- ALAC - lists.icann.org

ICANN Board agenda for 12 March 2010 in Nairobi
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 28, 2010

Feb. 28, 2010

Should be an interesting meeting: AoC Reviews, new gTLD EoI, .XXX and the December meeting (which will hopefully be somewhere even the moderately timid will go to). Alan >From: http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-12mar10-en.htm > > >Board Meeting - Agenda > >12 March 2010 > >1. Consent Agenda Resolution: > > a. Minutes of 4 February 2010 Meeting > > b. Minutes of 19 February 2010 Meeting > > >Main Board Meeting > >2. President's Report > >3. Acknowledgment of Committee Reports Received by the Board > >4. Affirmation of Commitments Reviews - Status Report > >5. New gTLDs > > a. Status > > b. Consideration of Expressions of Interest > >6.Framework for FY11 Operating Plan > >7.Consideration of the Independent Review Panel Declaration ICM Registry >v. ICANN > >8.Approval of Location of ICANN International Meeting December 2010 > >9.Issues Arising from the Nairobi Meeting > >10.Any Other Business > >11.Thank You Resolutions

1 0

XXX Saga Continues
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 20, 2010

Feb. 20, 2010

Rod tweeted the following yesterday: An Independent Review Panel has rules in ICM Registry’s favor 2-1, issuing advisory declaration that #ICANN Board must consider 2007 decision denying .XXX TLD application. Thanks to Michele for the summary you did of this long story. http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100220_xxx_saga_continues/ Patrick

2 1

URGENT: Process to select ALAC representative to AoC Review
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 20, 2010

