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

W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

Dear Wendy: Since you have seen fit to deal with the situation with respect to your travel in the most public way possible, and because you have made serious and unsubstantiated allegations about the role of the staff in ‘manipulating the travel policy to exclude participation’, this response is being sent to the public At-Large list. May I take this opportunity to state that I take no pleasure whatever in having to send such communications and I would have preferred that the matter be dealt with in a normal way between those directly concerned instead. Since you were informed that you would not receive travel support because you didn’t book your tickets in the allotted time, you have: Accused the staff, in public email communications, of deliberately manipulating the travel policy to exclude participation in San Juan. Considering the amount of funding which ICANN provides to the At- Large community to attend ICANN meetings year in and year out - and considering that you personally have been supported for something like five years to attend three meetings a year, this accusation is unhelpful, inflammatory, and untrue. You have chosen to make untrue statements that you had complied with the travel deadlines on several occasions when that was demonstrably not the case. As is clear from the chronology of your contacts with American Express that you have not disputed, you had repeated opportunities to book your travel in the time provided and American Express repeatedly offered to help you – you on several occasions told them you were not ready to be ticketed yet. You have suggested that ‘policies’ about the amount of time for booking your tickets were ‘hidden’ when you were clearly aware of them. You replied to the email that contained them. Suggesting that the email that contained the travel deadlines from the vendor was somehow hidden when you as well as everyone else were notified by me that you could expect an email from American Express containing details of how and when to arrange your flights “within 24 hours” (email of 31st May). Suggested that you were somehow not able to use ‘the full period’ to book your travel when that is demonstrably not true. Suggested that the travel vendor failed to call you or follow up with you on public email lists when in fact you didn’t ask them to call you, and when they followed up with you the next day, you did not indicate that they should have called you – and in fact told them that you were not yet ready to book your travel. Your representation of the travel system is inaccurate, the accusations made against members of the ICANN staff are untrue and alleged incompetence in the actions of the travel vendor belied by the detailed record of communication between you and Amex. The result of the inaccurate and inflammatory statements you have made, as well as the very public way in which you have chosen to present them, is that a great deal of time and energy has been consumed by several people in and out of ICANN on a matter that should have been a straightforward decision based upon facts. This has resulted in time that could have been spent on providing services to the whole community being spent instead on this matter. As a community leader, it seems to me that you are meant to be helping the community help itself, not providing opportunities to waste the time of staff and of others and making untrue and inflammatory statements which require time to be spent correcting the record. Out of a total of 40 people attending the San Juan meeting, of which 35 used the American Express service, you are the only person who didn’t manage to make the arrangements in time. There were no other complaints about not having enough time to make arrangements – on the contrary, everyone else was done in good time – in spite of the fact that as previously mentioned, many had far more complex itineraries than yours would have been. The reality of having so many people travel with support from ICANN from this community is that there must be some reasonable rules regarding travel support – otherwise fewer people will get to attend meetings. It would be entirely reasonable for us to stand by our previous decision and uphold the rules as they were written – rules that everyone else managed to follow. However, upon reflection and taking particularly into account the wish of a number of your ALAC colleagues that the rules be bent in your favour, what we are prepared to do, on a one-time basis, is to reimburse you for an amount up to what the ticket could have been purchased for on the 8th on the airline of your choice and flight time windows, both of which you indicated as your preferences to American Express. If you choose to attend the San Juan meeting, please provide your airfare receipt with an expense claim and you will be reimbursed for up to US$883.00. Please let us know within 48 hours if you are intending to avail yourself of this offer and provide a copy of your itinerary so we can make the requisite hotel arrangements. To remind you, if you do attend, per-diems will cover a period of not longer than 23 – 29 June inclusive (meaning departure from San Juan on the 30th). I hope very much that this will be the end of this episode – and that you will address any remaining concerns to me and eschew opportunities for further public airing of matters related to your travel arrangements. ---- Chronology of W Seltzer’s Contacts with American Express Travel Desk. · May 31 - Original email sent to traveller · June 1 616 a - Ms Seltzer responds that she is out of the office until the 4th . She does add her phone number, but does not specifically request a verbal phone call and since this is an international reservation, our agents responded via email. · June 1-11:45a - agent response with email that she looks forward to her response on Monday. · June 4 3 :58p- agent does not hear back from traveller and sends a courtesy reminder, requesting verification of carrier and flights · June 4 4: 28p - Ms Seltzer responds that she is not ready to ticket. June 8 11:45a- Received request for alternate flights- we did not have the opportunity to get back to her on Friday. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

5 5

Update to the ALAC page at http://www.icann.org/committees/alac/
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 20, 2007

June 20, 2007

I have updated a lot of the above page - there are now pages for the past members in an organised way (hopefully nobody is missing; if they are they can be added if they send a bio and note to me). The photos sent recently haven't yet been included - if current members wish to send a photo for their bio page, please feel free. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Draft document on GNSO review posted
by Vittorio Bertola June 19, 2007

June 19, 2007

The GNSO Review Working Group of the ICANN Board, of which I am a member, has posted an initial working document about possible changes in the structure and procedures of the GNSO: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19jun07.htm The document is the result of several weeks of discussion among the working group members, drawing on the external review of the GNSO released last year by the London School of Economics, and on other inputs and considerations. It is not a draft report, but rather a document that examines some of the rationales and possible consequences for implementing the LSE recommendations. One of the main threads of thoughts emerging from this work is the desire to reduce the internal controversies in the GNSO, by moving from policy discussions that are shaped by the constituency structure and focused on attempts to outvote each other on competing proposals to a consensus-based online working group model much similar to the ones adopted by the IETF or the W3C. Personally, I think that the GNSO Council should keep a role of oversight and strategizing, but policy should be discussed in open working groups that aim at promoting and reaching rough consensus, if not full consensus, among all participants. The document also raises again the long-standing issue of a possible new Individual Registrants Constituency in the GNSO, which would in my opinion be a good addition, even if of course its relationship with the ALAC should be studied. Generally speaking, the membership and internal rules of all constituencies should become more transparent and accountable. Moreover, the document discusses the possibility of collapsing the constituencies into four broad groupings - registries, registrars, business users and non-commercial users - that would then be sub-divided in the individual constituencies. This is just a first step to foster the discussion online and in person, at a workshop that will be held in San Juan. I encourage people to read the full document and submit comments. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

FW: [NA-Discuss] GNSO Recommendations on New TLDs
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 19, 2007

June 19, 2007

The GNSO Committee investigating the requirements associated with the roll-out of new gTLDs has published its recommendations (in two parts). http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-fr-a-18jun07.pdf http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/pdp-dec05-fr-b-18jun07.pdf No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 6/18/2007 3:02 PM

1 0

Briefing on the time commitment for Board Liaison
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

