- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] : Bylaw-based conflict between your position on the GNSO Council and ALAC Board Liaison overlapping - ACTION NEEDED
by At-Large Staff Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Dear ALAC Members: Please see below Wendy's reply. -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: 19 October 2009 14:26 To: John Jeffrey; Daniel Halloran; Nick Ashton-Hart; Diane Schroeder Subject: [Fwd: Bylaw-based conflict between your position on the GNSO Council and ALAC Board Liaison overlapping - ACTION NEEDED] I will defer my start on the GNSO Council until after the conclusion of the Seoul meeting. --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Bylaw-based conflict between your position on the GNSO Council and ALAC Board Liaison overlapping - ACTION NEEDED Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 20:28:37 +0200 From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Reply-To: ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> To: <wendy(a)seltzer.com> CC: <vanda(a)uol.com.br>, "'cheryl langdon-orr,'" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org>, ICANN At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Diane Schroeder <diane.schroeder(a)icann.org> Dear Wendy, cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Members, Daniel Halloran Esq., At-Large Secretariat I hope this finds you well. As you know, you have accepted a position on the incoming GNSO Council, which will be seated on Wednesday 28th October. At the same time, your term as ALAC Board Liaison doesn't end until 30th October. With regret, it is my duty to inform you that the Bylaws prohibit a member of the Board, including liaisons, from serving on any other AC or SO council at the same time. For further information, you may consult Article VI, s4,(2) at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VI. You will therefore need to notify the General Counsel's office of your resignation as ALAC Board Liaison, with effect on or before the time the GNSO Council meeting opens on Wednesday 28th October. As a related matter, you may wish to let the members of ALAC know which meeting you will attend, the Board or the GNSO, should Board meetings and GNSO Council meetings conflict before your GNSO Council term begins, between Saturday 24th October and the end of Tuesday, 27th. --- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Inc. (ICANN) http://www.atlarge.icann.org Tel: +33 450 40 46 88 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 Fax: +41 22 594 85 44 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/ashtonhart -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 Fellow, Silicon Flatirons Center at University of Colorado Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0

Bylaw-based conflict between your position on the GNSO Council and ALAC Board Liaison overlapping - ACTION NEEDED
by At-Large Staff Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Dear Wendy, cc: Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Vanda Scartezini, ALAC Members, Daniel Halloran Esq., At-Large Secretariat I hope this finds you well. As you know, you have accepted a position on the incoming GNSO Council, which will be seated on Wednesday 28th October. At the same time, your term as ALAC Board Liaison doesn't end until 30th October. With regret, it is my duty to inform you that the Bylaws prohibit a member of the Board, including liaisons, from serving on any other AC or SO council at the same time. For further information, you may consult Article VI, s4,(2) at http://www.icann.org/en/general/bylaws.htm#VI. You will therefore need to notify the General Counsel's office of your resignation as ALAC Board Liaison, with effect on or before the time the GNSO Council meeting opens on Wednesday 28th October. As a related matter, you may wish to let the members of ALAC know which meeting you will attend, the Board or the GNSO, should Board meetings and GNSO Council meetings conflict before your GNSO Council term begins, between Saturday 24th October and the end of Tuesday, 27th. --- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Inc. (ICANN) http://www.atlarge.icann.org Tel: +33 450 40 46 88 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 Fax: +41 22 594 85 44 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/ashtonhart

1 0

Registrar-registry Integration
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

One of the topics on the agenda to discuss in Seoul is Registrar-Registry integration - the extend to which registrars and registries can be affiliated (that is, have shared ownership in one way of another) and still market the same gTLDs. Currently such joint ownership is largely prohibited. Earlier versions of the DAG have allowed affiliates of a registry to market the domains in their own TLD (a VAST oversimplification of the issue). The DAG V3 withdraws the specific proposals and opens the issue for community discussion. See Section 2.9 on page 4-5 of the proposed Registry Agreement - http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-agreement-specs-redline-04oc…. Two recent articles talk about the issue: http://www.circleid.com/posts/registry_registrar_cross_ownership_framing_th… - Discussion of Registrar-Registry integration - Moderately balanced but clearly favouring one solution. http://www.circleid.com/posts/vertical_integration_a_view_from_the_bottom_u… - A rebuttal of the above. The issue is not just about business and economic issues. Getting the right answer may be critical, particularly to cultural TLDs and perhaps some IDN TLDs. Alan

2 3

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
by Beau Brendler Oct. 19, 2009

