- ALAC - lists.icann.org

Re: [ALAC] Result of Voting for ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN, 2008-2009
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Thank you for your continued confidence in me. I look forward to working with you to serve the ALAC and At-Large public in the coming year. --Wendy At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear Community: > > With 14 out of 15 ALAC Members having voted in the balloting to appoint the > ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN, we can confirm that the > vote is quorate. > > The results are as follows: > > Question: Who shall serve as ALAC Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN > for the > 2008-2009 period? > > As at poll close: Thu 02 Oct 2008 23:59 UTC > Number of voters: 14 · Group size: 15 · Percentage voted: 93.33 > Ranked by votes > > Rank Candidate Votes % > 1 Wendy Seltzer 9 64.29 > 2 Beau Brendler 5 35.71 > 3 Abstain 0 0.00 > > We can therefore declare that the incumbent, Wendy Seltzer, shall be > returned as the Liaison with a term from the end of the ICANN AGM in 2008 > (the Cairo meeting) until the close of the AGM in 2009. The Secretary of the > Board of ICANN, John Jeffrey Esq., has been copied on this message. -- 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

New gTLD Update
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 3, 2008

Oct. 3, 2008

Additional information related to the use of geographic names in new GTLDs (further to my GNSO report included in our upcoming ALAC meeting agenda) Alan >Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:06:55 -0700 >From: Kurt Pritz <kurt.pritz(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Council meeting: New gTLD Update >To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >Council Members: > >Thank you for the opportunity on last week's Council call to provide >information regarding the current state of implementation planning >for the GNSO's new gTLD policy recommendations. I thought I would >take few minutes of your time to reiterate some of the points made >during our discussion and indicate possible paths for Council and >community discussion. > >As you may recall, one of the items described during the Council >call was a recent discussion with the GAC to obtain a better >understanding of the issues raised in their policy advice to the >ICANN Board: "GAC Principles Regarding New gTLDs." In that meeting >(and earlier ones in Delhi and Paris), GAC members provided some >detail as to the expectations of >governments and the possible protections to be afforded to >geographical names in the new gTLD application and evaluation process. > >As a result of those consultations, ICANN will post two documents. >The first will be a letter from Paul Twomey to GAC Chair Janis >Karklins that: (1) repeats back the meeting discussion points in >order to ensure understanding; (2) provides a potential model for >going ahead with some of the protections the government >representatives are requesting; and (3) describes areas where >requested protections would be problematic to implement or enforce. >The second document, for public comment, review and modification, >is the upcoming draft of the new gTLD "RFP" - the guidebook that >will be provided to potential applicants. The RFP will also describe >some of those potential protections. > >Those documents are being presented for public discussion and do not >represent a final implementation model. > >The documents are intended to highlight discrepancies between the >report of the GNSO Reserved Names working group and the GAC advice >to the Board by describing potential implementation details. I.e., >creating potential operational processes brings to light more >clearly issues for implementation discussion. They will inform a >discussion in Cairo where there will be opportunity for additional >consultations with the GAC and the GNSO. > >The draft RFP will be posted and discussed in Cairo, and will be >modified through public dialogue. It is planned that the draft RFP >will be revised and posted again before a final version is posted >for ICANN Board approval. The Board will be informed by this >upcoming dialogue as it considers the final implementation model of >the completed and approved GNSO policy recommendation for approval. > >Sorry this took so long to describe (I thought the note would be >shorter.) I hope the intent and meaning are clear. Denise or I would >be happy to answer any questions you might have. > >Thanks for your time & regards, > >Kurt > > >Kurt Pritz

1 0

FW: New Consumer Reports WebWatch original song/animation on phishing and fraud
by At-Large Staff Oct. 2, 2008

Oct. 2, 2008

Dear Members: We thought you might be interested in some of the activities of the ALS Consumer Reports WebWatch, of which your colleague Beau Brendler is the Director. ------ Forwarded Message > From: Beau Brendler <brenbe(a)consumer.org> > Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2008 12:25:52 -0700 > To: <multiple recipients> > Subject: New Consumer Reports WebWatch original song/animation on phishing and > fraud > > Greetings, all. Pardon the mass e-mail but I wanted to share with you a new > original song and video Consumer Reports WebWatch produced and is launching > today to help educate consumers about phishing and other Internet scams. We > produced it as part of a grant from the New York State Office of Attorney > General. I'm sending it because at one time or another you've expressed > interest in the subject matter and/or have an interest in trying to reach out > to consumers on difficult topics. This animation wasn't that difficult to do > (e-mail me if you want details). The original song was written for us in > collaboration with Dean Friedman, described in the USA as "a one-hit wonder, > following his 1977 hit song 'Ariel,' which reached #26 on the Billboard > national pop charts (the only Billboard charted song in history to mention the > word Paramus)," from Dean's Wikipedia bio. The animation was done by > Powerhouse Animation Studios of Austin, Texas, which has worked on several > other viral videos Consumers Union has produced the last couple of years. > > Take a look here: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UddjreNhMEA > > Some of our current work on online fraud issues is here, including fact sheets > in English and Spanish: > www.consumerwebwatch.org > > And with Consumer Reports Magazine, we're launching this online security guide > today: > www.consumerreports.org/security > > More about Powerhouse here: > (http://www.powerhouseanimation.com/!clients.html) > > Hope you enjoy "Gone Phishin'" > > Best, > > Beau Brendler > > ** > 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. > ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

