- APAC-Discuss - lists.icann.org

Remote Participation in the At-Large Lisbon meetings (and the main ICANN Sessions too)!
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 24, 2007

March 24, 2007

Evening At-Large worldwide! I wanted to make sure everyone knows that those of you who are not attending Lisbon directly, but who would like to listen in / participate especially in the At-Large Tuesday and Thursday policy discussions are encouraged to do so! Teleconference access has been arranged for all these meetings. If a local free access number does not exist, and you would like to attend, please send an email to staff(a)alac.icann.org with: Your name Meeting you wish to attend Time you want to be called (and your timezone) 2 numbers which will work for you (1 is the alternate in case there's a problem with the first one). Note that the schedules, and documents, can all be reached off of: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_icann_meeting Remote participation details can be found on each meeting page. For the main ICANN Meeting, many sessions will be webcast - in particular the public forums and workshops - and the new Public Participation website is also trying out a number of new ways for remote participation to be richer and more robust - including lots of 2-way interfaces between the site and the meetings themselves, allowing you to contribute directly via the internet in the discussions, ask questions, make comments. The link to the main Lisbon meeting is: http://www.icann.org/meetings/ lisbon The new public participation site can be found at: http:// public.icann.org/ -- 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

2 1

Lisbon Documents - in French, English, Spanish, and Brazilian Portuguese!
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 22, 2007

March 22, 2007

Dear All: The consolidated documents page for Lisbon - including now also links to URLs with further information - has been updated and the translations of these documents are in the process of being posted - so look overnight and tomorrow for documents in French, Spanish, and Brazilian Portuguese for many documents. That URL again is: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents -- 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

Fwd: [At-Large] Public Forum on GNSO Improvements, Monday 16:00 Lisbon
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Dear All: I thought this note from Denise might be of interest. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Denise Michel <denise.michel(a)icann.org> Date: 21-Mar-2007 22:13 Subject: [At-Large] Public Forum on GNSO Improvements, Monday 16:00 Lisbon To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear At-Large Advisory Committee members and At-Large community members: Your participation in the 'Public Forum on GNSO Improvements' scheduled for Monday, 26 March, 16:00 - 18:00, in Lisbon is encouraged. <http://icann.org/meetings/lisbon/agenda-public2-26mar07.htm> The Board Governance Committee (BGC) is hosting this forum to encourage additional public input and discussion on the LSE review and improvements to the GNSO's structures and processes. While input on all elements of the GNSO and the LSE review report are open for comment at the forum, the Committee is particularly interested in hearing your views on the GNSO review recommendations listed below. (Note that questions raised about the recommendations listed below are included to prompt thought and discussion, and are not intended to represent the views of the BGC or its members). *Individuals and stakeholder groups are encouraged to submit views on these and other recommendations in advance of the forum to <gnso-improvements(a)icann.org>. Authors of emailed input will be given an opportunity to present their views prior to opening the forum to comments from the floor.* o Structural Changes to GNSO Constituencies -- LSE recommendation 19. Simplify the GNSO constituency structure in order to respond to rapid changes in the Internet, including by substituting 3 larger constituency groups representing Registration interests, Business, and Civil Society; LSE recommendation 18. Create a category of 'Associate Stakeholder' to establish a pool of available external expertise. - Which entities and individuals should participate in the GNSO process, and what will motivate them to want to join? The six current groups are the natural point to begin discussion. Do they represent the right groups? Are they over or under inclusive? The Bylaws acknowledge that the optimal groupings may be different than the ones that now exist, and that there is no "magic number." The LSE points out several problems with the current structure and suggests the substitution of three larger constituencies — is this the right answer? - Is it feasible to create a roster of readily available experts who can assist with task forces and other aspects of the PDP? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? o Changes to the Policy Development Process -- LSE recommendation 17. Make greater use of task forces [in policy development processes]; LSE recommendation 23. Revise and move PDP operational provisions from Bylaws to more flexible GNSO 'Rules of Procedures.' - Could greater use of task forces, particularly proposals to attract more expertise and geographical diversity, help the policy development process? Would limiting the number of Councilors on any task force enable the Council to focus more on the task of managing PDPs, rather than the substantive aspects of formulating specific policies? Would this change increase the number of people willing to serve on the Council? - There seems to be widespread agreement that the Bylaws are overly prescriptive, and the prescribed PDP steps and timelines have not captured the requirements of a policy development process. Should the PDP principles be preserved in the Bylaws while placing more procedural elements in GNSO 'rules of procedure'? Do you have specific suggestions for how the PDP should be revised? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? o Changes to Voting and Representation -- LSE recommendation 21. Increase the threshold for establishing consensus to 75% and abolish weighted voting; LSE recommendation 20. Make the Council smaller (16 members suggested). - How would raising the consensus threshold and abolishing weighted voting advance the role of the GNSO? The Bylaws task the GNSO with both "developing and recommending" gTLD policies to the Board. - Weighted voting, in particular, was instituted as part of ICANN's Evolution and Reform Process to address the different effect policies have on contracted versus non-contracted constituencies. Has this approach contributed to, or hampered, effective policy development? - What other questions and approaches should the BGC explore regarding these two LSE recommendations? (Please share this announcement with community members and other interested parties.) Regards, Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN denise.michel(a)icann.org _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

