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

Thank you
by Thompson, Darlene Nov. 22, 2007

Nov. 22, 2007

I just wanted to add my thanks to Vittorio for all of your hard work. You have really kept us all informed as to what is happening and have given several bits of excellent advise that has really assisted us in the work we are doing. Thank you very much. Welcome to Wendy as well! D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP c/o P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-6531 Fax: (867) 979-8870 dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

2 5

WHOIS Comments Requested
by Danny Younger Nov. 7, 2007

Nov. 7, 2007

Please note that the following two documents have been posted on page: http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/ Staff Overview of recent WHOIS activities http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/icann-staff-overview-of-whois11oct07.pdf Staff Implementation notes WHOIS working group report http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-whoiswg-report-staff-implementation-notes… Public comments are open on the WHOIS process until 30 October 2007. http://www.icann.org/public_comment/ Please submit comments to: <whois-comments-2007(a)icann.org> Comments may be viewed at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/whois-comments-2007/ Explanation: A Whois taskforce convened in June 2005 completed its work and sent a final report to the GNSO Council in March 2007. In that report, a majority of members endorsed a proposal called the "Operational Point of Contact" (OPOC) where a domain name registrant would be able to choose a third-party to appear in the public Whois information for this domain and the registrants contact details would no longer be displayed. Expanding on that work, the GNSO Council in March created a Whois working group to examine three issues and make recommendations on them: 1. To examine the roles, responsibilities and requirements of the OPOC, and what happens if they are not fulfilled; 2. To examine how legitimate interests will access unpublished registration data; and 3. To examine whether publication of registration contact information should be based on the type of registered name holder (legal vs. natural persons) or the registrant's use of a domain name. The working group's report [pdf] was published on 20 August 2007. On 6 September 2007, the GNSO Council approved a resolution for further public comment on the report with the intention to lead to a vote on the issue on 31 October 2007 during the Los Angeles ICANN meeting. The resolution called for ICANN staff to prepare a "draft final report" covering the Whois reports referenced above and called Staff Overview of Recent GNSO WHOIS Activity [pdf]. Public comments are invited on both of the GNSO Council's Whois reports and recommendations referenced above and summarized in the Staff Overview of Recent GNSO WHOIS Activity. Comments will be taken until 00:00 UTC (17:00 PDT) on 30 October 2007. Please take time to submit comments. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

Latest version of IPv4V6 statement
by Izumi AIZU Nov. 6, 2007

Nov. 6, 2007

I am in the meeting with the Board and AtLarge community, and will take the floor soon to give some presentation on IPv4-v6. Here attached is the material. Nick, could you put it on the screen when we do. izumi

7 17

WHOIS Stalemate: more studies, any you'd like?
by Wendy Seltzer Nov. 5, 2007

Nov. 5, 2007

Colleagues, The GNSO Council has just concluded the WHOIS PDP by refusing to endorse the Working Group's Operational Point of Contact recommendations. They also, on a closer margin, voted down the negotiation-forcing sunset proposal. Instead, the Council called for more studies. While many of us would have preferred to see action, after five years of WHOIS debate, at-large can contribute to the definition of these studies. Are there concrete questions about WHOIS harms, benefits, or alternatives that you (ALSs, individuals, and all) would like to see addressed with data-driven research? According to the draft of the motion passed, "Council shall provide additional definition regarding the potential data gathering and study requirements no later than February 15th, 2008." I'm assuming ALAC should pass its recommendations to the Council through Alan. Council will be preparing a Board submission shortly, and I'm happy to convey ALAC's comments when that is discussed. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

7 8

Comments about at-large/ALAC in ICANN newsletter
by Robert Guerra Nov. 1, 2007

Nov. 1, 2007

Several colleagues are reporting that inappropriate and false information on and about at-large and ALAC meetings this week are being printed in the ICANN newsletter. I would like to ask : 1. that the text present in the newsletter be posted to the list, and 2. should the text and/or comments be deemed as inappropriate, then ALAC should take appropriate actions regards Robet

