December 2008 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Dec. 19, 2008

Dec. 19, 2008

Total of 49 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Dec 19 00:53:03 EST 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 22.45% | 11 | 45.00% | 435951 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 14.29% | 7 | 27.88% | 270063 | brenbe at consumer.org 14.29% | 7 | 5.48% | 53117 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 10.20% | 5 | 4.28% | 41458 | jefsey at jefsey.com 6.12% | 3 | 2.56% | 24840 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 6.12% | 3 | 2.10% | 20317 | evan at telly.org 4.08% | 2 | 2.48% | 24009 | ross at tucows.com 4.08% | 2 | 2.04% | 19781 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 4.08% | 2 | 1.52% | 14751 | derek at aa419.org 4.08% | 2 | 1.11% | 10707 | johnl at iecc.com 2.04% | 1 | 1.50% | 14487 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 2.04% | 1 | 1.41% | 13613 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.04% | 1 | 1.37% | 13294 | langdonorr at gmail.com 2.04% | 1 | 0.65% | 6257 | wendy at seltzer.com 2.04% | 1 | 0.63% | 6063 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 49 |100.00% | 968708 | Total

1 0

Motion for the immediate dissolution of the ALAC Executive Committee
by Danny Younger Dec. 18, 2008

Dec. 18, 2008

I share Evan's concern: Evan wrote: "It is necessary to request the entire ALAC to take responsibility for its creation. Personally I believe that this document illustrates an *inevitable* tendency for an ExCom to assume -- in the name of expediency -- power it was not authorized to take. As such, it may be justification for immediate dissolution of the Executive Committee." I join Evan and others in expressing my disgust at the situation and call upon the NARALO to consider this resolution: Whereas the ALAC's Executive Committee has forwarded an ALAC Statement prior to its ratification by member vote; Whereas the ALAC's Executive Committee has denied the at-large community a suitable public comment period for this Statement (giving us only two days to comment and no opportunity to propose amendments or changes); Whereas the Executive Committee has engaged in ex-parte non-transparent discussions pertaining to the ALAC agenda that deny members a process by which matters may be placed on the agenda; Whereas the ALAC Executive Committee seeks to usurp powers that it has not been granted; Resolved, the ALAC Executive Committee is to be immediately dissolved.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Improving Internet Usability - A Framework For Domain Name Policy Evaluation
by JFC Morfin Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

At 23:16 16/12/2008, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >I trust the following concept and proposal ( based on his PhD thesis) by a >fellow Director of mine in auDA, (incedently an Org Member of the Australian >ALS, ISOC-AU) sent to the gtld-guide list, may be found interesting, >informative and useful to many of you... Should the community or RALO's / >ALAC ever desire to discuss his research work and outcomes further with him, >I am more than happy to arrange a briefing call or oportunity for >presentation at a meeting... Dear Cheryl, could you (Josh?) elaborate on this proposition in terms of proposed @large actions and how they could articulate with the present ICANN naming money rather than user/semantic oriented strategy. As you may know I am involved for three decades in international naming and numbering spaces and engaged now in the next step (semantic addressing). So this matter is certainly of importance. Moreover from another member of the "activist union of Dominant Australians". I agree with Josh that naming is a part of the brain to brain semantic interface. It is therefore to be in harmony with what we know on the way the brain works, the first thing being that there is not two identical brains, nor even two brains structured and working in the same way. I must say I am surprised that he does not allude to ages, language, natural and personal languages, and cultures. Different cultures and different languages (down to socio- and idiolects) are in this case to be considered as different brands, types, or even kinds of semantic interfaces, with considerable potential differences and semiotic signals concerning the expected kind of mental agility. Is there a place on-line where to access his thesis? I went on his site but the PDF there seems to have an access problem. Cheers. jfc

