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

Research Downplays Personal Info Threat (fwd)
by John L July 14, 2007

July 14, 2007

Here's an interesting AP wire story reporting that posting personal information on the net is, contrary to the conventional wisdom, not particularly dangerous. This seems directly relevant to arguments about removing contact info from WHOIS. Incidentally, I know the guy who wrote the story, and he is one of the better tech reporters around. R's, John ----------------- By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet writer Almost every lesson on Internet safety warns against posting personal information such as phone numbers and school names. Researchers are now suggesting, though, that such advice, however well-intentioned, doesn't necessarily make children safer from predators and related threats. In a recent study published in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, researchers found no evidence that sharing personal information increases the chances of online victimization, such as unwanted sexual solicitation and harassment. Rather, victimization is more likely to result from other online behavior, such as talking about sex with people met online and intentionally embarrassing someone else on the Internet. "For a long time, we really didn't know," said Michele Ybarra, one of the study's authors. "It made sense if you post or send information you increase your risk. It's also a very easy message: Don't post personal information and you'll be safe." But Ybarra, who is president of the nonprofit Internet Solutions for Kids, warned that parents and educators must now reassess the lessons, saying resources may be wasted on tips that do not address the underlying problem. Instead of discouraging children from communicating, she said, the better approach is to teach them about what at-risk behaviors to avoid and warning signs to spot. "We now need to be a lot more specific and accurate in our message," she said. The research, published in February, was based on telephone surveys of 1,500 Internet users ages 10 to 17. In a separate study of 2,574 law-enforcement agencies, researchers found that online sex crimes rarely involve offenders lying about their ages or sexual motives. The 2004 study, published in Journal of Adolescent Health, said offenders generally aren't strangers, and pedophiles aren't luring unsuspecting children by pretending to be a peer. "Most of these sexual-victimization (cases) happen at the hands of people they know, and a lot happen at the hands of peers," said Janis Wolak, co-author of both studies and a researcher with the University of New Hampshire's Crimes Against Children Research Center. The research also found that online victims tend to be teens with troubles offline, such as poor relationships with parents, loneliness and depression. "A lot of parents, I think, can breathe a big sigh of relief," said Anne Collier, editor of the online newsletter Net Family News. "If their kids are just socializing with their friends online, they are going to be fine." Nancy Willard, author of "Cyber-Safe Kids, Cyber-Savvy Teens," said predators don't need to be snatching kids by piecing together clues from personal information when they can go for the low-hanging fruit -- the teens specifically engaging in at-risk behavior, such as posting sexually provocative images in their profiles. Many Internet-safety experts remain skeptical that parents and educators can let their guard down on the posting of personal information at sites like Facebook and News Corp.'s MySpace. "The only way they can get into trouble is if they end up meeting the stranger, and that's going to come from giving out personal information," said Susan Sachs, chief operating officer with the nonprofit Common Sense Media. "It's pretty clear to connect the dots between personal information and predators." Monique Nelson, executive vice president of the Internet safety group Web Wise Kids, said kids "don't have the sense of ... knowing when a predator would be grooming them" so a blanket message against posting personal information is a good first line of defense. Amanda Lenhart, a senior research specialist at the Pew Internet and American Life Project, agrees that the attention on personal information may be misplaced, but she said caution may still be wise. "There is something to be said for preserving your privacy for other reasons," Lenhart said, noting that too much information could come to haunt teens when they apply for college or jobs. "Safety is not necessarily the No. 1 reason."

2 1

ALS applications
by At Large Staff July 14, 2007

July 14, 2007

Please find attached the two most recent application forms for ALS accreditation, one for the Africa region and one for the European region. Regards At-Large Staff

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Updates on the WHOIS WG
by Danny Younger July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Re: "So how do we balance the interests of the small and individual registrants as well as that of the consumer, as both are our constituents?" (1) We begin by acknowledging that we have no consensus on the topic even after six year's worth of sustained discussion on the topic within ICANN. (2) Because there is no consensus to bind the registrars to a given policy, we release the registrars from their obligations pertaining to the display of WHOIS data in the RAA. (3) We allow the market forces to shape the end result. Ultimately the market will act to protect both commercial and private interests. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Moody friends. Drama queens. Your life? Nope! - their life, your story. Play Sims Stories at Yahoo! Games. http://sims.yahoo.com/

