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

Re: [At-Large] Report to monthly telcon from ccNSO
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 8, 2007

May 8, 2007

You may remember the discussion in Lisbon, where I suggested that the ALAC could call for volunteers from the regions to act as backup/colleagues for each of the liaisons, but also to establish additional capacity to deal with follow-up to other issues, working groups in GNSO processes, etc. If we can get together a list of the issues that need to be followed, I can craft an email to the various at-large regions, and coordinate lists of volunteers, creating email lists for these groups of people, and facilitating information flowing to them to/from other policy areas? Would that be helpful? We're of course happy to provide the service and support to ensure communication between groups of people following processes and updating wikis etc to give these working groups of At-Large 'homes' online... On 08/05/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > Siavash > Good point - we haven't had ALAC working groups per se on any issues in the > past. Now that we have gotten (mostly) over the hump of creating the RALOs, > setting up a process to create WGs on issues might be a good idea. We have > started some initiatives on the IDN issue, such as the User Guide, which we > need to follow up with Staff. > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 10:57 AM > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [At-Large] Report to monthly telcon from ccNSO > > > Hi All, > On the eve of monthly telecon here's my brief report from the goings-on of > ccNSO mailing list: > > The most prominent item of relevance to at-large community has been IDNs. > In fact it seems that among all ICANN constituencies ALAC is the least > involved pro-actively in the subject. I know that Hong is actively > participating in the IDN Working Group(albeit without voting power)and is > a member of the President's IDN Committee, but perhaps some kind of an > ALAC Working Group can be set up under her leadership to lend weight to > individual user interests in this matter. This is specially important > because with most of the RALOs having been formed, ALAC can be expected to > speak for a large international cross-section. As you might know there's a > joint GAC-ccNSO Working Group on IDNs which is supposed to finish its > initial deliberations in Puerto Rico and report specific recommendations > to ICANN Board. Further, there was a move in ccNSO to write to ICANN Board > expressing concern that GNSO recommendations on IDN might be adopted > without sufficient input from the rest of the community. In the initial > draft of the letter, ICANN constituencies were identified as GAC, GNSO and > ccNSO, with no mention of ALAC. On my intervention, ALAC was also > included, but somebody pointed out that ALAC is not doing any work on this > matter(or has no working group on this)- just to let everybody know(!). > This letter will be going to ICANN Chair soon and I wouldn't be surprised > if we were asked to provide a substantive and detailed input. > > Siavash > > > > > ------------------------------------------------- > IPM/IRNIC > P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. > Tehran 19548, Iran > Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 > Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 > Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 > Email: shahshah(a)irnic.ir, shahshah(a)nic.ir > ----------------------------------------------- > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/792 - Release Date: 5/6/2007 9:01 > PM > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/793 - Release Date: 5/7/2007 2:55 > PM > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

2 2

[Fwd: Re: Report to monthly telcon from ccNSO]
by Siavash Shahshahani May 8, 2007