ICANN Announcement: Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must Be Reviewed
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

The announcement below should be of interest in the context of the resolution being discussed by the community. The link to this item is at http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-21mar07.htm. The list of questions may incorporate some questions which would be worthy of cross-incorporation into the resolution of the community - just a thought. --- Registrar Accreditation Policy and Process Must be Reviewed 21 March 2007 President and CEO of ICANN, Dr Paul Twomey today called for major review of ICANN’s Registrar Accreditation Agreements (RAA) and the Accreditation process. “What has happened to registrants with RegisterFly.com has made it clear there must be comprehensive review of the registrar accreditation process and the content of the RAA” he said. “This is going to be a key debate at our Lisbon meeting scheduled for 26 - 30 March 2007. There must be clear decisions made on changes. As a community we cannot put this off.” “ICANN introduced competition to the domain name market in 1998. Back then there was one registrar. There are now over 865. That’s a good thing because it has made domain names cheaper and offered more choice. But the RAA was designed and signed when the domain name market was much smaller. The market now supports about 70 million generic TLD names and is growing.” Dr Twomey said. “Registrants suffer most from weaknesses in the RAA and I want to make sure that ICANN’s accreditation process and our agreement gives us the ability to respond more strongly and flexibly in the future” he said. “What is presently happening with RegisterFly makes it clear that there are also some problems with proxy registrations. Specifically, proxy registrations are available as a choice, but people who have them have great difficulties getting access to their data and having their domain name transferred where a registrar is uncooperative or has other problems with transfer. ICANN has had difficulty accessing this data too,” Dr Twomey said. “We need to expedite data escrow. There has been a long and detailed discussion and much interaction between ICANN staff and registrars on this issue. But we need to reach a conclusion. Recent events and the Lisbon meeting present that opportunity. There are resource implications and useage rules that need to be discussed among the ICANN community. I look forward to the continuing efforts and collaboration of registrars with ICANN in that regard ” he said. “Registrants clearly want ICANN to have more capacity to access data on their behalf if there are significant problems with their registrar. There is a need for better enforcement mechanisms and an ability for ICANN to intervene more quickly if a registrar fails or is engaged in damaging business practice” he added. “There’s also no way that registrants can measure the performance of registrars in any independent comparative way. That should be encouraged” Dr Twomey said. “The vast majority of ICANN’s accredited registrars offer high levels of service and integrity. But as we have seen, there is the risk that poorly performing registrars can hurt registrants very significantly. If the domain name industry wants to remain community self – regulating as it has been until now we need to put in place further sensible and practical measures to protect registrants” he noted. Dr Twomey said he would like to see the following issues included in any discussion: Purpose of Register Accreditation Policy and Agreement What is the primary purpose of the Registration Accreditation Agreement? Is it a compliance tool? If so how can it be strengthened to protect registrants? Rating of Registrars How should ICANN and/or the registrar constituency encourage a system that rates registrars according to customer service and performance and should this be available to registrants? Affiliated Registrars / Group ownership Affiliated registrars have common ownership or control. What is the best mechanism for ICANN to hold affiliated registrars accountable for an affiliate’s actions? Additional compliance enforcement tools Stronger compliance tools need to be included in any reform to the RAA. What are those tools? Do they encompass liquidated damages? Should registrars be able to be suspended more readily? Are there other options? What are the mechanisms that allow such options to be enforced quickly? Transfer policy What elements of the transfer policy need to be reformed? Should registrants have an alternative to their current registrar for the issuing of authcodes and the unlocking of them? Should ICANN or another entity be able to do this? Registrar operator skill testing How is it possible to assess registrar skills and to train registrars to a common standard of performance upon which registrants can rely? Accreditation by purchase It is possible for companies to ‘avoid’ accreditation application process by buying a registrar. How can abuse of this loophole be stopped? Proxy registrations There needs to be an examination of proxy registrations in light of difficulties faced in registrar data recovery. What is the balance between privacy and disclosure? Reseller liability under RAA What tools are needed to ensure better accountability by resellers to registrants? Registrar data escrow What data needs to be escrowed? If implementation needs to move faster, greater resource allocation is required. What level of resourcing is necessary? Clarification of ICANN's responsibilities and the options available to registrants ICANN recently posted a guide for registrants on its website but additional consumer options (outside ICANN) should be identified for and provided to registrants. Is there a need for a new entity to assist customers and intervene on behalf of their concerns? “All ICANN stakeholders need to be involved in this debate. But in particular I would like to see registrars and registrants actively engaged in the discussion,” Dr Twomey said. “It is in their interests to make sure that poor practice is driven from the process and that the protection of registrants is increased.”

