- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Google Book Settlement Rejected
by Hong Xue March 24, 2011

March 24, 2011

A long saga ended today. A federal judge rejected a *Google settlement*<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704461304576216923562033348.h…>that would allow it to post millions of *books* online. It shows that Google should not be allowed to make Global law through its opt-out (opt-in by default) rules to manage the world knowledge. Hong -- Dr. Hong Xue Professor of Law Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Beijing Normal University http://www.iipl.org.cn/ <http://iipl.org.cn/> 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China

3 4

ICANN compliance positions filled
by Alan Greenberg March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

<http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-15mar11-en.pdf>http<http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-15mar11-en.pdf>://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-15mar11-en.pdf

1 0

Fwd: Additional elaboration on remaining GAC Board sessions
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond March 16, 2011

March 16, 2011

FYI -------- Message original -------- Sujet: Additional elaboration on remaining GAC Board sessions Date : Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:35:07 -0700 De : Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> Pour : Olivier Crepin-LeBlond <ocl(a)gih.com>, Stephane Van Gelder <stephane.vangelder(a)indom.com>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au>, Mason Cole <masonc(a)snapnames.com>, "David W. Maher" <dmaher(a)pir.org>, "J. Scott Evans" <jscottevans(a)yahoo.com>, Tony Holmes <tony.ar.homes(a)bt.com>, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade(a)hotmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, "Metalitz, Steven" <met(a)msk.com> Copie à : Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org>, Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org>, Barbara Clay <barbara.clay(a)icann.org>, John Jeffrey <jeffrey(a)icann.org> All: As stated earlier, there is no GAC-Board meeting this afternoon at 4PM. The Board and GAC continue to work separately, continuing its review of the exchange of information as well as consider the recent community inputs and transcripts from the recent the public session. The GAC came to the session today with a lot of ideas and the Board is taking time to process them all. This schedule change should not be seen as an indication of disagreement, but rather reflecting the volume of work that is being completed and processed in a short period of time. The Board will be available to receive additional comments from the community tomorrow. It is intended to be a session to receive additional comments on the pending issues. Comments that were made during the previous session have already been noted and do not need to be restated. Written statements should be provided for posting and will not need to be read into the record, but will be considered by the Board. The sessions are currently scheduled as follows: New gTLD Program: Discussion of Issues Identified by Governmental Advisory Committee, Wed 16 Mar 2011 at 09:00AM, Grand Ballroom. The session will be held but may be shortened depending upon comments to allow more time to work on preparation for the Board / GAC discussions. The Board/GAC consultation will be open to the public again at Thur 17 March 2011 @ 0900. Hope this is helpful. Regards, Kurt Pritz ICANN