1 0

ICANN Announcement: Revisions in Proposed Changes to RAA
by Alan Greenberg Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-16dec08-en.htm >Revisions in Proposed Changes to Registrar Accreditation Agreement > >16 December 2008 > >ICANN today posted a revised set of proposed amendments to the >Registrar Accreditation Agreement. The amendments are intended to >provide additional protections for registrants and improved >enforcement tools. These most recent changes include two additional >amendments and are a result of public comments received and >subsequent community dialogue. > >In accordance with RAA defined process for amending the agreement, >ICANN has provided a written report describing the broad-based >process undertaken to arrive at this set of amendments. This report >is designed to inform the GNSO and community discussion of the >amendments. There will be another public comment period before the >ICANN Board would consider this set of proposed contract changes. > >The two new proposed amendments are intended to enhance public >availability of Whois data and registrar contact information: > >- Licensee Contact Information Disclosure - Requires a Registered >Name Holder that licenses use of a domain name to disclose the >contact information provided by the licensee under certain >circumstances. (Presently, only the identity of the licensee need be >disclosed.) >- Registrar Contact Information - Requires registrars to provide >their accurate contact details on their websites including valid >email and mailing addresses. > >An updated redline of the current RAA showing all of the proposed >changes is posted at: ><http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/redline-2001-raa-25nov08.pdf>Updated > Redline 2001 RAA [PDF, 116K] > >An updated comparison chart showing both Current RAA Language and >Proposed Language is posted at: ><http://www.icann.org/topics/raa/raa-provisions-comparison-16dec08.pdf>Updated >RAA Provisions Comparison [PDF, 40K] > >The GNSO is planning to discuss and provide advice regarding the >proposed set of changes to the ICANN Board of Directors as requested >by the Board in a resolution.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook
by Joe Baptista Dec. 17, 2008

Dec. 17, 2008

Jeff - the one thing I learned from the HEX over in Europe is that your going to have criminals involved in the name space. So expect pirates to show. cheers joe baptista On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 9:29 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > wrote: > Beau and all, > > Well the list of restrictions you list below lets Google and Yahoo out. > That's a good thing from my point of view. It may soon disallow > Yale University out as well. That would be a shame, but necessary. > Also Microsoft would be banned as well. Oh yes, and BTW, given > Karl's successful legal action regarding ICANN's questionable fiduciary > misconduct, ICANN itself would also not qualify... Hummm? Now > how is that going to be rectified? > > > "Brendler, Beau" wrote: > > > Greetings. > > > > Several people worked on this since Cairo, so rather than holding on to > it any longer I wanted to send it out to a broad group. It's a sort of guide > to creating a draft document response to the new gTLD workbook. Only a > guide! It's meant to be read in conjunction with the document itself to > suggest areas in which the user community might want to elaborate (or not). > For it to be most useful you still need the workbook document handy. For > instance, there are things we've since discussed on various lists that > aren't in this guide, for instance, from Danny: > > > > "Working one's way through module 2 (the Applicant Information Form > section), there is one question that is glaringly missing: > > "Indicate whether (i) the applicant or any of its (ii) officers, (iii) > directors, or (iv) managers: > > a. within the past ten years, has been convicted of a felony or of a > misdemeanor related to financial activities, or has been judged by a court > to have committed fraud or breach of fiduciary duty, or has been the subject > of a judicial determination that is similar or related to any of these; > > b. within the past ten years, has been disciplined by the government of > its, her, or his domicile for conduct involving dishonesty or misuse of > funds of others; > > c. is currently involved in any judicial or regulatory proceeding that > could result in a conviction, judgment, determination, or discipline of the > type specified in (a) or (b); or > > d. is the subject of a disqualification imposed by ICANN and in effect at > the time of this application. > > > > So, for instance, we should decide where we want to put that in. > > > > In addition to some of the NCUC comments I have sent out over the last 24 > hours or so, here are some URLs of others' perspectives on new gTLDs. > > > > International Olympic Committee: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/pdf2Skbh839Jy.pdf > > Registry Constituency: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/docnZV8Xn1mmo.doc > > IDN Comment: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00055.html > > Robin Gross: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00034.html > > Wendy Chan: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00043.html > > Unicode Technical Committee: > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/msg00021.html > > Ron Andruff: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-string/msg00001.html > > > > After the call on Friday, I would like to propose a time for the working > group to meet and discuss its responses to the attached document, to the > discussion on the lists, and other matters, so that we can work up a > statement by the deadline, which I believe has now been extended to Jan. 7 > (we will clarify this in Friday's meeting). > > > > Staff, may I ask that you translate this message into French and Spanish > and distribute it so that we can get maximum community involvement. > > > > Thanks > > > > Beau Brendler > > > > ** > > This e-mail message is intended only for the designated recipient(s) > named above. The information contained in this e-mail and any attachments > may be confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, you may not review, retain, copy, redistribute or use this e-mail > or any attachment for any purpose, or disclose all or any part of its > contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately > notify the sender by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any > attachments from your computer system. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Name: newgtldguide.doc > > newgtldguide.doc Type: WINWORD File (application/msword) > > Encoding: base64 > > Description: newgtldguide.doc > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 > > -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084