Dear All: Since the board liaison is to be elected as you know after this ICANN meeting, I thought it might be useful to provide some detail on the very considerable commitment which the successful candidate would be committing to fulfilling. ---- At-Large Advisory Committee Liaison to the Board of Directors of ICANN Summary of Time Commitment From the perspective of the time commitment required, the ALAC Liaison to the ICANN Board requires the greatest commitment of any At- Large community position. This note is meant to provide an indicator of the requirements for those interested in serving in this challenging and interesting post. It is important to note that unlike or other positions within the At- Large community where the amount of time spent on At-Large commitments is entirely voluntary and even ALAC members are not required to spend a certain amount of time "working" each week or month, board members are expected to remain engaged and work on a consistent basis - if you fail to "keep up" you will get persistent lobbying to work harder / more. In addition to the time commitments with respect to the Board itself, the Liaison will also need to participate in the mailing lists of the community, providing reports on board activities and soliciting advice from the community for input to the Board. MONTHLY COMMITMENTS: Teleconferences: Main Board: 1 monthly for 2 hours ALAC: 1 monthly for 2 hours Preparing written submissions: 1-2 hours TOTAL MONTHLY COMMITMENTS: 5 - 6 Hours WEEKLY COMMITMENTS: Teleconferences: Board WGs: 1 weekly for 2 hours Mailing list reading/correspondence: Board: 3 hours/week ALAC: 2 hours/week Reading Reports / Responding to Reports or non-email communications: for Board: 5 hours per week for ALAC: 2 hours per week TOTAL HOURS PER WEEK: 14 hours TOTAL HOURS PER MONTH: (WEEK*4+MONTH): 56 - 57 hours FACE-TO-FACE MEETINGS: 3x ICANN meetings: 7-8 days away incl. travel 3 times per year = 21 - 24 days / year 2x Board retreats: 3-5 days away incl travel 2 times per year = 6 - 10 days / year TOTAL DAYS FACE-TO-FACE: 27 - 34 days / year -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Nomination for Board Liaison - Wolfgang Kleinwächter
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwächter as a candidate for Board Liaison. Prof Kleinwächter has been active in Internet Governance for many years. He was a member of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance, has been instrumental in creating the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GIGANET) and has been involved in ICANN processes for many years (see attached document) He is a member of the EURALO. As Board Liaison, he will: * raise a voice clearly in support for the interests of individual Internet users in open and closed board meetings and * keep a close and regular contact to the members of the ALAC, consult with them on all relevant issues and report back from official and unofficial Board meetings. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM

7 12

Re: [At-Large] Board liaison - What's the process to be selected ..?
by Roberto Gaetano June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

Sorry, disregard my previous posting, I have read again the rules and the mechanism is very clear. I am also under the impression that the vote should be with secret ballot, but before saying other sillynesses, I wait for the authoritative opinion of staff. Cheers, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] > Sent: 18 June 2007 18:38 > To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Robert Guerra' > Cc: 'At-large Worldwide' > Subject: RE: [At-Large] Board liaison - What's the process to > be selected ..? > > > > > > Given the high-contested election, I do have a preference > for a secret > > ballot to minimize bad feelings, and to ensure that people vote for > > who they believe is the best candidate instead of who they may feel > > they have to visibly support. > > > Just to make sure that everybody has the same understanding, > the result might differ if every member can only vote for one > person, or whether there will be a multiple vote with ranking. > Also, even in the case of one vote, how are the results to be > dealt with? The one who gets more votes? Or are there going > to be rounds, with elimination of the candidate with less votes? > > Having just witnessed the problems in running an EURALO > election where the rules where changed during the vote, may I > strongly recommend to set the rules in advance, even if it > might take some additional time. After all, the new Liaison > only takes office at the end of October. > > Cheers, > Roberto >

1 0

Soccer in Puerto Rico...NO! We will have Volleyball!!!
by José Ovidio Salgueiro A. June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

Erick asked me to forward this information. Lets play volleyball José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro(a)cantv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Erick Iriarte Ahon To: jsalgueiro(a)cantv.net Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:52 AM Subject: Fwd: Soccer in Puerto Rico...NO! We will have Volleyball!!! >Hi People > >We change our sport, from Soccer to Volleyball >in the Beach. The Sport and Recreation Secretary >from the Puerto Rico Government and the NIC >Puerto Rico is organizing the Tournament. > >Date: >June 26, Time > >Place: >Hotel Hilton private beach. > >Rules: >- Each team need a name and a liason. >- 6 players per team in field > >We hope almost 6 teams. > >Ball, arbitrators, medical support and cocktail are confirmed. > >Contact Person: >Erick Iriarte Ahon - eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org >Pablo Rodriguez - pablo(a)nic.pr > >I hope to see all you in the tournament. > >Erick

1 0

Nominations open for ALAC Board Liaison 2007-2008
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

The ALAC is currently accepting nominations for Board Liaison. Timeline: Nominations will be open from today for 2 weeks, until June 18th at midnight GMT. We have 1 week after that for the nominated persons to indicate their acceptance of the nominations (until June 25th) and we will discuss the nominations in San Juan. Voting by the ALAC will be held immediately after the discussions end. The result will be posted to the public ALAC list after the vote closes. The new Board Liaison will take up his/her position at the end of the AGM in Marina Del Rey in October 2007. Nominations are to be made to the public ALAC list - HYPERLINK "mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org"alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org. The Board Liaison will serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an Annual General Meeting and ending at the closure of the following Annual General Meeting. Criteria for Board Liaison: · Shall normally be a person who is a current or former member of the ALAC, or is familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC; · 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, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; · Shall accept, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, to put the collective views of the Committee always in front of their own. Any questions can be addressed to me or to staff(a)alac.icann.org. Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris ALAC Chair No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/830 - Release Date: 6/3/2007 12:47 PM

5 4

ALS Application processing procedures
by Alan Greenberg June 17, 2007

June 17, 2007

Along with the proposed criteria for ALS certification, Nick has proposed a new procedure for processing applications. The procedures can be found at the bottom of https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents. The current process has been problematic due at least partly because of delays in accepting or rejecting applications. And at least part of that is due to ALAC committee members not acting in a timely manner. The proposed procedures address this in a number of ways that I find problematic. - The procedures rightfully give the three ALAC members from the region and the Regional Secretariat an opportunity to comment on an application from their region (the wording is confusing in that it includes the ALAC members twice). In the past, the rest of the ALAC has put heavy reliance on the opinon from the region. However, the provision ends with "Silence on an application = approval" This is trying to address the problem of ALAC members (and presumably Secretariats in the future) not responding in a timely manner. I find it problematic that the ALAC members, two of whom are selected by the Region, may give a different opinion than the Secretariat. I find it more problematic that if no one in the region (or their reps) are doing their job, it is deemed that they have approved and an application may be accepted inappropriately. - In the past, there have been examples of a Due Diligence (DD) saying that criteria (albeit vaguely defined ones) are met, even when the application says the opposite. The new procedure relies more on DD, and we need to ensure that the process of evaluation by staff is more bullet-proof than before (at least partly by actually formalizing the criteria!). - The proposal calls for approval of an application UNLESS at least 3/4 of the entire ALAC votes No. Assuming that there are at least 12 members on the ALAC at the time, this means that only 4 Yes votes are required to approve, and silence counts as Yes. Stated another way, for a full ALAC of 15, it will take 12 explicit No votes to reject an ALAC. It is quite common for one or more ALAC members to be unavailable or simply unresponsive for any given vote, and under these rules, they are effectively voting Yes. To me, this sounds like for all practical purposes, it will be virtually impossible to reject an ALS application. That makes the ALAC a rubber stamp. Even if there were a case of a region applying their own set of rules to accept "their friends", and even in the face of DD rejecting an application, it will be almost impossible to stop the approval. I am not sure what the proper process should be, but this does not sound like it to me. Alan