1 0

Teleconference Minutes, 15th March Meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 21, 2007

March 21, 2007

Dear all: The draft minutes of the call are now accessible on the wiki - if you could check them over to ensure that they meet with your recollection that would be most helpful. There are a couple of question marks where your help would be appreciated. That URL again is: https://st.icann.org/asiapac/index.cgi?15_march_2007 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Have a great Lisbon Meeting!
by Annette Muehlberg March 19, 2007

March 19, 2007

Dear All, I would like to congratulate those regions who made large steps forward to strengthen the bottom-up structure of ICANN and get individual end-users involved in its decision making processes. I am looking forward to the inauguration of new Regional At-Large Organisations! We all know, this is only the first step and the real hard work just starts as we do not want to create bureaucratic monsters but vivid organisations with a lot of inputs by and in the interest of individual internet users. There is a lot to do and it is great that so many people came together to dedicate their time for this work. Unfortunately I will not be able to take part in the Lisbon meeting and asked the ALAC to elect someone else from our team to carry the responsibilities of ALAC Chair. I hope I have been of help to you and would like to thank you all for your trust, support, and great cooperation. I wish you all the best for this exciting ICANN Meeting in Lisbon. I will try and join you virtually. See you in June in Puerto Rico Annette

2 1

Fwd: ALAC Chair Resigns from Chair Position for Health Reasons
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear All: I have the unfortunate duty to forward the news below - which some of you may have already seen - from the Chair of the At-Large Advisory Committee. May I say personally - and I'm sure on behalf of all the ICANN Staff too - that we wish you a speedy recovery Annette - and I'm sure you'll be back in your usual form soon :) Begin forwarded message: > From: Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de> > Date: 18 March 2007 14:58:30 GMT > To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nashton(a)spamcop.net> > Subject: [Fwd: personal news] > > Dear ALAC fellows, > > For weeks and weeks I have been hoping to recover, but my lungs are > still causing trouble. It now became clear that I will not be able to > take part in the Lisbon meeting. > > In view of the uncertainty about how long I will not not be able to > function fully as ALAC Chair, I have come to the conclusion that I > should ask you to elect someone else from our team to carry the > responsibilities of ALAC Chair. This has been a very difficult > decision > for me as I was earnestly trying to discharge the responsibilities you > have entrusted me with. > > Meanwhile, I'm slowly recovering and hope to be back at my regular job > with the new responsibilities that have been kindly assigned to me as > soon as possible. Needless to say, I also look forward to being > back on > the ALAC team and wish you all and ALAC the very best. > > Once again, I would like to thank you all for your trust, support, > cooperation and understanding. > > Annette -- 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

