- ALAC - lists.icann.org

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

June 25, 2010

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

1 0

ALAC & VI
by Evan Leibovitch June 25, 2010

June 25, 2010

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

3 2

Re: [ALAC] Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison
by Evan Leibovitch June 25, 2010

June 25, 2010

Hi Adam, On 24 June 2010 18:06, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > Evan, much as I like your idea, I'd prefer we continue to protest the loss > of the liaison role while also working on something that may or may not > happen in the future. > I don't have a problem with this; the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. We should be trying to maintain a liaison, while at the same time realizing that we ought to be finding some innovative alternate methods of getting our message across. It is not coincidental that I was quoting two board members, one of whom is the Vice-Chair. While I will encourage our attempts to maintain an active liaison, let us be reminded that the Board doesn't have a good record at reversing its decisions. > I propose the following as text the ALAC should submit to the board: > > We are pleased to see the progress being made to seat a voting Director to > represent the At Large community of global Internet users on the ICANN > board. We look forward to providing advice on the amended bylaws when they > are made available for public comment. > > However, we again emphasize that a voting director representing the > At-Large Community while an extremely important and welcome development for > global Internet users, is not a replacement for the ALAC board liaison > position. ALAC is an Advisory Committee, to not have a liaison would prevent > ALAC from providing advice in an effective, efficient, transparent and > accountable manner. David Jennings' comments at the EURALO Showcase indicate a clear disagreement with this point of view, an insistence that alternative methods exist and a challenge to us to develop them. Making a direct assertion that "not having a liaison prevents us from providing advice" is both factually incorrect and indicative of a failure of imagination; I would not recommend making such a public statement. It is accurate (and IMO sufficient) to say that not having a liaison significantly *impairs* our ability to provide advice; to assert that it *eliminates* our ability to provide advice is, IMO, ill-advised. - Evan

2 1

WHOIS review
by Beau Brendler June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

This is a complete tangent from this note, but Adam mentions the lobbying for seats on the WHOIS review. Are we sure the door is closed on this? Is there any other lobbying tactic we can use to at least try to get two seats instead of one? -----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> >Sent: Jun 24, 2010 12:06 PM >To: ICANN ALAC list <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison > >Evan, much as I like your idea, I'd prefer we continue to protest the >loss of the liaison role while also working on something that may or >may not happen in the future. > >I don't see continuing to argue for a liaison would risk the voting >director position, the board isn't that petty. On the other hand, >what we do see is that strong, consistent lobbying produces results: >example the GNSO now has 4 representatives on the WHOIS review > >I propose the following as text the ALAC should submit to the board: > >We are pleased to see the progress being made to seat a voting >Director to represent the At Large community of global Internet users >on the ICANN board. We look forward to providing advice on the >amended bylaws when they are made available for public comment. > >However, we again emphasize that a voting director representing the >At-Large Community while an extremely important and welcome >development for global Internet users, is not a replacement for the >ALAC board liaison position. ALAC is an Advisory Committee, to not >have a liaison would prevent ALAC from providing advice in an >effective, efficient, transparent and accountable manner. Without the >liaison there would be no voice to present or represent ALAC's advice >to the board. The At Large voting Director, like all other voting >Directors will "have the duty to act in what they reasonably believe >are the best interests of ICANN and not as representatives of the >entity that selected them..." ><http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VI-7>, the voting >Director would not be able to act as a conduit between ALAC and the >Board and the ALAC's role as an advisory committee would be severely >undermined. > >The ALAC review recommended that At Large should, as is the case with >Supporting Organizations, select two voting Directors. For reasons >that are not entirely clear to the At Large/ALAC, the board rejected >this proposal. To retain the board liaison position while the new >single voting Director is seated would offer a compromise between the >recommendations of the review and the board's findings, as well as >satisfying the very practical requirement for the ALAC to be able to >continue to be able to provide advice to the board. > >END > > >No, Yes? Friendly amendments? > >Thanks, > >Adam > > > >At 12:46 PM +0200 6/24/10, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be >>transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a >>member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of >>At-Large). >> >>Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment: >> >>At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated >>that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy >>development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that >>At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy >>development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan >>being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, >>environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that >>this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like >>that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the >>right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be >>clearly against the public interest. >> >>Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged >>that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff >>support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own. >> >>If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are >>not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than >>to allow others to evolve it for us,. >> >>-- >>- Evan >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > >_______________________________________________ >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