2 2

Reginoal Advice for ACOULL - DRS
by Mohammed EL Bashir June 16, 2007

June 16, 2007

Dear Afri-ALSs I would like to inform you about a new ALS Application from Africa Which needs regional advice . The Applicant Name : Association COngolaise des Utilisateurs de Logiciels Libres Country : Central Africa -- DRC Web Site : http://www.acoull.org ACOULL is a non profit organization which promote and provide information on Free and Open Source Software, ACOULL is linked to ISOC, AAULL and AfrISPA. your Advice and comments is needed . -- Best Regards, Mohamed El Bashir ICANN ALAC Committee Member Personal Web : www.mbash.net ""Life lies not in never falling, but in rising when you fall." Nelson Mandela 1995, Easten Cape.

1 2

Re: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue
by Annette Muehlberg June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Dear Jaqueline, I would have loved to be a bit behind on the emails on this ;-) Unfortunately the recent email sent out by Nick (see attached mail below) does not look like a resolution but an escalation of this issue. I would like to ask you as our chair to help to make sure that all ALAC members can take part at the next ICANN Meeting in San Juan - without making them pay any extra fees. In respect to what several ALAC members went through in trying to get there ticket in time (and therefore there visa!!!) over the last years, the issue we are currently dealing with, should have been a minor issue and easy to solve. Sincerely Annette --- >Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy >Von: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >An: "'Annette Muehlberg'" <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>, "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Datum: 15.06.07 14:55:50 Uhr >Hi Annette >You are a bit behind on the emails on this - Wendy and Nick have been >communicating on the issue and will probably have a resolution in a short >while. >The per diem has been organised - email went out to all already. >There is discussion with ICANN on the other travel issues - it should all >be sorted soon. >Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Annette Muehlberg [mailto:annette.muehlberg@web.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:24 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy All, I really do not understand what is going on here. I do not know if someone made a mistake or not and if so, who made a mistake. I do not think that this is relevant. Mistakes occur and we all have to help out to get things done. We should not spend days and days discussing this, instead staff should just book that flight to make sure that all ALAC members can fulfill their duties at the ICANN Meeting in San Juan. Best regards Annette attached mail > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > Gesendet: 15.06.07 16:11:43 > An: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org> > Betreff: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue > > Dear Wendy: > > Since you have seen fit to deal with the situation with respect to your travel in the most public way possible, and because you have made serious and unsubstantiated allegations about the role of the staff in manipulating the travel policy to exclude participation, this response is being sent to the public At-Large list. May I take this opportunity to state that I take no pleasure whatever in having to send such communications and I would have preferred that the matter be dealt with in a normal way between those directly concerned instead. > > Since you were informed that you would not receive travel support because you didnt book your tickets in the allotted time, you have:Accused the staff, in public email communications, of deliberately manipulating the travel policy to exclude participation in San Juan. Considering the amount of funding which ICANN provides to the At-Large community to attend ICANN meetings year in and year out - and considering that you personally have been supported for something like five years to attend three meetings a year, this accusation is unhelpful, inflammatory, and untrue.You have chosen to make untrue statements that you had complied with the travel deadlines on several occasions when that was demonstrably not the case. As is clear from the chronology of your contacts with American Express that you have not disputed, you had repeated opportunities to book your travel in the time provided and American Express repeatedly offered to help you you on several occasions told them you were not ready to be ticketed yet.You have suggested that policies about the amount of time for booking your tickets were hidden when you were clearly aware of them. You replied to the email that contained them.Suggesting that the email that contained the travel deadlines from the vendor was somehow hidden when you as well as everyone else were notified by me that you could expect an email from American Express containing details of how and when to arrange your flights within 24 hours (email of 31st May).Suggested that you were somehow not able to use the full period to book your travel when that is demonstrably not true.Suggested that the travel vendor failed to call you or follow up with you on public email lists when in fact you didnt ask them to call you, and when they followed up with you the next day, you did not indicate that they should have called you and in fact told them that you were not yet ready to book your travel. > Your representation of the travel system is inaccurate, the accusations made against members of the ICANN staff are untrue and alleged incompetence in the actions of the travel vendor belied by the detailed record of communication between you and Amex. > > The result of the inaccurate and inflammatory statements you have made, as well as the very public way in which you have chosen to present them, is that a great deal of time and energy has been consumed by several people in and out of ICANN on a matter that should have been a straightforward decision based upon facts. This has resulted in time that could have been spent on providing services to the whole community being spent instead on this matter. As a community leader, it seems to me that you are meant to be helping the community help itself, not providing opportunities to waste the time of staff and of others and making untrue and inflammatory statements which require time to be spent correcting the record. > > Out of a total of 40 people attending the San Juan meeting, of which 35 used the American Express service, you are the only person who didnt manage to make the arrangements in time. There were no other complaints about not having enough time to make arrangements on the contrary, everyone else was done in good time in spite of the fact that as previously mentioned, many had far more complex itineraries than yours would have been. > > The reality of having so many people travel with support from ICANN from this community is that there must be some reasonable rules regarding travel support otherwise fewer people will get to attend meetings. > > It would be entirely reasonable for us to stand by our previous decision and uphold the rules as they were written rules that everyone else managed to follow. However, upon reflection and taking particularly into account the wish of a number of your ALAC colleagues that the rules be bent in your favour, what we are prepared to do, on a one-time basis, is to reimburse you for an amount up to what the ticket could have been purchased for on the 8th on the airline of your choice and flight time windows, both of which you indicated as your preferences to American Express. If you choose to attend the San Juan meeting, please provide your airfare receipt with an expense claim and you will be reimbursed for up to US$883.00. > > Please let us know within 48 hours if you are intending to avail yourself of this offer and provide a copy of your itinerary so we can make the requisite hotel arrangements. To remind you, if you do attend, per-diems will cover a period of not longer than 23 29 June inclusive (meaning departure from San Juan on the 30th). > > I hope very much that this will be the end of this episode and that you will address any remaining concerns to me and eschew opportunities for further public airing of matters related to your travel arrangements. > > ---- > > > > > Chronology of W Seltzers Contacts with American Express Travel Desk. > > > · May 31 - Original email sent to traveller > > · June 1 616 a - Ms Seltzer responds that she is out of the office until the 4th . She does add her phone number, but does not specifically request a verbal phone call and since this is an international reservation, our agents responded via email. > > · June 1-11:45a - agent response with email that she looks forward to her response on Monday. > > · June 4 3 :58p- agent does not hear back from traveller and sends a courtesy reminder, requesting verification of carrier and flights > > · June 4 4: 28p - Ms Seltzer responds that she is not ready to ticket.June 8 11:45a- Received request for alternate flights- we did not have the opportunity to get back to her on Friday. > > > -- > Regards, > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > ICANN > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom > Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > --

3 2

Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation
by Wendy Seltzer June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Unless ICANN has dealt with them by the call, I'd like to take 2 minutes to raise my concerns about ridiculous implementation of the new travel policies. So far, I've seen a use of process to exclude participation, which I'd hate to think was ICANN's intent in streamlining its policies. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org

16 38

Registrar research
by Wendy Seltzer June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Members: > > With respect to the research proposed by Wendy, I have the pleasure to > provide you with some information which already exists in relation to > this subject. Some of you may have seen it previously. > > As to the request for the research work, as I mentioned to you on our > teleconference, in order to evaluate the utility of spending the money > to get research of the kind envisaged done, some further information > is needed. > > In particular, a proposal - not long, but a proposal - would be > required, which at a minimum has all the questions the ALAC has in > mind, and also what the ALAC proposes to do with the research data > once it has been gathered. > My suggestions, building upon the request submitted earlier: 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? Once the ALAC has received and collated responses, we will use them to evaluate whether individual registrants are able to take advantage of the options provided them in consensus policies. Depending on the outcomes, we will analyze whether ALAC believes that more contractual regulation or a lighter touch is necessary to serve the needs of individual (and other) domain name registrants. Further suggestions? If ICANN's concern is expense, we could ask for a sample plus top 20, although study of the variance may be valuable. --Wendy -- 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

Some of the thinking behind per-diem rates - and a survey on travel at the end of the meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Dear North American and LAC travellers: Since a number of people have asked questions about the per-diem system, how the amount was chosen, and the like, I thought I would put out a brief note. The amount chosen is actually based upon the US Government's OCONUS system amount for San Juan. We looked at two systems: the US system and the UN DSAR system. In the end, we settled on the US system - which is slightly lower - since there are frequently food and drink options at evening events - in San Juan, there are evening events every night which will have drinks, and are expected to have food - certainly the gala dinner will have a sumptuous meal as per usual, and the opening night reception traditionally has food as well. We removed the lodging portion of the US per diem amount since lodging is of course included. In the case of At-Large, both the LAC and NA regional meetings will have a catered lunch, and the ALAC will have two meetings with breakfast included. Obviously, this is the first time a number of these measures have been impemented. We want to know how it works for everyone. Robert Guerra came up with the superb idea of having the polling system conduct a poll on the various elements of the travel handling for San Juan, which all of you will be invited to take part in, so we can use the feedback to make things better for everyone. One final note: I explained the per-diems rather badly in my previous email I find. Here's the text from the travel policy which is much clearer: You will receive the per-diem for each full night you are away from home. For example, if the per-diem amount set for the meeting in this example was US$80, and you leave on the 13th to attend the meeting, arrive at the meeting location on the 15th (meaning you travelled a long way on flights, or overnighted somewhere along the way), and left for home on the 20th, and arrived on the 21st, you would receive the per-diem for 8 nights. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue
by Annette Muehlberg June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