Feb. 20, 2010

I am distributing this on behalf of Cheryl. Since the last ALAC meeting and the submission of the approved ALAC comments on the Affirmation of Commitments review process, there have been numerous discussions at many levels on the review process. From an At-Large perspective, we need to decide how we will address the selection of one or more people to be candidates for the first review team - the one assessing ICANN's accountability, transparency and support of the interests of global Internet users. Attached is a document that summarizes the issues and identifies what decision we must make. Because it includes a lot of background information, it is not short. The important issues are listed at the end, and most importantly, it includes a series of steps that we must take WITHOUT DELAY. For your convenience, the text of the document is also appended to this e-mail. If we do not act quickly, we will lose the ability to effectively participate in the very important review. PLEASE REVIEW IMMEDIATELY, AND DECIDE IN WHAT WAY YOU NEED TO INVOLVE THE REST OF YOUR RALO SO THAT WE CAN EFFECTIVELY MAKE DECISIONS NEXT WEEK. Alan --------------- Proposed ALAC Process for the "endorsement" of candidates responding to the Call for Accountability & Transparency (A&T) Review Team applicants (further to the discussion at the January 26th ALAC Meeting on this matter). Background · The Affirmation of Commitments (AoC - http://www.icann.org/en/documents/affirmation-of-commitments-30sep09-en.htm) calls for several reviews to be carried out periodically, with the first review being one on ensuring accountability, transparency and the interests of global Internet users (for short Accountability and transparency A&T). The AoC requires that this review be concluded no later than December 31, 2010. · The review team will include the following (or their designated nominees): the Chair of the GAC, the Chair of the Board of ICANN, the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the DOC, representatives of the relevant ICANN Advisory Committees and Supporting Organizations and independent experts. · Composition of the review team will be agreed jointly by the Chair of the GAC (in consultation with GAC members) and the Chair of the Board of ICANN. · The team composition will be published for public comment, but the draft review proposal does not seem to allow for changes based on these comments. · The Call for Applicants for membership in the review team was issued on January 13, 2010 - http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-11jan10-en.…. · The draft review proposal calls for one representative of the ALAC. - Our comments suggested that one was insufficient. We know that other organizations have made similar comments. At this point there is no indication that it will change, but it may. - Note the term representative defined as a person who has been chosen to act or make decisions on behalf of another person or a group of people. · The draft review proposal requires that any candidate to be considered for the review team be endorsed by the group they are to represent. · The draft review proposal requires that applications be submitted directly to ICANN. - We have been assured that we will receive copies of any such applications. · The original deadline for submitting applications was February 17th at 23:59 UTC with the intent of selecting the final review team by February 20th. The submission deadline has since been extended to February 22nd and we have been told that the deadline for us submitting endorsements is March 1, 2010 at 23:59 UTC. · The call for applications did not allow for any ALAC-specific criteria, but since that time, the GNSO indicated that they may want to collect additional information on their behalf. · Any people who we endorse but who are not selected for the A&T review will be kept on file and may be appointed to a later review without further consultation with us. · The GAC and the Board are given the courtesy of being represented on the review team by their Chair or a delegate (it is unclear when they must decide whether they themselves are participating or replaced by a delegate), but the ACs and SOs are not. Current Situation As of February 11th we are told that there have been just two applications. One is from a Kurt Snyder. He is not currently affiliated with any At-Large entity, but (according to his e-mail to the ALAC Chair I have been looking for ways to volunteer with ICANN and I believe this would be a fantastic opportunity for me. Moreover, my background is well suited for such an endeavor. I am an attorney with technology and assessment experience. Mr. Snyder apparently incorrectly interpreted a reply from the ALAC Chair as implying that we had already formally endorsed him. This has been corrected. The second is from Christopher Wilkinson, an At-Large participant from Europe. Wolf has sent an e-mail saying that EURALO supports his candidature. Christopher has a long and illustrious history with ICANN. He is a member of EURALO/ISOC Chapter of Wallonia (Belgium) and is a former EU representative to the GAC, former GAC vice-chair, and former Secretary of the GAC. We have argued that the time-frame is unreasonable, particularly given the hierarchical structure of At-Large, but there is no indication that it will be altered. It is unclear to what extent our representative, once selected, will be allowed to interact with us once he/she is appointed to the review team. Although not planned for the purpose, we have an ALAC meeting scheduled for February 23, 2010, a few hours after the close of the application period. In communications to date, we have assumed that we will publicly post the submitted information of all applicants seeking our endorsements on out wiki/web site (URL to be determined). Decision Requirements · Do we wish to endorse all applicants to want to represent us? · If not, how do we select one or more? · Regardless of the above, do we want to indicate an order of preference? · If we do any sort of selection, what criteria do we use? Specifically, how do we recognize the person(s) who we will endorse to represent us. To what extent should prior knowledge of ICANN, prior involvement with ICANN, and prior involvement with the formally defined At-Large Community be factored in? · Given the time frame, to what extent can the entire At-Large Community - the ALSs, RALOs and even the entire ALAC MEANINGFULLY participate? · To what extent do we wish to require ALAC specific information from the candidates? If any, what? Note that the inclusion of the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the US Department of Commerce sets the tone for this group it is a HIGH-level group of people. · To what extent, at this late date, do we issue a further call for applications? · Do we wish our endorsed but not accepted candidates to be held for future reviews? · Do we want to consider the option of equity with the GAC and the Board by allowing our Chair or her/his delegate to participate in the process? Among other merits, it makes the representative responsible to and answerable to the ALAC and implicitly At-Large? *Immediate Action* The earliest that we can formally act on these questions is during our ALAC meeting of February 23rd. That will be too late to solicit applications or additional ALAC-specific information. It is therefore suggested that IMMEDIATELY: 1. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, should select and forward any preferred candidates to the ALAC and to the designated ICANN address. The earlier this can be done, the better, but if ALAC members will have the time to adequately review the documentation, they must be received no later than the end of February 20th. The candidates must follow the specific requirements specified in the Call for Applicants PLUS must include a statement of why they believe: a. they are in a position to fairly access ICANNs accountability, transparency and the focus on the interests of global Internet users; b. they will be able to do this from the perspective of the global ICANN At-Large Community and the ALAC. 2. All RALOs, through whatever mechanism they choose, decide how their representatives can help the ALAC come to closure on the above decisions on February 23rd. We do NOT have the option of deferring these decisions. If we do not formally make them in a timely manner, we may lose our say in the process of selecting an ALAC representative and we lose our ability to adequately participate in the review. 3. We should schedule a tentative ALAC meeting on Friday, February 26 to finalize our endorsements in case we do not do so at our ALAC meeting on February 23rd.

