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

Whois provacy
by Bill Silverstein April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

I would have responded to some of this sooner, but I have been busy with a defendants' summary judgment motion, in part against Moniker for providing privacy service to a spammer -- e360Insight. No LEGITIMATE business hides their identity. Domain privacy services do not only hide identity, but it can hide quantity and relationships. Ie. A spammer uses 100 domain names to spam with, how do you link them to the one spammer if they use a privacy service? Or, a blogger has the domain name WidgetXpert.com and has a blog that talks about widgets, but it turns out that that blogger is actually the president of one of the companies that makes widgets? A privacy service may offer privacy of the telephone number and street address (but leave the State, or equivalent, and Country in place). This prevents some of the abuse. There is also a service by the US Postal service (and probably similar elsewhere) called a P.O. Box. which offers this same type of privacy. I use my attorney's office as my address and telephone number for my domain names. There are options here. I am not law enforcement, I do share my research with the people in the FTC and the AG's office. As in regards to different privacy laws, I am not aware of any law that prevents one from voluntarily releasing information to the public.

1 0

Network Solutions Ceases Front-Running?
by Danny Younger April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

Copied from the GA list: All, It seems that NSI (NetworkSolutions) has temporarily ceased its front running practice. This is a result of my own research and tests I have performed on their registration site during today. As far as I know there are no further information on this available on the Internet yet. In my personal opinion, this cessation is a reaction on public outrage presented by Wendy Seltzer at Special Meeting of the ICANN Board of Directors held on 27 March 2008 where further evidence about front running was desired to gather. See http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm, section "11. Other Business". I think there are two reasons for doing so. Not to foment the public outrage during these days and to preclude further investigation and gathering the evidence. Much like our Tasting Trinity does. No one knows how long this waiting game will take. Perhaps tomorrow or in few days the practice starts flourishing again. Dominik Additional note from Danny -- SSAC's Steve Crocker has shared his views on the front-running topic in a letter to the GNSO Council chair -- see http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04920.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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 2

SSAC - April 8 Draft Agenda
by Robert Guerra April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

Dear colleagues: SSAC meet virtually on April 8th, 08. Below is the draft agenda for the meeting. regards Robert --- SSAC April 8 /08 - Draft AGENDA * Whois and IDNs The question to be addressed is, "What impact does the introduction of IDNs have on Whois and Whois information?" * Discussion continued from 25 March meeting

2 1

{Virus?} Returned mail: Data format error
by Post Office April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

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

1 0

Clarification of SSAC position re Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running"
by Robert Guerra April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

Steve Crocker from SSAC, has ok'd that I forward the following email for ALAC. regards Robert --- Begin forwarded message: > From: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com> > Date: April 5, 2008 1:35:58 PM GMT-04:00 > To: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org>, Robert Guerra > <rguerra(a)privaterra.org>, Chris Disspain <ceo(a)auda.org.au> > Cc: Steve Crocker <steve(a)shinkuro.com>, ICANN SSAC <ssac(a)icann.org>, > ICANN Board of Directors <icann-board(a)icann.org> > Subject: [ssac] Clarification of SSAC position re Board's postion on > ALAC letter on "front-running" > > Avri, > > Thanks for referring your note to me for comment. I'll try to > clarify our thinking on this matter. There are several different > dimensions, each of which deserves a few moments of attention, so > this note is a bit long. I've tried to structure it for easy > navigation. The sections that follow are: > > o Background correspondence > > o Discussion of whether front running exists and SSAC's finding to > date and our next steps > > (Mixed results and lots of controversy. More work needed.) > > o Discussion of whether whether is prohibited, irrespective of > whether it exists > > (Big surprise, at least to me, is that we don't seem to have either > an explicit prohibition nor even a shared ethic within the community.) > > o Discussion of what parts of the ICANN family should be involved, > and a process issue? (And, in particular, what's SSAC's role.) > > (This is a "consumer protection" and, perhaps, a "privacy" issue. > Does this have a distinct and unambiguous home?) > > > I have cc'd the Board and SSAC, and I invite you, Robert Guerra to > share it with the GNSO, the ALAC and the ccNSO, respectively. (I > don't mind if it's shared even more widely, but I think these are > the primary constituencies involved at the moment. ) > > Cheers, > > Steve > > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > = > ====================================================================== > > BACKGROUND CORRESPONDENCE and DOCUMENTS > > Here's your note to me. > > On Apr 5, 2008, at 6:10 AM, Avri Doria wrote: >> FYI >> >> Begin forwarded message: >>> From: Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> >>> Date: 5 April 2008 09:46:08 GMT+02:00 >>> To: Council GNSO <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >>> Subject: [council] Board's postion on ALAC letter on "front-running" >>> >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have put this on the list of topic for our next agenda. It >>> might be worth having some preliminary discussions on list. >>> >>> References: >>> - ALAC letter: <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04857.html >>> > >>> - Discussion under 11 Other business: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm >>> > Board's Disposition: "The Chair determined that emergency >>> action is not required today but the matter will be referred to >>> the GNSO for additional information or policy development if >>> necessary, but not an emergency action." >>> >>> >>> My first questions: >>> >>> - Do we want/need to request an issues report? >>> - Do we want to request advice from SSAC on the degree to which >>> this is a threat to Stability and Security as stated in the ALAC >>> letter. SAC22 of Oct 07 <http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf >>> > spoke of it as being possibly contrary to core values but I do >>> not read their report as calling it a threat. Though the report >>> does seem to indicate that further investigation of issues >>> surrounding the practice could be investigated further. >>> >>> thanks >>> >>> a. > > The ALAC letter referred to above asks the Board to take immediate > action to curtail "domain hold," "cart-hold" and/or "cart-reserve" > activities such as Network Solutions and others have recently begun. > > You also reference SSAC report SAC 022. That report is the first of > two of our reports (SAC 022 and SAC 024) so far on front running. See > > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac022.pdf > http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac024.pdf > > In SAC 022, we pointed out that checking the availability of a > domain name can be a sensitive act which may disclose an interest in > or a value ascribed to a domain name and we suggested to potential > registrants that domain name availability lookups should be > performed with care. We also noted there does not appear to be a > strong set of standards and practices to conclude whether monitoring > availability checks is an acceptable or unacceptable practice, and > we called for both public comment and policy development within the > appropriate bodies. > > In SAC 024, we reported that after receiving more than 100 inputs > over a two and half month period, we were unable to develop > definitive evidence that front running is actually taking place. > However, in discussions with Network Solutions regarding their newly > instituted practice of placing a hold on names being checked for > possible registration, Jon Nevett suggested that one or more > registries are possibly selling that information to domain name > tasters. The chain has a couple of steps. When a potential > registrant types in a name at NSI's web site to check for its > availability in one domain, e.g. within .com, NSI, like many other > registrars, automatically checks whether that name is available in > several other domains. They do so by forwarding the name to each of > the respective registries, and this provides an opportunity for one > or more of those registries to pass along that stream of queries to > a business partner who may be interested in registering it while the > original customer is still thinking about it. Here are Mr. Nevett's > comments in the transcript of the SSAC meeting in New Delhi on > February 13, 2008, http://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-WS-SSAC-13Feb08.txt > . > >> So what's been happening -- and we have information about this -- >> is domain name tasters register names in vast bulk and then they >> taste the names and only keep a very small percentage of the names >> that warrant purchasing because of traffic or pay per click. So >> the domain name tasters are looking for various sources of data. >> They look for bulk data wherever they can find it. The theory is >> that there were certain ccTLD registries that because when a >> customer comes to almost all registrars Web sites and asks for a >> name, [the registrar] will look at various dozens of different TLDs >> and see if the name is available. So one of the ccTLDs, for >> example, or maybe a gTLD, will be selling the data to front runners >> and tasters. So the tasting line is probably synonymous with the >> front-runner line. So what happens is they register these names in >> advance of customers, and then they taste it. > > > As you noted in your message, the Board declined to take emergency > action and referred the matter to the GNSO for possible policy > development. (See the last section of this note for a comment on > policy development.) > > > ====================================================================== > > DOES FRONT RUNNING EXIST? > > As noted above, the data is inconclusive. Jay Daley, CTO of > Nominet, reported he had looked closely at this question some time > ago and concluded it simply wasn't happening. Others have suggested > privately that it really does happen on a fairly significant scale. > Because there is a very high level of tasting, it may be hard to > sort out how many instances of apparent front running are just due > to "background radiation." And then we have Mr. Nevett's assertion > that one or TLDs is actively involved in this process. > > We expect to explore this a bit further. We are still formulating > specific plans on how to proceed, and we are open to suggestions and > offers for how to gather information efficiently, effectively, and > accurately. > > ===================================================================== > > IS FRONT-RUNNING PROHIBITED and DOES IT AFFECT SECURITY OR STABILITY? > > As we noted in SAC 022, we do not see any coherent and specific > framework that suggests front-running is prohibited. I believe the > Registrar Accreditation Agreement has language related to the proper > use of registration data, but that applies only after a registration > is complete. > > Practices and expectations vary from field to field. In certain > professions, particularly law and medicine -- and my experience is > primarily in the U.S. -- there are very strong rules governing the > privacy of information provided by a client or patient. There are > also strong rules governing the protection of customer information > among stockbrokers. If I ask my stockbroker about a particular > stock, it's considered unethical for him to use that information to > buy or sell that stock for himself or to help others to do so. > However, in our industry, I have not seen any similar explicit > statement of principle nor an explicit set of rules prohibiting > front-running and related practices. Thus, even if we were to find > reliable, concrete information that front-running is taking place, > it's not clear there is any basis for stopping it. > > "Security and Stability" is a mantra invoked with specialty gravity, > and there is sometime debate about whether a specific issues does or > does not fall into this category. I think it's hard to argue that > front-running, if it exists, is affecting the overall security or > stability of the domain name system, although one might imagine > fairly severe consequences if the practice existed and affected a > very large fraction of the potential registrants instead of only a > relatively small number. I emphasized "system." From any > particular user's perspective, if someone has swiped a name he is > looking at, the impact on him or his business could be very > substantial. Is that a "security" matter or a " consumer > protection" matter, and is there a strict distinction between the two? > > I would argue that if there is a structural bias against consumers, > that it's appropriate to consider that to be a weakness in the > security of the system. On the other hand, if a consumer has been > dealt with unfairly by a particular party, and there's no general > bias built into the system, that's a specific consumer protection > issue. I'm not sure whether everyone else would choose to draw the > lines in the same place. > > There is a secondary and slightly subtle element of security here. > Efficient and effective markets depend on reliable information and > trustworthy behavior. If there is a general perception that a > market is dangerous, the market may shrink and the results for the > buyers and sellers who are in the market may be inequitable. > Building and preserving confidence in a market is thus an important > aspect of "security." > > I don't think we've thought enough about this as a community, and I > would like to see some deeper thought and discussion. > > Returning to the specific matter of front-running, I find it odd and > dangerous that our framework of core values, principles, rules and > contracts does not address such practices explicitly. I think this > is a weakness in our overall framework and should be fixed. > > ===================================================================== > > WHO SHOULD BE INVOLVED? > > I don't see any single group as being the sole owner of these > issues. We certainly don't view this as the sole purview of SSAC > and we would be delighted if others are involved. The GNSO has a > natural role because the registrars and registries are primary > actors. At the same time, the people most strongly affected by > weaknesses in the process are potential registrants, and it's not > clear who speaks for them. ALAC, in its letter to Board, is > certainly taking a strong position. And this issue is not limited > to the gTLDs and ICANN-accredited registrars. The ccTLD community > presumably has the same issues. > > In our reports to the Board, we suggested other groups look at these > issues. Dan Halloran recently drew our attention to section 1.c in > By-Laws Annex A: GNSO Policy-Development Process: > > Advisory Committee Initiation. An Advisory Committee may raise an > issue for policy development by action of such committee to commence > the PDP, and transmission of that request to the GNSO Council. (http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#AnnexA > ) > > With some chagrin, I admit we hadn't realized there was a direct > channel for SSAC to forward to the GNSO a formal request for the > GNSO to commence the PDP. Would you find it helpful for us to send > our recommendations to you in this form? > > Irrespective of whether we send you a formal recommendation, I hope > this note has provided some useful information. We will be happy to > discuss it further if you desire. > > Thanks, > > Steve Crocker > SSAC Chair > > > > > > > >

