July 2007 - APAC-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Re: [APAC-Discuss] APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 9
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

Since tickets have already been bought for Raj, meeting rooms engaged, etc if the region were to cancel the meeting at this point you should expect that the next time you wish to hold a meeting this cancellation will not help you get further approvals for ICANN funded meetings. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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 ----- Original message ----- From: "Kuo-Wei Wu" <kwu(a)wu-city.com> To: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au, apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 16:39:21 +0800 Subject: {Spam?} RE: [APAC-Discuss] APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 9 In such case, do we need Hong Kong meeting (physical) or just teleconference? Kuo Wu -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Cheryl Langdon-Orr Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 4:25 PM To: apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [APAC-Discuss] APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 9 If we wish to take advantage of this teleconference proposal as a meagre alternate to the free and open access for lobbying Q & A and politicking purposes that the LAC and NA RALO people had in San Juan with these candidates (and I'm not saying we should or should not) then I propose that the AP teleconference link up occurs during our HK meeting at a time when we all have made a commitment to undertake APRALO activities... The pressure to have these elections poste haste as opposed to the original timeline for a Sept election and AFTER the NomCom has announced its appointments to the Board (after all 2 of the 3 candidates have applied for Board voting positions via that method of entry) is NOT one I either understand or accept as valid. CLO -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of apac-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 2:00 AM To: apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 9 Send APAC-Discuss mailing list submissions to apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to apac-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at apac-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of APAC-Discuss digest..." _______________________________________________ APAC-Discuss mailing list APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 9
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr July 11, 2007

July 11, 2007

If we wish to take advantage of this teleconference proposal as a meagre alternate to the free and open access for lobbying Q & A and politicking purposes that the LAC and NA RALO people had in San Juan with these candidates (and I'm not saying we should or should not) then I propose that the AP teleconference link up occurs during our HK meeting at a time when we all have made a commitment to undertake APRALO activities... The pressure to have these elections poste haste as opposed to the original timeline for a Sept election and AFTER the NomCom has announced its appointments to the Board (after all 2 of the 3 candidates have applied for Board voting positions via that method of entry) is NOT one I either understand or accept as valid. CLO -----Original Message----- From: apac-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:apac-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of apac-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Sent: Wednesday, 11 July 2007 2:00 AM To: apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: APAC-Discuss Digest, Vol 8, Issue 9 Send APAC-Discuss mailing list submissions to apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss_atlarge-lists.i cann.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to apac-discuss-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org You can reach the person managing the list at apac-discuss-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of APAC-Discuss digest..."

1 0

Action items for APRALO - please read
by Rajnesh D. Singh July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Colleagues, There are 2 issues which require your urgent attention: (i) Do you wish to interview candidates (via teleconference) for the ICANN Board Liaison? If no one responds, then we will assume there is no need to. This is an important position IMO, so please consider if you want direct input in this process. (ii) HK Meeting July 25 - please advise Edmon if you intend to attend this meeting so that we know what sort of numbers we expect and the relevant logistics that will be needed. If you have indicated in the past, please re-confirm your attendance. -- Kind regards, Rajnesh D. Singh COO, PATARA www.patarapacific.com Chairman, Pacific Islands Chapter, Internet Society www.picisoc.org President, IPv6 Forum Pacific Islands www.ipv6forumpacific.org Director, Pacific Internet Technology Centre www.pacificit.org 310 Princes Road Tamavua Suva Fiji Tel: +679 332 0606 Fax: +679 332 0800 Read my ramblings at http://singh-a-blog.blogspot.com/

1 0

Board liaison report
by Vittorio Bertola July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

