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

Transparency & the ICANN Contractual Compliance Newsletter
by Danny Younger May 5, 2008

May 5, 2008

Dear Ms. Burnette, I am appreciative of the fact that ICANN has generated this newsletter, but I have a number of concerns related to transparency. We are told that during 2007 a total of 164 breach of contract notices were sent to registrars. While this effort is to be commended, users would assuredly want to know which registrars are in breach of contract (and for what reason) at any given point in time so that they can make informed choices regarding which registration providers to use. Hiding this valuable information from consumers is not what I would deem to be a public service, rather, I view it as a profound disservice. While it does serve to protect the interest of registrars, it most certainly doesn't serve to properly protect the public. May I ask why ICANN has chosen to conceal this information? Is this behavior owing to a deliberate policy decision that has been made by ICANN Staff? Does Staff intend to continue concealing registrar contract breaches at the expense of the registrant community, or can we expect this situation to change in the immediate future? Hopefully you can help us to better understand the situation and the Staff perspective on transparency. best regards, Danny Younger ____________________________________________________________________________________ You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost. http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com

3 5

GNSO Improvements Statement Edits
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 30, 2008

April 30, 2008

Dear All: I have been requested to provide some language which might act as a 'bridge' which could help to reconcile the views expressed about the Joint Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last several days. I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to what is required. As always, whether it is used or not is entirely up to all of you. I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me that this would make it easy for everyone to see the original text of that document and also the changes that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you: 1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and the drafting work just done: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=… 2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified: https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=al_… 3. Joint Proposal of Users: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY.doc NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please keep this in mind if you need to reach us. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 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

9 12

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 30, 2008

April 30, 2008

Dominik and all, Thank you for more accurately expressing actual situation with the ALAC, ALS'es, GNSO, and to a great extent ICANN staff and Bod respectively. Asking nicely from any entity makes it very easy to recieve a just as nice refusal without reason or explanation. This has been and remains the history of ICANN, the GNSO, and now it seems more and more, the ALAC's, and ALS'es leadership. Frankly asking nicely many times unfortunately is akin to a "Fart in a whirl-wind". It's barely heard, and routinely ignored. These people work for US, we don't work for them. Unfortunately many of them don't or won't recognize that in the manner any real professional does, or would. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 2:47 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits > >Agree with Evan. The committee balance, the NonComm appointing process >and the like is just another excuse and attempt how to dilute and >confuse the public effort and to conduct ALAC's activities. > >The primary goal of ALAC is to firmly DEMAND adequate voting power, not >to 'kindly' ask for it. An adequate voting power, not one voice lost in >the pile of anonymous voices. It is ridiculous that after years the wide >public community still has no voting power. All attempts to accomplish >this in the past failed due to the perpetual staff ignorance. This tells >enough about proclaimed seriousness and sincerity of the staff towards >the public voice, and as such they deserve adequate response from the >public audience. > >I am fed up with all that servile speech in documents such as 'we >welcome/applaud/appreciate the Board decision' and the like. In fact, >many of them would deserve to be immediately fired along with many other >staffers. Frankly, this would be the only adequate appreciation of their >overall REAL work done for the public community. > >The ALAC and the public voice will be as strong as strong will be its >defense coming from the public community. The staffers must clearly see >and understand they are serving the public community, not vice versa. > >The ALAC should not get involved into this cover-up but instead strongly >insist on its independent and accountable position with all the >legitimate power associated with it. > > >Dominik > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >Leibovitch >Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:25 AM >To: Alan Greenberg >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide'; 'NA Discuss' >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits > >Alan Greenberg wrote: >> The two RALO appointed members do indeed represent the RALO and its >> ALSs. It is subject to debate whether you believe that in every >> region and at every point in time, a RALO and its ALS fully and >> accurately represent all USERS of that region. >Of course the challenge is to get as much genuine representation as >possible. If various countries or interest groups exist that need a >voice, then attempts should be made to genuinely give them that voice -- >not to appoint people pretending to speak on their behalf with ZERO >accountability. > >> The NomCom appointed ALAC members are charged with doing just that. >We're ALL charged with trying to represent the grassroots as best we >can. The difference is that the ALS delegates to ALAC must be >accountable to their ALS _and_ their RALO. The fact remains -- despite >all sugar coating -- that once selected, the NonCommers are accountable >to nobody. That's two levels of accountability, election and potential >recall by the grassrooots, compared to zero. > >> No doubt this latter task is also potentially as fraught with >problems, but it does give some balance to the committee. >> >The problems far outweigh the balance -- and it's not potential, it's >very real as we've witnessed in the lack of ability of NARALO to respond >adequately to the GNSO documents. The problems in NomComm appointees to >ALAC compound further once one considers the reciprocal incestuousness >inherent in ALAC picking NomComm members. > >ALAC is always in need of good sources of advice on policy, and it >doesn't need the NomComm to identify those good sources. What is at >issue are delegates who have zero accountability to the grassroots, >affecting the direction of At-Large with equal status to those with >proper accountability. > >> Just to be clear, this is, as you noted, a "proposal". At the moment, >> all NomCom appointees are full voting members of the groups to which >> they are appointed, and one of the motivations is to add some measure >> of balance to the other members who represent specific organizations >> (just as RALO appointed members represent their RALO and ALSs). >> >I simply note that the GNSO proposal comes to the same sane conclusion >that must seriously be considered by ALAC -- have appointees for advice >by all means, but limit voting and leadership to elected >representatives. > >In any case, the repeated excuse of "balance" is disturbing and >bordering on insult. To speak of a need for balance is to assert that >there is something unwanted amongst the elected, accountable >representatives that must be balanced against. I am eagerly awaiting a >enumeration of those undesirable components, ESPECIALLY in the >constitution of a body that is itself supposed to be representative of >ICANN's grassroots. > >I hope that anyone who has spoken to the ALAC review people (and >especially those of you who haven't yet, please do) will indicate the >impediment to the maturation of ALAC caused by the NomComm component. > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] GAC Recommendations for WHOIS Studies
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 30, 2008

April 30, 2008

Danny and all, The problem with third party access to currently restricted Whois data is that there needs to be sevear restrictions as to what can be done with the restricted data these third parties have access to, and how oversight is to be effected. Can the ICANN staff effectively prevent abuse of such third party access? I doubt it... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 29, 2008 4:54 AM >To: Fatimata Seye Sylla <fsylla(a)gmail.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GAC Recommendations for WHOIS Studies > >Hi Fatimata, > >Re: "Who decides what uses are legitimate?" > >ICANN, by way of of Consensus Policy recommendations >from the GNSO Council, decides what uses are >legitimate. The last such decision was ratified in >March 2003 by the Board (with implementation delayed >until August 2004) and took the form of the "WHOIS >Marketing Restriction Policy" which can be found here: > http://www.icann.org/registrars/wmrp.htm > >The issue being dealt with concerned the uses of BULK >Whois data -- anyone may currently purchase BULK Whois >data from a registrar (with annual fees for such data >access limited to a $10,000 cap), or from a registry. >Just by way of example, during the month of December >2007 VeriSign issued 1,781 passwords for third party >bulk access to the .com zone file. > >Per the policy, those third parties that access the >data are not to use the data to allow, enable, or >otherwise support any marketing activities. At issue, >of course, is whether ICANN's compliance Department >actually audits such usage (probably not) and whether >it has the tools to enforce the written policy (it >doesn't). > >PS. It might well be the case that such data sales >(which include private data) are unlawful in the EU >and in other jurisdictions, but I will leave it to >others to expand upon this point. > >regards, >Danny > > >--- Fatimata Seye Sylla <fsylla(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> Danny, >> >> I read the document and it is not clear for me >> whether these studies are >> relevant or not as they relate to "legitimate uses". >> Who decides what uses >> are legitimate? The all issue may come from that >> point. If ICANN was to >> decide, the studies would make sense to me, but is >> ICANN really in charge? >> >> Fatimata >> >> >> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 7:41 PM, Danny Younger >> <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf >> > >> > The GAC has put forward 15+ topics related to >> WHOIS >> > that they believe should be studied. The GNSO WG >> that >> > is focused on the same topic will tender its own >> > recommendations on 22 May. On the GNSO WG are >> three >> > at-large participants (myself, Beau Brendler, >> Wendy >> > Seltzer) that could benefit from your input. >> > >> > If you believe that certain studies are warranted, >> > please tell us and offer up your particular >> > recommendations. If you believe that further >> studies >> > are nothing more than a stalling tactic being >> > exploited by certain constituencies to hamper >> privacy >> > initiatives and that no more studies are actually >> > warranted, feel free to tell us that as well. >> > >> > Whatever your views, we will be happy to convey >> them. >> > >> > If you would like to communicate your thoughts >> > directly to your GAC representative, contact >> details >> > are here: >> > http://gac.icann.org/web/contact/reps/index.shtml >> > >> > If you would like to formulate WHOIS policy, >> please >> > join the ALAC WHOIS WG -- signup details at >> > >> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg_atlarge-lists.ican… >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >____________________________________________________________________________________ >> > Be a better friend, newshound, and >> > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. >> > >> >http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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://atlarge.icann.org >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> Fatimata Seye Sylla >> Presidente Bokk Jang Bokk Jeff >> Coordonnatrice ACSIS - Senegal >> BP : 22336 Dakar Senegal >> Tel : 221 33 864 4284 / 1301 552 8282 / 1 301 941 >> 1288 >> email : fsylla(a)gmail.com >> fsylla(a)orange.sn >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >Be a better friend, newshound, and >know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

GAC Recommendations for WHOIS Studies
by Danny Younger April 29, 2008

April 29, 2008

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf The GAC has put forward 15+ topics related to WHOIS that they believe should be studied. The GNSO WG that is focused on the same topic will tender its own recommendations on 22 May. On the GNSO WG are three at-large participants (myself, Beau Brendler, Wendy Seltzer) that could benefit from your input. If you believe that certain studies are warranted, please tell us and offer up your particular recommendations. If you believe that further studies are nothing more than a stalling tactic being exploited by certain constituencies to hamper privacy initiatives and that no more studies are actually warranted, feel free to tell us that as well. Whatever your views, we will be happy to convey them. If you would like to communicate your thoughts directly to your GAC representative, contact details are here: http://gac.icann.org/web/contact/reps/index.shtml If you would like to formulate WHOIS policy, please join the ALAC WHOIS WG -- signup details at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg_atlarge-lists.ican… ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

6 9

Re: [At-Large] GAC Recommendations for WHOIS Studies
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 29, 2008

April 29, 2008

Robert and all, Well thank god you don't represent ALL canadians, or the rest of the world, eh? However for the most part I agree, the WHOIS situation has been debated and discussed to death and there is no change from already entrenched and established positions. The one area were I, and our members agree with Danny is with Whois accuracy. That is to say that contact information, such as abuse. contact Email addresses, and phone contact information for same is often times not accurate and should be required to be so. Google and Wikipedia are two more well known violators of inaccuracy and no admin. Email contact in the case of Google. Of course it appears that both Vint Cerf, and DOC/NTIA are seemingly unable or unwilling to insist that their Whois info. is accurate and an abuse contact Email address is reachable and avaliable. This is indeed unfortunate and reprehensable at a minimum. As our members, myself very much included are disgusted in Google's behavior in part as a result of their inaccurate Whois and Domain name registration information, we have discontinued some time ago now using Google or doing any business with them as they have repeatedly demonstrated a intent to be allow unchecked the proliferation of spam, phishing, and the propagation of Child pornography via their services with seeming impunity. Certainly this is the identical position of our members in Canada at least, as well as our members in the US and 78 other countries. -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> >Sent: Apr 28, 2008 7:19 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GAC Recommendations for WHOIS Studies > >For me - the issue has been studied to death. Any further studies are >a stalling tactic > >Either set a deadline, or get rid of it. > >regards > >Robert > > >On 24-Apr-08, at 7:41 PM, Danny Younger wrote: > >> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karlins-to-thrush-16apr08.pdf >> >> The GAC has put forward 15+ topics related to WHOIS >> that they believe should be studied. The GNSO WG that >> is focused on the same topic will tender its own >> recommendations on 22 May. On the GNSO WG are three >> at-large participants (myself, Beau Brendler, Wendy >> Seltzer) that could benefit from your input. >> >> If you believe that certain studies are warranted, >> please tell us and offer up your particular >> recommendations. If you believe that further studies >> are nothing more than a stalling tactic being >> exploited by certain constituencies to hamper privacy >> initiatives and that no more studies are actually >> warranted, feel free to tell us that as well. >> >> Whatever your views, we will be happy to convey them. >> >> If you would like to communicate your thoughts >> directly to your GAC representative, contact details >> are here: >> http://gac.icann.org/web/contact/reps/index.shtml >> >> If you would like to formulate WHOIS policy, please >> join the ALAC WHOIS WG -- signup details at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________________________________ >> Be a better friend, newshound, and >> know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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://atlarge.icann.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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] GAC Recommendations for WHOIS Studies
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 29, 2008

April 29, 2008

Michele and all, Well maybe your now defunct prime minister would be willing to serve? Or is he otherwise enguaged at one of Belfasts local pienal institutions? >:) Otherwise I am reasonably sure that in one of Irelands many local pubs, one can rustle up a rep, eh? -----Original Message----- >From: Michele Neylon <michele(a)blacknight.ie> >Sent: Apr 28, 2008 3:29 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GAC Recommendations for WHOIS Studies > > >On 25 Apr 2008, at 00:41, Danny Younger wrote: > >> >> >> Whatever your views, we will be happy to convey them. >> >> If you would like to communicate your thoughts >> directly to your GAC representative, contact details >> are here: >> http://gac.icann.org/web/contact/reps/index.shtml > >There isn't an Irish rep :( > > >> >> >> If you would like to formulate WHOIS policy, please >> join the ALAC WHOIS WG -- signup details at http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/whois-wg_atlarge-lists.ican… >> >> > >Mr Michele Neylon >Blacknight Solutions >Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection >http://www.blacknight.com/ >http://blog.blacknight.com/ >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >Locall: 1850 929 929 >Direct Dial: +353 (0)59 9183090 >Fax. +353 (0) 1 4811 763 >------------------------------- >Blacknight Internet Solutions Ltd, Unit 12A,Barrowside Business >Park,Sleaty >Road,Graiguecullen,Carlow,Ireland Company No.: 370845 > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org egards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 28, 2008

April 28, 2008

Danny, Beau, and all, Beau, frankly Danny makes a very strong argument below, and as additionally the ALAC's and ALS'es are unwilling to self fund, unwilling to be fully transparent and open, enguaging in selective censensorship, grossly unaware of the history of many of the impending issues, and significantly willing to conduct much of issue related discussions and decisions on "Internatl Lists", these ALAC's, and ALS'es cannot in their current structure be a representation of or representatives for users. This said, it is also not too late to change the error in these ALAC's and ALS'es ways... But given the recent banter, I am not, nor are any of our members holding our breaths that a significant enough change in these ALAC's and ALS'es ways is forthcoming. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 28, 2008 9:54 AM >To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement Edits > >Sorry to have to disagree, but if I were sitting on >the Board Governance Committee I'd be scoffing at the >ridiculous demands being made in this document as no >case has properly been made for ALS (user) >constituency status within the GNSO. > >A few questions: > >1. The GNSO has made it possible for participation >within their committees, task forces, ad-hoc groups, >and volunteer drafting teams -- how many ALSs have >availed themselves of the opportunity? > >2. The GNSO is a policy formulating body that >discusses policy matters on-line -- how many ALSs have >participated in any online DNS-related policy >discussion? > >3. GNSO Constituencies are self-supporting and each >charges a fee for membership -- how many ALSs are >willing to pay a constituency membership fee? > >4. GNSO Councillors travel to ICANN sessions without >the benefit of ICANN travel support -- how many ALSs >will be willing to regularly send their members at >their own expense to GNSO functions? > >5. Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of >the ALAC letter sent to the Board regarding >front-running? > >6. Can you name even one ALS that knows the status of >GNSO discussions on fast-flux or inter-registrar >domain transfers or the GNSO's current position on >IDNC? > >7. Although the ALAC always has some sort of comment >to make on the topic of WHOIS (that lends itself to >armchair philosophers), how many ALSs actually >volunteered to participate in an effort to define the >next range of WHOIS studies? > >You know, when we consider topics like fast-track for >IDNs, we factor in considerations such as demand and >capability -- when I look at the GNSO restructuring I >see no widespread demand for ALS involvement, nor do I >see a capability to engage in serious policy >formulation discussions. > >Just look at the regional lists -- has any ALS from >anywhere in the world other than North America >expressed an interest in an ALS constituency? New >constituencies are supposed to be able to demonstrate >that they are: > >1) broadly representative; and >2) that the addition of such a Constituency will >improve the ability of the GNSO to carry out its >policy-development responsibilities. > >Based on the track record of ALAC's ALSs, you couldn't >convince me that they will act to improve the ability >of the GNSO to carry out its policy-development >obligations... they haven't even managed to put >together a proper working group on any topic >whatsoever or for that matter discuss DNS policy on >their own discussion lists. > >I will not support the current text as I believe it to >be detrimental to a GNSO that suffers enough already >from the presence of certain constituencies that only >rarely choose to participate. We don't need more of >that. > > >--- "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> wrote: > >> I'm closer to supporting this than anything else >> I've seen yet. >> >> Danny, Evan, what do you think (the document is a >> little difficult to read as it's very wide, I'm >> referring to Nick's revisions on the right). >> >> BB >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf >> of Nick Ashton-Hart >> Sent: Sat 4/26/2008 11:24 AM >> To: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss >> Subject: [At-Large] GNSO Improvements Statement >> Edits >> >> Dear All: >> >> I have been requested to provide some language which >> might act as a 'bridge' which could help to >> reconcile the views expressed about the Joint >> Proposal on GNSO Reform which has been the subject >> of considerable discussion in the NARALO in the last >> several days. >> >> I hope that what I have crafted is at least close to >> what is required. As always, whether it is used or >> not is entirely up to all of you. >> >> I have taken the liberty of doing the drafting using >> the wiki version of the ALAC Statement to the Board >> of ICANN on GNSO Improvements, since it seemed to me >> that this would make it easy for everyone to see the >> original text of that document and also the changes >> that I have introduced, Here are some URLs for you: >> >> 1. Side-by-side view of the original ALAC draft and >> the drafting work just done: >> >https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=… >> >> 2. Original text of the ALAC Statement, unmodified: >> >https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?action=revision_view;page_name=al_… >> >> 3. Joint Proposal of Users: >> >http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/docTwl3R0M9fY.doc >> >> NOTE: All three members of the At-Large staff are >> travelling either Sunday, or Monday, to the ICANN HQ >> in Marina Del Rey for a staff meeting of the Policy >> Unit. We are therefore unlikely to see emails sent >> to us on this subject until Sunday night. Please >> keep this in mind if you need to reach us. >> >> -- >> >> Regards, >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart >> Director for At-Large >> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN) >> Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >> USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >> Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >> 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 >> _______________________________________________ >> 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://atlarge.icann.org >> >> *** >> Scanned >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >Be a better friend, newshound, and >know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Important: Resigning from ALAC Position at ICANN
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 28, 2008

