- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
by Beau Brendler Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

Maybe it's time for the ALAC to read this exchange that resulted when I resigned from the NCUC liaison position on Friday, in part over just this sort of behavior, which has been going on since the start of the Sydney meeting. This exchange was posted to a variety of lists without my initial consent, so I am violating no one's privacy by posting it here. I note, in particular, the following quote: "You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time." --------------------------- From: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> To: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" <ncu-exec(a)ipjustice.org>, Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison Date: Aug 21, 2009 4:13 PM Robin...please stop. You're making a fool of yourself. -----Original Message----- From: Robin Gross Sent: Aug 21, 2009 4:11 PM To: Beau Brendler Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison Just for the record: - Beau, you have NEVER voiced these concerns to ANYONE within the EC at least (and possibly in the entire constituency) prior to this resigation. - Beau, you have NEVER made any attempt to engage NCUC on ANY discussion on your proposed Consumer Constituency (although you did insist in May-June that NCUC travel to Yonkers at great inconvenience to discuss with you, and when we agreed, you dropped contact and cancelled the meeting unexpectedly). - Beau, you have NEVER - at least for the last year attended Constituency Day at ICANN meetings OR posted ANYTHING to the listserv OR made ANY public effort to "enlighten" the so-called dominant NCUC group on ANY of the concerns you now have about our "single issue" (although you mention several "single issues" not just one so we aren't sure what our single is for you). You and Denise Michele are quite a team and we look forward to your continued mis-information campaign - and we stand prepared to debunk it every time. Thank you, Robin On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:45 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > Robin: > > You make my points well. > > Thanks, > > Beau Brendler > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Robin Gross > Sent: Aug 21, 2009 3:20 PM > To: Beau Brendler > Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria > Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison > > Beau, > > Any time you would like to have substantive discussions on issues, you are welcome to participate. But the reality is, you have never once engaged with us on a substantive discussion as long as I have been involved in ICANN, despite our requests. > > You are free to engage in revisionist history now if you like, but those of us who have tried to engage you in substantive discussions along the way know a different story very well. > > Regards, > Robin > > > On Aug 21, 2009, at 12:00 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> Sure. >> I'm concerned with the way some vocal members of the NCUC are trying to represent themselves as being a unified voice of "civil society" (they aren't), and that "civil society" is in complete agreement with the NCUC on every point ("civil society" doesn't agree with itself on a whole range of things). >> There are a number of people in ALAC who feel alienated by this approach, and it's counterproductive to what's supposed to be going on -- which is policy work, not internal politics and power-grabbing. The NCUC, and ALAC, for that matter, have spent far too much time over the past year babbling about the NCSG charter when they should have been working on policy. >> Also, in my opinion, the NCUC is basically a one-issue constituency dominated by privacy rights and free speech voices. Those are incredibly important issues, but they are not the only ones. There are a number of members of the at-large (and the general public -- see http://redtape.msnbc.com/2007/09/to-some-its-the.html) who believe, for instance, that WHOIS is a valuable tool for consumer recourse from fraud and abuse. I don't think you'd find a single member of at-large who "opposes" free speech or privacy rights, but you would find some who believe there should be a balanced or nuanced approach, especially in places like the United States, where consumers don't share the same protections they do in, say, Europe. Back a couple of years ago when I was trying to recruit consumer groups to join the ALAC (and to the NCUC, for that matter), I took the trouble to ask a couple of privacy rights organizations I knew, the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse and the World Privacy Forum, what they thought about the WHOIS issue. I was surprised at the nuanced response, which I circulated (with permission) to a couple of the ongoing WHOIS study groups at the time. Their outlook may have changed by now, I don't know and haven't asked. Have they joined the NCUC's one unified voice of civil society and consumers etc.? I haven't checked. >> And I also think that what some vocal members of the NCUC have been saying about the consumer constituency is appalling -- certainly counterproductive and a missed opportunity. Their actions have convinced me that the NCUC is interested solely -- at the moment, anyway, until various matters are decided -- in consolidating its power, not building coalitions or working within the system to improve Internet policy or ICANN policy on behalf of users. >> Ironically, I used to work for a consumer organization (http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/, the site, eight years' worth of work, is still up) that was very hesitant to join any sort of coalition, for these sorts of reasons. When I was an employee of that organization, I often felt I had to hold back from voicing certain opinions or aligning myself with certain groups within the ICANN community. And I took a fair amount of browbeating from at least one member of the NCUC for that, though mercifully, I don't seem to be getting those e-mails anymore. Maybe that's because I'm no longer a marquee member of "civil society," and more of an average Joe consumer. >> >> Now, looking at the whole ICANN constituency and community enterprise as a whole, today, as a sort of free man, I can say: If I were to come in cold, and try to make up my mind, I would want no part of the NCUC. >> >> And I don't now, because I just don't like the way a number of members of your group are doing business. And that's why I'm resigning. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Robin Gross >> Sent: Aug 21, 2009 2:19 PM >> To: Beau Brendler >> Cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr , ALAC Working List , "Non-Commercial Users Constituency Executive Committee & GNSO Reps. Discussion" , Avri Doria >> Subject: Re: Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison >> >> Beau, >> >> Thanks for letting us know. Can you say why you are resigning? Thank you. >> >> Best, >> Robin >> >> >> On Aug 21, 2009, at 9:39 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >> >>> Cheryl, Robin: >>> >>> Please consider this my immediate resignation from the ALAC liaison position to the NCUC. I leave it to Cheryl to inform the ALAC of my decision at a particularly opportune time, as my term is up by the next ICANN meeting. However, my decision has nothing to do with timing. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Beau Brendler >>> -----Original Message----- >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Sent: Aug 25, 2009 6:52 AM >To: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [ALAC] Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN > >A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation >in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An >example is >http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-par…. >According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC. > >Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and >misleading. It reads: > >----------------- >Myth 6 > >"ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society >drafted charter." >False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted >charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the >ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted >charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC >said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that >"the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >move in the right direction." >----------------- > >This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal >(verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the >de-linking of seats was a good thing. > >In fact, the statement that they were quoting >(http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said: > >"Some members feel that although there are some problems with the >proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, >the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good >move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal >should receive Board approval." > >"Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that >the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and >not the ALAC in general. > >I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed >inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing. > >Alan >_______________________________________________ >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

Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

A document entitled "Top Ten Myths About Civil Society Participation in ICANN" has been distributed very widely in the last week or so. An example is http://www.dvorak.org/blog/2009/08/21/top-ten-myths-about-civil-society-par…. According to that post, the documents originates with the NCUC. Myth 6 is about the ALAC and I believe is both inaccurate and misleading. It reads: ----------------- Myth 6 "ALAC prefers the ICANN staff drafted charter over the civil society drafted charter." False. One ALAC leader said that she prefers the staff drafted charter. ICANN staff ran away with this comment and falsely told the ICANN Board of Directors that ALAC prefers the staff drafted charter. In fact, the formal statement actually approved by ALAC said that many members of ALAC supported the NCUC proposal and that "the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction." ----------------- This implies that many ALAC members supported the NCUC proposal (verbatim quote of above) and it implies that the ALAC said that the de-linking of seats was a good thing. In fact, the statement that they were quoting (http://forum.icann.org/lists/sg-petitions-charters/msg00020.html) said: "Some members feel that although there are some problems with the proposal, it generally addresses their concerns, and in particular, the de-linking of Council seats from Constituencies is a very good move in the right direction. Problems notwithstanding, the proposal should receive Board approval." "Some" is not "Many" and the original statement made it clear that the statement about de-linking was made by these "some members" and not the ALAC in general. I do not know what we can do to counter this widely distributed inaccuracy, but I do not believe that we can say nothing. Alan