This is the Board liaison report for the ALAC call scheduled for today. I am sending it to the regional lists as well, for those of you who might not be subscribed to the global At Large list. ===== The Board met by teleconference on June 18. The two issues affecting the At Large discussed on the call were: 1.1) The Ombudsman report 06-317, on the Ynternet.org case. As reported to the ALAC members on June 19, the Board discussed the Ombudsman's recommendations, and found itself mostly in agreement with the ALAC's points of view. Especially, the Board does not seem to have any desire to enter into the substance of our deliberations in terms of ALS approval or rejection. The Board agreed to draft a formal reply to the Ombudsman in the following weeks (I still haven't seen it). 1.2) The GNSO Review Working Group (of which I am a member). The Board took notice of the release of a draft document being posted for subsequent discussion in San Juan. I already posted a detailed report and solicitation for comments on June 19, see here: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2007q… I am still awaiting any collective opinion by the Committee. Other issues discussed were: 1.3) ICANN changing bank; 1.4) information on a preliminary delegation request for .kp (North Korea); 1.5) ICANN's role in the IPv4->IPv6 transition (see below); 1.6) a request for information on the RAA amendment process, which was deferred to San Juan (see below). Full minutes for the call can be found here: http://www.icann.org/minutes/minutes-18jun07.htm The Board then met again during the San Juan meeting. The main issues affecting the At Large on the agenda were: 2.1) Establishment of the North American RALO. As the MoU had been successfully negotiated between North American ALSes and ICANN, the resolution was straightforward: to approve such MoU. It was actually passed by acclamation, this being also the moment when all RALOs are established and the ALAC becomes final and not interim any more. There were celebrating comments by Roberto Gaetano and by Vanda Scartezini. After a quick consultation by Skype chat with some North American people - some of which wanted to celebrate, while one wanted us to make a critical comment about the lack of actual power for users - I worked out a spoken statement on the fly, which was transcribed as follows: <<I think that the real comment is that apart from the fact that finally we are removing the "interim" qualification from the ALAC, so we are assuming our role, that this was really the result of a work that went on for several years. For many people. And even -- actually, it was not just a practical work. It was really a work of people getting to know each other and learning how to live together. In some cases, maybe having real disagreements, having strong fights, but also starting to build what in the end could be one of the most precious values for ICANN, which is an avenue for collecting real input from consumers, from general public, from users of the Internet of all kinds. And I think that now the challenge is for ICANN to understand how to make good use of that, not just to receive this kind of input, but to actually listen to it. Thank you.>> There is general satisfaction in the Board and in the staff for these achievements, and even some preliminary "pour parler" in terms of recognizing a somewhat more prominent role for the At Large in the ICANN map, once the ALAC review process is concluded and if the review is positive (2009?). 2.2) Protection of registrants This was my main working item in San Juan and in the preceding weeks. In Lisbon, we managed to get a resolution by the Board, committing the CEO to proposing a process for revising the RAA - the contract that establishes reciprocal responsibilities between ICANN and registrars, thus defining the way the domain registration market works for consumers - by San Juan, to strengthen protections to registrants. This was accompanied by several staff actions, for example the establishment of a system for escrowing the information about who registered which domain, in case of failure of a registrar; this was already required by contracts, but had never been implemented. Also, there were some discussions on which instruments could be used to enforce compliance with contracts by registrars; in the past, the only option was the "nuclear" option, ie deaccreditation, but some intermediate steps might help a lot. Finally, there have been discussions on what should ICANN's role be in case of a registry going bankrupt; should ICANN ensure continuity of failed TLDs, either temporarily or permanently? Should it have emergency systems to cope with technical failures by registries? Etc. (comments / statements on these points would be welcome). The main issue, however, was the revision of the RAA; registrars are extremely sensitive to any change in this contract, which basically defines their business, so that no change has been made since 2001; in any case, their relationship