- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Thanks, Carlton, I will make sure those get into the next draft, which I'm working on now -- I erroneously responded to Wendy's last note as if she were responding to the fast flux document, however, it doesn't really change the content, just ignore the reference to Mike O'Connor. Apologies for confusion. BB -----Original Message----- From: Carlton Samuels [mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, August 29, 2008 2:00 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: Brendler, Beau; ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NA Discuss Subject: Re: [ALAC] Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read LACRALO has not returned a consensus position that we can report but I would wish to associate and endorse the document prepared by Beau's team. We believe that any breach of a solemn agreement must identify those that are harmed,set it right and find ways to deter the aggressor. Markets generally recognize these tenets with punitive fines for the culprits and monetary compensation for those harmed. In this context, I fully endorse Wendy's additional comments, especially the call for beneficiary status for all users affected by registrar misbehaviour. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels UWI On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 10:35 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > Thanks Beau, > A few points of question: > >> ICANN should require standardized Acceptable Use Policy in registration agreements to address criminal fraud, when this directly affects the operational stability, reliability, security and global interoperability of the Internet. > > I believe it is not ICANN's or registrars' role to address criminal > activity, beyond not knowingly aiding it. > >> Enforce and make public the results of dispute mechanisms in place that obligate registrars to facilitate enforcement of abusive registration policies, such as the UDRP. > > Without endorsing any of those dispute resolution policies, I think > transparency about their effects is useful. ICANN, rather than the > registrars, should be responsible for the enforcement and disclosure, > though. > > I would still prefer to see concrete information-forcing mechanisms, > e.g., requiring prominent notification of deviations from a standard > set of contract terms. Market competition only works when consumers > know they are making a choice and understand the terms of the choice. > > Finally, I'll repeat my call for third-party beneficiary status for > the affected public. > > > Thanks, > --Wendy > > > Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim Cole a couple of weeks ago. >> >> As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a statement as possible regarding the user community's concerns. >> >> The document is brief, and in two parts: The first part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied from "Section F" of the summary document (you can find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing page here: >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa) >> Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and language in here from his own public comment document. I hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this. >> >> The second part revisits some of the initial comments made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable at this point. >> >> If you have anything to add, please do so! This represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of August, and it's here. >> >> Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this together, so please send any additions or comments to this list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the final. >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ******* >> ******** >> SCANNED >> >> ********************************************************************* >> ******* >> ******** >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ic >> ann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: >> http://st.icann.org/alac > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: +1.914.374.0613 > Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law > Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society > http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html > http://www.chillingeffects.org/ > https://www.torproject.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ica > nn.org > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: > http://st.icann.org/alac > *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Proposed ALAC statement on new amendments to RAA -- please read
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Hello, everyone. Attached is a draft of a proposed statement on behalf of ALAC regards the registrar accreditation agreement. This follows our briefing from Tim Cole a couple of weeks ago. As I mentioned in that briefing, I think a number of consumer and user community concerns can be traced back to this agreement and its enforcement. I think it's important to stay on top of the process and make as strong a statement as possible regarding the user community's concerns. The document is brief, and in two parts: The first part addresses possible concerns with the new amendments, as described by Tim. Some of these items are taken from the briefing discussion, some are taken from the general pool of user comments, and some have been re-worded and re-applied from "Section F" of the summary document (you can find links to all these referenced documents on the briefing page here: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_amendments_to_raa) Danny Younger's expertise on this is of course acknowledged as well and you'll see some ideas and language in here from his own public comment document. I hope he will have some additions and suggestions for this. The second part revisits some of the initial comments made by the ALAC when the consultation period began. Some of these were placed in section F, but I reworded them to perhaps make them more timely and possibly acceptable for consideration. I also omitted some of the recommendations from Section F that seemed stale or probably just not doable at this point. If you have anything to add, please do so! This represents a starting point, we can add whatever else we want, but we promised to get this to Tim Cole by the end of August, and it's here. Nick has been very helpful to me in putting this together, so please send any additions or comments to this list, and/or Nick or me and we will integrate them into the final. **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