Dealing with the loss or a Board liaison
by Evan Leibovitch June 24, 2010

June 24, 2010

Desspite our serious protest, it appears that At-Large will be transitioning from a liaison to the Board to electing (er, *selecting*) a member of the Board (who will then be organizationally independant of At-Large). Given this loss of direct influence, I offer this comment: At yesterday's EURALO Showcase, Board member Dennis Jennings clearly stated that ALAC ought to have a stronger role as part of ICANN's policy development process. I agree. We should consider proposing to the SIC that At-Large oversight / signoff be a required "check mark" in all ICANN policy development (such as GNSO PDPs). (Think of this the way that a building plan being proposed in a city has to have sign-off approval by engineering, environmental assessment, public works, etc). There may be some fears that this constitutes a potential ALAC veto of GNSO policy -- while I wouild like that personally, that may be too much to ask. However, we should have the right to send back for revision, parts of policy which we perceive to be clearly against the public interest. Later at the same event, Board member Jean-Jacques Subrenat acknowledged that At-Large tasks and responsibilities are growing faster than its staff support, and risks falling behind through no fault of its own. If these comments are sincere -- and I have no reason to believe they are not -- then we have an opportunity to direct our evolving role, rather than to allow others to evolve it for us,. -- - Evan

6 6

PROPOSAL: Standing ALAC Consumer Issues Working Group (and associated outreach)
by Evan Leibovitch June 22, 2010

June 22, 2010

The following is a proposal that I wish to make to the ALAC/At-Large workshops tomorrow. I am speaking as an individual; what follows has not been endorsed by NARALO or any other body, though it has been floated by some people whose help would be critical to its success and they have supported it. I PROPOSE that: 1) ALAC create a standing and permanent Working Group on Consumer Issues 2) Beau Brendler and Rosemary Sinclair be appointed interim Chairs, pending internal governance to be determined by the WG; 3) That ALAC engage immediately, with assistance from support staff, to encourage consumer associations and advocacy organizations around the world to join as ALSs and become part of this Working Group; Rationale: the current status of consumer advocacy and consumer groups within ICANN is in limbo and has been for some time. There is no clear indication that current attempts to create a consumer constituency within GNSO will be successful, yet this move has created an undesired level of infighting and difficulty with other constituencies. If the At-Large Improvements committee succeeds in its proposals, At-Large will be defined as *the* forum for Internet users who are not necessarily part of ICANN financial transactions. In this context, I submit that consumer interests are simply a subset of the public interest and has a logical place within At-Large. Furthermore, the ALS mechanism allows us to verify the bonafides of legitimate consumer organizations. I believe that accommodation of consumer interest groups can help drive At-Large interests, without requiring any changes to At-Large's structure. Indeed, our ALS/RALO/ALAC architecture is well suited to such activity. And thanks to the existing work done on attracting consumer involvement, quite a few potential paricipants have already been identified. I look forward to a discussion and hope to receive ALAC's support on this matter, - Evan

5 4

Re: [ALAC] PROPOSAL: Test Project for Outreach at Public Event
by Evan Leibovitch June 22, 2010

June 22, 2010

On 22 June 2010 11:38, Dave Kissoondoyal <dkissoondoyal(a)hotmail.com> wrote: Dear Evan, > > I see that Africa has been forgotten in the proposal. > Dave, It is often incorrect -- and occasionally insulting -- to infer that something is forgotten simply because it is not included. As you yourself have recognized, there is no conference in Africa that serves the same super-regional role as the three I mentioned. The ones I chose were done because 1) This is intended as an initial experiment. Of course other conferences can be suggested on follow up. But I wanted to limit the original attempt to three in order to make it more acceptable at a budget level. 2) These particular events are globally known to attract an extremely diverse audience of business people, end users and media. These events attract massive media coverage, thanks to the new-product announcements (and I would work to leverage that media coverage to our advantage). I want to make it clear that this is not meant to replace other outreach activity, but simply solidifies and expands on an "out of the box" idea that has been informally discussed for many years. - Evan

1 0

PROPOSAL: Test Project for Outreach at Public Events
by Evan Leibovitch June 22, 2010