"outside"? best Annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > Gesendet: 15.06.07 16:59:33 > An: Annette Muehlberg <Annette.Muehlberg(a)web.de> > CC: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > Betreff: Re: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue > > Dear Annette: > > Thank you for your reply. > > I believe my note is completely self-explanatory. The offer we have > made to Wendy is also clear. She is free to accept it or decline it > as she chooses but outside interventions will not alter it. > > > On 15 Jun 2007, at 15:42, Annette Muehlberg wrote: > > > Dear Jaqueline, > > > > I would have loved to be a bit behind on the emails on this ;-) > > > > Unfortunately the recent email sent out by Nick (see attached mail > > below) does not look like a resolution but an escalation of this > > issue. > > > > I would like to ask you as our chair to help to make sure that all > > ALAC members can take part at the next ICANN Meeting in San Juan - > > without making them pay any extra fees. > > > > In respect to what several ALAC members went through in trying to > > get there ticket in time (and therefore there visa!!!) over the > > last years, the issue we are currently dealing with, should have > > been a minor issue and easy to solve. > > > > Sincerely > > > > Annette > > --- > >> Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy > >> Von: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> > >> An: "'Annette Muehlberg'" <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>, "'Nick > >> Ashton-Hart'" <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > >> Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >> Datum: 15.06.07 14:55:50 Uhr > > > > > >> Hi Annette > >> You are a bit behind on the emails on this - Wendy and Nick have been > >> communicating on the issue and will probably have a resolution in > >> a short > >> while. > >> The per diem has been organised - email went out to all already. > >> There is discussion with ICANN on the other travel issues - it > >> should all > >> be sorted soon. > >> Jacqueline > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Annette Muehlberg [mailto:annette.muehlberg@web.de] > > Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:24 AM > > To: Nick Ashton-Hart > > Cc: At-Large Worldwide > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy > > > > All, > > I really do not understand what is going on here. I do not know if > > someone made a mistake or not and if so, who made a mistake. I do not > > think that this is relevant. Mistakes occur and we all have to help > > out > > to get things done. > > > > We should not spend days and days discussing this, instead staff > > should > > just book that flight to make sure that all ALAC members can fulfill > > their duties at the ICANN Meeting in San Juan. > > > > Best regards > > Annette > > > > > > > > attached mail > > > >> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > >> Von: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > >> Gesendet: 15.06.07 16:11:43 > >> An: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > >> CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Doug Brent > >> <doug.brent(a)icann.org> > >> Betreff: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue > > > > > >> > >> Dear Wendy: > >> > >> Since you have seen fit to deal with the situation with respect to > >> your travel in the most public way possible, and because you have > >> made serious and unsubstantiated allegations about the role of the > >> staff in manipulating the travel policy to exclude > >> participation, this response is being sent to the public At-Large > >> list. May I take this opportunity to state that I take no pleasure > >> whatever in having to send such communications and I would have > >> preferred that the matter be dealt with in a normal way between > >> those directly concerned instead. > >> > >> Since you were informed that you would not receive travel support > >> because you didnt book your tickets in the allotted time, you > >> have:Accused the staff, in public email communications, of > >> deliberately manipulating the travel policy to exclude > >> participation in San Juan. Considering the amount of funding which > >> ICANN provides to the At-Large community to attend ICANN meetings > >> year in and year out - and considering that you personally have > >> been supported for something like five years to attend three > >> meetings a year, this accusation is unhelpful, inflammatory, and > >> untrue.You have chosen to make untrue statements that you had > >> complied with the travel deadlines on several occasions when that > >> was demonstrably not the case. As is clear from the chronology of > >> your contacts with American Express that you have not disputed, > >> you had repeated opportunities to book your travel in the time > >> provided and American Express repeatedly offered to help you you > >> on several occasions told them you > > were not ready to be ticketed yet.You have suggested that > > policies about the amount of time for booking your tickets were > > hidden when you were clearly aware of them. You replied to the > > email that contained them.Suggesting that the email that contained > > the travel deadlines from the vendor was somehow hidden when you as > > well as everyone else were notified by me that you could expect an > > email from American Express containing details of how and when to > > arrange your flights within 24 hours (email of 31st > > May).Suggested that you were somehow not able to use the full > > period to book your travel when that is demonstrably not > > true.Suggested that the travel vendor failed to call you or follow > > up with you on public email lists when in fact you didnt ask them > > to call you, and when they followed up with you the next day, you > > did not indicate that they should have called you and in fact > > told them that you were not yet ready to book your travel. > >> Your representation of the travel system is inaccurate, the > >> accusations made against members of the ICANN staff are untrue and > >> alleged incompetence in the actions of the travel vendor belied by > >> the detailed record of communication between you and Amex. > >> > >> The result of the inaccurate and inflammatory statements you have > >> made, as well as the very public way in which you have chosen to > >> present them, is that a great deal of time and energy has been > >> consumed by several people in and out of ICANN on a matter that > >> should have been a straightforward decision based upon facts. This > >> has resulted in time that could have been spent on providing > >> services to the whole community being spent instead on this > >> matter. As a community leader, it seems to me that you are meant > >> to be helping the community help itself, not providing > >> opportunities to waste the time of staff and of others and making > >> untrue and inflammatory statements which require time to be spent > >> correcting the record. > >> > >> Out of a total of 40 people attending the San Juan meeting, of > >> which 35 used the American Express service, you are the only > >> person who didnt manage to make the arrangements in time. There > >> were no other complaints about not having enough time to make > >> arrangements on the contrary, everyone else was done in good > >> time in spite of the fact that as previously mentioned, many had > >> far more complex itineraries than yours would have been. > >> > >> The reality of having so many people travel with support from > >> ICANN from this community is that there must be some reasonable > >> rules regarding travel support otherwise fewer people will get > >> to attend meetings. > >> > >> It would be entirely reasonable for us to stand by our previous > >> decision and uphold the rules as they were written rules that > >> everyone else managed to follow. However, upon reflection and > >> taking particularly into account the wish of a number of your ALAC > >> colleagues that the rules be bent in your favour, what we are > >> prepared to do, on a one-time basis, is to reimburse you for an > >> amount up to what the ticket could have been purchased for on the > >> 8th on the airline of your choice and flight time windows, both of > >> which you indicated as your preferences to American Express. If > >> you choose to attend the San Juan meeting, please provide your > >> airfare receipt with an expense claim and you will be reimbursed > >> for up to US$883.00. > >> > >> Please let us know within 48 hours if you are intending to avail > >> yourself of this offer and provide a copy of your itinerary so we > >> can make the requisite hotel arrangements. To remind you, if you > >> do attend, per-diems will cover a period of not longer than 23 > >> 29 June inclusive (meaning departure from San Juan on the 30th). > >> > >> I hope very much that this will be the end of this episode and > >> that you will address any remaining concerns to me and eschew > >> opportunities for further public airing of matters related to your > >> travel arrangements. > >> > >> ---- > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Chronology of W Seltzers Contacts with American Express Travel Desk. > >> > >> > >> · May 31 - Original email sent to traveller > >> > >> · June 1 616 a - Ms Seltzer responds that she is out of > >> the office until the 4th . She does add her phone number, but does > >> not specifically request a verbal phone call and since this is an > >> international reservation, our agents responded via email. > >> > >> · June 1-11:45a - agent response with email that she looks > >> forward to her response on Monday. > >> > >> · June 4 3 :58p- agent does not hear back from traveller > >> and sends a courtesy reminder, requesting verification of carrier > >> and flights > >> > >> · June 4 4: 28p - Ms Seltzer responds that she is not ready > >> to ticket.June 8 11:45a- Received request for alternate flights- > >> we did not have the opportunity to get back to her on Friday. > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Regards, > >> > >> > >> Nick Ashton-Hart > >> Director, At-Large > >> ICANN > >> PO Box 32160 > >> London N4 2XY > >> United Kingdom > >> Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] > >> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > >> Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > >> mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > >> email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > >> Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / > >> Skype: nashtonhart > >> Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ----------------------------------------------------------------- > >> _______________________________________________ > >> ALAC mailing list > >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- > >> lists.icann.org > >> At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > >> ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > >> > > > > -- > > --

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Gross Deletes
by Robert Guerra June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Danny: In your opinion, do you think it is due to registryfly going under? or can the significant increase in deletes be explained by some other factor. On 8-Jun-07, at 1:53 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > The latest monthly registry reports have been posted. > This report sees an increase of almost 8 million gross > deletes in .com/.net over last month's totals -- > current monthly total is at 55,794,877 gross deletes. > > > http://www.icann.org/tlds/monthly-reports/com-net/verisign-200702.pdf > >

8 14

FW: [council] Revised and final version of the Issues Report on Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

>Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 18:15:27 +0100 >From: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell(a)icann.org> >Subject: FW: [council] Revised and final version of the Issues >Report on Domain > Tasting >To: 'Alan Greenberg' <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: 'Nick Ashton-Hart' <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > >Hi Alan, > >Would you mind circulating this revised report to the At Large, as >appropriate? The changes are pretty minor (they're detailed in Annex >3), but I want to make sure your guys have the most accurate and up >to date version. > >I don't expect there to be any more changes to the Issues Report. > >Many thanks, Maria

1 0

Constituency Interaction with the Board / At-Large Community meeting with the Board 26th June 1100 - 1200
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Dear NA, LAC, and ALAC members: As you will see below, the date and time set for the At-Large community meeting with the ICANN Board of Directors on Constituency Day has been set - and you will find links to a new meeting page on the community meeting pages at: LAC: https://st.icann.org/lacralo/index.cgi?san_juan_icann_meeting NA: https://st.icann.org/naralo/index.cgi?puerto_rico_icann_meeting ALAC: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?san_juan_meeting For those of you who are not familiar with Constituency Day, amongst other things, the Board makes time to meet with each ICANN constituency to give the communities a chance to discuss their priorities and get the views of the board on the issues of importance to the communities. The agenda of these meetings is basically set by each community, though the courtesy of providing these in advance to the board is appreciated. The Board and ICANN Staff are looking for input on these meetings, and Diane Schroeder has asked that the following note be passed along to you for your consideration. --- To the ICANN Constituencies, Supporting Organizations and Advisory Groups, Over the past year, the ICANN Meetings Committee has been soliciting information on how to make the public board meetings more efficient and to increase participation. This is a ongoing project and in response to the feedback that has been received, changes are being made to each meeting. For instance, as a part of this event, we have rearranged the schedule to start with public meetings on Monday and significant changes have been made to the methods of remote participation. As part of this ongoing process, we would like each group to evaluate the interaction between the constituency, supporting organization or advisory group that takes place during the meeting. These opportunities to meet should be as productive for each party as possible. Constituency Day is the one day on which most of the groups meet. The questions I would like to ask each constituency to consider are: 1. The purpose of the interaction between the board and the constituency? 2. The best venue for this to occur. Is the constituency meeting the best venue? Would a breakfast, lunch or dinner be better? 3. How much time would be needed for the most optimal interaction? 4. Does the entire board need to meet with the constituency? For instance, could a few members of the board attend different constituency meetings, perhaps allowing them to stay for a longer period of time? 5. Could the board be provided with an agenda before the meeting, identifying topics or concerns that the constituency would like to discuss, allowing the board to be better prepared for the meeting? Any other feedback on the board/constituency interactions? I would like to report back to the Meetings Committee on the feedback that I receive from the various groups at our first telephone conference after San Juan. This would enable us to take the feedback into account for the planning of the Los Angeles meeting? Diane Schroeder General Manager, Conferences & Administration ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Ste. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1-310-823-9358 x 5827 (phone) +1-310-823-8649 (fax) diane.schroeder(a)icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

