- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] [AT-Review] FW: ICANN Terrorism verification
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 20, 2010

July 20, 2010

You should also note that this has been raised (separately) by At-Large Members as a point of concern from DAG v4 for the attention and follow up by the ALAC at our recent ExCom Meeting and therefore will be an Agenda Item for us at our ALAC Meeting at the end of the month several of our Regional Meetings will also no doubt be discussing and reacting to this matter as well... So the community concern is wider than what many of us hard raised in Brussels and contained in this statement. Specifically ALAC will be asking where did this 'text' "come from" as an addition into DAGv4 what bottom up process or community ' stakeholder processes were involved etc., regarding this matter etc., More on that after the formality of our community discussions and next meeting. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 21 July 2010 00:56, Brian Cute <briancute(a)afilias.info> wrote: > RT, > > > > Please not the following submission that was addressed to me in my capacity > as Chair of the ATRT. > > > > Regards, > > Brian > > > > *From:* Fattal LMTranslator [mailto:Fattal@LMTranslator.com] > *Sent:* Friday, July 16, 2010 1:59 PM > *To:* Peter Dungate Thrush; Rod Beckstrom; heather.dryden(a)ic.gc.ca; Brian > Cute > *Cc:* Bruce Tonkin; George Sadowsky; Mike Silber; Katim Touray; Steve > Crocker; vanda scartezini; Rajasekhar.Ramaraj(a)icann.org; Sam Longworth > *Subject:* ICANN Terrorism verification > *Importance:* High > > > > Dear Rod, Peter, Heather, Brian and all Board members, > > > > I hope this finds you all well. You will recall, and as a matter of public > record, I had first raised part of this subject on the afternoon of the > Public Forum during the ICANN Brussels meeting June 24, 2010. Peter, as > chairman, requested I send a written statement on this matter which I > agreed. And as per my subsequent conversation with Rod after the conclusion > of the Brussels board meeting I feel the gravity of this matter requires it > being addressed to you all directly. > > > > Please find attached my full statement on this matter. You may proceed to > post it on the ICANN website, in the interest of transparency, as it > significantly supplements my Public Forum statement. > > > > Warmest Regards, > > > > Khaled > > > > Khaled Fattal > Chairman and CEO > The Multilingual Internet Group > Linking Together The Current & Next Multi-Billion Multilingual Internet > Users > > *Ankabooot Global Social Network, www.Ankabooot.com > * Live Multilingual Translator, www.LMTranslator.com > *WebSynegys Inc. www.WebSynergys.com > *ArabicSSL Web Certification www.ArabicSSL.net > *Multilingual Internet Names Consortium, (MINC) www.minc.org > > Member of ICANN President's Advisory Committee on IDNs (ICANN) > www.icann.org > Personal blog: www.khaledfattal.blogspot.com > > > > Office of the Chairman > Email: Fattal(a)LMTranslator.com > UK > +44 8707 119 050 office > +44 7006 052 970 Fax > +44 7860 866 841 Mobile > USA > + 1 323-230 0559 Direct > + 1 270-518 3274 Fax > > > _______________________________________________ > AT-Review mailing list > AT-Review(a)icann.org > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-review > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [soac-discussion] RE: [council] EXTENSION OF DEADLINE - Call for Applicants for a Position of Volunteer Review Team Member - 29 July 2010
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

And as the 'Normal monthly' Meeting for the ALAC is at the end of any Month I would like to state that any extension given (and I personally support a corresponding extension being given in line with what Chuck has said below) for AC/SO endorsements to be provided is a very good thing as long as it is at the beginning of (days 1=>10 or so) or very end (30/31st) of a month Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 17 July 2010 01:24, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes(a)verisign.com> wrote: > > I know intentions were good Olof and as you know I was okay with the > extension if the deadline for GNSO endorsements was correspondingly > extended. What caught me off guard was that the extension was granted > without the extension of the end of August deadline for SO/AC endorsements > without GNSO input. I have been encouraging SGs to work hard to implement > the GNSO process and to now ask them to rush their processes further without > their concurrence seemed like the wrong thing to do. > > I also respect Heather's request for the extension and support it as long > as the GNSO is still able to adequately use a bottom-up process to endorse > candidates. > > Regarding the way forward, I personally believe that a 12 September > delivery date for SO/AC endorsements would work well but want GNSO > participants to weigh in on that. In fact, because the Council list is > included in this communication, I welcome Councilors to comment on this > distribution if they like. I will also send a message to the Council list > directly requesting feedback and ask Councilors to seek input from their > groups as possible. Of course, all of this needs to happen quickly. > > Chuck > <original text from message snipped here CLO> >