2 2

Fast Flux Scoping Poll
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Greetings. I have attached the spreadsheet containing my answers to this questionnaire to help determine how the fast flux working group should proceed. Once again, deadlines are tight, and I had hoped to get to this before today, but: If anyone has any comments or objections to the answers I have put into the spreadsheet, please let me know as soon as possible, since it represents an ALAC position on the matter (though is preliminary to moving forward with this issue; it's more a poll of the working group to figure out how, and even if, to move forward). I will send an accompanying note to Mike describing any differences. As you can see by the note below, he wants to review the results over the weekend this weekend. Personally, I believe the user community is concerned about fraud and abuse issues associated with fast flux, and I think we should encourage this working group to continue. Fast flux is used for criminal activity, so I tend to see this issue in perhaps a more binary fashion than others. Beau Brendler -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-ff-pdp-may08@icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike O'Connor Sent: Tuesday, August 26, 2008 8:39 AM To: gnso-ff-pdp-May08(a)icann.org Subject: [gnso-ff-pdp-may08] here's my little poll -- please try to get them back to me by end-of-day Friday hi all, i humbly submit my little questionnaire and hope that you'll take a moment to fill it out. i've added one question to let people express a view as to whether they would like to focus on Fast Flux, or broaden the scope to include "fraud and abuse". again, let's not belabor the words at this point -- it's just trying to get at a sense of scope. to avoid mailing-list clutter, why don't you send your response files to me directly -- i'll smash them into a single worksheet, do some analysis, and push the whole thing back to the list. i'll finish that over the weekend and put together 3-5 options based on whatever clumps i find in there (plus some Kentucky windage) and try to get those options out to you early next week so you will have some time to look them over before the call next Wednesday. thanks! m voice: 651-647-6109 fax: 866-280-2356 web: www.haven2.com *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy
by Evan Leibovitch Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

While there are certainly various reactions being contemplated in regards to the ICANN travel policy, this message is specifically intended to call attention to one interesting detail from Wednesday's teleconference on the issue. I refer to the summary minutes of the meeting: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_20_august_2008 and the 12th paragraph, which currently begins: > D Michel wanted to address a couple of issues. First of all, she noted > that nothing will essentially change for At-Large until a year from now. This is very significant, if it is accurate, for it indicates a substantial change in policy from what we have been told to date. What I have been explicitly told by ICANN staff is that -- starting IMMEDIATELY with the Cairo meeting -- only the 15 ALAC members people would be funded. No liaisons, no RALO chairs or secretariats, and no regional ALS reps. I can understand the lack of regional rep funding for Cairo given that the Summit takes place the following meeting, and it is intended to welcome ALSs from everywhere. However, the cut off of Chair, Secretariat and Liaison funding is definitely not the "status quo" for At-Large. Denise's statement above, as reported in the summary minutes, appears to contradict the announcement of earlier cuts. However, I am informed that what she really meant to say (as was Doug in speaking of "maintaining the status quo") is that nothing will change **FOR ALAC ONLY**. An examination of the recording will confirm or deny what Denise was reported as saying, which means that either: - Indeed, nothing is changing for the next year, which means Liaison and RALO leadership funding for Cairo, Mexico City, and June 2009 in AsiaPac or - There is some doublespeak going on, which suggests that the status quo for At-Large is being maintained when it clearly is not. If even the ICANN staffer taking the summary minutes had not caught any intended nuance that distinguished between "ALAC" and "At-Large", why would we? As far as I know, ALAC and At-Large are not separated as budget categories. In any case, I look forward to the clarification of this matter. If, indeed, the At-Large status quo will not change this year, I applaud ICANN staff on this show of good faith, and look forward to its constructive engagement with At-Large on this and other issues. - Evan PS: I am very aware that Denise explicitly said that a few Summit organizers and two of the Liaisons would be funded to go to Cairo. But there is a difference between making some arbitrary exceptions to the cuts, and saying there is no change to what had been done before.