June 22, 2010

Hello again, What follows is a proposal that I am making after speaking with various people since arrival. I have discussed it briefly in person with Rod Beckstrom and VP for Communications/Marketing Barbara Ann Clay, both of whom say they are enthusiastic about the idea in principle and have asked me to make a formal written proposal. I am asking for ALAC's consideration and support. And while this specific proposal has not been endorsed by any group, it builds on tactics that has been proposed repeatedly by NARALO within its regional scope. I PROPOSE: 1) That ICANN, as an experimental project in end-user outreach, will have display presence in three IT consumer/trade shows: -- CES, January 6-9 2011, Las Vegas -- CEBIT, March 1-5 2011, Hanover -- COMPUTEX, June 2011, Taipei 2) That NARALO, EURALO and APRALO, respectively -- in collaboration with ALAC -- determine volunteers to provide staffing throughout the duration of these events. The RALOs will also attempt to negotiate display space at reduced rates owing to ICANN's non-profit status and the non-financial goals of its presence of these events; 3) ICANN will provide travel funding within each region for the volunteers (maximum two per show) as well as costs associated with booth space (subject to negotiations as described above) displays and materials. It is expected that the booth space will not exceed 9 square metres, 4) The purpose of this presence is to attract end-user participation within ICANN, specifically through At-Large, by providing exposure at an event that attracts large numbers of technically-aware consumers who do not usually participate in -- let alone seek a presence in -- ICANN policy development. 5) The goal of participation in these events is as follows: (a) - explain ICANN and its issues to the public in lay language (b) - recruit organizations such as computer user groups as ALSs (c) - recruit individual participation in ICANN At-Large, either directly or through an existing open-membership ALS (in keeping with each At-Large region's policy towards individual participation) 6) Given the international nature of these events, volunteers will be required to provide information on (and solicit membership in) all RALOs. In advance ALAC will set specific success metrics which will be monitored; 7) The volunteers will provide a report on the project to the ICANN Board at the Summer 2011 ICANN meeting. Upon review of the results of this experiment, and Board direction, At-Large will determine the viability of extending the project on an ongoing basis, and proceed accordingly. -- - Evan

6 6

RAA: Aspirational rights vs. top 10 priorities
by Beau Brendler June 22, 2010

June 22, 2010

Greetings. Since we skipped the RAA discussion this morning, I decided to write this down for your consideration. I will be pushing for time in Brussels to discuss it. Those of you who attended the meeting Monday evening from 5:30 to 7 in the main conference room may have heard me saying, in the comments period, that in retrospect, I do not believe the interests of the public were served in the process used to create the final output of the RAA drafting. As co-chair of the group, I accept responsibility for this. The result was the creation of a weak document with a ridiculous title "Aspirational Registrant Rights Charter" (appended below). I'm happy to discuss the details and background further offline. What I would like to propose is that the ALAC set aside the "Aspirational Registrant Rights Charter" and vote to put its full support behind one of the other documents that came forth from the meeting. (Those in the group may recall I co-chaired "group A" from which the aspirational rights charter emerged; Steve Metalitz chaired group B, from which the second document I am referring to emerged). THIS IS THE ASPIRATIONAL RIGHTS DOCUMENT I BELIEVE WE SHOULD SET ASIDE: Aspirational Registrant Rights 1. have accurate, current and complete contact and locative information regarding their registrar 2. be the sole entity capable of asserting and changing ownership information for their domain 3. have ample opportunity to renew their existing domain(s) at the same rates as new domains 4. protect their trade name against unauthorized use 5. refuse the transfer of their personal information to unauthorized bodies 6. expect ICANN to enforce its agreements with registrars THE DOCUMENT (group B) I BELIEVE WE SHOULD BACK UP AND ENDORSE can be found on pages 18-19 of the attached PDF. Let me know if you have questions -- I will try to bring this up later in the week.

1 0

Methodology for ALAC Endorsement of AoC Review Team Applicants
by Alan Greenberg June 21, 2010

June 21, 2010

It seems that we neglected to put this item on our agenda, but I suggest that we squeeze it in on Thursday. If we can generally agree on the procedure either via e-mail or one-on-one discussions prior to Thursday, it should not take long. First the allocation of seats on the committees. We have two on the Security and Stability review, and one on the Whois review. Our appeal to increase the number of seats on the Whois review was not successful, so we will need to exercise extreme care in selecting our one representative making sure that it is someone who can truly speak on behalf of all of us, despite At-Large having a variety of views on Whois, and particularly the privacy issues. Since I oversaw the process for the first selection in Nairobi, Cheryl asked that I make a proposal to start the discussion here. We will not be able to have a face-to-face meeting to do these selections. Also, since we will be talking about specific individuals, we will have to be careful to carry out such discussions privately. I suggest that we use the same methodology that we used for the ABSdt and that we decided yesterday for the overseeing the ALAC/At-Large Improvements plan. Specifically, I suggest that we delegate the initial selection to a working group of 10 members composed of the ExCom plus one other representative of each RALO (either an ALAC member or another representative as chosen by the RALO). This is a small enough group to allow good participation and good representation in teleconferences. The selections would then be ratified by the ALAC. Alan

1 0