13 22

Re: [At-Large] DRAFT ALAC comment on IPv4 depletion and IPv6 migration
by cheryl＠hovtek.com.au Nov. 1, 2007

Nov. 1, 2007

Good afternoon, I have just come from the presentation of this statement by Carlos on behalf of ALAC, to the ASO... (please note I have not included here the draft text as I was off the email grid when it was circulated to lists on Monday but if it did not go to both lists then I implore someone to rectify that I now have read on local network and send via my mail server as the only option :-( Some *brief points* that will be further discussed in ALAC meetings should be noted by all of you interested in this matter of v4 -> v6... Firstly our presentation was most warmly and generously received, and our thanks go to Carlos Aguirre for both his presentation and his work in preparing for this matter when Izumi (our normal lead in this topic) was unable to stay in LA for this meeting... It is my firm belief that as a result of his representation to the ASO meeting, we have established a clear profile as a 'party of interest' which needs to be involved with the policy deliberation processes that occurs in this group (not only in the important issue of IPv4 distribution) but also any other matters that effect us as the end user (i.e. consumers of the services) that the addressing infrastructure provides for... Secondly several questions were asked, and comments made, after the presentation... Carlos will fully outline these in his report back to ALAC on this meeting, but a few excellent suggestions regarding a change of the terms used in our draft document were made, and should be noted by the At-Large Community, as we will desire YOUR input on these particular points, as we do our edit... Specifically these were the use of 'migration' this term has certain contextual / interpretation issues and it is advised that we should replace it in our documentation with the term "transition", and the very valid point that the use of the term "black-market" needs replacing with a nomenclature that indicates that it is an undesirable secondary market... the potential of what does the word 'hype' means in the draft was pre-emptively dealt with by Carlos in his annotation to that section and also requires attention. Also ARIN have kindly supplied us with access to some of their plain language summary of issues texts which will greatly enhance our own outreach efforts in our regions and local environments and *most importantly* have already done extensive translation pieces of this text which we can use AND seem willing to explore possible assistance to us in translation to language not currently addressed in their document repository. Finally this is a clear invitation (if not mandated requirement) for us to be actively involved in the policy development *particularly* at the policy development points in the community input into the regional registry processes this constituency uses... And as they use a regional based system which mirrors our own interaction and mutual exchange of idea points do not need to be "created" they do however need to be locally actioned. And I know I personally look forward to our future work together in matters of mutual interest. Kindest regards, Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

5 5

Thank you
by Izumi AIZU Oct. 31, 2007

Oct. 31, 2007

Dear all, I have to leave LA now, for I need to organize a conference in Japan from Friday - Sunday. I wish I could stay for the rest of the week to continue the work at ALAC, but that is not possible. I like to express my big thanks to all the "outgoing" members, as well as all new ones and old timers, for your great help and teaching me. And those who supported us. Let's keep on our good work, and see you again soon either in Rio or in New Delhi! best, izumi

1 0

Fwd: [NA-Discuss] FW: Information on respectful communication
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 31, 2007

