- ALAC - lists.icann.org

NCUC liaison report
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

* Of its three council votes, the NCUC voted 2-1 against approving the RAA "package." * Of the forthcoming list of WHOIS studies, the NCUC says its overall response will be that no further studies of WHOIS are recommended. * I incorporated the NCUC's stance on the ICC serving as one of the evaluators of new gTLDs, which is that such an organization, which is a business interest group, is not recommended. * No comment at the moment about the "rumor" of controversy between ALAC and NCUC on NCSG issues. I have no idea what's going on there and am not the source of the rumor. * At Milton's request, relayed information about NCUC membership fees to the NA RALO discussion list. ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

2 1

Board liaison: nothing new to report
by Wendy Seltzer Jan. 13, 2009

Jan. 13, 2009

The Board has not met since my last communication, and discussion has been light over the holidays. The next planned meeting is in February. Clearly, new gTLDs and response to various comments will be on the agenda. --Wendy

1 0

Details of the GNSO vote on approving the package of RAA amendments
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Here are the details of the vote. It was not passed by a super-majority. It is unclear what the next steps will be. Alan >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:29:04 -0800 >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Final vote on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) > motion >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >Dear Councillors, > >The voting is closed on the Registrar >Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion which was >before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below. > >The final vote is as follows. >The motion did not obtain a supermajority. > >9 Votes Against: > >Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, >Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), William Drake, >Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) >Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each) > >Due to a misunderstanding in the process and >email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 >hours after the ballot was scheduled to >close. As the balloting had not been formally >closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. > >4 Abstentions: > >Philip Sheppard CBUC), Ute Decker, Kristina >Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) > >14 Votes in favour: > >Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), >Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) >Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes) >Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) > >Reasons for abstaining >====================== >Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about >the sequential approach to the RAA changes. > >Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way >the consultative process has been run, how the >input of registrants and users has been largely >ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. > >Kristina Rosette (IPC): >Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in >March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 >resolution, the RAA amendment consultative >process essentially excluded registrants and >users including brand owners, and ignored their >input. In addition to that fraud consultative >process, the Registrar constituency is now being >granted weighted voting on whether the >amendments should be approved. And finally, >because the highly restricted, narrow and >limited language resulting from that flawed >consultative process will render the majority of >the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. > >Terry Davis (NCA): >I have not been part of this process long enough >to take a position on this yet. I am still >understanding all the issues associated. > >Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' >vote. I believe we have an alternative as I >suggested, and have not heard any reason not to >do so. We could have a fast track working group >to determine which of these proposed amendments >truly have consensus of the Council. There has >not been any consultative process with the >Council to find out which amendments have full >consensus and could be adopted immediately, and >could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But >at the moment we do not have clear consensus on >this amendment package. Then there are a bunch >of open issues that are not mentioned in the >package at all and that we need assurance will >be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote. >........................................................................................... > >Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) >Made by: Tim Ruiz >Seconded: Chuck Gomes > >Whereas: > >ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative >process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); > >The parties have arrived at a set of amendments >that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; > >Resolve: >The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA >amendments (documented in >http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) >and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

WHOIS background
by Brendler, Beau Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

In 's advance of tomorrow's call, I have found this document from the WHOIS working group from earlier in the summer. It does describe a number of the topics discussed for study, but is probably not as good as reading Liz Gasster's memo previously referenced. The NCUC, by the way, seems to be wholly in favor of no further studies of WHOIS. As you know, that's not my perspective, and in fact we have done some of our own research on the issue, as you know from my brief presentation in Paris. However, the studies that I think need doing have already been proposed by the GAC. So perhaps, since the GAC is doing them anyway, perhaps we could simply say that we support the GAC's efforts to study topics of concern to the user community. BB ________________________________________ From: Beau Brendler [beau_brendler(a)hotmail.com] Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 1:12 PM To: Brendler, Beau Subject: ________________________________ Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Chat. Store. Share. Do more with mail. Check it out.<http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_t1_hm_justgotbetter_explor…> *** Scanned ** This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments from your computer system.

