Happy to help out. Regardless of what happens tomorrow I believe ALAC at minimum needs to push for a full accounting of what happened here, emergency process issues and whatever potential issues may be at stake regards the stability of the Internet. The public perception is that this flagship TAS has been on ice now several days, just after extensive reporting about the new gTLD process in the mainstream press. No matter how you look at it, from the outside this is a public relations disaster -- it would be less so, perhaps, if the organization involved was not mandated with Internet stability, safety and security. "We're working on it, we'll get back to you" might be an acceptable response for a corporate IT department, but not for the IT department of the Internet. -----Original Message----- From: JJS Sent: Apr 19, 2012 3:03 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: Beau Brendler , alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC] Where is ALAC on the TAS problem? I agree with Carlton that we can/should wait until the next (hopefully conclusive) statement by the COO. That being said, Beau makes several good points: - this does seem to have the potential of impacting the user community, but also of harming user trust in ICANN; - we require a thorough account of what went wrong, in order to understand whether the design was faulty, or the implementation; - and yes, within ALAC and At-Large we should be mindful of the context in which this incident is taking place: NTIA sending ICANN back to the drawing board to better claim the IANA contract, a period of expectation before the nomination of the next CEO, an overall sense of uncertainty regarding the capability to receive numerous applications for new gTLDs and to process them correctly. So, if ICANN's report in the next few days does not properly address the TAS problems, I think the ALAC should be prepared to voice its concern and offer recommendations where necessary. In light of this, may I suggest that Beau, Carlton and a handful of volunteers if required, make a note of what an ALAC statement would have to include, in terse prose? As to the most efficient delivery, I would suggest a letter from the ALAC Chair to the Chair of the Board (we did this a few months ago, and it did have an impact), which could also be posted on a couple of influential sites. Best regards, Jean-Jacques. Le 19 avril 2012 07:16, Carlton Samuels <[1]carlton.samuels@gmail.com> a écrit : Beau: Yes, I do agree that there is a PI angle here. And the ALAC has a duty of care. I have been following the updates from both thru my 'watcher' on the Announcements page as well as the Skype chat. Those of us with some technical skills do indeed have worries; Dev, for one, has privately shared a few, in fact in line with some of the questions you raised. I've run a few operating support systems for a living so I confess some sympathy here. In my view, Akram's statement should give us pause; we now have a proximate cause, a better understanding of the risk profile but less than useful hard facts on impact or origination/initiation. So, let's keep our powder dry and wait till we see what they come with in the promised 'details' on Friday. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 1:34 PM, Beau Brendler <[2]beaubrendler@earthlink.net>wrote:
Greetings, colleagues.
Some discussions are taking place on the NCSG list about the TAS problem and the way ICANN is handling it. I do not see similar discussions taking place among the at-large. Pardon me if I have missed them. Indeed, I believe some have raised the issue in the skype chat of the TAS SNAFU (or, as my English relatives would call it, monumental cock-up), but with the opinion that end-users are not affected, so it's not worth worrying about.
In my opinion the situation has become worse, to the degree I beg to differ -- the public interest is indeed affected. Note the most current communique from ICANN staff April 17: --------------------------------------------------- TAS Interruption - Update (17 April 2012) Statement by Akram Atallah, COO 17 April 2012 ICANN's review of the technical glitch that resulted in the TLD application system being taken offline indicates that the issue stems from a problem in the way the system handled interrupted deletions of file attachments. This resulted in some applicants being able to see some other applicants' file names and user names. As reported yesterday, we are seeking confirmation that the solution we have implemented for this issue is effective. We are also conducting research to determine which applicants' file names and user names were potentially viewable, as well as which applicants had the ability to see them. Many organizations are seeking information on whether we will proceed with the planned publication of applied-for domain names on 30 April. We will update the target date for publication as part of our update on the timing of the reopening, no later than Friday, 20 April at 23.59 UTC. --------------------------------------------------------------- Note that ICANN was aware of this "glitch" almost a month previously, but apparently took no action. In my opinion (and others), this situation is going to escalate. Certainly it is in the public interest, even beyond the obvious issue that there may be problems with applications from would-be public-interest gTLD sponsors.
* Is it not within the public interest to demand a full accounting of what went wrong with an integral system, indeed, the first "system," to be publicly rolled out in the "mechanical" application process for new gTLDs?
* Was the TAS hacked? Coded incorrectly? Who performed the work? Who reviewed it? Can ICANN as an organization address the credibility problem created by this? How can the public expect that the safety, stability and security of the Internet will be safeguarded by ICANN, if at the first phase of the process the organization cannot field a working system for gTLD applications?
* Is ICANN aware, regardless of the bureaucratic or technical processes involved, that together with the temporary loss of the IANA contract, the back-and-forth of the IOC/RC process, and now the TAS problem, an observer may conclude that the organization can't fulfill its mandate?
What should the ALAC do (in my opinion)?
* Call for a full, independent review of the TAS process from soup to nuts. Why was the technical problem not acted upon sooner? What emergency response protocols are in place? Any? * Offer to coordinate candidate selection for such a review, to help ensure the same people who made the mistakes are not reviewing their own work. * Determine what organizational problems within ICANN led to this failure. * Undertake an analysis of those problems to address whether such incompetence could spill over into the actual process of bringing new gTLDs online, vis-a-vis the stability, safety and security of the Internet. Make that analysis comprehensive and, most important, public. * Undertake a review to determine if ICANN does, in fact, have the technical and organizational capabilities to actually execute its mission, and if not, fess up and hire some people who know what they are doing.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [3]ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [4]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: [5]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
[6]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+( ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list [7]ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org [8]https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac At-Large Online: [9]http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: [10]https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+ (ALAC) References 1. mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com 2. mailto:beaubrendler@earthlink.net 3. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 4. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 5. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 6. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...) 7. mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org 8. https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac 9. http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ 10. https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)