1 0

ALAC action regarding IRTP-B Draft Report
by Alan Greenberg March 13, 2011

March 13, 2011

At the last ALAC meeting, Sylvia and I were asked to investigate whether we believed that an ALAC statement on the draft IRTP-B report is warranted. Sylvia responded (on time, as opposed to this reply) and inserted here followed by mine. As you will see, we disagree somewhat in philosophy, but not in outcome. At 03/03/2011 09:52 AM, sylvia(a)internautabrasil.org wrote: >Dear all: > >It´s always a good idea ALAC make a comment for all the issues. > >I´ve read the Executive Summary and it seems we >have a hard work did it for the WG. ( nao seria to do for? ) > >The nine recommendations has specifics solutions >for almost all the situations. > >I think this is a so technical issue (for me, at >least) and we need to believe in the WG´s members criteria. > >As far as I know, it is hard to believe that >members from our ALSes have more to add to the WG report. > >But on the other hand, I think Alan could have another view. > >My two cents. > >Alan, I´m sure you can help me with your knowledge > >Kind Regards, > >Sylvia ----------------------------- Alan's comments... I guess I disagree with Sylvia on her first point. I don't think that the ALAC should comment on issues unless: - we strongly support the issue(s) and want to make sure that other's disagreeing do not kill it/them. - we oppose part or all of the recommendations and want to see them changed. Or we support them but want to see a substantive improvement in the recommendations. In this particular case, a comment IS warranted based on Rec. 2 which suggests that the ALAC has a part to play in Registrant education. I agree with the intent, and it is in fact in line with a similar recommendation in the PEDNR report. If the ALAC is willing to commit to such work, then we should comment and say so. If we are going to provide such an assurance, then we should also give a general statement of support for all of the recommendations. If the ALAC is not willing to make such a commitment, we should simply be silent on this report. A comment with a refusal to participate would send a very bad message, and issuing a statement with silence on the issue of ALAC support would be similarly bad. A response on Rec. 1 is also warranted, but I suspect that we are not in a position to do this. The report asks specific questions. Since no one from At-Large was involved in this WG in a substantive way (other than Baudouin Schombe who was representing NCUC), and I suspect we have no one who is a real expert on IRTP and in particular Registrar business operations, I don't think that we should even attempt to answer the questions. I think that this corresponds to Sylvia's comment that there is probably little to be gained by going out with a general At-Large call for comments. I find it unfortunate that we are in that position. If there is support for a statement as I have outlined above, I am willing to draft such a short statement for approval by the ALAC. Alan

4 3

Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional
by Alan Greenberg March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

FYI, Alan

6 7

Fwd: [Future-trans-account] Joining this Working Group and this list.
by JJS March 9, 2011

March 9, 2011

Hello, I just realized my answer to Vanda and others may have been sent only to Vanda, by mistake. So here is my message (below). Regards, Jean-Jacques. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2011 07:03:02 +0800 Subject: Re: [Future-trans-account] Joining this Working Group and this list. To: Vanda UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br> Dear Vanda, All, like you, I would like to have (from the outgoing co-Chairs, or from Staff) an overview of the programme (things achieved, way forward). I've only just been added to this list, and have not attended any of its meetings, so I don't have that information. It would be reasonable to start from there. Also, to my knowledge there has been no ALAC or ALAC Executive Committee decision regarding membership, or Chair of this WG. Board Committees have a given number of members (3 to 5) : does the ALAC have anything similar? Regards, Jean-Jacques. On 09/03/2011, Vanda UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br> wrote: > JJ, do you plan to have any meeting in San francisco? Just to organize > agenda. Thanks and will be a pleasure to be with you once more. > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Polo Consultores Associados > > IT Trend > > Alameda Santos 1470 – 1407,8 > > 01418-903 São Paulo,SP, Brasil > > Tel + 5511 3266.6253 > > Mob + 55118181.1464 > > > > De: future-trans-account-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:future-trans-account-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de JJS > Enviada em: sexta-feira, 4 de março de 2011 20:38 > Para: Baudouin SCHOMBE > Cc: future-trans-account(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Assunto: Re: [Future-trans-account] Joining this Working Group and this > list. > > > > Dear Baudouin, > > > > thank you for the message. As you may have noticed, I only recently was > added to this list, and have no role in welcoming or otherwise guiding the > membership. > > > > I suppose it's up to the Chair of this Working Group to determine the > appropriate number of its members, their geographic distribution, or any > other aspect. The Chair was Sébastien Bachollet, but now that he has joined > the Board, I don't know who has taken over that responsibility. Let's find > out from Staff. Also, it would be interesting to learn about the programme > of activities and the calendar of this WG for 2011, and how that blends with > the overall orientations of the ALAC for the rest of the year. Ultimately, > we may wish to find out from Olivier and the Executive Committee what is > envisaged for this WG. > > > > Regards, > > Jean-Jacques. > > 2011/3/5 Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe(a)gmail.com> > > Bonjour Jean Jacques, > > I wish to be in > > > SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN > > *COORDONNATEUR DU CENTRE AFRICAIN D'ECHANGE CULTUREL (CAFEC) > ACADEMIE DES TIC > *COORDONNATEUR NATIONAL REPRONTIC > *MEMBRE FACILITATEUR GAID AFRIQUE > *AT-LARGE MEMBER (ICANN) > *NCUC/GNSO MEMBER (ICANN) > > Téléphone mobile:+243998983491/+243811980914 > email : b.schombe(a)gmail.com > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > <http://akimambo.unblog.fr/> > Site Web : www.ticafrica.net > > > > > 2011/3/1 Jean-Jacques SUBRENAT <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> > > Hello, > > > > staff advised me that I have been added. > > Looking forward to working with you. > > > > Regards, > > Jean-Jacques. > > > _______________________________________________ > Future-trans-account mailing list > Future-trans-account(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/future-trans-account > > > > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Fwd: GAC Communique Brussels Intersessional
by Alan Greenberg March 5, 2011