April 28, 2008

Dear Veronica: On behalf of the staff may I say that we are sorry to see you leave though we can understand that volunteer activities must take a back seat to your other obligations. It has been a pleasure to work with you, and we hope you will remain connected to the community going forward. We wish you the very best! On 28/04/2008 11:55, "Veronica Cretu" <VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu> wrote: Dear colleagues! Warm greetings from Moldova! Hope my message finds you well! I am currently involved as an international expert in a big project for the Ministry of Education of Liberia and will have to spend more than three weeks there starting from May 15. The NGO I run here in Moldova is also involved in many national projects which require very much of my direct involvement: monitoring and evaluation. In this context, it is quite a challenge to find additional time for ALAC activities when I am full-time involved in so many activities. That is why, it is my duty to inform you all that due to the many projects I am currently in charge of, I have to unfortunately resign from my ALAC position. It has not been an easy decision to make at all! I just can not stay in ALAC any longer just for the sake of being on ALAC/AtLarge - I prefer to be effective and to produce impact. And this is smth for which I simply don't have time now! I must say that ALAC has been a great experience for me and I am truly thankful to everyone on ALAC who have been day by day, side by side during this last year. I have learned a lot from this professional, hard-working, committed and culturally diverse community. * I want to thank my European colleagues: Annette and Wolfgang Kleinwächter in the first place, for their confidence in me and for believing that I can bring something new to ALAC, even if I am from Eastern Europe:)! * I am very thankful to Cheryl and Izumi for their openness and for their professional support on the initiatives I launched on ALAC. * I am happy for having worked with my European colleagues: Sebastian and Wolf and all my respect for all EURALO board members for the patience, passion and possible solutions they have been trying to identify in order to make EURALO start working on policy related issues in the region; * My thanks go also for my North American colleagues: Alan, Robert and Beau - for their professional work and support whenever needed; * Jose Ovidio, Carlos, Hawa - my admiration for the effort and time you invest in ALAC - I know it has not been easy for you given the language barriers that you have been facing so far; * Mohamed, Fatimata, Vanda and Thu Hue - many thanks for your energy, time and devotion and for your friendly support on the ideas I was promoting on ALAC/Atlarge. * Many thanks to current ALAC liaisons: Hong, Jacqueline and Wendy; * And of course, my many thanks to Nick - I know it is not an easy task to handle the communication and collaboration with such a big and diverse community. Thank you for your support throughout this year. I know ICANN staff will do much more in order to support ALAC/AtLarge become a viable and strong community now with more staff members in place. I am glad I managed to bring to ALAC/AtLarge some ideas and practices that go back to my professional background. Because I strongly believe that "A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)." back in Puerto Rico (my first ICANN meeting) I came to the conclusion that ALAC /At Large needs to have a set of mechanisms via which these policies are identified, promoted and evaluated. These are the few things that I have managed to do in the period of June 2007 - present: - I initiated the "OneDay" Workshop for ALAC/AtLarge. - I have designed the agenda and conducted together with Cheryl and Izumi two "OneDay" workshops before ICANN meetings in Los-Angeles and New Delhi. - I have compiled OneDay Evaluation Reports, based on the feedback from ALAC/AtLarge members who have participated in these meetings; - Back in New Delhi, I made a statement on behalf of ALAC on Organizational Development; - I elaborated the ALAC Organizational Development document that focuses on several components of the ALAC's developments; - I proposed a document on "What is an ALAC/AtLarge" Working Group - and the document was used for planning activities per certain working groups during the OneDay workshop in New Delhi ; - I have recently transferred some of the good practices that came as a result of this Organizational Development processes on ALAC into the GNSO Improvements Report. - Along with all the above, I organized a three days training program on Internet Governance and Community Development in Moldova ( www.cmb.md/igf <http://www.cmb.md/igf><http://www.cmb.md/igf> ), during which we had a special session on ALAC/AtLarge @ ICANN. Training participants were 16 young leaders representing civil society, business sector, international community and the Government. - I have had several discussions with APTI members from Romania , as they were our project partners in the above Program, and as a result we have recently received their application in order to become an accredited ALS structure @ICANN from our part of the world. All the reports and documents I produced have been available since produced at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?organisational_development . To conclude, I want to encourage you to contact me/stay in touch in case you are interested in working on projects/initiatives dealing with ICT for Development, Access to Knowledge, Internet Governance, Community Development, IDNs, Education, Virtual Embassies, Climate Change, etc. both regionally and/or internationally! Good luck with all your initiatives and all the best! As ever, Veronica ________________________________ Veronica Cretu, President, CMB Training Center CMB - Promoting innovations in Communication, Management and Business Chisinau, Moldova www.cmb.md <http://www.cmb.md/><http://www.cmb.md/> www.cmb.md/igf <http://www.cmb.md/igf><http://www.cmb.md/igf> +373 22 27 45 04, 273196 email: vcretu(a)cmb.md <javascript:openWin('/WorldClient.dll?Session=EJQQNER&View=Compose&To=vcretu(a)cmb.md&New=Yes','Compose',800,600,'yes');> VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu <javascript:openWin('/WorldClient.dll?Session=EJQQNER&View=Compose&To=VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu&New=Yes','Compose',800,600,'yes');> -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 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] Consequences of the GNSO
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 27, 2008

April 27, 2008

Jefsey and all, Unfortunately our INEGroup member in france are not and have never been in agreement with the WSIS or Tunis report which was not broadly internationally supported, but our members do support an open root structure, but such a structure must have a centralized control aspect. But we do not know now, and can never know for a certainty if Phillip Shepards document is a majority or miniority joint position unless or until other non-ICANN accepted or accredited user and industry groups have the opertunity to vote on such a position. -----Original Message----- >From: jefsey <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Apr 27, 2008 8:30 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: listegenerale(a)franceatlarge.org >Subject: [At-Large] Consequences of the GNSO "minority report" > >Dear Friends, >Last week Phillip Shepard sent a document to the ICANN BoD which >reflects a joint position of "users groups represented within ICANN >today": ALAC, BIC, IPC, ISCPC, NCUC. (Proposal for GNSO Structural Change.doc). > >No one can miss the "minority report" nature of this document since >it only consider supply organisations having a contract with ICANN. >In terms of TLD Managers and Registry Managers, Domain Name users, >community membership and root file operators this only reflects a >closed ICANN next of skin minority, when one consider the ccTLDs, the >local and national communities, the GSMA and open-root proposition, >the special position of China, the Multilinc detected public TLD >aspirations, which will probably generalise to other countries in the >years to come. > >I am certainly ready to support that realistic approach. We have to >explain and discuss it within the france@large members, partners and >media and I want to be sure we are on the same wave length, as it >seems to depart from the ICANN traditional line. > >This means that ICANN would stick to the Tunis agreement (the USA >will manage the legacy and emergences are governed within the IGF >framework). This means that ICANN would adhere to the WSIS people >centric vision. This would lead to regional and national ICANNs >within the regional and local Internet Governance Fora. This means >that at the end of the JPA the US ICANN will network with its >Chinese, European, French ICANNs we are to help creating so they best >related together. Such a decentralised and subsidiarised apporach >would certainly be n tune with the world's digital ecosystem reality >and help the IETF in dealing with IDNA. > >However, these are new concepts with irreversible consequences for >the ALAC positionning. It is our job to explain it around and to give >the BoD feed-backs on the reactions we may perceive. We are to >organise in consequence. We therefore want to be sure we fully >understand each others. > >jfc > >--------- > >Chers Amis, >La semaine dernière, Phillip Shepard a envoyé un document au CA de >l'ICANN CdD reflète une position commune des "groupes d'utilisateurs >représentés au sein de l'ICANN aujourd'hui": l'ALAC, BIC, de l'IPC, >ISCPC, NCUC. . > >Nul ne peut manquer de voir la nature "rapport minoritaire" de ce >document car il n'envisage seulement que des organisations ayant un >contrat avec l'ICANN. En termes de domaine de premier niveau et de >gestionnaire de registre, d'utilisateurs de noms de domaine, de >Communauté et d'administrateurs de fichiers racine il ne reflète une >communauté ICANN réduite à sa famille proche, n'incluant pas les >ccTLD, les communautés locales et nationales, le GSMA et les >racines-ouvertes, la position particulière de la Chine, ce que >Multilinc détecte en terme d'aspirations à des TLD publics, qui sera >se généralisera probablement à d'autres pays dans les années à venir. > >Je suis certainement prêt à appuyer cette approche réaliste. Nous >devons expliquer et en discuter au sein des france@large, entre >membres, partenaires et médias, et je veux être sûr que nous sommes >sur la même longueur d'onde, car cela semble s'écarter de la ligne >traditionnelle de 'ICANN. > >Cela signifie que l'ICANN devrait s'en tenir à Tunis l'accord (les >États-Unis gérent l'héritage et émergences sont gérées dans le cadre >de l'IGF). Cela signifie que l'ICANN devrait adhérer à la vision du >SMSI centrée sur les gens. Cela conduirait à des instances régionales >et nationales du FGI avec des ICANNs régionales et locales. Cela >signifie qu'à la fin du JPA aux États-Unis l'ICANN serait en réseau >avec ses équivalents s chinois, européen, français que nous avons à >aider à créer afin de mieux les lier ensemble. Une telle approche >décentralisée et subsidiaire serait certainement en phase avec la >réalité de l'écosystème numérique mondial réalité, et aiderait l'IETF >à résoudre IDNA. > >Toutefois, ce sont de nouveaux concepts avec des conséquences >irréversibles pour le positionnement de l'ALAC. Il est de notre >devoir de l''expliquer autour de nous et de renvoyer au BoD de >l'ICANN des informations sur les réactions que nous percevrions. Nous >devons nous organiser en conséquence. Nous voulons être sûrs que nous >nus comprenons très bien. > >JFC > > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Consequences of the GNSO "minority report"
by jefsey April 27, 2008

April 27, 2008

Dear Friends, Last week Phillip Shepard sent a document to the ICANN BoD which reflects a joint position of "users groups represented within ICANN today": ALAC, BIC, IPC, ISCPC, NCUC. (Proposal for GNSO Structural Change.doc). No one can miss the "minority report" nature of this document since it only consider supply organisations having a contract with ICANN. In terms of TLD Managers and Registry Managers, Domain Name users, community membership and root file operators this only reflects a closed ICANN next of skin minority, when one consider the ccTLDs, the local and national communities, the GSMA and open-root proposition, the special position of China, the Multilinc detected public TLD aspirations, which will probably generalise to other countries in the years to come. I am certainly ready to support that realistic approach. We have to explain and discuss it within the france@large members, partners and media and I want to be sure we are on the same wave length, as it seems to depart from the ICANN traditional line. This means that ICANN would stick to the Tunis agreement (the USA will manage the legacy and emergences are governed within the IGF framework). This means that ICANN would adhere to the WSIS people centric vision. This would lead to regional and national ICANNs within the regional and local Internet Governance Fora. This means that at the end of the JPA the US ICANN will network with its Chinese, European, French ICANNs we are to help creating so they best related together. Such a decentralised and subsidiarised apporach would certainly be n tune with the world's digital ecosystem reality and help the IETF in dealing with IDNA. However, these are new concepts with irreversible consequences for the ALAC positionning. It is our job to explain it around and to give the BoD feed-backs on the reactions we may perceive. We are to organise in consequence. We therefore want to be sure we fully understand each others. jfc --------- Chers Amis, La semaine dernière, Phillip Shepard a envoyé un document au CA de l'ICANN CdD reflète une position commune des "groupes d'utilisateurs représentés au sein de l'ICANN aujourd'hui": l'ALAC, BIC, de l'IPC, ISCPC, NCUC. . Nul ne peut manquer de voir la nature "rapport minoritaire" de ce document car il n'envisage seulement que des organisations ayant un contrat avec l'ICANN. En termes de domaine de premier niveau et de gestionnaire de registre, d'utilisateurs de noms de domaine, de Communauté et d'administrateurs de fichiers racine il ne reflète une communauté ICANN réduite à sa famille proche, n'incluant pas les ccTLD, les communautés locales et nationales, le GSMA et les racines-ouvertes, la position particulière de la Chine, ce que Multilinc détecte en terme d'aspirations à des TLD publics, qui sera se généralisera probablement à d'autres pays dans les années à venir. Je suis certainement prêt à appuyer cette approche réaliste. Nous devons expliquer et en discuter au sein des france@large, entre membres, partenaires et médias, et je veux être sûr que nous sommes sur la même longueur d'onde, car cela semble s'écarter de la ligne traditionnelle de 'ICANN. Cela signifie que l'ICANN devrait s'en tenir à Tunis l'accord (les États-Unis gérent l'héritage et émergences sont gérées dans le cadre de l'IGF). Cela signifie que l'ICANN devrait adhérer à la vision du SMSI centrée sur les gens. Cela conduirait à des instances régionales et nationales du FGI avec des ICANNs régionales et locales. Cela signifie qu'à la fin du JPA aux États-Unis l'ICANN serait en réseau avec ses équivalents s chinois, européen, français que nous avons à aider à créer afin de mieux les lier ensemble. Une telle approche décentralisée et subsidiaire serait certainement en phase avec la réalité de l'écosystème numérique mondial réalité, et aiderait l'IETF à résoudre IDNA. Toutefois, ce sont de nouveaux concepts avec des conséquences irréversibles pour le positionnement de l'ALAC. Il est de notre devoir de l''expliquer autour de nous et de renvoyer au BoD de l'ICANN des informations sur les réactions que nous percevrions. Nous devons nous organiser en conséquence. Nous voulons être sûrs que nous nus comprenons très bien. JFC

1 0

Re: [At-Large] GNSO and ICANN Improvements
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 27, 2008

April 27, 2008

Dominik and all, Very good overview observations and remarks here. Our members including myself have expressed similar and are very supportive of Dominiks here. What is now, and has been for sense the inception of ICANN is that is is under the thumb predominantly of the hand that feed's it $$, namely registries, registrars, and IP interests. As such it is essentially still a club, not an international organization and lacks ethical and reasonable standards of any sort. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Apr 26, 2008 1:05 PM >To: gnso-improvements-report-2008(a)icann.org >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] GNSO and ICANN Improvements > >I have gone over many posts on several publicly accessible ICANN mailing >lists and other documents and have found several or more contributions >illuminating and explanatory in giving an insight of what is going on at >ICANN behind the scenes, provided we are able to read between the lines. >Nothing, what we have not known before but perhaps some details about >the technology of how craftily the public effort can be conducted and >manipulated. > >In fact, the common argument being always presented is how staffers are >all keen on supporting all types of public interests. But only up to a >moment when the public interests start colliding with leading interests >of the financial and other sharks. When realizing what is at stake the >stuffers immediately back off. Then the second sort of arguments comes >into play, such as a given proposal is too strong, fundamental and which >'will not fly' as registrars and registries will not support it anyway, >and the like. As of this moment an ordinary user (naive user, volunteer) >is being persuaded that a weaker solution is also acceptable, not >perhaps that effective but still better than nothing. Along with ongoing >verbal assurance that the staffers also share sympathy for public >interests trying doing their best to achieve the most feasible solution, >the user might easily get into a false but optimistic assumption as to >have achieved something, not achieving anything real though. > >What is worse is that the staffers are not even willing to present >prevailing views of the communities they represent once the views start >clashing with the leading interests. This is indeed an interesting >moment. >For example, the ALAC's updated domain tasting statement swiftly adopted >the draft motion logic without first discussing it properly with its >public audience. The question is why it acted this way, especially when >it had preferred and presented a stronger position in the first place >before. After all, it could have insisted on the stronger position. >Nothing dramatic would have happened. The ALAC has no voting power and >even if it had it is the BoD who makes final decisions. >The similar approach has also been adopted by several other >constituencies. Instead of clear presentation of prevailing views and >concerns of the constituency members and the underlying public audience, >the updated views swiftly adapted the actual view of the leading >interest. Such updated statements do not reflect previously preferred >constituency positions any longer but rather give in to the expectations >of the leading interests. As a result, the constituencies thus do not >act as self-confident sui juris bodies advocating the views they stand >for, which would be a solid basis for further deliberation and >consent-driven process based on seeking unifying arguments, but rather >quickly seek political consent managed among constituency >representatives; of course, driven by the leading interests they are >advised to pursue. This tendency is apparent in several places in the >Final Report on Domain Tasting when tracking the evolution of the >constituency statements. That is, over and over again politics instead >of deliberation. > >An interesting question is why it is, in certain circumstances, >necessary to rush for unified statements at any price prior proper >deliberation on the modifications. This, at first glance weird logic, >starts making sense when we realize that a) the issue has to be approved >quickly by minimizing the possible undesired impact of public comments, >and b) the overall responsibility must be spread and crumbled among all >involved parties so that nobody could be accused of anything. Either >everyone or no one. As a practical consequence, those people are doing >nearly nothing productive for their communities in such cases. Yes, >there are cases when a progress is remarkable and reasonable motions are >being approved but only if they do not clash with the leading interests >or they are so apparent that simply cannot be ignored. A good example >again is domain tasting. The phenomenon was recognized yonks ago and has >been known and heavily reported for years as an abuse being constantly >committed on wide community. So it had to be opened. But there is also >the clash here as it is a profitable business of very high importance >for all interested parties. The first shot was the $0.20-for-all-deletes >motion. The same one I wrote a joke about more than a year ago. That >time it was a joke only, but this time it seemed to become reality. The >currently proposed final motion is unclear and ambiguous enough to allow >for continuing the game under the hood. And when the public outreach >fades out the practice can be guardedly reinstated. > >I would therefore strongly recommend that all staffers look into the >ICANN Core Values again and carefully. Anyone who does not feel >comfortable with the Core Values should reconsider his or her stay >within the ICANN structures in order not to hinder active and competent >participants from fluent work on substantive ICANN issues. > >I see just one important ICANN issue to address, to encourage the public >community to clearly and dauntlessly identify and face those staffers >who are exploiting the ICANN mission in order to privilege their own >private businesses, deals, and interests to the detriment of all others. >Namely, those who are just spoiling valuable effort presented by honest >and competent members of the ICANN community. > >ICANN is an international organization representing all Internet users, >not a private business elite club of registrars and registries! > > >Dominik Filipp, a GNSO General Assembly list member > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

GNSO and ICANN Improvements
by Dominik Filipp April 26, 2008

April 26, 2008

I have gone over many posts on several publicly accessible ICANN mailing lists and other documents and have found several or more contributions illuminating and explanatory in giving an insight of what is going on at ICANN behind the scenes, provided we are able to read between the lines. Nothing, what we have not known before but perhaps some details about the technology of how craftily the public effort can be conducted and manipulated. In fact, the common argument being always presented is how staffers are all keen on supporting all types of public interests. But only up to a moment when the public interests start colliding with leading interests of the financial and other sharks. When realizing what is at stake the stuffers immediately back off. Then the second sort of arguments comes into play, such as a given proposal is too strong, fundamental and which 'will not fly' as registrars and registries will not support it anyway, and the like. As of this moment an ordinary user (naive user, volunteer) is being persuaded that a weaker solution is also acceptable, not perhaps that effective but still better than nothing. Along with ongoing verbal assurance that the staffers also share sympathy for public interests trying doing their best to achieve the most feasible solution, the user might easily get into a false but optimistic assumption as to have achieved something, not achieving anything real though. What is worse is that the staffers are not even willing to present prevailing views of the communities they represent once the views start clashing with the leading interests. This is indeed an interesting moment. For example, the ALAC's updated domain tasting statement swiftly adopted the draft motion logic without first discussing it properly with its public audience. The question is why it acted this way, especially when it had preferred and presented a stronger position in the first place before. After all, it could have insisted on the stronger position. Nothing dramatic would have happened. The ALAC has no voting power and even if it had it is the BoD who makes final decisions. The similar approach has also been adopted by several other constituencies. Instead of clear presentation of prevailing views and concerns of the constituency members and the underlying public audience, the updated views swiftly adapted the actual view of the leading interest. Such updated statements do not reflect previously preferred constituency positions any longer but rather give in to the expectations of the leading interests. As a result, the constituencies thus do not act as self-confident sui juris bodies advocating the views they stand for, which would be a solid basis for further deliberation and consent-driven process based on seeking unifying arguments, but rather quickly seek political consent managed among constituency representatives; of course, driven by the leading interests they are advised to pursue. This tendency is apparent in several places in the Final Report on Domain Tasting when tracking the evolution of the constituency statements. That is, over and over again politics instead of deliberation. An interesting question is why it is, in certain circumstances, necessary to rush for unified statements at any price prior proper deliberation on the modifications. This, at first glance weird logic, starts making sense when we realize that a) the issue has to be approved quickly by minimizing the possible undesired impact of public comments, and b) the overall responsibility must be spread and crumbled among all involved parties so that nobody could be accused of anything. Either everyone or no one. As a practical consequence, those people are doing nearly nothing productive for their communities in such cases. Yes, there are cases when a progress is remarkable and reasonable motions are being approved but only if they do not clash with the leading interests or they are so apparent that simply cannot be ignored. A good example again is domain tasting. The phenomenon was recognized yonks ago and has been known and heavily reported for years as an abuse being constantly committed on wide community. So it had to be opened. But there is also the clash here as it is a profitable business of very high importance for all interested parties. The first shot was the $0.20-for-all-deletes motion. The same one I wrote a joke about more than a year ago. That time it was a joke only, but this time it seemed to become reality. The currently proposed final motion is unclear and ambiguous enough to allow for continuing the game under the hood. And when the public outreach fades out the practice can be guardedly reinstated. I would therefore strongly recommend that all staffers look into the ICANN Core Values again and carefully. Anyone who does not feel comfortable with the Core Values should reconsider his or her stay within the ICANN structures in order not to hinder active and competent participants from fluent work on substantive ICANN issues. I see just one important ICANN issue to address, to encourage the public community to clearly and dauntlessly identify and face those staffers who are exploiting the ICANN mission in order to privilege their own private businesses, deals, and interests to the detriment of all others. Namely, those who are just spoiling valuable effort presented by honest and competent members of the ICANN community. ICANN is an international organization representing all Internet users, not a private business elite club of registrars and registries! Dominik Filipp, a GNSO General Assembly list member

1 0

Final Call for Comments for consideration by the independent Review of ALAC
by At-Large Staff April 26, 2008

April 26, 2008

Dear All: You will find the following announcement now posted at http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ --- ICANN has previously invited comments or feedback from individuals or organisations wishing to make submissions to Westlake Consulting Limited ('WCL'), in relation to its Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory Committee ('ALAC'). The closing date for such submissions was Friday 18th April. WCL has received a significant number of such comments, and advises that it is willing to consider late submissions until Friday 2nd May. This date will allow WCL to complete its Review and present it at ICANN Paris, 22-26 June. Accordingly, WCL invites individuals or organisations, who may still wish to contribute observations or information about any aspect of the role, structure or operation of the ALAC, to email their comments as soon as possible, to alacreview(a)westlakenz.com, by no later than 2 May 2008 -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

3 2

GNSO Improvements - ALAC and Joint Statements - comments requested
by At-Large Staff April 26, 2008