Information on the GNSO and Policy Development Process
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear Community: Since I know many ALSes are not intimately familiar with the GNSO and the GNSO Policy Development Process, I have drawn up an informational document which describes both and includes the graphical representation of the process previously forwarded. I hope you will find this helpful, especially when you are considering the draft resolutions which in the current draft call for a PDP to be initiated. The attached will help you understand what that means, and the other avenues associated with, and connected to, the full formal PDP process which can also be used, or which can be complimentary to, the full PDP process. Note that French, Spanish, and Portuguese translations of the attached documents will be available next week. All of these will be posted on the Wikis for the various regions as well and I will email those links when they are available. -- 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

Resolutions on Policy Matters for Lisbon
by Nick Ashton-Hart March 18, 2007

March 18, 2007

Dear At-Large Community: In order to facilitate discussion of the three resolutions being proposed for adoption in Lisbon, I have put them up on the Wiki as follows: Domain Tasting / Monetisation: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_1 Contractual Compliance, Registry Issues: https://st.icann.org/alac/ index.cgi?al_2007_r_2 Internationalised Domain Names: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi? al_2007_r_3 NEXT STEPS: 1) I will incorporate, as separate revisions so that you can see the changes which have been suggested on the ALAC worldwide discussion forum, as individual edits. 2) I will reformulate them all so that they are structured similarly - to the maximum extent possible making no changes of substance in doing so - also in single revisions so that this is easy to see. 3) Once step 1 and 2 are done, I will translate the texts into French and Spanish - this will take a couple of days though. I will ask our faithful regional liaisons for Africa (Anne-Rachel Inne) and LAC Pablo Hinojosa then to help keep the updates to the English versions current with the French and Spanish versions once the translations arrive. Note that the idea is to adopt these in Lisbon. AS A RESULT INPUT IS NEEDED NOW FROM THE FOLLOWING REGIONS, SINCE THEY WILL NOT BE MEETING IN FULL SESSION IN LISBON like Africa and Europe: LAC North America Asia/Pacific IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS TO MAKE ON ANY OR ALL OF THESE: For ease of reading please use the comment button at the top of the page. You may also send email to the pages of the wiki, which will then appear as comments at the bottom and show you as the person who made the comments. Here are links: Domain Tasting Contractual Compliance IDNS It is helpful if you copy the comment to the worldwide ALAC list at alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org as well so that everyone sees the new comment. If you haven't joined this list, I recommend you do so at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org These resolutions are scheduled for debate, amendment, and if consensus is achieved adoption in a combined meeting of the European, African, and the ALAC on 27th March between 13:00 and 18:00. Full agenda details for that meeting can be found at https://st.icann.org/ alac/index.cgi?second_session. There will be a remote participation facility for this meeting. Details for how to attend that way will be available on the url immediately above early this coming week. If you do not see links above, here is how to use the comment feature: Send an email to: alac(a)st.icann.org, and for the subject line, for domain tasting, use 'AL/2007/R/1' without the quotes, for Contractual Compliance, 'AL/2007/R/2', and for IDNs 'AL/2007/R/3' -- 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

Fwd: [At-Large] Recommendation on contract enforcement by the public
by Izumi AIZU March 17, 2007