May 8, 2007

> To have an ALAC WG is a good idea. Meanwhile, we may wish to accelerate > the > drafting of the users' guide on IDNs. I asked PAC for more materials for > drafting but haven't got a reply. I assume Nick wrote to Tina as well. Any > response? Having a Guide is a good idea, but I don't think that's our main mission. More important IMO : > we do need have our own policy advocacy vehicle > through RALOs asap. And this can be a working group of sorts. BTW, I certainly did not mean and did not say that you're not contributing to IDN discussion; what I said that because ALAC does not have a formal structure dealing with the issue, the impression has been created in some circles that ALAC as a group is not paying much attention to the issue. Siavash > Hong > > > > > > On 5/8/07, Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> You may remember the discussion in Lisbon, where I suggested that the >> ALAC could call for volunteers from the regions to act as >> backup/colleagues for each of the liaisons, but also to establish >> additional capacity to deal with follow-up to other issues, working >> groups in GNSO processes, etc. >> >> If we can get together a list of the issues that need to be followed, >> I can craft an email to the various at-large regions, and coordinate >> lists of volunteers, creating email lists for these groups of people, >> and facilitating information flowing to them to/from other policy >> areas? Would that be helpful? >> >> We're of course happy to provide the service and support to ensure >> communication between groups of people following processes and >> updating wikis etc to give these working groups of At-Large 'homes' >> online... >> >> On 08/05/07, Jacqueline A. Morris <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: >> > Siavash >> > Good point - we haven't had ALAC working groups per se on any issues >> in >> the >> > past. Now that we have gotten (mostly) over the hump of creating the >> RALOs, >> > setting up a process to create WGs on issues might be a good idea. We >> have >> > started some initiatives on the IDN issue, such as the User Guide, >> which >> we >> > need to follow up with Staff. >> > Jacqueline >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Siavash Shahshahani [mailto:shahshah@irnic.ir] >> > Sent: Monday, May 07, 2007 10:57 AM >> > To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> > Subject: [At-Large] Report to monthly telcon from ccNSO >> > >> > >> > Hi All, >> > On the eve of monthly telecon here's my brief report from the >> goings-on >> of >> > ccNSO mailing list: >> > >> > The most prominent item of relevance to at-large community has been >> IDNs. >> > In fact it seems that among all ICANN constituencies ALAC is the least >> > involved pro-actively in the subject. I know that Hong is actively >> > participating in the IDN Working Group(albeit without voting power)and >> is >> > a member of the President's IDN Committee, but perhaps some kind of an >> > ALAC Working Group can be set up under her leadership to lend weight >> to >> > individual user interests in this matter. This is specially important >> > because with most of the RALOs having been formed, ALAC can be >> expected >> to >> > speak for a large international cross-section. As you might know >> there's >> a >> > joint GAC-ccNSO Working Group on IDNs which is supposed to finish its >> > initial deliberations in Puerto Rico and report specific >> recommendations >> > to ICANN Board. Further, there was a move in ccNSO to write to ICANN >> Board >> > expressing concern that GNSO recommendations on IDN might be adopted >> > without sufficient input from the rest of the community. In the >> initial >> > draft of the letter, ICANN constituencies were identified as GAC, GNSO >> and >> > ccNSO, with no mention of ALAC. On my intervention, ALAC was also >> > included, but somebody pointed out that ALAC is not doing any work on >> this >> > matter(or has no working group on this)- just to let everybody >> know(!). >> > This letter will be going to ICANN Chair soon and I wouldn't be >> surprised >> > if we were asked to provide a substantive and detailed input. >> > >> > Siavash >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------- >> > IPM/IRNIC >> > P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. >> > Tehran 19548, Iran >> > Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 >> > Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 >> > Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 >> > Email: shahshah(a)irnic.ir, shahshah(a)nic.ir >> > ----------------------------------------------- >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> > >> > No virus found in this incoming message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/792 - Release Date: >> 5/6/2007 >> 9:01 >> > PM >> > >> > >> > No virus found in this outgoing message. >> > Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> > Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.5/793 - Release Date: >> 5/7/2007 >> 2:55 >> > PM >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Today's teleconference details and Agenda
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 8, 2007

May 8, 2007

Dear Committee: Just to remind you that the monthly ALAC teleconference is today at 1330 UTC. The draft agenda and associated documents are all accessible on the wiki in the usual place, which for your convenience is: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?8_may_2007. We will email you all the documents as a package, for those of you who are travelling. Note that at the present we have apologies only from H Diakite, so unless we hear otherwise will assume all of you will be on the call today (please send apologies if not) -- 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