Oct. 19, 2009

Roberto, you wrote: "New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own" councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs and other policy making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and resources to self-organize, will be able to participate with their own representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc. In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance and hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate, for all the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial internet community." I find the SIC's explanation and reasoning in this matter to be patronizing at worst, and deluded at best. With all due respect, the board or the SIC or whomever was responsible for proposing this scenario, has done so without responsible regard or awareness for democratic systems. The ICANN "community" as you call it is already dominated by commercial interests, all of whom somehow manage to have constituencies with votes on their behalf. To suggest that a public interest contingent of the community must do its job with board-appointed representatives and "consensus building," with the "right to form working groups," etc., is a patronizing attitude and, as it applies to a constituency model for consumer groups, a stillborn idea. I am reminded of the creation of at-large as an advisory panel with no voting power, and I am reminded of the at-large's tooth and nail fight to get a board seat (after one of ICANN's many consultants suggested it should have two, but that's better than nothing). Why do you suppose the at-large argued for board representation? Has ICANN not learned from the last two years? The board needs to reconsider this decision, and in fact the entire structure of the NCSG at this point. With the current scenario, and the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, I see no responsible course other than to ask the members of the consumer organization constituency to convene, present this situation to them, and suggest to them my opinion that they should dissolve. By the way, Danny Younger sent a letter to Diane Schroeder, which I co-signed, asking for reconsideration, as you mention. Perhaps it is time for the Structural Improvements Committee, along with the volunteers involved in forming the constituencies, interested parties from the NCUC, and other stakeholders to meet in Seoul to achieve some real, bottom-up, transparent consensus. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Oct 19, 2009 7:18 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, James Seng <james(a)seng.sg>, alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders? > >Roberto, > >Frankly, I am surprised by the arguments you present and tend to defend. >The argument and further elaboration on "move the focus away from the >vote, which is by its nature divisive, onto the consensus building >process" is in fact a scorn for natural democratic tradition the western >world is based on. It reminds me of a big boss or brother having patent >for reasonable decisions driving a bunch of more or less incompetent >people. And of course, the best big boss would be one nominated by some >government obviously cumulating the wisest people in the world, or even >better a strong business monopoly player. Nice and still attractive >fiction, isn't it? >But now seriously, such a SIC proposal just presents a persisting fear >of loosing control of some people over the decision process. There is no >reason for constituency without voting power. The voting power is >crucial and essential point of new constituency system and any >discussion casting doubt upon this should be refused from the very >beginning. In my opinion, this should be explicitly spoken out and >pointed out in Seoul as a clear message from At-Large to the Board. >To avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies for the simple >purpose of getting a vote" can easily be overcome by transparent rules >by which new constituencies can be established. The voting power gives >them necessary right and accountability towards the community they >represent. The obstinate attitude of keeping control in few hands at all >prices indicates persisting misunderstanding of how accountable >community representing interests of millions should be driven, and as >such, it becomes a main obstacle in achieving a progress in ICANN >society. > >I guess the name SIC is misspelled. It should write SICK. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Roberto >Gaetano >Sent: Saturday, October 17, 2009 8:16 AM >To: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'James Seng'; >alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; 'William Drake' >Cc: 'ALAC Working List' >Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders? > >Beau, > >> >> By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly >> appointed GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year >> terms? I don't really see a constituency model working under >> those circumstances. Who's going to join a constituency if >> they have to wait two years to be able to directly elect a >> representative? No consumer group I am aware of is going to >> want to do that. > > >I think that we will need to clarify many things in Seoul, one of which >is >the reason for certain decisions of the SIC. > >For instance, the SIC has decided, after long discussion, not to have an >automatic link between creation of a constituency and establishment of a >seat in the Council. The reasons against this position include what you >correctly point out, i.e. that it will be more difficult to get people's >interest if there's no immediate representation in terms of voting >rights. >However, there are also reasons for taking this approach. One of these >is >that we have to avoid the "frivolous" creation of constituencies for the >simple purpose of getting a vote. A bit like create empty shells as >registrars to have a higher firing power for getting valuable names. >Another >observation is that in the "old" council it was exactly the fact that >the >creation of a new constituency would have altered the voting balance >that de >facto prevented the creation of any new constituency in 10 years. > >But the main point for the SIC to maintain the concept of constituency, >against the open opposition of NCUC, but to keep it without an automatic >voting power, against the obvious concerns of who wants to build new >constituencies, is the leit-motiv that has guided the whole process of >the >review: move the focus away from the vote, which is by its nature >divisive, >onto the consensus building process. >New constituencies will not have the right to appoint their "own" >councillors, but will have the right to participate in WGs and other >policy >making processes and bodies, will have support from ICANN staff and >resources to self-organize, will be able to participate with their own >representatives in the Executive Committee of the NCSG, etc. >In simple words, what we have tried to do is to create a balance and >hopefully a possible way to coexist and, in time, to collaborate, for >all >the different components of the wide and diverse non-commercial internet >community. Somebody on this list has spoken about "reconsideration" of >the >Board's decision. This is surely possible. But what I would propose is >to >try to discuss and understand if what the SIC has proposed can work in >practice, although it is not going to be perfect for anybody, before >shooting it down and start all over again. This discussion is for me one >of >the main priorities, if not the first priority altogether, in Seoul, >which >as you all know will mark the end of my term as Director. > >The ALAC and the NCUC are two big parts of this picture, the only >organized >bodies in ICANN so far (for non-commercial users), I personally think >that >the first step can be to have a joint discussion in Seoul. Bill's >proposal >of meeting in an event that is not only work, but also social, goes in >this >sense, methinks. > >Cheers, >Roberto > > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.i >cann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] ALAC-NCUC
by Beau Brendler Oct. 16, 2009