3 3

Board meeting on the Nairobi conference later today
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 18, 2010

Feb. 18, 2010

As you may have heard, there will a Board meeting later today (Feb 19, 03:00 UTC, about 8 hours from now). Current indications are that it is to discuss security issues, meeting organization and remote participation, and not cancellation. The attached statement has been provided to Vanda. It is a revision of the one we provided for the Jan 22 meeting. If the above assumption is correct, the relevant part of the message is section 2. Due to the tight time constraints, we have not had an opportunity to fully discuss this, but if you disagree with this message, or have additional comments, please let the ALAC and Vanda know. Alan

1 0

Matters for Policy Advice Development
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 16, 2010

Feb. 16, 2010

Dear Colleagues: There are now fourteen (14) issues on our Policy Advice Development Calendar by virtue of them becoming open for comment. As it is and toi my mind, this gives us a ripe opportunity to cherry-pick the ones we feel will improve with our influence. I lay them out hereunder: 1. Uniform Rapid Suspension 2. TM Clearinghouse 3. Post Delegation Dispute Resolution Procedure (PPDRP) 4. Registry Restrictions Dispute Resolution Procedure ( RRDRP) 5. IDN 3 Character 6. IDN Variants 7. Benchmarking of Registry Operations 8. Process of gTLD Registry Agreement Amendments 9. Proposed Framework for FY 2011 Operating Plan and Budget *All of the above* shall close for public comment on *1st April, 2010*. The ALAC must decide whether there will be a *formal* At-Large response by *19th February, 2010* and assign a lead to marshal that response with a draft response made available for public/at-large comment by *16th March, 2010*. In addition, there are seven (7) others with various closing dates: 10. Draft Report on WHOIS Accuracy will close on April 15, 2010 11. Global DNS-CERT Business Case will close on March 29, 2010 12. Proposed Strategic Initiatives for Improved DNS Security, Stability and Resiliency (SSR) will close on March 28, 2010 13. Registration Abuse Policies Initial Report will close on March 28, 2010 14. Working Group Guidelines which closes on March 22, 2010 For further details, go see all of them at http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/<http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#urs> . Carlton Samuels -- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies in Curriculum Development, Policy, Governance and Process Improvement

1 0

Re: [ALAC] LOPSSI en France suite à HADOPI ...
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 15, 2010

Feb. 15, 2010

Rudi, I agree this law is a concern (just like ACTA)but I am not sure what the impact would be on the policy work in the ICANN context. can you enlighten us ? Thanks Patrick Sent from a mobile device -- message original -- Sujet: [ALAC] LOPSSI en France suite à HADOPI ... De: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be> Date: 13.02.2010 09:33 LOPSSI en France suite à HADOPI ... LOPSSI = /loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la performance de la sécurité intérieure/ Looks like this new law has been voted ... prohibits access to websites with childpronography or it this law just a first step to block everything else ? Best regards, Rudi Vansnick _______________________________________________ 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

3 2

LOPSSI en France suite à HADOPI ...
by Rudi Vansnick Feb. 13, 2010

Feb. 13, 2010

LOPSSI en France suite à HADOPI ... LOPSSI = /loi d’orientation et de programmation pour la performance de la sécurité intérieure/ Looks like this new law has been voted ... prohibits access to websites with childpronography or it this law just a first step to block everything else ? Best regards, Rudi Vansnick

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Volunteer Review Team Member -- Accountability and Transparency
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Feb. 5, 2010