3 3

Report to monthly telcon from ccNSO
by Siavash Shahshahani May 8, 2007

May 8, 2007

Hi All, On the eve of monthly telecon here's my brief report from the goings-on of ccNSO mailing list: The most prominent item of relevance to at-large community has been IDNs. In fact it seems that among all ICANN constituencies ALAC is the least involved pro-actively in the subject. I know that Hong is actively participating in the IDN Working Group(albeit without voting power)and is a member of the President's IDN Committee, but perhaps some kind of an ALAC Working Group can be set up under her leadership to lend weight to individual user interests in this matter. This is specially important because with most of the RALOs having been formed, ALAC can be expected to speak for a large international cross-section. As you might know there's a joint GAC-ccNSO Working Group on IDNs which is supposed to finish its initial deliberations in Puerto Rico and report specific recommendations to ICANN Board. Further, there was a move in ccNSO to write to ICANN Board expressing concern that GNSO recommendations on IDN might be adopted without sufficient input from the rest of the community. In the initial draft of the letter, ICANN constituencies were identified as GAC, GNSO and ccNSO, with no mention of ALAC. On my intervention, ALAC was also included, but somebody pointed out that ALAC is not doing any work on this matter(or has no working group on this)- just to let everybody know(!). This letter will be going to ICANN Chair soon and I wouldn't be surprised if we were asked to provide a substantive and detailed input. Siavash ------------------------------------------------- IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-5564, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80; 22 82 80 81, ext 113 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah(a)irnic.ir, shahshah(a)nic.ir -----------------------------------------------

2 1

[Fwd: [alerts] ICANN News Alert -- Vint Cerf Says: ICANN Needs You!]
by Wendy Seltzer May 8, 2007

May 8, 2007

This mis-quote or misstatement captures it all: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [alerts] ICANN News Alert -- Vint Cerf Says: ICANN Needs You! <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-07may07.htm> > In an interview on the subject — posted to the ICANN website, the video > site YouTube as well as his employer's Google Video website — Cerf > stressed that it is "difficult to underestimate the importance of ICANN" > because it is "responsible for policy with regard to certain technical > aspects of the Internet". Yes, in an ideal world, ICANN would be so small it would be difficult to understate its importance. Unfortunately those with business interests in it or in businesses it touches have quite successfully made it much larger. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [Fwd: Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices]
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 7, 2007

May 7, 2007

I will send the request on and see about the feasibility of this. Needless to say, conducting this survey would be a substantial undertaking considering the size of the registrar marketplace. This is not by way of discouraging you or anyone else; I just want to make sure that this is not something that can be done overnight; it might require additional consulting or other resources, and this close to the end of the budget year that might be complex. There's no way that the At-Large budget or staff could undertake it, but then, this would it seems to me be something of interest to many other constituencies in any case, so it is likely that would not be asked of us in any case. May I suggest in the first instance that ALAC discuss this and formally resolve on the question. On 07/05/07, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > There was support for this research among ALAC members. Nick, what do > we need to do to move it forward? > > I updated to reflect John's suggestion on transfer process. > --Wendy > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices > Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:50:33 -0400 > From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > To: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > 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? > What is the process to get the authcode, including any fees charged? > > 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/ > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 > Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute > 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 > -- -- 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

[Fwd: Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices]
by Wendy Seltzer May 7, 2007

May 7, 2007

There was support for this research among ALAC members. Nick, what do we need to do to move it forward? I updated to reflect John's suggestion on transfer process. --Wendy -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Request for staff research: registrar fees and practices Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:50:33 -0400 From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> To: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> 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? What is the process to get the authcode, including any fees charged? 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/ -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0