5 5

ICANN Board Meeting tomorrow
by Wendy Seltzer Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

ICANN's board will meet tomorrow, with an agenda including substantial discussion of the GNSO Council Restructuring. If there are points to be added to that discussion, beyond those already raised regarding the importance of making room for Internet *users* on the Council (which I will re-emphasize), please let me know. Please also share any comments on other topics. I will bring the ALAC's concerns about the travel policy and support for RALO participants to the table, if that is desired. <http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/> 28 August 2008 Special Board Meeting Agenda [Agenda set by Executive Committee on 21 August 2008] Review Minutes from 31 July / 1 August Special Board Meeting President’s Monthly Report GNSO Council Restructuring Nominating Committee’s Recommendation for ICANN Bylaws Change regarding Criteria for Board Member Selection Redelegation of the .MS (Montserrat) Domain Ombudsman Budget Independent Reviews Status Report Board Finance Committee Report Board Governance Committee Report Board Governance Committee’s Recommendation for selection of the next Nominating Committee Chair Board’s Compensation Committee Report President’s Strategy Committee Report Other Business Board Executive Session -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

9 12

Travel Support for NomCom Delegates at Cairo Meeting
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

It would seem that this was supposed to go to ALAC as well, but I have not seen it yet. The gist of it is that if you are a NomCom delegate on the upcoming 2009 NomCom, and not otherwise funded to attend ICANN, ICANN will pay for your airfare and room and food starting on Thursday night, but not for the bulk of the ICANN meeting itself. This is in line with the formal policy, but I believe not in line with recent practice (but not sure about last year). Anyone we are potentially naming as a delegate to the NomCom (vote to start today I believe) should really be notified about this and sign-off on it. Unless Nick has some private ALAC funding lined up to cover this. Alan >Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2008 19:45:10 -0700 >From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Travel Support for Cairo Meeting >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >At the request of Denise Michel I am sending this note to the >Council list. Advisory Committees, Constituencies and Supporting >Organizations are in the process of selecting their representatives >to the 2009 ICANN Nominating Committee. It is anticipated that the >2009 Nom Com will have a kickoff face-to-face meeting in Cairo >following the end of the ICANN meeting. Representatives to the Nom >Com will have their transportation reimbursed at economy class, >along with hotel costs covered for the Nom Com portion of the >meeting (ICANN would cover Thurs 6 Nov through Sat or Sun 8 or 9 Nov >depending when the rep departs Cairo). Hotel costs for the other >days of the ICANN meeting will have to be covered by the >representative or their sending organization. > ><GNSO-specific details omitted.> > >Patrick > >-- >Patrick L. Jones >Registry Liaison Manager & >Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers >4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >Marina del Rey, CA 90292 >Tel: +1 310 301 3861 >Fax: +1 310 823 8649 ><patrick.jones(a)icann.htm>patrick.jones(a)icann.org

4 4

Re: [ALAC] Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached
by Brendler, Beau Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Since I was a part of this group (contributing to its earlier incarnation, but not to the "hypotheses" phase that began June 25 or so), I'd like to volunteer to help facilitate discussion and comment within ALAC. Some of the GAC hypotheses mirror what I believe are user community concerns/perceptions of WHOIS. I think the ALAC should review the whole document, but at minimum focus on what the GAC has put forward. Even if the ALAC can't agree, the user community's voice needs to be heard on this issue. For additional perspective I have attached the final version (in its entirety, no longer preliminary) of the New York state study we conducted that I presented to the ALAC in Paris, including the questions on WHOIS and other ICANN issues (grouped towards the end). The study is statistically significant for New York state only, but I believe the results should encourage us to look beyond the traditional "privacy vs. law enforcement" deadlock. Please do not distribute any of this data outside these groups, as we are planning to release it to the press as part of an anti-fraud campaign in Sept., Oct. and November. BB -----Original Message----- From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Nick Ashton-Hart Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 3:02 AM To: whois-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Cc: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [At-Large] FW: Report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group attached Dear Working Group Members and At-Large Community Members: Attached please find the report of the WHOIS Study Hypothesis Group to the GNSO Council as requested by the Council in its resolution of 26 June 2008. -- 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) 578-8637 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 *** Scanned **************************************************************************** ******** SCANNED **************************************************************************** ********

1 0

Deadline: RALO proposals for Nominating Committee Appointments
by Nick Ashton-Hart Aug. 27, 2008

Aug. 27, 2008

Dear RALO Leaders: Please be reminded that today is the deadline for making known to ALAC your RALOs selections to the ALAC for the committee to be able to select the five ALAC appointees to the Nominating Committee. -- 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) 578-8637 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

4 4

Nominating Committee delegate for North America
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 25, 2008