2 1

status ALS applications
by Adam Peake Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Hi, Could staff tell us where we are with these ALS applications: Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations Internauta Venezuela CETIC AJB Also understand NARALO asked for Knujon's application to be voted on at tomorrow's meeting, and noted the RALO's "explicit support". Doesn't seem to be reflected in the Google doc. I find the Google docs ALS application status page really hard to use. No way to keep the info on the same screen, no way to print. Should improve how we track applications. Thanks, Adam

1 0

GNSO vote on approving the RAA amendment package
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 9, 2009

Jan. 9, 2009

The vote has not yet concluded, as there is the option for some e-mail votes. However, based on the vote so far (12 yes, 7 no, 4 abstain out of a total of 27 votes if I got it correct), the motion cannot achieve the 66% vote required. It is unclear what the next steps are. There were some other interesting twists during the discussion that I will present in my GNSO Liaison report. Alan

2 1

***SPAM*** Immeasurable wand of pleasure
by alac＠icann.org Jan. 2, 2009

Jan. 2, 2009

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] IMPORTANT Note re RAA Package NEW post briefingVote which is now running...
by Carlton Samuels Dec. 31, 2008

Dec. 31, 2008

Jeez, how's this for consideration. If you have to *call and remind* ALAC members to vote on a matter the entire ALAC has declared to be important and which has been circulated too many times out of memory, then I submit we have a larger problem. It just seems awry, not to mention grossly unfair, to ask some members, all of whom are volunteers, to work so hard while others are hardly working! With regard to the RAA, the ALAC has made several submissions, some of which repeat language I have used in my own postings on the matter. Notwithstanding, I will reiterate my perspective. Context is the key here. In the context of ICANN and the Registry/Registrar constituency relationship, I take the position that those who pay the piper will call the tune. The language of extant RAA Subsections 4.3 and 5.4 are the key parts that peak my interests. The ICANN Board Resolution 07.51 directs staff to engage the Registrar constituency on the proposals for modifying the RAA. It reads in part "a set of proposed amendments or alternative version to the RAA, that is intended to address *to the extent feasible* the concerns raised by the Internet community." The *emphases* are mine. Following on these elements, anyone who takes a balanced comparative view of the extant and proposed RAA revisions will not fail to note the tilt towards the registrar/registry constituency. I do believe this is causal rather than casual but entirely understandable. Having had some experience with commercial contracts of different kinds, I'm minded to think a more purposeful form of the RAA could be devised. However it will come into being from the weight of time, clear-eyed business drivers from competition and registrants willing to shop around. In the current setup, sanctions for violations are weak to non-existent and enforcement is spotty, at best. The amended agreement has some sanctions. But it is laced with language so "weaselly" that any lawyer with a fair knowledge of the tort law or uniform commercial code could argue it away. You just need to look back at the initial At-Large response at LA to see that some of us have been onto that for some time. I agree that there are some provisions in the proposed amended RAA that are now explicit in their intent to protect registrants. However, we know that ICANN does not now have an enforcement operation worth its name, in-house or externally. If memory serves, my concern with the ALAC-commisisoned Issues Report on contract enforcement and the conundrum of contract grace periods pertinent to the domain tasting phenomenon was part and parcel of the main issue. This aside, I have diligently combed the operational reports to see if there are enforcement operations in place or planned here forward without success. I remain willing to be educated but until such time, I shall remain a skeptic and mark this one advantage to the registrar/registry constituency. Like any other commercial contract, what one set of lawyers form/generate/devise, an opposing set can and will always see gaps/opportunities to delay/undermine/exploit in the name of competitive advantage. Sometimes they use the tort law. And since ICANN is configured as a California corporation with its contract adjudication under California and/or US law, then there are lots of fungible opportunities for the RAA via the tort law. The point I'm making is the At-Large needs to recognize the limits of influence and decide when to hold.......and when to fold. Here's the other thing concerning RAA subsection 4.3 and 5.4. I am fairly certain that I can recognize "gobbledygook" when I read it. Hell, I myself have contributed my fair share of such "language" to a few contracts, some of which remain in active use today. Every reasonable interpretation of these clauses I see tends to suggest that they preserve an "opt out" for registrars/registries. In other words, some are "grandfathered" and cannot be forced to comply with these amendments or other such clauses they deem inoperative. Or, they cannot be compelled to enforce this or other requirement down the line. Now, let us supposed I was a member of this constituency and, given perfect alignment of all the stars, become aggrieved of an enforcement action. I could see a petition and claim in federal court for equal protection of the laws and iniquitous enforcement as a rational outcome. Because I know that my chance of relief in law and equity would be awfully good. To me, the central issue has always been enforcement. And I see nothing that would make me think or believe it is going to be better this time around than under the existing agreement. Felicitations and Every Good Wish to All for 2009. Carlton On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Vanda > > I cannot tell you who has voted yet in the second Poll Staff will be back > online on January 5th so we can ask them then... and follow up with anyone > who needs further reminding... > > And thanks for the very timely Spanish Translation of the New gTLD > discussion points paper, as it needs urgent attention by LACRALO in the new > year... and echoing Vanda's good wishes to you all => Happy New {2009}Year > to all those working within the constraints of the Gregorian Calendar :-) > > > CLO > > 2008/12/31 Vanda Scartezini UOL <vanda(a)uol.com.br> > > > Hi Cheryl > > Who did not vote yet? We can make a campaign calling regionally. > > Happy new year with lots of health and joy to you and all you love! ( > > amazingly I am still working with the investors today - but the deal is > > almost done