Oct. 16, 2009

I will check the ALAC schedule. We usually do not have evening events. -----Original Message----- >From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >Sent: Oct 15, 2009 10:37 AM >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> >Cc: investigaciones(a)densi.com.ar, James Seng <james(a)seng.sg>, ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [ALAC] ALAC-NCUC > >Hi Beau, et al, > >On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> Last week, at the ISOC-NY event with Danny Younger, Milton Mueller >> and me, more than one person in attendance from ISOC encouraged us >> to put aside our differences and work to a solution on behalf of >> users. Milton's presentation was very clear and well-received. So as >> an elected member of at-large, I see it as a responsibility to do >> what the voters ask. Would be glad to have a drink. Korean shoju is >> particularly excellent for breaking the ice, and I've never had a >> hangover from it yet. > >Then you plainly have not drunk enough of it, the stuff can be >suitably lethal when taken in immoderation. > >As Olivier points out, it appears there's an IDN, ccTLD fast track >reception Monday night, and I am loath to ask people to skip free >libation and carousing. We could just gather in the lobby afterwards >and head off somewhere to eat (concierge can recommend), although we >need to clarify when that would be---the online schedule says it ends >at 20:00, but the GNSO schedule received this morning from staff says >20:30. > >Alternatively, Thursday night seems open at the moment...not to >complicate things, but does ALAC have anything then, and if not would >this be preferable? > >Either way, I'm glad to hear people are interested. Let's figure out >when and then I'll write to NCUC, rather than having two date >discussions running in parallel. > >Thanks, > >Bill > >

7 7

ALAC-NCUC
by William Drake Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

Hi, No formal meeting between ALAC and NCUC has been set for Seoul, which to me is a pity but whatever. However, that doesn't mean that interested folks can't get together for more informal chatting about mutual concerns and such. At the moment NCUC has nothing programmed for Monday night, don't know about ALAC. Might anyone here be available for a drink at day's end, or even dinner? If so I'm sure we can rustle up a good NCUC contingent. Best, Bill *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

5 4

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

We are obviously looking at different documents. The one I am looking at is pointed to by the 30 July Board meeting report (http://www.icann.org/en/minutes/prelim-report-30jul09.htm) It is internally described as V2.0 dated 30 July 2009 and says: 8.2.3 Three Representatives Appointed by ICANN Board. The remaining three (3) GNSO Council representatives will be appointed by the Board as temporary placements, each serving two year terms, with the expectation that new Constituencies will form. What version are you looking at? Note that I am not arguing with the position that you and Beau are taking, just pointing at the documents that I can see. Alan At 15/10/2009 12:24 PM, Danny Younger wrote: >Alan, > >The transitional NSCG Charter had this language: > >"Remaining seats will be appointed by the Board as temporary >placements with the expectation that new Constituencies will form." > >Notice the word "temporary". We all had the reasonable expectation >that "placeholder" actually meant >placeholder-until-a-newly-formed-constituency-elects-its-representative. > >This board action to hard-wire those seats to two year terms came >totally out of left field with no community consultation whatsoever. > > >--- On Thu, 10/15/09, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders? >To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "ALAC >Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Date: Thursday, October 15, 2009, 11:50 AM > > >That is what was in the re-drafted NCSG charter and what was >approved by the Board as per the 30 July and 30 September Board >meeting reports. > >Since I have not seen prior comments that focused on this particular >issue, it could be that it was not recognized or considered. As one >of the leaders of a potential new constituency, you should bring >this to the Boards's attention (presumably through Rob or Denise). > >Alan > >At 15/10/2009 09:35 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: > > By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly > appointed GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year > terms? I don't really see a constituency model working under those > circumstances. Who's going to join a constituency if they have to > wait two years to be able to directly elect a representative? No > consumer group I am aware of is going to want to do that.. > > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] ALAC-NCUC
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