1 0

Fwd: DAG v4 Public Comments from GNSO BC constituency for our information and possible action.
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

Hello all... In my emails today I have received these DAG v4 Public Comments from GNSO BC constituency for our information and possible action, (you will remember the BC reached out to us previously re DAG 3 and what they felt might be mutual concerns and interest points) which I am passing on to both the ALAC for their consideration and to this end will have an Agenda Item set for say 10-15 mins discussion on DAG4 and new gTLD matters at our July Meeting and of course for the consideration and possible action by our new gTLD WG (should this WG have any contributions on this or other DAG4 matters by our meeting that would be appreciated and we can also set some time aside to hear from any Members present at the meeting as well. Evan can you let me know if there is anything we can do to facilitate the WG's activities on this => perhaps set up a call with some members of the BC etc., ? Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Ron Andruff <ra(a)dotsportllc.com> Date: 14 July 2010 01:01 Subject: DAG v4 Public Comments To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Tony Holmes < tonyarholmes(a)btinternet.com>, "Steven J. Metalitz" <met(a)msk.com> Dear all, As you know the BC, in large measure driven by me in this case, took issue with four aspects of DAGv3, namely: · ICANN Staff Recommendations for Rights Protection Mechanisms · Translations of Strings from ASCII to Other Scripts or Languages · Revised Comparative Evaluation Scoring · Market Differentiation Between New gTLDs The entire BC comment is attached for your ease of reference. While I do not know (and would like to hear from others that are better informed) what happened with regard to our first issue, RPMs, I do know that the BC’s other three comments were wholly ignored by staff. I have spoken with each of you along this path to new gTLDs on various occasions about these issues, Steve has taken up the mantle with me most recently in Brussels regarding Comparative Evaluation Scoring, but we need your so/constituencies to weigh in as well. I know that there was some timing difficulties in your getting positions out the last comment period, so I am hopeful that you can pick up on these important issues this time around. Please let me know if there is anything further I can do to assist you in supporting these important issues. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Kind regards, RA Ron Andruff President & CEO dotSport LLC 220 Fifth Avenue New York, New York 10001 +1 212 481-2820 ext. 11 Visit us at: www.dotSportLLC.com *Click **here* <http://www.dotsportllc.com/index.php?pageId=27>* for dotSportLLC's latest update!*

4 6

Re: [ALAC] At-Large Director proposed bylaw recommendations
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

Note the PC announcement 'came out' about an hour ago... see http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jul10-en.htm <http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jul10-en.htm> Staff can you insure an 'announce' goes out to all the relevant lists please... Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 23 June 2010 17:49, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> wrote: > Dear All, > > > > Please find attached an electronic version of the proposed Bylaw > recommendations for the At-Large Director. > > > > The document will be posted to the ALAC-Announce list on Friday and shortly > to the At-Large Director and BCEC workspaces. Additionally, a wiki page will > be created that will serve as an At-Large space for the collection of > comments on this document to feed into the ALAC response to the public > consultation. > > > > Discussion time will be allocated during the ALAC and Regional Leadership > Wrap-Up Session scheduled for Thursday, 24 June between 08:00-09:00. > > > > Kind regards, > > Heidi > > > > Heidi Ullrich > > Director for At-Large > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 > > Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 > > Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956 > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [Absc] FW: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 2, 2010