www.icannalac.org
by Denise Michel May 6, 2007

May 6, 2007

Thank you for your request to have ICANN pay Jean Armour-Polly to maintain the information on www.icannalac.org as a consultant. I have consulted with Nick, looked at the impressive, current on line activity of the At-Large community, and I am in need of more input from you before responding to your request. ALAC members created www.icannalac.org to help inform and encourage a dialogue among members of ICANN’s At-Large community. It was intended to be the independent voice of the ALAC members, giving each of you a place to post views and news directly, without having to go through the clearance process ICANN requires staff/consultants follow when posting material. Further, it was created separate from www.icann.org to experiment with a different layout and on line tools to make the site more interactive. It seems that the site was used and maintained almost entirely by one member, Jean Armour Polly, during her tenure on the ALAC, and no ALAC members seem to have really used the site much since Jean left the committee in December 2006. This raises the question of whether an ALAC website separate from www.icann.org needs to be maintained if a consultant will be doing a majority of the posting (material will be cleared by ICANN if Jean is paid by ICANN), and the website is used to post information by staff/consultants rather than for interactive dialogue by ALAC members. Additionally, much has happened in the At-Large community over the last year that also should be considered along with your request. As you know, since the www.icannalac.org site was launched, the At-Large community has grown significantly, as has its on line presence - much to the credit of the ALAC and At-Large community leaders. Each At-Large region now has its own, independent website, and self-service mailing lists. The ALAC now has its own Wiki, which hosts a lot of information that the community appears to be using - documents, meeting recordings and minutes, etc. These new on line collaboration efforts seem to have taken on many of the functions that www.icannalac.org was meant to provide. Furthermore, ICANN has revamped its website templates, added more interactive tools, and will be re-examining its approval requirements for web posting. In light of all this, it would useful to get more input from you to help us evaluate your request for a consultant for www.icannalac.org. Here are some questions that would be helpful to hear from you on: 1) If the site can no longer be said to be independent (if ICANN is paying a consultant to post information and maintain it), is there any reason for the site to be maintained separate from the ALAC wiki, or an improved www.alac.icann.org? If yes, why? 2) In the past year, as previously noted, only one member of the ALAC really provided much content to the www.icannalac.org site. Do you have a new plan to ensure that – if the site continues to be supported by ICANN and a consultant – that the site will not continue to be updated by one person? 3) The www.alac.icann.org site is about to go through a major restructuring to provide up-to-date information, as requested by the community. If it were to incorporate facilities like blogs for ALAC members and others, and forums which allowed two-way integration to the mailing lists, providing that these would not be subject to ICANN clearance procedures, would this provide the independence and utility that the www.icannalac.org site was intended to provide? Are there any other such tools that would be needed by the ALAC? 4) As you know, there is more activity on the At-Large regional sites, the ALAC wiki, and the mailing lists than there is on www.icannalac.org. Do you have a plan to ensure that the www.icannalac.org site becomes more active and attracts more users? Are there parts of the site, such as the forums, which have been replaced by other methods of communication? If so, which ones? 5) What unique role in communications to the community does the www.icannalac.org site have, taking into account the other At-Large collaboration tools? I greatly appreciate your help in providing more clarity on whether additional financial support for www.icannalac.org is warranted, or whether the same objectives could be more readily achieved in other ways. Please email your input to staff(a)alac.icann.org and Nick and I will get back to you soon on this. Regards, Denise Denise Michel Vice President, Policy Development ICANN www.icann.org denise.michel(a)icann.org

