- ALAC - lists.icann.org

CORRECTION: ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

>For those who may be interested, I have posted some personal >comments on the Mid-point report. They can be found at >http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf. > >Alan Thanks to Dharma Dailey who pointed out that the attachment has moved. That *was* where it lived when I posted the message. But I have seen attachments on ICANN mail logs move before, so I should have known better. It is now at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfcNsdHX1u56.pdf (tested seconds ago), but in case it moves again, the message pointing to it (which I don't think moves) is http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00005.html. Alan

2 1

Fwd: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

As noted on page 8, there have been two additional amendments over and above the set previously discussed. These require that Registrars make their contact information public, and that if a domain name is licensed, the licensee's contact information be made available, or the original registrant accepts liability for harm. ALan >Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:00:55 -0800 >From: Liz Gasster <liz.gasster(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Revised Report on RAA amendments >Sender: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >All, > >Attached please find an updated report from Services on the pending >amendments to the RAA. This report updates and expands on the paper >sent on 29 October 2008. > >Thanks, Liz

1 0

ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

For those who may be interested, I have posted some personal comments on the Mid-point report. They can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/pdfPFEQnmaKJl.pdf. Alan

1 0

ALAC Mid-point consultation report - ALAC comments
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 15, 2008

Dec. 15, 2008

Following the open consultation period, and factoring in the comments received, the ALAC has submitted its comments on the mid-point consultation report of BGC WG on the ALAC review. They can be found at http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac-mid-consult/msg00008.html and also on our wiki documents page https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?alac_read_only_document_store. An ALAC vote to ratify this submission will begin shortly. Alan (on behalf of Cheryl)

1 0

Comments on the ALAC response to the mid-term consultation report
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 12, 2008

Dec. 12, 2008

Admittedly at the last moment, I have a few comments on the draft document (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_alac_response_to_the_mid_point_co…) Regarding the ICANN planning process and ALAC (Item 5), it is clear that ALAC should be a part of the process, but at least a part (perhaps a large part) of ALAC activities will continue to be demand driven, either involvement with ongoing issues (see item 8) or activities driven by issues that rise to the top of user priorities (such as Domain tasting or the post-expiry redemption issue). Regarding involvement with the GNSO policy development process. I agree that the ALAC must be invited to participate. It should not be REQUIRED to, as there will always be numerous consultations that we decide our not sufficiently important to our community to warrant the effort. This is identical to the way Constituencies are treated within the GNSO. Alan

2 1

ALAC vote on RAA now open
by At-Large Staff Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Dear all, At the last ALAC meeting, it was decided to put the ALAC recommendation to the GNSO on the RAA package to an online vote. The online vote will remain open until Thursday, 18 December at 2359 UTC. Each member of the ALAC will shortly receive a private email with their voting credentials and a link to the online vote. They will be asked to choose between the following options: 1) Recommend the GNSO to defer because the briefing is required to understand the context 2) Recommend the GNSO to accept the current package, with the possibility of further work on amendments on issues remaining continues 3) Recommend the GNSO to reject the amendments package and start from square one, but the ICANN Board would probably not accept it 4) Abstain ******************** Background information: ICANN 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. You can find details under: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?raa_the_way_forward Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

ALAC comments with respect to users and the GNSO - minor revision
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