July 2, 2010

I'll have them put up as a linked document to our BCEC site (referenced to the meeting we will have next week as it will be an Agenda Item*), as well as the main Wiki page re recommendations #2 and the ABSdt area... * other main issue to look at is update on the Call for SOI, and discussion of timing and release of information on SOI applicants to the public record (as recently discussed on list) Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 2 July 2010 21:27, Christopher Wilkinson <cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu>wrote: > Good afternoon: > > The proposed bylaws changes are not attached. > I suppose they have been amended with reference to the first draft that was > circulating informally in Brussels. > > Regards, CW > > > On 01 Jul 2010, at 20:27, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > > Looks fine to me, and I do see that to fit into the time table ( for Board > Meetings etc.,) to allow for the seating of the at-large selected ICANN > Board Member in the Dec 2010 ICANN clearly needs to start the PC on July 1 > (UTC) we should indeed get this started... > > We are however noting (or predicting at least) that in the PC some of > comments {from at-large} you should expect to receive, will relate to > concerns discussed in some of our meetings in Brussels, specifically about > Section 8. g, (new); and the communities ability to attract a quality > candidate for a term limit of 6 months, and also that parts of the > community would still like to have a Liaison to the Board based on the ALAC > Reviews WG recommendation for 2 Director seats to be created ... But that > is what PC periods are for any way... To formally get such comments > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > > > > On 1 July 2010 08:24, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> wrote: > >> Hi Cheryl, >> >> >> Please see attached the proposed At-Large Director bylaw changes PC that >> Sam wants to open tomorrow. If there are any major suggested revisions, >> please could you inform Sam directly (Samantha.eisner(a)icann.org)? >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> Heidi >> >> >> *From:* Samantha Eisner >> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:24 AM >> *To:* Heidi Ullrich; David Olive >> *Cc:* Matthias Langenegger >> *Subject:* Re: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan >> >> >> David, Heidi and Matthias - >> >> Attached is the proposed public comment forum language for the At-Large >> Bylaws. I’m going to have this forum opened tomorrow so that we can start >> receiving comment and continue the movement of the process. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions, >> >> Best, >> >> Sam >> >> >> On 6/30/10 10:06 AM, "Heidi Ullrich" <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Hi All, >> >> Depending on what the Board requires by a summary (the dashboard seems a >> good way to proceed), I believe we could aim for the August meeting. >> >> Kind regards, >> Heidi >> ------------------------------ >> >> *From*: David Olive >> *To*: Samantha Eisner; Olof Nordling; Heidi Ullrich >> *Cc*: Matthias Langenegger; Alice Jansen >> *Sent*: Wed Jun 30 10:02:17 2010 >> *Subject*: Re: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan >> Sam: >> >> Thanks very much. >> >> Not sure how much progress we can show by mid-July. >> >> We are planning a “dashboard” reporting concept similar to the one devised >> for the GNSO improvements (still uner refinement). Maybe we cold present >> the reporting concept. >> >> I will confer with my At Large colleagues. >> >> Many thanks, David >> >> >> On 6/30/10 12:55 PM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> The next Board meeting is August 5. If you’d like this to be considered >> for the agenda, I believe that proposed agenda items must be identified to >> Diane by 13 July, and then the Board submission should be completed by 23 >> July. (The interim due dates may change slightly, but that’s a rough >> outline). >> >> If a summary cannot be produced in time, the next meeting is on 28 October >> 2010. >> >> >> On 6/30/10 9:54 AM, "David Olive" <david.olive(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Sam: >> >> Could you tell us when the next Board meeting will be for this report? >> >> Or will it be for the November retreat? >> >> I will coordinate with Heidi and Seth on this. >> >> Regards, David >> >> >> On 6/30/10 12:24 PM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Actually, the Board modified the resolution and would like to have a >> summary of the ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan provided to it for >> consideration at its next meeting. David and Heidi, can you please >> coordinate with Seth to have a summary produced? (I don’t know what they >> are looking for, only that they want a summary . . . ) >> >> On the Bylaws, I’m going to be preparing a posting for public comment, >> hopefully today. Given that it’s Bylaws and ALAC related, John proposes >> that we have two responsible staff members listed in the public comment >> forum – me and presumably Heidi. Please let me know if there’s a more >> appropriate At-Large staff member to include. I’ll likely perform the >> summary and analysis of the comments, but may require assistance if there >> are a particular or specific issues arising in the public comment forum. >> >> Please let me know if you have any questions - >> >> Best, >> >> Sam >> -- >> Samantha Eisner >> Senior Counsel >> ICANN >> 4676 Admiralty Way #330 >> Marina del Rey, California 90292 >> Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 >> Office Fax: +1 310 823 8649 >> >> >> >> >> On 6/30/10 3:34 AM, "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Hi Heidi, >> Just a quick line to tell you that the ALAC Improvements Implementation >> Plan went thru the SIC with flying colours in Brussels and, as you surely >> have noticed, resulted in a Board resolution endorsing it. So you’re all >> good to go ahead with that oneJ >> Also, the Bylaws revisions for the seating of an At-Large Director on the >> Board went equally smoothly thru the SIC and the Board, so those will be >> posted for public comments as a first step (shortly, I trust). >> All the best >> Olof >> >> PS. I intend to use your Implementation Plan as an instructive example for >> other reviews that approach that stage – if you don’t mind, of course;-) >> >> >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Vice President, Policy Development Support >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 >> Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611 >> >> >> >> >> David A. Olive >> Vice President, Policy Development Support >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 >> Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Bcec mailing list > Bcec(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/bcec_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >

1 0

Re: [ALAC] FW: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 1, 2010

July 1, 2010

Looks fine to me, and I do see that to fit into the time table ( for Board Meetings etc.,) to allow for the seating of the at-large selected ICANN Board Member in the Dec 2010 ICANN clearly needs to start the PC on July 1 (UTC) we should indeed get this started... We are however noting (or predicting at least) that in the PC some of comments {from at-large} you should expect to receive, will relate to concerns discussed in some of our meetings in Brussels, specifically about Section 8. g, (new); and the communities ability to attract a quality candidate for a term limit of 6 months, and also that parts of the community would still like to have a Liaison to the Board based on the ALAC Reviews WG recommendation for 2 Director seats to be created ... But that is what PC periods are for any way... To formally get such comments Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 1 July 2010 08:24, Heidi Ullrich <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> wrote: > Hi Cheryl, > > > > Please see attached the proposed At-Large Director bylaw changes PC that > Sam wants to open tomorrow. If there are any major suggested revisions, > please could you inform Sam directly (Samantha.eisner(a)icann.org)? > > > > Thanks, > > Heidi > > > > *From:* Samantha Eisner > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 30, 2010 11:24 AM > *To:* Heidi Ullrich; David Olive > *Cc:* Matthias Langenegger > *Subject:* Re: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan > > > > David, Heidi and Matthias - > > Attached is the proposed public comment forum language for the At-Large > Bylaws. I’m going to have this forum opened tomorrow so that we can start > receiving comment and continue the movement of the process. > > Please let me know if you have any questions, > > Best, > > Sam > > > On 6/30/10 10:06 AM, "Heidi Ullrich" <Heidi.Ullrich(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Hi All, > > Depending on what the Board requires by a summary (the dashboard seems a > good way to proceed), I believe we could aim for the August meeting. > > Kind regards, > Heidi > ------------------------------ > > *From*: David Olive > *To*: Samantha Eisner; Olof Nordling; Heidi Ullrich > *Cc*: Matthias Langenegger; Alice Jansen > *Sent*: Wed Jun 30 10:02:17 2010 > *Subject*: Re: ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan > Sam: > > Thanks very much. > > Not sure how much progress we can show by mid-July. > > We are planning a “dashboard” reporting concept similar to the one devised > for the GNSO improvements (still uner refinement). Maybe we cold present > the reporting concept. > > I will confer with my At Large colleagues. > > Many thanks, David > > > On 6/30/10 12:55 PM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> wrote: > > The next Board meeting is August 5. If you’d like this to be considered > for the agenda, I believe that proposed agenda items must be identified to > Diane by 13 July, and then the Board submission should be completed by 23 > July. (The interim due dates may change slightly, but that’s a rough > outline). > > If a summary cannot be produced in time, the next meeting is on 28 October > 2010. > > > On 6/30/10 9:54 AM, "David Olive" <david.olive(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Sam: > > Could you tell us when the next Board meeting will be for this report? > > Or will it be for the November retreat? > > I will coordinate with Heidi and Seth on this. > > Regards, David > > > On 6/30/10 12:24 PM, "Samantha Eisner" <Samantha.Eisner(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Actually, the Board modified the resolution and would like to have a > summary of the ALAC Improvements Implementation Plan provided to it for > consideration at its next meeting. David and Heidi, can you please > coordinate with Seth to have a summary produced? (I don’t know what they > are looking for, only that they want a summary . . . ) > > On the Bylaws, I’m going to be preparing a posting for public comment, > hopefully today. Given that it’s Bylaws and ALAC related, John proposes > that we have two responsible staff members listed in the public comment > forum – me and presumably Heidi. Please let me know if there’s a more > appropriate At-Large staff member to include. I’ll likely perform the > summary and analysis of the comments, but may require assistance if there > are a particular or specific issues arising in the public comment forum. > > Please let me know if you have any questions - > > Best, > > Sam > -- > Samantha Eisner > Senior Counsel > ICANN > 4676 Admiralty Way #330 > Marina del Rey, California 90292 > Direct Dial: +1 310 578 8631 > Office Fax: +1 310 823 8649 > > > > > On 6/30/10 3:34 AM, "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Hi Heidi, > Just a quick line to tell you that the ALAC Improvements Implementation > Plan went thru the SIC with flying colours in Brussels and, as you surely > have noticed, resulted in a Board resolution endorsing it. So you’re all > good to go ahead with that oneJ > Also, the Bylaws revisions for the seating of an At-Large Director on the > Board went equally smoothly thru the SIC and the Board, so those will be > posted for public comments as a first step (shortly, I trust). > All the best > Olof > > PS. I intend to use your Implementation Plan as an instructive example for > other reviews that approach that stage – if you don’t mind, of course;-) > > > > > > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 > Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611 > > > > > David A. Olive > Vice President, Policy Development Support > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > 1101 New York Avenue, NW - Suite 930 - Washington, D.C. 20005 > Office: 202.570.7126 Mobile: 202.341.3611 > >