1 0

Motion on RAA visibility
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

French and Spanish follow. Also on Wiki. ====================== Last week I posted a motion related to making registrants more aware of the new RAA and having ICANN take additional visible responsibility for registrant issues. Soon after, we were told that part of our request was already in process. In particular, there are already plans to make it clear to registrants and potential registrants which registrars are using the newly amended RAA. I have since been told that this changes in the web site is planned to occur at the end of the first fiscal quarter, that is by the beginning of October (before the Seoul meeting). Given that, the proposed motion cannot be used as is. I would suggest that we have two choices: A) delay any action for the moment, and possibly until Seoul; B) Consider a modified motion. As a possibility for B, I would suggest the following: Add: Whereas ICANN is planning to identify which registrars have adopted the new RAA on their web site; Replace: The ALAC recommends to the ICANN Board that it take steps to ensure that the official list of ICANN Registrars (<http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) include an statement, for each accredited registrar, of which RAA currently applies, and the date that the new RAA will become effective. With: The ALAC recommends that ICANN take ensure that the official list of ICANN Registrars (<http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html>http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) include an statement, for each accredited registrar, of the date that the new RAA will become effective if not already in effect. Français La semaine dernière j'ai posté une requête relative à la prise de déclarants plus conscients de la RAA nouvelles et prendre la responsabilité de l'ICANN ayant visibles supplémentaires pour les questions déclarant. Peu après, on nous a dit qu'une partie de notre demande était déjà en cours. En particulier, il est prévu déjà de faire comprendre aux personnes inscrites et les déclarants potentiels qui sont des bureaux d'enregistrement en utilisant le nouveau modifiée RAA. J'ai appris depuis que cela change dans le site web est prévu de se produire à la fin du premier trimestre fiscal, qui est ici le début de Octobre (avant la réunion de Séoul). Étant donné que, la motion proposée ne peut être utilisé tel quel. Je dirais que nous avons deux choix: A) de retarder toute action pour le moment, et éventuellement jusqu'à Séoul; B) d'envisager une motion modifiée. Comme une possibilité pour B, je suggère ce qui suit: Ajouter: considérant que l'ICANN envisage d'identifier les registrars ont adopté le RAA nouvelle sur leur site web; Remplacer: L'ALAC recommande au conseil de l'ICANN de prendre des mesures pour veiller à ce que la liste officielle des registrars (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) comporter une déclaration, pour chaque accrédité registraire, du RAA, qui s'applique actuellement, et la date à laquelle le RAA sera effective. Avec: L'ALAC recommande l'ICANN de prendre en sorte que la liste officielle de l'ICANN Registrar (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) comporter une déclaration, pour chaque bureau d'enregistrement accrédité, de la date à laquelle le nouveau RAA entrera en vigueur s'il n'est pas déjà en vigueur. Español La semana pasada me envió una propuesta en relación con la toma de registro más conscientes de la RAA nuevo y asumir la responsabilidad de la ICANN con visibles adicionales para cuestiones de registro. Poco después, se nos dijo que parte de nuestra solicitud ya estaba en proceso. En particular, ya hay planes para dejar claro a los solicitantes de registro y de posibles solicitantes de registro que los registradores están utilizando la nueva versión modificada RAA. Desde entonces he dicho que estos cambios en el sitio web está previsto que se produzca al final del primer trimestre fiscal, es decir a principios del mes de octubre (antes de la reunión de Seúl). Teniendo en cuenta que, la moción propuesta no puede ser utilizado como está. Yo diría que tenemos dos opciones: A) aplazar cualquier acción por el momento, y posiblemente hasta de Seúl; B) considerar una propuesta modificada. Como una posibilidad para el B, me permito sugerir lo siguiente: Añadir: Considerando que la ICANN tiene la intención de identificar a los registradores que han adoptado la RAA nuevo en su sitio web; Reemplazar: El ALAC recomienda a la Junta de la ICANN que tomara medidas para garantizar que la lista oficial de los Registradores de la ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) incluir una declaración, para cada acreditado Secretario, de los cuales RAA se aplica actualmente, y la fecha en que la RAA sean efectivas las nuevas. Con: El ALAC recomienda que la ICANN tome garantizar que la lista oficial de los Registradores de la ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) incluir una declaración, para cada registrador acreditado, de la fecha en que la RAA nuevo será efectiva si no está ya en vigor.

1 0

Agenda - ICANN Board meeting - Thursday 27 Aug 2009
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 25, 2009

Aug. 25, 2009

The agenda for possible decision at the next board meeting includes the question of an ALAC/At Large Board Seat, and approval of Bylaws amendments connected to GNSO restructuring. From: <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/agenda-27aug09.htm> Board Meeting - Agenda 27 August 2009 1. Approval of Minutes from 30 July 2009 Special Board Meeting 2. Approval of Minutes from 26 June 2009 Special Board Meeting – closed session on CEO Compensation and Agreement Structure 3. From the Board Finance Committee – Transfer of $11 million US Dollars from working capital to a restricted reserve investment fund 4. From the Board Governance Committee 1. 2009-2010 Nominating Committee Chair Selection 2. Board/GAC Working Group 5. From the Board Public Participation Committee 1. 2011, 2012, 2013 ICANN Meetings - Selection of Dates 2. Approval of Budget and Designation of location for the ICANN Meeting in June 2010 6. Board Approval of the proposed Bylaws Amendments to enable the seating of the New GNSO Council in Seoul 7. Development of a Global Policy Proposal for "IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to Regional Internet Registries" 8. Redelegation of .CV (Cape Verde) Domain 9. Discussion regarding Structural Improvements Committee’s receipt of Board Review Working Group Recommendations 1. Board Size 2. ALAC selection of proposed voting seat #16 10. JPA Progress Report - CEO Briefing 11. GNSO Council Restructuring Efforts Update 12. Other Business 13. Executive Session – Board Only -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison
by Beau Brendler Aug. 24, 2009

Aug. 24, 2009

Cheryl, Robin: Please consider this my immediate resignation from the ALAC liaison position to the NCUC. I leave it to Cheryl to inform the ALAC of my decision at a particularly opportune time, as my term is up by the next ICANN meeting. However, my decision has nothing to do with timing. Regards, Beau Brendler

2 1

Re: [ALAC] [Ncu-exec] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison
by Beau Brendler Aug. 21, 2009

Aug. 21, 2009

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison
by Beau Brendler Aug. 21, 2009

Aug. 21, 2009

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison
by Beau Brendler Aug. 21, 2009

