October 2007 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

FW: Next version of the Frameworks and Principles for Accountability and Transparency.
by Jacqueline A. Morris Oct. 18, 2007

Oct. 18, 2007

For your attention. Jacqueline From: Paul.Levins [mailto:paul.levins@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 17, 2007 21:34 To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com Subject: Next version of the Frameworks and Principles for Accountability and Transparency. Dear Jacqueline, I am writing to let you know that ICANN is today posting the next version of theFrameworks and Principles for Accountability and Transparency. These documents have been in development since late 2006.The process began with a consultation that asked the community for their views on accountability and transparency at ICANN.An issues paper summarising these comments was posted in January this year (HYPERLINK "http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26jan07b.htm"http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-26jan07b.htm).Based on the feedback that was received and the input from the One World Trust report on accountability and transparency (HYPERLINK "http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-4-29mar07.htm"http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-4-29mar07.htm) a draft was released for comment in June.A panel discussion and consultation session was conducted at the San Juan meeting and a public comment forum was opened on the website for 8 weeks.A summary of the comments received was posted recently (HYPERLINK "http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-mop-2007/msg00008.html"http://forum.icann.org/lists/draft-mop-2007/msg00008.html) Based on all of this comment and discussion, a revised has been posted for further community consultation.A public comment forum will be opened on the website and we will take comments through 12 November.There will also be a consultation session at the Los Angeles meeting to allow those members attending the meeting to take part in a discussion of the revised principles. I would like to encourage you to consider the draft and provide feedback. I would greatly appreciate you drawing the attention of your members to this new draft and inviting them to make comments on the public forum that will be created on the ICANN website. This draft will be further revised based on the feedback that is received and it is hoped that a final version will be submitted to the Board for approval at their December meeting. We look forward to receiving your comments on this important document. I hope you are well and look forward to seeing you at LA. No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1075 - Release Date: 10/17/2007 09:38 No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.14.13/1075 - Release Date: 10/17/2007 09:38

1 0

Updated Los Angeles Schedule
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 18, 2007

Oct. 18, 2007

Dear All: The schedule pages for the At-Large LA meeting have been updated with current times and, where known, room locations. You can find it as always at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?los_angeles_meeting -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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

At-Large Community Meeting with ICANN Board members
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 18, 2007

Oct. 18, 2007

Dear All: FYI, this is now set for 0900-1100 on Tuesday. NARALO members: your meeting is scheduled for 1000 - 1300. There was no option for the board that didn't overlap with this. Do let me know what you wish to do. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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

Re: [At-Large] GNSO workign group
by Danny Younger Oct. 18, 2007

Oct. 18, 2007

Jacqueline, Re: Have we had any interest in the wg? Its a very short timeframe, so it should get started on working... Comments received from ALAC members thus far: Mohamed El Bashir -- none Hawa Diakite -- none Alice Wanjira-Munyua -- none Izumi Aizu -- none Cheryl Langdon-Orr -- none Siavash Shahshahani -- none Veronica Cretu -- none Sébastien Bachollet -- none Annette Muehlberg -- none Jacqueline Morris -- none Carlos Aquirre -- none José Ovidio Salgueiro -- none Robert Guerra -- none Beau Brendler -- none Alan Greenberg -- none Comments received from others: Danny Younger Wendy Seltzer Vittorio Bertola Jeff Williams ____________________________________________________________________________________ Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html

3 2

Nominations for ALAC Officer, Liaison, and Working Group Chairs
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 17, 2007

Oct. 17, 2007

Dear All: I'm happy to provide the following. I have carefully reviewed the traffic on the public ALAC list during the nomination period and I do not believe anything is missing - if something is missing do accept my apologies in advance and point it out for us all. In particular, I could not find a second for Robert Guerra for Vice Chair. Note that the deadline for accepting nominations, per Rule 9.3, is 21st October 2007. Nominations for Officer Positions 2007/8 Nominations Received and seconded on or before the 14th October 2007 deadline ALAC Committee Officers Chair Cheryl Langdon-Orr (accepted) Vice Chair Vanda Scartezini (accepted) Sebastien Bachollet (accepted) Rapporteur No nominations Liaisons GNSO Liaison Alan Greenberg (accepted) ccNSO Liaison Jacqueline Morris (accepted) Adam Peake (declined) Vittorio Bertola SSAC Liaison Robert Guerra (accepted) IDNs Xue Hong (accepted) WHOIS No nominations Working Groups IDNs No nominations WHOIS No nominations Registrant/Registrar Relations No nominations IPv4 – IPv6 Migration No nominations New GTLDs No nominations Accepted but not seconded: Vice-Chair - Robert Guerra Special Adviser on Internet Governance Policy – Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Jonathan Zittrain -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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