and I hope I will enter 2009 with a new and better share > > composition in my company.!!) > > I sent to Carlton the Spanish translation last week. > > Lots of kisses > > > > > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Polo Consultores Associados > > Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 > > Tel - +55113266.6253 > > Mob- +55118181.1464 > > vanda(a)uol.com.br > >  Before print think about the Environment > > "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is > > restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the > > intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender > > immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the > aforementioned > > information will create grounds for legal action." > > > > "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são > para > > uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, > > favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das > > informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." > > > > > > > > -----Mensagem original----- > > De: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: > > alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Cheryl > > Langdon-Orr > > Enviada em: terça-feira, 30 de dezembro de 2008 00:56 > > Para: ALAC Internal List > > Assunto: [ALAC-Internal] IMPORTANT Note re RAA Package NEW post > > briefingVote which is now running... > > > > On Dec 24th staff sent the message inserted below re the Post Briefing > > Vote on the RAA Package... > > > > I just wanted to point out to all ALAC Members how important it is that > you > > all Vote on this matter befreo January 8th and particularly those who > voted > > No in the first vote until the briefing was held and who did NOT attend > the > > briefing outlined below, that in this briefing and teleconference meeting > > (please review the source material listed below) it was agreed that *the > > best way forward and outcomes for At-Large* for the second vote would be > > to > > VOTE FOR option 1. "Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA > package, > > with the > > possibility of further policy development in the future." by those on the > > call and of particular note, Danny Younger, who is someone who I consider > > most expert in the matters of RAA, and who had particular concerns about > > the > > package that needed to be discussed / addressed... > > > > This new vote will have its details publicised after completion, and I'm > > happy (as one of those who voted to hold off until after the briefing was > > held) to register with all other voters that I agreed with the consensus > > outcome of the members at the briefing and have voted accordingly as > > follows > > :- > > > > >vote receipt number is: 8dikub4XiU > > >You voted for the following: > > >* 1) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the > > possibility of further policy >development in the future (ID#15111151) > > > > Thus finally endorsing the views of those at the briefing and indeed the > > outcomes of our earlier discussions on the matter in Cairo... > > > > I trust that the rest of the ALAC who have yet to vote will :- > > 1. VOTE before 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC > > 2. Review their previous voting preferences. > > 3.Consider the recommendations of those attending the briefing and take > the > > time to review the recorded material and notes as they consider their > vote > > on this matter... > > 4. Support the recommendation by voting FOR option 1 as I have done. > > > > CLO > > > > > > >Dear ALAC members, > > > > A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole and Kurt > Pritz > > from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and summary minutes of > > this briefing under: > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa > > > > Following this briefing, it was decided to start a second online vote on > > the > > ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote will be > > open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the ALAC GNSO > > Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting scheduled > later > > that day. > > > > You will be asked to choose among the following options: > > > > 1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the > > possibility of further policy development in the future. > > 2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA package. > > 3. Abstain > > > > > > > > Earlier Vote on RAA Package resulted in the following:- > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > Date: 2008/12/24 > > Subject: [ALAC-Announce] Results of the first vote on the RAA Package > > To: "alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < > > alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > With 10 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent vote on the > ALAC > > recommendation to the GNSO on the vote on the RAA Package, we can confirm > > that the vote is quorate: > > > > Number of voters: 10 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 66.67 > > > > ³ICANN staff has told the GNSO that the only way that the current RAA > > package of amendments can be approved is if they pass a super-majority > > (66%) > > vote accepting the package. If it is not approved, any future policy > > development must be done over using current PDP processes. Some of the > > issues covered by the package, such as enforcement and accreditation are > > not > > likely to be considered in scope for a PDP. Please choose one of the > > following options:² > > > > 70.00% 1 ) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision until such time > > that > > the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current position by ICANN staff. > > ( J Ovidio Salgueiro, P Vande Walle, S Bachollet, R Guerra, F Seye Sylla, > > TH > > Nguyen, C Langdon-Orr) > > > > 20.00% 2 ) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with > the > > possibility of further policy development in the future. > > (A Greenberg, A Peake) > > > > 10.00% 3) Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA > package. > > (B Brendler) > > > > 0.00% 4) Abstain 0 0.00 > > > > You may verify the results independently under: > > https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=w6iazAxzpvfT4cqTQkbc > > > > > > -- > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > (CLO) > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> Website: > > http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-Internal mailing list > > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> Website: > > http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > -- > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > (CLO) > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> Website: > http://atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] RES: IMPORTANT Note re RAA Package NEW post briefingVote which is now running...
by Carlton Samuels Dec. 31, 2008

