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

Rules of procedure, draft 2
by Vittorio Bertola April 18, 2007

April 18, 2007

All, attached is the revised draft for rules of procedure, incorporating what was agreed on today's call (and also some of Izumi's suggestions, which seemed non-controversial to me - mostly clarifications). I have also incorporated the minimum participation requirements taken verbatim from the Self Review, even if I had to adapt them a bit - in particularly, it said that members are expected to participate in all ALS accreditation vote, but it seemed odd to me to send someone away for missing just one vote. So I broke down the list into "qualitative" and "quantitative" requirements, specified that only the quantitative ones count in practice, and lowered the threshold to 3/4 of ALS votes. I am now asking for opinions on the two remaining open parts, so that hopefully we can reach consensus Here they are: ==> 1.g (new section) on criteria for officers - this is what I came up with as a first draft: ----- g. [Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: They shall be persons who are current or former members of the ALAC, or are anyway familiar with the activities and functioning of the ALAC; They shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, and, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, always putting the collective views of the Committee in front of their own.] ----- Suggestions welcome. ==> 6.d and 11.b, majorities necessary to recall officers and amend the rules - as agreed, here is a recap of different proposals: 1. Initial proposal 10 votes in favour. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 10 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour (66%). 2. Wendy's proposal Simple majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 6 must be in favour. If all vote, 8 must be in favour. 3. Izumi's proposal 2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum of 2/3. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 7 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour. 4. A possible compromise? 2/3 majority of those who vote, quorum 2/3, *and* simple majority of the committee. Examples: If 7 vote, fails for no quorum. If 10 vote, 8 must be in favour. If all vote, 10 must be in favour. My opinion => The initial proposal purposedly makes it hard to do these two things, because changes to fundamental rules need to be broadly shared, and because a recall vote in the middle of a 1-year term is going to be highly controversial anyway. Personally I would like to see these things happen only when there is almost full consensus in the Committee, rather than running into the risk of them happening too often as an ordinary tool of internal "discussion". Also, I'd be afraid of a system that allows a minority of the Committee to take such a decision under any conditions - that's why I think that #4 might be an interesting compromise. Ciao, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

12 36

Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices
by Wendy Seltzer April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

Here's my recommendation for a request to staff for registrar research. I'd recommend this begin with review of registrar websites, perhaps to be followed with direct communications if information is unavailable. Comments or changes welcome. --Wendy The At-Large Advisory Committee has heard complaints from individuals about significant divergences among registrars on fees and practices regarding domain name transfer and expired domain name redemption. At least some registrants are not aware of these fees and practices at the time they register names. Before ALAC can analyze whether these fees and practices reflect a problem or the competitive market at work, we would like to get more information about them. We therefore ask staff to develop a plan for surveying accredited registrars on their practices. For each registrar, determine: Transfer-away: Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names to another registrar? If so, what is the fee? Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of registration? Where and how is such disclosure made? Is the fee subject to change during the registration period? Can registrants actually get the authcodes required to transfer domains, with or without fee? Redemption: What is the redemption fee for an expired domain name? Does the registrar itself register names its registrants have failed to renew? -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 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/

9 10

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
by John L April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

> It would be good to map out the gaps in accountability that are currently > present... It would be a whole lot quicker to do the opposite, to attempt to identify the accountablity that currently exists. Relative to at large, it's hard to think of any. As an interim ALAC member, I tried to represent the positions that I thought would be relevant to the Internet users who aren't in any of ICANN's organized consituencies, but I was just guessing. The ALS/RALO scheme exists, but it only provides a trickle of accountability to the ALSes, and none to individual Internet users. One of the deep flaws I realized this setup has is that most if not all of the ALSes really belong in the NCUC, and as Danny Younger has often reminded us, there's no route for all of the "none of the above" users. Some RALOs have provision for unaffiliated users, but they tend to be treated as a sort-of-ALS which still marginalizes them. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

4 5

IBDI certified as ALS
by Omar Kaminski April 17, 2007

April 17, 2007

Dear members of ALAC, I just saw IBDI (82) was the first brazilian entity accredited as ALS for LAC. >From now on I believe we can join the discussions, or we should wait for the ALAC notification and infos (steps 6 and 7)? Best regards, Omar