We have often done a non-compulsory dinner on Thursday night... At 15/10/2009 11:22 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >I will check the ALAC schedule. We usually do not have evening events. > >-----Original Message----- > >From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> > >Sent: Oct 15, 2009 10:37 AM > >To: Beau Brendler <beaubrendler(a)earthlink.net> > >Cc: investigaciones(a)densi.com.ar, James Seng <james(a)seng.sg>, ALAC > Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide > <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >Subject: Re: [ALAC] ALAC-NCUC > > > >Hi Beau, et al, > > > >On Oct 15, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Beau Brendler wrote: > > > >> Last week, at the ISOC-NY event with Danny Younger, Milton Mueller > >> and me, more than one person in attendance from ISOC encouraged us > >> to put aside our differences and work to a solution on behalf of > >> users. Milton's presentation was very clear and well-received. So as > >> an elected member of at-large, I see it as a responsibility to do > >> what the voters ask. Would be glad to have a drink. Korean shoju is > >> particularly excellent for breaking the ice, and I've never had a > >> hangover from it yet. > > > >Then you plainly have not drunk enough of it, the stuff can be > >suitably lethal when taken in immoderation. > > > >As Olivier points out, it appears there's an IDN, ccTLD fast track > >reception Monday night, and I am loath to ask people to skip free > >libation and carousing. We could just gather in the lobby afterwards > >and head off somewhere to eat (concierge can recommend), although we > >need to clarify when that would be---the online schedule says it ends > >at 20:00, but the GNSO schedule received this morning from staff says > >20:30. > > > >Alternatively, Thursday night seems open at the moment...not to > >complicate things, but does ALAC have anything then, and if not would > >this be preferable? > > > >Either way, I'm glad to hear people are interested. Let's figure out > >when and then I'll write to NCUC, rather than having two date > >discussions running in parallel. > > > >Thanks, > > > >Bill > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [ALAC] [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 15, 2009

Oct. 15, 2009

That is what was in the re-drafted NCSG charter and what was approved by the Board as per the 30 July and 30 September Board meeting reports. Since I have not seen prior comments that focused on this particular issue, it could be that it was not recognized or considered. As one of the leaders of a potential new constituency, you should bring this to the Boards's attention (presumably through Rob or Denise). Alan At 15/10/2009 09:35 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: >By the way, is it true what I heard that the three newly appointed >GNSO people have now been hard-wired in to two-year terms? I don't >really see a constituency model working under those circumstances. >Who's going to join a constituency if they have to wait two years to >be able to directly elect a representative? No consumer group I am >aware of is going to want to do that.

1 0

Board request for GNSO input on specific trademark issues in the Draft Applicant Guidebook
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 13, 2009

Oct. 13, 2009

Please see the attached letter to the GNSO Council. As noted in the letter, the deadline for a GNSO Council reply is 14 December 2009. Although I am sure that this will result in immediate discussion on the GNSO mailing list (which can be found at http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/) the first opportunity to formally discuss this and decide on how to proceed will likely be in Seoul, probably starting on Saturday, 24 October. That would leave 6 weeks after Seoul to come to closure as the letter is quite explicit about this being a hard deadline. It is possible that the Council will form a working group with the potential for ALAC/At-Large involvement, but that remains to be seen. Since the Board is explicitly requesting advice from the GNSO Council, some other mechanism may be chosen. I welcome any comments or advice prior to Seoul. To the extent that such comments can represent coordinated efforts within the ALAC/At-Large instead of individual views, so much the better. Alan >From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org>, liaison6c > <liaison6c(a)gnso.icann.org> >CC: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> >Sender: "owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org" <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 23:04:37 -0400 >Subject: [council] Board request for GNSO input on specific trademark issues > in the Draft Applicant Guidebook > >Dear GNSO Council members: > >Attached is the Board's letter to the GNSO Council requesting input on >the URS and Clearinghouse recommendations in the gTLD Applicant >Guidebook version 3. > >Regards, >Denise > >Denise Michel >ICANN Vice President >Policy Development >denise.michel(a)icann.org >+1.408.429.3072 mobile >+1.310.578.8632 direct

1 0