1 0

Fwd: Improving Internet Usability - A Framework For Domain Name Policy Evaluation
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

I trust the following concept and proposal ( based on his PhD thesis) by a fellow Director of mine in auDA, (incedently an Org Member of the Australian ALS, ISOC-AU) sent to the gtld-guide list, may be found interesting, informative and useful to many of you... Should the community or RALO's / ALAC ever desire to discuss his research work and outcomes further with him, I am more than happy to arrange a briefing call or oportunity for presentation at a meeting... Kindest regards, CLO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Josh Rowe <josh(a)email.nu> Date: 2008/12/16 Subject: Improving Internet Usability - A Framework For Domain Name Policy Evaluation To: gtld-guide(a)icann.org In a world with 1.5 billion Internet users (and growing), usability and utility of the Internet are key. Domain names are a fundamental part of the Internet's user interface. End users use domain names to assess the credibility of a destination (Nielsen, J., 1999). End users spent between 22% to 25% of their time looking at the domain name in search engine results (Cutrell, E. & Guan, Z., 2007). Improving the usability of the Internet depends upon effective domain name policy. The benefits of more usable domain names include: higher sales, higher customer satisfaction, higher productivity, and reduced support costs (Usability Professionals' Association, 2008). Domain name policies worldwide vary considerably between, and sometimes even within, countries. As a consequence, end users are inconvenienced by contradictory domain name policies, diminishing the predictability of an entity's domain name, and thus decreasing usability for end users. A set of criteria has been developed, backed by academic research, with which policy makers can evaluate their domain name policies, in order to improve the usability of domain names for Internet end users. There is significant existing research examining either domain names or usability in isolation. However, academic research examining the intersection of the two is scarce. The research that does exist, in this somewhat new and untried field of study, describes domain names as part of the web user interface. This foundation concept is built upon by this study. It was established that the predictability (and thus usability) of domain names relies on effective domain name policy. The importance of effective domain name policy is evident in the way that the non-standardised and widely delegated process of domain name policy development leads to unpredictable and inconsistent domain names. These attributes lead to poor usability, observable in decreased productivity, sales, revenues and customer satisfaction, as well as increased training and support costs, development time and costs, and maintenance costs. In order to address the problem of poor domain name usability, a framework for domain name policy evaluation is proposed (see below). This new framework seeks to address usability and quality concerns by treating the domain name system as a user interface. The framework sets out criteria which allow domain name policy makers to critically assess domain name policies with end users in mind. The framework has the potential to set an international standard for the critical evaluation of domain name policy, and become the basis for further research. The framework can be used to evaluate the domain name policy for any domain name space, regardless of its position in the overall domain name hierarchy. Whilst this study focuses on Internet domain names, the framework can also be usefully applied to internal or intranet domain names. A Framework For Domain Name Policy Evaluation Criteria for domain name policy evaluation and Example(s) A. Who are the intended users for the domain name space? Consider end users of the domain name (not the domain name registrants). e.g. The intended users for the Australian community geographic domain names (act.au, nsw.au, nt.au, qld.au, sa.au, tas.au, vic.au, wa.au) are listed as: All members of the Australian Community, Business and Industry, Local Community Groups/Organisations, Tourism . Local, State/Territory, National and