April 26, 2008

Dear All: As you may recall, an Ad-Hoc Working Group on GNSO Improvements, with representatives of each RALO, has been working on a response to the public consultation on the Board Governance Committee¹s proposals for improvements to the GNSO. As a part of that work, the working group was also engaged in negotiations with various communities within the GNSO Community, including the Commercial and Business Users, Intellectual Property, Internet Service and Connectino Providers, and Non-Commercial Users Constituencies. The Joint Statement that resulted from those discussions was posted to the public comment forum today, and is accessible at: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html. The Working Group also produced a draft statement for transmission to the Board of Directors by the ALAC in its role as an Advisory Committee. That document was subject to a community comment period, and the working group incorporated those comments received however, the working group took the decision that it would be better to wait to finalise the text until after the Joint Statement was finished, so that the At-Large community could take one final look at the two statements, make any comments, and if necessary those comments could then be dealt with in the ALAC¹s individual statement. The ALAC also discussed the progress on this issue at its meeting earlier this month. The Staff have been asked to post a version of the ALAC statement, as well as the Joint Statement, so that comments can be taken. It is envisaged that we will be able to take comments for a few days as the statement can be transmitted to the board following the end of the public comment period on the GNSO Improvements draft, which finishes on the 24th of April. You may access both the draft ALAC Statement, and the Joint Statement, from this URL. Please do use the comment button to provide any comments you care to make. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?al_alac_gnim_wg_01_01_alac_statemen t_on_gnso_improvements -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

10 14

Re: [At-Large] Final Call for Comments for consideration by the independent Review of ALAC
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 25, 2008

April 25, 2008

Nick and all, As JFC has already pointed out, the document to which you refer is not posted to where you state it is. Further I agree that an independant review is a wise idea, but should be conducted by a party or parties determined by a double blind selection process as is the international norm. And to be sure that a consulting firm such as westlake is not at all involved in such a selection process as well as any ICANN staff of Bod member, GNSO council or staff member, ALAC staff, or Atlarge staff member. -----Original Message----- >From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Sent: Apr 25, 2008 1:47 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Final Call for Comments for consideration by the independent Review of ALAC > >Dear All: > >You will find the following announcement now posted at >http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ > >--- >ICANN has previously invited comments or feedback from individuals or >organisations wishing to make submissions to Westlake Consulting Limited >('WCL'), in relation to its Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory >Committee ('ALAC'). The closing date for such submissions was Friday 18th >April. > >WCL has received a significant number of such comments, and advises that it >is willing to consider late submissions until Friday 2nd May. This date will >allow WCL to complete its Review and present it at ICANN Paris, 22-26 June. > >Accordingly, WCL invites individuals or organisations, who may still wish to >contribute observations or information about any aspect of the role, >structure or operation of the ALAC, to email their comments as soon as >possible, to alacreview(a)westlakenz.com, by no later than 2 May 2008 >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 25, 2008

April 25, 2008

Total of 55 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 25 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 16.36% | 9 | 12.21% | 66079 | evan at telly.org 9.09% | 5 | 19.04% | 103055 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 12.73% | 7 | 10.16% | 54957 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 10.91% | 6 | 8.19% | 44326 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 5.45% | 3 | 7.25% | 39208 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 5.45% | 3 | 5.42% | 29342 | roberto at icann.org 3.64% | 2 | 5.13% | 27757 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 3.64% | 2 | 3.81% | 20597 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 3.64% | 2 | 3.63% | 19648 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 3.64% | 2 | 2.81% | 15198 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 3.64% | 2 | 2.74% | 14829 | ross at tucows.com 3.64% | 2 | 2.60% | 14065 | mailer-daemon at icann.org 3.64% | 2 | 2.08% | 11280 | johnl at iecc.com 1.82% | 1 | 2.51% | 13603 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 1.82% | 1 | 2.15% | 11628 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.82% | 1 | 2.03% | 10969 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 1.82% | 1 | 2.02% | 10905 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 1.82% | 1 | 1.65% | 8908 | wendy at seltzer.com 1.82% | 1 | 1.56% | 8468 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.82% | 1 | 1.52% | 8216 | vb at bertola.eu 1.82% | 1 | 1.50% | 8131 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 55 |100.00% | 541169 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Nick and all, Thank you for this reference of "Westlake consulting", but who the heck is "Westlake Consulting" and how are they affiliated with ICANN? What Email address should someone forward these concerns? And what is the URL for "Westlake Consulting"? Is the url http://www.westlakeinc.com/ ? If so the only Email contact point listed on their web site seems to be info(a)westlakeinc.com . Is this correct? If so, why is a "General delivery" email address the contact point? Do they not have a live person with a individual Email address by which such concerns can be sent to? If not, why not? Don't you think that they ought to close up their open DNS server so as to not expose visitors of those whom may wish to communicate with them to spam, phishing attempts, and data theft? or misuse? See: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=westlakeinc.com&token=259… Sorry for all these questions, but I think they are reasonable ones, don't you? -----Original Message----- >From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Sent: Apr 17, 2008 11:15 AM >To: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: "alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris] > >May I also take this opportunity to suggest that any views on this subject would be of great interest to the at-large reviewers at Westlake consulting. I hope that you will all take the opportunity to send them your thoughts on these subjects; I know that many of you have strong views about this and it would be a shame if the reviewers didn't have a complete picture of the perspectives. > > >On 17/04/2008 19:51, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: > >Hi, thank you for the explanation. What still amazes me though is that >the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet >users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no >direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they >join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large >group out there on the net. >Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and >processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them >to change some time in the future? >Thanks, jeanette > >Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. >>> >> To clarify:, >> >> Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and >> enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal >> representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively >> have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for >> voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the >> Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. >> >> We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have >> the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization >> that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I >> recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to >> get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. >> This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which >> is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. >> >> This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a >> reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not >> everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I >> believe this balance has worked well. >> >> - Evan >> > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > >ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >-- > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >Director for At-Large >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >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 >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

3 3

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
by Danny Younger April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Evan, The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without any consultative engagement with its own membership; such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final Statement is posted here: http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html regards, Danny --- Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > Hello everyone, > > For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a > document being drafted on > a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some > sort of "public" > representation that has come up with some very > strange conclusions. Here > is an early draft of the document: > http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Refo… > > A more recent version of the draft has essentially > gutted ALAC's role > and calls for some sort of direct participation by > ALSs. The truly > amazing thing is that this is being advanced as > having the support of > ALAC itself! > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html > > Compounding the problem is that the closing of > public comments is this > week -- and the fact that the document is still in > flux!! How can "the > public" adequately address a moving target in this > manner? > > Frankly, not only the document but the process that > has produced it is > flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now > heard from Beau and > Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list > -- why is it being > debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with > me). I am asking one > or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that > we can submit this > week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be > incapacitated for > most of the rest of this week because of surgery. > > Both the document (at least in its current form) and > the process that > developed it IMO should not be submitted as > something with widespread -- > let alone universal -- public support. Can some > folks here please get > together to draft something upon which NARALO can > get a consensus > statement and submit before the deadline? > > Thanks! > > - Evan > > > ------ > NA-Discuss mailing list > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > ------ > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

6 10

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
by Danny Younger April 24, 2008

April 24, 2008

Jeff, Re: "If you view the current structure as having the pendulum swing too far in favor of the contracted parties..." That's certainly how I view it. For instance, how many registry/registrar regional sessions have been sponsored/supported by ICANN over the years? Has ICANN ever once sponsored a session just for the non-contracted parties? ICANN continues to operate as a Guild Manager favoring certain groups over others, and by now we're all getting pretty sick of it. Perhaps in the upcoming 2008 North American Regional Registry/Registrar Gathering in New Orleans next week, you can ask your peers to offer up a suitable counter-proposal that would better position the pendulum. regards, Danny --- "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> wrote: > It is of course no surprise that the same document > which purports to > "strike a balance" has ensured that the GNSO Council > could always obtain > a Supermajority Vote without ever even involving the > Registries and or > Registrars (who by no coincidence could actually be > bound by their > decisions). > > It is also no coincidence that no registries or > registrars were even > asked to participate in the process to come up with > the new structure. > It is extremely telling of how the signatories plan > on conducting policy > in the future ... namely, without the involvement of > the registries and > registrars. > > If you view the current structure as having the > pendulum swing too far > in favor of the contracted parties, the solution is > NOT to swing the > pendulum completely the opposite way, but rather to > find some common > ground. That did not happen here...... > > Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. > Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & > > Business Development > > NeuStar, Inc. > e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us > > > -----Original Message----- > From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer > Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 10:09 AM > To: Danny Younger > Cc: At-Large Worldwide; NA Discuss > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and > ALAC > > What a farce. > > Whether or not the document is any good, I saw no > consultation with ALAC > that would support the claim that "The attached > document is a unique > collaboration of the joint users groups > represented within > ICANN today: > The At-Large Advisory Committee > The Commercial and Business Users Constituency > The Intellectual Property Constituency > The Internet Service and Connection Providers > Constituency > The Non-Commercial Users Constituency." > > --Wendy > > Danny Younger wrote: > > Evan, > > > > The ALAC has participated in a joint statement > without > > any consultative engagement with its own > membership; > > such behavior should not be countenanced -- the > final > > Statement is posted here: > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html > > > > regards, > > Danny > > > > > > --- Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > >> Hello everyone, > >> > >> For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a > >> document being drafted on > >> a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some > >> sort of "public" > >> representation that has come up with some very > >> strange conclusions. Here > >> is an early draft of the document: > >> > > > http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20R > eform.pdf > >> A more recent version of the draft has > essentially > >> gutted ALAC's role > >> and calls for some sort of direct participation > by > >> ALSs. The truly > >> amazing thing is that this is being advanced as > >> having the support of > >> ALAC itself! > >> > > > http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html > >> Compounding the problem is that the closing of > >> public comments is this > >> week -- and the fact that the document is still > in > >> flux!! How can "the > >> public" adequately address a moving target in > this > >> manner? > >> > >> Frankly, not only the document but the process > that > >> has produced it is > >> flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now > >> heard from Beau and > >> Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC > list > >> -- why is it being > >> debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact > with > >> me). I am asking one > >> or more of you to help craft a NARALO position > that > >> we can submit this > >> week. I will do my best to help but I will likely > be > >> incapacitated for > >> most of the rest of this week because of surgery. > >> > >> Both the document (at least in its current form) > and > >> the process that > >> developed it IMO should not be submitted as > >> something with widespread -- > >> let alone universal -- public support. Can some > >> folks here please get > >> together to draft something upon which NARALO can > >> get a consensus > >> statement and submit before the deadline? > >> > >> Thanks! > >> > >> - Evan > >> > >> > >> ------ > >> NA-Discuss mailing list > >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >> > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > >> ------ > >> > > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > ____________ > > Be a better friend, newshound, and > > know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. > http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > > > > ------ > > NA-Discuss mailing list > > NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists > .icann.org > > > > Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org > > ------ > > > > > > > -- > Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org > 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/ > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann > .org > > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

Ross and all, As now persona's non grata, all of our members, users and registrants all, have neither a voice or a vote of their choosing and under the suggested/perposed "registrants advisory board" will not either. This is not representative and therefore inconsistent with the MOU and ICANN's mission accordingly. A voice and not a vote is inadequate for users and registrants whom are also users themselves. What is good for users and registrants should be good for both, win-win. Registries and registrars may not always benefit with user-non-registrants or user-registrants demands, which are after all the demands of the broad marketplace. But users whom are employed by registries and registrars will benefit equally with other users and some of these users may also be registrants as well... What is missing, or should I say has been removed, is the GA which when official, was inclusive of all classes of users and open and transparent to all whom wished to participate. Such is a representation of and too accountability, which ICANN and particularly the GNSO lacks significantly and has for some time. The ALS'es approach is a failure, and of course was from it's inception as it seeks to divide rather than unite by it's very nature of structure. -----Original Message----- >From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Sent: Apr 23, 2008 8:34 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC > >Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> Ross Rader wrote: >>> I think the paper is correct in pointing out that contracted parties do >>> need some sort of grouping, but it forgets that registrants (of all >>> types) are a highly important component of this. >> Personally, I would like to see a registrants' advisory board made up of >> those subsets of all constituencies (business, noncomm, at-large) that >> has an interest in protecting registrant's rights. Since these groups >> are already part of official constituencies I see this as an advsory >> board that would work with those constituency groups to help forumlate >> registrant-friendly policy. >> >> For the same reasons, I don't see identification of registrants as a new >> separate constituency to be a good idea. > >I believe the current registrant constituencies should be dissolved and >picked up under the new "registrant"/"user" split. As it currently >stands, the commercial user community in the form of the BC/ISPC/IPC >wields way too much power in the GNSO structure. There is also a >smaller, but important, over-allotment to the registry and registrar >constituencies. Both of these over-allotments (I believe) more rightly >belong in the hands of the individual registrants and individual users - >neither of which have any real representative voice in the GNSO process >right now. Taking some "voice" away from the existing constituencies and >re-apportioning it to a mostly new set of constituencies is, in my >opinion, the only real way to create a proper and lasting balance in the >structure. > > From what you are describing, the registrant advisory board sounds >remarkably similar to the contracted registrant constituency that I am >proposing. But what is missing from this is the other half of the >equation - the users, which also need a seat at the table. > >/ross > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 23, 2008

April 23, 2008

Danny and all, I agree fully. Further the document that was attached is in a format that is conducive to transmitting malware and spyware. And further still, it largely does not reflect the actual Internet community where users are by far the largest segment, yet have no predominant or for that matter ANY direct voice, and no vote on issues or process. Whomever drafted this document is demonstrating clearly a lack of experience, knowledge, knowledge in history of the formation of ICANN, the principals of the MOU, and a decided incoherence of the current reality of policy determination and subsequent implementation as well as oversight and compliance of same and existing policy which has been repeatedly abused by registries and registrars predominantly at the expense of users and registrants alike. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 23, 2008 6:02 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC > >Evan, > >The ALAC has participated in a joint statement without >any consultative engagement with its own membership; >such behavior should not be countenanced -- the final >Statement is posted here: >http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-improvements-report-2008/msg00012.html > >regards, >Danny > > >--- Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > >> Hello everyone, >> >> For reasons that are unclear to me, there is a >> document being drafted on >> a proposed revision to the GNSO to allow for some >> sort of "public" >> representation that has come up with some very >> strange conclusions. Here >> is an early draft of the document: >> >http://www.ipconstituency.org/PDFs/Position%20to%20Board%20on%20GNSO%20Refo… >> >> A more recent version of the draft has essentially >> gutted ALAC's role >> and calls for some sort of direct participation by >> ALSs. The truly >> amazing thing is that this is being advanced as >> having the support of >> ALAC itself! >> >http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ispcp/msg00413.html >> >> Compounding the problem is that the closing of >> public comments is this >> week -- and the fact that the document is still in >> flux!! How can "the >> public" adequately address a moving target in this >> manner? >> >> Frankly, not only the document but the process that >> has produced it is >> flawed to the point of causing distress. I've now >> heard from Beau and >> Wendy (who have sopken up on the internal ALAC list >> -- why is it being >> debated there?) and Danny (in personal contact with >> me). I am asking one >> or more of you to help craft a NARALO position that >> we can submit this >> week. I will do my best to help but I will likely be >> incapacitated for >> most of the rest of this week because of surgery. >> >> Both the document (at least in its current form) and >> the process that >> developed it IMO should not be submitted as >> something with widespread -- >> let alone universal -- public support. Can some >> folks here please get >> together to draft something upon which NARALO can >> get a consensus >> statement and submit before the deadline? >> >> Thanks! >> >> - Evan >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> >> Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >> ------ >> > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ >Be a better friend, newshound, and >know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Draft ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget Framework
by At-Large Staff April 21, 2008

April 21, 2008

Dear All: At the request of the Chair, the Staff have amended the draft Draft ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget Framework, attempting to incorporate the comments received during the comment period. The ALAC Finance and Budget Subcommittee will meet tomorrow and, amongst other things, finalise this statement so that it can be transmitted to the Board of ICANN. I am sure they would be helped in their deliberations if those who commented in particular were to review the revisions. We have therefore provided a URL which makes it easier to see the changes from the draft which was the subject of the community consultation, and also a URL for the summary of comments received. The various URLs are below. We hope you will understand that with respect to some issues there are clearly differences of view; we have tried to represent them all faithfully. We hope that we have succeeded. Note that in one case, the comments of B Schombe of Africa, we have enquiries as to the precise meaning of the statements. Draft Statement: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2 Summary of Comments: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/18_april_2008:20080418 112809-0-19712/files/AL-ALAC-BUD-SC-0408-1%20WS%20listing%20of%20comments%20 received.htm Page to view changes incorporating comments made: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=al_ala c_bud_sc_0308_1_2&mode=source&new_revision_id=20080421160925&old_revision_id =20080415145205&Button=Compare+Revisions URL for meeting agenda and related documents: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?22_april_2008 Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

{Virus?} MESSAGE COULD NOT BE DELIVERED
by The Post Office April 20, 2008

April 20, 2008

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message, text.cmd, text1.zip, text.zip). Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

{Virus?} alac@icann.org
by Automatic Email Delivery Software April 20, 2008

April 20, 2008

Warning: This message has had one or more attachments removed Warning: (the entire message, text.com) Warning: Please read the "EMWD-Attachment-Warning.txt" attachment(s) for more information.

1 0

GNSO action on Domain Tasting
by Alan Greenberg April 20, 2008

April 20, 2008

I am pleased to report that at its meeting last Thursday, the GNSO passed a motion that will eliminate the massive usage of the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has enabled domain tasting. The motion is appended below. It was passed with a supermajority (greater than 2/3), so the Board must adopt it as a Consensus Policy unless a supermajority of the Board oppose it (highly unlikely). It was supported by all constituencies except 2 of the 3 Registrar members. The Registrar Constituency had proposed an alternative motion wherein the Board budget measure of charging the $0.20 for all new domains (including those deleted under the AGP) should be implemented first, and the original motion (the one that passed) only apply if the budget action proved unsuccessful. Alan ======== Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator: a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary. c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator. 2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically; a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining; i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.