Aug. 25, 2008

A public solicitation to the NA-Discuss list was made asking for nominations for the person to be the NA delegate to the Nominating Committee (which will chose next year's appointees to the Board, GNSO, ccNSO and ALAC). Currently, the NA delegate is Ross Rader, who is eligible to serve one more term. Only one public nomination was received, and that was to reappoint Ross. In parallel with the solicitation, discussions among the NA members of ALAC, and NARALO Chair and Secretariat, resulted in two nominations, specifically Ross and Dharma Dailey. Neither the ALAC members nor RALO representatives could come to consensus, and so both names are being submitted to the ALAC for their vote. Alan Greenberg, on behalf of Beau Brendler and Robert Guerra

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 22, 2008

Aug. 22, 2008

I was unfortunately not on the call, so my jumping in here may be innapropriate. But to clarify my understanding... If by "this [..] policy in your second sentence, you mean the "Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09" posted on 13Aug08, it is currently in effect immediately and applies to Cairo (for those not familiar with the notation, FY2009 is the fiscal year ENDING in 2009 and starting July 1, 2008. If the expression is referring to cutting ALAC funds to be in line with the Supporting Organizations (essentially to 50% excluding NomCom appointees), then that is the result of an approved Board motion in Paris and is effective for FY2010 (starting July 2009). The Board could certainly change their mind and rescind the change, or alter it in any way, but that does not change the fact that it was adopted by the Board without any level of consultation. Alan At 22/08/2008 02:37 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Evan: >There was no such qualification! What was said is that this was a policy >*proposal* and is being handled in the way proposals are supposed to be - >discussed and a consensus position adopted. Whatever form was adopted would >not come into effect until the new fiscal year, which begins in June 2009. > >In fact, from my perspective, both Denise & Brent were at pains to ensure >these essential factors were understood! > >Carlton > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan Leibovitch >Sent: Friday, August 22, 2008 12:04 PM >To: ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [ALAC] Wednesday's teleconference on travel policy > > >While there are certainly various reactions being contemplated in >regards to the ICANN travel policy, this message is specifically >intended to call attention to one interesting detail from Wednesday's >teleconference on the issue. > >I refer to the summary minutes of the meeting: >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?summary_minutes_20_august_2008 >and the 12th paragraph, which currently begins: > > > D Michel wanted to address a couple of issues. First of all, she noted > > that nothing will essentially change for At-Large until a year from now. > >This is very significant, if it is accurate, for it indicates a >substantial change in policy from what we have been told to date. What I >have been explicitly told by ICANN staff is that -- starting IMMEDIATELY >with the Cairo meeting -- only the 15 ALAC members people would be >funded. No liaisons, no RALO chairs or secretariats, and no regional ALS >reps. > >I can understand the lack of regional rep funding for Cairo given that >the Summit takes place the following meeting, and it is intended to >welcome ALSs from everywhere. However, the cut off of Chair, Secretariat >and Liaison funding is definitely not the "status quo" for At-Large. > >Denise's statement above, as reported in the summary minutes, appears to >contradict the announcement of earlier cuts. However, I am informed that >what she really meant to say (as was Doug in speaking of "maintaining >the status quo") is that nothing will change **FOR ALAC ONLY**. > >An examination of the recording will confirm or deny what Denise was >reported as saying, which means that either: > >- Indeed, nothing is changing for the next year, which means Liaison and >RALO leadership funding for Cairo, Mexico City, and June 2009 in AsiaPac > >or > >- There is some doublespeak going on, which suggests that the status quo >for At-Large is being maintained when it clearly is not. If even the >ICANN staffer taking the summary minutes had not caught any intended >nuance that distinguished between "ALAC" and "At-Large", why would we? >As far as I know, ALAC and At-Large are not separated as budget categories. > >In any case, I look forward to the clarification of this matter. If, >indeed, the At-Large status quo will not change this year, I applaud >ICANN staff on this show of good faith, and look forward to its >constructive engagement with At-Large on this and other issues. > > >- Evan > >PS: I am very aware that Denise explicitly said that a few Summit >organizers and two of the Liaisons would be funded to go to Cairo. But >there is a difference between making some arbitrary exceptions to the >cuts, and saying there is no change to what had been done before. > > >_______________________________________________ >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