Feb. 5, 2010

Hello Kurt, pleasure to make your virtual acquaintance... and delighted to encourage you to engage as an active volunteer in the ICANN community via At-Large <http://www.atlarge.icann.org/>. I've replied c.c. to the At-Large Advisory Committee working list to inform the AC of your request for endorsement by as as an applicant for the position of Volunteer Review Team Member by ICANN. I will with your permission also forward to our confidential list the resume and motivation letter you attached in your email to me (so do let me know by return email if you wish that to happen) and am including this link <http://www.xsimple.com/bio.html>from your companies web site to help the Committee get to know you by the information you already post in public. ALAC will forward notice of all applicants it endorses immediately prior to the deadline of February 17th 2010, midnight UTC and I'm happy to include your documentation along with that (and material from other endorsed applicants received) if you have not already sent it under separate cover. Again do let me know if that is desired. You should also note that ALAC will place for public view on our wiki a copy of this advice/ list of endorsements but will not link or post any of the motivation letters or resumes we receive. We would also like to encourage you to become active in our policy development work and so I will encourage you and the Chair of the Regional Organisation in North America (NARALO) Mr. Evan Leibovitch (email in c.c.) to communicate more on this matter. You should also note that the ICANN Nominating Committee is also looking for volunteers for key positions in ICANN and if you have not already done so you should look at http://nomcom.icann.org/ as North America is a region that they are hunting volunteers from. Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ALAC Chair 2010/2/5 Kurt Snyder <ksnyder(a)xsimple.com> > Ms. Langdon-Orr: > > > > As you probably know, ICANN is seeking volunteers to help in its periodic > review of four key ICANN objectives. I have been looking for ways to > volunteer with ICANN and I believe this would be a fantastic opportunity for > me. Moreover, my background is well suited for such an endeavor. I am an > attorney with technology and assessment experience. > > > > To be considered for such an assignment I need the endorsement of a > Supporting Organization or Advisory Committee. I am seeking such an > endorsement from your organization. For your convenience, I have attached > my resume and motivation letter. > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. > > > > Thank You! > > > > Kurt Snyder, Esq. > > (317) 810-9305 > > > > > -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
by Beau Brendler Jan. 31, 2010