Oct. 31, 2007

Dear ALAC Members and Secretariat Members: I thought I should forward this very thoughtful and insightful post from Dharma Dailey. Dharma, I'm hopeful that we can all work to help create an environment in which you will wish to become more active, given a bit of time and for what it is worth, on ICANN's part, I'm committed to doing whatever I can, or we can, do to help foster that happening. Once the dust settles from the LA meeting I will try and find some time if you are willing when I can speak further with you about how to operationalise some of your perspectives? Begin forwarded message: > From: Dharma Dailey <dharma(a)ethoswireless.com> > Date: 29 October 2007 20:20:50 GMT-07:00 > To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com > Cc: Darlene Thompson <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA>, NA Discuss <na- > discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] FW: Informationonrespectful > communication > > It takes a lot of effort to make things easy for people to > participate well. > > I consider myself to be one of the people who has taken my ball and > gone home due to the culture around ICANN. Poor process= poor > outcomes and unhappy people. Poor process makes good people act > foolishly. I walked away from San Juan with a very favorable view of > most people that I met, but a very unfavorable view of the scene. > > One argument that I would give for at-large as a separate entity from > an NGO centered body is the fact that there is a big cultural divide > between the way mom and pop groups build consensus and the way NGOs > do. I believe that culture-clash is part of what we are witnessing > in at-large. At-large is a kind of ad-hoc group trying to interact > within the "big NGO" culture of ICANN. In order to fix the > troubles of at-large -- and perhaps more generally ICANN itself-- it > will take a lot more than a chat with the ombudsmen. Within the > networks that I work most closely with- open source, appropriate > technology, community media, local broadband projects-- there is an > awareness that you need to have "process artists" in the fold of any > functioning group in order to make it cohere well enough to get stuff > done. *AND* unless its a very small affinity group -- there *MUST* > be more than one involved. You need a critical mass of people who > can corral people back to the agreed upon topic, the agreed upon > process for getting things done, and so forth. For groups as large > and international as the ones that meet around ICANN there is the > additional challenge that there are very distinctly different ways of > approaching the work that we each bring with us. Therefore the > people who are shepherds of the process need to be highly skilled. > They need have more than one or two tricks up their sleeves because > they won't make friends by saying, "This is what we do in XYZ place > and it always works for us." > > While I can appreciate the sentiment of the PDF that Jaqueline sent > around, I think it is too general to be of use on its own. There are > some nice principles in it, but to actually get stuff done principles > need to be spelled out into clear modes of action. Recently, > Gareth Shearman of Telecommunities Canada and I went to an ARIN > (American Registry of Internet Numbers) meeting. It was both > amusing and refreshing to watch the cartoon at the Newcomers meeting > that modeled exactly how to speak at the open mic. It was both > ridiculous and a very useful tool to get up to speed on how to fully > participate in the odd little world that is ARIN. The cartoon leaves > nothing to the imagination in terms of process. I would say a good > 2/3 of the ARIN community are "process artists" and they do seem to > be able to move through a lot of dense techno-political material in > an amazingly efficient way with lots of input from those present. > *And* the process is dynamic with suggestions from the community > constantly refining the process. > > "Making friends" is also a critical part of volunteer, ad-hoc > groups. It should be fostered as it leads to better outcomes, higher > levels of participation, longer cycles of involvement and so forth. > Time honored traditions such as breaking bread are small investments > in the long run. Time for reflection and interaction among peers are > critical to plan into the work cycle. As far as I'm concerned, the > ancillary benefit of being able to rub elbows with others who care > about the social impact of networks outweighs the benefit of > participating in ICANN per se. Therefore, if there is value to > recruiting "people like me" into the ICANN process, the structure > leaves little incentive for me to be involved because 1) the > structure doesn't allow much lateral interaction 2) I'm not learning > much about how ICANN policies affect the issues I care about 3) It's > not fun to participate. In short, there is no payoff. > > Those of you whom I spoke with in San Juan have heard me say this, > but I believe that it would be worthwhile to hire a trained > facilitator for the meetings and, for that matter, for the email > lists. Someone who has experience working within ad hoc structures. > At-Large has so much potential, and yet... > > -Dharma