- ALAC - lists.icann.org

***SPAM*** Work oportuinity USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** The best career with us USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** Work oportuinity USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** Build a better career USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** Build a better career USA!
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

***SPAM*** Best job USA.
by alac＠icann.org April 20, 2009

April 20, 2009

1 0

Voting on new gTLD Statement - currently not quorate
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 17, 2009

April 17, 2009

Dear Members: Allow me to give those of you who have yet to vote in the balloting for the new gTLD statement a gentle reminder to do so - voting closes tomorrow and at the present time only six of the 15 possible voters have cast their vote. -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

5 4

Re: [ALAC] Voting on new gTLD Statement - currently not quorate
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Liaison who are not ALAC members do not have a vote. Alan At 16/04/2009 06:35 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >Just to make sure once again, liaisons do not have a vote ? > >Sivasubramanian Muthusamy >http://isocmadras.blogspot.com > > >On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 5:05 PM, Nick Ashton-Hart < >nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: > > > Dear Members: > > > > Allow me to give those of you who have yet to vote in the balloting for the > > new gTLD statement a gentle reminder to do so - voting closes tomorrow and > > at the present time only six of the 15 possible voters have cast > their vote. > > -- > > > > -- > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > > > > Director for At-Large > > > > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > > > > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > > > > USA DD: +1 (310) 301-8637 > > > > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 > > > > Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 > > > > email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > > > > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: > > nashtonhart > > > > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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

1 0

Re: [ALAC] URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

At 16/04/2009 02:48 PM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >Hello Alan, > >At 16/04/2009 06:59 AM, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote: >Do we have separate gTLD Registrar constituency, a ccTLD Registrar >constituency and an IDN Registrar constituency within ICANN or one >single constituency for Registrars ? > > >ccTLD registrars do not come into this discussion, because they do >not necessarily have contracts with ICANN, and if they did, it would >be under the auspices of the ccNSO. An IDN Registrar Constituency? >One does not exist today, but it is quite possible that one could >form and be part of the Registrar Stakeholders Group under the reformed GNSO. > > >The essence of what I said seems to be missed. I was saying that >Registrars as as an example of a business group are present within >the ICANN structure in unison, whereas the users are demarcated... > >Sivasubramanian Muthusamy. I think it is exactly the opposite! Registrars are demarcated - that is limited to specific areas, in the case of ICANN, they are limited to issues related to gTLDs and thus the GNSO. Users have a MUCH broader scope, limited only by our own ability to participate. Alan

2 2

URGENT: Proposed ALAC statement on the NCSG Charter(s)
by Alan Greenberg April 16, 2009

April 16, 2009

Cheryl asked me to try to draft something that illustrates the divided nature of the ALAC on this issue, and for those opposed to the charter, to try to explain in as simple a way as possible what the issues are. Any comment that is formally submitted must be done so within about 8 hours of my sending this message, so we do not have much time left. The only ALAC members who have spoken on the subject to date (in this thread) are Adam, me and Cheryl. Others have participated earlier, and I have tried to capture their thoughts and feelings as well. Hopefully Cheryl and Adam will say whether I have captured their views properly. If not, adjustments will be made. Other comments are welcome as well. But we do not have much time. I do not believe that we can be completely silent on this issue. We need to say something. Alan ================================= Comment on the NCSG proposals The following comment has the support of a number of ALAC members including the Chair, but has not yet been subjected to a formal ALAC vote. That will happen during our next teleconference on April 28. The ALAC is divided on the support of the proposal submitted by Robin Gross of the NCUC. 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. Others feel that the issues still outstanding are sufficient to withhold Board support at this time. These issues include: · The issue of Council seats cannot be ignored. Although policy will likely be architected by Working Groups with open participation, it will be Council that decides what policies to address and what the WG charters will include. Without a voice on Council, a Constituency may not be able to effectively participate in the discussions leading to these decisions. And without an effective voice, there will be little incentive to bring new, non-commercial players into the gTLD policy arena one of the main reasons for the current reorganization and for the significant growth in the NCSG weighting compared to the NCUC in the current model. · Although the inclusion of individuals is satisfying on a number of levels, the proposed voting structure makes the NCSG very vulnerable to take-over, particularly with the lack of a fee structure being specified, and the lack of rules or proposed process which could even verify that all individual members are in fact identifiable people acting on their own accord. This could, over a period straddling two annual meeting, allow takeover of all council seats, reinforcing the first bullet above. · There is little evidence that those submitting this charter accept these potential problems and have identified a way to resolve them through some sort of amendments once Board approval is given. · It now looks like there may be one or more actual new non-commercial Constituencies that could receive Board approval. It would be far more satisfying to defer the long-term charter of the NCSG until these Constituencies could be present at the table and speak on their own behalf. Until such time, an interim model linking seats to Constituencies could be used. Clearly that model would need to be replaced prior to the existence of more than six constituencies. In summary, the ALAC is not of a single mind. Some people feel very strongly that the inadequacies of the proposed charter are sufficient reason to not accept it .Others feel that although there are some problems, it has sufficient merit to receive approval with the belief that any problems will be addressed as time goes on. The charter proposed by Cheryl Preston does not have the exact same failings as the NCUC version, but for a number of reasons has not received any strong support within the ALAC and for this reason we cannot advocate approval.

7 9