2 2

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
by Mr. Robert Guerra April 16, 2007

April 16, 2007

Michael: The questions you ask are good, but ALS and RALO already exist. Perhaps it might be worthwhile to get the opinion of those who have already gone through the process - and have committed to be involved in the structures that currently exist. As well, I encourage you (and others on the worldwide At-large list) to comment on the proposed Terms of Reference that will guide the independent review of ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee. The public comment period will last from 30 March 2007 to 29 April 2007. Details @ http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-30mar07.htm regards, Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377 On 15-Apr-07, at 7:57 PM, Michael Maranda wrote: > Coming into the whole question of "why have ALS and RALOs to begin > with", and the uncertainty of what could be put in an MOU that > would be agreed to, and then meaningful, let along enforceable is a > major challenge, and sets things on a strange footing. > > The large points are whether the public interest holds much weight > in ICANN decisions and in terms of regulation of their own > processes (and enforcement of policy) - and whether individuals and > other small entities who make use of and increasingly depend upon > the Internet. > > It would be good to map out the gaps in accountability that are > currently present... (quite an undertaking, I am sure) and while > it may sound a naive proposal, I think such a framing makes things > very clear to a wider audience. > > Who can we depend upon to generate such a map? What point of entry > can we make for the newcomer to these questions? How can we use > information/communications technologies to facilitate that and to > increase the strength of an at-large community? > > What expertise do we have in regard to these questions, and what > advice has been sought? > > That's where our focus should be directed: building our capacity > to really represent the at large community - to inform them and to > show that we have the weight of the world behind us. (Not on top > of us) > > I see the various tools established for At Large and RALO use. > Who controls them? Will it remain that way? Do they serve our > interest? What would better serve to be a place to aggregate the > issues and voices of the public at large? > > > -MM > > > > > On 4/15/07, RJGlass | America@Large <jipshida(a)gmail.com> wrote: > There should be some accountability in the process. > > Randy Glass > A@L > > > On 4/14/07, At-Large Staff <staff(a)alac.icann.org > wrote:Dear North > American ALS colleagues: > > Please find below the clarification promised on the status of MoUs > with ICANN, and the view of the GC on the proposal by Wendy Seltzer on > enforceability of the MoUs. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Daniel Halloran < daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> > Date: 12-Apr-2007 23:28 > Subject: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs > To: Nick Ashton-Hart < nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > Cc: Sue Jonklaas < sue.jonklaas(a)icann.org> > > > Nick, > > You asked about the legal status of the MOUs that ICANN enters with > its regional at-large organizations. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws > Article XI, Section 2.4g <http://www.icann.org/general/ > bylaws.htm#XI-2.4g>, ICANN's RALO MOUs are intended to address the > "the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and the RALO > regarding the process for selecting ALAC members and requirements of > openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability, > and diversity in the RALO's structure and procedures, as well as > criteria and standards for the RALO's constituent At-Large > Structures." > > The RALO MOUs were not intended to be "enforced" in courts of law -- > they do not include jurisdiction or dispute resolution language. > They are intended only to document the structure and processes of > these advice formulation and coordination organizations. It would > probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure > these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to > potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties > to these agreements. > > I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be > of any further assistance. > > Best regards, > Dan Halloran > > > -- > -- > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > -- > ------------------------- > AmericaAtLarge.org > RJPacific.com > DDMF.org > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > > > > > -- > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter > Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance > Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition > President, Association For Community Networking > > Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: > http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge- > lists.icann.org > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ALS lists - why no public archive?
by RJGlass | America＠Large April 15, 2007

April 15, 2007

There used to be a listing of NA ALSs on the ICANN website. It no longer exists. I was wondering this myself. -Randy Glass A@L On 4/8/07, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > > Perhaps I'm missing something, but looking around the ALAC site > information about ALS is pretty lacking. Particularly, why aren't > the ALS mailing lists archives visible to non-members? > > If ALS exist to support "individual Internet users' informed > participation in ICANN..." etc etc, how can they do this if the ALS > lists are closed, if we can't see how policy is made, with what > degree of support, who was involved. What are the ALS doing? > > Not suggesting ALS lists should be open to non ALS members, but if > their recommendations, and "bottom up" policy represented by ALAC in > ICANN is to be taken seriously, then there should be transparency. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer April 15, 2007