with ICANN implies that any change in the contract must be approved by them; in other words, they can veto any change. I have been asking several times, in the period between Lisbon and San Juan, about the status of this resolution; staff was having discussions with the registrars and the Board was told that all of this would have been up for debate in San Juan. The proposal was first presented by staff to the Board on Sunday; it envisaged a negotiation process between staff and registrars, with a subsequent public comment period. I was immediately vocal against the proposal, as it would practically have excluded us and the general public from having any serious input into the negotiation. My initial proposal, which had been already exposed in Lisbon, was to set up a small working group consisting of staff, registrars, us and other interested parties, to work out a consensus on which changes were necessary, and other possible actions (for example, changes in the accreditation process, education programs, staff activities etc.) The initial reaction to my objection wasn't very warm, as people were concerned about not alienating the opening that registrars had been making in accepting to revise the RAA in certain sections. In the workshop on Monday, the same proposal was presented, and I was again quite hard against it, clearly saying that it was unacceptable. This provoked irked reactions by some registrars from the floor. Transcript here: http://sanjuan2007.icann.org/files/sanjuan/SanJuan-ProtectionOfRegistrants-… In any case, when the first draft of the resolution came up for discussion for the Board (always on the same lines), I tried to gather consensus among Directors for changing it into something better for us. Thus, the next draft of the process required that staff would hold a consultation with us and with the general public, which would gather input on what should be improved, not just about the RAA but also about related policies and processes. This would be used as input for the negotiation between staff and registrars; the resulting draft RAA would then be subject to comment by us and by the public before consideration by the Board. The new text was introduced to the Board right on Friday morning, before the beginning of the Board meeting. I still was dissatisfied with the part of draft that required the negotiation to address "many of the concerns" raised by the public, as that could have been used to escape some key issues. So, right in the middle of the meeting, I drafted an amendment, got its form checked by ICANN legal staff by IM, then took the floor to ask for it, also thanks to a Board member (Peter Dengate Thrush) who shared the concern and formally moved my amendment. We got the amendment accepted and the amended resolution was unanimously passed, with much satisfaction. Now we still have to see how the resolution will be implemented; for the moment, there are no clear plans yet. The public attention devoted to the Registerfly case has been fundamental in making ICANN receptive to our positions on the matter, so we have to keep up the attention. In the ALAC meeting, I agreed to lead an At Large working group to draft our response to this consultation, and I again invite people to join. 2.3) IDNs In the weeks leading to San Juan, I had expressed concerns about the possible disconnect between the different parts of such a complex project, and the apparent lack of a comprehensive program plan. Several Board members agreed, and staff was asked to present a "state of the art" in San Juan. I will not enter into details (our IDN liaison already posted reports), but the Board decided to take the following actions: - It authorized the procedures to add experimental IDN TLDs in the root zone. These will be domains of the form ".test" in various scripts and languages, which will be used for tests only (no user registrations possible). Elaborate procedures have been created to allow for immediate interruption of the test, and removal of the entries, if anything bad happened; I can't imagine what could go wrong, but still, in theory, ICANN is legally not allowed to alter the root zone on the fly as it likes, so there was the need for policies to allow this for the test domains in case of an emergency. - It received the list of questions on the possible introduction of ccTLD-like IDNs, that was elaborated jointly by the ccNSO and the GAC. This is seen as a possible shortcut to meet the enormous pressure for some IDN TLDs to be added asap, while letting the full policy making process for new TLDs to proceed at normal speed. The Board asked for answers to these questions (in the first draft of the resolution it only asked to the ccNSO and the GAC, but I made sure that the ALAC was explicitly added as one of the respondents). I recommend that the ALAC initiates as soon as possible the work to prepare and approve such answers. - It encouraged further discussions on the few remaining technical issues, though it seems clear that it's not the technicalities that are slowing down the process. 