- ALAC - lists.icann.org

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

Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
by Beau Brendler Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

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

2 1

Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

On 29 January 2010 07:11, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > 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?) > If we're talking precedents, we need look no further than ALAC itself. When originally constituted it was completely NomComm, with the awareness that the organization should not be expected to be fully mature at the time of acceptance. So we *know* that ICANN has allowed for this kind of anticipated growth in the past; at very least it should not be considered an absolute obstacle. The membership is a "good start" indeed, but the structure and intended growth absolutely satisfies the criteria. I am quite satisfied with endorsing the proposal in this application (even though I don't have a vote on it ;-) ). -- Evan Leibovitch evan(a)telly.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
by Beau Brendler Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

Adam...if you're carrying the IGF crowd's water on this, 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

2 1

Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
by Beau Brendler Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

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? I suppose that's better than attacking its participants as frauds. -----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

2 1

Re: [ALAC] draft statement on consumer constituency charter
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Jan. 29, 2010

Jan. 29, 2010

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)

2 1

Re: [ALAC] Policy Advice Schedule - New Constituency Petition and Charter
by Beau Brendler Jan. 27, 2010

Jan. 27, 2010

1 0

Policy Advice Schedule - New Constituency Petition and Charter
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 26, 2010

Jan. 26, 2010

Dear All: I wish to clarify my statement on the policy Advice Schedule at today's Monthly ALAC Teleconference. According to the schedule, the comment period for the New Constituency Petition and Charter closes on 13th February. If ALAC must make that date, ALAC must produce and post a draft advisory for comment by the community by 30th January. ALAC must advice and consent to the lead drafter by tomorrow, 27th January. I would suggest that given his involvement in the process, Beau is asked to take the pen on this. Kind regards, Carlton Samuels

3 3

Requested information from staff on dotCAT amendment
by Heidi Ullrich Jan. 25, 2010

Jan. 25, 2010

Dear All, An action item from the 22 December 2009 ALAC meeting was for staff to provide you with information on whether the dotCAT amendment that was open for public comment between 18 December 2009 and 17 January 2010 was setting a precedent. Patrick Jones, Senior Manager, Continuity and Risk Management, has provided the following information on this issue: The issue of single and two-character names has come up several times before by gTLD registries. Each time a request is received from a registry, it is reviewed on a case-by-case basis, based on the specific facts raised in the request. ICANN has received requests on the following: Dot-NAME (2006, two-characters at the third-level only): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2006004 puntCAT (2007, limited release of UA, UB, UV.cat): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2007001 Dot-JOBS (2007, limited release of two-character names only): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2007002 Dot-Coop (2007, release of go.coop): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2007005 Dot-Pro (2008, release of three-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008003 Dot-Coop (2008, one and two-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008005 Dot-Mobi (2008, single character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008006 Dot-BIZ (2008, one and two-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008010 Dot-Mobi (2008, two-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008011 Dot-Pro (2009, one, two, remaining three-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009002 Dot-Travel (2009, one and two-character names - please note this is still pending): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009003 PuntCAT (2009, one and two-character names): http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2009009 I'd be interested to know more about ALAC's potential questions or concerns. As you can see above, ICANN has deal with these types of requests quite frequently over the past three years. Patrick is happy to provide you with additional information on this issue and will be available to provide a briefing in Nairobi if requested. Kind regards, Heidi Heidi Ullrich Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Telephone: + 1 (310) 578 - 8647 Fax: +1 (310) 823 - 8649 Cell/Mobile: +1 (310) 437 - 3956

2 1