9 9

Are we meeting in LA for discussion of the Strategic Plan?
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 17, 2007

Oct. 17, 2007

I think it would be a good idea to meet in LA for discussion of the Strategic Plan and would recommend that ALAC schedule time to meet with the relevant ICANN staff. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ http://www.torproject.org/

4 3

Why At-Large is not NCUC-Light
by Evan Leibovitch Oct. 17, 2007

Oct. 17, 2007

It amazes me that ALAC -- at least, apparently, many non-elected members as well as its staff support -- clearly continues to labour under the misconception that At-Large is "NCUC-Light". I have no idea how ALAC expects the ALSs to magically come into working groups and be able to develop policy with next to ZERO education support. Unlike the NGOs that are part of NCUC, ALSs generally do not have policy advocacy or Internet governance as primary motivation. Remember that ICANN solicited us to join; we did not seek out ICANN. If ALAC genuinely wants the point of view of the public at large, there is a desperate need to engage in _two-way_ conversation, in which policy advice is the END of a process that starts with engagement and awareness building which goes far further than "here's a summary draft policy to download". Sure, ask for policy, but also be prepared to produce the background, end-user context, and indeed the hand-holding, all necessary to produce it. The ALSs are not, by and large, policy experts. It is insane to expect the general public -- the constituency At-Large is trying to address -- to understand ICANN's issues, with the kind of language found in most of its current documents. Indeed, when producing background information for the benefit of ALSs and their members, you cannot even assume they know the answer to the question: "why should I care about this issue?". There is a phrase that is common around the technology people I know -- "garbage in, garbage out". If no resources are invested to help ALSs care about and understand the issues of the day in lay language, there is no right to complain when they do not provide sufficient volume -- let alone quality -- of feedback. The nomcomm-appointed people already have a history of ICANN culture, and understand its existing constituencies. In ALAC such familiarity may actually be detrimental because At-Large is not just another constituency, even though on the surface it bears a resemblance to NCUC. For one, it has a budget that other constituencies do not. This budget exists, rightfully, because At-Large is the one constituency that ICANN needs to actively solicit, inform, hand-hold and energize before it can extract useful advice. Most other constituencies already have their motivations, and people who make it their passion -- and sometimes their careers -- to be involved in policy. This passion does not come naturally to the public on ICANN issues. Try this exercise. In any communications or conversation, substitute "ALSs" with "the public" and "ALAC" with "the public's representatives". Does it still make sense? Are ALAC and ICANN staff justified in insisting that "the public" provide valuable policy input without an education program geared to laypeople rather than policy experts? At-Large is comprised mainly of non-profits, but its character -- and indeed its reason for existence -- differs significantly from NCUC. It is easy for ICANN veterans involved here to apply previously-learned templates, and treat At-Large like just another self-interested constituency, but that would be a substantial mistake. ALAC's RALO-elected representatives generally understand this reality. > We need input RIGHT NOW on the new gTLD document from the GNSO, we asked for > input on the RAA, we always need input on IDNs and the list goes on and on. It's all well and good to make such demands ... but what has been done to help that happen? What purpose is served by soliciting -- indeed DEMANDING -- uninformed opinion? Adam's recent post complains that ALSs are not doing enough, and they need to disclose details about their structures. I would note that the ALS applications -- which include most of the requested details -- have always been online at http://alac.icann.org/applications/ . Demanding that the onus is on the ALSs to decipher ICANN policy into plain language is a recipe for failure; they'll simply give up instead. And schemes to punish ALSs that don't add policy -- possibly because they're intimidated by the issues or don't feel qualified -- by withholding educational opportunities (such as participation in ICANN meetings), seem downright counter-productive. At-Large is not a lightweight version of NCUC, and it's critical that everyone in ICANN involved with this community understands that. ALSs will not churn policy simply because ICANN rings a little bell, especially without related education deliberately targeted to an audience that is shallower in expertise and motivation than ICANN is used to. In fact, from what I can see, the issues that At-Large may want addressed may be quite different -- and need to be addressed at a different level -- from what ICANN wants from it. ALAC should be demanding the resources to empower At-Large to define its own priorities, not simply to react to the agendas of other constituencies. Most of all, ALAC needs to actively solicit from its ALSs answers to the same question Jacob asked of us before we applied: "What matters to YOU (the ALS) about ICANN?" If ICANN doesn't care about the policy or education needs of its ALSs, how can it expect the ALSs to care about _its_ priorities? - Evan