1 0

Call for Nominations - Internet Governance Caucus/Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG).
by Robert Guerra April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

The Internet Governance Caucus (IGC), 2008 Nominating Committee is issuing a call for nominations for choosing Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the IGF Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG). ----- DEADLINE for submissions is: April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time Where to send nominations - nomcom08(a)lists.privaterra.org ------ Please submit nominations – including self-nominations – for choosing Internet Governance Caucus (IGC) recommendations for the IGF Multi-Stake Holder Advisory Group (MAG). The recommended persons may or may not be IGC members. However, they should have a civil society identity, and broadly be in alignment with positions given in our charter, and as adopted by the caucus at different times. 1. In nominating someone else please obtain the person’s consent to be on the MAG if selected, and to seek IGC’s endorsement for her candidature. 2. Each nomination should come with a brief bio. It should mention with some clarity the activities and/ or positions taken by the person in the IG and information society arena. 3. Please also include a brief write up of why the nominated person will be a good Civil Society (CS)/ IGC representative on the MAG. 4. Those who are already on the MAG may also briefly mention about how they carried out their responsibilities in the last two terms, in advocating and pushing the wider CS positions, and IGC’s positions. Their level and manner of engagement with the IGC, and the wider CS constituencies, may also be mentioned. Nominations should also include an assurance that if selected for the MAG one will keep up a strong engagement with CS constituencies, including and especially the IGC. One will both keep CS constituencies and the IGC informed about the MAG proceedings and related matters, as well as present/ push their positions in the MAG. Anyone can nominate, including members of the nomcom. Self nominations are invited At a minimum, all nominations and self nominations should consist of the following: 1. Name 2. Name of nominator (or self) 3. Nationality 4. Country of Residence 5. Gender 6. Short Bio relevant to IG 7. What specific skills or experiences do you have that make you a good candidate for the MAG Send nominations to the following email address - nomcom08(a)lists.privaterra.org IMPORTANT DATES ---------------------------- Nomcom starts, and nomination for MAG opens- April 6th, 2008 Nomination close - April 13th, 2008 Nomcom confers between 13th and 16th, 2008 Nomcom announces names of IGC nominees for MAG - April 17th, 2008 Please note that DEADLINE for submissions is: April 13th - 23:59 Geneva Time

3 3

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Wendy Seltzer April 8, 2008

April 8, 2008

At-Large Staff wrote: > Dear Community members: > > [ENGLISH TEXT] > > We have been asked to notify you that two draft statements to the ICANN > Board from the At-Large Advisory Committee are now open for comments from > all members of the At-Large community. Comments will be accepted until 16th > April 2008, at 1200 UTC, after which time comments will be reviewed by the > ALAC Finance and Budget committee before transmitting the final text to the > Board of Directors as an Advisory Committee statement. > > Draft Statement to the ICANN Board on the Budget and Operational Plan > Framework for 2008/2009: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2 The statement, appended below, is completely anodyne. My comments: Drop the "compliments" bs. Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy. Drop the crap about increased working capacity on ALAC - there's no evidence the community is working any better, when these statements come out with little evidence of community input. How about focusing on some things important to end-users? * Getting new gTLDs introduced already to foster market competition; * reforming an intellectual-property-centric UDRP; * introducing DNSSEC so users can verify the accuracy of domain lookup; * protection of Internet users and registrants against abuse of data they send through DNS lookups or registration inquiries. for just a few. --- AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/1/2 STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT: Draft COMMITTE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXT: ALAC Finance and Budget Subommittee DOCUMENT BEGAN COMMUNITY REVIEW ON: 6th April 2008 COMMUNITY REVIEW CONCLUDES ON: 16th April 2008 NEXT STEP AFTER COMMUNITY REVIEW: Committee responsible reviews comments, produces final draft which is transmitted to the Board of Directors of ICANN Community members are invited to use the 'Comment' button to provide their views on the text here until 16th April 2008 at 1200 UTC. At-Large Advisory Committee Statement to the ICANN Board on the Draft Operating Plan for FY 2008/2009 We present our compliments to the Board of Directors of ICANN and welcome the opportunity to make our comments on the Draft Operating Plan and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009. Firstly, please note our endorsement of the change to the budgeting and operational planning process introduced this year. It seems to us that the combination of the consultation on these obviously closely-related issues is eminently sensible. We also welcome the longer public consultation timelines that this allows. As this is the first stage of this process, these comments are introductory. We provide this document so that these preliminary reactions and comments may be taken into account as the Staff prepare the Budget and Operating Plan for its first iteration consultation. Our comments, therefore, are primarily related to the various “Activities/Outcomes by Initiative”. We do not propose to comment on each of these, but on those most important to the At-Large Community. IDN Activities This is a very important area of work for At-Large – and also for all of ICANN. The extra funding and greatly increased ICANN activity in this area is therefore welcomed. We would like to emphasise the element of communications related to IDNs. Fundamental choices that will affect the many communities that do not rely upon the Latin character set will be made in the next few years. For that reason, we believe ICANN, in partnership with other stakeholders of course, needs to make a substantial, sustained, greatly increased effort to communicate with these communities –to ensure that the message about the forthcoming choices to be made related to IDNs reaches a far larger pool of potential contributors to the process than is currently aware and participating. This should not simply take the form of translated press releases but really a well-thought-out media campaign which ‘reaches out’ to the public. We know that efforts to do this work exist – we wish to emphasise that this is extremely important. We note that we have asked the At-Large staff to propose funding in the forthcoming FY to revise and expand the available materials related to outreach to the individual Internet user community and this is just one aspect that such an effort must address. Compliance Activities We note the increase in staffing and staff work related to compliance. We are pleased to see that the budget framework proposes further considerable investment in this area. However we wish to note what we see as two crucial missing major activities in this area related to compliance: * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to make a big problem worse – and the existing reporting system is already not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with respect to WHOIS – fixing this should be a headline compliance activity in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our comments here to compliance activities related to the operational planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid. * Complaints Processing. We note that there is now some information on how registrants can complain on the ICANN website, which is a welcome improvement. We also note that there is a provision as a headline activity in the Operational Plan Framework to “Implement Complaints Process System to address complaints and forward them to correct parties as approved”. This is a start but is not nearly enough – such a system needs to also verify whether or not the forwarded complaints were addressed, and provide options so that the complainant can easily report whether or not they are satisfied with the result. The underlying philosophy should be that, as the contractor, ICANN should ensure that the contractees are living up to their side of the ‘deal’ and completely offloading complaints to the contractee – or anyone else – is in our opinion not satisfactory. Global Outreach This is a particularly important area to us. The various communities in ICANN are not representative of the worldwide Internet-using community. Whilst we appreciate the initial provision of a substantial increase in funds allocated to Global Outreach – we will look forward to seeing more detail about precisely what this consists of when the draft budget is posted. However, we note that on page 23 of the Draft Framework, under Global Outreach, there is a major area of work listed as ‘Implement business engagement outreach’. If this is intended to be outreach only to business communities, this is, in our opinion, clearly far too narrow – outreach efforts and recruitment efforts must be be even-handed, global – and to all communities and potential participant communities, not just ‘business’. We draw the attention of the board to the many comments about the importance of dramatically increasing the outreach and recruitment of ALL stakeholders that was a common theme of the respondents to the JPA review recently; From this we propose that there is broad support for greatly increased work by ICANN in these respects. We welcome the continued support for participation by our community from ICANN. Without it the Internet end-user’s voice will simply not be adequately represented. Facilitation of community participation (and specifically that of volunteers) in ICANN is an extremely important issue and one important aspect of this is covered in greater depth in our statement to you in relation to the development of a volunteer travel and expense support policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 which is accessible at <insert url here>. Policy Development Support We welcome the major theme associated with this area of work on page 25, that ICANN will “provide additional secretariat support to SOs, constituencies and ACs to make volunteer efforts more effective.” We are direct beneficiaries of this, with the addition of two members of staff on the At-Large team. It should be noted that the recent filling of these long-open positions is already beginning to increase our capacity for working with greater efficiency (particularly in the RALO’s), and we hope that the support our community receives of this kind will become generally available across the constituencies and communities and look forward to seeing the detailed plans for how the objective listed in this area is to be achieved. Registrant Protections We welcome the increased activity in this area – however, the board needs to be aware that from our perspecitve, the RAA review process appears to have ceased operation. We hear anecdotally that there is current work in this area inside ICANN, but it is not visible to us (or anyone else from what we can tell). This is a very important area of work for ICANN and to our community. It should not suffer, for example, due to work on new gTLDs taking priority –the priority must be given to the protection of existing registrants and only then worrying about adding many more through new gTLDs. We believe there should be meaningful deadlines set for the concluding of work on the RAA – in a completely open and transparent manner. Transcription and Translation Our community has been calling for ICANN to become a truly multilingual organisation for years now. We appreciate and appplaud the increased budget commitment, draft translation framework, and other moves in this direction but we wish to remind you that ICANN has a very, very long way to go to reach the mission that the translation programme proposes. In our opinion, this area of work is of absolutely central importance to the organisation’s credibility, as we do not believe that any consultation or policy development process conducted entirely in English is globally legitimate. This is especially true with subjects like IDNs that – incredibly –continue to be largely English-only, with multilingual documents provided only in some cases, often far later than the original English versions, and only as an afterthought. Ensuring that the work of ICANN becomes truly multilingual is a core, critical objective. It must not be sidelined, or de-emphasised by other objectives like new gTLDs. Broaden Participation This area is of great importance – not just to our community but to all communities. In particular, whilst the provisions for teleconferences for our community have improved by changing vendors, we do not believe that it makes sense to continue to outsource this core communications function and so we welcome the news that ICANN proposes to purchase a truly fit-for-purpose system to facilitate telephonic interactions. We hope that in doing so choices will be made which truly facilitate equal access and quality for all participants, regardless of where they might be. In particular, the new system must provide for the technical operation of simultaneous interpretation on teleconferences. This is an absolutely essential function, not something that is “nice to have”. Our experience with this has clearly shown that the ability to work, interact and correspond (both face to face and remotely) in the language that is most comfortable and easy to work with greatly increases and enhances effective participation. We would also like to emphasise how important it is to broadening participation of effective remote participation in meetings, of which telephonic two-way participation is only one element. We believe that the current remote participation modalities for ICANN meetings are not fit for purpose. Our statement in relation to the development of a volunteer travel and expense support policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible at <insert url here> also has the elaboration on our views on the subject of remote participation, and meetings. In addition to these points, we wish to emphasise that one of the most important elements of participation is ICANN producing documents in standardised formats which are accessible, written in plain language, with excellent summaries, indices, glossaries, and the like. This is a real shortcoming of present document production at ICANN and it is a real barrier to participation. We also believe that fostering participation actually requires a regionally sensitive approach and often regionally differentiated materials. In developing countries, radio and audiovisual materials, to mention just two formats, are the best way to reach non-traditional ICANN stakeholders. It is understood that this kind of outreach would not be in the nature of general Internet education but should be related to the mission of ICANN and its mandate. In closing, we thank the board in advance for its consideration of our views, and look forward to a response to our concerns and recommendations in due course.