2 1

ALS accreditation votes
by Vittorio Bertola June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

I am moving the discussion to the global list - I really think that this is a matter that affects the entire constituency, not just the current ALAC members. [The discussion is about modalities of voting for ALS accreditation - in particular, whether ALAC members who abstain or vote against should be required to provide explicit reasons for doing so, and whether individual votes should remain public as it is now, or be kept confidential.] One ALAC member wrote: > - No matter what voting approach we apply (e.g. secret voting, opened > voting), more important is the FEEDBACK we provide to the ALS applicants. > So, that they are able to improve their structure/activities/priorities > according to the established/provided criterias. > For this purpose, the ALAC should provide a Letter with Recommendations on > behalf of the entire Committee. I agree with you on this. However, the problem we have is that the failure to approve is the result of the sum of individual opinions, so when the applicant asks "why did you reject my application, and what do I have to do to improve?", you do not have an answer... perhaps there is no answer, since the people that did not vote in favour might have done so for very different reasons. I understand that some people might be afraid about having to explain why they took a position against, especially in countries where there might be social backlash arising from that. But it is also unreasonable to deny participatory rights to someone, and when asked why, either say "we don't know" (which makes it look like the Committee is not serious and does not think before acting) or "we refuse to tell you" (which is even worse). In the end, excluding someone from the constituency in which they want to participate is quite a serious action, that must be backed by strong and clear reasons, also because it might (and will, in most cases) be subject to appeal to the Ombudsman or to the Board. Perhaps, if individual members have a problem in expressing themselves publicly, we could change the system so that, in the due diligence phase, those who are against write a motion to reject, stating also the reasons why they think that the application should be rejected. In that way, on the ballot you would have to pick one of two motions, one saying "yes" and one saying "no, because..."; in that case, if the "no" prevails, there would already be collective reasons stated and there would be no need for members to provide explanations individually. So, basically we would have: - a due diligence phase as usual; - before the deadline for starting the vote, any member can privately submit to the Chair a motion against, if he/she thinks that the application is to be rejected; the author(s) of the motion shall remain confidential; - if no motions against are proposed, the application is approved on a "no objections" basis; - if there are motions against, then we vote (publicly or privately, as we prefer) and we have a clear result. I would really like to get rid of abstentions - they were meant only for direct conflict of interests (e.g. voting on one's own organization), but in the end either the application meets the criteria, or it doesn't - members should not refrain from taking a position on that, and in the end, they can still not vote at all. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

7 14

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

Danny My email was to inform you that it is not ONLY a NA concern, and that the rest of the regions are working on cc issues as well. This was informational and there is no reason to threaten the existence of the NARALO. The NA region is part of the global AtLarge, and should be interested in working together with the rest of the world, and not only in isolation. -----Original Message----- From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:42 AM To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; 'NA Discuss' Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: Redelegation Hi Jacqueline, Sorry to disagree, but the NeuStar contract with the USG is scheduled to expire by the end of October (posing a potential redelegation issue), and frankly we don't have the luxury of waiting for the ALAC and the CCNSO to come to grips with the global aspects of the problem. This is a timely regional issue for us that we should be at liberty to handle by way of positing an ICANN obligation in the MOU (which is within our rights to request). The RALOs exist to deal with regional concerns. Let us handle this matter in our own fashion or let's just scrap the RALO concept. regards, Danny --- "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> wrote: > Hi Danny > This is a concern in other places, and ALAC has set > up several meetings with > ccNSO in San Juan to discuss how we can work > together on issues such as > this. I don't think that it belongs in the NARALO > MoU, but rather is a > global issue that ALL regions should work on > together. > Jacqueline > > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@yahoo.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2007 9:11 AM > To: NA Discuss > Subject: [NA-Discuss] MOU - ICANN Obligations: > Redelegation > > I remain troubled by the total lack of transparency > in > the ccTLD redelegation process. Has anyone ever > seen > a detailed redelegation request posted for > consideration prior to action being taken by the > Board? > > The .us situation is particularly bad. On the last > go-around ICANN bypassed the normal IANA processes > to > declare an "emergency redelegation" -- see > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19nov01.htm > > I certainly don't want the relevant Internet > community > being kept in the dark should the delegation of the > .us namespace become an issue. > > I would ask that the NARALO MOU stipulate that ICANN > has the obligation to inform the NARALO upon the > receipt of any relevant ccTLD redelegation request > (.us or .ca) so that community input may be provided > (as per RFC 1591: "it is also appropriate for > interested parties to have some voice in selecting > the > designated manager.") > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ > ________ > 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > Draft Code of Conduct: > http://www.icannwiki.org/NARALO_Code_of_Conduct > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - > Release Date: 6/13/2007 > 12:50 PM > > > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - > Release Date: 6/13/2007 > 12:50 PM > > > ____________________________________________________________________________ ________ Luggage? GPS? Comic books? Check out fitting gifts for grads at Yahoo! Search http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=graduation+gifts&cs=bz No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.15/848 - Release Date: 6/13/2007 12:50 PM

1 0

Cómo funciona la administración de nombres de dominio
by Robert Guerra June 14, 2007