4 8

[Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] At-Large FY08 Budget / Discretionary Items]
by Wendy Seltzer Oct. 17, 2007

Oct. 17, 2007

Forwarding to the public list out of frustration. --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ALAC-Internal] At-Large FY08 Budget / Discretionary Items Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2007 18:32:28 +0200 From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> To: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org CC: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, secretariat(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Dear ALAC Members and Secretariats: I believe that most, if not all, of you have seen this before, it was a part of Doug Brent's presentation on budgeting which was provided at the ALAC Meeting in San Juan. For those who are new, please be aware that this level of detail is not commonly available to any other community in ICANN. When numbers such as these have, in the past, been made public, it has resulted in problems for the community - especially since other communities do not get travel support at all - let alone for 35 people to attend each ICANN Meeting. You are invited to use your judgment, knowing these facts, in deciding whether or not to forward the attached. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org <mailto:nick.ashton-hart@icann.org> Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com <mailto:ashtonhart@hotmail.com> / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com <mailto:nashtonhart@mac.com> / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac ALAC Official: http://alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

6 8

GNSO working group
by Danny Younger Oct. 17, 2007

Oct. 17, 2007

Hi Cheryl, The purpose of the roll call was to get ALAC members to focus on policy work; having listened to the last ALAC teleconference wherein policy matters received the usual amount of attention (almost none) I deemed this to be a reasonable approach to solicit a response. Candidly, the limited (almost non-existent) participation of ALAC members in the prior RAA WG was more than disappointing, and frankly, I didn't want to see a repeat performance as we are faced with major issues that require substantive thought and commentary. The new gTLD recommendations have been under discussion within the community for the last twenty months and follow on the heals of known problems that have been discussed since November of 2000 and that have received significant media attention on a world-wide basis. One would expect ALAC members to be sufficiently informed about matters that have been under the microscope for the last seven years, and one would expect them to be able to prepare remarks on the topic reflecting the concerns of the user community. I look forward to whatever comments the ALAC members choose to provide on new gTLDs. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Catch up on fall's hot new shows on Yahoo! TV. Watch previews, get listings, and more! http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/3658

5 7

Summary for New gTLDs Workshop at ICANN LA Meeting
by Danny Younger Oct. 16, 2007

Oct. 16, 2007

I think we need to talk about the difference between meaningful participation and pointless participation. If our participation was being requested "prior" to a GNSO decision having been rendered on new gTLD recommendations, then our participation would be meaningful -- it would have some value in shaping the outcome of the decision-making process; offering up questions to workshop panelists after the GNSO has already formally ratified its recommendations is a pointless waste of time. It would make much more sense to direct our concerns straight to the ICANN Board so that it could decide to return the entire set of recommendations back to the GNSO for further work. We all aware of the fact that the GNSO Council in their final session on this topic gave public comments short shrift. While public comments were an agenda item at the Council session, and while ICANN Staff did their due diligence by offering up a 30-second summation of the comments received, it cannot be said that the Council reviewed, considered, or significantly debated the many concerns raised during the public comment period. As a result, we now have the end-product of a flawed process that has put forward a number of poorly considered recommendations. Recommendations #3, #6, #19, and #20 have met with considerable opposition, and certain of the "Principles" outlined therein don't comport with the views generally held by General Assembly participants. If the ALAC wishes to have any impact on the topic of new gTLD recommendations, it should communicate directly with the Board (as the GNSO Council is not prepared to listen and/or modify any of its conclusions on its own initiative). The GNSO Council considers this set of recommendations a "done deal" that is not amenable to any change. The workshop described by Denise is nothing more than a dog and pony show designed to trot out the GNSO's poorly-considered conclusions. Pose your questions instead to the Board. You have nothing to gain by interacting with the GNSO Councilors at this late date. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469

3 2