10 11

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Michele and all, No, it's only Belgium. -----Original Message----- >From: Michele Neylon <michele(a)blacknight.ie> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 2:59 PM >To: >Cc: "alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >Jeffrey A. Williams wrote: >> Rudi and all, >> >> The reason why we shouldn't do as you and Belgium government >> suggests is that the whole world doesn't live in Belgium, and >> because such would violate many other countires national >> laws. > >It's not just the Belgian government. It's EU-wide as far as I know. > > > > >-- >Mr Michele Neylon >Blacknight Solutions >Hosting & Colocation, Brand Protection >http://www.blacknight.com/ >http://blog.blacknight.com/ >Tel. 1850 929 929 >Intl. +353 (0) 59 9183072 >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 > 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 2

WHOIS and at-large
by Wendy Seltzer April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Thanks to several people for jumping into an actual substantive discussion on WHOIS. I think it's clear from that discussion that there is not unanimity among us -- nor should we expect there to be. Internet users have a variety of interests, and at times the interests of some users will conflict with those of others. Some are bound by differing legal regimes, some have different value priorities, some weigh risks and benefits differently. Instead of trying to reach a unitary position, then, I suggest that we try to articulate the range of different views individuals have with respect to identification of domain registrants. Those could include: privacy, accountability, verifiability, traceability, anonymity, legal enforcement, directory lookup, name availability lookup, etc. Some of these conflict, some can coexist, but all have been heard in the debate. I am no more comfortable putting out a statement that says "Internet users want accurate WHOIS" than some others are with "Internet users want privacy of domain registration." So if we want to speak for a consensus of at-large, we should ensure that our documents represent all the relevant Internet user views. --Wendy -- 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/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Accuracy of WhoIs?
by Yassin Mshana April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