International (One City One Site, 2002). B. How is the domain name space meant to be interpreted by the intended users? e.g. The '.com.au' domain name space is for Australian commercial entities (auDA, 2005). C. How else could the domain name space be interpreted by the intended users? e.g. Italy's '.it' ccTLD (IANA, 2008a) can be interpreted as the abbreviation for 'Information Technology' or the English word 'it'. D. Who are the unintended users for the domain name space? Consider end users of the domain name (not the domain name registrants) who are not the intended users for the domain name space. e.g. A Canadian entrepreneur has struck a deal (Richards, 2007) with the country of Cameroon (.cm) to redirect mistyped .com domains names to an advertising page. Under the deal, any request for an unregistered .cm site will default to an advertising page . as opposed to the company who happens to own the .com domain name. The entrepreneur is said to be negotiating similar deals with Colombia (.co) and Oman (.om) which could be confused with '.com', as well as Niger (.ne) and Ethiopia (.et) which could be confused with '.net'. E. How could the domain name space be interpreted by the unintended users? e.g. The country names of Australia and Austria are sometimes confused (Mail Online, 2007). Similarly, a user not familiar with the domain name system could misinterpret '.au' as the ccTLD for Austria instead of Australia. F. Is the domain name space consistent compared with other domain name spaces for the intended or untended users? e.g. Educational domain name spaces include 'edu.au', 'ac.nz' and 'sch.uk'. For the 250 ccTLDs there are 111 'edu', 44 'ac' and 13 'sch' second level domain names (Chan, 2008). G. What other semantic meanings does the domain name space have for the intended or untended users? e.g. VeriSign reportedly (Big Empire, 2007) pays the Pacific Island of Tuvalu $2.2 million dollars per annum to operate the .tv domain; targeted at the TV and entertainment industry. Laos has handed over .la to the LA Names Corporation; who misinform their web site visitors that '.LA is the official internet address for Los Angeles' (LA Names Corporation, 2008, p. 1) when the official ccTLD database says otherwise (IANA, 2008b). Cue Clothing turned to the Cocos (Keeling) Islands for a perfect semantic affinity between their company name and the .cc domain extension. Guernsey's .gg ccTLD presents the obvious domain extension for horse betting companies. H. How easy is the domain name space to spell for intended or unintended users? e.g. Users from the United States expect 'center' where as British users will expect 'centre' (Top Hoster Center, 2007). I. How easy is the domain name space to type for intended or unintended users? e.g. Consider the input device (for example United States layout keyboard, mobile phone keypad, etc) and the end user's proficiency at using the input device. One entrepreneur recently auctioned 264 'circle shape' .com domains using the standard QWERTY keyboard (Nottiger, 2008). J. How easy is the domain name space to say and pronounce for intended or unintended users? e.g. The domain name space 'naturbruksgymn.se' may be simple to say for a Swede, but those from other countries may find it difficult to pronounce. K. How memorable is the domain name space for intended or unintended users? e.g. A memorable domain name does not necessarily have to be short; consider which of the two domain names would more likely be recalled, BobJonesSurfShop.com or BJSShop.com (Implied by Design, 2006). L. How meaningful is the domain name space in the languages and scripts of the intended or untended users? e.g. '.nu' is the country code top-level domain for the Pacific Island of Niue (IANA, 2007). 'Nu' means 'now' in Swedish (Google Translate, 2008b) and 'nude' or 'naked' in French and Portuguese (Google Translate, 2008a). Bibliography Rowe, J. (2008). Improving Internet Usability - A Framework For Domain Name Policy Evaluation, Retrieved from http://domainusability.com/ Contact Josh Rowe josh(a)email.nu DomainUsability.com -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0

Draft ISPCP Comments on the Mid-point consultation report on ALAC Review
by Danny Younger Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