June 14, 2007

(texto en español a continuación) I just came across the following spanish language blog entry on and about "The administration of domain names". I have only quickly gone through the document and thought it could be of interest to at-large. I have not given it a thorough read through, so i won't yet comment on its accuracy. Keen to get comments from those other spanish speakers involved and engaged in At-large. ## En español ## Acabo de encontrar el siguiente articulo sobre la administración de nombres de dominio. Creo que sería interesante saber lo que opinias sobre el articulo, sobre todo si hay algun error en el texto. A la espera de comentarios de los hispano parlantes en el espacio at- large. saludos/regards Robert -- http://www.arkhaios.com/?p=49 - ARKHAIOS - http://www.arkhaios.com - Cómo funciona la administración de nombres de dominio Posted By PedroNel On June 12, 2007 @ 6:11 pm In Nombres de dominio, Estados Unidos, Organismos de Nombres de dominio, internet, Sociedad de la información | No Comments Muchas personas creen que internet es el reino del “no gobierno”, cuando es exactamente lo contrario, es decir, si hay algo regulado es la internet, lo que sucede -y en eso sí es diferente a cualquiera otro caso global- es que se trata de reglas generalmente aceptadas, mas no de reglas impuestas al estilo de las legislaciones nacionales. En internet lo que uno encuentra son montones de organismos que trabajan coordinadamente en escenarios consensuados, y cuyas recomendaciones son atendidas por todos. Quien desee conocer cómo funciona internet, debe visitar el site de la [1] Internet Society, la cual se autodefine de la siguiente manera: “The Internet Society is a non-profit, non-governmental, international, professional membership organization. Its more than 100 organization members and over 20,000 individual members in over 180 nations worldwide represent a veritable who’s who of the Internet community. You should be a member, too. ” (citado de la portada) Uno de los aspectos más interesantes del funcionamiento de internet es el sistema de nombres de dominio: “El sistema de nombres de dominio (DNS) ayuda a los usuarios a navegar en Internet. Las computadoras en Internet tienen una dirección única llamada “dirección IP” (dirección de protocolo de Internet). Como las direcciones IP (compuestas por una cadena de números) son difíciles de recordar, el DNS permite usar una cadena de letras (el “nombre del dominio”) para que usted pueda escribir [2] www.icann.org en vez de “192.0.34.163”. El DNS traduce el nombre del dominio a la dirección IP que le corresponde y lo conecta con el sitio web que desea. El DNS también permite el funcionamiento del correo electrónico, de manera tal que los mensajes que envía lleguen al destinatario que corresponda, y muchos otros servicios de Internet.” ([3] http://www.icann.org/tr/ spanish.html) El sistema de nombres de dominio está coordinado por la Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ([4] ICANN). ICANN “…es una organización sin fines de lucro que opera a nivel internacional, responsable de asignar espacio de direcciones numéricas de protocolo de Internet (IP), identificadores de protocolo y de las funciones de gestión [o administración] del sistema de nombres de dominio de primer nivel genéricos (gTLD) y de códigos de países (ccTLD), así como de la administración del sistema de servidores raíz. ” ([5] http://www.icann.org/tr/spanish.html) Básicamente “ICANN es responsable de la coordinación de la administración de los elementos técnicos del DNS para garantizar una resolución unívoca de los nombres, de manera que los usuarios de Internet puedan encontrar todas las direcciones válidas. Para ello, se encarga de supervisar la distribución de los identificadores técnicos únicos usados en las operaciones de Internet, y delegar los nombres de dominios de primer nivel (como .com, .info, etc.).” ([6] http:// www.icann.org/tr/spanish.html) En ICANN participan gobiernos, organismos internacionales (”organismos de tratados internacionales” en la terminología de ICANN) y negocios privados. Sin embargo, el origen de la capacidad de ICANN respecto del sistema, es un memorando de entendimiento con el Gobierno de Estados Unidos [7] (”Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers” ), comoquiera que internet tiene origen en ese país. En concreto, el espacio de direcciones y los nombres de dominio se manejan a trávés de la National [8] Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) del [9] Departamento de Comercio de Estados Unidos (al respecto la página [10] “Domain Names: Management of Internet Names and Addresses” de la NTIA). Respecto de la propia ICANN, se tiene que “ICANN está gobernada por una Junta Directiva, de gran diversidad internacional, encargada de supervisar el proceso de desarrollo de normas y políticas. El Director General de ICANN está a la cabeza del personal de diversas nacionalidades que trabaja en tres continentes, y que asegura que ICANN cumpla con su compromiso operacional con la comunidad de Internet.” ([11] http://www.icann.org/ tr/spanish.html) ICANN tiene diferentes organizaciones de apoyo: Organización de apoyo para direcciones (ASO) - <[12] www.aso.icann.org> Organización de apoyo para nombres de dominio y código de países (CCNSO) - <[13] www.ccnso.icann.org> Organización de apoyo para nombres genéricos (GNSO) - <[14] www.gnso.icann.org> Comité asesora para la participación individual global (ALAC) - < [15] www.alac.icann.org> Comité asesora gubernamental - <[16] www.gac.icann.org> En materia de nombres de dominio hay varias clases, pero la que interesa en principio son los nombres de dominio de nivel superior (top level domains), de los cuales hay tres tipos: 1. Dominios de código de país (Country Code Domains), para el uso particular de los países (como .co para colombia, .us para Estados Unidos, etc., según el [17] ISO-3166). 2. Genéricos (Generic Domains), para el público en general (.aero, .asia, .biz, .cat, .com, .coop, .edu, .gov, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .int, .mil, .museum, .name, .net, .org, .pro, .tel y .travel) [18] salvo algunas excepciones. 3. Dominios de infraestructura de internet (Domain for Internet infrastructure, en realida es .arpa) Dado que el tercero es en realidad un dominio especial, cualquier reflexión sobre nombres de dominio puede concentrarse en los dos primeros (ver [19] “Domain Name Services” en el site de la [20] IANA). En el caso de ccTLD existen dos documentos base, aceptados por consenso de la comunidad internet: - El [21] RFC (Request for Comments) 1591 . Los documentos RFC son documentos técnicos relacionados con la operación de internet coordinados por un [22] editor, actualmente la Networking Division del USC [23] Information Sciences Institute (ISI) (al principio fue una persona: [24] Jon Postel). - El [25] ICP-1 de IANA. ICANN opera gracias a un [26] “Memorando de Entendimiento” de 1998 suscrito con el Departamento de Comercio de Estados Unidos, y en 2001 recibió una [27] licencia para el uso de [28] InterNIC (Internet Network Information Center ) como marca del servicio de información central sobre nombres de dominio. Inicialmente, InterNIC era el nombre del organismo que administraba los nombres de dominio y las direcciones en internet, hasta el paso de las mismas a ICANN en 1998 (inicialmente, el mismo trabajo lo hizo la NIC -Network Information Centre- del Stanford Research Institute o SRI, luego transferido a la Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, o [29] IANA). No es lo mismo “nombre de dominio” que dirección de internet (la “IP”, como se llama coloquialmente, aunque IP es “internet protocol”). Para más información sobre direcciones IP puede visitar la página de la IANA [30] “Abuse Issues and IP Addresses”. Article printed from ARKHAIOS: http://www.arkhaios.com URL to article: http://www.arkhaios.com/?p=49 URLs in this post: [1] Internet Society: http://www.isoc.org/ [2] www.icann.org: http://www.icann.org/ [3] http://www.icann.org/tr/spanish.html: http://www.icann.org/tr/ spanish.html [4] ICANN: http://www.icann.org [5] http://www.icann.org/tr/spanish.html: http://www.icann.org/tr/ spanish.html [6] http://www.icann.org/tr/spanish.html: http://www.icann.org/tr/ spanish.html [7] (”Memorandum of Understanding Between the Department of Commerce and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers”: http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/icann.htm [8] Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA): http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ [9] Departamento de Comercio : http://www.commerce.gov/ [10] “Domain Names: Management of Internet Names and Addresses”: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ [11] http://www.icann.org/tr/spanish.html: http://www.icann.org/tr/ spanish.html [12] www.aso.icann.org: http://www.aso.icann.org/ [13] www.ccnso.icann.org: http://www.ccnso.icann.org/ [14] www.gnso.icann.org: http://www.gnso.icann.org/ [15] www.alac.icann.org: http://www.alac.icann.org/ [16] www.gac.icann.org: http://www.gac.icann.org/ [17] ISO-3166: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/ 02iso-3166-code-lists/list-en1.html [18] salvo algunas excepciones: http://www.iana.org/gtld/gtld.htm [19] “Domain Name Services”: http://www.iana.org/domain-names.htm [20] IANA: http://www.iana.org [21] RFC (Request for Comments) 1591: http://www.isi.edu/in-notes/ rfc1591.txt [22] editor: http://www.rfc-editor.org/ [23] Information Sciences Institute (ISI): http://www.isi.edu/index.php [24] Jon Postel: http://www.isoc.org/postel/ [25] ICP-1: http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm [26] “Memorando de Entendimiento” de 1998: http://www.icann.org/ general/icann-mou-25nov98.htm [27] licencia: http://www.icann.org/general/internic-license-08jan01.htm [28] InterNIC: http://www.internic.org [29] IANA: http://www.arkhaios.comwww.iana.org [30] “Abuse Issues and IP Addresses”: http://www.iana.org/faqs/abuse- faq.htm