(Revised to correct typo.) Wendy, I don't know what time the Board meeting is, but hope that this reaches you before... The ALAC has already made a number of statements on the role of users on the GNSO, and none of them (in our minds) conflict or even greatly overlap with the roles of the ALAC. These statements stand. In essence, the differentiator between someone (or group) that is at home in At-Large vs one who should live in the GNSO is not based on the description of the user (or user group), but rather on their specific interests. Participation in the GNSO implies a specific interest in gTLD policy issues, and implies a willingness to put significant energy and time into the creation of gTLD policies and related issues. At-Large, has a wider scope and by definition has a more diffuse focus. We will never cover ALL ICANN issues, but attempt to address the ones that we believe have a higher impact on users. There may well be organizations that fit both descriptions (although I don't think there will be many). There are certainly people participating in these organizations who may wear both hats at times. We would not like to see rules preventing these contributors from working in both domains. Particularly in the developing world, there are far too few skilled people with the interest and energy to address issues in ICANN's domain, and we do not want to see people locked out for arbitrary reasons. Although the fear of capture is real, this is not likely the venue where it is problematic. To the extent that "individuals" as opposed to organizations should participate in the GNSO, we have tended to prefer a definition of constituency close to the current model. That is, like-minded people form a constituency to put forward their viewpoint. Two other issues were raised at the ALAC meeting which are not directly related to the user issue, but may be applicable to other Board discussions. 1. The concept of a "individual registrant" constituency is something that would be of value. However, it is not clear where this fits if the constituency does (and perhaps should) include both commercial and non-commercial members - it is easy to imagine that their views on many things will be similar, and it is not at all clear that dividing them over two SG serves any purpose. 2. The current description of the proposed Business Constituency seems to focus on the concept of a member having to be incorporated, which seem to exclude many of the small entrepreneurs who comprise the new model of Internet-based businesses (perhaps embodied by the example of a typical e-Bay seller). Alan

1 0

ALAC comments with respect to users and the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Wendy, I don't know what time the Board meeting is, but hope that this reaches you before... The ALAC has already made a number of statements on the role of users on the GNSO, and none of them (in our minds) conflict or even greatly overlap with the roles of the ALAC. These statements stand. In essence, the differentiator between someone (or group) that is at home in At-Large vs one who should live in the GNSO is not based on the description of the user (or user group), but rather on their specific interests. Participation in the GNSO implies a specific interest in gTLD policy issues, and implies a willingness to put significant energy and time into the creation of gTLD policies and related issues. At-Large, has a wider scope and by definition has a more diffuse focus. We will never cover ALL ICANN issues, but attempt to address the ones that we believe have a higher impact on users. There may well be organizations that fit both descriptions (although I don't think there will be many). There are certainly people participating in these organizations who may wear both hats at times. We would not like to see rules preventing these contributors from working in both domains. Particularly in the developing world, there are far to few skilled people with the interest and energy to address ICANN's domain, and we do not want to see people locked out for arbitrary reasons. Although the fear of capture is real, this is not likely the venue where it is problematic. To the extent that "individuals" as opposed to organizations should participate in the GNSO, we have tended to prefer a definition of constituency close to the current model. That is, like-minded people form a constituency to put forward their viewpoint. Two other issues were raised at the ALAC meeting which are not directly related to the user issue, but may be applicable to other Board discussions. 1. The concept of a "individual registrant" constituency is something that would be of value. However, it is not clear where this fits if the constituency does (and perhaps should) include both commercial and non-commercial members - it is easy to imagine that their views on many things will be similar, and it is not at all clear that dividing them over two SG serves any purpose. 2. The current description of the proposed Business Constituency seems to focus on the concept of a member having to be incorporated, which seem to exclude many of the small entrepreneurs who comprise the new model of Internet-based businesses (perhaps embodied by the example of a typical e-Bay seller). Alan

1 0

ALAC Communication to the Board: ICANN Cairo Public Forum & General Meeting Organisation and Public Participation Provisions
by Nick Ashton-Hart Dec. 11, 2008

Dec. 11, 2008

Dear Wendy: I have been requested by the Chair of ALAC to transmit the attached to you, for you to communicate to the Board, as Cheryl is unavailable today and wanted to ensure that this letter reached the Board as soon as possible. As the letter is addressed to Peter personally I have copied this notice to him directly out of courtesy. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

.aero provides no port 43 whois
by Wendy Seltzer Dec. 9, 2008

Dec. 9, 2008

According to the .aero sponsorship agreement, .aero must provide port 43 whois service. <http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/agreements/aero/sponsorship-agmt-att15-17dec01…> An attempted port 43 whois query fails, however: $ whois airinfo.aero This TLD has no whois server, but you can access the whois database at http://www.nic.aero/ Is .aero violating its registry agreement? If so, would the public have any recourse? --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, American University Washington College of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

1 0