The BGC ALAC Review WG has offered discussion points regarding their initial thinking on the ALAC. This is a response to those points. First, Terminology: “ALAC” is a 15-person advisory committee to the Board. 2 people from each RALO plus 5 NCAs “At-Large” consists of 110 bodies organized into RALOs; these bodies are termed ALSs (At-Large Structures) “at-large” (lower case) refers to the universe of Internet users. Points for discussion: 1. The ALAC has a continuing purpose in the ICANN structure. This continuing purpose has three key elements: o providing advice on policy; o providing input into ICANN operations and structure; o part of ICANN’s accountability mechanisms ISPCP Response: The At-Large AC can play a useful role in ICANN as an advisory committee to the Board, just as the other ACs. Organisation 2. At Large should in principle be given two voting seats on the ICANN Board ISPCP Response: This is totally inappropriate. None of the other advisory committees have voting seats on the Board. Advisor committees advise, they do not vote on Board business. 3. The ALAC‐RALO‐ALS structure should remain in place for now ISPCP Response: Not unless it can become useful; otherwise it is a waste of money. ICANN pours a huge amount of funds into the building and maintenance of the ALAC-RALO-ALS structure and gets very little from it. At-Large prefers to retain its advisory status. If At-Large is not going to be involved in making policy, what is its function and why is it in ICANN? ICANN’s sole purpose is to make and enforce Internet policy, manage TLDs and support the root servers. At-Large participates in none of these activities. Policy is made by the SOs, not by the Board. Currently the At-Large has only non-voting liaisons to the SOs. Effectiveness and participation 4. Educating and engaging the ALSs should be an immediate priority; compliance should be a longer term goal ISPCP Response: Engaging the ALSs is a worthwhile goal if ICANN is will derive some benefit in policy making. Otherwise, this is merely replicating the activity of ISOC (indeed, many of the ALSs are simply ISOC chapters). 5. ALAC should develop strategic and operational plans (including performance criteria and cost information) as part of ICANN’s planning process ISPCP Response: Yes, plans based on measurable objectives. These objectives should include direct participation in the policy making process through SOs. 6. More effort needs to be put into developing accurate cost models for At Large activity ISPCP Response: Surely. Again, budget should be tied to useful accomplishments. Right now the At-Large is a total waste of money because it achieves nothing. 7. ALAC should be encouraged to make its own choice of tools for collaborative work ISPCP Response: Certainly they should have this freedom as long as the collaborative work process is public and transparent. 8. The public comment period should be kept at 30 days except in special circumstances, in which case ALAC may request an extension to 45 days ISPCP Response: Retaining the current 30 comment period is preferable as long as necessary language translation can be done speedily. 9. ICANN should strengthen its translation processes ISPCP Response: Agreed, within reasonable budget constraints. Relationship with other ICANN entities 10. The ALAC is the appropriate organizational channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user in ICANN processes ISPCP Response: It (the At-Large structure, not the advisory committee) could be if it would deign to actually participate in the ICANN process instead of just offering advice. 11. Since ALAC is the appropriate channel for the voice and concerns of the individual Internet user, it is inappropriate for other ICANN entities to attempt to claim to represent that individual user voice ISPCP Response: In fact the At-Large structure (not the advisory committee) is currently ineffective in representing the individual user voice. We recommend that At-Large be reconstituted as a constituency for the individual user. In particular, with regard to the GNSO, we advise that ALAC have voting representation within the non-commercial users stakeholder group. 12. Processes for providing advice on policy should be strengthened both within ALAC for the development of policy advice and within SOs for requesting input from ALAC on policy issues ISPCP Response: It is inappropriate (not to mention ineffectual) for the At-Large to try to function outside of the SOs by providing advice. They should function within the SOs as recommended above as a contributing constituency. Summary ICANN needs to redirect its resources to forming an organization that will actively represent the at-large community in the Internet policy-making process. As presently constituted, At-Large does not serve that purpose. The ALAC (the advisory committee) should continue to be represented on the Board by an non-voting liaison, just as the RSSAC and SSAC are represented. It should not have a voting seat (much less two!) because it should not be involved in the business conducted by the Board (which is, primarily, the running of the Corporation). The At-Large should not have liaisons to SOs. Rather it should take an active part, as appropriate, in the policy making activities of the SOs. http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00462.html

3 4

Latest RAA amendment
by Danny Younger Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

