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

Regional Outreach Meeting to be held in April 2008 in Dubai
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Dear All: I have just received word that ICANN is holding a regional outreach meeting in Dubai from 1 to 3 April 2008. The meeting is for policy makers, managers of country code top level domains (cctlds) and Internet businesses in this region. The agenda for the meeting is designed to address three main themes: a broad introduction to the ICANN multi-stakeholder model; challenges and opportunities in the registry and registrar businesses; and an introduction and discussion of internationalized domain names. ICANN staff is coordinating with regional organizations (including APTLD) regarding participation. Links to the agenda and registration for this meeting will be online later today. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Office Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 Office Fax: +41 (22) 594 8544 Mobile: +41 (79) 595 5468 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 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

7 11

ALAC, ICANN and translation
by Evan Leibovitch Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Hello all, The New Delhi session on the ICANN translation program has just finished. And despite claims to be responsive to the community and eager to hear innovative approaches, in fact at the meeting just the opposite attitude was demonstrated. We got to hear claims about the desire for high quality, about limited resources, about the difficulties, and about the experts hired to lift ICANN out of its multilingual nightmare. And yet -- when I tried to present a novel model I got blown off and told by Kieren to "bring it up at the (Board) public forum" (instead of the meeting designed specifically to discuss translation). And then, to add insult to injury, Roberto made a point of standing up to explicitly remind the audience that previous attempts to get ALAC involved in translations were failures. So much for the claim to be looking for new ideas. (By the way, how many ALSs and RALOs were in play when Roberto made the botched effort to engage the community? How fair was it to bring up efforts that failed before ALAC even had a community to work with?) What I am suggesting -- and what I think ALAC may want to investigate -- is a hybrid model that attempts to bring together the need for far more translation, high quality and the desire to have an active, involved public community. I am recommending that ICANN consider, as a matter of policy, the priority contracting of qualified ALSs for "low stakes" translation services before sending such needs out to outsourcing tender. I agree that "High stakes" documents -- legal and accounting documentation, bylaws, etc -- still need to be done by high-level professionals. However, the bulk of other materials -- news, brochures, briefing documents -- can and should be translated, for a fee, by the very organizations who need to spread this information to their communities in their own languages. All ALSs had to sign a document indicating they would not be dependent on ICANN for funding. Thatś fine, but it does not preclude ICANN's ability to support the sustainability of its ALSs by funding (some of) them to do things that they often have to do anyway -- translate technical documents for the benefit of their constituents. So far the only models considered (and reflected in V2.2 of the translation program as distributed) involve either contracting translation professionals or asking the community to do translations as a volunteer effort. The hybrid model -- of contracting community groups and paying them in return for a commitment to quality work -- has not yet even been considered. I believe that such a model offers multiple benefits: 1) It reduces cost of translation (vs professional translation services); 2) It offers a broad diversity of language support; indeed the community is probably best aware of the level of language support needed; 3) By paying community groups rather than depending on volunteer work, ICANN will have accountability on quality and timeliness of the results; 4) It benefits the sustainability of ALSs working on shoestring budgets, and helping to strengthen its own community. I don't expect this to be considered immediately -- there are many other things on the plate here at the Delhi meeting -- but I believe that the ALAC may do great service to its constituent ALSs by recommending the above model (or some variation thereof). Let's see, then, if the claim to be receptive to new ideas and models is genuine. Even if it is not adopted I at least ask that the above model be honestly considered. - Evan

3 2

Re: [At-Large] ALAC, ICANN and translation
by Kieren McCarthy Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