Dailey > Emerging Futures Network > > > On 29-Oct-07, at 9:21 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > >> To repeat >> >> I did not refer anything to the Ombudsman, as ALAC Chair or as a >> private >> individual. However, if I were to do so as an individual, that >> would be >> confidential and I wouldn’t have to discuss with anyone. As >> Chair, I >> continue on the path of asking for respectful communication that >> has been >> ongoing for months. He’s one of the sources that I have checked as >> experts >> in the matter and he sent me info that I passed on. Other experts >> have >> provided input into the emails I have sent in the past, have >> provided other >> background information, etc. The Ombudsman is an ICANN resource, >> not only a >> tribunal. >> >> And others have indicated to me that they have approached the >> Ombudsman. I >> don’t expect that they will post to this list, as part of the >> problem is >> that they feel oppressed and unable to participate. >> >> >> >> You are perfectly within your rights to disagree with anything and >> everything on all lists. Just please do it without personal attacks, >> disrespect, threatening language, insults etc. As I have been >> asking for a >> while, as is in the NARALO code of conduct, as in the ALAC Rules. I >> haven’t >> indicated in any emails in public any persons from any region as >> being >> culpable. So this isn’t an anti-NA thing. There is no attempt to >> muzzle >> anyone from expressing their opinion in a respectful and polite >> manner. >> There however is an ongoing attempt to make these lists comfortable >> for >> everyone, from all regions, to express their opinions, to not be >> afraid to >> say what they think. I would hope that as great advocates of free >> speech, NA >> in particular would support actions taken to ensure the rights of >> all to >> participate freely. >> >> >> >> And before anyone takes this as proof that I think that this email >> is any of >> those things, I am saying this in a general way. >> >> Jacqueline >> >> >> >> From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] >> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 17:45 >> To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; Robert Guerra; NA Discuss >> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] FW: Informationonrespectful >> communication >> >> >> >> Jacqueline, >> >> >> >> It is still true that you did not get full support from ALAC to go >> to the >> Ombudsman. >> >> >> >> Cultural sensitivity goes both ways. I worded my e-mails as >> politely as >> possible but I sitll had to disagree with what was happening. I am >> really >> tired of people complaining about the lack of sensitivity from NA >> people. >> If it there were actually any insults or threats then you would be >> fully >> justified in doing what you did just as an individual. As ALAC >> Chair, you >> did not - not without a quorum from the ALAC - unless you made it >> clear that >> you were doing so as an individual. Using your power to stifle >> contrary >> view is not appropriate and I refuse to back down from this point. >> >> >> >> Therefore, what Robert says, still goes. I support him 100%. >> >> >> >> Darlene >> >> >> >> _____ >> >> From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of >> Jacqueline A. >> Morris >> Sent: Mon 10/29/2007 8:33 PM >> To: 'Robert Guerra'; 'NA Discuss' >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] FW: Informationonrespectful >> communication >> >> Robert >> >> Not at all. >> >> And I told you that in my reply to your private email to me. >> >> Mis-representing what I said is not kosher at all. >> >> >> >> I sent some info that was sent to me by Frank after a discussion with >> several people about how to improve the respect in online >> communication. He >> is the ICANN expert in this. This is a follow up to the emails I >> have sent >> previously on list communication. >> >> >> >> With regard to who has contacted the Ombudsman to date about emails >> sent to >> the public list (NOT the NARALO list) - I cannot say, as Ombudsman >> referrals are confidential and he hasn’t told me anything about >> that. Others >> have however indicated to me that they have considered approaching >> or have >> approached him about some emails on the public list. I haven’t been >> informed >> by anyone about complaints to him on any communication on the >> NARALO list to >> date. >> >> >> >> That is the correct information, and I hope that you will correct >> any emails >> that you have sent out with the erroneous information . >> >> >> >> Jacquelin >> >> >> >> >> >> From: Robert Guerra [mailto:lists@privaterra.info] >> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 17:03 >> To: NA Discuss >> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] FW: Information onrespectful >> communication >> >> >> >> As some of you might have seen. it seem that Jacqueline thinks that >> comments >> from myself and others on NA RALO are soo inappropiate that it >> requires a >> referral to the ombudsman for his comment. >> >> >> >> Frankly, i'm amazed and shocked. I ask that if you feel strongly on >> this >> that you comment - ASAP. >> >> >> >> thanks >> >> >> >> Robert >> >> >> >> -- >> >> >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >> >> >> From: Robert Guerra <HYPERLINK >> "mailto:lists@privaterra.info"lists(a)privaterra.info> >> >> Date: October 29, 2007 4:59:08 PM PDT >> >> To: At-Large Global List <HYPERLINK >> "mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org"alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] FW: Information onrespectful communication >> >> >> >> Jacqueline: >> >> >> >> Huh ! >> >> >> >> Either don't understand your email, or am so surprised that as >> outgoing >> chair you would take such an action. To be hones, after a >> productive and >> team building day yesterday - you take this bombshell and drop this >> on us. >> i'm frankly shocked ... >> >> >> >> >> >> I am assuming correctly that differences of opinion are such that >> you - in >> your own personal capacity - are asking the ombudsman to pass a >> judgement >> on individuals in at-large that are exercising their freedom of >> speech? >> >> >> >> An action such as a referral should be done in consultation with >> the ALAC, >> and not done on your whim. Please seek the support of your peers, >> to take >> such drastic steps. >> >> >> >> Might I suggest that - instead - you seek the input of the alac, >> and see if >> indeed we concur with your course of action. If obtain support, >> fine. If >> not, then no course of action - should be obtain. >> >> >> >> >> >> In summary - I think I speak for many of those on the ALAC in >> saying, please >> seeking clarify your proposed actions. Personally, I think they are >> most >> inappropriate. >> >> >> >> >> >> regards, >> >> >> >> Robert >> >> --- >> >> Robert Guerra <HYPERLINK >> "mailto:rguerra@privaterra.ca"rguerra(a)privaterra.ca> >> >> Managing Director, Privaterra >> >> Tel +1 416 893 0377 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On 29-Oct-07, at 4:01 PM, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >> >> 0" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >> >> Dear all >> >> As so many of the postings to this list are so disrespectful I have >> asked >> the Ombudsman for his input informally, before he gets brought >> into it >> formally by people who this has affected negatively. He has offered >> the >> following. Please read and attempt to follow some of the >> suggestions in the >> documents he has sent, so we can all work productively. >> >> Jacqueline >> >> >> >> From: frank.fowlie [HYPERLINK >> "mailto:frank.fowlie@icann.org"mailto:frank.fowlie@icann.org] >> Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 15:51 >> To: jacqueline Morris >> Subject: >> >> >> >> wellington comment from page 6 on >> >> >> >> and >> >> >> >> >> >> HYPERLINK >> "http://www.icann.org/ombudsman/respectful-communication.pdf"http:// >> www.ican >> n.org/ombudsman/respectful-communication.pdf >> >> >> >> Frank Fowlie, MACAM >> Ombudsman >> >> The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 >> Marina del Rey >> California, USA, 90292 >> >> tel: +310-823-9358 >> fax: +310-823-8649 >> >> HYPERLINK "http://www.icannombudsman.org/"www.icannombudsman.org >> >> The Values of this Office are: >> -Respect for Diversity; >> -Excellence in Ombudsmanship; >> -Professionalism; >> -Confidentiality; >> -Impartiality; >> -and Independence. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: >> 10/27/2007 >> 11:02 >> >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: >> 10/27/2007 >> 11:02 >> >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: >> 10/27/2007 >> 11:02 >> >> >> No virus found in this outgoing message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.12/1096 - Release Date: >> 10/27/2007 >> 11:02 >> >> <winmail.dat> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- >> lists.icann.org >> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >> ------ > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ > ------ -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 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] FW: ccTLD IDN
by Hong Xue Oct. 31, 2007

Oct. 31, 2007

Dear Mr. Chris Disspain, Please find the ALAC Statement for the ICANN Board Request for Responses at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?alac_statement_for_the_icann_board_requ…. This document has been approved by ALAC on October 30, 2007 and has been submitted to the ICANN Board. It contains all our comments and recommendations on the principles, policies and implementation of IDN ccTLDs, covering both fast-track approach and a PDP proposal. We are looking forward to working with the ccNSO in the following policy making process. Hong

1 0

FW: Domain tasting in Phishing - report
by Robert Guerra Oct. 31, 2007

Oct. 31, 2007

Attached is a paper that was created by the Domain Name System Policy Working Group of the Anti-Phishing Working Group. This compilation of this paper was initiated because of the formation of your group - the DNSPWG wanted to determine whether or not phishers use domain tasting. In general, the conclusions are that phishers do not use domain tasting but domain tasting does negatively impact the anti-phishing organizations due to increased infrastructure needs for monitoring domain registrations. If you have questions about this paper, don't hesitate to contact me. -

1 0