2.4) Transition to IPv6 One Board member raised the issue - which is going to become quite hot - of the transition from IPv4 to IPv6, and specifically: a) how to encourage the transition, which still is not really happening; b) how to allocate the scarce remaining batches of IPv4 addresses. Current estimates are that IPv4 addresses will be exhausted around 2010 - very soon. Some parts of the world which traditionally obtained less IPv4 addresses are suggesting that they should be reserved some IPv4 blocks, so that the transition (and its costs) are first approached by the developed countries. It is in any case likely that a black market of IPv4 addresses will develop, with those companies and entities who got a lot in faraway times making plenty of money by reselling them. ICANN does not have a huge role in this, since policies for allocation are regional in nature; in any case, the Board wants staff to keep an eye over the situation and do what is possible to speed up the transition. 2.5) Reform of the GNSO The draft document was discussed in a workshop in San Juan. There seems to be agreement towards moving to consensus-based working groups, but much less agreement in reducing the political role of the Council, or in revising the number of constituencies. The NCUC has released some comments (which I forwarded to the WG after our meeting) and is asking for our position on this matter. For the moment, the Board does not have an opinion and is still waiting for the Working Group to examine the feedback provided in San Juan and finalize the report. The other issues discussed were: 2.6) Approval of the ICANN Budget. The new budget foresees a decrease in the ICANN fee paid by registrants from $0.22 per domain to $0.20, still without any plan to charge domain tasting registrations. The budget was approved by the Board, but it needs approval by 2/3 of the accredited registrars to become final. There's no doubt that it will be approved. 2.7) Consultation on transparency. We should keep an eye over this. We released statements on this matter in the past, and it would be worth at least to resubmit them. 2.8) Appointment of Kevin Wilson as new ICANN CFO (approved). 2.9) Renewal of the .coop registry agreement (approved). 2.10) Change in fees for the .tel registry (approved). The full transcript of the Board meeting can be found here: http://sanjuan2007.icann.org/files/sanjuan/SanJuan-ICANNBoardMtg-29June07.t… The text of the approved resolutions can be found here: http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-29jun07.htm Some other issues were discussed, outside of the agenda, during the private Board workshops or on the Board mailing list: 2.11) The fellowship program. It was implemented in San Juan for the first time, and I was asked to welcome the fellows; almost 40 people from various groups (ccTLDs, NGOs, governments) and several developing countries attended the meeting thanks to the program. I expressed our full support for this idea, which some Board members really championed; even if At Large members are excluded from the program (as we already have our travel programs), it is a good way to increase inclusiveness. 2.12) .TEL contract amendment. .TEL is asking for permission to limit the information displayed in their Whois service, to comply with applicable (UK) privacy laws. The IP and business constituencies, as in the broader Whois discussions, push for ICANN to force registrars and registries to ignore their laws, through a procedure called "reconciling Whois policies and national laws" (as if they were at the same level). I stressed that it's not in ICANN's power to change national laws, so any effort spent on anything but "do whatever your national law says" is basically a waste of registrants' money. Anyway, this is not on the Board agenda yet, pending advice/updates on the above policy. 2.13) The new gTLD process. Again, for the moment it is not on the Board agenda yet, but of course it's "the" issue for ICANN since it was created. There is an expectation to receive a final proposal from the GNSO as soon as possible. The ALAC should be prepared to have an opinion asap, drawing on the current drafts published by the GNSO. The next Board call, planned for July 17, will possibly be cancelled. The Board will meet again for a retreat in Los Angeles, on August 10-11. The agenda is still unknown, but it is likely to contain the issue of how to select the next ICANN Chair, how can ICANN work in the afterVint, and long term strategies and vision; other issues that might or might not come up are the new gTLD process, the IGF in Rio, the signing of the root zone, the status of the Joint Project Agreement with the US Government. I will post further information when I will have it. As usual, feel free to make questions or comments. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Meeting July 25th in Hong Kong
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 9, 2007