I think the point is that there is absolutely no need for this to become an argument. I am committed to making it possible for all people of all languages to interact and participate in ICANN. We are all going to come out of this process very much happier. We should really try to make it pleasant - dare I say it- even fun to get to the end point. Kieren -----Original Message----- From: "Roberto Gaetano" <roberto(a)icann.org> To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> To: <kieren.mccarthy(a)icann.org> To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> Sent: 2/13/2008 5:31:33 AM Subject: RE: [At-Large] ALAC, ICANN and translation Just a quick comment. I started my statement quoting the committee put in place by Stuart Lynn. That has nothing to do with ALAC, as that was when he was CEO and I was chair of the GA, early 2001. That effort aborted after few months of work. ALAC, since its inception, tries to do voluntary effort in translating, with mixed results. Latin america seems the region where things happen more regularly, and must be commended for doing so. But my point is that we have to rely on a basis that is provided by professionals, as we cannot rely on volounteers who do this on top of their volounteer job, on top of their day job. Just this. I did not mean at all to imply that the volounteer cannot provide additional help (although I would much better see ALAC producing policy statements than translating them), but only that we cannot base our strategy for translation on them. I did not get at all your point, it seems: what I had understood from your contribution, was that you wanted to rely on volounteers in ICANN to eliminate translation expenditures. Which is different from what you state below. If I have misunderstood your contribution at the meeting, I sincerely apologize. However, it seems to me that we are more in agreement than we thought at the meeting: we both say (unless I misunderstand again) that volounteer can provide additional help, but that to use, at least to some extent, professional translator is inescapable. Incidentally, reading carefully your proposal (which, I maintain, is different from what I understood in the meeting), it seems to me that what you say is perfectly reasonable, and I assume that Kieren, whom I have taken the liberty to put in copy, will take it into serious consideration. Cheers, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of > Evan Leibovitch > Sent: Wednesday, 13 February 2008 17:59 > To: At-Large Worldwide > Subject: [At-Large] ALAC, ICANN and translation > > Hello all, > > The New Delhi session on the ICANN translation program has > just finished. And despite claims to be responsive to the > community and eager to hear innovative approaches, in fact at > the meeting just the opposite attitude was demonstrated. > > We got to hear claims about the desire for high quality, > about limited resources, about the difficulties, and about > the experts hired to lift ICANN out of its multilingual > nightmare. And yet -- when I tried to present a novel model I > got blown off and told by Kieren to "bring it up at the > (Board) public forum" (instead of the meeting designed > specifically to discuss translation). And then, to add insult > to injury, Roberto made a point of standing up to explicitly > remind the audience that previous attempts to get ALAC > involved in translations were failures. > > So much for the claim to be looking for new ideas. (By the > way, how many ALSs and RALOs were in play when Roberto made > the botched effort to engage the community? How fair was it > to bring up efforts that failed before ALAC even had a > community to work with?) > > What I am suggesting -- and what I think ALAC may want to > investigate -- is a hybrid model that attempts to bring > together the need for far more translation, high quality and > the desire to have an active, involved public community. > > I am recommending that ICANN consider, as a matter of policy, > the priority contracting of qualified ALSs for "low stakes" > translation services before sending such needs out to > outsourcing tender. > > I agree that "High stakes" documents -- legal and accounting > documentation, bylaws, etc -- still need to be done by > high-level professionals. However, the bulk of other > materials -- news, brochures, briefing documents -- can and > should be translated, for a fee, by the very organizations > who need to spread this information to their communities in > their own languages. > > All ALSs had to sign a document indicating they would not be > dependent on ICANN for funding. That¶ fine, but it does not > preclude ICANN's ability to support the sustainability of its > ALSs by funding (some of) them to do things that they often > have to do anyway -- translate technical documents for the > benefit of their constituents. > > So far the only models considered (and reflected in V2.2 of > the translation program as distributed) involve either > contracting translation professionals or asking the community > to do translations as a volunteer effort. The hybrid model -- > of contracting community groups and paying them in return for > a commitment to quality work -- has not yet even been > considered. I believe that such a model offers multiple > benefits: > > 1) It reduces cost of translation (vs professional > translation services); > > 2) It offers a broad diversity of language support; indeed > the community is probably best aware of the level of language > support needed; > > 3) By paying community groups rather than depending on > volunteer work, ICANN will have accountability on quality and > timeliness of the results; > > 4) It benefits the sustainability of ALSs working on > shoestring budgets, and helping to strengthen its own community. > > I don't expect this to be considered immediately -- there are > many other things on the plate here at the Delhi meeting -- > but I believe that the ALAC may do great service to its > constituent ALSs by recommending the above model (or some > variation thereof). > > Let's see, then, if the claim to be receptive to new ideas > and models is genuine. Even if it is not adopted I at least > ask that the above model be honestly considered. > > - Evan > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-l ists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC > Independent: http://www.icannalac.org