ICANN Staff is now throwing out last-minute sops in order to get the GNSO community to approve the RAA amendments as a package. The latest amendment added to the package is this: 3.16 Registrar shall provide on its web site its accurate contact details including valid email and mailing address. Of course, this amendment still doesn't require the registrar to identify its primary place of business. The registrar could have its primary base of operations in India, yet work through a Delaware-based shell corporation that maintains a contact point at a Canadian mailboxes-r-us (which could serve as a valid email and mailing address). Dozens of Registrars located internationally are using "mail-drop" addresses and post office boxes in the United States and Canada as primary addresses -- do we want to encourage this deceptive behavior? The proposed amendment does little to nothing to address the concerned raised by users on this topic. Thanks to ICANN Staff for once more demonstrating that they will only give lip service to user concerns.

7 8

Invitation to discussion on new gTLD Applicant Guidebook 19 December 1400 UTC
by Danny Younger Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

--- On Tue, 12/16/08, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> wrote: > From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> > Subject: [GTLD-WG] Invitation to discussion on new gTLD Applicant Guidebook 19 December 1400 UTC > To: "ALAC Working List" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, "gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Tuesday, December 16, 2008, 12:15 PM > Dear all, > > We would like to invite you to a discussion on the At-Large > position on the > new gTLD Applicant Guidebook this coming Friday, 19 > December at 1400 UTC. > > Participation code: 1638. > You can find a list with international toll free phone > numbers under: > https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?how_can_i_participate_in_this_meeti > ng > > Please contact us if you would like to request a dial-out > for this call. I > will send out an invitation to the public list shortly. > > Background Information: > > ³Guide to creating response to new gTLD workbook² (sent > to At-Large list by > Beau Brendler on December 16th) > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20 > 08q4/005106.html > > Public Comment Forum new gTLD Applicant Guidebook: > http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-en.htm > > New gTLD Working group page: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Marie-Hélène > Bouchoms, Heidi Ullrich > ICANN At-Large Staff > email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg_atlarge-lists.icann… > > Working Group direct URL: > https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?new_gtld_policy

1 0

ExecComm Mission Creep (was Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Mid-point consultation report - Personal comments)
by Evan Leibovitch Dec. 16, 2008

Dec. 16, 2008

I continue to be bothered by the subtle yet steadily increasing role of the ALAC Executive Committee. I note that this recommendation -- which I honestly don't recall being sent past the RALOs for comment -- suggests that the ALAC ExecComm (rather than the whole ALAC) be given the authority to appoint a Board Liaision. We were once told that the ExecComm was only needed for issues of unexpected urgency. Now we see that the ExecComm wants to -- in recommendations it has itself written -- be given consideration to have the power to make appointments and decisions on predictable timelines. If ALAC is dysfunctional -- which it most certainly is to me -- then that needs to be confronted directly. I had fears that the ExecComm was created to avoid the messiness of fixing the whole ALAC, under the pretence of necessary expediency. I now find these fears being realized. Perhaps ALAC should take a page from the Summit, in which participants are surveyed (and taking the survey is mandatory) regarding their subject preferences, then _required_ to actively participate in working groups. Those who don't do this are denied travel support and ultimately the ability to be complete participants. If only the same zeal used to demand participation from Summit delegates was applied to ALAC itself, then the ExecComm would not need to exist. Or maybe that is not the goal for some. It is noteworthy that, despite many months of member performance reports in our hands, ALAC has not begun to exercise section 11 of its charter (the recall provisions) even once. I have already found myself as a RALO chair having to take performance issues of our ALAC reps into our own hands, having exhausted my patience with ALAC's ability (or interest) to fix itself in this regard. The Board liaison is the only reference to the ExecComm in this document. Its presence, while arguably minor, points to a disturbing -- if very slow and maybe not deliberate -- mind-set to give the ExecComm powers that might be seen to be poorly executed should they be "entrusted" to the whole ALAC. This trend should be stopped and if possible reversed. We may have to acknowledge that a very few people shoulder the load of the whole group, but we need to address this by increasing participation by all rather than entrenching a special position for the inner core. It is clear that the very existence of the ExecComm indicates a failure of ALAC effectiveness; it seems ironic to point this out in discussion of a document related to the ALAC review. - Evan

8 11