentido común" -Eduardo Galeano- *

5 5

Proposed statement on the .com contract revision
by Evan Leibovitch April 14, 2012

April 14, 2012

Hello all, Holly Raiche, Beau Brendler, Alan Greenberg and myself have been involved in the development of a comment to proposed revisions to the contract that covers Verisign and the .com TLD. Holly did most of the legwork and deserves most of the credit. She also wrote most of a proposed statement, which includes input from Alan and me, A workspace on the topic has been create (thanks Matt!) at https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+.com+Registry+Ag… The proposed statement is located at the bottom of the above-mentioned wiki page before the comments section. Comments are welcome, and it is our intent to have this statement (and comments) considered by the ALAC at its next meeting. Thank you. -- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0