2 1

My comment on ALAC Review TOR
by Izumi AIZU May 5, 2007

May 5, 2007

I have sent the following comment for the ALAC Review TOR, now on the ICANN web, but with PDF, so here is inline text version. best, izumi ---------- Comment on Proposed ToR for ALAC Review April 29, 2007 Izumi Aizu, An ALAC Member from Asia/Australia/Pacific region I think the proposed ToR is generally well structured and covers most of the important elements for the comprehensive review of AtLarge structure of ICANN. Thank you very much for the excellent preparatory work for this very important matter at ICANN. However, I think there are several points which need additional questions and analysis as follows. On PART I I assume that the external review should cover the entire relevance of the subject body, thus the TOR should be more explicit to address the appropriateness of the current overall ALAC framework as a whole. The Question 15 covers some aspect of organizational positioning of ALAC, in the context of Civil Society participation at ICANN. However, it suggests only one specific option but not others in an explicit manner. I think there are several ways worth to consider for making ICANN as a more effective multi-stakeholder organization. Therefore, I propose to add more specific options to be questions/analyzed such as: a) Should we give Board seats to the representatives of AtLarge? b) Should we form a new Supporting Organization, such as User SO? or c) Should we make AtLarge as one of the constituencies in the (reformed) GNSO, but separate from Non Commercial Users? PART II Structure On Question 15, as Vittorio already pointed out, it is rather misleading. I like to suggest the following alternative: What have been the significant factors that affected the RALO formation process? Are there distinct and different factors for each region which affected the RALO formation process, or are they faced with similar challenges? Another point to be added is the relationship of ALAC with other parts of ICANN. I propose the following questions to be added: How does ALAC interact with other constituencies of ICANN? Are they effective in achieving the ALAC's goal of providing advices from individual Internet users? Are there regular channel of communication in addition to the Liaisons to the Board, GNSO and CCNSO? Are there any Composition The TOR does not ask the question of the appropriateness of the current methodology of ALAC member selection or election process explicitly, that is ten members selected by RALO (Board for the interim period), and five by NomCom. I like to propose to add the following questions: Is the current ALAC member selection methodology appropriate, or is there any need to change that, ie public election should be used for all 15 members? Is the number of member, 15, appropriate, or too small or too large? and Assuming that the NomCom selection will continue, is the current balance of selecting ALAC members, five by NomCom and ten by RALO the best way to achieve ALAC's goal, or are there any other ways worth to consider and implement?" Internal Procedures Volunteer nature and Staff Support Given the nature of ALAC to represent individual users, unlike some constituencies of ICANN, ALAC members are mostly pure volunteers that means that their day-to-day work/business do not have direct involvement with Internet's core resource management such as Domain Name registration business or IP address allocation. This had significant impact on the way and effectiveness of ALAC work. The workloads of ALAC members have been quite high, yet it was often difficult to cope with the expected level work. That naturally requires good amount of support from the staff. Question 35 On ICANN support is rather too simple. More specific and detailed analysis of support from ICANN to ALAC, in terms of financial, institutional and staff support should are needed. I propose to add the following question: What kind of additional measures are needed in terms of financial, institutional and staff support in addition to the exiting ones if any? Outreach First, "Outreach" sounds like an one-way activity from ICANN to outside world (in my non-native English), but the important part is "Communication" between Internet users and ICANN through ALS/RALO/ALAC structure and functions in a two way manner. In this regard, languages play important role. The working language of ICANN has been English, but several regions have other language as significantly important common Linga Franca, ie French in some parts of Africa, Arabic for the Middle East and Spanish for Latin America and Caribbean region. Thus several RALOs need to use these languages in addition to English. Here, I propose the following question to be added: How are the linguistically and culturally diverse regional situations reflected in the operation of ALAC and ICANN? Are there any areas that require changes or improvements such as add some non-English language to be used by ICANN/ALAC? END --------------------- Note: The above comment is entirely personal and does not reflect any position of the organizations I am affiliated with.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Domain Tasting Issues Report
by Nick Ashton-Hart May 4, 2007

May 4, 2007

I believe it is imminently to be transmitted to the GNSO Council. On 04/05/07, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > Many of you will recall the correspondence posted > below that indicated that the ALAC would have a > request finalized for an Issues Report on Domain > Tasting by April 30. What is the current status of > this initiative? > > > ------------------------------------------------ > > As mentioned briefly at the GNSO Council meeting in > Lisbon, the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) is in > the process of submitting a request for an Issues > Report from ICANN staff on the subject of Domain > Tasting - specifically the exploitation of the 5-day > (or 120 hour) Add Grace Period during which a domain > can be deleted (among other things) for a full credit > of registration charges. > > In order to maximize the chances for a properly framed > Issues report and ultimately a successful PDP (if > deemed necessary), it has been recommended that the > ALAC seek support from interested GNSO constituencies > including their views of why the domain tasting policy > should be changed, the positive or negative effects of > such a change, and how such a change falls under the > scope of the GNSO PDP > (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA) and > Consensus Policies as defined in Registry agreements. > > Our intent is to have a draft request for an Issues > Report ready by April 23, and the request finalized by > April 30. I therefore request your input with due > haste. > > > Alan Greenberg > ALAC Liaison to the GNSO > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03383.html > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- -- 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