Jan. 31, 2010

OK, fair enough. Perhaps I went too far -- apologies for offence. And I didn't know Wolf shared Adam's concerns. I guess I am wondering why these issues are coming up now, as opposed to when the ALAC last voted in favor of the constituency? (And by the way, from what I am told, the board liaison told the board at that time that the ALAC did >not< support the constituency, even though it had voted to do so -- correct me if I am wrong). >From what I have been told by the board, in Seoul and in later discussion, the board doesn't want to be heavy-handed in its application of bylaws and rules at this point. It wants the community to decide. So I am wondering now why there's resistance to the board approving the constituency, especially since we are more organized than we were before, have a board-appointed representative working with and for us, and are more actively engaged in outreach? In which case, I am wondering: Does the concern for perfect geographic representation at start-up, trump the need for trying to get something like this going, and getting people to join it? Why would we, the at-large, be seeking to apply bylaw interpretations that would be more stringent in this case than the ICANN board's? Also -- and those of you who have tried to start up a group may sympathize with this -- it's difficult to get a venture off the ground before it's a reality. It's hard to go to other organizations and say, "please join this constituency, though it may not become a reality, the application has been before the board for more than eight months now, oh, and by the way, we have a board-appointed representative we can't elect, or recall, or even guarantee will listen to us, for at least two years?" Also, from what I understand -- and the possibility exists it's hearsay -- the board wanted a second round of public comment on the consumer constituency because it was concerned the constituency was some sort of ICANN staff creation. If that's true, somebody please tell me about it. Some evidence would be nice as well. That's the situation the constituency is in. And we have actually made it farther in the process than the other three constituencies that applied. Given all that, I am surprised that EKPIZO, a Greek consumer organization, joined a few weeks ago. I am surprised Rosemary (the board appointed representative, who actually does listen to us, by the way) has had some success getting some other groups, from France and elsewhere, to talk to us. So I hope you will understand my frustration when I don't hear a lot of support from parts of the ICANN community that are supposed to be defending the interests of consumers and users, and that a number of the people who have stepped forward to promote the idea of a consumers constituency have been subjected to a range of personal attacks (which we might have expected -- from business interests who might feel threatened by a consumers constituency. Yet they've been quiet on the matter. It's "civil society" that's been raising the obstacles.) I hope you will further understand my frustration with the ICANN board, which opened this process up to constituency applications more than a year ago, appointed a "structural improvements committee" that didn't listen to its constituents (at least in my experience), has required volunteers to donate their time writing NOIFs and charter documents and making presentations and so forth, then rules out three out of four constituency applicants and subjects the fourth to repeated delays. I wish I was getting paid by ICANN (or somebody) for doing this, but I ain't. If this is just some sort of meaningless exercise in bureaucracy, well, fool me twice and shame on me. So, Cervantes aside, perhaps you can understand why I might wonder if there are other issues beneath the surface? What we need is help recruiting consumer organizations from LA and AF, or at least sharing contacts? Shouldn't this be a no-brainer for those of us who have a goal to represent the public interest? If you don't want to deal with me, you can also talk to Holly Raiche of ICANN, the proposed constituency's co-chair. -----Original Message----- >From: Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net> >Sent: Jan 29, 2010 6:44 PM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net>, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: h.raiche(a)internode.on.net >Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter > >I don't understand what's wrong with Adam's comments? And I don't like to be denunciated as "IGF crowd" neither. If this is called a consultation it should be done impersonal ... > >Best, >Wolf > > >Beau Brendler wrote Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:42: >>Happy to be compared to Don Quixote -- thanks! Not so excited about the tone of "provide details of membership behind the constituency," which implies we are not being transparent about something. The details have been repeatedly stated, so if there's something you want to say, say it. Unless it's a rehash of NCUC conspiracy theories from the last time around. >> >>-----Original Message----- >>>From: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> >>>Sent: Jan 29, 2010 11:08 AM >>>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>Cc: h.raiche(a)internode.on.net >>>Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter >>> >>>At 9:48 AM -0500 1/29/10, Beau Brendler wrote: >>>>Adam...if you're carrying the IGF crowd's water on this, >>> >>> >>>No idea what you're talking about. >>> >>>How about less tilting at windmills, and provide details of >>>membership behind the constituency. >>> >>> >>>At 3:19 AM +0900 1/26/10, Adam Peake wrote: >>>> >>>>It would be good to know how membership of the constituency is >>>>progressing. The notice of intent to create a