8 11

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Evan Leibovitch April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. > To clarify:, Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I believe this balance has worked well. - Evan

2 1

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Total of 109 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 18 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.84% | 14 | 11.89% | 152874 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 5.50% | 6 | 14.89% | 191423 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 10.09% | 11 | 6.31% | 81104 | evan at telly.org 8.26% | 9 | 6.23% | 80057 | lists at privaterra.info 5.50% | 6 | 6.45% | 82930 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 4.59% | 5 | 5.07% | 65213 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.50% | 6 | 3.27% | 41999 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 3.67% | 4 | 4.69% | 60228 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 1.83% | 2 | 4.71% | 60532 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 2.75% | 3 | 2.99% | 38422 | jefsey at jefsey.com 2.75% | 3 | 2.52% | 32371 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.75% | 3 | 2.11% | 27113 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 2.75% | 3 | 2.10% | 27015 | veni at veni.com 2.75% | 3 | 1.67% | 21446 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 2.75% | 3 | 1.52% | 19497 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 2.75% | 3 | 1.43% | 18409 | johnl at iecc.com 0.92% | 1 | 3.24% | 41613 | dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk 1.83% | 2 | 2.28% | 29349 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 0.92% | 1 | 3.07% | 39431 | denise.michel at icann.org 1.83% | 2 | 1.42% | 18238 | brenbe at consumer.org 1.83% | 2 | 1.39% | 17842 | sricciardi at fibertel.com.ar 1.83% | 2 | 1.23% | 15846 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.83% | 2 | 1.18% | 15119 | namecritic at blogs.pn 1.83% | 2 | 1.02% | 13138 | wendy at seltzer.com 0.92% | 1 | 1.39% | 17919 | fsylla at gmail.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.87% | 11133 | vanda at uol.com.br 0.92% | 1 | 0.80% | 10326 | iza at anr.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.67% | 8578 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.60% | 7729 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 0.92% | 1 | 0.55% | 7104 | noreply at icann.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.52% | 6699 | richardj at arin.net 0.92% | 1 | 0.52% | 6669 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.49% | 6343 | vint at google.com 0.92% | 1 | 0.47% | 6027 | roessler at does-not-exist.org 0.92% | 1 | 0.44% | 5623 | franck.martin at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 109 |100.00% | 1285359 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Hi Jeanette Given the cultural differences between regions, the decision on membership etc was left up to the individual regions to determine when they were forming. NARALO very strongly wanted individual membership, some of the other regions equally storngly felt that they wanted only group membership, and hence one must be part of a member group. Of course, this is open to change by the GAs of the regions - but I don't think that any mindset will change soon. However, ther has been some discussion about forming a 6th RALO - a global one for individual users. This idea hasn't gained much traction as far as I remember, though. Jacqueline Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, thank you for the explanation. What still amazes me though is that > the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet > users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no > direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they > join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large > group out there on the net. > Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and > processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them > to change some time in the future? > Thanks, jeanette > > Evan Leibovitch wrote: > >>> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. >>> >>> >> To clarify:, >> >> Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and >> enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal >> representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively >> have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for >> voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the >> Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. >> >> We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have >> the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization >> that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I >> recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to >> get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. >> This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which >> is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. >> >> This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a >> reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not >> everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I >> believe this balance has worked well. >> >> - Evan >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Thompson, Darlene April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

I'm not at all sure, Jeanette, but its in the back of my mind that when that NARALO needs to make a policy statement, that the voices of the individuals are counted just the same as the ALSs. This, of course, does not apply to votes - I'm just talking over-all consensus here. Is this fair? Well, I'm not sure but as an ALS representative, I represent multiple people, not just my own opinion. Therefore, I do think that it should be given more weight. And people like Beau carry TONS more weight than me! So, I have no firm opinion on this - this is just my mind meanderings. D ________________________________ From: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Thu 4/17/2008 1:51 PM To: Evan Leibovitch Cc: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: Re: [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris] Hi, thank you for the explanation. What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them to change some time in the future? Thanks, jeanette Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. >> > To clarify:, > > Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and > enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal > representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively > have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for > voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the > Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. > > We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have > the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization > that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I > recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to > get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. > This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which > is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. > > This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a > reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not > everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I > believe this balance has worked well. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/>

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Individual users and ALAC
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 18, 2008

April 18, 2008

Evan, Jeanette and all, Jeanette, I an our members largely share you concerns. And of late the NARALO, EURALO, and this global ALAC list have seemingly sought to thwart public participation which is one of several reasons the silent majority to which Evan speaks to, fears to participate actively. I myself have been "Moderated" largely due to a decided lack of interest by others whom control these ALSes public input mechanisms, yet as spokesman for a fair number of users all of whom are also registrants, but yet share significantly the concerns of interests in issues that effect them directly or indirectly. Such is an example of perhaps why individual users are so reluctant, be they silent not due to choice, but due to fear of repudiation, ridicule, or other much more hazardous reprocutions that may be personally damaging and long lasting. As such, other non-ICANN NNW's have formed starting in 2001, such as http://itp.nyu.edu/blogs/ecm292/2008/02/26/nnwkaa-30/ that are decidedly taking things into their own hands with the supprot of other government agencies such as DHS so that some of these concerns can be heard, addressed, and hopefully resolutions effected rather than endlessly discussed amongst a "Chosen" few, decided by that same "Chosen few", and rarely a effective resolution effected, such as Whois privacy, access, and accuracy, phishing, spam, and proliferation of child poronography. Many of these problems have their roots in DNS itself, others are more complicated and complex in nature but almost always revolve around security aspects, or lack there of, imposed or not yet effected by both government and private sector actors, yet with known methods or correction, by such as Google, Wikipedia, registries and registrats, ISP's, IAP's, and other Internet service providers/ecommerce companies of various sorts. Some good examples of the danger that some of these "Chosen few" have already exposed you to are evident in their DNS configurations such as ICANN.ORG, telly.org, which is Evans domain, IETF.ORG, franceatlarge.org, and recently, alvestrand.no whom is taking submittions for their online forum WG if IDN's. http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=telly.org&token=251076695… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=ietf.org&token=06706b9b19… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=franceatlarge.org&token=0… http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=alvestrand.no&token=07e03… And these are just a few or the tip or the huge iceburg, so to speak... -----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Sent: Apr 17, 2008 11:35 AM >To: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] Individual users and ALAC > >Hello, Jeanette. >> What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't >> provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are >> affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to >> articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of >> course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there >> on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN >> structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or >> do you expect them to change some time in the future? >Speaking personally and not in my capacity as NARALO Chair: > >I agree fully and passionately with the ICANN _intent_ behind At-Large, >which is to try to extract the view of the general public on its issues. >So far it has heard from vested interests (the business, IP, registry >and registrar communities) as well as those who are paid full time to >think about policy (GAC, NCUC). At-Large is none of that; while I >believe that the "public interest" is the single most important >constituency within ICANN, determining what is the public interest is a >HUGE challenge that At-Large has tried to do. Small steps have been >taken but far more lies ahead. > >So far, all the individuals who I have seen become involved in At-Large >are dedicated to knowing the issues, good at analysis, passionate about >policy, and vocal with their opinions. > >In other words, they have nothing in common with the general public At >Large. > >You only see them as a "large group" because they are the ones already >in front of you, shouting. The silent disinterested ones, the challenges >that we must reach, outnumber the current loud independents by hundreds >of thousands to one. > >The "independent users" are critical in policy building and >opinion-shaping, but they do not themselves resemble the great >disinterested masses that ICANN is trying to reach. These people >_should_ be in leadership or advocacy efforts within larger groups in >order to help achieve ICANN's mandate and affect / survey the greatest >number of public opinions. Having them sit as independents is IMO a >substantial waste of their talent. For this reason, I appreciate >measures that discourage independent participation and encourage >individuals to join (or create!) ALSs that can share their skill and >passion with a wider audience. (NOTE: I said discourage, not disallow). > >There are certainly many existing organizations that SHOULD be ALSs but >have neither the awareness or passion to be involved. The right person >within those orgs could easily change that situation and our individual >members are perfect candidates. Economies of scale -- in terms of >volunteer person-hours even more than money -- suggest that we need more >ALSs reaching the disinterested far more than we need to encourage the >growth of "audiences of one". > >I can say more, but I need to go out. I hope you're not sorry that you >asked. ;-) > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

May I also take this opportunity to suggest that any views on this subject would be of great interest to the at-large reviewers at Westlake consulting. I hope that you will all take the opportunity to send them your thoughts on these subjects; I know that many of you have strong views about this and it would be a shame if the reviewers didn't have a complete picture of the perspectives. On 17/04/2008 19:51, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: Hi, thank you for the explanation. What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them to change some time in the future? Thanks, jeanette Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. >> > To clarify:, > > Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and > enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal > representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively > have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for > voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the > Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. > > We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have > the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization > that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I > recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to > get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. > This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which > is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. > > This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a > reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not > everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I > believe this balance has worked well. > > - Evan > _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 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

2 1

Individual users and ALAC
by Evan Leibovitch April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Hello, Jeanette. > What still amazes me though is that the At Large Membership doesn't > provide "a home" for individual Internet users. No doubt, they are > affected by ICANN's policies but they have no direct means to > articulate their interests and concerns, unless they join an ALS, of > course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large group out there > on the net. Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN > structures and processes? Do you think things will stay like this or > do you expect them to change some time in the future? Speaking personally and not in my capacity as NARALO Chair: I agree fully and passionately with the ICANN _intent_ behind At-Large, which is to try to extract the view of the general public on its issues. So far it has heard from vested interests (the business, IP, registry and registrar communities) as well as those who are paid full time to think about policy (GAC, NCUC). At-Large is none of that; while I believe that the "public interest" is the single most important constituency within ICANN, determining what is the public interest is a HUGE challenge that At-Large has tried to do. Small steps have been taken but far more lies ahead. So far, all the individuals who I have seen become involved in At-Large are dedicated to knowing the issues, good at analysis, passionate about policy, and vocal with their opinions. In other words, they have nothing in common with the general public At Large. You only see them as a "large group" because they are the ones already in front of you, shouting. The silent disinterested ones, the challenges that we must reach, outnumber the current loud independents by hundreds of thousands to one. The "independent users" are critical in policy building and opinion-shaping, but they do not themselves resemble the great disinterested masses that ICANN is trying to reach. These people _should_ be in leadership or advocacy efforts within larger groups in order to help achieve ICANN's mandate and affect / survey the greatest number of public opinions. Having them sit as independents is IMO a substantial waste of their talent. For this reason, I appreciate measures that discourage independent participation and encourage individuals to join (or create!) ALSs that can share their skill and passion with a wider audience. (NOTE: I said discourage, not disallow). There are certainly many existing organizations that SHOULD be ALSs but have neither the awareness or passion to be involved. The right person within those orgs could easily change that situation and our individual members are perfect candidates. Economies of scale -- in terms of volunteer person-hours even more than money -- suggest that we need more ALSs reaching the disinterested far more than we need to encourage the growth of "audiences of one". I can say more, but I need to go out. I hope you're not sorry that you asked. ;-) - Evan

1 0

8 April ALAC Meeting Minutes
by At-Large Staff April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Dear ALAC members, The Minutes and Action Items related to the above-referenced meeting may be found with the following URL: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?8_april_2008 Please feel free to edit the documents. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Radio Interview - Internet Freedom/ CBC Search Engine
by Robert Guerra April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Dear colleagues: Wanted to let all of you know that Robin Gross and I were interviewed monday for a segment on "Internet Bill of Rights" on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's (CBC) Technology Show - Search Engine, which aired earlier this morning. Details on the show: Complete Show details - http://www.cbc.ca/searchengine/ Podcast - http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/searchengine_20080417_5389.mp3 I invite all of you to comment. I hope that the segment leads to more Canadians being interested and engaged in ICANN/IG issues. regards Robert --- Robert Guerra <rguerra(a)privaterra.org> Managing Director, Privaterra Tel +1 416 893 0377

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Thompson, Darlene April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Hello, Well, the NARALO doesn't have a board so it is rather a null issue for us. Most regions simply have a Chair, maybe a Co-Chair and a Secretariat. LACRALO doesn't even have a Chair or Co-Chair for most of the year - just a Secretariat. So, I am thinking that your region, with its heavy structure, is probably the only one that is experiencing this problem. Having said that, though, NARALO did have discussions relating to this prior to forming as we do have some individuals on our list that are quite active in ICANN matters. It was more to do with voting privileges, though, rather than travel. D Darlene A. Thompson Community Access Program Administrator Nunavut Dept. of Education / N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Station 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca -----Original Message----- From: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-internal-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 10:56 AM To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris] Hello, for what it's worth I forward an exchange between Nick Ashton-Hart and the EURALO board about ICANN's policy re travel support for ICANN meetings. The sad story is that the EURALO board hasn't met since it was formed and, or so it seems, will never meet because 3 board members are individuals without an ALS affiliation. In Europe, the status of individual members is still an open issue. Several of us have been involved in ICANN's early attempts to form an At Large membership. In 2000, the AT Large Membership was thought to be the home mainly for individual users. Now it seems they are not that welcome anymore unless they bring their own funding. What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. To prevent misunderstandings, our goal is not to achieve preferential treatment compared to other RALOs. We seek clarification for board members who are not members of ALS regardless of the RALO concerned. thank you, jeanette -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:15:15 +0200 From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> To: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> CC: Ashton-Hart, Nick <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu>, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net>, Banks, Karen <karenb(a)gn.apc.org>, Miloshevic, Desiree <dmiloshevic(a)afilias.info>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>, Dr. Christoph Bruch <bruch(a)humanistische-union.de>, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr>, Veronica Cretu <VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu>, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> Hi Jeanette, Feel free to forward my message if you like. BD On 4/17/08 3:46 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I very much share your thoughts and I wonder if this discussion > shouldn't be moved to the ALAC list as it concerns other RALOs as well. > ICANN apparently moved from a concept of At large membership for > individuals to one that only recognizes organizations. I wonder how many > people are actually aware of this and support this move. > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> >> While this conversation has drifted off, I¹d like to share a couple of >> closing thoughts on your decision. >> >> If as you say it is a matter of clear policy that ³no region has an >> opportunity for non-ALS members to receive travel support to attend >> ICANN meetings,² one would think this could have been made clear when we >> asked about it repeatedly months ago. Instead, as Jeanette noted, you >> gave the impression last August that it shouldn¹t be a problem. I think >> most people would reasonably read ³One could imagine that the invitation >> could be extended to allow those officers to attend as well² in that >> way. If there is a policy to the contrary, one could not have so imagined. >> >> Subsequently, a number of times people raised the matter with you in >> ways that indicated we were therefore assuming the invitation could be >> extended, and you never corrected us. On the basis of this assumption, >> people have gone forward and put some time into participating (and would >> have done much more if we¹d been energized by a F2F meeting in Warsaw or >> Geneva) with an eye toward finally being able to convene in Paris and >> really boot things up from there. Now we find out that a chunk of the >> board is basically to be excluded, not just in Paris, but going forward. >> Teleconferencing in is obviously no substitute for participating in a >> first F2F board meeting and a General Assembly, particularly if one >> wants to get more deeply involved in the work, get to know the ALS >> folks, etc. >> >> More generally, if non-ALS people essentially have no standing, wouldn¹t >> the time to make that absolutely clear have been last May, before the >> region elected non-ALS people to the board? If it had been, when I was >> approached about getting into this, as a non-ALS person I¹d obviously >> have said there¹s no point and would have saved a lot of time since >> then. And if the objective is to energize people to get engaged in >> ICANN work, one would think it right to let regions organize themselves >> as they need to and elect who they want... >> >> Anyway, I guess it¹s been a revealing learning process. I of course will >> not stand for re-election but wish the next board all the best. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> On 4/14/08 6:20 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Sorry if I was unclear that isn¹t quite what I meant and my >> apologies if what I said led to confusion. >> >> Basically, no region has an opportunity for non-ALS members to >> receive travel support to attend ICANN meetings. Therefore, if >> EURALO is allowed to send non-ALS representatives to an ICANN >> meeting and other regions are not, those other regions receive >> unequal (lesser) treatment to EURALO. >> >> The Secretariats have previously discussed in principle the idea of >> establishing differential rules by region related to travel support. >> The community has not however explored this idea and of course any >> proposal would need to be equitable across regions, and also within >> regions. >> >> On 14/04/2008 17:55, "William Drake" >> <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> Thanks for this reply, but I still need help understanding the >> nature of the inequity you see. Your argument is that the >> boards of other regions would consider that ³it would unfairly >> prejudice² them if the full European board were funded, just as >> they are? They demand that only some of our board participate >> in our board meeting and GA? >> >> Bill >> >> On 4/14/08 5:28 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" >> <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Actually nothing has changed. As you will note from the >> email below, sent more than 7 months ago, you will notice >> that the statement I made did not say that the extension >> would be provided, only that it was possible. I¹m sure that >> you all understand that we do need to be equitable to all >> regions. >> >> >> On 14/04/2008 17:17, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> last year, 15.08.2007 16:22 >> you sent the following mail below to the euro-discuss >> list. It would be >> great if you could you let us know what has changed in >> the meantime. I >> hope you get better soon. >> best, jeanette >> >> Re: [EURO-Discuss] Funding Request and Draft Agenda for >> EURALO Board meeting >> >> ALS' are invited to send a single representative to >> ICANN meetings when the >> region that they are in is provided travel support. >> >> At this point Europe is the only region which has >> regional officers who are >> not also ALS representatives. One could imagine that the >> invitation could be >> extended to allow those officers to attend as well. >> >> >> On 15/8/07 14:45, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> >> wrote: >> >>>> Hi Nick, from what I understand only ALS get >> financial support for >>>> attending ICANN meetings. Is that correct? >>>> This would mean that several board members would >> either not attend >>>> regional meetings or pay for themselves. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> My apologies for taking a few days to respond to this >> email. I¹ve been a >>> bit under the weather (unwell). I¹ve taken the liberty >> of copying in >>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC chair) and the three ALAC >> representatives from >>> EURALO given the importance of the email to planning >> overall... >>> >>> On the first point, as those of you who have attended >> many ICANN >>> meetings will know, it is pretty much impossible to >> ensure that all >>> scheduling conflicts can be avoided in connection with >> an ICANN meeting. >>> The Paris meeting is even more challenging, as it is >> one day shorter >>> than the usual meeting since it ends on the Thursday >> instead of Friday. >>> Having a EURALO meeting on Sunday wouldn¹t work as the >> ALAC are meeting >>> that day and on that day ALAC is meeting with the >> GAC at lunch, and >>> the GNSO for breakfast (and members of EURALO would >> wish to attend these >>> meetings I suspect). Saturday was chosen only after >> careful review of >>> all options. You should know that there are always >> issues of the kind >>> you mention with RALO GA planning so EURALO is far >> from the first to >>> experience issues with scheduling. In fact, I believe >> that the last >>> EURALO GA was split over three days due to scheduling >> problems. >>> >>> With respect to travel support, the situation is that >> each ALS will be >>> invited to send one representative with travel support >> provided by >>> ICANN. Since no other region has received travel >> support on any other >>> basis, it would unfairly prejudice the others to treat >> EURALO >>> differently and provide more travel support for one >> region over any >>> other. I can tell you that ensuring that telephonic >> remote participation >>> that works well is a priority at the Paris ICANN >> meeting as internally >>> the discussions about how this has not worked well >> previously have been >>> taken to a higher level than was previously the case. >>> >>> I hope this answers your questions even if it is not >> the answer that you >>> might wish to receive. >>> >>> >>> On 12/04/2008 18:34, "William Drake" >>> <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: >>> >>> It sounds like it would have been good to check >> with people on >>> scheduling >>> before fixing a date. >>> >>> Nick, could we please get definitive clarification >> of the funding issue >>> raised today by Vittorio and Jeanette, and >> previously by Wolf, Karen, >>> Annette, myself, maybe others? Somehow I'd >> thought it was resolved that >>> there's no problem, but looking through my saved >> Euralo message folder I >>> can't find a message that's actually from you to >> that effect. >>> People need >>> to know whether and how to plan... >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On 4/12/08 6:02 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" >> <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: >>> >>>> Wolf Ludwig ha scritto: >>>>> To the members of the EURALO board: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> According to our by-laws, we are supposed to >> have our first GA this >>>>> year and the coming 32nd International Public >> Meeting of ICANN in >>>>> Paris (from 22 to 26 June 08) offers an almost >> perfect opportunity >>>>> for that. After a short discussion I had with >> Nick he already >>>>> reserved Saturday, 21 June 08, all day for us. >> Thanks Nick! >>>> >>>> I still don't know whether I'll get funding for >> Paris, but in any >>> case I >>>> won't be able to get to Paris before the >> morning of the 22nd. >>>> Ciao, >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris]
by Carlton Samuels April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Jeannette: So far as the LACRALO Secretariat goes, we believe that the MOU between ICANN and the RALO should provide definitive guidance. That aside, it is our view that a RALO Board Member should, of right, have the same support to attend a RALO meeting as every other structure that constitutes the RALO. Carlton LACRALO Secretariat -----Original Message----- From: alac-internal-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-internal-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 09:56 AM To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris] Hello, for what it's worth I forward an exchange between Nick Ashton-Hart and the EURALO board about ICANN's policy re travel support for ICANN meetings. The sad story is that the EURALO board hasn't met since it was formed and, or so it seems, will never meet because 3 board members are individuals without an ALS affiliation. In Europe, the status of individual members is still an open issue. Several of us have been involved in ICANN's early attempts to form an At Large membership. In 2000, the AT Large Membership was thought to be the home mainly for individual users. Now it seems they are not that welcome anymore unless they bring their own funding. What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. To prevent misunderstandings, our goal is not to achieve preferential treatment compared to other RALOs. We seek clarification for board members who are not members of ALS regardless of the RALO concerned. thank you, jeanette -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:15:15 +0200 From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> To: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> CC: Ashton-Hart, Nick <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org>, Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu>, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net>, Banks, Karen <karenb(a)gn.apc.org>, Miloshevic, Desiree <dmiloshevic(a)afilias.info>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>, Dr. Christoph Bruch <bruch(a)humanistische-union.de>, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr>, Veronica Cretu <VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu>, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> Hi Jeanette, Feel free to forward my message if you like. BD On 4/17/08 3:46 PM, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: > Hi Bill, > > I very much share your thoughts and I wonder if this discussion > shouldn't be moved to the ALAC list as it concerns other RALOs as well. > ICANN apparently moved from a concept of At large membership for > individuals to one that only recognizes organizations. I wonder how many > people are actually aware of this and support this move. > jeanette > > William Drake wrote: >> Hi Nick, >> >> While this conversation has drifted off, I¹d like to share a couple of >> closing thoughts on your decision. >> >> If as you say it is a matter of clear policy that ³no region has an >> opportunity for non-ALS members to receive travel support to attend >> ICANN meetings,² one would think this could have been made clear when we >> asked about it repeatedly months ago. Instead, as Jeanette noted, you >> gave the impression last August that it shouldn¹t be a problem. I think >> most people would reasonably read ³One could imagine that the invitation >> could be extended to allow those officers to attend as well² in that >> way. If there is a policy to the contrary, one could not have so imagined. >> >> Subsequently, a number of times people raised the matter with you in >> ways that indicated we were therefore assuming the invitation could be >> extended, and you never corrected us. On the basis of this assumption, >> people have gone forward and put some time into participating (and would >> have done much more if we¹d been energized by a F2F meeting in Warsaw or >> Geneva) with an eye toward finally being able to convene in Paris and >> really boot things up from there. Now we find out that a chunk of the >> board is basically to be excluded, not just in Paris, but going forward. >> Teleconferencing in is obviously no substitute for participating in a >> first F2F board meeting and a General Assembly, particularly if one >> wants to get more deeply involved in the work, get to know the ALS >> folks, etc. >> >> More generally, if non-ALS people essentially have no standing, wouldn¹t >> the time to make that absolutely clear have been last May, before the >> region elected non-ALS people to the board? If it had been, when I was >> approached about getting into this, as a non-ALS person I¹d obviously >> have said there¹s no point and would have saved a lot of time since >> then. And if the objective is to energize people to get engaged in >> ICANN work, one would think it right to let regions organize themselves >> as they need to and elect who they want... >> >> Anyway, I guess it¹s been a revealing learning process. I of course will >> not stand for re-election but wish the next board all the best. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Bill >> >> On 4/14/08 6:20 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Sorry if I was unclear that isn¹t quite what I meant and my >> apologies if what I said led to confusion. >> >> Basically, no region has an opportunity for non-ALS members to >> receive travel support to attend ICANN meetings. Therefore, if >> EURALO is allowed to send non-ALS representatives to an ICANN >> meeting and other regions are not, those other regions receive >> unequal (lesser) treatment to EURALO. >> >> The Secretariats have previously discussed in principle the idea of >> establishing differential rules by region related to travel support. >> The community has not however explored this idea and of course any >> proposal would need to be equitable across regions, and also within >> regions. >> >> On 14/04/2008 17:55, "William Drake" >> <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> Thanks for this reply, but I still need help understanding the >> nature of the inequity you see. Your argument is that the >> boards of other regions would consider that ³it would unfairly >> prejudice² them if the full European board were funded, just as >> they are? They demand that only some of our board participate >> in our board meeting and GA? >> >> Bill >> >> On 4/14/08 5:28 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" >> <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: >> >> Actually nothing has changed. As you will note from the >> email below, sent more than 7 months ago, you will notice >> that the statement I made did not say that the extension >> would be provided, only that it was possible. I¹m sure that >> you all understand that we do need to be equitable to all >> regions. >> >> >> On 14/04/2008 17:17, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> last year, 15.08.2007 16:22 >> you sent the following mail below to the euro-discuss >> list. It would be >> great if you could you let us know what has changed in >> the meantime. I >> hope you get better soon. >> best, jeanette >> >> Re: [EURO-Discuss] Funding Request and Draft Agenda for >> EURALO Board meeting >> >> ALS' are invited to send a single representative to >> ICANN meetings when the >> region that they are in is provided travel support. >> >> At this point Europe is the only region which has >> regional officers who are >> not also ALS representatives. One could imagine that the >> invitation could be >> extended to allow those officers to attend as well. >> >> >> On 15/8/07 14:45, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> >> wrote: >> >>>> Hi Nick, from what I understand only ALS get >> financial support for >>>> attending ICANN meetings. Is that correct? >>>> This would mean that several board members would >> either not attend >>>> regional meetings or pay for themselves. >>>> jeanette >>>> >>>> >> >> Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: >>> My apologies for taking a few days to respond to this >> email. I¹ve been a >>> bit under the weather (unwell). I¹ve taken the liberty >> of copying in >>> Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC chair) and the three ALAC >> representatives from >>> EURALO given the importance of the email to planning >> overall... >>> >>> On the first point, as those of you who have attended >> many ICANN >>> meetings will know, it is pretty much impossible to >> ensure that all >>> scheduling conflicts can be avoided in connection with >> an ICANN meeting. >>> The Paris meeting is even more challenging, as it is >> one day shorter >>> than the usual meeting since it ends on the Thursday >> instead of Friday. >>> Having a EURALO meeting on Sunday wouldn¹t work as the >> ALAC are meeting >>> that day and on that day ALAC is meeting with the >> GAC at lunch, and >>> the GNSO for breakfast (and members of EURALO would >> wish to attend these >>> meetings I suspect). Saturday was chosen only after >> careful review of >>> all options. You should know that there are always >> issues of the kind >>> you mention with RALO GA planning so EURALO is far >> from the first to >>> experience issues with scheduling. In fact, I believe >> that the last >>> EURALO GA was split over three days due to scheduling >> problems. >>> >>> With respect to travel support, the situation is that >> each ALS will be >>> invited to send one representative with travel support >> provided by >>> ICANN. Since no other region has received travel >> support on any other >>> basis, it would unfairly prejudice the others to treat >> EURALO >>> differently and provide more travel support for one >> region over any >>> other. I can tell you that ensuring that telephonic >> remote participation >>> that works well is a priority at the Paris ICANN >> meeting as internally >>> the discussions about how this has not worked well >> previously have been >>> taken to a higher level than was previously the case. >>> >>> I hope this answers your questions even if it is not >> the answer that you >>> might wish to receive. >>> >>> >>> On 12/04/2008 18:34, "William Drake" >>> <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: >>> >>> It sounds like it would have been good to check >> with people on >>> scheduling >>> before fixing a date. >>> >>> Nick, could we please get definitive clarification >> of the funding issue >>> raised today by Vittorio and Jeanette, and >> previously by Wolf, Karen, >>> Annette, myself, maybe others? Somehow I'd >> thought it was resolved that >>> there's no problem, but looking through my saved >> Euralo message folder I >>> can't find a message that's actually from you to >> that effect. >>> People need >>> to know whether and how to plan... >>> >>> Thanks >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> On 4/12/08 6:02 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" >> <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: >>> >>>> Wolf Ludwig ha scritto: >>>>> To the members of the EURALO board: >>>>> >>>>> Dear all >>>>> >>>>> According to our by-laws, we are supposed to >> have our first GA this >>>>> year and the coming 32nd International Public >> Meeting of ICANN in >>>>> Paris (from 22 to 26 June 08) offers an almost >> perfect opportunity >>>>> for that. After a short discussion I had with >> Nick he already >>>>> reserved Saturday, 21 June 08, all day for us. >> Thanks Nick! >>>> >>>> I still don't know whether I'll get funding for >> Paris, but in any >>> case I >>>> won't be able to get to Paris before the >> morning of the 22nd. >>>> Ciao, >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ ALAC-Internal mailing list ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists. icann.org ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