March 17, 2007

You may know about the Registerfly problem. Ro prevent future similar cases, ALAC is discussing to make recommendation to ICANN. Your input is very much welcome. izumi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> Date: 2007/03/16 20:51 Subject: [At-Large] Recommendation on contract enforcement by the public To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org If ICANN't keep a contract, let the public enforce it Earlier in the Registerfly controversy, ICANN Vice President Paul Levins posted to the ICANN Blog <http://blog.icann.org/?p=32>, ICANN is not a regulator. We rely mainly on contract law. We do not condone in any way whatsoever RegisterFly's business practice and behaviour. This is disingenuous. ICANN is the central link in a web of contracts that regulate the business of domain name allocation. ICANN has committed, as a public benefit corporation, to enforcing those contracts in the public interest. Domain name registrants, among others, rely on those contracts to establish a secure, stable environment for domain name registration and through that for online content location. A user registers a domain name by contracting with a registrar, such as Registerfly. The terms of that agreement are constrained by ICANN's accreditation contract with the registrar <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm>. French registrar Gandi <http://gandi.net/> explains this web with helpful diagrams in its registration agreement <http://www.gandi.net/contracts/en/g1/pdf/>: Gandi is a Registrar, accredited by both the Trustee Authority [ICANN] and registry of each TLD to assign and manage domain names according to their specific TLD. We must abide by the terms and conditions of Our accreditation contract. As a consequence, We must pass some of Our obligations on to Our customers. ... As such, We commit Ourselves to providing you with the best possible service. This being said, due to Our contractual obligations with the Trustee Authorities and Registries, and which You must also abide by, Our services are limited in some of their technical, legal, regulatory and contractual aspects. Now the ICANN contracts can both limit and help the end-user registrant. On the limit side, they restrict the registrant's ability to maintain anonymity or privacy by requiring the registrar to provide accurate identifying information to the WHOIS database <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.2>, a duty the registrar fulfills by compelling provision of accurate information in its own contract with the registrant. This requirement benefits trademark holders, who have recently turned out <http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-services-comments/> to prophesy doom if data display is limited. On the benefit side, the RAA-imposed duty of data escrow <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#3.6>, requiring the registrar to maintain an escrowed copy of its registration database, provides evidence of a registrant's domain name holdings in the event of registrar failure. Registrants seeing this provision could believe that their domain names would be secure even if the registrar who had recorded them defaulted. So they might have believed, but apparently ICANN has never enforced this provision of its contracts <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg06000.html>. Moreover, ICANN denies that the public is a third-party beneficiary entitled to demand enforcement <http://www.icann.org/registrars/ra-agreement-17may01.htm#5.10>. The Registerfly debacle < http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/mar2007/tc20070307_079128.ht… > shows why this view is wrong as a matter of law and policy. ICANN was told more than a year ago of customer service problems at Registerfly, but did nothing to respond to those complaints, including escrowing data, leaving the company's 200,000 registrants at risk of losing domain names or the ability to update them when Registerfly's business troubles escalated early this year. ICANN should recognize that the reason for its registrar contracts is precisely to benefit third parties: domain name registrants and those who rely on the domain name system. ICANN is not (or shouldn't be) accrediting registrars merely to have a larger pool of organizations paying fealty to it. Rather, it is imposing terms and conditions on registrars and, with an "ICANN accredited" seal, inviting the public to rely on those terms for a secure domain name registration. In cases where ICANN fails <http://omblog.icann.org/?p=6> to recognize a registrar's problems <http://www.theregister.com/2007/02/19/registerfly_angry_customers/>, concerned members of the public should be entitled to take action themselves. As well as enforcing public-benefit obligations on its own, ICANN should facilitate individual action by removing the "no third-party beneficiary" language from its contracts. Resolved that: Recognizing that the public Internet users are intended beneficiaries of ICANN should strike the "no third-party beneficiary" language from its Registrar Accreditation Agreements and Registry Agreements; ICANN should promptly adopt a schedule and provisions for escrowing of data from all registrars, as envisioned in RAA 3.6. -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org www.alac.icann.org www.icannalac.org -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0