I have followed the discussion thread and do respect all views aired in this forum. However, I am disturbed by the way professionalism and ethics are taken lightly. IMHO, I think that WhoIs? should give accurate information. Why? Taking that analogy of "Yellow Pages" can you imagine how the scenario would be if there were multiple inaccurate Yellow Pages in one city? It is presumed and expected that the Directory(ies) should contain accurate information and should be transparent enough to ensure that they serves the intended purpose to the User; I wonder why should one seek to be annonymous - is being annonynmous ethical? Iam not sure. It is like having an business whereby the ownership is fixtituous....... My humble opinon. Yassin (my true name) > From: alac-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: ALAC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16> To: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 13:15:36 -0400> > Send ALAC mailing list submissions to> alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to> alac-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > You can reach the person managing the list at> alac-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific> than "Re: Contents of ALAC digest..."> > > Today's Topics:> > 1. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board (Blogs.pn)> 2. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board (Jeffrey A. Williams)> 3. Re: [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board (Jeffrey A. Williams)> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------> > Message: 1> Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2008 12:45:00 -0400> From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic(a)blogs.pn>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To: <derek(a)aa419.org>, "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Message-ID: <013701c898ce$ba502a80$0301a8c0@namecritic>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="UTF-8";> reply-type=original> > I say leave privacy as an option for each individual user and enforce the > accuracy of the information either way.> > Chris McElroy> > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Derek Smythe" <derek(a)aa419.org>> To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> Cc: <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:29 PM> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft > Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> > > > Wendy Seltzer wrote:> >> >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to> >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> > ...> > ...> >>> >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very> >> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs> >> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to> >> make a big problem worse ? and the existing reporting system is already> >> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >> respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational> >> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >>> > Wendy> >> > I respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in> > enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective .> >> > I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is> > submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused> > to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by> > design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3> > April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm ,> > which is sadly hardly ever enforced.> >> > I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are> > being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent domain's existence> > endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy protection we> > find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS privacy is a> > very sharp two sided sword.> >> > As an example of why we need whois details currently: Right now a big> > corporate is giving away free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a> > disproportionate large number of registrants from small towns across> > America shown in domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other> > businesses. We contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had> > no knowledge of these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents> > etc. We have contacted the big corporate and registrar in an attempt> > to address this issue. The domains are "disabled" in the corporate's> > system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS> > without the victims' permission. Without verifiable whois this problem> > would have been denied (as was originally attempted) and the problem> > invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking far in excess> > of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip of the> > iceberg ...> >> > To really represent end users, current issues and procedures should be> > fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised and we would all> > be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact that much more> > money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being> > visible.> >> > Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price> > of partially disarming those currently doing what they do to make the> > Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to,> > though they would have the same problem.> >> > Personally I have numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois> > details are 100% correct for those domains and I am using an available> > acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them.> > These mechanisms are available to other users as well, if privacy is a> > concern to them - with the exception of the initially much abused .us> > TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices.> >> > In a nutshell, there is also a reason why whois is sometimes not> > accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility illegal activities.> > How do you protect against that?> >> > To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each action.> > Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would wish.> > Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.> >> > Best regards,> >> > Derek Smythe> > http://www.aa419.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 > > > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 2> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:26:53 -0700 (GMT-07:00)> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To: derek(a)aa419.org, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID:> <32195901.1207524414028.JavaMail.root(a)elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8> > Derek, Wendy and all,> > No offense to you Derek, but I believe you and Wendy> are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.> As one that has lead the charge regarding Whois privacy> AND Accuracy sense 2002, I can attest personally and> professionally to both your and Wendy's contentions.> > What astonishes me is that the ICANN staff and Bod> cannot seem to come to terms with the reality of the> mess that they originally created, when at one time there> was ONE Whois [ centralized model ]. Now there are > many and none are accurate/up to date. such is not> excusable nor in any way acceptable to have gone on for> so long now... From where I sit anyway this clearly points> to a lack of competent leadership on the part of ICANN.> > Your issue with Whois seems to focus on security related> aspects as they relate to accuracy. And I agree, those> elements are interwoven. So is however privacy. Without> registrants Whois and registration data being private to> a degree and that degree limits only LEA's having unrestricted> access to the full Whois record of any registration, than> the security of the registrant is in jeopardy as may be the> security of any of that registrants business customers including> governments or other government agencies. therefore I don't> believe we want to take that much of a risk with a completely> open Whois structure or access. Nor do I believe that LEA's> or governments and/or government agencies desire such a potential> security risk either.> > -----Original Message-----> >From: Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org>> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 3:29 PM> >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> >> > Wendy Seltzer wrote:> >> >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to> >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> >...> >...> >> > >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very> >> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs> >> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to> >> make a big problem worse ? and the existing reporting system is already> >> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >> respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational> >> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >> > >Wendy> >> >I respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in > >enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective .> >> >I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is > >submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused > >to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by > >design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3 > >April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm , > >which is sadly hardly ever enforced.> >> >I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are > >being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent domain's existence > >endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy protection we > >find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS privacy is a > >very sharp two sided sword.> >> >As an example of why we need whois details currently: Right now a big > >corporate is giving away free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a > >disproportionate large number of registrants from small towns across > >America shown in domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other > >businesses. We contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had > >no knowledge of these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents > >etc. We have contacted the big corporate and registrar in an attempt > >to address this issue. The domains are "disabled" in the corporate's > >system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS > >without the victims' permission. Without verifiable whois this problem > >would have been denied (as was originally attempted) and the problem > >invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking far in excess > >of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip of the > >iceberg ...> >> >To really represent end users, current issues and procedures should be > >fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised and we would all > >be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact that much more > >money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being > >visible.> >> >Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price > >of partially disarming those currently doing what they do to make the > >Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to, > >though they would have the same problem.> >> >Personally I have numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois > >details are 100% correct for those domains and I am using an available > >acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them. > >These mechanisms are available to other users as well, if privacy is a > >concern to them - with the exception of the initially much abused .us > >TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices.> >> >In a nutshell, there is also a reason why whois is sometimes not > >accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility illegal activities. > >How do you protect against that?> >> >To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each action. > >Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would wish. > >Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact.> >> >Best regards,> >> >Derek Smythe> >http://www.aa419.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> > > > ------------------------------> > Message: 3> Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2008 16:38:03 -0700 (GMT-07:00)> From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two> Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>,> aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> Message-ID:> <12301735.1207525083681.JavaMail.root(a)elwamui-chisos.atl.sa.earthlink.net>> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8> > Wendy and all,> > Frankly I couldn't agree more with your comments> and your tone as well, Wendy. Well done! The ALAC> seems more interested in curring favor for financial> support from ICANN, than it does being interested in> the input from users, IMO thus far... Hopefully that> will change. But it will only change when censorship> is eliminated and no longer allowed, when openness and> transparency aren't just words but are demonstrated> and fully recognized. > > -----Original Message-----> >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 1:52 PM> >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board> >> >At-Large Staff wrote:> >> Dear Community members:> >> > >> [ENGLISH TEXT]> >> > >> We have been asked to notify you that two draft statements to the ICANN> >> Board from the At-Large Advisory Committee are now open for comments from> >> all members of the At-Large community. Comments will be accepted until 16th> >> April 2008, at 1200 UTC, after which time comments will be reviewed by the> >> ALAC Finance and Budget committee before transmitting the final text to the> >> Board of Directors as an Advisory Committee statement.> >> > >> Draft Statement to the ICANN Board on the Budget and Operational Plan> >> Framework for 2008/2009:> >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2> >> >The statement, appended below, is completely anodyne. My comments:> >> >Drop the "compliments" bs.> >Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to> >preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy.> >Drop the crap about increased working capacity on ALAC - there's no> >evidence the community is working any better, when these statements come> >out with little evidence of community input.> >> >How about focusing on some things important to end-users?> >* Getting new gTLDs introduced already to foster market competition;> >* reforming an intellectual-property-centric UDRP;> >* introducing DNSSEC so users can verify the accuracy of domain lookup;> >* protection of Internet users and registrants against abuse of data> >they send through DNS lookups or registration inquiries.> >for just a few.> >> >---> >> >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/1/2> >> >STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT: Draft> >COMMITTE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXT: ALAC Finance and Budget Subommittee> >DOCUMENT BEGAN COMMUNITY REVIEW ON: 6th April 2008> >COMMUNITY REVIEW CONCLUDES ON: 16th April 2008> >> >NEXT STEP AFTER COMMUNITY REVIEW: Committee responsible reviews> >comments, produces final draft which is transmitted to the Board of> >Directors of ICANN> >> >Community members are invited to use the 'Comment' button to provide> >their views on the text here until 16th April 2008 at 1200 UTC.> >At-Large Advisory Committee Statement to the ICANN Board on the Draft> >Operating Plan for FY 2008/2009> >> >We present our compliments to the Board of Directors of ICANN and> >welcome the opportunity to make our comments on the Draft Operating Plan> >and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009.> >> >Firstly, please note our endorsement of the change to the budgeting and> >operational planning process introduced this year. It seems to us that> >the combination of the consultation on these obviously closely-related> >issues is eminently sensible. We also welcome the longer public> >consultation timelines that this allows.> >> >As this is the first stage of this process, these comments are> >introductory. We provide this document so that these preliminary> >reactions and comments may be taken into account as the Staff prepare> >the Budget and Operating Plan for its first iteration consultation.> >> >Our comments, therefore, are primarily related to the various> >?Activities/Outcomes by Initiative?. We do not propose to comment on> >each of these, but on those most important to the At-Large Community.> >> >IDN Activities> >> >This is a very important area of work for At-Large ? and also for all of> >ICANN. The extra funding and greatly increased ICANN activity in this> >area is therefore welcomed. We would like to emphasise the element of> >communications related to IDNs.> >> >Fundamental choices that will affect the many communities that do not> >rely upon the Latin character set will be made in the next few years.> >For that reason, we believe ICANN, in partnership with other> >stakeholders of course, needs to make a substantial, sustained, greatly> >increased effort to communicate with these communities ?to ensure that> >the message about the forthcoming choices to be made related to IDNs> >reaches a far larger pool of potential contributors to the process than> >is currently aware and participating. This should not simply take the> >form of translated press releases but really a well-thought-out media> >campaign which ?reaches out? to the public. We know that efforts to do> >this work exist ? we wish to emphasise that this is extremely important.> >We note that we have asked the At-Large staff to propose funding in the> >forthcoming FY to revise and expand the available materials related to> >outreach to the individual Internet user community and this is just one> >aspect that such an effort must address.> >> >Compliance Activities> >> >We note the increase in staffing and staff work related to compliance.> >We are pleased to see that the budget framework proposes further> >considerable investment in this area. However we wish to note what we> >see as two crucial missing major activities in this area related to> >compliance:> >> > * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very> >inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs> >to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as> >is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to> >make a big problem worse ? and the existing reporting system is already> >not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with> >respect to WHOIS ? fixing this should be a headline compliance activity> >in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our> >comments here to compliance activities related to the operational> >planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns> >related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements> >on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid.> >> > * Complaints Processing. We note that there is now some information> >on how registrants can complain on the ICANN website, which is a welcome> >improvement. We also note that there is a provision as a headline> >activity in the Operational Plan Framework to ?Implement Complaints> >Process System to address complaints and forward them to correct parties> >as approved?. This is a start but is not nearly enough ? such a system> >needs to also verify whether or not the forwarded complaints were> >addressed, and provide options so that the complainant can easily report> >whether or not they are satisfied with the result. The underlying> >philosophy should be that, as the contractor, ICANN should ensure that> >the contractees are living up to their side of the ?deal? and completely> >offloading complaints to the contractee ? or anyone else ? is in our> >opinion not satisfactory.> >> >Global Outreach> >> >This is a particularly important area to us. The various communities in> >ICANN are not representative of the worldwide Internet-using community.> >Whilst we appreciate the initial provision of a substantial increase in> >funds allocated to Global Outreach ? we will look forward to seeing more> >detail about precisely what this consists of when the draft budget is> >posted. However, we note that on page 23 of the Draft Framework, under> >Global Outreach, there is a major area of work listed as ?Implement> >business engagement outreach?. If this is intended to be outreach only> >to business communities, this is, in our opinion, clearly far too narrow> >? outreach efforts and recruitment efforts must be be even-handed,> >global ? and to all communities and potential participant communities,> >not just ?business?. We draw the attention of the board to the many> >comments about the importance of dramatically increasing the outreach> >and recruitment of ALL stakeholders that was a common theme of the> >respondents to the JPA review recently; From this we propose that there> >is broad support for greatly increased work by ICANN in these respects.> >> >We welcome the continued support for participation by our community from> >ICANN. Without it the Internet end-user?s voice will simply not be> >adequately represented. Facilitation of community participation (and> >specifically that of volunteers) in ICANN is an extremely important> >issue and one important aspect of this is covered in greater depth in> >our statement to you in relation to the development of a volunteer> >travel and expense support policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2> >which is accessible at <insert url here>.> >> >Policy Development Support> >> >We welcome the major theme associated with this area of work on page 25,> >that ICANN will ?provide additional secretariat support to SOs,> >constituencies and ACs to make volunteer efforts more effective.? We are> >direct beneficiaries of this, with the addition of two members of staff> >on the At-Large team. It should be noted that the recent filling of> >these long-open positions is already beginning to increase our capacity> >for working with greater efficiency (particularly in the RALO?s), and we> >hope that the support our community receives of this kind will become> >generally available across the constituencies and communities and look> >forward to seeing the detailed plans for how the objective listed in> >this area is to be achieved.> >> >Registrant Protections> >> >We welcome the increased activity in this area ? however, the board> >needs to be aware that from our perspecitve, the RAA review process> >appears to have ceased operation. We hear anecdotally that there is> >current work in this area inside ICANN, but it is not visible to us (or> >anyone else from what we can tell). This is a very important area of> >work for ICANN and to our community. It should not suffer, for example,> >due to work on new gTLDs taking priority ?the priority must be given to> >the protection of existing registrants and only then worrying about> >adding many more through new gTLDs. We believe there should be> >meaningful deadlines set for the concluding of work on the RAA ? in a> >completely open and transparent manner.> >> >Transcription and Translation> >> >Our community has been calling for ICANN to become a truly multilingual> >organisation for years now. We appreciate and appplaud the increased> >budget commitment, draft translation framework, and other moves in this> >direction but we wish to remind you that ICANN has a very, very long way> >to go to reach the mission that the translation programme proposes.> >In our opinion, this area of work is of absolutely central importance to> >the organisation?s credibility, as we do not believe that any> >consultation or policy development process conducted entirely in English> >is globally legitimate. This is especially true with subjects like IDNs> >that ? incredibly ?continue to be largely English-only, with> >multilingual documents provided only in some cases, often far later than> >the original English versions, and only as an afterthought.> >> >Ensuring that the work of ICANN becomes truly multilingual is a core,> >critical objective. It must not be sidelined, or de-emphasised by other> >objectives like new gTLDs.> >> >Broaden Participation> >> >This area is of great importance ? not just to our community but to all> >communities. In particular, whilst the provisions for teleconferences> >for our community have improved by changing vendors, we do not believe> >that it makes sense to continue to outsource this core communications> >function and so we welcome the news that ICANN proposes to purchase a> >truly fit-for-purpose system to facilitate telephonic interactions. We> >hope that in doing so choices will be made which truly facilitate equal> >access and quality for all participants, regardless of where they might be.> >In particular, the new system must provide for the technical operation> >of simultaneous interpretation on teleconferences. This is an absolutely> >essential function, not something that is ?nice to have?. Our experience> >with this has clearly shown that the ability to work, interact and> >correspond (both face to face and remotely) in the language that is most> >comfortable and easy to work with greatly increases and enhances> >effective participation.> >> >We would also like to emphasise how important it is to broadening> >participation of effective remote participation in meetings, of which> >telephonic two-way participation is only one element. We believe that> >the current remote participation modalities for ICANN meetings are not> >fit for purpose. Our statement in relation to the development of a> >volunteer travel and expense support policy, in document> >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible at <insert url here> also has the> >elaboration on our views on the subject of remote participation, and> >meetings.> >> >In addition to these points, we wish to emphasise that one of the most> >important elements of participation is ICANN producing documents in> >standardised formats which are accessible, written in plain language,> >with excellent summaries, indices, glossaries, and the like. This is a> >real shortcoming of present document production at ICANN and it is a> >real barrier to participation.> >We also believe that fostering participation actually requires a> >regionally sensitive approach and often regionally differentiated> >materials. In developing countries, radio and audiovisual materials, to> >mention just two formats, are the best way to reach non-traditional> >ICANN stakeholders. It is understood that this kind of outreach would> >not be in the nature of general Internet education but should be related> >to the mission of ICANN and its mandate.> >> >In closing, we thank the board in advance for its consideration of our> >views, and look forward to a response to our concerns and> >recommendations in due course.> >> >> 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> > > > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> ALAC mailing list> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > End of ALAC Digest, Vol 16, Issue 16> ************************************ _________________________________________________________________ Invite your mail contacts to join your friends list with Windows Live Spaces. It's easy! http://spaces.live.com/spacesapi.aspx?wx_action=create&wx_url=/friends.aspx…