March 5, 2011

I have to agree with Jean-Jacques. Countries can have the major impact on ICANN, not because they have been given these rights by some treaty or agreement, but because ICANN *wants* these countries to support its existence. Without the support of these countries, ICANN simply could not continue to claim authority over Internet names and numbers. What is different in the present case, is that the various national governments are working in concert to wield the authority which ICANN (fortified by the AOC) has granted them. It is a bit like having children. You want them to grow up, but perhaps you would really like them to follow your every desire instead of theirs. That typically doesn't happen. Alan At 04/03/2011 10:19 PM, JJS wrote: >*Dear Hong,* >* >* >*I agree with your analysis. * >* >* >*But the purpose of my e-mail was precisely to underline that sovereign >states, whether or not they have the legal basis to do so, DO HAVE THE >CAPACITY TO BLOCK PROCESS, OR TO RENDER A DECISION INAPPLICABLE in a given >country. You are (rightly, I believe) defending the case of equal RIGHTS >among all ACs and SOs, whereas I was simply stating that we cannot afford to >neglect REALITY, which is often quite different. * >* >* >*Hence my proposal that ALAC, on each of the crucial priorities related to >"the public interest", draft a position which could then be proposed to >other stakeholders in ICANN. In that way, other parts of ICANN could hope to >weigh more in the scales, and their joint position contribute to the checks >and balances, in addition to the now enhanced dialogue between the Board and >the GAC.* >* >* >*Regards,* >*Jean-Jacques. >* >On 5 March 2011 10:48, Hong Xue <hongxueipr(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > The GAC communiqué from Brussels is an eye-opening document. > > > > ICANN is not an IGO or an international treaty organization and has no > > Member States. What it has or claims to have is the stakeholder > > groups. > > > > It is interesting that the sovereign countries in GAC believes that > > they should have veto right or more right than any other Stakeholder > > groups. Can they provide any legal basis in the international law? A > > number of countries' joint declaration could not constitute such legal > > basis and is only bound to all the countries involved. A country's > > sovereignty cannot go beyond the boundary to govern ICANN. Neither can > > a group country "pool" their sovereignty to reach the same goal. But > > if ICANN is viewed as a civil subject registered in California, one > > country where ICANN resides does have the sovereignty against it. > > > > The old or classic international law theory can hardly explain the > > legitimacy (if any) of ICANN or ICANN-likes. We need new > > "international" or global law to fit the new global NGOs like ICANN. > > > > Hong > > > > > * > > > * > > > *- Inequality between the GAC and other ACs or SOs is a reality, whether > > or > > > not we consider this is justified. Sovereign states can apply national > > law, > > > and are (usually) bound by international law. ICANN's other stakeholders > > > have a vague moral right to represent segments of the community, the only > > > reference being the ICANN By-laws, which have no international standing, > > and > > > are legally binding only in the USA.* > > > * > > > * > > > *- This discrepancy is further accentuated by the AoC. We cannot escape > > this > > > fact. So the question is: apart from the GAC, can other stakeholders > > achieve > > > a better balance, and how can they do that? I think there's only one way, > > > which is to have cross-constituency agreement on major issues, which so > > far > > > has proven difficult.* > > > * > > > * > > > *- One area where the ALAC could take a leadership role and strive to > > gain > > > other stakeholders to its cause, is the general area of "the public > > > interest". Example: in the DAG, some elements may be defensible from an > > > industry point of view, but possibly detrimental to the public interest > > > (privacy, consumer protection, human and civic rights). If we detect a > > > dividing line between, say, the GAC and other stakeholders, for instance > > > regarding fundamental human rights (e.g. religious persuasions, atheism > > or > > > other philosophical positions, sexual preference, etc), then we should > > > strive to define a broad platform and present it to other stakeholders, > > > seeking their support. Ideally, this could then become a "ICANN minus > > GAC" > > > position, which would carry more weight than some ALAC-only statement.* > > > * > > > * > > > *Regards,* > > > *Jean-Jacques.* > > > > > > On 4 March 2011 22:48, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > > > >> The two components of the message that stuck out to me: > > >> > > >> - The emphasis for more *bilateral* discussions. There are more > > >> stakeholders > > >> than just GAC and the ICANN Board. I welcome the opportunity to more > > deeply > > >> involve the GAC in ICANN processes, but there must be more than > > lip-service > > >> paid to the multi-stakeholder model going forward. As we saw from its > > >> near-obsession with trademark issues, in some ways even the GAC can be > > >> gamed. > > >> > > >> - "*The GAC is committed to take whatever time is required to achieving > > >> these essential public policy objectives** -- Saved for the second-last > > >> sentence of the statement, this rightfully holds ICANN accountable for > > its > > >> lack of sufficiently inclusive community engagement in early gTLD policy > > >> development, and the deliberate shunning of community advice at many > > >> stages. > > >> It should send a shiver down the spine of most GNSO members, to whom the > > >> word "delay" is now officially an obscenity. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada > > >> Em: evan at telly dot org > > >> Sk: evanleibovitch > > >> Tw: el56 > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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: http://st.icann.org/alac > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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: http://st.icann.org/alac > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Dr. Hong Xue > > Professor of Law > > Director of Institute for the Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) > > Beijing Normal University > > http://www.iipl.org.cn/ > > 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street > > Beijing 100875 China > > >_______________________________________________ >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: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