Dec. 31, 2008

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> Date: Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 4:14 PM Subject: Re: [ALAC-Internal] RES: IMPORTANT Note re RAA Package NEW post briefingVote which is now running... To: ALAC Internal List <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> I do have a comment or two on Carlton's note, but first, I once again request that we only use the Internal list when privacy is truly an issue. I understand why Cheryl's original note perhaps should not have been public, but I am not as sure with the follow-ons (although one should never copy something that was sent on the internal list without agreement of all authors). I agree with much of what Carlton says. One can always fight a battle in court and perhaps win. And it would be unrealistic that the Registrar constituency would "negotiate" terms which were felt to be disadvantageous to some of its members. Certainly, our briefing and any understanding of how contracts are negotiated tells us that both registrars and ICANN likely accepted some terms that were not optimal from teach point of view, but were granted in exchange for other terms that were wanted more. I also agree that if I were the supreme being, I might have written the original contract differently. But since I am not, there seem to be several paths forward. And in my mind, ALL should be followed in parallel. 1. Whatever terms we can get all parties to agree to that generally help registrants, we should implement. In my mind, the current RAA package meets that description. 2. Changes that we want that can reasonable be construed as consensus policy, we should work to see realized. This does not require the agreement of registrars if enough other support is gathered (and yes, I understand that it is possible that some of these terms could be fought, but it is the best too we have). 3. Changes that are likely to require unilateral action by ICANN should be drafted and approved by the Board, and then used in future Registrar contracts as they come up for renewal. Alan At 31/12/2008 01:50 PM, Carlton Samuels wrote: > Jeez, how's this for consideration. If you have to *call and remind* ALAC > members to vote on a matter the entire ALAC has declared to be important and > which has been circulated too many times out of memory, then I submit we > have a larger problem. It just seems awry, not to mention grossly unfair, > to ask some members, all of whom are volunteers, to work so hard while > others are hardly working! With regard to the RAA, the ALAC has made several > submissions, some of which repeat language I have used in my own postings on > the matter. Notwithstanding, I will reiterate my perspective. Context is > the key here. In the context of ICANN and the Registry/Registrar > constituency relationship, I take the position that those who pay the piper > will call the tune. The language of extant RAA Subsections 4.3 and 5.4 are > the key parts that peak my interests. The ICANN Board Resolution 07.51 > directs staff to engage the Registrar constituency on the proposals for > modifying the RAA. It reads in part "a set of proposed amendments or > alternative version to the RAA, that is intended to address *to the extent > feasible* the concerns raised by the Internet community." The *emphases* > are mine. Following on these elements, anyone who takes a balanced > comparative view of the extant and proposed RAA revisions will not fail to > note the tilt towards the registrar/registry constituency. I do not believe > this is causal rather than casual but entirely understandable. Having had > some experience with commercial contracts of different kinds, I'm minded to > think a more purposeful form of the RAA could be devised. However it will > come into being from the weight of time, clear-eyed business drivers from > competition and registrants willing to shop around. In the current setup, > sanctions for violations are weak to non-existent and enforcement is spotty, > at best. The amended agreement has some sanctions. But it is laced with > language so "weaselly" that any lawyer with a fair knowledge of the tort law > or uniform commercial code could argue it away. You just need to look back > at the initial At-Large response at LA to see that some of us have been onto > that for some time. I agree that there are some provisions in the proposed > amended RAA that are now explicit in their intent to protect registrants. > However, we know that ICANN does not now have an enforcement operation worth > its name, in-house or externally. If memory serves, my concern with the > ALAC-commisisoned Issues Report on contract enforcement and the conundrum of > contract grace periods pertinent to the domain tasting phenomenon was part > and parcel of the main issue. This aside, I have diligently combed the > operational reports to see if there are enforcement operations in place or > planned here forward without success. I remain willing to be educated but > until such time, I shall remain a skeptic and mark this one advantage to the > registrar/registry constituency. Like any other commercial contract, what > one set of lawyers form/generate/devise, an opposing set can and will always > see gaps/opportunities to delay/undermine/exploit in the name of competitive > advantage. Sometimes they use the tort law. And since ICANN is