2 2

Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week
by JFC Morfin April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Dear Hong, do you remember where frast-track comes from? It was about the ISO 3166 internationalization NWIP, only UK, IE and US supported. Let be reasonable : Vint Cerf is going to Chair the IETF/WG-IDNABIS to make sure they get the best out of IDNA RFC 4690 reviewed partly negatively. The proposition is IETF Last Call in November. This is why: 1) to best help the IETF process every ccTLD Manager and interested party should join the <http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update>http://www.alvestand.no/mailman/listinfo/idna-update mailing list and give their specific requirements and needs for exceptions, in their language of concern. 2) nothing should seriously be expected from IDNA and any further ccNSO testing process before mid-2009, once the real RFCs are produced. They favor but not know for sure yet if they will keep "xn--" domain names. When you consider RFC 5242 recent work by Harald Alvestrand and John Klensin you understand there is still a lot of work to carry in order to stabilize a common understanding of the Multilingual and Semantic Internet requirements. jfc At 06:32 07/04/2008, Hong Xue wrote: >I, personally, am not a fan of any fast-track. I can tell how messy >the fast-track at ccNSO is. However, quite a few raised in many venues >as far as I'm aware of the "unfairness" of letting ccTLDs go first on >IDNs. The term "fast-track" was truthfully used. > >GTLDs might not really need another track but it's got to be really >fast. Given that we cannot even see a reliable timetable of >implementation so far (first June 2008 at IGF 2007 and then October >2008 at ICANN New Delhi), I doubt whether ICANN is running as fast as >it can to meet any deadline. But, of course, after so long time, I >have been long disillusioned. I guess no matter I raise this or that, >I'm only talking to myself. > >Hong > > > > >On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Alan Greenberg ><alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > Depends on how you define "possible". If there was a strong will to do it, > > it would probably be possible. But given that: > > - this was not a GNSO recommendation nor has it been raised in other venues > > that I am aware of; > > - that the current plan/estimate is that we call for proposals by October > > 2008; > > - that staff are no doubt running as fast as they can to meet > that deadline, > > > > I find it hard to imagine that there is any possibility that this could > > happen short of a strong Board directive to make it so. And even > then, it is > > not clear how much faster it will be than the generalized process. > > > > Alan > > > > > > > > At 06/04/2008 09:09 PM, Hong Xue wrote: > > > I'd like to know if a fast-track IDN gTLD implementation could be > > > possible. It could only include a few scripts from the language > > > communities with the most pressing need for IDNs. > > > > > > Hong > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Alan, > > > > > > > > Will you be participating in the GNSO's new gTLD session in LA next > > > > week? > > <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04906.html> > > > > > > > > Do you have the information you need from ALAC, including, I hope, our > > > > strong endorsement of a simple, rapid process to unblock the > addition of > > > > new gTLDs? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > --Wendy > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > 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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Rudi and all, The reason why we shouldn't do as you and Belgium government suggests is that the whole world doesn't live in Belgium, and because such would violate many other countires national laws. -----Original Message----- >From: Rudi Vansnick <rudi.vansnick(a)isoc.be> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 8:52 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >Evan Leibovitch schreef: >> Adam Peake wrote: >> >>> I am quite sure spammers, others trying to con, >>> steal (whatever), abuse WHOIS. But I am equally >>> sure there are many (as many, as few? I am not >>> able to guess) who provide inaccurate (or >>> un-helpful) information for privacy reasons. We >>> are generally advised not to put personal >>> information online. WHOIS is contrary to best >>> practise. >>> >WHOIS information on the registrant should be public in case registrant >is an official organisation, a company, a self-employed or any other >public organisation. In Belgium, you need to publish on any official >document, including your website, your official organisation form, full >address and company registration number. As such, you can always be >identified in an official national database (KBO). Why should we not >apply these rules on registrant information ? > >Rudi Vansnick >ISOC Belgium chair >Board member ISOC-ECC >Board member EURALO >> Well, of course, especially when the "privacy" is desired because you're >> trying to con and steal and WHOIS. >> >> Sorry, but refusing to be identified -- when using a facility primarily >> used to _provide_ identity -- seems absurd. >> >> Registrars can perhaps offer proxy/escrow services, then, as part of >> their arsenal of tools to sell registrants for that kind of thing. You >> can get an unlisted phone number, but you pay for that and the phone >> company still maintains correct records on who owns a certain line. >> >> In other fields of public communications, people who want a buffer >> between themselves and others -- celebrities, victims, whistleblowers -- >> obtain agents to act as that buffer. But they still need to provide >> accurate information to their agent, and the agent is part of a chain of >> responsibility that is not obliged to protect those who use the buffer >> as a means to lie, cheat or misrepresent themselves. >> >> The right to privacy is not an absolute one -- it has numerous limits >> and is often subservient to many other human rights (such as the legal >> right to confront one's accuser). >> >> The right to maintain privacy, while maintaining the freedom to abuse >> the privacy rights of others, is neither best practise nor a suitable >> excuse for maintaining inaccurate information. Many people would >> certainly like to give fake information on their drivers' licenses or >> passports for various privacy-related reasons, and would certainly do so >> if certain laws did not prohibit that form of "privacy". >> >> - 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 >> 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] Grant Funding to Support ALS Activities
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Danny, Evan, and all, Why should ICANN provide any funding for the ALS, and why would any ALS want funding from ICANN unless for the latter, they are unable or incapable to raise their own funding themselves collectively? Seems to me that if any @large structure or organization is to not be captured it must be independant of ICANN as ICANN is a California public service non-profit corporation. This does not mean that ICANN cannot or should not have it's own individual membership, IMO it should. It is to say that unless any user or independant registrant doesn't want to be in a conflict of interest to it's members, it must be outside of ICANN with independant funding. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 5:54 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, "Thompson, Darlene" <DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Grant Funding to Support ALS Activities > >Interesting that the same language appears on the >Euralo and Afralo websites in the "Why become an >At-Large Structure" section. > > >--- Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > >> Thompson, Darlene wrote: >> > Wow! >> > >> > This is sure news to me. >> Me too, especially considering that ALSs must sign >> an agreement which >> states that they cannot be dependent on ICANN for >> any internal funding. >> My understanding of the process is the same as >> Darlene's. >> >> We're having an ... interesting ... enough time >> getting funding for >> activities _within_ ICANN! >> >> - Evan >> >> > > > > 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] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Robert and all, Nicely stated, and I could not agree more! Well done! -----Original Message----- >From: Robert Guerra <lists(a)privaterra.info> >Sent: Apr 7, 2008 10:58 AM >To: ALAC Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >I would agree with our European colleagues, that being that the >default should be consistent with the high level of privacy mandated >at the EU and Canadian level. > >WHOIS information should should not be seen as a data mine, to be >used by spammers, law enforcement and the Intellectual property >constituency. It is a key database, one that should .. that must.. be >adequately protected against abuse . > >regards > >Robert > >On 7-Apr-08, at 12:45 PM, Blogs.pn wrote: > >> I say leave privacy as an option for each individual user and >> enforce the >> accuracy of the information either way. >> >> Chris McElroy >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Derek Smythe" <derek@aa419.> >> To: "Wendy Seltzer" <wendy@s org eltzer.com> >> Cc: <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 6:29 PM >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on >> Two Draft >> Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board >> >> >>> Wendy Seltzer wrote: >>> >>>> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way >>>> to >>>> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy. >>> ... >>> ... >>>> >>>> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very >>>> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort >>>> needs >>>> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of >>>> gTLDs as >>>> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just >>>> asking to >>>> make a big problem worse – and the existing reporting system is >>>> already >>>> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with >>>> respect to WHOIS – fixing this should be a headline compliance >>>> activity >>>> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our >>>> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational >>>> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our >>>> concerns >>>> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous >>>> statements >>>> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid. >>>> >>> Wendy >>> >>> I respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in >>> enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective . >>> >>> I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is >>> submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused >>> to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by >>> design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory >>> dated 3 >>> April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm , >>> which is sadly hardly ever enforced. >>> >>> I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are >>> being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent domain's existence >>> endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy protection we >>> find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS privacy is a >>> very sharp two sided sword. >>> >>> As an example of why we need whois details currently: Right now a big >>> corporate is giving away free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a >>> disproportionate large number of registrants from small towns across >>> America shown in domains spoofing banks, government agencies and >>> other >>> businesses. We contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn >>> had >>> no knowledge of these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents >>> etc. We have contacted the big corporate and registrar in an attempt >>> to address this issue. The domains are "disabled" in the corporate's >>> system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly visible in >>> WHOIS >>> without the victims' permission. Without verifiable whois this >>> problem >>> would have been denied (as was originally attempted) and the problem >>> invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking far in >>> excess >>> of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip of the >>> iceberg ... >>> >>> To really represent end users, current issues and procedures should >>> be >>> fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised and we would all >>> be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact that much more >>> money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being >>> visible. >>> >>> Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the >>> price >>> of partially disarming those currently doing what they do to make the >>> Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to, >>> though they would have the same problem. >>> >>> Personally I have numerous domains with whois protection, but my >>> whois >>> details are 100% correct for those domains and I am using an >>> available >>> acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them. >>> These mechanisms are available to other users as well, if privacy >>> is a >>> concern to them - with the exception of the initially much abused .us >>> TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us domain. We do have >>> choices. >>> >>> In a nutshell, there is also a reason why whois is sometimes not >>> accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility illegal activities. >>> How do you protect against that? >>> >>> To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each action. >>> Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would wish. >>> Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> >>> Derek Smythe >>> http://www.aa419.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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > 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] GNSO new gTLD session next week
by Alan Greenberg April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Depends on how you define "possible". If there was a strong will to do it, it would probably be possible. But given that: - this was not a GNSO recommendation nor has it been raised in other venues that I am aware of; - that the current plan/estimate is that we call for proposals by October 2008; - that staff are no doubt running as fast as they can to meet that deadline, I find it hard to imagine that there is any possibility that this could happen short of a strong Board directive to make it so. And even then, it is not clear how much faster it will be than the generalized process. Alan At 06/04/2008 09:09 PM, Hong Xue wrote: >I'd like to know if a fast-track IDN gTLD implementation could be >possible. It could only include a few scripts from the language >communities with the most pressing need for IDNs. > >Hong > > > > >On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 12:22 AM, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> wrote: > > Hi Alan, > > > > Will you be participating in the GNSO's new gTLD session in LA next > > week? <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04906.html> > > > > Do you have the information you need from ALAC, including, I hope, our > > strong endorsement of a simple, rapid process to unblock the addition of > > new gTLDs? > > > > Thanks, > > --Wendy > > > > -- > > 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 > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