1 0

Thursday: Public Forum and further meetings
by Wendy Seltzer Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Tomorrow morning's public forum runs from 8:30 to 12:45, followed by the public signing ceremony at which the Board recognizes and welcomes the AP RALO (at last!). I'll be up on stage among the Board and look forward to joining in that welcome. As usual, I expect the public forum will include reports from various groups, including ALAC, SOs, and Board Committees, and open mic time for members of the public to share their comments. While the mic is only one channel for communications, speaking up also a good way to make connections with others in the ICANN community, so I'd encourage you to do so with matters of interest or concern. In the afternoon, the Board will meet from 16:00, again unfortunately at the same time as the ALAC meeting, to prepare for its Friday public meeting. While I think it is in ALAC's interest to have me participating in the Board meeting, I would also like to join in ALAC discussions, if possible. I will keep the skype channel open (provided the net works), to keep you updated and to try to coordinate with the Chair. In between, I will join the At-Large / Registrars discussion of the RAA. The Board's tentative agenda for Friday, to be discussed Thursday, includes: 1) Approval of Minutes of January 2008 Board Meeting 2) Approval of ICANN Accountability and Transparency Frameworks 3) Review of Board Governance Committee Recommendations Possible BGC Actions (Ombudsman Framework) (Bylaws Mandated Reviews Update) 4) Review of Board Finance Committee Recommendations Possible BFC Actions (Funds Disbursement and Approvals Policy) (Budget Next Steps) 5) Review of Board Audit Committee Recommendations Possible Audit Committee Actions (Approval of Auditor) 6) New gTLDs - Next Steps 7) Acknowledging Receipt of DNSSEC Recommendations from SSAC 8) ICANN Bylaws Change Request from ALAC 9) IDNs (update on IDNc discussions and technical test) 10) Other Business <http://www.icann.org/minutes/> Please let me know if there is anything in particular you would like me to say, either to the Board or in the public meeting, on any of these subjects. Thanks! --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.914.374.0613 // office: 617.373.7331 Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

2 2

AtLarge dinner on Thursday in Delhi?
by Izumi AIZU Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Sorry for those who are not here in Delhi, but this list reaches the most number of AtLarge people here now... Shall we have AtLarge dinner after our last session on Thursday, tomorrow, which will end at 7pm? Please tell us if you can join. Will try to reserve a restaurant according to the estimated number of participants. It's likely to be near the hotel Taj Palace or even inside, which may be too expensive, but for convenience. thanks, izumi

2 2

ICANN Policy Department document link
by Nick Ashton-Hart Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Dear All: Please be advised that the Policy Department Update previously emailed is now available online (with a correction to the table of contents) at: http://www.icann.org/topics/policy-department-update-11feb08.pdf -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 595 85 44 mobile: +41 (79) 595 54 68 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] English summary of Japanese MIC effort on v4v6
by Izumi AIZU Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

That's quite strange - I have downloaded the version I sent (from Gmail), but all texts are there. Though the file size is larger, and it may cause some people annoyance, I am attaching the PDF version and hope it works. izumi 2008/2/13, JFCM <jefsey(a)jefsey.com>: > Dear Izumi, > your PPT is here, but only the graphics in it, not the texts? > Is the problem on my side, or is it a copy where the English text has > not been added yet? > Thank you for your help. I would like to copy to the French IPv6 > interested people. > jfc > > > At 12:34 12/02/2008, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > >so sorry - attached here! > > > >izumi > > > >2008/2/12, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Here attached is a English version of a presentation made by Ministry > > > of Internal affairs and Communication (MIC) of Japan, as of December > > > 2007. There are newer information/reports published in January, but > > > still all in Japanese. > > > > > > Look at the last few slides, in particular # 17, giving some findings of > > > the Working group comparing different technical approaches and > > > impact assesment to the users. > > > > > > These works are carried out by some 20 panel of experts, ISPs, > > > service providers of various kinds, with academics. I was not > > > involved at that stage, but will be joining soon for the policy > > > discussion. > > > > > > izumi > > > > > > > > >-- > > >> Izumi Aizu << > > > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita > > Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo > > Japan > > * * * * * > > << Writing the Future of the History >> > > www.anr.org > > > >X-Attachment-Id: f_fckdmjq8 > >Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint; name="IPV6 MIC Dec > >2007.ppt"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3EE5F65 > >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="IPV6 MIC Dec 2007.ppt" > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