FW: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

In connection with the recently-forward email from Jeanette, here is the response that I made to Bill’s points; it looks like my reply to Bill crossed with Jeanette’s forward of her reply to him :) ------ Forwarded Message From: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:43:41 +0200 To: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch>, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> Cc: Vittorio Bertola <vb(a)bertola.eu>, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net>, "Banks, Karen" <karenb(a)gn.apc.org>, "Miloshevic, Desiree" <dmiloshevic(a)afilias.info>, Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be>, "Dr. Christoph Bruch" <bruch(a)humanistische-union.de>, At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr>, Veronica Cretu <VeronicaC(a)diplomacy.edu>, Annette Muehlberg <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> Conversation: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris Subject: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris Thanks awfully for your thoughtful response. I believe I see several misconceptions though. What I would say is that the fact that only ALSes get to travel has been the position for At-large since before I even became involved with ICANN. Whilst I understand that you could easily construe my sentence from many months ago as assent, anyone who has been to an ICANN meeting on travel support in the last two years would know that the default situation is what it is. With respect to non-ALS members of governance structures participating, I think it is important to remember that for the vast majority of participants in ICANN there is no travel support at all. Most other community members routinely work online and via telephone, on a continuing basis, throughout the year. Many, many ICANN participants do not meet their counterparts for more than a year, and many have never met at an ICANN meeting – but they continue to work on the issues they care about on a continuing basis. The Internet is the basis for working in ICANN. Face-to-face meetings are used to ‘close the deal’ on issues; the vast bulk of the work is done by telephone. Even in At-Large, every other region except EURALO manages to have monthly meetings, and are all increasingly working on a continuing basis, all by teleconference, like the rest of ICANN. EURALO will increasingly be asked – including by other members of At-Large – why they do not have any activity on their mailing lists, and why they do not regularly work on the issues that are important to them. As a European, I would not like to see these questions asked – and I also do not want to see EURALO looked upon as inactive or disengaged. I hope you understand that if the response of the leaders of EURALO when asked why the region is not active is “we are not engaged because we cannot meet face-to-face” it will not resonate with others nor will they find it persuasive. As to the standing of non-ALS people: this was discussed in the EURALO meetings in Lisbon last June. In fact, the direct participation of individuals was one of the most heated discussions during those meetings and I am sure it will occupy more time at the next meeting as I know feelings on both sides are strong. That said – as I have said before – if EURALO wishes to design travel support rules that are different from other regions that possibility exists. It has existed for many months now – the Secretariats first proposed this possibility at the Los Angeles meeting; unfortunately neither Wolf nor Jeanette attended the Secretariats meetings then but the notes on this and the other points of the conversations were available, and the topic was again brought up in New Delhi. The only issues with implementing a differential travel system is that it is fair to all within the region, and that across regions the various regimes are also fair. So, as you see, the regions can elect whom they wish to elect – they can and they have - and they can provide support to allow participation that is different too, but that does to be frank require that, in EURALO’s case, it would have to be active enough to discuss issues and come to an agreement on them, and then take that agreement to the other regions and work out any issues. I’m happy to discuss this with any of you via email or via telephone, as is Frederic, the new member of staff who will be devoting all his time to helping all the RALOs. On 17/04/2008 15:38, "William Drake" <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Nick, While this conversation has drifted off, I’d like to share a couple of closing thoughts on your decision. If as you say it is a matter of clear policy that “no region has an opportunity for non-ALS members to receive travel support to attend ICANN meetings,” one would think this could have been made clear when we asked about it repeatedly months ago. Instead, as Jeanette noted, you gave the impression last August that it shouldn’t be a problem. I think most people would reasonably read “One could imagine that the invitation could be extended to allow those officers to attend as well” in that way. If there is a policy to the contrary, one could not have so imagined. Subsequently, a number of times people raised the matter with you in ways that indicated we were therefore assuming the invitation could be extended, and you never corrected us. On the basis of this assumption, people have gone forward and put some time into participating (and would have done much more if we’d been energized by a F2F meeting in Warsaw or Geneva) with an eye toward finally being able to convene in Paris and really boot things up from there. Now we find out that a chunk of the board is basically to be excluded, not just in Paris, but going forward. Teleconferencing in is obviously no substitute for participating in a first F2F board meeting and a General Assembly, particularly if one wants to get more deeply involved in the work, get to know the ALS folks, etc. More generally, if non-ALS people essentially have no standing, wouldn’t the time to make that absolutely clear have been last May, before the region elected non-ALS people to the board? If it had been, when I was approached about getting into this, as a non-ALS person I’d obviously have said there’s no point and would have saved a lot of time since then. And if the objective is to energize people to get engaged in ICANN work, one would think it right to let regions organize themselves as they need to and elect who they want... Anyway, I guess it’s been a revealing learning process. I of course will not stand for re-election but wish the next board all the best. Cheers, Bill On 4/14/08 6:20 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: Sorry if I was unclear – that isn’t quite what I meant and my apologies if what I said led to confusion. Basically, no region has an opportunity for non-ALS members to receive travel support to attend ICANN meetings. Therefore, if EURALO is allowed to send non-ALS representatives to an ICANN meeting and other regions are not, those other regions receive unequal (lesser) treatment to EURALO. The Secretariats have previously discussed in principle the idea of establishing differential rules by region related to travel support. The community has not however explored this idea and of course any proposal would need to be equitable across regions, and also within regions. On 14/04/2008 17:55, "William Drake" <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: Hi Nick, Thanks for this reply, but I still need help understanding the nature of the inequity you see. Your argument is that the boards of other regions would consider that “it would unfairly prejudice” them if the full European board were funded, just as they are? They demand that only some of our board participate in our board meeting and GA? Bill On 4/14/08 5:28 PM, "Nick Ashton-Hart" <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: Actually nothing has changed. As you will note from the email below, sent more than 7 months ago, you will notice that the statement I made did not say that the extension would be provided, only that it was possible. I’m sure that you all understand that we do need to be equitable to all regions. On 14/04/2008 17:17, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: Hi Nick, last year, 15.08.2007 16:22 you sent the following mail below to the euro-discuss list. It would be great if you could you let us know what has changed in the meantime. I hope you get better soon. best, jeanette Re: [EURO-Discuss] Funding Request and Draft Agenda for EURALO Board meeting ALS' are invited to send a single representative to ICANN meetings when the region that they are in is provided travel support. At this point Europe is the only region which has regional officers who are not also ALS representatives. One could imagine that the invitation could be extended to allow those officers to attend as well. On 15/8/07 14:45, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: > > Hi Nick, from what I understand only ALS get financial support for > > attending ICANN meetings. Is that correct? > > This would mean that several board members would either not attend > > regional meetings or pay for themselves. > > jeanette > > > > Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > My apologies for taking a few days to respond to this email. I’ve been a > bit under the weather (unwell). I’ve taken the liberty of copying in > Cheryl Langdon-Orr (ALAC chair) and the three ALAC representatives from > EURALO given the importance of the email to planning overall... > > On the first point, as those of you who have attended many ICANN > meetings will know, it is pretty much impossible to ensure that all > scheduling conflicts can be avoided in connection with an ICANN meeting. > The Paris meeting is even more challenging, as it is one day shorter > than the usual meeting since it ends on the Thursday instead of Friday. > Having a EURALO meeting on Sunday wouldn’t work as the ALAC are meeting > that day – and on that day ALAC is meeting with the GAC at lunch, and > the GNSO for breakfast (and members of EURALO would wish to attend these > meetings I suspect). Saturday was chosen only after careful review of > all options. You should know that there are always issues of the kind > you mention with RALO GA planning so EURALO is far from the first to > experience issues with scheduling. In fact, I believe that the last > EURALO GA was split over three days due to scheduling problems. > > With respect to travel support, the situation is that each ALS will be > invited to send one representative with travel support provided by > ICANN. Since no other region has received travel support on any other > basis, it would unfairly prejudice the others to treat EURALO > differently and provide more travel support for one region over any > other. I can tell you that ensuring that telephonic remote participation > that works well is a priority at the Paris ICANN meeting as internally > the discussions about how this has not worked well previously have been > taken to a higher level than was previously the case. > > I hope this answers your questions even if it is not the answer that you > might wish to receive. > > > On 12/04/2008 18:34, "William Drake" > <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> wrote: > > It sounds like it would have been good to check with people on > scheduling > before fixing a date. > > Nick, could we please get definitive clarification of the funding issue > raised today by Vittorio and Jeanette, and previously by Wolf, Karen, > Annette, myself, maybe others? Somehow I'd thought it was resolved that > there's no problem, but looking through my saved Euralo message folder I > can't find a message that's actually from you to that effect. > People need > to know whether and how to plan... > > Thanks > > Bill > > > On 4/12/08 6:02 PM, "Vittorio Bertola" <vb(a)bertola.eu> wrote: > > > Wolf Ludwig ha scritto: > > > To the members of the EURALO board: > > > > > > Dear all > > > > > > According to our by-laws, we are supposed to have our first GA this > > > year and the coming 32nd International Public Meeting of ICANN in > > > Paris (from 22 to 26 June 08) offers an almost perfect opportunity > > > for that. After a short discussion I had with Nick he already > > > reserved Saturday, 21 June 08, all day for us. Thanks Nick! > > > > I still don't know whether I'll get funding for Paris, but in any > case I > > won't be able to get to Paris before the morning of the 22nd. > > Ciao, > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director for At-Large > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 > 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 *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** *********************************************************** William J. Drake Director, Project on the Information Revolution and Global Governance/PSIO Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch *********************************************************** -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 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 ------ End of Forwarded Message