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Teleconference facility (was: Add to agenda for teleconf...)
by Alan Greenberg June 12, 2007

June 12, 2007

As I said in reply to Alice, no fixed line phone = absolutely necessary. Regarding Skype, I am dubious that these problems can be reliably fixed in the short term. But I would be delighted to be proven wrong. Regarding cost, I think that it is completely reasonable that ICANN arrange to reimburse you for real out-of-pocket costs i participating in conference calls. Alan At 12/06/2007 02:55 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >On 6/12/07, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >The GNSO uses the same teleconference facility. I would guess that >the GNSO e-mails include specific times because the GNSO staff put >them there, not because of the service provider. The GNSO conferences >work relatively well most of the time, and with FAR more people >participating. I suspect that part of the issue is that we have more >people from "unusual" locations which require call-outs (and >seemingly no mechanism to know that they have dropped and need to be >re-called). > >I think that we should outlaw the use of Skype and equivalent, and >strongly discourage mobile phones unless absolutely necessary. > > >I don't believe that Skype should be excluded, but it should be >better commodated by the service operator to resolve the problem of >echoing. As for mobile, I don't like using it at all for the cast is >very high. However, what if a participant (such as me) is so poor >that she has no fix-line phone? > >Hong > > > > > > >At 12/06/2007 01:16 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > >I really ask ICANN/Nick to reconsider the Conf Call operator and > >suggest the feasibility of using the one GNSO is using > >(Alan, am I correct that they are better in service and quality?) > >Also to prevent some mistake Vittorio had, I also like to suggest > >the specific time to each member of ALAC be displayed in the > >call notice, just like the GNSO call annoucement does. > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list ><mailto:ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: <http://www.alac.icann.org>http://www.alac.icann.org >ALAC Independent: <http://www.icannalac.org>http://www.icannalac.org >

1 0

ICANN Budget
by Izumi AIZU June 12, 2007

June 12, 2007

I am concerned about the new proposed budget ICANN released, in the way it is presented. You cannot really find how much exactly ALAC's budget is allocated from the documents. >From the slide, "ICANN Fiscal Year 2008 Proposed Budget Overview" at page 4, it is under "Outreach" and combined with Fellowship and totals to $1,068K Then at page 21 of "Proposd Budget Fiscal Year 2007-2008," more detailed version dated 17 May says "Outreach" includes Ombudsman ($449K), Media Transparency ($1,040K), Fellowship ($308K), Board & SOAC Travel ($1,464K) etc... We need more accurate and transparent figures for the AtLarge Budget. Something like: ALAC Travel Cost RALO/ALS Travel Cost RALO Regional Meeting Cost AtLarge Staff Cost/Regional Staff Cost ALAC related Communications cost (ie Web, wiki, Conf call) ALAC Review Cost etc. AND, we also need the record of previous expenditures so that we can compare them. thanks, izumi -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society Kumon Center, Tama University * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

1 0

Board liaison report
by Vittorio Bertola June 12, 2007

June 12, 2007

All, here is my report on what happened in the Board since the last ALAC call. The Board held a retreat in Mountain View, California on May 11-12. Board retreats are devoted to strategic issues, rather than to dealing with current agenda items. In particular, this one featured a presentation on rights and duties of ICANN Directors under the applicable US laws; some reports and advance discussions on the next IGF; and a discussion on ICANN's responsibilities towards its constituents, in which I tried to raise the post-Registerfly issues and, in general, the importance of strengthening ICANN's responsiveness to registrants. A Board call was held on May 15, but due to a change of time I ended up being on the flight back from the US at that very time. Anyway, the main agenda item was the release of the draft budget for next year, which has now been published for comment. The rest of the report refers to discussions happening on the Board list, and decisions taken in the meanwhile. The third ICANN meeting of this year, which was supposed to be in Asia/Pacific, will be held in Los Angeles instead. There was really no alternative due to a number of practical problems, but I (and others) stressed the importance of keeping the rotation running; staff plans to replace the next North American meeting with an Asia Pacific one, as per a new schedule that is already published. There has been a lot of discussion on the increasing speed of exhaustion of IPv4 addresses, and whether ICANN should have a role in the transition, and which one, given that most of the policy-making responsibility lies with the RIRs, that are currently discussing policy proposals for a fair distribution of the last chunks of the IPv4 space (regions that traditionally used less of them are asking to get a reservation so that they can continue getting IPv4 addresses for longer than the others). This issue is likely to come up more and more in the upcoming months. IDNs also came up as an issue - there are some Board members that share the feeling that quicker progress is necessary on this matter. In San Juan this issue should be raised again in the various involved SOs and ACs, also as some advices by some of them (for example, on the matter of IDN ccTLDs) are expected to arrive. "IDN ccTLDs" is a very sensible matter involving a lot of complex issues (ranging from roles & responsibilities of different actors, to the extent & applicability of national sovereignty) and will possibly become hot in the future. Domain tasting/kiting issues, and registrant protection ones, came up on the Board list regularly. The Board recognized our request for an issue report on domain tasting, and is waiting to see what comes out of it in the GNSO. Exactly as in the At Large, there are different preliminary views on the matter, but no immediate action is in sight as of this moment. On post-Registerfly, a RFP on data escrow was posted, and we are waiting for the CEO to release a plan in San Juan. Finally, on June 8 Alejandro Pisanty's term on the Board finished, and his seat was taken by Bruce Tonkin, newly elected to the Board by the GNSO. The next Board call is scheduled for June 18, and will likely feature a discussion of the Ombudsman's reports on the ALAC's alleged failures to treat ALS applications fairly and in a timely manner. Wendy and Patrick's blog posts on the EURALO elections also spawned some discussion on how well the ALAC is doing. In the end, while it is likely that any structural change will be deferred to the upcoming ALAC review, there may be some time devoted by the Board, in San Juan and/or on the next call, to the discussion of ALAC performance issues. Regards, -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0