2 2

Re: [At-Large] English summary of Japanese MIC effort on v4v6
by JFCM Feb. 13, 2008

Feb. 13, 2008

Dear Izumi, your PPT is here, but only the graphics in it, not the texts? Is the problem on my side, or is it a copy where the English text has not been added yet? Thank you for your help. I would like to copy to the French IPv6 interested people. jfc At 12:34 12/02/2008, Izumi AIZU wrote: >so sorry - attached here! > >izumi > >2008/2/12, Izumi AIZU <iza(a)anr.org>: > > Hi, > > > > Here attached is a English version of a presentation made by Ministry > > of Internal affairs and Communication (MIC) of Japan, as of December > > 2007. There are newer information/reports published in January, but > > still all in Japanese. > > > > Look at the last few slides, in particular # 17, giving some findings of > > the Working group comparing different technical approaches and > > impact assesment to the users. > > > > These works are carried out by some 20 panel of experts, ISPs, > > service providers of various kinds, with academics. I was not > > involved at that stage, but will be joining soon for the policy > > discussion. > > > > izumi > > > > >-- > >> Izumi Aizu << > > Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita > Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo > Japan > * * * * * > << Writing the Future of the History >> > www.anr.org > >X-Attachment-Id: f_fckdmjq8 >Content-Type: application/vnd.ms-powerpoint; name="IPV6 MIC Dec >2007.ppt"; x-avg-checked=avg-ok-3EE5F65 >Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="IPV6 MIC Dec 2007.ppt" > > >_______________________________________________ >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

ICANN POLICY UPDATE � 11 February 2008
by Danny Younger Feb. 12, 2008

Feb. 12, 2008

While it's interesting to note the sparse amount of work being handled by the policy wonks, perhaps a list of what yet needs to be done might be more helpful -- here's a few to consider: 1. a long-overdue review of the UDRP 2. plans to deal with the expected registrar gaming of the new gTLDs landrush cycle 3. a plan to deal with registrar failures 4. completion of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement revisions 5. starting the PDP process for registrant protections not enabled by a new RAA 6. dealing with the spate of typosquatting sites left in the wake of the domain tasting epidemic through new rapid-takedown procedures 7. establishing a Customer Complaint Resolution mechanism for ICANN akin to what auDa uses. 8. ensuring that intellectual property protections are enabled in new gTLDs 9. getting at-large directors back onto the board 10. establishing a "vote-of-no-confidence" procedure to remove board directors when necessary 11. setting policy to eliminate future prospects of "front-running" 12. establishing prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars 13. analyzing whether current ICANN policies sufficiently serve to ensure accurate WHOIS data 14. reviewing registrar abuse of the Expired Domain Deletion Policy 15. examining whether the Redemption Grace Period should be made a mandatory registrar offering 16. developing policy to ensure a "Uniform" auto-renew grace period 17. getting real transparency in the ICANN budget -- does anyone know for example how much is allocated for IANA services, or for the ALAC/RALOs, or for the GNSO or the SSAC; or why it should now take 61 million dollars to accomplish the same core technical job that was managed within a five million dollar budget just five or six years ago? 18. Changing the policy on registry data mining to preclude the sale of NXD records 19. Establishing policies to support the IRIS protocols 20. The SSAC has made great recommendations on matters such as domain name hijacking, but their recommendations remain unimplemented... this is a problem that must be addressed for the benefit of the user community ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

1 0

English summary of Japanese MIC effort on v4v6
by Izumi AIZU Feb. 12, 2008

Feb. 12, 2008

Hi, Here attached is a English version of a presentation made by Ministry of Internal affairs and Communication (MIC) of Japan, as of December 2007. There are newer information/reports published in January, but still all in Japanese. Look at the last few slides, in particular # 17, giving some findings of the Working group comparing different technical approaches and impact assesment to the users. These works are carried out by some 20 panel of experts, ISPs, service providers of various kinds, with academics. I was not involved at that stage, but will be joining soon for the policy discussion. izumi

2 2