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN Policy Update
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Dominik and all, I share Dominiks concerns regarding domain name tasting. I have attempted to offer some suggestions and remarks to the domain name tasting working group list, and those attempts were bounced indicating that that WG list isn't working. I have been informed by a significant number of our members regarding some of Denise's other issues listed in this policy update and will address those seperately. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Apr 17, 2008 3:08 AM >To: denise.michel(a)icann.org, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN Policy Update > >All @large, > >As regards the domain tasting issue I have not noticed any sufficient public deliberation over the issue. I have visited all publicly accessible at-large mailing lists and have found just few contributions on the merits. Moreover, the domain tasting working group list is empty, which just supports my initial suspicion. > >In my view, the public deliberation was utterly insufficient and the ALAC's updated statement for the final report is a premature unilateral conclusion of the ALAC Committee directed more towards the registrars/registries expectations than to the needs of the broad Internet user community worldwide. This is particularly apparent in the position shift from the previously presented and strongly supported fundamental motion for the AGP elimination, later swiftly replaced by supporting the current draft motion, which in its current formulation raises more questions than answers and formally 'as is' does not guarantee anything. > >I therefore propose to revise the updated statement and to start a proper deliberation over the issue with full public participation. > >Dominik Filipp, a GA list member > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Denise Michel >Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2008 11:21 AM >To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Policy Update > >Below (and attached in Word with hyperlinks) are brief summaries of a number of significant Internet policy issues that are being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as other significant activities of interest. This latest monthly update is provided by ICANN's Policy Staff in response to community requests for periodic summaries of ICANN's policy work. Links to additional information are included and we encourage you to go beyond these brief staff summaries and learn more about the ICANN community's work. These monthly updates also will be available on our website. Our goal is to maximize transparency and broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities. We continue to investigate more effective and efficient ways to communicate the relevance, importance and status of ongoing issues to the ICANN community. >Comments and suggestions on how we can improve these efforts are most welcome and should be sent to policy-staff(a)icann.org. > >Regards, >Denise Michel >ICANN VP, Policy > > >ICANN POLICY UPDATE - April 2008 > > >CONTENTS: > >1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS >2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING >3. GNSO -- WHOIS >4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW >5. GNSO -- FAST FLUX HOSTING >6. GNSO/CCNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS >7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs >8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE 9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY 10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS 11. ASO AC -- GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) 12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED 13. SSAC -- ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES 14. AT-LARGE -- NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION 15. AT-LARGE -- NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED > > >1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS > >Background: The ICANN Board is considering a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). This is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and improvement, and follows an independent review of the GNSO and extensive public consultation. A working group appointed by ICANN's Board has developed a comprehensive proposal (GNSO Improvements >Report) to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. On 15 February 2008, the Board accepted the GNSO Improvements Report for consideration and directed ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. > >Recent Developments: The period for public comments on the GNSO Improvements Report has been extended to 25 April 2008. Although many elements of the report seem to have broad support, the proposed stakeholder groups/constituency structures and allocation of seats on the GNSO Council continue to draw a significant amount of discussion from a variety of parties including the Business, Intellectual Property, and Internet Service Provider Constituencies who advocate a different allocation of seats than that recommended to the Board. > >Next Steps: Public comment period on the GNSO Improvements Report (closes >25 April 2008) -- subsequent Board action is expected at the Paris meeting. > >More Information: >* GNSO Improvements information page < >http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/> >* Full GNSO Improvements Report < >http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…> > >* Board resolution on GNSO Improvements < >http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918> > >Staff Contact: Denise Michel, VP Policy Development > >2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING > >Background: In Spring 2007, ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), asked the GNSO Council to review the issue of "domain tasting." The term refers to a case when an entity registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through the addition of pay-per-click advertising). If the address is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept. >If not, the current "add grace period" (AGP) - where domains can be returned within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant. Among other reasons, the practice is controversial because registrants who engage in this behavior can typically register many hundreds of thousands of domain names under this practice, with these temporary registrations far exceeding the number of domain names actually licensed. > >Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of domains registered and returned prior to expiration of the AGP. A significant number of community members feel the AGP process presents a loophole that facilitates this conduct. In October 2007, after fact finding and consideration, the GNSO Council launched a formal policy development process >(PDP) on domain tasting and encouraged ICANN staff to consider applying ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP. Subsequently, staff included in the initial draft of ICANN's next fiscal year budget, a proposal to charge a fee for all domains added, >including domains added during the AGP. Public discussion of the budget, >and this proposal, is ongoing. > >As part of the formal PDP process, an Initial Report was produced for public comment, outlining the problems caused by domain tasting, possible actions to be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions . >Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report posted on 8 February 2008. > >Recent Developments: At its 6 March 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council >considered a motion drafted and subsequently revised by a small design team to stop the practice of domain tasting. The revised draft motion would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an AGP from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. Under the terms of the motion, an exemption from the limitation may be sought for a particular month, upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances detailed in the motion. > >Public comments and constituency impact statements regarding the revised draft motion have been solicited and incorporated into a Final Report for Council consideration at its scheduled 17 April 2008 meeting. The comments and constituency statements reflect a plurality of views on what should be done to eliminate abuse of the AGP to facilitate domain tasting and addressed three potential options including (1) views on the draft resolution itself; (2) views on eliminating the AGP entirely; and (3) views on the proposed ICANN budget changes. > >Next Steps: The GNSO Council will consider the Draft Motion at its upcoming >17 April 2008 meeting > >More Information: >* Public comment request < >http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#domain-tasting> >* GNSO Domain Tasting Issues Report, June 2007 < >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju…> > >* Outcomes Report October 2007 < >http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-fina…> >* Final Report 4 April 2008 < >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tastin… >> > >Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor > >3. GNSO -- WHOIS > >Background: WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered domain names. That data currently includes contact information for Registered Name Holders. The extent of registration data collected at the time of registration of a domain name, and the ways such data can be accessed, are specified in agreements established by ICANN for domain names registered in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). For example, ICANN requires accredited registrars to collect and provide free public access to (1) the name of the registered domain name and its name servers and registrar, (2) the date the domain was created and when its registration expires, and (3) the contact information for the Registered Name Holder, the technical contact, and the registrant's administrative contact. > >WHOIS has been the subject of intense policy development debate and action over the last few years. Information contained in WHOIS is used for a wide variety of purposes. Some uses of WHOIS data are viewed as constructive and beneficial. For example, sometimes WHOIS data is used to track down and identify registrants who may be posting illegal content or engaging in phishing scams. Other uses of WHOIS are viewed as potentially negative, such as harvesting WHOIS contact information to send unwanted spam or fraudulent email solicitations. Privacy advocates have also been concerned about the privacy implications of unrestricted access to personal contact information. > >The GNSO Council decided in October 2007 that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding WHOIS will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and plans to ask the ICANN staff to conduct several studies for this purpose. Before defining the details of these studies, the Council has solicited suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS from community stakeholders. Possible areas of study might include a study of certain aspects of gTLD registrants and registrations, a study of certain uses and misuses of WHOIS data, a study of the use of proxy registration services, including privacy services, or a comparative study of gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS. > >Recent Developments: A forum for public comments on suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS was open through 15 February 2008. >Approximately 25 suggestions were received. A summary of those comments has been prepared. On 27 March the GNSO Council approved a motion to form a group of volunteers to: (1) review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS; (2) develop a proposed list of recommended studies, if any, for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and (3) produce the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008. > >Next Steps: A report from the small group reviewing the suggestions on further WHOis studies is due to the Council by 24 April 2008. The GNSO Council will consider the recommendations of the group. Based on direction from the Council, ICANN staff will subsequently provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies. >The Council will then decide what data gathering and studies it will request, given available resources. Staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results to the Council. > >More Information: GNSO WHOis Policy Work Web page < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/> > >Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor > >4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW > >Background: Consistent with ICANN's obligation to promote and encourage robust competition in the domain name space, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus that was implemented in late 2004 that is now being reviewed by the GNSO. As part of that effort, the Council formed a Transfers Working Group (TWG) to examine and recommend possible areas for improvements in the existing transfer policy. The TWG identified a broad list of over 20 potential areas for clarification and improvement. > >In an effort to get improvements on-line as soon as possible, the GNSO Council initiated a policy development process (PDP) to immediately clarify four specific issues regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. That PDP process in now under way and the GNSO constituencies have submitted their initial comments. > >Recent Developments: ICANN staff finalized and posted an Initial Report >for public comments to immediately clarify the four specific issues regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. A summary of those comments is now available (see < http://forum.icann.org/lists/transfer-policy-2008/msg00004.html>). In parallel with the PDP process, the Council tasked a short term planning group to evaluate and prioritize the remaining 19 policy issues identified by the Transfers Working Group. In March, the group delivered a report to the GNSO Council with suggested clustering of those issues for consideration in five new PDPs. > >Next Steps: The public comments received on the Initial Report will be used by ICANN staff to compile a Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration of further steps to take in this PDP. The report from the short term planning group on other potential PDPs will next be discussed and decided upon by the GNSO Council. > >More Information: >* Draft Advisory < >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07… >> >* Initial Report < >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm> >* PDP Recommendations < >http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19ma…> > > >Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager, Policy Development Coordination > >5. GNSO - FAST FLUX HOSTING > >Background: Fast flux hosting is a term that refers to several techniques used by cyber criminals to evade detection, in which criminals rapidly modify IP addresses and/or name servers. The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recently completed a study of fast flux hosting. >The results of the study were published in January 2008 in the SSAC Advisory on Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC 025). Because fast flux hosting involves many different players-the cybercriminals and their victims, ISPs, companies that provide web hosting services, and DNS registries and registrars-it is possible to imagine a variety of different approaches to mitigation. Most of these will require the cooperation of a variety of actors including users and ISPs as well as registries and registrars. > >Recent developments: On 26 March 2008, staff posted an Issues Report on fast flux hosting, as directed by the GNSO Council. In the Report, staff recommends that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also notes that it may be appropriate for the ccNSO also to participate in such an activity. > >Next Steps: The GNSO Council is scheduled to discuss the topic at its upcoming meeting on 17 April 2008. > >More Iinformation: >* SSAC Report 025 on fast flux hosting, January 2008 - >http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf >* Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31 March 2008 - >http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux… > >Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor > >6. CCNSO/GNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS > >Background: The Country Codes Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and GNSO Councils are responsible for filling two seats each on the ICANN Board of Directors. ccNSO seats are identified as Board seat numbers 11 and 12. >GNSO seats on the Board are identified as seat numbers 13 and 14. > >Recent Developments: > >CCNSO Board Seat 11 > >Peter Dengate-Thrush was selected to fill seat 11 on the ICANN Board at the ccNSO Council meeting on the 31 March 2008. This selection was based on the outcome of a prior call for nominations among the ccNSO members. The only candidate who was nominated and seconded was Mr. Dengate-Thrush and he accepted the nomination. > >Next Steps: The ccNSO Council Chair will provide the Secretary of ICANN with written notice of the decision. >More Information: ccNSO ICANN Election of Director Procedures < http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-procedure-to-elect-icann-di…> > >Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat > >GNSO Board Seat 14 > >Rita Rodin was elected by the GNSO Council to fill seat 14 on the ICANN Board of Directors. The election closed on 7 March 2008. The GNSO Council confirmed the election results at its meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008, and pursuant to the bylaws, Avri Doria, GNSO Chair, informed ICANN's General Counsel of the outcome. > >Next Steps: The next GNSO election process will commence at the end of this year for the GNSO Chair. The current Chair's term ends 31 January 2009. > >More Information: GNSO Elections Procedures < http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2008.shtml> > >Staff Contact: Glen De Saint Géry, GNSO Secretariat > >7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs > >Background: The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names >(IDNs) represents the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of the Internet. IDNs offer the potential for many new opportunities and benefits for Internet users of all languages around the world by allowing them to establish domains in their native languages and alphabets. > >An IDN ccTLD (internationalized domain name country code top level domain) is a country code top-level domain (corresponding to a country, territory, or other geographic location as associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter >codes) with a label that contains at least one character that is not a standard Latin letter (A through Z), a hyphen, or one of the standard numerical digits (0 through 9). The technical potential for ICANN to now make these domain names available for assignment is prompting significant discussion, study and demand within the ICANN community - particularly for territories who want to make use of non-Latin characters. Current efforts are taking place on two fronts; (1) efforts to identify a "fast track" >process to provide new domain opportunities to territories with immediate justifiable needs; and (2) efforts to develop a comprehensive long term plan that ensures a stable process for all interested stakeholders. > >IDNC Working Group Pursues The IDN "Fast Track" > >A joint IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) was chartered by ICANN's Board to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, in a timely manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet while a comprehensive long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. On 1 February 2008, the IDNC WG posted a "Discussion Draft of the Initial Report" >(DDIR) for public comment and input from the ICANN community. The DDIR clarified the relationship between the "fast track" process and the broader long-term process IDNccPDP (the ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN >ccTLDs) and also identified the mechanisms for the selection of an IDN ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD manager. The ccNSO Council determined that those mechanisms were to be developed within the parameters of: > >* The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of >the DNS; >* Compliance with the IDNA protocols; >* Input and advice from the technical community with respect to the >implementation of IDNs; and >* Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which include the >current IANA practices. > >A public workshop was held 11 February in New Delhi, India to discuss the DDIR and a comment period was opened on that document. > >Recent Developments: The IDNC WG has now produced a first draft of the IDNC WG Methodology in the form of an Interim Report that has also been made available for public comment. Discussions on the methodology were held at the ICANN Regional Meeting in Dubai, UAE (1-3 April 2008) and public comments on the methodology can be submitted until 25 April 2008. > >Next Steps: The work schedule agreed to by the IDNC Working Group is as >follows: >* An Initial Report, which will solidify the topics and their relation to >the IDNccPDP. >* A final Interim Report, which will contain potential implementation >mechanisms is scheduled to be released 16 May 2008). >* The Final Report, which will contain the actual recommendations of the >IDNC WG is due to be published 13 June 2008) > >More Information: >* Public Comments Requested on Initial Draft Fast-Track Mechanism < >http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm> >* Draft Methodology for Fast Track < >http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf> >* Public Comments on the Discussion Draft of the Initial Report < >http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dd-idn-cctld-ft> > >Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor > >CCNSO Also Focuses On Comprehensive IDNccTLD Policy Development > >Background: In parallel to considerations of a "fast track" approach, the ccNSO Council has initiated a comprehensive long term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNccPDP). At its meeting in October 2007, the ccNSO Council resolved to call for an Issues Report to examine the need for an IDNccPDP to consider: > >* Whether Article IX of the ICANN bylaws applies to IDN ccTLDs associated >with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes, and if it does not then to establish if Article IX should apply. >* Whether the ccNSO should launch a PDP to develop the policy for the >selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes. > >The Council formally requested that Issues Report on 19 December 2007 and directed ICANN staff to identify policies, procedures, and/or by-laws that should be reviewed and, as necessary revised, in connection with the development and implementation of any IDN ccTLD policy - including efforts designed to address the proposed fast-track concept. > >Recent Developments: The GNSO and several other parties have submitted comments regarding the proposal to set a comprehensive long term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to above as the IDNccPDP). An Issues Report will be submitted to the ccNSO Council and will form the basis for the Council's decision on whether or not to formally initiate the IDNccPDP. > >Next Steps: Comments regarding the preparation of an Issues Report on the IDNccPDP and are now being evaluated. > >More Information: IDNccPDP Announcement: < http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm> > >Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor > >8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE > >Background: The ccNSO Council has recently been taking steps to improve its work plans, administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result of a ccNSO Council workshop held at the ICANN New Delhi meeting, a working group of the Council was established to propose administrative procedures for the ccNSO. The ccNSO Council also approved creation of a new "authoritative" ccNSO email list. The organization has also been conducting a participation survey in an effort to understand better why ccTLDs do or do not participate in ccNSO meetings. > >Recent Developments: In preparation for making recommendations on new structures, the new "Working Group on ccNSO Administrative Procedures" has had two conference calls on the structuring processes within the ccNSO. All ccTLD managers have been invited to subscribe to a new global ccTLD email list and a first draft of the results of the ccNSO participation survey recently was shared with the community at the African Top Level Domain meeting in Johannesburg. > >Next Steps: The Working Group will continue to develop new procedures for the ccNSO. > >More Information: >* ccNSO <http://www.ccnso.icann.org/> >* ccTLD Community Email List < >http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf> > >Staff Contacts: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella >Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat > >9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY > >Background: The term "phishing" has been used to describe criminal and >fraudulent attempts by cybercriminals to acquire sensitive private information (such as usernames, passwords and credit card details) by masquerading as trustworthy entities in an electronic communication. >Phishing remains a major problem among ccTLDs and as a result ccNSO members are being called upon to identify countermeasures that can be undertaken to fight back. A draft survey seeking to identify those types of measures was presented to and approved by the ccNSO Council during its meeting in New Delhi in February 2008. The survey was launched and sent to all available email lists. ICANN regional liaisons were also asked to help distribute the survey. > >Recent Developments: Originally, survey results of the anti-phishing survey were expected to be ready for posting by early April 2008, but the response period has been extended to allow for the receipt of more survey responses. >To date 21 responses have been received and Staff is working to inspire more. > >Next Steps: Survey response and evaluation time extended to encourage more responses. > >More information: Survey < >http://ccnso.icann.org/surveys/anti-phishing-survey-27feb08.pdf> > >Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat > >10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS > >Russia (.ru) and Georgia (.ge) recently were approved as new ccNSO members. >The ccNSO now has 77 members. > >More Information: ccNSO Applications Archive < http://www.ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml> > >Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat > > >11. ASO AC - GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) > >Background: Two significant global policy proposals on addressing matters >continue to be actively studied and discussed within the addressing community. If they are (1) adopted by all Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), (2) verified by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and (3) subsequently ratified by the ICANN Board, the policies will govern the allocation of Internet addresses from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the RIRs. The two current proposals are described below. > >Recent Developments: > >Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) > >Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) are addresses used in addition to IP addresses for Internet routing. A new global policy proposal for ASNs would formalize the current procedure for allocation of ASNs and provides a policy basis for the transition from 2-byte (16 bits) to 4-byte (32 bits) ASNs. The final transition step is now foreseen for 31 December 2009, after which date the distinction between 2- and 4-byte ASNs will cease and all ASNs will be regarded as of 4-byte length, by appending initial zeroes to those of 2-byte original length. > >Next Steps: This new 4-byte proposal has been adopted in all RIRs. It will be forwarded to the ICANN Board for ratification by the ASO Address Council after the Council has verified that each RIR's procedural steps have been duly followed. > >More information: Background Report < >http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm> > >Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination > >Remaining IPv4 address space > >The IANA pool of unallocated IPv4 address blocks is continuing to be depleted. As announced last month, a new global policy has been proposed to allocate the remaining address blocks once a given threshold is triggered. >The text of the proposed policy essentially recommends that when there are five /8 blocks remaining in the IANA pool, one remaining block will be allocated to each RIR. > >Next Steps: This proposal was discussed at the APNIC 25 meeting in February >2008 and at the ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) in Denver earlier this month. It will be discussed in upcoming meetings of the other RIRs, next in RIPE (Resaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre) - Berlin 5-6 May 2008, LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses >Registry) - Salvador/Bahia, Brazil 26-30 May 2008 and AfriNIC (African Region Internet Registry) - 24 May-6 June, Rabat, Morocco. > >More information: Background Report >http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm > >Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination > >12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED > >Background: When Sweden and other ccTLDs began more extensive deployment of the Domain Name System Security Extension (DNSSEC), it was discovered that several broadband routers failed when they received DNS response messages containing DNSSEC resource records and other DNSSEC related protocol parameters. Study of these routers revealed that many have embedded DNS servers. The DNSSEC deployment community and SSAC have been collaborating to create a testing program for broadband routers to gauge the ability of these devices to correctly process DNS messages that contain DNSSEC resource records. A set of web pages was developed by ICANN staff to provide a series of tests that Internet users could use to determine if their router succeeds or fails when DNNSEC is present in DNS response messages. > >Recent Developments: After reviewing the new testing suite for broadband routers running DNSSEC, Staff determined that the test suite was too complicated and required too much data collection and analysis for voluntary community participation. > >Next Steps: Staff is now investigating an alternative testing approach that may involve several independent bodies testing broadband routers and SOHO firewalls -- one for U.S. domestic products, one for Europe products, one for U.K. products, and one for Asia Pacific products. The testing criteria are being re-evaluated to determine a new common test suite with a goal to have this new testing begin before 1 May 2008. >More Information: SSAC <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/> >Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist > >13. SSAC - ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES > >Recent Developments: ICANN staff has been helping to update/revise a work in progress for the Anti Phishing Working Group entitled, "What To Do If Your Web Site Is Hacked." The document describes preparation and incident response with respect to web site phishing attacks. The report was approved by the Internet Policy Forum (formerly the DNS Policy Working Group) and is currently being edited and prepared for publication. > >A new SSAC Advisory entitled "Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks" >has been distributed for review and approval by SSAC and ICANN's general counsel. Several external experts have reviewed the Advisory and provided some valuable additional insights. The document may be distributed in two phases - the first to registrars, so that they are advised of the threat, and the second (at or prior to the ICANN Paris meeting) to the general public. > >ICANN staff is also assisting with anti-phishing investigations of two registrars who are alleged to be shielding phishing activities. In one case the registrar's WHOIS/43 service is not responding; in another case, staff is studying a service that allegedly hampers anti-phishing investigations by creating barriers on WHOIS information access. > >Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist > >14. AT-LARGE - NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION > >Recent Developments: New policy development processes and simultaneous translation improvements are significantly expanding policy participation in the At-Large community. > >As a result of additional staff capacity and other developments within the At-Large community, the process by which the At-Large community develops policy statements has been completely overhauled. At the direction of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), ICANN Staff has now begun producing initial draft statements on policy (synthesis statements of written and verbal comments) for review by working groups and subcommittees. These drafts are put through several steps of community review before being voted on by the ALAC. Approved comments are transmitted, as appropriate, to the public comment process or to the Board of ICANN. > >The first three products of this new process effort are already making their way through the process. They are: >* ALAC Statement on the Proposed Travel Policy for Volunteers >* ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget Framework for FY >2008/2009 >* ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements > >Additionally, the worldwide At-Large Calendar has been improved to include a community comments window to make it easier for the public to keep track of comments. > >Also, thanks to new simultaneous interpretation capabilities and a new teleconference service the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) and the Latin America and the Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (LACRALO) are now holding monthly teleconference meetings. > >Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large > >15. AT-LARGE - NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED > >Recent Developments: At-Large's new website went live in March. The new site is built upon a state-of-the-art, open-source content management system - Drupal. The result is a framework which can be duplicated and used by other parts of ICANN. The new site provides an array of new features which the static html-based old site could not, including: >* Two-way links between forums on the site and the community's mailing >lists - with new postings soon to be automatically visible; >* Dynamically updated content; >* Standardised multilingual support built into the site's architecture >* Multilingual calendaring and events, including support for multilingual >documents and time zone support. > >More Information: At-Large < http://atlarge.icann.org> > >Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large > > ># # # >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.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://atlarge.icann.org respecful regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