July 9, 2007

Dear All: Unfortunately, the cost of the ticket for me to come and join you in person is just too great. However, I will attend via the telephonic link for the meeting; it is not the same as being there and I do apologise. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 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

Re: [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] Independent At-Large Website
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 9, 2007

July 9, 2007

Any and all blogs from the community where the blogger is happy to have his blog referenced will be connected (of course the RALOS and ALAC could object to a blog being included if they wished to). The idea is that the dynamic display of all viewpoints would make the whole site more meaningful and thought-provoking. As to the ease of posting to icannalac.org easy - I didn't find it anything like as easy as posting to a Wiki, and the layers of approval also seemed to me counterintuitive and difficult. I believe some members of the community once commented in a similar vein. Since the community and members of the community do post to the wikis, and not to icannalac.org - which is referenced in each new ALS welcome letter as well as listed on all the wikis under links, and on the alac.icann.org site - I can only imagine that I wasn't the only one who found it difficult. see below for more. On 6 Jul 2007, at 17:55, Jean Armour Polly wrote: > Hi--who will choose the RSS /blogs to be carried on the site? For > example, icannalac reflects a variety of views, with links to > Danny Younger's and Karl Auerbach's blogs among others. If the ALAC > committee selects the blogs to be carried can ICANN in ANY WAY > refuse to carry the RSS content? > >> The design of the new site was deliberately based around the >> concept that the site for a constituency should reflect that >> constituency's views, and allow dynamic content development in a >> way that the current architecture does not. In fact, the process >> of posting content to the new site will in many ways be simpler >> than what is >> currently the case for icannalac.org. > > Gosh-- posting to icannalac is ridiculously simple--easier than > posting to a wiki. > But back to the new site -- in the old days of alac.icann.org I > recall your boss Denise told us that "not even a comma" could be > changed on the official ALAC site without going through ICANN > legal. So, I gather that this policy has changed? > There will be more on this subject in due course. > Nick, how do you see the workflow-- when if ever would ICANN legal > get involved with the new site? See above. I'm sorry I cannot say more at the present. > If they have NO involvement whatsoever with content, that would be > reassuring to the ALAC community. Perhaps you could get a written > statement from Jeffries (ICANN Counsel) to that effect and we'd be > done here. Otherwise it is troubling to think that ICANN legal > could always shut the site down and leave the community without a > home and without access to its documents and discussions. Seems > like the confusion could easily be cleared up with a statement from > Jeffries. > There is not now, nor has there ever been, the possibility that the GC would shut down an entire community website for any reason. If there were a legal objection to a given statement or document it would be simply done because the GC believed that it would lead to lawsuits against ICANN. There is no censoring of ideas in this policy, though I think it is widely known that there is less than complete admiration for the fact that such complete review of every posting is currently necessary. > Thanks > JP

1 0

Call for participation in the working group on registrant protection
by Vittorio Bertola July 7, 2007

July 7, 2007

Dear At-Large participants, the At-Large Advisory Committee is forming a working group about possible proposals to strengthen protections for registrants in generic top level domain names. Specifically, in its initial phase, the working group will draft the At Large's response to the consultation that ICANN will hold in the next weeks, discussing the following issues: 1. Possible changes in the Registrar Accreditation Agreement - the contract that establishes the relationships and reciprocal duties between ICANN and registrars, and consequently registrants; 2. Possible improvements to other existing policies of ICANN that affect registrants directly, such as, for example, the policies on transfering domain names to another registrar; 3. Possible improvements in the process for the accreditation of registrars by ICANN; 4. Possible operational projects by ICANN, for example in terms of education and information of registrants, processes for receiving and dealing with registrant complaints, instruments to enforce contractual compliance. The work will happen online. To participate, please subscribe to the "RAA-WG" mailing list, by using the form at: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… Further information and archives of the list will be found there. Please feel free to share this call with any person or group that might be interested in contributing to this discussion from the point of view of the average registrant of domain names. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] Independent At-Large Website
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 6, 2007