John and all, John, you may very well be right, but do you have any hard evidance that clearly substanciates your claim? My guess is you don't. Other reasons for inaccurate Whois data are also evident, such as failing to update registration data for example, for whatever reason. Wendy's point is still well taken. However the better solution is to adjust what information is displayable in a Whois querry other than by LEA, whom should have full Whois data access. Casual Whois lookups from non LEA's should not have access to ALL whois data or data that is personally identifyable, such as a persons home address or phone number. To not protect personal indetifyable information [ known as PII in legal parlences ] is to expose that registrant to stalking, which has already occured, harrassment, fraud scams of various sorts, ID Theft, and other forms of illegal activities as well as ucerping that registrants civil rights in many countries, and a violation of international law. For instance we have already seen recently how access by an FBI agent, whom was a fraud themselves, to PII lead to several illegal immigration activities as well as ID theft. So the price for open access to Whois data that is personally identifyable information, as you seem to proport John, is far to high and for to risky to far too many, way to easily. -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 7:02 PM >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >Speaking for CAUCE, we agree with all of Wendy's comments ... > >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy. > > ... except this one. > >The vast majority of bogus WHOIS info is clearly not there for reasons of >personal privacy, but rather to hide the identities of perpetrators of >phishing, spam, and other kinds of fraud. > >R's, >John 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 new gTLD session next week
by Wendy Seltzer April 7, 2008

April 7, 2008

Hi Alan, Will you be participating in the GNSO's new gTLD session in LA next week? <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04906.html> Do you have the information you need from ALAC, including, I hope, our strong endorsement of a simple, rapid process to unblock the addition of new gTLDs? Thanks, --Wendy -- 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/

6 6

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

Wendy and all, Frankly I couldn't agree more with your comments and your tone as well, Wendy. Well done! The ALAC seems more interested in curring favor for financial support from ICANN, than it does being interested in the input from users, IMO thus far... Hopefully that will change. But it will only change when censorship is eliminated and no longer allowed, when openness and transparency aren't just words but are demonstrated and fully recognized. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 1:52 PM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > >At-Large Staff wrote: >> Dear Community members: >> >> [ENGLISH TEXT] >> >> We have been asked to notify you that two draft statements to the ICANN >> Board from the At-Large Advisory Committee are now open for comments from >> all members of the At-Large community. Comments will be accepted until 16th >> April 2008, at 1200 UTC, after which time comments will be reviewed by the >> ALAC Finance and Budget committee before transmitting the final text to the >> Board of Directors as an Advisory Committee statement. >> >> Draft Statement to the ICANN Board on the Budget and Operational Plan >> Framework for 2008/2009: >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?al_alac_bud_sc_0308_1_2 > >The statement, appended below, is completely anodyne. My comments: > >Drop the "compliments" bs. >Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to >preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy. >Drop the crap about increased working capacity on ALAC - there's no >evidence the community is working any better, when these statements come >out with little evidence of community input. > >How about focusing on some things important to end-users? >* Getting new gTLDs introduced already to foster market competition; >* reforming an intellectual-property-centric UDRP; >* introducing DNSSEC so users can verify the accuracy of domain lookup; >* protection of Internet users and registrants against abuse of data >they send through DNS lookups or registration inquiries. >for just a few. > >--- > >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/1/2 > >STATUS OF THIS DOCUMENT: Draft >COMMITTE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TEXT: ALAC Finance and Budget Subommittee >DOCUMENT BEGAN COMMUNITY REVIEW ON: 6th April 2008 >COMMUNITY REVIEW CONCLUDES ON: 16th April 2008 > >NEXT STEP AFTER COMMUNITY REVIEW: Committee responsible reviews >comments, produces final draft which is transmitted to the Board of >Directors of ICANN > >Community members are invited to use the 'Comment' button to provide >their views on the text here until 16th April 2008 at 1200 UTC. >At-Large Advisory Committee Statement to the ICANN Board on the Draft >Operating Plan for FY 2008/2009 > >We present our compliments to the Board of Directors of ICANN and >welcome the opportunity to make our comments on the Draft Operating Plan >and Budget Framework for FY 2008/2009. > >Firstly, please note our endorsement of the change to the budgeting and >operational planning process introduced this year. It seems to us that >the combination of the consultation on these obviously closely-related >issues is eminently sensible. We also welcome the longer public >consultation timelines that this allows. > >As this is the first stage of this process, these comments are >introductory. We provide this document so that these preliminary >reactions and comments may be taken into account as the Staff prepare >the Budget and Operating Plan for its first iteration consultation. > >Our comments, therefore, are primarily related to the various >“Activities/Outcomes by Initiative”. We do not propose to comment on >each of these, but on those most important to the At-Large Community. > >IDN Activities > >This is a very important area of work for At-Large – and also for all of >ICANN. The extra funding and greatly increased ICANN activity in this >area is therefore welcomed. We would like to emphasise the element of >communications related to IDNs. > >Fundamental choices that will affect the many communities that do not >rely upon the Latin character set will be made in the next few years. >For that reason, we believe ICANN, in partnership with other >stakeholders of course, needs to make a substantial, sustained, greatly >increased effort to communicate with these communities –to ensure that >the message about the forthcoming choices to be made related to IDNs >reaches a far larger pool of potential contributors to the process than >is currently aware and participating. This should not simply take the >form of translated press releases but really a well-thought-out media >campaign which ‘reaches out’ to the public. We know that efforts to do >this work exist – we wish to emphasise that this is extremely important. >We note that we have asked the At-Large staff to propose funding in the >forthcoming FY to revise and expand the available materials related to >outreach to the individual Internet user community and this is just one >aspect that such an effort must address. > >Compliance Activities > >We note the increase in staffing and staff work related to compliance. >We are pleased to see that the budget framework proposes further >considerable investment in this area. However we wish to note what we >see as two crucial missing major activities in this area related to >compliance: > > * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very >inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs >to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as >is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to >make a big problem worse – and the existing reporting system is already >not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with >respect to WHOIS – fixing this should be a headline compliance activity >in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our >comments here to compliance activities related to the operational >planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns >related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements >on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid. > > * Complaints Processing. We note that there is now some information >on how registrants can complain on the ICANN website, which is a welcome >improvement. We also note that there is a provision as a headline >activity in the Operational Plan Framework to “Implement Complaints >Process System to address complaints and forward them to correct parties >as approved”. This is a start but is not nearly enough – such a system >needs to also verify whether or not the forwarded complaints were >addressed, and provide options so that the complainant can easily report >whether or not they are satisfied with the result. The underlying >philosophy should be that, as the contractor, ICANN should ensure that >the contractees are living up to their side of the ‘deal’ and completely >offloading complaints to the contractee – or anyone else – is in our >opinion not satisfactory. > >Global Outreach > >This is a particularly important area to us. The various communities in >ICANN are not representative of the worldwide Internet-using community. >Whilst we appreciate the initial provision of a substantial increase in >funds allocated to Global Outreach – we will look forward to seeing more >detail about precisely what this consists of when the draft budget is >posted. However, we note that on page 23 of the Draft Framework, under >Global Outreach, there is a major area of work listed as ‘Implement >business engagement outreach’. If this is intended to be outreach only >to business communities, this is, in our opinion, clearly far too narrow >– outreach efforts and recruitment efforts must be be even-handed, >global – and to all communities and potential participant communities, >not just ‘business’. We draw the attention of the board to the many >comments about the importance of dramatically increasing the outreach >and recruitment of ALL stakeholders that was a common theme of the >respondents to the JPA review recently; From this we propose that there >is broad support for greatly increased work by ICANN in these respects. > >We welcome the continued support for participation by our community from >ICANN. Without it the Internet end-user’s voice will simply not be >adequately represented. Facilitation of community participation (and >specifically that of volunteers) in ICANN is an extremely important >issue and one important aspect of this is covered in greater depth in >our statement to you in relation to the development of a volunteer >travel and expense support policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 >which is accessible at <insert url here>. > >Policy Development Support > >We welcome the major theme associated with this area of work on page 25, >that ICANN will “provide additional secretariat support to SOs, >constituencies and ACs to make volunteer efforts more effective.” We are >direct beneficiaries of this, with the addition of two members of staff >on the At-Large team. It should be noted that the recent filling of >these long-open positions is already beginning to increase our capacity >for working with greater efficiency (particularly in the RALO’s), and we >hope that the support our community receives of this kind will become >generally available across the constituencies and communities and look >forward to seeing the detailed plans for how the objective listed in >this area is to be achieved. > >Registrant Protections > >We welcome the increased activity in this area – however, the board >needs to be aware that from our perspecitve, the RAA review process >appears to have ceased operation. We hear anecdotally that there is >current work in this area inside ICANN, but it is not visible to us (or >anyone else from what we can tell). This is a very important area of >work for ICANN and to our community. It should not suffer, for example, >due to work on new gTLDs taking priority –the priority must be given to >the protection of existing registrants and only then worrying about >adding many more through new gTLDs. We believe there should be >meaningful deadlines set for the concluding of work on the RAA – in a >completely open and transparent manner. > >Transcription and Translation > >Our community has been calling for ICANN to become a truly multilingual >organisation for years now. We appreciate and appplaud the increased >budget commitment, draft translation framework, and other moves in this >direction but we wish to remind you that ICANN has a very, very long way >to go to reach the mission that the translation programme proposes. >In our opinion, this area of work is of absolutely central importance to >the organisation’s credibility, as we do not believe that any >consultation or policy development process conducted entirely in English >is globally legitimate. This is especially true with subjects like IDNs >that – incredibly –continue to be largely English-only, with >multilingual documents provided only in some cases, often far later than >the original English versions, and only as an afterthought. > >Ensuring that the work of ICANN becomes truly multilingual is a core, >critical objective. It must not be sidelined, or de-emphasised by other >objectives like new gTLDs. > >Broaden Participation > >This area is of great importance – not just to our community but to all >communities. In particular, whilst the provisions for teleconferences >for our community have improved by changing vendors, we do not believe >that it makes sense to continue to outsource this core communications >function and so we welcome the news that ICANN proposes to purchase a >truly fit-for-purpose system to facilitate telephonic interactions. We >hope that in doing so choices will be made which truly facilitate equal >access and quality for all participants, regardless of where they might be. >In particular, the new system must provide for the technical operation >of simultaneous interpretation on teleconferences. This is an absolutely >essential function, not something that is “nice to have”. Our experience >with this has clearly shown that the ability to work, interact and >correspond (both face to face and remotely) in the language that is most >comfortable and easy to work with greatly increases and enhances >effective participation. > >We would also like to emphasise how important it is to broadening >participation of effective remote participation in meetings, of which >telephonic two-way participation is only one element. We believe that >the current remote participation modalities for ICANN meetings are not >fit for purpose. Our statement in relation to the development of a >volunteer travel and expense support policy, in document >AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible at <insert url here> also has the >elaboration on our views on the subject of remote participation, and >meetings. > >In addition to these points, we wish to emphasise that one of the most >important elements of participation is ICANN producing documents in >standardised formats which are accessible, written in plain language, >with excellent summaries, indices, glossaries, and the like. This is a >real shortcoming of present document production at ICANN and it is a >real barrier to participation. >We also believe that fostering participation actually requires a >regionally sensitive approach and often regionally differentiated >materials. In developing countries, radio and audiovisual materials, to >mention just two formats, are the best way to reach non-traditional >ICANN stakeholders. It is understood that this kind of outreach would >not be in the nature of general Internet education but should be related >to the mission of ICANN and its mandate. > >In closing, we thank the board in advance for its consideration of our >views, and look forward to a response to our concerns and >recommendations in due course. > > 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] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