April 15, 2007

Thompson, Darlene wrote: > Frankly, Wendy, I didn't like the way the rest of the ALSs were shut out > of the decision making process for the Vancouver meeting. It was vetoed > by very few people when the rest seemed to want it. At least this time > around it is going by group concensus rather than the GROUP being shut > out of the process. Much better in my mind and much more transparency. Perhaps you weren't on the discussion list when it was discussed and consensused down, but we tried to work transparently. I'd love to have your input on policy discussions on the ALAC list, too! How about WHOIS privacy issues? --Wendy > >>From what I can see, ICANN has been working very hard to get things > happening despite certain ones trying there best to hold others back. > ICANN even sent their Ohmbudsman to the Vancouver meeting. It was > interesting at the Vancouver meeting that not one of the "old guard" > ALSs, with the exception of Michael Miranda, even bothered to take part > by distance. Frankly I think that this shows a dismal lack of regard to > the new and emerging ALSs that a face to face meeting could change. > > Thank you, ICANN, for your continuing financial support for these > efforts. > > Darlene > > 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) 975-5605 > dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > -- 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/

6 17

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Got an Aspirin?
by RJGlass | America＠Large April 15, 2007

April 15, 2007

I fully agree. Let's make progress but use lessong learned from the past. Randy Glass A@L On 4/11/07, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > > The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that > have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with > anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's > not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited > they want to help out in any way that they can. > > > As one of the newcomers, I can say one thing for certain; it's all so > very headache-inducing. > > On one hand: I'm tired of repeated commentaries on the evil ICANN staff > conspiracy to disenfranchise everyone outside of three people named > George. > > On the other hand: ICANN itself, through a combination of action and > inaction, has given plenty of credibilty to the accusations. And the end > result is a lot of zero. > > IMO this isn't about being good spirited, it's about being patient in > the hope that sooner or later there'll actually be a policy to be > debated. The vast majority of the discussion on these lists so far has > been about meetings to determine _structure_. Even these meetings don't > appear to have on their plate anything actually policy-related. > > When Jacob 'recruited' our group last year, attendees at the meeting > were asked about issues that were important. Things such as domain > kiting and the triple-x TLD were at the top of the list. And yet... > while the rejection of XXX has been all over the news, the issue never > came up on these lists. I'd told my group's constitutents last year that > we were part of the advisory process, yet I can't even say that we were > informed of the decision before the media was, on an issue of widespread > public interest. > > MEANWHILE... we haven't made the EXISTING structure work -- yet people > are talking about creating additional, non-geographic RALOs? Does anyone > else here understand how absolutely insane this appears to those without > the historical baggage? > > > Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status > within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control > over a > > budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which > their input has been ignored over and over again. > > > If that's the case, what the heck are you doing here? What am I doing > here? Don't we have better things to do than bang heads into brick > walls? If I want to be told what I don't have, I only need to ask my wife. > > I have two pleas to the folks involved in this process: > > ICANN staff: Live up to the promises Jacob made to us last year, that we > would be genuinely engaged and consulted on ICANN issues. Frankly I > couldn't care less about the structure -- geographic, linguistic, or > based on tarot cards -- but come up with something that prioritizes > efficient knowledge transfer. The best way to address the complaints is > with utter clarity and openness; let people know exactly what this > process offers and what it doesn't. All the structure, recognition, and > airline pretzels are pointless if the POV of ALSs is not meaningfully > expressed -- and addressed -- on ALL relevant issues. If this isn't > possible or desired then please stop wasting my time. And don't assume > silence means consent, sometimes it just means the situation is too > confused for an informed response. > > Angry old-timers: If you're indeed correct about ICANN being opaque and > impervious to comment, stop encouraging that behaviour by spending so > much time on complaining and wheel-spinning -- because in the meantime > real policy discussion CAN'T take place, and the targets of your ire > aren't listening. Clarity in the objections is also sorely lacking -- > concentrate on the gaps between what exists and what was formally > committed. Help us know factually what ICANN won't tell us directly > while working within the procss that exists, and let us make our own > minds up rather than being indignant on our behalf. If the current > process is pointless, let's change it with concrete alternatives whose > development doesn't get mixed in with ICANN policy debate. Otherwise, > our mandate is better served by getting out and going public. > > Obviously there are many with deep investments -- of time, effort and > emotions -- in this process. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone > individually, but I make no apologies for my exhaustion from a mix of > bureaucratic bafflegab and petty scoldings. > > - Evan > > > _______________________________________________ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > --- > Draft MoU with ICANN: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > > Draft Operating Principles: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP > -- ------------------------- AmericaAtLarge.org RJPacific.com DDMF.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 15, 2007