ICANN Policy Update
by Denise Michel April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Below (and attached in Word with hyperlinks) are brief summaries of a number of significant Internet policy issues that are being addressed by the ICANN community's bottom-up policy development structure, as well as other significant activities of interest. This latest monthly update is provided by ICANN's Policy Staff in response to community requests for periodic summaries of ICANN's policy work. Links to additional information are included and we encourage you to go beyond these brief staff summaries and learn more about the ICANN community's work. These monthly updates also will be available on our website. Our goal is to maximize transparency and broad community participation in ICANN's policy development activities. We continue to investigate more effective and efficient ways to communicate the relevance, importance and status of ongoing issues to the ICANN community. Comments and suggestions on how we can improve these efforts are most welcome and should be sent to policy-staff(a)icann.org. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy ICANN POLICY UPDATE – April 2008 CONTENTS: 1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS 2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING 3. GNSO -- WHOIS 4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW 5. GNSO -- FAST FLUX HOSTING 6. GNSO/CCNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS 7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs 8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE 9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY 10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS 11. ASO AC -- GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) 12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED 13. SSAC -- ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES 14. AT-LARGE -- NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION 15. AT-LARGE -- NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED 1. GNSO -- IMPROVEMENTS Background: The ICANN Board is considering a comprehensive set of recommendations to improve the structure and operations of the Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO). This is part of ICANN's ongoing commitment to its evolution and improvement, and follows an independent review of the GNSO and extensive public consultation. A working group appointed by ICANN's Board has developed a comprehensive proposal (GNSO Improvements Report) to improve the effectiveness of the GNSO, including its policy activities, structure, operations and communications. On 15 February 2008, the Board accepted the GNSO Improvements Report for consideration and directed ICANN staff to open a public comment forum on the Report for 30 days, draft a detailed implementation plan in consultation with the GNSO, begin implementation of the non-contentious recommendations, and return to the Board and community for further consideration of the implementation plan. Recent Developments: The period for public comments on the GNSO Improvements Report has been extended to 25 April 2008. Although many elements of the report seem to have broad support, the proposed stakeholder groups/constituency structures and allocation of seats on the GNSO Council continue to draw a significant amount of discussion from a variety of parties including the Business, Intellectual Property, and Internet Service Provider Constituencies who advocate a different allocation of seats than that recommended to the Board. Next Steps: Public comment period on the GNSO Improvements Report (closes 25 April 2008) -- subsequent Board action is expected at the Paris meeting. More Information: • GNSO Improvements information page < http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/> • Full GNSO Improvements Report < http://www.icann.org/topics/gnso-improvements/gnso-improvements-report-03fe…> • Board resolution on GNSO Improvements < http://www.icann.org/minutes/resolutions-15feb08.htm#_Toc64545918> Staff Contact: Denise Michel, VP Policy Development 2. GNSO -- DOMAIN NAME TASTING Background: In Spring 2007, ICANN's At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), asked the GNSO Council to review the issue of "domain tasting." The term refers to a case when an entity registers a domain name and then tests to see if the name has sufficient traffic to provide more income than the annual registration fee (usually through the addition of pay-per-click advertising). If the address is deemed sufficiently profitable, it is kept. If not, the current "add grace period" (AGP) - where domains can be returned within five days without cost - is used to return the domain at no net cost to the registrant. Among other reasons, the practice is controversial because registrants who engage in this behavior can typically register many hundreds of thousands of domain names under this practice, with these temporary registrations far exceeding the number of domain names actually licensed. Over time, there has been a significant increase in the number of domains registered and returned prior to expiration of the AGP. A significant number of community members feel the AGP process presents a loophole that facilitates this conduct. In October 2007, after fact finding and consideration, the GNSO Council launched a formal policy development process (PDP) on domain tasting and encouraged ICANN staff to consider applying ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP. Subsequently, staff included in the initial draft of ICANN's next fiscal year budget, a proposal to charge a fee for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP. Public discussion of the budget, and this proposal, is ongoing. As part of the formal PDP process, an Initial Report was produced for public comment, outlining the problems caused by domain tasting, possible actions to be taken, and the arguments put forward for and against such actions . Public comments were incorporated into a draft Final Report posted on 8 February 2008. Recent Developments: At its 6 March 2008 meeting, the GNSO Council considered a motion drafted and subsequently revised by a small design team to stop the practice of domain tasting. The revised draft motion would prohibit any gTLD operator that has implemented an AGP from offering a refund for any domain name deleted during the AGP that exceeds 10% of its net new registrations in that month, or fifty domain names, whichever is greater. Under the terms of the motion, an exemption from the limitation may be sought for a particular month, upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances detailed in the motion. Public comments and constituency impact statements regarding the revised draft motion have been solicited and incorporated into a Final Report for Council consideration at its scheduled 17 April 2008 meeting. The comments and constituency statements reflect a plurality of views on what should be done to eliminate abuse of the AGP to facilitate domain tasting and addressed three potential options including (1) views on the draft resolution itself; (2) views on eliminating the AGP entirely; and (3) views on the proposed ICANN budget changes. Next Steps: The GNSO Council will consider the Draft Motion at its upcoming 17 April 2008 meeting More Information: • Public comment request < http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#domain-tasting> • GNSO Domain Tasting Issues Report, June 2007 < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju…> • Outcomes Report October 2007 < http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-fina…> • Final Report 4 April 2008 < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-final-report-domain-tastin… > Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 3. GNSO -- WHOIS Background: WHOIS services provide public access to data on registered domain names. That data currently includes contact information for Registered Name Holders. The extent of registration data collected at the time of registration of a domain name, and the ways such data can be accessed, are specified in agreements established by ICANN for domain names registered in generic top-level domains (gTLDs). For example, ICANN requires accredited registrars to collect and provide free public access to (1) the name of the registered domain name and its name servers and registrar, (2) the date the domain was created and when its registration expires, and (3) the contact information for the Registered Name Holder, the technical contact, and the registrant's administrative contact. WHOIS has been the subject of intense policy development debate and action over the last few years. Information contained in WHOIS is used for a wide variety of purposes. Some uses of WHOIS data are viewed as constructive and beneficial. For example, sometimes WHOIS data is used to track down and identify registrants who may be posting illegal content or engaging in phishing scams. Other uses of WHOIS are viewed as potentially negative, such as harvesting WHOIS contact information to send unwanted spam or fraudulent email solicitations. Privacy advocates have also been concerned about the privacy implications of unrestricted access to personal contact information. The GNSO Council decided in October 2007 that a comprehensive, objective and quantifiable understanding of key factual issues regarding WHOIS will benefit future GNSO policy development efforts, and plans to ask the ICANN staff to conduct several studies for this purpose. Before defining the details of these studies, the Council has solicited suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS from community stakeholders. Possible areas of study might include a study of certain aspects of gTLD registrants and registrations, a study of certain uses and misuses of WHOIS data, a study of the use of proxy registration services, including privacy services, or a comparative study of gTLD and ccTLD WHOIS. Recent Developments: A forum for public comments on suggestions for specific topics of study on WHOIS was open through 15 February 2008. Approximately 25 suggestions were received. A summary of those comments has been prepared. On 27 March the GNSO Council approved a motion to form a group of volunteers to: (1) review and discuss the 'Report on Public Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS; (2) develop a proposed list of recommended studies, if any, for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council; and (3) produce the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008. Next Steps: A report from the small group reviewing the suggestions on further WHOis studies is due to the Council by 24 April 2008. The GNSO Council will consider the recommendations of the group. Based on direction from the Council, ICANN staff will subsequently provide the Council with rough cost estimates for various components of data gathering and studies. The Council will then decide what data gathering and studies it will request, given available resources. Staff will perform the resulting data gathering and studies and report the results to the Council. More Information: GNSO WHOis Policy Work Web page < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/> Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 4. GNSO -- INTER-REGISTRAR TRANSFER POLICY REVIEW Background: Consistent with ICANN's obligation to promote and encourage robust competition in the domain name space, the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy aims to provide a straightforward procedure for domain name holders to transfer their names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another should they wish to do so. The policy also provides standardized requirements for registrar handling of such transfer requests from domain name holders. The policy is an existing community consensus that was implemented in late 2004 that is now being reviewed by the GNSO. As part of that effort, the Council formed a Transfers Working Group (TWG) to examine and recommend possible areas for improvements in the existing transfer policy. The TWG identified a broad list of over 20 potential areas for clarification and improvement. In an effort to get improvements on-line as soon as possible, the GNSO Council initiated a policy development process (PDP) to immediately clarify four specific issues regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. That PDP process in now under way and the GNSO constituencies have submitted their initial comments. Recent Developments: ICANN staff finalized and posted an Initial Report for public comments to immediately clarify the four specific issues regarding reasons for which a registrar of record may deny a request to transfer a domain name to a new registrar. A summary of those comments is now available (see < http://forum.icann.org/lists/transfer-policy-2008/msg00004.html>). In parallel with the PDP process, the Council tasked a short term planning group to evaluate and prioritize the remaining 19 policy issues identified by the Transfers Working Group. In March, the group delivered a report to the GNSO Council with suggested clustering of those issues for consideration in five new PDPs. Next Steps: The public comments received on the Initial Report will be used by ICANN staff to compile a Final Report for the GNSO Council's consideration of further steps to take in this PDP. The report from the short term planning group on other potential PDPs will next be discussed and decided upon by the GNSO Council. More Information: • Draft Advisory < http://gnso.icann.org/issues/transfers/gnso-draft-transfer-advisory-14nov07… > • Initial Report < http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-17mar08.htm> • PDP Recommendations < http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/transfer-wg-recommendations-pdp-groupings-19ma…> Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager, Policy Development Coordination 5. GNSO – FAST FLUX HOSTING Background: Fast flux hosting is a term that refers to several techniques used by cyber criminals to evade detection, in which criminals rapidly modify IP addresses and/or name servers. The ICANN Security and Stability Advisory Committee (SSAC) recently completed a study of fast flux hosting. The results of the study were published in January 2008 in the SSAC Advisory on Fast Flux Hosting and DNS (SAC 025). Because fast flux hosting involves many different players—the cybercriminals and their victims, ISPs, companies that provide web hosting services, and DNS registries and registrars—it is possible to imagine a variety of different approaches to mitigation. Most of these will require the cooperation of a variety of actors including users and ISPs as well as registries and registrars. Recent developments: On 26 March 2008, staff posted an Issues Report on fast flux hosting, as directed by the GNSO Council. In the Report, staff recommends that the GNSO sponsor additional fact-finding and research to develop best practices guidelines concerning fast flux hosting. Staff also notes that it may be appropriate for the ccNSO also to participate in such an activity. Next Steps: The GNSO Council is scheduled to discuss the topic at its upcoming meeting on 17 April 2008. More Iinformation: • SSAC Report 025 on fast flux hosting, January 2008 - http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac025.pdf • Issues Report on Fast Flux Hosting, corrected 31 March 2008 - http://gnso.icann.org/issues/fast-flux-hosting/gnso-issues-report-fast-flux… Staff Contact: Liz Gasster, Senior Policy Counselor 6. CCNSO/GNSO -- BOARD SEAT ELECTIONS Background: The Country Codes Name Supporting Organization (ccNSO) and GNSO Councils are responsible for filling two seats each on the ICANN Board of Directors. ccNSO seats are identified as Board seat numbers 11 and 12. GNSO seats on the Board are identified as seat numbers 13 and 14. Recent Developments: CCNSO Board Seat 11 Peter Dengate-Thrush was selected to fill seat 11 on the ICANN Board at the ccNSO Council meeting on the 31 March 2008. This selection was based on the outcome of a prior call for nominations among the ccNSO members. The only candidate who was nominated and seconded was Mr. Dengate-Thrush and he accepted the nomination. Next Steps: The ccNSO Council Chair will provide the Secretary of ICANN with written notice of the decision. More Information: ccNSO ICANN Election of Director Procedures < http://ccnso.icann.org/about/elections/election-procedure-to-elect-icann-di…> Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat GNSO Board Seat 14 Rita Rodin was elected by the GNSO Council to fill seat 14 on the ICANN Board of Directors. The election closed on 7 March 2008. The GNSO Council confirmed the election results at its meeting scheduled on 27 March 2008, and pursuant to the bylaws, Avri Doria, GNSO Chair, informed ICANN's General Counsel of the outcome. Next Steps: The next GNSO election process will commence at the end of this year for the GNSO Chair. The current Chair's term ends 31 January 2009. More Information: GNSO Elections Procedures < http://gnso.icann.org/elections/election-procedures-2008.shtml> Staff Contact: Glen De Saint Géry, GNSO Secretariat 7. MULTIPLE ENTITIES -- IDN ccTLDs Background: The potential introduction of Internationalized Domain Names (IDNs) represents the beginning of an exciting new chapter in the history of the Internet. IDNs offer the potential for many new opportunities and benefits for Internet users of all languages around the world by allowing them to establish domains in their native languages and alphabets. An IDN ccTLD (internationalized domain name country code top level domain) is a country code top-level domain (corresponding to a country, territory, or other geographic location as associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes) with a label that contains at least one character that is not a standard Latin letter (A through Z), a hyphen, or one of the standard numerical digits (0 through 9). The technical potential for ICANN to now make these domain names available for assignment is prompting significant discussion, study and demand within the ICANN community – particularly for territories who want to make use of non-Latin characters. Current efforts are taking place on two fronts; (1) efforts to identify a "fast track" process to provide new domain opportunities to territories with immediate justifiable needs; and (2) efforts to develop a comprehensive long term plan that ensures a stable process for all interested stakeholders. IDNC Working Group Pursues The IDN "Fast Track" A joint IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) was chartered by ICANN's Board to develop and report on feasible methods, if any, that would enable the introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, in a timely manner that ensures the continued security and stability of the Internet while a comprehensive long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed. On 1 February 2008, the IDNC WG posted a "Discussion Draft of the Initial Report" (DDIR) for public comment and input from the ICANN community. The DDIR clarified the relationship between the "fast track" process and the broader long-term process IDNccPDP (the ccNSO Policy Development Process on IDN ccTLDs) and also identified the mechanisms for the selection of an IDN ccTLD and an IDN ccTLD manager. The ccNSO Council determined that those mechanisms were to be developed within the parameters of: • The overarching requirement to preserve the security and stability of the DNS; • Compliance with the IDNA protocols; • Input and advice from the technical community with respect to the implementation of IDNs; and • Current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs, which include the current IANA practices. A public workshop was held 11 February in New Delhi, India to discuss the DDIR and a comment period was opened on that document. Recent Developments: The IDNC WG has now produced a first draft of the IDNC WG Methodology in the form of an Interim Report that has also been made available for public comment. Discussions on the methodology were held at the ICANN Regional Meeting in Dubai, UAE (1-3 April 2008) and public comments on the methodology can be submitted until 25 April 2008. Next Steps: The work schedule agreed to by the IDNC Working Group is as follows: • An Initial Report, which will solidify the topics and their relation to the IDNccPDP. • A final Interim Report, which will contain potential implementation mechanisms is scheduled to be released 16 May 2008). • The Final Report, which will contain the actual recommendations of the IDNC WG is due to be published 13 June 2008) More Information: • Public Comments Requested on Initial Draft Fast-Track Mechanism < http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-01feb08.htm> • Draft Methodology for Fast Track < http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/idnc-proposed-methodology-31mar08.pdf> • Public Comments on the Discussion Draft of the Initial Report < http://www.icann.org/public_comment/#dd-idn-cctld-ft> Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor CCNSO Also Focuses On Comprehensive IDNccTLD Policy Development Background: In parallel to considerations of a "fast track" approach, the ccNSO Council has initiated a comprehensive long term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to as the IDNccPDP). At its meeting in October 2007, the ccNSO Council resolved to call for an Issues Report to examine the need for an IDNccPDP to consider: • Whether Article IX of the ICANN bylaws applies to IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two letter codes, and if it does not then to establish if Article IX should apply. • Whether the ccNSO should launch a PDP to develop the policy for the selection and delegation of IDN ccTLDs associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes. The Council formally requested that Issues Report on 19 December 2007 and directed ICANN staff to identify policies, procedures, and/or by-laws that should be reviewed and, as necessary revised, in connection with the development and implementation of any IDN ccTLD policy – including efforts designed to address the proposed fast-track concept. Recent Developments: The GNSO and several other parties have submitted comments regarding the proposal to set a comprehensive long term policy development process for IDNccTLDs (referred to above as the IDNccPDP). An Issues Report will be submitted to the ccNSO Council and will form the basis for the Council's decision on whether or not to formally initiate the IDNccPDP. Next Steps: Comments regarding the preparation of an Issues Report on the IDNccPDP and are now being evaluated. More Information: IDNccPDP Announcement: < http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19dec07.htm> Staff Contact: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor 8. CCNSO -- INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS CONTINUE Background: The ccNSO Council has recently been taking steps to improve its work plans, administrative procedures and communications tools. As a result of a ccNSO Council workshop held at the ICANN New Delhi meeting, a working group of the Council was established to propose administrative procedures for the ccNSO. The ccNSO Council also approved creation of a new "authoritative" ccNSO email list. The organization has also been conducting a participation survey in an effort to understand better why ccTLDs do or do not participate in ccNSO meetings. Recent Developments: In preparation for making recommendations on new structures, the new "Working Group on ccNSO Administrative Procedures" has had two conference calls on the structuring processes within the ccNSO. All ccTLD managers have been invited to subscribe to a new global ccTLD email list and a first draft of the results of the ccNSO participation survey recently was shared with the community at the African Top Level Domain meeting in Johannesburg. Next Steps: The Working Group will continue to develop new procedures for the ccNSO. More Information: • ccNSO <http://www.ccnso.icann.org/> • ccTLD Community Email List < http://www.ccnso.icann.org/about/charter-cctld-community-list.pdf> Staff Contacts: Bart Boswinkel, Senior Policy Advisor and Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat 9. CCNSO -- PHISHING SURVEY Background: The term "phishing" has been used to describe criminal and fraudulent attempts by cybercriminals to acquire sensitive private information (such as usernames, passwords and credit card details) by masquerading as trustworthy entities in an electronic communication. Phishing remains a major problem among ccTLDs and as a result ccNSO members are being called upon to identify countermeasures that can be undertaken to fight back. A draft survey seeking to identify those types of measures was presented to and approved by the ccNSO Council during its meeting in New Delhi in February 2008. The survey was launched and sent to all available email lists. ICANN regional liaisons were also asked to help distribute the survey. Recent Developments: Originally, survey results of the anti-phishing survey were expected to be ready for posting by early April 2008, but the response period has been extended to allow for the receipt of more survey responses. To date 21 responses have been received and Staff is working to inspire more. Next Steps: Survey response and evaluation time extended to encourage more responses. More information: Survey < http://ccnso.icann.org/surveys/anti-phishing-survey-27feb08.pdf> Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat 10. CCNSO -- NEW MEMBERS Russia (.ru) and Georgia (.ge) recently were approved as new ccNSO members. The ccNSO now has 77 members. More Information: ccNSO Applications Archive < http://www.ccnso.icann.org/applications/summary-date.shtml> Staff Contact: Gabriella Schittek, ccNSO Secretariat 11. ASO AC - GLOBAL POLICY PROPOSALS (ASNs, IPv4) Background: Two significant global policy proposals on addressing matters continue to be actively studied and discussed within the addressing community. If they are (1) adopted by all Regional Internet Registries (RIRs), (2) verified by the Address Supporting Organization (ASO) and (3) subsequently ratified by the ICANN Board, the policies will govern the allocation of Internet addresses from the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) to the RIRs. The two current proposals are described below. Recent Developments: Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) are addresses used in addition to IP addresses for Internet routing. A new global policy proposal for ASNs would formalize the current procedure for allocation of ASNs and provides a policy basis for the transition from 2-byte (16 bits) to 4-byte (32 bits) ASNs. The final transition step is now foreseen for 31 December 2009, after which date the distinction between 2- and 4-byte ASNs will cease and all ASNs will be regarded as of 4-byte length, by appending initial zeroes to those of 2-byte original length. Next Steps: This new 4-byte proposal has been adopted in all RIRs. It will be forwarded to the ICANN Board for ratification by the ASO Address Council after the Council has verified that each RIR's procedural steps have been duly followed. More information: Background Report < http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-asn-report-29nov07.htm> Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination Remaining IPv4 address space The IANA pool of unallocated IPv4 address blocks is continuing to be depleted. As announced last month, a new global policy has been proposed to allocate the remaining address blocks once a given threshold is triggered. The text of the proposed policy essentially recommends that when there are five /8 blocks remaining in the IANA pool, one remaining block will be allocated to each RIR. Next Steps: This proposal was discussed at the APNIC 25 meeting in February 2008 and at the ARIN (American Registry for Internet Numbers) in Denver earlier this month. It will be discussed in upcoming meetings of the other RIRs, next in RIPE (Resaux IP Europeens Network Coordination Centre) - Berlin 5-6 May 2008, LACNIC (Latin American and Caribbean Internet Addresses Registry) – Salvador/Bahia, Brazil 26-30 May 2008 and AfriNIC (African Region Internet Registry) – 24 May-6 June, Rabat, Morocco. More information: Background Report http://www.icann.org/announcements/proposal-ipv4-report-29nov07.htm Staff Contact: Olof Nordling, Manager Policy Development Coordination 12. SSAC -- DNSSEC BROADBAND ROUTER TESTING REVISED Background: When Sweden and other ccTLDs began more extensive deployment of the Domain Name System Security Extension (DNSSEC), it was discovered that several broadband routers failed when they received DNS response messages containing DNSSEC resource records and other DNSSEC related protocol parameters. Study of these routers revealed that many have embedded DNS servers. The DNSSEC deployment community and SSAC have been collaborating to create a testing program for broadband routers to gauge the ability of these devices to correctly process DNS messages that contain DNSSEC resource records. A set of web pages was developed by ICANN staff to provide a series of tests that Internet users could use to determine if their router succeeds or fails when DNNSEC is present in DNS response messages. Recent Developments: After reviewing the new testing suite for broadband routers running DNSSEC, Staff determined that the test suite was too complicated and required too much data collection and analysis for voluntary community participation. Next Steps: Staff is now investigating an alternative testing approach that may involve several independent bodies testing broadband routers and SOHO firewalls -- one for U.S. domestic products, one for Europe products, one for U.K. products, and one for Asia Pacific products. The testing criteria are being re-evaluated to determine a new common test suite with a goal to have this new testing begin before 1 May 2008. More Information: SSAC <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/> Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist 13. SSAC – ANTI-PHISHING ACTIVITIES Recent Developments: ICANN staff has been helping to update/revise a work in progress for the Anti Phishing Working Group entitled, "What To Do If Your Web Site Is Hacked." The document describes preparation and incident response with respect to web site phishing attacks. The report was approved by the Internet Policy Forum (formerly the DNS Policy Working Group) and is currently being edited and prepared for publication. A new SSAC Advisory entitled "Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks" has been distributed for review and approval by SSAC and ICANN's general counsel. Several external experts have reviewed the Advisory and provided some valuable additional insights. The document may be distributed in two phases - the first to registrars, so that they are advised of the threat, and the second (at or prior to the ICANN Paris meeting) to the general public. ICANN staff is also assisting with anti-phishing investigations of two registrars who are alleged to be shielding phishing activities. In one case the registrar's WHOIS/43 service is not responding; in another case, staff is studying a service that allegedly hampers anti-phishing investigations by creating barriers on WHOIS information access. Staff Contact: Dave Piscitello, Senior Security Technologist 14. AT-LARGE – NEW PRACTICES EXPAND POLICY PARTICIPATION Recent Developments: New policy development processes and simultaneous translation improvements are significantly expanding policy participation in the At-Large community. As a result of additional staff capacity and other developments within the At-Large community, the process by which the At-Large community develops policy statements has been completely overhauled. At the direction of the At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), ICANN Staff has now begun producing initial draft statements on policy (synthesis statements of written and verbal comments) for review by working groups and subcommittees. These drafts are put through several steps of community review before being voted on by the ALAC. Approved comments are transmitted, as appropriate, to the public comment process or to the Board of ICANN. The first three products of this new process effort are already making their way through the process. They are: • ALAC Statement on the Proposed Travel Policy for Volunteers • ALAC Statement on the Operating Plan and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009 • ALAC Statement on GNSO Improvements Additionally, the worldwide At-Large Calendar has been improved to include a community comments window to make it easier for the public to keep track of comments. Also, thanks to new simultaneous interpretation capabilities and a new teleconference service the African Regional At-Large Organisation (AFRALO) and the Latin America and the Caribbean Islands Regional At-Large Organisation (LACRALO) are now holding monthly teleconference meetings. Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large 15. AT-LARGE – NEW WEBSITE/PORTAL LAUNCHED Recent Developments: At-Large's new website went live in March. The new site is built upon a state-of-the-art, open-source content management system – Drupal. The result is a framework which can be duplicated and used by other parts of ICANN. The new site provides an array of new features which the static html-based old site could not, including: • Two-way links between forums on the site and the community's mailing lists – with new postings soon to be automatically visible; • Dynamically updated content; • Standardised multilingual support built into the site's architecture • Multilingual calendaring and events, including support for multilingual documents and time zone support. More Information: At-Large < http://atlarge.icann.org> Staff Contact: Nick Ashton-Hart, Director for At-Large # # #

2 1

Request for a transcription of the GNSO meetings in Los Angeles
by At-Large Staff April 17, 2008

April 17, 2008

Dear All: We have received queries asking if a transcription will be made available for the recent New GTLDs meeting of the GNSO in Los Angeles. We can confirm that a transcript is being prepared, however, due to the length of the session it is not expected to arrive until the 5th May. Once received we will post the URL here. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] WG-IDNABIS
by Vint Cerf April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

please note that my email is vint(a)google.com On Apr 16, 2008, at 12:27 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: > Dear Firends, > Chers amis, > > A new IETF Internationalized Domain Names in Applications Revised > (idnabis) working group has been formed. Its Chair is Vinton G. > Cerf (cerf(a)mci.net) It belongs to the Applications Area.