GNSO Report
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 2, 2008

Oct. 2, 2008

My GNSO report has been posted to the October 14th meeting agenda (https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?14_october_2008) I specifically call you attention to the section on the RAA and Travel Funding. Alan (Although I rarely get such things done well ahead of time, but I will likely be traveling that week, and if it didn't get done now, it wouldn't have been done at all.)

1 0

Re: [ALAC] Voting to accept an ALS
by vanda Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

I strongly agree with a direct and non confusing question in EVERY poll as well as with a cleaner & clearer design in the ballot. Regards Vanda via webmail > The Bigpulse page for an ALAS vote currently looks like this: > > 1. Should the regional advise from NARALO for applicant (114) > Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities (FBSC) be rejected? > The regional advise was to accept the application. > Voting "No" means that you would like to accept this application. > > __ No 100% > __ Yes No votes > > (with the 100% and "No votes" in a smaller, non-bold font) > > I understand how we got here, but I have a very strong feeling that > voting NO to accept an ALAS (that is, voting No to "not reject") is > both counter intuitive and bad grammar! > > Can we please schedule a SHORT discussion in Cairo to decide if I am > in a minority, or if we should reverse the wording. That is, to vote > on deciding to admit or not, with the regional advice CLEARLY being > shown at the top of the poll. > > Voting on whether to ACCEPT the regional advice would be a LITTLE > clearer, but I still prefer voting on whether to accept the ALS. > > Alan > > PS I also find the sequence of Yes No on the second line less then > clear. As stated before, I would prefer to not see the voting summary > in this screen, but to be able to, at the click of a button, to see > who voted and how. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

3 2

REVISED: Re: Fast flux update
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

I neglected to put in a pointer to Avri's full plan - http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-ff-pdp-may08/msg00662.html. Alan At 01/10/2008 12:31 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote: >Probably no action necessary at this point. See today's posts by >Avri Doria and Mike Rodenbaugh on the GNSO Council list - >http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/. > >Alan > >At 29/09/2008 07:07 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >>Oh dear this is disappointing... Beau we will ensure this matter of an >>ALAC letter going out is on this month Agenda... >> >>Can the RALO Reps ensure that the 'back-up' support / opinions of their >>constituent ALS's are sort on this please as it will be FAR more powerful if >>we can say and this, this and this ALS have stated their Memberships >>agreement to this as well... >> >>CLO (who is about to forward this message to her own ALS and the APRALO >>Chair/list {subtle *hint* here for others} ;-) >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Brendler, Beau >>Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2008 1:50 AM >>To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NA Discuss >>Subject: [ALAC] Fast flux update >> >> >>Brief update: It appears this WG has stalled for the foreseeable future. The >>chairman, Mike O'Connor, has resigned. Avri Doria sent a message this >>morning telling the participants to await next steps, but the WG had pretty >>much stalled in process already. >> >> >>Bureaucratic processes are not my strong suit, but should the ALAC create a >>short statement of advisory that we believe this is an important issue, >>provide some framework and definition, and encourage the GNSO to >>re-constitute the group? >> >>Beau >> >>** >>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. >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >> >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >>At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >>ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Voting to accept an ALS
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

The Bigpulse page for an ALAS vote currently looks like this: 1. Should the regional advise from NARALO for applicant (114) Foundation for Building Sustainable Communities (FBSC) be rejected? The regional advise was to accept the application. Voting "No" means that you would like to accept this application. __ No 100% __ Yes No votes (with the 100% and "No votes" in a smaller, non-bold font) I understand how we got here, but I have a very strong feeling that voting NO to accept an ALAS (that is, voting No to "not reject") is both counter intuitive and bad grammar! Can we please schedule a SHORT discussion in Cairo to decide if I am in a minority, or if we should reverse the wording. That is, to vote on deciding to admit or not, with the regional advice CLEARLY being shown at the top of the poll. Voting on whether to ACCEPT the regional advice would be a LITTLE clearer, but I still prefer voting on whether to accept the ALS. Alan PS I also find the sequence of Yes No on the second line less then clear. As stated before, I would prefer to not see the voting summary in this screen, but to be able to, at the click of a button, to see who voted and how.