1 0

IDN ccTLDs
by Danny Younger July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Re: "the ICANN Board resolved that the ICANN community including the GNSO, ccNSO, GAC, and ALAC provide the Board with responses to the published list of issues and questions that need to be addressed in order to move forward with IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in a manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet. The Board requests status reports regarding progress by the conclusion of the ICANN meeting in Los Angeles in October 2007." I will admit to being confused by the questions initially put forth in the Issues Paper: "Selection of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes". The document begins with the following: Which territories are eligible for an IDN ccTLD? The existence of IDNs as ccTLDs assumes a direct relationship between an IDN TLD string and a territory as in ASCII ccTLDs. a) Should this relationship be maintained? b) If so, should the territories which are potentially eligible for IDN ccTLDs be exactly the same as the territories that are listed in the ISO-3166-1 list? c) If not, should another list be used or should another mechanism be developed? No answers are provided to these questions, yet the groundwork on this topic on the advantages and disadvantages of geographical units was laid out five years ago in the paper "Discussion Paper on Non-ASCII Top-Level Domain Policy Issues (Revised Draft)" at http://www.icann.org/committees/idn/non-ascii-tld-paper-13jun02.htm and offered a greater sense of clarity (as at least an effort was made to evaluate the relative pros and cons). At first glance it seems like this document is a step backwards... would be nice to hear the views of others. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Boardwalk for $500? In 2007? Ha! Play Monopoly Here and Now (it's updated for today's economy) at Yahoo! Games. http://get.games.yahoo.com/proddesc?gamekey=monopolyherenow

1 0

ALS Proposed structures appllication (ALAC)
by RJGlass | America＠Large July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

With regard to the current ALAC meeting, and the Proposed Guide to At-Large Structures Application evaluation, I have some concerns. 1) This document lacks any real substance or clarity in the area of what is desired of future ALSs. 2) There is no substantial improvement over the previous version. 3) There has not been substantial deliberation over the issues, rather issues are glossed over and accepted or changed as insignificantly as they have been proposed. 4) Too much time has been spent on procedural issues that could have been better focused on substance. I am not trying to stand in the way of progress, rather I am convinced that not much progress has been made in the way of making a reformed application process of new ALSs. In preparing for future issues such as this, I would suggest more time and energy be used for making a quality document and clear up issues related to these documents. Unfortunately there has been so much going on that some things fall through the cracks. I'm afraid that this document is one which has been neglected. -Randy Glass A@L

11 35

On leave, 13 to 17 July
by Nick Ashton-Hart July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

FYI, I will be on leave and unavailable from 13 through 17th July. -- 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

Proposal: Rotating Chair for ALAC/Rotating Location for Meetings
by Michael Maranda July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Granted, the location for ICANN meetings is not in our (At Large) control... I would say one or two things on the rotation of chair: fairness is perhaps less the issue than reasonably being able to work together better/more effectively. This is not to say that these proposals will achieve that, but is intended as a commentary on the criteria for decision. "Fairness" can lead to divisiveness... as in "we didnt get exactly what you got"... We would do much better to frame things from "reasonable rotation" for the cause of the work to be undertaken and distributed. Much has been made of diminished (symbolic) credibility of a rotating chair. We should instead emphasise At Large being able to speak with consensus (when such consensus exists) or legitimacy as a body as a whole. That is more impressive to me than "stability of chair" ... couching the argument in such a way as to suggest this means we are less stable or would be taken as less stable and credible is very much mistaken and representative of subjective view, and signals bias towards the status quo. Going back to the rotation of meetings, we have been told by staff that it is impossible to justify support for regional ALS travel to two meetings in a row (San Juan and LA). As Izumi mentions, there will not be another meeting in NA region for a lengthy interval. This change in the rotation of locations is to the convenience of ICANN, not to us in At Large. We have received contradictory statements from different sources on this matter regarding whether we will be able to convene NA at LA. As an individual representing but one ALS in NA RALO, and not speaking for the RALO as a whole, I am very interested in what is understood by folks in other regions on this matter. Fairness extends not just to chairing of this body, it extends to what is supported in the various regions. Also, the cause of any unfairness may not be from within At Large itself. On 7/10/07, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org> wrote: > > I am not still convinced at all by idea of Rotating Chair, for > practical reasons. > > I see some (past) Chairs have difficulty in conducting the ALAC > sessions at their first ICANN meetings, improved later - at second or > third meetings. If a new Chair comes in and go with three to five > months, where do these lessons learned go? To the next Chair? Hard to > believe. So every time ALAC may suffer from the inexperienced new > leadership at its very important and expensive physical meetings. > > This year, the meeting venue rotatin was sort of broken. As you know, > Asia Pacific region was scheduled to host its ICANN meeting in > October, but due to politics and other reasons, they could not find > ANY venue/host and decided to move to LA for October meeting, and put > AP region for February. What is things like this happen again? How > could we insure the fair rotation? > > Have you seen the actual schedule of ICANN meeting from now till 2010? > According to this list, North America will host ICANN LA meeting this > October, and the next meeting they will host is October 2010 - three > years ahead! From 2008, the order will be: > AP, Eu, Af, LAC, AP, EU, AF, LAC, then NA. > > In theory, rotating chair looks attractive, but in practice, it will > be very troublesome. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > > 2007/7/10, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>: > > All, > > I propose a different concept of rotating chairs. Instead of the EU > > rotating model, I think the following would be more effective and > > certainly less bureaucratic: > > > > After each ICANN meeting those three representatives of the ALAC of the > > region where the next meeting will take place take the lead. One of the > > old team will join their work (to make sure that "old" issues do not get > > lost) and of course the regional secretariat will share responsibilities > > especially in preparing the next meeting. > > > > best > > annette > > > > > > Alan Greenberg schrieb: > > > Although I like the idea conceptually, I am dubious how successful it > > > would be. My intuition tells me that the Chair job is a lot of work. > > > Just because a meeting will be in a specific region does not mean > > > that one of the three regional people (or less if terms are up) will > > > be willing to devote the time to do it, or capable of taking on the > > > tasks (that is not meant as a negative comment - I *know* what my > > > strengths are and where my interests lie, and I presume others do as > > > well). Perhaps once things are working well and on a regular basis > > > within the ALAC, it would be time for such a change. In my mind, > > > today is not that day. > > > > > > However, similar to the issue that Izumi raised, I proposed several > > > months ago that the chair's responsibilities be somewhat divided. > > > Specifically I suggested that there be several vice chairs and that > > > for any given task (agenda's, intra-ICANN coordination, etc) that > > > either the Chair be the lead person and one of the vice-chairs backs > > > them up, or vice versa. This would spread the work around a bit more, > > > play to people's strengths, and ensure backup for all > responsibilities. > > > > > > I also agree with Izumi about term. 3-4 months is too short to really > > > get the feel of the job (and too long if the wrong person is > selected!). > > > > > > Alan > > > > > > At 08/07/2007 09:30 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > > > >> I am rather conservative on this idea of rotating chair. > > >> > > >> I think we should first define/agree on the division of labor of the > > >> whole committee's works, who is going to work on which areas. > > >> > > >> After that, we can agree on how much the Chair should > > >> do, either with the current model, or with the proposed > > >> rotating Chair model. > > >> > > >> In case we adopt to the rotation, perhaps the term may be > > >> longer than one meeting. I think 3 to 5 months are too short to > > >> become effective. > > >> > > >> izumi > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > > > -- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society > Kumon Center, Tama University > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Executive Director, CTCNet Chicago Chapter Co-Founder, Chicago Digital Access Alliance Co-Chair, Illinois Community Technology Coalition President, Association For Community Networking Support the efforts of the Chicago Digital Access Alliance: http://www.digitalaccessalliance.org