April 15, 2007

Hi Darlene We have 3 options, I think: NY on the original days (clashes with the Montreal meeting) NY on different days (before or after ) Montreal before or after the Montreal meeting. We haven't got info from Robert/Luc on the details of setting up a meeting in Montreal yet, though. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Thompson, Darlene [mailto:DThompson@GOV.NU.CA] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 1:40 PM To: Wendy Seltzer Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting I will be applying to be on that working group immediately - thank you! Now, perhaps we could stay on topic. I WAS around for the lack of discussion that happened around the Vancouver meeting as was Michael Miranda and others. We need to discuss whether we are going to have this meeting or not and where. Darlene 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 -----Original Message----- From: Wendy Seltzer [mailto:wendy@seltzer.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 9:05 AM To: Thompson, Darlene Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting Thompson, Darlene wrote: > Frankly, Wendy, I didn't like the way the rest of the ALSs were shut out > of the decision making process for the Vancouver meeting. It was vetoed > by very few people when the rest seemed to want it. At least this time > around it is going by group concensus rather than the GROUP being shut > out of the process. Much better in my mind and much more transparency. Perhaps you weren't on the discussion list when it was discussed and consensused down, but we tried to work transparently. I'd love to have your input on policy discussions on the ALAC list, too! How about WHOIS privacy issues? --Wendy > >>From what I can see, ICANN has been working very hard to get things > happening despite certain ones trying there best to hold others back. > ICANN even sent their Ohmbudsman to the Vancouver meeting. It was > interesting at the Vancouver meeting that not one of the "old guard" > ALSs, with the exception of Michael Miranda, even bothered to take part > by distance. Frankly I think that this shows a dismal lack of regard to > the new and emerging ALSs that a face to face meeting could change. > > Thank you, ICANN, for your continuing financial support for these > efforts. > > Darlene > > 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) 975-5605 > dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca > > -- 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/ _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

8 9

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
by Wendy Seltzer April 14, 2007

April 14, 2007

Naturally, I disagree. RALOs should want a way to hold ICANN accountable, since ICANN seems to be steadily shirking that responsibility to the public elsewhere. Of course ICANN's legal counsel would not attempt to offer legal advice to the RALOs, whose interests might be adverse to his client. The statement that "It would probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties to these agreements." can only be a suggestion to the RALOs. With litigation often the only thing ICANN listens to, my recommendation (also not legal advice) is that it would be foolish for the RALO not to press for such accountability. At the very least, we should make ICANN explain why it fears giving the public the ability to hold it to its contractual commitments. --Wendy At 02:42 PM 4/14/2007, At-Large Staff wrote: >Dear North American ALS colleagues: > >Please find below the clarification promised on the status of MoUs >with ICANN, and the view of the GC on the proposal by Wendy Seltzer on >enforceability of the MoUs. > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> >Date: 12-Apr-2007 23:28 >Subject: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs >To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: Sue Jonklaas <sue.jonklaas(a)icann.org> > > >Nick, > >You asked about the legal status of the MOUs that ICANN enters with >its regional at-large organizations. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws >Article XI, Section 2.4g <http://www.icann.org/general/ >bylaws.htm#XI-2.4g>, ICANN's RALO MOUs are intended to address the >"the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and the RALO >regarding the process for selecting ALAC members and requirements of >openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability, >and diversity in the RALO's structure and procedures, as well as >criteria and standards for the RALO's constituent At-Large Structures." > >The RALO MOUs were not intended to be "enforced" in courts of law -- >they do not include jurisdiction or dispute resolution language. >They are intended only to document the structure and processes of >these advice formulation and coordination organizations. It would >probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure >these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to >potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties >to these agreements. > >I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be >of any further assistance. > >Best regards, >Dan Halloran > > >-- >-- >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 > >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- 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/

1 0