1 0

Fast flux update
by Brendler, Beau Oct. 1, 2008

Oct. 1, 2008

Brief update: It appears this WG has stalled for the foreseeable future. The chairman, Mike O'Connor, has resigned. Avri Doria sent a message this morning telling the participants to await next steps, but the WG had pretty much stalled in process already. Bureaucratic processes are not my strong suit, but should the ALAC create a short statement of advisory that we believe this is an important issue, provide some framework and definition, and encourage the GNSO to re-constitute the group? Beau ** 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.

6 5

ALAC Voting Results - Vote on ALAC Overview Report
by At-Large Staff Sept. 28, 2008

Sept. 28, 2008

Dear Members: Please be advised that the vote recently closed on the question: Do you believe that the Overview Report on the ALAC Review accurately reflects the various opinions held within At-Large on the ALAC Review Final Report? Has resulted in a non-quorate result - a vote of 7-0 in favour. At least 8 votes must be cast for a vote to produce a result. The results may be independently verified at: https://www.bigpulse.com/pollresults?code=kbVvjKr9pu6kX6I5WHe4. The overview report itself may be viewed electronically at https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac-docs/attachments/alac_read_only_do cument_store:20080916064015-0-10475/files/AL-ALAC-OVR-0908-1%20ALAC%20Overvi ew%20Report%20on%20ALAC%20Review%20-%20EN.pdf. The Chair will announce in due course the next steps with respect to voting on this document. When announcing the results of voting, we have been requested by the Chair to provide a listing of those who have not voted. Accordingly, we can confirm that the following ALAC members did not participate in the balloting: 1 Izumi Aizu 2 Annette Muehlberg 3 Carlos Aguirre 4 Jose Ovidio Salgueiro 5 Hawa Diakite 6 Thu Hue Nguyen 7 Vanda Scartezini 8 Fatimata Seye Sylla -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org .

3 2

Fwd: Re: [At-Large] Language Issues
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 27, 2008

Sept. 27, 2008

For those who are on the At-Large list and read it, forgive my cross-posting this. But last time I checked, some people on the ALAC list were not on the global list. I am posting this here because I would like to serve notice that I think we need to have a face-to-face discussion about what the performance rules and processes SHOULD be. I will volunteer (if people choose) to try to write them up for incorporation into our rules after that. But I think we need to talk about it first. Alan >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Language Issues > >At 27/09/2008 12:04 PM, Danny Younger wrote: >>re: "we introduced rules that allow the ALAC to get rid of people >>who cannot participate; there is really no excuse for not applying them." >> >>Vittorio, >> >>The Chair is aware of the rules but has decided not to apply the >>rules. That's why we are in this mess. > >We did put in place some formal rules for assessing performance. In >my opinion, the rules were ill-advised in that they set very >specific quantitative levels of performance - some of which were >reasonable, and some were not. They have the merit of being >completely objective and not at all subjective. In my mind, that was >a mistake. > >Attendance IS important, but saying that a person attended all >meetings, and even submitted formal reports in all possible cases, >says NOTHING about how that person is contributing or passing >information in both directions. Someone who attends but does not >participate, and who files reports that have little content, is not >really a person who we want to cherish. > >We do need to be able to take action in cases of non-performance, >but those processes need to be far more subjective, and the actions >need to have levels of action between "You are meeting all >requirements" and "We are removing you". Removing someone, or even >counselling them that there performance is below par, is a serios >thing, and if the ALAC is going to do it, they need to duly consider >such action and not have it triggered purely by a spreadsheet. > >I will be so bold as to use myself as an example. My attendance at >meetings has been pretty good. If I had missed one ALS vote I would >have been substandard (there were only 2 and our "required standard" >is 75%). I have done an enormous amount of work on behalf of the >ALAC and in my capacity as GNSO Liaison, and I have pretty >diligently presented ALAC positions (where there were any) to the >GNSO, and presented topical GNSO issues to ALAC and At-Large. But I >have been less than diligent in filing formal reports for ALAC >teleconferences. Should I improves that? Certainly, and in fact I >changed how I was presenting info last month. Others can judge >whether my case needs attention or not, but I use it as an example >(without pointing fingers at anyone else) that we need to judge >performance on a more global sense than red-shaded cells in an Excel file. > >Alan

2 1