2 1

ConfirmSystem: registrar@icann.org [[8202f0c7c781cf71]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registrar(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=8202f0c7c781cf71&l=registrar@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "Luxurious costume repl1ca w4tches at lowest prices" and it arrived at approximately Tue Jul 10 07:23:14 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registrar(a)icann.org [[8202f0c7c781cf71]] 2

1 0

ConfirmSystem: registry@icann.org [[9372f91f8bb8950c]]
by confirmsystem＠icann.org July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

Hello You have sent a message to registry(a)icann.org, an ICANN public comment forum. In order for your message to be accepted and published, we need for you to acknowledge your understanding of the fact that any messages sent to any ICANN comment forum will be published on the web. While the archiving process does obscure some email addresses, any personal identifying data will likely also become public. You can confirm your desire to publish your message two ways: 1) Reply to this message, without altering the subject line (The "Re: " added by many mail clients is OK, but please note that this method is *not* foolproof -- there is too much variety in how email clients handle messages to be sure we can parse every reply.) or 2) Visit the URL <http://confirm.icann.org/?s=9372f91f8bb8950c&l=registry@icann.org> If you want to be very sure that your message gets through, do both steps above -- it does no harm to confirm more than once. For your reference, the subject of the message you sent was: "Luxurious costume repl1ca w4tches at lowest prices" and it arrived at approximately Tue Jul 10 07:23:13 2007. Thank you for your message. --------------------------------------------------------------- ConfirmSystem: registry(a)icann.org [[9372f91f8bb8950c]] 1

1 0

agenda transparency
by Annette Muehlberg July 10, 2007

July 10, 2007

All, I am very disturbed. I was just checking our agenda again where to best put in the issue of the workshops and follow up of ICANN San Juan meeting - and I had to realize that two issues/sentences (below in bold) I had added to the agenda where taken off without notifying: * Chair & staff have mentioned that document needs to be approved for the board liaison election to take place. Thus, it is an urgent document to approve. *Or the procedure for election of the board liaison has to be discussed and decided on first, then the rest of the document.* 1. *Setting up the voting system for the election of the board liaison* I would herewith like to re-add these to the agenda. Annette

1 0