July 6, 2007

Eduardo: There are currently two main sites: www.icannalac.org - a basically dormant site which was meant to be maintained by the ALAC as their independent voice. After Jean left it basically has been left without being updated; when she was a member of the committee she was the only one who maintained or added information to it. www.alac.icann.org - the 'official' ALAC site, which was very stale (I've started a series of updates designed to carry us through until the new community site is finished There are then the regional sites, which point to the wikis of each region. The new site is going to be: www.atlarge.icann.org This is meant to bring together the ALAC site (official one), plus the features and content of the wikis (providing regions dynamic homesites), plus many of the other features, including those from www.icannalac.org - but far in excess of the feature set that icannnalac.org has. On 6 Jul 2007, at 15:03, Eduardo Diaz wrote: > All: > > No I am confused. I read what Nick wrote about the new AlAC web > site (in a > previous mail) and after reading this I am not sure what is what. > Are we > talking about two different sites - one filtered by ICANN lawyers > and one > that is not? > > Help! > > Eduardo > ISOCPR > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nick Ashton-Hart [mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org] > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2007 9:02 AM > To: Annette Muehlberg > Cc: Africa Discuss; At-Large Worldwide; Asia-Pacific Discuss; Europe > Discuss; LAC Discuss; NA Discuss; ediaz(a)prtc.net > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Independent At-Large Website > > Annette, I should be remiss if I didn't point out that there are a > few errors in your statement below - perhaps you've forgotten, but I > informed the ALAC quite a while ago that a new website to replace > alac.icann.org was being built; my staff report for May provided > further details of what that site would provide, and of course in the > last few days I have provided additional information. This is long > before Eduardo's kind offer to act as webmaster for icannalac.org. > > Also, I told the ALAC the issue with legal review of contents posted > by anyone paid by ICANN as long ago as last December - long before > the project funding request was put through for Jean to be paid to > update icannalac.org. > > Of course if the ALAC wants to maintain the website which was paid > for by ICANN so that the ALAC has an independent voice, that would be > great! As far as I can see, these are not competitive efforts, but > rather complimentary efforts. > > On 6 Jul 2007, at 13:38, Annette Muehlberg wrote: > >> All, >> >> a discussion has been started on the NARALO list on how to continue >> to run our independent ALAC/RALO website after our voluntary >> website manager Jean had to leave the ALAC december last year. The >> ALAC thought we could hire someone (her) to help to feed in texts >> by ALAC/RALO members on our website but after handing in our >> project form we were finally told that in this case our website >> would loose its independent status and any text would have to be >> controlled by ICANN lawyers. >> >> So, I am very happy that Eduardo from Puerto Rico just volunteered >> for running our independent ALAC/RALO website! >> After he volunteered we now receive the information a "new website >> is being built". >> >> The ALAC made a strong effort to create its own independent website >> and I think, we should work together and discuss the best >> structuring of the website and related work together on the At- >> Large list, so that we will have the full power and creativity of >> all regions included! >> >> best greetings to all of you >> >> Annette >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- >> lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org >> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

1 0

Re: [APAC-Discuss] [At-Large] Independent At-Large Website
by Annette Muehlberg July 6, 2007

July 6, 2007

Complementary sounds good. But we have to keep our working structures efficient and this is why we should discuss how to best run our website and make sure we have not to do similar work on different spots. And we have to have the possibility to post what we think needs to be posted/published right away. The only possibility to do so is on an independent website. We already discussed, that the ICANN website should contain all the standard information on ALAC/RALO members, ALS accreditation procedure etc. Now, that all RALOs are in place we should work on a very efficient working structure including the need of regional focused work as well as the united work on certain issues on a global level. Best Annette

2 1

Independent At-Large Website
by Annette Muehlberg July 6, 2007

July 6, 2007

All, a discussion has been started on the NARALO list on how to continue to run our independent ALAC/RALO website after our voluntary website manager Jean had to leave the ALAC december last year. The ALAC thought we could hire someone (her) to help to feed in texts by ALAC/RALO members on our website but after handing in our project form we were finally told that in this case our website would loose its independent status and any text would have to be controlled by ICANN lawyers. So, I am very happy that Eduardo from Puerto Rico just volunteered for running our independent ALAC/RALO website! After he volunteered we now receive the information a "new website is being built". The ALAC made a strong effort to create its own independent website and I think, we should work together and discuss the best structuring of the website and related work together on the At-Large list, so that we will have the full power and creativity of all regions included! best greetings to all of you Annette

2 1