ALAC Statement on Interim Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group
by James Seng March 1, 2011

March 1, 2011

I have been asked by the ALAC Exco to draft a statement on the Interim Report of the Internationalized Registration Data Working Group. Due to Chinese New Year holiday on my part, as well as an extended road trip, I didn't get to work on it until now. My apologies for the delay. Anyway, I have an outline drafted and I would appreciate any further comments or suggestions https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/ALAC+Statement+on+Interim+Repor… -James Seng

1 0

Draft ALAC statement on Draft Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2011

Feb. 28, 2011

I was asked to draft a statement on the Draft Process for Recognition of New GNSO Constituencies for the consideration of the ALAC. It is attached here. The details of the process and the comment period can be found at http://icann.org/en/public-comment/#newco-process-recognition. Comments are due by 04 March 2011. If there are any questions, please do not hesitate to ask. Alan

6 9

Board-GAC meeting comments
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 27, 2011

Feb. 27, 2011

Tijani, thank you for submitting comments/amendments to ALAC's own Board-GAC meeting WIKI page on: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/ALAC+-+February+2011+-+GA… I shall press these points into account when interacting with the difference actors in Brussels, along with all of the other points which are on this page. I shall also take into account some of ALAC's past work in CWGs that it has participated in. I'll also interact on the two chat spaces, the Adobe Chat, as well as Skype chats for more direct reactions depending on how the Board-GAC discussion progresses. Last but not least, I'll liaise with my At-Large colleagues who will also be in Brussels - besides canvassing GAC and Board members in charge of gathering information regarding specific points we have emphasized in our history. Kind regards, Olivier -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0