1 0

AoC Applicant Endorsement Committee
by Alan Greenberg June 30, 2010

June 30, 2010

On Thursday, the ALAC approved the proposal to have a 10-person team review the applications from volunteers seeking endorsement from the ALAC for the upcoming Affirmation reviews (see http://icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-01jun10-en.htm for the Call for Applicants). The 10-person team will include the 5 ExCom members plus one other person from each region, to be named by the each RALO. For the purposes of this message, I will call this group the Affirmation of Commitments Applicant Review Team - ACART. I would suggest that the additional person for each RALO should be: - a member of the RALO leadership; - a former ALAC member from the region; - a former RALO leader from the region; or - a current ALAC member from the region. The candidates to be endorsed by the ACART will then be ratified by the ALAC. The deadline for submitting applications is July 15, and our endorsements are due (approximately) August 31. On behalf of the Chair of the ALAC, I request that all RALOs identify their second member of the ACART, factoring in the requirements for ICANN knowledge, knowledge of the reviews subject matter, and the timeframe (including vacations in some regions). To the extent possible, the person should be named prior to July 15, or as soon after as possible. I further suggest that the start of discussions of the exact process to be following within the group not be delayed until all members are named. Alan

2 1

FW: An important discussion o free expression at the ICANN meeting
by SAMUELS,Carlton A June 29, 2010

June 29, 2010

A very thoughtful article from Milton on his blog. FWIW, I share his position on the MOPA. Carlton From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2010 5:14 AM To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU Cc: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] An important discussion o free expression at the ICANN meeting http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2010/6/23/4560694.html Milton Mueller Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology ------------------------------ Internet Governance Project: http://internetgovernance.org