constituency mentions >>>>some, and some outreach that will be done. What progress has been >>>>made? >>>> >>>>The constituency is important. But it needs to meet membership >>>>thresholds before launch. Or it'll be a bad precedent (for one >>>>thing.) Hopefully they've achieved regional diversity and >>>>appropriate level of interest. >>>> >>> >>> >>>Adam >>> >>> >>> >>>>we probably should debate the following language in the bylaws >>>>(http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3) >>>> >>>>"Recognition is granted by the Board >based upon the extent< to >>>>which, in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the >>>>stakeholder communities..." >>>> >>>>The consumers constituency has representation from North America, >>>>Europe, and Asia-Pacific, where most of the world's consumer >>>>organizations (and umbrella organizations that represent developing >>>>countries) are based. Each of these is an organization, meaning it's >>>>got members -- in Rudi's case, 10,000 Belgians. So it's a judgment >>>>call on the definition of "extent." >>>> >>>>And then, in 4b: >>>> >>>>"A detailed explanation of >why the proposed new Constituency >>>>adequately represents, on a global basis,< the stakeholders it seeks >>>>to represent..." >>>> >>>>Instead of the IGF crowd make degree determinations on "adequately" >>>>and "upon the extent," why not let the ALAC, which has some >>>>experience struggling with the issues of fair and appropriate >>>>representation from global regions, make its own judgment? We were >>>>less organized and represented the last time around. >>>> >>>>By the way, I think it's a great idea to ask that ICANN fund a >>>>consumer issues event in Brussels. I think we ought to put that up >>>>for a separate vote! >>>> >>>>Then there is this to consider, from >>>>http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b >>>>------------------------------ >>>>The Board may create new Constituencies as described in Section 5(3) >>>>in response to such a petition, or on its own motion, if the Board >>>>determines that such action would serve the purposes of ICANN. In >>>>the event the Board is considering acting on its own motion it shall >>>>post a detailed explanation of why such action is necessary or >>>>desirable, set a reasonable time for public comment, and not make a >>>>final decision on whether to create such new Constituency until >>>>after reviewing all comments received. >>>>------------------------------ >>>> >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>From: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> >>>>>Sent: Jan 29, 2010 8:55 AM >>>>>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>>Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter >>>>> >>>>>At 8:12 AM -0500 1/29/10, Beau Brendler wrote: >>>>>>Adam...thanks for your comments. >>>>>> >>>>>>Is "global representation" the new buzzword by which the Internet >>>>>>governance crowd plans to try to defeat this petition this time >>>>>>around? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>No, language from the ICANN bylaws. >>>>> >>>>>The first section <http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3> >>>>>is new to the stakeholder group arrangement of the various contracted >>>>>houses. The second >>>>><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b> has been in >>>>>various versions of the bylaws since the evolution and reform process >>>>>of 2002. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>I suppose that's better than attacking its participants as frauds. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>Adam >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>>>>From: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> >>>>>>>Sent: Jan 29, 2010 7:11 AM >>>>>>>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>>>>>>Subject: Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter >>>> >>> >>>> >>>I strongly support the creation of the constituency, however not this >>>>>>>application with the membership as described in the text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>On recognition of a new Constituency ICANN bylaws >>>> >> ><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.3> say: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>"Recognition is granted by the Board based upon the extent to which, >>>>>>>in fact, the entity represents the global interests of the >>>>>>>stakeholder communities it purports to represent..." >>>>>>> >>>>>> >and the following section >>>>>><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#X-5.4b> >>>> >>> >>>>>>>"A detailed explanation of why the proposed new Constituency >>>>>> >adequately represents, on a global basis, the stakeholders it seeks >>>>>>>to represent;" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Membership as described is not globally representative. Recognition >>>>>>>on the grounds that it's a "Good start" would be setting a very poor >>>>>>>precedent for future constituency applications (and would seem to be >>>>>>>contrary to the language "in fact" in section 5.3?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>So for now I would say: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>As it did during the previous public comment period earlier this >>>>>>>year, the At-Large Advisory Committee states its support for the >>>>>>>creation of a consumer constituency in the non-commercial stakeholder >>>>>>>group in the GNSO. Since one of At-Large's goals is to support the >>>>>>>interests of all Internet users, we believe that consumer and public >>>>>>>interest groups must [should] have a strong representative voice in >>>>>>>the GNSO policymaking environment. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>We applaud the organizers' efforts to recruit additional >>>>>>>organizations, however at this time we do not believe the applicant >>>>>>>has met an acceptable standard of representing the global interests >>>>>>>of consumers as the ICANN bylaws require. As such we do not recommend >>>>>>>the board approve the constituency application at this time. However, >>>>>>>we very strongly urge the board to support the applicant in further >>>>>>>outreach to national and international consumer organizations, >>>>>>>including providing funds to enable representatives of interested >>>>>>>groups to attend an ICANN meeting, we suggest Brussels, where >>>>>>>sessions relevant to consumer interests relevant to the scope of >>>>>>>ICANN's work should be held. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Adam >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>As the ALAC Meeting asked for you to put a simple Statement reflecting our >>>>>>>>previously stated views on this together and to respond to the current >>>>>>>>update on the petition, personally I'm happy for this to go to Vote now >>>>>>>>unless someone on this list objects... (In the next 12-24 hrs) >>>>>>>>and if we do >>>>>>>>need to edit / discuss we need that to happen in short order over the next >>>>>>>>few days... Then we need to send it to Public Comments (be nice to have >>>>>>>>something in ahead of the deadline ;-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>CLO >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>2010/1/29 Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So I thought I would run this by you both. If you like it feel >>>>>>>>>free to post >>>>>>>>> it to the list for comment or straight to the ALAC for a vote, >>>>>>>>>I guess (?). >>>>>>>>> I see no reason for it to be long. >>>>>>>>> ------------------ >>>>>>>> > As it did during the previous public comment period earlier >>>>>>>>this year, the >>>>>>>>> At-Large Advisory Committee states its support for the creation of a >>>>>>>>> consumer constituency in the non-commercial stakeholder group >>>>>>>>>in the GNSO. >>>>>> >>> Since one of At-Large's goals is to support the interests of >>>>>>all Internet >>>>>>>>> users, we believe that consumer and public interest groups >>>>>>>>>should have a >>>>>>>>> strong representative voice in the GNSO policymaking >>>>>>>>>environment. We applaud >>>>>>>> > the organizers' efforts to recruit additional organizations, >>>>>>>>including the >>>> >>>>> Greek consumer group EKPIZO, and to obtain formal commitments >>>>>>>>>from those who >>>>>>>>> have already expressed interest. Consumers' constituency >>>>>>>>>members come from >>>>>>>>> Canada, Belgium, Greece, Slovenia and Australia and we believe this >>>>>>>>> represents a small, but good start in obtaining broad geographic >>>>>>>> > representation. We encourage the board to approve the >>>>>>>>constituency so that >>>>>>>>> its organizers can recruit new members from a solid foundation. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>>> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >>>>>>>>> >Sent: Jan 27, 2010 11:25 AM >>>>>>>>> >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >>>> >>>> > >Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >>>>>>>> > >Subject: Fwd: Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New Constituency >>>>>>>>> Petition and Charter >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >Beau, another blank message from you! Alan >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >>>>>>>>> >>To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >>>> >>>>> >>CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, >>>>At-Large Staff >>>>>>>>> >> <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >>>>>>>>> >>Sender: "alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" >>>>>>>>> >> <alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>>>>>>>> >>Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 10:01:44 -0500 >>>>>>>>> >>Subject: Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New >>>>>>>>>Constituency Petition >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >> Charter >>>>>>>>> >>Thread-Topic: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New >>>>>>>>>Constituency Petition >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> >> Charter >>>>>>>>> >>Thread-Index: AcqfYc8nYelHhGIjRrOQg2guOvMrAQ== >>>>>>>>> >>Reply-To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >>>>>>>>> >>Accept-Language: en-US >>>>>>>>> >>domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; >>>>>>>>> >> d=earthlink.net; >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> b=kMEESj+wjiJbM74k7z+Z9++uOHq1ejYLLrPKWO/oeKAh+ZBEIAkK/8VMGNs0ALjx; >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>h=Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:To:Subject:Cc:Mime-Version:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:Content-Type:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP; >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> >>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> >>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 >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>-- >>>>>>>>Cheryl Langdon-Orr >>>>>>>>(CLO) >>>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>>>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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>_______________________________________________ >>>>>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 >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 >> > >comunica-ch >phone +41 79 204 83 87 >Skype: Wolf-Ludwig >www.comunica-ch.net > >Digitale Allmend >http://blog.allmend.ch - > >EURALO - ICANN's Regional At-Large Organisation >http://euralo.org

2 2

The Future of ICANN by Rod Beckstrom
by Sébastien Bachollet Jan. 30, 2010

Jan. 30, 2010

1 0