Derek, Wendy and all, No offense to you Derek, but I believe you and Wendy are essentially saying the same thing in different ways. As one that has lead the charge regarding Whois privacy AND Accuracy sense 2002, I can attest personally and professionally to both your and Wendy's contentions. What astonishes me is that the ICANN staff and Bod cannot seem to come to terms with the reality of the mess that they originally created, when at one time there was ONE Whois [ centralized model ]. Now there are many and none are accurate/up to date. such is not excusable nor in any way acceptable to have gone on for so long now... From where I sit anyway this clearly points to a lack of competent leadership on the part of ICANN. Your issue with Whois seems to focus on security related aspects as they relate to accuracy. And I agree, those elements are interwoven. So is however privacy. Without registrants Whois and registration data being private to a degree and that degree limits only LEA's having unrestricted access to the full Whois record of any registration, than the security of the registrant is in jeopardy as may be the security of any of that registrants business customers including governments or other government agencies. therefore I don't believe we want to take that much of a risk with a completely open Whois structure or access. Nor do I believe that LEA's or governments and/or government agencies desire such a potential security risk either. -----Original Message----- >From: Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org> >Sent: Apr 6, 2008 3:29 PM >To: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Community Input Requested on Two Draft Statements from ALAC to the ICANN Board > > Wendy Seltzer wrote: > >> Trade WHOIS accuracy for WHOIS privacy. When inaccuracy is the way to >> preserve privacy, it's better than forced accuracy. >... >... >> >> * WHOIS Accuracy and Reporting. We all know that WHOIS is very >> inaccurate. This is a very serious problem and considerable effort needs >> to be made to improve this situation. Multiplying the number of gTLDs as >> is proposed when the existing database is inaccurate is just asking to >> make a big problem worse – and the existing reporting system is already >> not fit for purpose. ICANN is not living up to its obligations with >> respect to WHOIS – fixing this should be a headline compliance activity >> in the Operational Plan for 2008/2009. Whilst we are limiting our >> comments here to compliance activities related to the operational >> planning cycle, this should not be understood to mean that our concerns >> related to WHOIS are limited to data accuracy. Our previous statements >> on the policy aspects of WHOIS remain valid. >> >Wendy > >I respectfully disagree. Whois accuracy severely impacts end users in >enforcing their legal rights and hampers effective . > >I am also sticking my neck out here, but not all inaccurate whois is >submitted in an attempt at pure privacy. Many domains that are abused >to spam, scam and phish etc end users, have fake whois. This is by >design. This issue is also briefly mentioned in ICANN advisory dated 3 >April 2003, http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr03.htm , >which is sadly hardly ever enforced. > >I have a lot of evidence of how existing WHOIS privacy mechanisms are >being abused to simply prolong a fraudulent domain's existence >endangering more clueless end users. Under the privacy protection we >find more fake whois details fort many domains. WHOIS privacy is a >very sharp two sided sword. > >As an example of why we need whois details currently: Right now a big >corporate is giving away free domains. At AA419.org we noticed a >disproportionate large number of registrants from small towns across >America shown in domains spoofing banks, government agencies and other >businesses. We contacted numerous of these registrants who in turn had >no knowledge of these domains; 4X year old teachers, estate agents >etc. We have contacted the big corporate and registrar in an attempt >to address this issue. The domains are "disabled" in the corporate's >system. However the result of the ID theft is clearly visible in WHOIS >without the victims' permission. Without verifiable whois this problem >would have been denied (as was originally attempted) and the problem >invisible. This situation is still ongoing. I am talking far in excess >of a thousand domains in a year! Yet this is just the tip of the >iceberg ... > >To really represent end users, current issues and procedures should be >fixed first. If not, the problem is merely disguised and we would all >be worse off at the end of the day. It is a sad fact that much more >money is lost due to internet fraud and abuse than merely WHOIS being >visible. > >Long term I would love general WHOIS privacy, however not at the price >of partially disarming those currently doing what they do to make the >Internet a safer place - it is not only LEA's I am referring to, >though they would have the same problem. > >Personally I have numerous domains with whois protection, but my whois >details are 100% correct for those domains and I am using an available >acknowledged privacy mechanism. I accept responsibility for them. >These mechanisms are available to other users as well, if privacy is a >concern to them - with the exception of the initially much abused .us >TLD. However nobody is forced to use a .us domain. We do have choices. > >In a nutshell, there is also a reason why whois is sometimes not >accurate on many domains: To evade responsibility illegal activities. >How do you protect against that? > >To fix, we have to fully understand the implications of each action. >Sadly not all internet registrants are as honorable as we would wish. >Whatever WHOIS system emerges has to acknowledge this fact. > >Best regards, > >Derek Smythe >http://www.aa419.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

Draft Statements on Travel Support, Operational Plan leave committee and are available for comment
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

Dear All: As you may recall, the Finance and Budget Subcommittee had decided that its review of the following documents would conclude on 6th April, so that they could be posted for comment by the community until 16th April. You will now find that these drafts are available from the ALAC 8 April agenda at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?8_april_2008. The RALOs will be sent details of these two documents with a request that they provide their comments shortly. ALAC members will also note that there is an additional item on the agenda - a resolution to finish work on a statement on new GTLDs in good time to allow it to be sent to the board by the Paris ICANN meeting. -- 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

Election for a Vice-Chair - Nominations Periods ends 2 April
by At-Large Staff April 6, 2008

April 6, 2008

Dear Community: This email is to remind you of the formal Election Call¹ issued by the Chair of the ALAC on 19th March, as required by Rule 10.12 of the Rules of Procedure of the ALAC due to a vacancy amongst the Officers of the ALAC. The 14-day nomination period, as provided by Rule 9.2, will end on 2nd April. All nominations must, per that Rule, be received on the ALAC public list at alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org not later than 14 days. I can confirm that to date, no nomincations have been made. Nominations may be made as provided in Rule 9. The Criteria for Officers of the ALAC may be found in Rule 3. Election of Officers is covered by Rules 2, 9, and 10 NOTE: The Election Procedures make clear reference to it being necessary for part of the process to be conducted at an ICANN International Meeting. These provisions are designed to fill regular appointments, and not interim appointments. The Chair intends to present relevant amendments to the Rules of Procedure at the next ALAC Telephonic meeting in April to allow for interim elections to be conducted without the necessity of waiting for the next ICANN International Meeting. The full Rules of Procedure may be found at: https://st.icann.org/data/workspaces/alac/attachments/rules_of_procedure:200 71023183147-0-6223/files/ALAC%20ROP's%20Adopted%20October%202007.doc The Rules above referenced are reproduced below. Rule 2 - Election of Officers 2.1 The ALAC shall elect a Chair, at least two (2) Vice-Chairs and a Rapporteur by the mechanism outlined in Rule 10. 2.2 All officers are normally elected at an Annual General Meeting of ICANN . 2.3 The election can take place by electronic mail, online balloting, written balloting, or any other means deemed convenient and accurate 2.4 All officers serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an AGM and ending at the closure of the following AGM. 2.5 Officers shall be freely chosen by the ALAC, according to the following criteria: 2.6 They shall accept to serve on behalf of the AT LARGE COMMUNITY by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; 2.7 They shall accept, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, to put the collective views of the Committee always in front of their own. Rule 3 - Qualification Criteria for Officers 3.1 All officers must be members of the ALAC. 3.2 A conflict of interest statement must be filed; 3.3 A person shall not serve, at the same time, in two different officer positions; 3.4 The Chair shall be ineligible to serve on ICANN's Nominating Committee in any year in which they serve on the ALAC; 3.5 All officers can be removed before the end of their term by a vote of recall according to rule 11. 3.6 All officers have a duty of performing their roles with diligence and loyalty to the Committee, and are bound to meet the minimum participation requirements set forth in rule 21. In case of failure to do so, the Chair shall call a vote of recall. 3.7 Only standing members of the At-Large Advisory Committee are eligible to serve as Chair. If at any point in time the Chair leaves the membership of the ALAC for any reason, he / she shall immediately cease the function of Chair as well. Rule -9 Procedures for the Presentation of Candidatures 9.1 No earlier than one calendar month and no later than three weeks before the beginning of an ICANN Meeting where an ALAC officer has to be elected, the current Chair of the ALAC will send to the public ALAC list an ³election call² message, listing the officers that are to be elected at that ICANN Meeting, asking for nominations, and stating the deadline according to the following paragraph 9.2. 9.2 The deadline for nominations for all open officer positions shall be 14 (fourteen) days after the date of the ³election call². Only delegates can nominate or self-nominate, by posting a message to the public ALAC list. Anyone who will or has a chance to meet eligibility requirements after the next ICANN Annual General Meeting can be nominated; it is not necessary for nominees to meet eligibility requirements at the moment of the nomination, but, if elected, they will have to meet them before taking their position. Nominations of individuals who certainly will not be able to meet the eligibility requirements after the closure of the next Annual General Meeting are invalid. 9.3 Nominations must be accepted by the nominee by sending a message of acceptance to the public ALAC list (or to the person who nominated them, who will then forward it to the public ALAC list, if they do not have posting privileges to the public ALAC list at the time) by the deadline of 7 (seven) days after the deadline for nominations. Nominations that are not accepted are invalid. 9.4 After the deadline for nomination acceptance and before the beginning of the ICANN Meeting, the Chair will post to the public ALAC list an ³election summary² message. This message will contain a summary of all valid nominations for any open position. In such message, the Chair will also notify the day and time in which the actual vote will happen; such day and time must be comprised between the beginning and the closure of the ICANN Meeting, except when the Meeting is also the Annual General Meeting. In this latter case, the day and time of the vote must be comprised in the first 48 (forty-eight) hours after the closure of the Annual General Meeting; thus, the electorate will include the delegates whose term starts at the closure of that Annual General Meeting, and will not include the former ALAC members whose term ends at the closure of that Annual General Meeting. 9.5 Nominations shall then be discussed on the public ALAC list and at the physical ALAC meetings during the ICANN Meeting. 9.6 At the day and time of the vote, delegates will be provided (by staff or delegated disinterested third party) with a mechanism for voting that meets the following requirements: o It allows for each delegate to cast their vote in a confidential manner, so that no other delegate or officer shall know it; o It allows for delegates who are not physically present to cast their vote remotely (also in advance of the day and time of the vote, if they are unavailable at that moment o Each delegate can cast up to one preference for each open position, picking among the list of validly nominated individuals published at rule 9.4. Votes for other individuals are considered equivalent to abstention. Rule 10. Procedures for the Candidate Elections 10.1 A quorum must exist for the election to be valid. 10.2 All Voting in Elections will be CONFIDENTIAL 10.3 The ALAC can designate an independent third party to conduct the mechanics of an electoral vote. 10.4 Instant-runoff voting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting> (IRV) will be used as the voting system to determine the winner. (ref - Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting> ) 10.5 Voters rank candidates in order of preference. 10.6 If no candidate receives an overall majority of first preferences the candidates with fewest votes are eliminated one by one, and their votes transferred according to their second and third preferences (and so on), until one candidate achieves a majority. 10.7 After votes have been collected, a disinterested person¹ will examine them and call the result. 10.8 The newly elected officers assume their position at the closure of the Annual General Meeting. 10.9 In case two or more candidates receive the same, highest number of preferences, a tiebreak vote is to be conducted. 10.9.1 The Chair will select a new date and time for a new vote on that position, at least 7 (seven) days later than the current vote; in such vote, only the candidates that received the same, highest number of preferences will be eligible to receive preferences. The Chair will then immediately send a new ³election summary² message according to rule 9.4, and the procedure will then restart from rule 9.5 10.10 In case no candidate could be elected for any other reason (lack of valid nominations, lack of five valid preferences...), the Chair will immediately post a new ³election call², thus reopening nominations. The procedure will then restart from rule 9.6 10.11 Incumbent officers shall continue to serve in their position in full standing until a valid result is obtained for the election and a new officer is elected. 10.12 If for any reason whatsoever (including lack of quorum, lack or loss of eligibility requirements, resignation, or recall) an officer position becomes vacant before the end of the term, the Chair will promptly start an election to fill it, by sending an ³election call² message and starting the procedure from rule 9.1 -- 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