1 0

WG-IDNABIS
by JFC Morfin April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

Dear Firends, Chers amis, A new IETF Internationalized Domain Names in Applications Revised (idnabis) working group has been formed. Its Chair is Vinton G. Cerf (cerf(a)mci.net) It belongs to the Applications Area. Un nouveau Groupe de Travail IETF, WG-IDNABIS, sur la révision des noms de domaine "internationialisés pour les applications" (c'est à dire le nommage applicatif multilinguistique) a été formé. Son président est Vinton G. Cerf (cerf(a)mci.net) Elle appartient au secteur applications. --- Area Directors are: Lisa Dusseault (ldusseault(a)commerce.net) who is Applications Area Advisor: Chris Newman (Chris.Newman(a)sun.com) Les directeurs sectoriels sont : Lisa Dusseault (ldusseault(a)commerce.net) qui est conseiller du secteur applications. Chris Newman (Chris.Newman @ sun.com) --- The Mailing List is the private list idna-update(a)alvestrand.no which is to be managed along the usual IETF/WG rules and IPR clauses. To Subscribe: http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update Archive: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/ La Mailing List en est la liste privée idna-update(a)alvestrand.no qui doit être gérée selon les règles habituelles des Goupes de Travail et de protection de la propriété industrielle de l'IETF. Pour s'abonner: http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update Archives: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/idna-update/ --- It is advised to the largest number of persons concerned by linguistic and multilinguistic aspects to register on this list, as the impact on multilingualism, cultures and languages can be determining. Il est conseillé au plus grand nombre de personnes concernées par les aspects linguistiques et multilinguistiques de s'inscrire sur cette liste, que l'impact sur le multilinguisme, les cultures et les langues peuvent être déterminant. --- Please note that its ethitechnic (to develop a technology for it to respect ethic), its technoethic (the possibility to use a technology in an ethical manner) and its transition to multilingualization are no part of its charter. http://wikidna.org has been organised to help you. It is accompanied by the http://mail.mltf.org/mailman/listinfo/idn_mail.mltf.org mailing list. Vous noterez que son ethitechnique (développer une technologie pour qu'elle respecte l'éthique), sa technoethique (la possibilité d'utiliser une technologie de manière éthique) et sa transition vers la multilingualisation n'est pas évoquée dans le cadre de sa charte. le site http://wikidna.org a été établi pour vous y aider, accompagné de la liste de diffusion http://mail.mltf.org/mailman/listinfo/idn_mail.mltf.org . --- The target is only the "internationalization" of the "mono-Internet". This is permitted by the Tunis agreement, but is not in line with the multilinguistic emergence required by the WSIS. It could hopefully lead to a successful IDNA offering a constrained linguistic support. L'objectif est seulement l'"internationalisation" du "mono-Internet". Cela est permis par l'accord de Tunis, mais , n'est pas en ligne avec l'émergence multilinguitique requise par le SMSI. Elle pourrait, espérons aboutir au succès d'IDNA pour un support limité des différentes langues. --- It is therefore necesary to: -- best document the e-empowerment needs of each linguistic community -- help reducing the constraints -- preserve the possiblility of a smooth transition to multilingualisation this charter does not consider. Il est donc nécessaire de: -- Mieux documenter les besoins d'e-capacitation de chaque communauté linguistique -- Aider à réduire les limitations -- Préserver la possibilité d'une transition sans heurts vers la multilingualisation que cette charte ne prend pas en compte. ---- Text of the WG-IDNABIS Charter: Texte de la Charte du WG-IDNABIS : http://wikidna.org/index.php?title=WG-IDNABIS_Charter Have a good work! Au travail ! jfc

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 16, 2008

April 16, 2008

Total of 141 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 11 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 12.06% | 17 | 14.20% | 196268 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 13.48% | 19 | 10.23% | 141391 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 6.38% | 9 | 8.44% | 116630 | roberto at icann.org 6.38% | 9 | 6.22% | 85974 | lists at privaterra.info 6.38% | 9 | 5.33% | 73700 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.67% | 8 | 5.17% | 71427 | wendy at seltzer.com 4.96% | 7 | 5.51% | 76107 | namecritic at blogs.pn 4.96% | 7 | 3.91% | 53976 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 3.55% | 5 | 4.11% | 56854 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.42% | 2 | 5.61% | 77570 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 2.16% | 29892 | ross at tucows.com 2.13% | 3 | 2.68% | 37079 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.84% | 4 | 1.90% | 26284 | evan at telly.org 2.13% | 3 | 2.17% | 29960 | brenbe at consumer.org 2.13% | 3 | 1.73% | 23865 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.13% | 3 | 1.61% | 22269 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 2.13% | 3 | 1.37% | 18871 | johnl at iecc.com 2.13% | 3 | 1.35% | 18602 | michele at blacknight.ie 0.71% | 1 | 2.76% | 38149 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 1.42% | 2 | 1.57% | 21746 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.42% | 2 | 1.33% | 18414 | derek at aa419.org 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14695 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 1.42% | 2 | 1.06% | 14608 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.42% | 2 | 1.05% | 14508 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 0.71% | 1 | 1.42% | 19661 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 0.71% | 1 | 0.65% | 9038 | veronicac at diplomacy.edu 0.71% | 1 | 0.61% | 8447 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.59% | 8138 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7935 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.57% | 7854 | frederic.teboul at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.56% | 7750 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.55% | 7539 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.51% | 7009 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 0.71% | 1 | 0.50% | 6978 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 0.71% | 1 | 0.48% | 6568 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 0.71% | 1 | 0.46% | 6323 | icann-list at sorehands.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 141 |100.00% | 1382079 | Total

12 18

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Sebastian Ricciardi April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Whoever you might be, you´re far from conservative in what you send. Don´t worry, I´m liberal in what I accept. LOL S. -----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Martes, 15 de Abril de 2008 06:08 p.m. To: Sebastian Ricciardi; 'Wendy Seltzer'; 'Adam Peake'; 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' Cc: 'At-Large writ small' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy Sebastian and all, I knew Jon well, and always disagreed with him on this. Thankfully this was only an informational RFC, and as such should be viewed in that light. Certainly it was not meant as gospel. Unfortunately Jon took this addage of his to hart, and as a result it was a factor, if not a major one, in his early demise, god rest his soul... -----Original Message----- >From: Sebastian Ricciardi <sricciardi(a)fibertel.com.ar> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 1:46 PM >To: 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, 'Adam Peake' <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>, 'Cheryl Langdon-Orr' <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> >Cc: 'At-Large writ small' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >ALAC and the @Large community would be benefited from the "Robustness >Principle" enounced by Jon Postel in RFC 1122: > >"Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send" > >Best regards, > >Sebastian > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Wendy Seltzer >Sent: Domingo, 13 de Abril de 2008 12:25 p.m. >To: Adam Peake >Cc: At-Large writ small >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of >Interest Policy > >Adam Peake wrote: >> The code of conduct is excessive, how about >> replacing it with: ALAC members should work in a >> collegial and cooperative manner. The end. >> >> Really is a bizarre document. >> > >Seconded! > >--Wendy > >_______________________________________________ >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://atlarge.icann.org > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1376 - Release Date: 13/04/2008 >01:45 p.m. > > >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 15/04/2008 >09:12 a.m. > > >egards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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 No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 15/04/2008 09:12 a.m. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.22.13/1378 - Release Date: 15/04/2008 09:12 a.m.

2 1

ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Dear Community members: The ALAC decided at their last meeting to request the staff to draft up a comprehensive Accountability Framework, which the ALAC Executive Committee was to review and amend at its meeting this month. The Chair proposed to the ExComm that at the same time a Conflicts of Interest Policy should be prepared as this was a natural accompaniment to the Accountability Framework. he ExComm has reviewed these two texts, and the ALAC is now to review the draft from 1 April until 11th April - comments from the wider At-Large community are of course welcomed. Any comments received are then to be incorporated and the resulting text will be on the agenda for adoption at the next ALAC Teleconference, in May. The URL for the text is as follows. In order to save bandwidth for those who do not have broadband, the text has not been attached to this message: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/8_april_2008:20080331… French and Spanish translation will be available once they are ready. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 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

14 24

Australian Privacy Commissioner to Issue Breach Notification Guidelines
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

All, From several of our insiders at the commission, the push was to lesson privacy rights early on, now that trend has been reversed due to public outrage. This may be why now the details are being kept closely concealed. Of course I cannot and will not reveal our sources for obvious reasons. April 15, 2008) Australia's privacy commissioner Karen Curtis plans to issue draft guidelines regarding data breach notification to help companies address the issue while the details of the Privacy Act revision continue to be hammered out. Government agencies and businesses have contacted the privacy commissioner's office with questions about handling data security breaches. The guidelines will be voluntary; commentary on the guidelines will be accepted through June 16, 2008. The Australian Law Reform Commission's review of the 20-year-old Privacy Act is expected later this year, and it may be some time before new laws are enacted. http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,23539443-15306,00.html Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in?
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Ross and all, I have to agree totally with Ross'es comments and analysis here. The anti-privacy bigots seem to be unwilling to relent and not satisfied with what limited access that they have now to Whois data. I cannot see any meaningful purpose to yet again another Whois review or "Study group" that would bare any useful fruit. Our members still remain unchanged in our already stated position on Whois, Whois privacy, and Whois accuracy. I do not believe that our members position will change irregardless of whatever goading, or other emphrical/slanderous remarks to the contrary we may be subjected to, as we have been subjected to repeatedly, and again on this forum recently. Frankly it is my own opinion that registrants privacy rights have been abused or otherwise abridged far too frequently and with malice and forethought by members of this very forum amongst other ICANN constituency members, in particular RIAA members whom are members of the IPC. Users non-registrants privacy rights also have been continually abused also by the RIAA/IPC unabated even after loosing nearly every case that has gone before a judge and after the RIAA has been sanctioned financially for their nearly terrorist legal tactics. Why on earth the ICANN bod and staff has allowed that organization along with it's european counterparts to remain members of the IPC is utterly unbelievable and appalling! Quite frankly it is long past time for these anti-privacy right bigots and their followers to have their credentials yanked by DOC. I also know that my position and our members position is widely shared. See:http://w2.eff.org/share/petition/ http://www.boycott-riaa.com/ -----Original Message----- >From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Sent: Apr 15, 2008 11:38 AM >To: >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] WHOIS study group...NA RALO weigh in? > >The problem with more study on this issue is that it is only a delaying >tactic intended to preserve the status quo. The issue has been studied >to death. The proposed studies will not be well bounded, nor geared >towards action. They will be intentionally broad and the analysis, if >any is done, will be purposely weak and obtuse. > >I have no doubt that there will be many people that sign onto the notion >of further studies with the best of intentions, but I strongly doubt >that the results will point us in any different direction than what >we've already discussed and described over the past ten years. Worse >still, those that seek to abuse the privacy rights of individuals for >their own gain will enjoy another few years free pass to this open >database as we study the nooks and crannies of this issue even further. > >/ross > >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> Danny Younger, Wendy Seltzer and I are in a WHOIS study group with a >> really tight time frame, like three weeks, before it has to report back >> to the GNSO council on whether further study of WHOIS is needed, along >> with other issues. >> >> I think opinions differ among the three of us in the group, which has >> about a dozen members. Opinions aside, I wanted to see if the NA RALO >> would like to convey either as a group or as individuals their opinions >> on the issues presented to the WHOIS working group. >> >> This morning, it seemed as though there was consensus that yes, more >> study (provided it's circumscribed and directed at yielding some sort of >> action on the issue) is required. Wendy took an opposing view, which I'm >> sure she would be glad to share with you. WebWatch's view is that more >> study is needed, and in fact we are studying the issue ourselves. We are >> about to put a survey into the field that will be statistically >> representative of New York State only (because it is being funded by the >> NY State Attorney General's office). The survey is about online fraud in >> general, but of the 30 questions, I have put in some related to ICANN >> and WHOIS, for instance, have you ever registered a domain name, have >> you ever heard of the WHOIS database, have you ever used it to help you >> make a decision about whether to use a Web site's services or not, was >> it useful, etc. >> >> Below is our (WebWatch's) response, then below that are the action steps >> for the study group, if you want to use that as a template. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Brendler, Beau >> Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2008 1:57 PM >> To: 'GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG'; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> Subject: Whois study group -- category rankings >> >>>From Beau Brendler and Consumer Reports WebWatch >> >> We believe all seven categories are worth further study. Here's how we >> think they should be ranked in order of priority: >> >> 1. (5) Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse. >> 2. (7) WHOIS data accuracy. >> 3. (1) WHOIS misuse. >> 4. (4) Demand and motivation for use of privacy services. >> 5. (2) Compliance with data protection laws/registrar accreditation >> agreements. >> 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement/dispute resolution >> requests. >> 7. (3) Availability of privacy services. >> >> WebWatch's perspective on WHOIS could be almost characterized as similar >> to that of law enforcement or the FTC. Oversimply stated, we are >> interested in seeing a compromise that would allow a consumer to use >> accurate WHOIS data to help determine the credibility of a Web site with >> which the consumer is about to do business, while not compromising, say, >> the right of Burmese citizens to create Web sites to describe the >> conditions within their country without fear of being tracked down and >> harmed by their government via WHOIS data. >> >> I will also ask the ALAC to weigh in and report back offline with any >> additional information. The north American region seems to have the >> strongest feelings on this issue. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> ____________________________________________________ >> From: owner-gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> [mailto:owner-gnso-whois-study@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Gasster >> Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 2:56 PM >> To: GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG; gnso-whois-study(a)icann.org >> Subject: RE: [gnso-whois-study] WHOIS study group call Tuesday 8 April >> 2008 at 15:00 UTC] >> >> >> Thanks to all who could make our short-notice kick-off call on WHOIS >> studies. We will be meeting on Tuesdays at the same time and we have a >> short window by which to recommend to the GNSO Council areas for further >> study (if any) on WHOIS (currently due to the Council by 24 April). >> Following is a short overview of our call, key deliverables for next >> week and next steps. >> >> 1. Overview >> >> The group discussed how to proceed. We first discussed whether studies >> should be commissioned at all, and confirmed that one option could be >> deciding to recommend to the GNSO Council that no studies of WHOIS be >> done. This view was supported by some participants who are skeptical >> that the outcome of any study would change the views of entrenched >> parties on WHOIS issues. We also discussed certain areas that might be >> studied further, such as the potential impact on registrars operating in >> countries with strict privacy laws if those countries were to begin >> enforcing those laws (in the gTLD space). There was the concern that >> new WHOIS-related issues will arise that will require consideration >> notwithstanding the current WHOIS "stalemate", such as issues related to >> IDNs, greater privacy enforcement by countries, etc..., that may warrant >> further study. >> >> I described the format and content of the summary "Report on Public >> Suggestions on Further Studies of WHOIS" of Feb. 25, 2008. Note in >> particular that the study suggestions are grouped into seven topic >> areas. >> >> 1. WHOIS misuse >> 2. Compliance with data protection laws and registrar accreditation >> agreements 3. Availability of privacy services 4. Demand and motivation >> for use of privacy services 5. Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime >> and abuse 6. Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute >> resolution requests 7. WHOIS data accuracy >> >> These seven areas can be thought of as topical questions for further >> study. If the consensus of the group is to proceed to identify specific >> areas for further study (meaning rather than recommending that studies >> not be conducted), the group might find it useful to decide first which >> of these groupings address questions you think having data about would >> inform the debate (see Key Deliverables below). >> >> There was one question about whether a budget exists to conduct studies. >> >> I responded that there is no pre-set budget but there is a place >> holder in the budget that the policy development group has submitted, >> and there is the understanding and expectation that the Council may >> request studies that ICANN would engage in. Also, I noted that there is >> a gating process -- the Council has specifically noted in its >> resolutions that it would first identify certain studies that it thought >> should then be priced out, and then, after those estimates are provided, >> make any specific requests with those estimates in mind. We also note >> that costs for various studies could vary significantly based on size, >> scope, complexity, etc. >> >> 2. Key deliverables >> >> - Everyone will read the summary "Report on Public Suggestions on >> Further Studies of WHOIS" - link provided by Glen and below >> >> - Everyone will consider the threshold question of whether WHOIS should >> be studied further -- whether any studies of WHOIS would make a >> meaningful impact. We will discuss this further on the next call. >> >> - Everyone will review the suggestions with an eye to whether/or which >> proposed studies would rise to your short favorites list -- or those you >> think should not be done. We did not discuss this on the call, but if >> the group would like to email these to me ahead of time, say by Friday, >> I could total up the results of this initial view for the call. >> >> Again, as I suggested on the call, to approach the question of which of >> 25 suggestions you might support, you may find it useful to first >> consider which of the groupings address questions you think that having >> data about would inform the debate. Once you have identified which >> questions you want to answer, then you could focus on only those >> particular groupings and consider which study approach (or combination >> of approaches) will best answer your questions. In some cases we have >> indicated that the different study proposals answer slightly different >> questions. In some cases we indicate that some of the approaches are >> likely to give better data, or that some of the approaches are likely to >> be less expensive. When you think about the fundamental questions asked >> by each grouping, you may find it more useful to consider the questions >> asked by each grouping as follows: >> >> >> 1. How big is the WHOIS misuse problem that may need to be solved? >> >> 2. Is there a non-compliance with data protection laws problem >> that needs to be solved? >> >> 3. Are there already market-driven solutions available? >> >> 4. Is there demand for market-driven solutions, and are they being >> >> used for legitimate or illegitimate purposes? >> >> 5. Do WHOIS data protections lead to abuse and misuse? >> >> 6. Are provisions for providing protected WHOIS data to law >> enforcement for investigation of crime and abuse effective? >> >> 7. Is WHOIS data accurate? >> >> - Staff will check on the status of an earlier study on the economics of >> the DNS that we understand to have been approved by the ICANN Board but >> not completed to-date. >> >> - Recruit ISP representative -- in process >> >> 3. Next steps >> >> - Next call Tuesday April 15 (a yucky day in the US, I note) >> - See tasks listed in "key deliverables" above. >> - Email with any questions. >> >> Also, please feel free to correct or add to my summary. >> >> Thanks, Liz >> >> >> ------ >> NA-Discuss mailing list >> NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >> Visit the NA-RALO Wiki at https://st.icann.org/naralo/ >> ------ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "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

1 0

Results of ARIN/CAIDA IPv6 Penetration Survey
by Richard Jimmerson April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

The American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) and the Cooperative Association for Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) worked together to conduct a survey to capture IPv6 penetration data in the ARIN region. The survey took place in March of 2008 and an analysis of the results was presented by kc claffy of CAIDA during the ARIN XXI meeting in Denver, Colorado, last week. You can find the link to this presentation on the top-right corner of ARIN's IPv6 wiki at: http://www.getipv6.info We encourage community members to post IPv6 experiences, knowledge and resources on the ARIN IPv6 wiki. Also, be sure to check back there soon for data from the 8 April ARIN IPv6 Main Event, where participants connected to an IPv6-only network. Regards, Richard Jimmerson Chief Information Officer American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

1 0

ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Danny Younger April 15, 2008

April 15, 2008

Alan and Wendy, Thanks for your work on this document. Allow me to point out what still is missing. We need some emphasis on the obligation of ALAC members to act to decertify non-participating ALSs. At this point, that's the vast bulk of those that have been certified. I would guess that probably close to 90% do not participate at all in any exchange of dialogue. The ICANN Bylaws tell us that "Decisions to certify or decertify an At-Large Structure shall be made as decided by the ALAC in its Rules of Procedure". Unfortunately, whoever drafted the rules of procedure must have thought that they were crafting a document for the United Nations General Assembly, so, of course, no decertification process is outlined within. You're not going to be viewed as an accountable body if you continue to carry this much noncontributing dead wood on your membership roster. At the major GNSO conference that was just held in LA on new gTLD implementation considerations, how many ALSs had their reps in attendance (either remotely or in person)? Just two. That's rather pathetic when the ALAC claims to have 100 or so ALSs signed up. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

6 6