3 2

Re: [ALAC] ALAC & VI
by Alan Greenberg June 25, 2010

June 25, 2010

I don't plan to comment on the substance of the VI issues here (and there are, as Evan implies, many complex aspects - enough so that some of the discussions make my head hurt trying to understand the inter-relationships). We were scheduled to have at least the start of a substantive discussion on the issue, we ran out of time and it never really happened. If there is sufficient interest, we could try to schedule a special purpose call in the subject. If anyone on the VI WG feel that there is only one view on VI within At-Large, then they simply haven't been paying attention. I have been the most vocal on the list, with Carlton and Siva tying for second. None of us have been anywhere as busy as the WG's most vocal participants. In a recent poll of the WG, a large number of the participants thought that a proposal submitted by Siva and quickly seconded by Carlton was a good idea (the so-called Free Trade model). No one on the group can be oblivious to this proposal. If they somehow missed the fact that Siva and Carlton were from At-Large, I am at a loss to explain why. I have been largely silent (on a relative scale) for much of the discussion. Earlier this month I stated my position. I am what Evan characterizes as "cautious", but, I believe it is for good reasons. I have extracted to parts of that message below. You can read the entire message (and the 2,261 other messages) at http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg01695.html. >Since we are getting close to the point where we must decide what we >will say in Brussels, I thought I would state my position. To be >clear, this is a personal position and not a formal ALAC position. >Although I have discussed aspects with some ALAC members who support >my views, there are clearly others who do not. >[...] >I am approaching this from the point of view of registrants and the >overall community. I specifically am not looking at it from the >perspective of business opportunities. I favour security and >stability of the gTLD ecosystem over innovation at this point. >Moreover, I am looking at this as a solution for the first round of >new gTLDs. The PDP WG can continue to work on a long-term solution >which might be quite different. For that reason, I think that it is >important to not implement something that may need to be either >turned back when the final recommendation is made, or worse, have >those who participated in the first round be working under different >rules than those who come in later. Cheryl supported my position, but also led off with a statement that it was a personal position - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-vi-feb10/msg01696.html. Carlton contributed to the same thread at least twice indicating that he disagreed with me. I am not sure what we could do to make it clearer that there is no universal At-Large position. For the record, virtually every GNSO Constituency or Stakeholder Group is also split over the various approaches. And that includes registrars and registries. Alan At 25/06/2010 04:25 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Hello all, > >In the ICANN context, "VI" is neither a Unix text editor nor the Virgin >Islands, but "Vertical Integration" -- the ongoing debate within ICANN on >the permissible level of cross-ownership between registries and registrars, >and to what extent registries should be permitted to provide both services >(ie, "selling direct") > >The issue is complex and the main topic of a 70-member committee on which >opinion appears to have split along two general points of view: > >- The "cautious" -- those who believe that the status quo should be >preserved and that registries -- with some specific exceptions -- must >resell their domains through registrars > >- The "revisionists" -- those who believe that this is a debate over >business models, and that ICANN should withdraw from regulation of business >models. > >There are people within ALAC that I have heard who have expressed both >points of view (as well as many nuanced hybrids), and to my knowledge no >specific At-Large position has been taken. In this context I was surprised >to talk to some members of the VI working group today in the Brussels >conference hallways. These people have the distinct and clear impression >that ALAC -- based on its members' participation in the WG -- is solidly and >vocally in favour of the "cautious" viewpoint. > >Whether or not the At-Large members of that WG have tried to convey such a >one-sided impression, this appears to be the view that other committee >members are taking away. I would ask the members of At-Large to keep this in >mind, and to please convey to that WG the diversity of opinion that actually >exists within our community. > >Having said all this, I would also frankly say that, given all the issues >within ICANN that impact end-users, VI is not in the top five and maybe not >even in the top 10. It is of moderate concern to me because it is indicative >of ICANN's "feature creep" that has the body getting into areas (regulating >business models, trademarks, and morality) in which it has little expertise >and even less authority. > >I would ask the At-Large members of that WG to please ensure that its >members are aware that our community's views on this issue are as diverse as >they are in the WG itself. If doing so means inviting more people into the >WG to balance existing personal viewpoints, then let's do that. > >-- >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

ALAC & VI
by Evan Leibovitch June 25, 2010

June 25, 2010

Hello all, In the ICANN context, "VI" is neither a Unix text editor nor the Virgin Islands, but "Vertical Integration" -- the ongoing debate within ICANN on the permissible level of cross-ownership between registries and registrars, and to what extent registries should be permitted to provide both services (ie, "selling direct") The issue is complex and the main topic of a 70-member committee on which opinion appears to have split along two general points of view: - The "cautious" -- those who believe that the status quo should be preserved and that registries -- with some specific exceptions -- must resell their domains through registrars - The "revisionists" -- those who believe that this is a debate over business models, and that ICANN should withdraw from regulation of business models. There are people within ALAC that I have heard who have expressed both points of view (as well as many nuanced hybrids), and to my knowledge no specific At-Large position has been taken. In this context I was surprised to talk to some members of the VI working group today in the Brussels conference hallways. These people have the distinct and clear impression that ALAC -- based on its members' participation in the WG -- is solidly and vocally in favour of the "cautious" viewpoint. Whether or not the At-Large members of that WG have tried to convey such a one-sided impression, this appears to be the view that other committee members are taking away. I would ask the members of At-Large to keep this in mind, and to please convey to that WG the diversity of opinion that actually exists within our community. Having said all this, I would also frankly say that, given all the issues within ICANN that impact end-users, VI is not in the top five and maybe not even in the top 10. It is of moderate concern to me because it is indicative of ICANN's "feature creep" that has the body getting into areas (regulating business models, trademarks, and morality) in which it has little expertise and even less authority. I would ask the At-Large members of that WG to please ensure that its members are aware that our community's views on this issue are as diverse as they are in the WG itself. If doing so means inviting more people into the WG to balance existing personal viewpoints, then let's do that. -- - Evan

3 2