Aug. 21, 2009

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Immediate Resignation as NCUC Liaison
by Beau Brendler Aug. 21, 2009

Aug. 21, 2009

1 0

Proposed motion for the August 25th meeting - English, French and Spanish
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 21, 2009

Aug. 21, 2009

I propose that the ALAC discuss the following motion, and if there is QUICK consensus, that we adopt it. If it will require additional consultation and discussion, it can be postponed, but for a number of reason, it would be VERY timely if the Board had this sooner rather than later. In the interest of expediency, I have included machine translations into French and Spanish. Alan ====================================== Whereas the ICANN Board adopted an amended Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) to be used for all new accreditations or renewals after 21 May 2009; Whereas this RAA takes effect for any specific registrar at some point between 22 May 2009 and 21 May 2014; Whereas is it virtually impossible for a registrant or potential registrant to know when the new RAA will be in use by their elected registrar; Whereas discussions are now beginning on another possible RAA amendment, potentially resulting in three different RAA's being in use at the same time; The ALAC recommends to the ICANN Board that it take steps to ensure that the official list of ICANN Registrars (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) include an statement, for each accredited registrar, of which RAA currently applies, and the date that the new RAA will become effective. The ALAC further recommends the contact information currently available only in the Internic web site (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) be made available on the same ICANN list of registrars and that the complaint for currently resident only on the Internic web site be moved to the ICANN web site. -------------------------------------- Notes: 1. "Internic" is a trade mark of the US department of Commerce used under license by ICANN. 2. As of this time, ICANN has said that over 50% of all current registrations are operating under the new RAA, but we do not know what percentage of registrars that covers. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Considérant que l'ICANN a adopté une version modifiée de Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) à utiliser pour toutes les nouvelles accréditations ou de renouvellement après le 21 Mai 2009; Considérant que cette prise d'effet de RAA pour tout enregistrement à un certain moment entre le 22 Mai 2009 et le 21 Mai 2014; Considérant qu'il est pratiquement impossible pour une personne inscrite ou potentiel de savoir quand la nouvelle RAA sera utilisé par les élus d'enregistrement; Considérant que les discussions ont commencé sur un autre possible RAA modification, résultant potentiellement en trois RAA soit utilisé à la même heure; L'ALAC recommande à l'ICANN de prendre des mesures pour s'assurer que la liste officielle des bureaux d'enregistrement ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) comporter une déclaration, pour chaque bureau d'enregistrement accrédité, du RAA, qui s'applique actuellement, et la date que la nouvelle RAA sera effective. L'ALAC recommande en outre de l'information actuellement disponible que dans la Internic site web (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) sont disponibles sur la même liste de bureaux d'enregistrement ICANN et que la plainte pour résident actuellement que sur la Internic site être déplacé dans le site Web de l'ICANN. -------------------------------------- Notes: 1. "Internic" est une marque déposée de l'US Department of Commerce, utilisée sous licence par l'ICANN. 2. À partir de ce moment-là, l'ICANN a dit que plus de 50% de tous les enregistrements sont en cours d'exploitation dans le cadre du nouveau RAA, mais nous ne savons pas quel est le pourcentage de bureaux d'enregistrement qui couvre. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Considerando que la Junta de la ICANN aprobó una modificación de Acuerdo de Acreditación de Registradores (RAA), que se utiliza para todas las nuevas acreditaciones o renovaciones después del 21 de mayo de 2009; Considerando que la presente RAA en vigor para cada registro, en algún momento entre el 22 de mayo 2009 y 21 de mayo de 2014; Considerando que es prácticamente imposible que un solicitante de registro o posibles solicitantes de registro para saber cuándo el nuevo RAA estará en uso por sus elegidos registrador; Considerando que los debates están empezando en otra posible modificación RAA, potencialmente resultando en tres diferentes RAA se está en uso, al mismo tiempo; El ALAC recomienda a la Junta de que la ICANN tome medidas para que la lista oficial de Registradores de la ICANN (http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accredited-list.html) incluir una declaración, para cada registrador acreditado, de RAA, que se aplica en la actualidad, y la fecha en que el nuevo RAA será efectiva. El ALAC recomienda, además, la información de contacto disponible actualmente sólo en el sitio web de Internic (http://www.internic.net/alpha.html) estarán disponibles en la misma lista de registradores de la ICANN, y que la denuncia sólo para residentes actualmente en el Internic sitio web se mueve a la página web de la ICANN. -------------------------------------- Notas: 1. "Internic" es una marca registrada de los EE.UU. Departamento de Comercio utilizada bajo licencia por la ICANN. 2. A partir de este momento, la ICANN ha dicho que más del 50% de todos los registros están en funcionamiento en el marco del nuevo RAA, pero no sabemos qué porcentaje de los registradores que cubre.

8 10