configured > as a California corporation with its contract adjudication under California > and/or US law, then there are lots of fungible opportunities for the RAA via > the tort law. The point I'm making is the At-Large needs to recognize the > limits of influence and decide when to hold.......and when to fold. Here's > the other thing concerning RAA subsection 4.3 and 5.4. I am fairly certain > that I can recognize "gobbledygook" when I read it. Hell, I myself have > contributed my fair share of such "language" to a few contracts, some of > which remain in active use today. Every reasonable interpretation of these > clauses I see tends to suggest that they preserve an "opt out" for > registrars/registries. In other words, some are "grandfathered" and cannot > be forced to comply with these amendments or other such clauses they deem > inoperative. Or, they cannot be compelled to enforce this or other > requirement down the line. Now, let us supposed I was a member of this > constituency and, given perfect alignment of all the stars, become aggrieved > of an enforcement action. I could see a petition and claim in federal court > for equal protection of the laws and iniquitous enforcement as a rational > outcome. Because I know that my chance of relief in law and equity would be > awfully good. To me, the central issue has always been enforcement. And I > see nothing that would make me think or believe it is going to be better > this time around than under the existing agreement. Felicitations and Every > Good Wish to All for 2009. Carlton On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Cheryl > Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>wrote: > Hi Vanda > > I cannot tell you > who has voted yet in the second Poll Staff will be back > online on January > 5th so we can ask them then... and follow up with anyone > who needs further > reminding... > > And thanks for the very timely Spanish Translation of the > New gTLD > discussion points paper, as it needs urgent attention by LACRALO > in the new > year... and echoing Vanda's good wishes to you all => Happy New > {2009}Year > to all those working within the constraints of the Gregorian > Calendar :-) > > > CLO > > 2008/12/31 Vanda Scartezini UOL < > vanda(a)uol.com.br> > > > Hi Cheryl > > Who did not vote yet? We can make a > campaign calling regionally. > > Happy new year with lots of health and joy > to you and all you love! ( > > amazingly I am still working with the > investors today - but the deal is > > almost done and I hope I will enter > 2009 with a new and better share > > composition in my company.!!) > > I > sent to Carlton the Spanish translation last week. > > Lots of kisses > > > > > > > > > Vanda Scartezini > > Polo Consultores Associados > > Alameda > Santos 1470 #1407 > > Tel - +55113266.6253 > > Mob- +55118181.1464 > > > vanda(a)uol.com.br > > ï Before print think about the Environment > > > "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is > > > restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the > > > intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender > > > immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the > aforementioned > > > information will create grounds for legal action." > > > > "As > informaÃ§Ãµes existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados sÃ£o > para > > > uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso nÃ£o seja o > destinatÃ¡rio, > > favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso > imprÃ³prio das > > informaÃ§Ãµes desta mensagem serÃ¡ tratado conforme a > legislaÃ§Ã£o em vigor." > > > > > > > > -----Mensagem original----- > > De: > alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto: > > > alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Cheryl > > > Langdon-Orr > > Enviada em: terÃ§a-feira, 30 de dezembro de 2008 00:56 > > > Para: ALAC Internal List > > Assunto: [ALAC-Internal] IMPORTANT Note re RAA > Package NEW post > > briefingVote which is now running... > > > > On Dec > 24th staff sent the message inserted below re the Post Briefing > > Vote > on the RAA Package... > > > > I just wanted to point out to all ALAC Members > how important it is that > you > > all Vote on this matter befreo January > 8th and particularly those who > voted > > No in the first vote until the > briefing was held and who did NOT attend > the > > briefing outlined below, > that in this briefing and teleconference meeting > > (please review the > source material listed below) it was agreed that *the > > best way forward > and outcomes for At-Large* for the second vote would be > > to > > VOTE > FOR option 1. "Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA > package, > > > with the > > possibility of further policy development in the future." by > those on the > > call and of particular note, Danny Younger, who is someone > who I consider > > most expert in the matters of RAA, and who had particular > concerns about > > the > > package that needed to be discussed / > addressed... > > > > This new vote will have its details publicised after > completion, and I'm > > happy (as one of those who voted to hold off until > after the briefing was > > held) to register with all other voters that I > agreed with the consensus > > outcome of the members at the briefing and > have voted accordingly as > > follows > > :- > > > > >vote receipt number > is: 8dikub4XiU > > >You voted for the following: > > >* 1) Recommend the > GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with the > > possibility of further > policy >development in the future (ID#15111151) > > > > Thus finally > endorsing the views of those at the briefing and indeed the > > outcomes of > our earlier discussions on the matter in Cairo... > > > > I trust that the > rest of the ALAC who have yet to vote will :- > > 1. VOTE before 08 January > 2009 at 1200 UTC > > 2. Review their previous voting preferences. > > > 3.Consider the recommendations of those attending the briefing and take > > the > > time to review the recorded material and notes as they consider > their > vote > > on this matter... > > 4. Support the recommendation by > voting FOR option 1 as I have done. > > > > CLO > > > > > > >Dear ALAC > members, > > > > A briefing was recently held on the RAA Package by Tim Cole > and Kurt > Pritz > > from ICANN staff. You can find the audio recording and > summary minutes of > > this briefing under: > > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?discussion_on_the_raa > > > > > Following this briefing, it was decided to start a second online vote on > > > the > > ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA Package. The new vote > will be > > open until 08 January 2009 at 1200 UTC, which will allow the > ALAC GNSO > > Liaison to announce the result at the GSNO Council meeting > scheduled > later > > that day. > > > > You will be asked to choose among > the following options: > > > > 1. Recommend the GNSO to accept the current > RAA package, with the > > possibility of further policy development in the > future. > > 2. Recommend that the GNSO do not approve the current RAA > package. > > 3. Abstain > > > > > > > > Earlier Vote on RAA Package resulted > in the following:- > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: > At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > > Date: 2008/12/24 > > Subject: > [ALAC-Announce] Results of the first vote on the RAA Package > > To: " > alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" < > > > alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > > > > > Dear all, > > > > With > 10 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the recent vote on the > ALAC > > > recommendation to the GNSO on the vote on the RAA Package, we can confirm > > > that the vote is quorate: > > > > Number of voters: 10 Â· Group size: 15 > Â· Percentage voted: 66.67 > > > > Â³ICANN staff has told the GNSO that the > only way that the current RAA > > package of amendments can be approved is > if they pass a super-majority > > (66%) > > vote accepting the package. If > it is not approved, any future policy > > development must be done over > using current PDP processes. Some of the > > issues covered by the package, > such as enforcement and accreditation are > > not > > likely to be > considered in scope for a PDP. Please choose one of the > > following > options:Â² > > > > 70.00% 1 ) Recommend that the GNSO defer the decision > until such time > > that > > the ALAC can be properly briefed on the current > position by ICANN staff. > > ( J Ovidio Salgueiro, P Vande Walle, S > Bachollet, R Guerra, F Seye Sylla, > > TH > > Nguyen, C Langdon-Orr) > > > > > 20.00% 2 ) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current RAA package, with > the > > > possibility of further policy development in the future. > > (A > Greenberg, A Peake) > > > > 10.00% 3) Recommend that the GNSO do not > approve the current RAA > package. > > (B Brendler) > > > > 0.00% 4) > Abstain 0 0.00 > > > > You may verify the results independently > under: > > https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=w6iazAxzpvfT4cqTQkbc > > > > > > -- > > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > (CLO) > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-Internal mailing > list > > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > > > ALAC Wiki: > http://st.icann.org/alac > > At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> > Website: > > http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC-Internal mailing > list > > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > > > ALAC Wiki: > http://st.icann.org/alac > > At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> > Website: > > http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > -- > Cheryl Langdon-Orr > > (CLO) > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal > mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > ALAC Wiki: > http://st.icann.org/alac > At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> > Website: > http://atlarge.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… Wiki: > http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Greetings for Christmas
by vivek anannd Dec. 25, 2008

Dec. 25, 2008

Dear all, Wishing you and your family a Merry Christmas and hope for a peaceful and propsperous New Year of 2009 with warm regards Dr.V.C.Vivekanandan HRD IP Chair Professor & Head-Centre forIPLaw studies Director-NALSAR Proximate Education 3-4-761, Barkatpura, Hyderabad 500027-INDIA NALSAR University of Law, phone: +91-40-27567958/55/60 Fax: +91-40-27567310 Mobile:+91-9866050494 web:www.nalsarpro.org/nalsarlawuniv.ac.in Get your own website and domain for just Rs.1,999/year.* Go to http://in.business.yahoo.com

1 0