5 4

Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 5, 2008

April 5, 2008

Cheryl and all, Sorry to read/hear that Alan nor Beau will be attending. Two or our INEGroup members will be attending. They will be there mostly to listen and report back to our members so that we may gather whatever information from that session and issue a possition statemen and/or directive accordingly. Of course, I shall share that possition statemen and/or directive with all ALAC members accordingly as well. We prefer that all of our positions are in written format for documentation purposes and historical record. -----Original Message----- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au> >Sent: Apr 5, 2008 6:23 AM >To: 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: 'At-Large writ small' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week > >Just to let you know Wendy, as we knew Alan would be unable to make this >meeting, I did ask if either Brett of Beau could physically attend on our >behalf, but unfortunately both are otherwise committed... > >I will note however that observers are able to attend and that includes I >assume by phone as well... I will be doing that, (so that we can keep up to >date on these activities) even though we cannot have either our liaison or >another person physically present on the ALAC's behalf... That said if >anyone on this list is planning to attend this meeting as an observer (or >on any other capacity) perhaps they would care to prepare a briefing report >for all our benefit. > > >CLO >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg >Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2008 4:13 AM >To: Wendy Seltzer >Cc: At-Large writ small >Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO new gTLD session next week > >I am leaving for Central Africa on Friday, and so will not be >attending. There are discussions about sending an alternative rep, >but I have not yet heard the outcome. > >Based on the last missives I have seen, it will primarily be an >update on implementation progress, with some request for feedback >where alternative options seem available (all meeting the >recommendations) and some requests for additional rationale for >specific recommendations. There does will not (as far as I can >understand) be an opportunity to revisit the actual recommendations >in the gTLD report. > >To date, I have received no instructions from ALAC regarding >positions to take on gTLD issues. I am of course aware of work done >on IDN issues with regard to gTLDs. > >Alan > >At 04/04/2008 12:22 PM, Wendy Seltzer wrote: >>Hi Alan, >> >>Will you be participating in the GNSO's new gTLD session in LA next >>week? <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04906.html> >> >>Do you have the information you need from ALAC, including, I hope, our >>strong endorsement of a simple, rapid process to unblock the addition of >>new gTLDs? >> >>Thanks, >>--Wendy >> >>-- >>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/ > 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 Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by Danny Younger April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Here's a registrar response to the Advisory clarification: "I do not think that this clarification leads to anything. If you want to charge for transfers during the Auto-renew Grace Period, you simply change the owner on expiration day and charge whatever you think the customer is able to pay." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05748.html These rogues definately need to be reigned in. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

2 1

Fwd: [council] ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter
by Alan Greenberg April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

>Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2008 10:12:54 +0200 >From: "GNSO.SECRETARIAT(a)GNSO.ICANN.ORG" <gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >Subject: [council] ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter >To: 'Council GNSO' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > >[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] >[To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] > >Please note ICANN's the home page >http://www.icann.org/ > >ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-03apr08.htm > >3 April 2008 > >MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation >for Assigned Names and Numbers today launched >the Contractual Compliance Newsletter, a >newsletter that offers a snapshot of the wide >range of compliance work being done by ICANN. > >Each issue of the newsletter will cover >enforcement statistics, an in-depth look at part >of the compliance process, information about >audits and studies, and upcoming events. The >Newsletter will also include new advisories for >registries and registrars to help them >understand and continue to improve their compliance with ICANN contracts. > >In recent feedback on ICANNs performance under >the Joint Project Agreement with the US National >Telecommunications Infrastructure >Administration, there was input about ICANN's >work on Whois accuracy, and that compliance >needed to be better understood. ICANN's goal is >that this newsletter will be an important way to >address these concerns and continue community >dialogue about how to improve contractual compliance. > >The first issue of the Newsletter explains why >and how ICANN does contract compliance with our >contracted parties; gTLD registries and >registrars. It also includes statistics on the >consumer complaints ICANN receives and on >enforcement notices we send out. This issues >section on studies and audits includes an update >on the Whois Data Accuracy Study, the Registrar >Whois Data Inaccuracy Audit and the Performance >Specifications Audit of Registries. > >Please send your comments about the newsletter >and any topics you would like to see covered in it to compliance(a)icann.org. > >To subscribe to this Digest, simply click on the >link below and provide the requested information: >http://www.icann.org/newsletter/ > >For more information about ICANN's Contractual >Compliance Program, please visit http://www.icann.org/compliance. > >For more information about ICANN's Joint Project >Agreement (JPA) with the US National >Telecommunications Infrastructure >Administration, please visit http://www.icann.org/jpa/ . >________________________________ >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat - ICANN >gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Total of 59 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Apr 4 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 8.47% | 5 | 23.88% | 162274 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 13.56% | 8 | 13.45% | 91414 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 11.86% | 7 | 14.07% | 95570 | wendy at seltzer.com 11.86% | 7 | 8.21% | 55815 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 8.47% | 5 | 6.13% | 41637 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 6.78% | 4 | 5.22% | 35479 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 5.08% | 3 | 4.70% | 31906 | franck.martin at gmail.com 5.08% | 3 | 3.76% | 25516 | brenbe at consumer.org 3.39% | 2 | 2.71% | 18422 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 3.39% | 2 | 2.48% | 16877 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 3.39% | 2 | 2.10% | 14240 | jefsey at jefsey.com 3.39% | 2 | 1.82% | 12352 | roessler at does-not-exist.org 1.69% | 1 | 2.31% | 15673 | hawadiakite at gmail.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.69% | 11455 | vanda at uol.com.br 1.69% | 1 | 1.20% | 8122 | dmiloshevic at afilias.info 1.69% | 1 | 1.19% | 8104 | namecritic at blogs.pn 1.69% | 1 | 1.12% | 7615 | iza at anr.org 1.69% | 1 | 1.09% | 7434 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.69% | 1 | 1.00% | 6802 | evan at telly.org 1.69% | 1 | 0.97% | 6571 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 1.69% | 1 | 0.91% | 6177 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 59 |100.00% | 679455 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Nick and all, Problem with this "Advisory" is that it is just that, and "Advisory" not a mandate. Ergo it has no teeth as it should have been a directive with consequences if the terms are violated. Milk toast, IMO. If this is any example of oversite by ICANN/GNSO staff, it is hardly effective oversite. Seems to me these "Advisories" have little use other the an attempt to give a "Warm and fuzzy" to registrants. So what these "Advisories" are, are an example of the emperor has no clothes... In more common parlance, lip service! -----Original Message----- >From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 9:15 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy > >ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy > >Advisory available at >http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm > >Due to perceived confusion within the registrar community concerning the >circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests >pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, on 19 September 2007, >ICANN issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the >Inter-Registrar Transfer >(Notice) http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm. > >As part of this Notice, ICANN published a Proposed Advisory Regarding >the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Proposed Advisory). The purpose of >the Proposed Advisory was to solicit comments regarding whether it was >necessary to publish an advisory to assist ICANN-accredited registrars >in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer >Policy. > >The community was informed that comments would be accepted for 30 days >regarding the Proposed Advisory. ICANN received 16 comments, of which 14 >were supportive of ICANN issuing the Proposed Advisory, one comment >opposed the issuance of the Proposed Advisory and one comment was deemed >neutral as it did not indicate support or opposition. After considering >the comments received and other information provided by registrars >regarding the Proposed Advisory, ICANN determined that sufficient >confusion exists to warrant the issuance of an advisory to assist >registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: > >1. Registrars are prohibited from denying >a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending >or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and > >2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for >denying a transfer request. > >The Advisory is identical to the Proposed Advisory issued on 19 >September 2007, except the term "registration period after expiration" >was replaced with "Auto-Renew Grace Period" wherever it appeared in the >Proposed Advisory. > >Developed through ICANN?s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy >was approved unanimously by ICANN?s Generic Names Supporting >Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with >several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The >Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process >for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar >to another upon request. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored >gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy >pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. The purpose of the Advisory is >to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. > > >-- Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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 Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by At-Large Staff April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Advisory available at http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm Due to perceived confusion within the registrar community concerning the circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, on 19 September 2007, ICANN issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer (Notice) http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm. As part of this Notice, ICANN published a Proposed Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Proposed Advisory). The purpose of the Proposed Advisory was to solicit comments regarding whether it was necessary to publish an advisory to assist ICANN-accredited registrars in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The community was informed that comments would be accepted for 30 days regarding the Proposed Advisory. ICANN received 16 comments, of which 14 were supportive of ICANN issuing the Proposed Advisory, one comment opposed the issuance of the Proposed Advisory and one comment was deemed neutral as it did not indicate support or opposition. After considering the comments received and other information provided by registrars regarding the Proposed Advisory, ICANN determined that sufficient confusion exists to warrant the issuance of an advisory to assist registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: 1. Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and 2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request. The Advisory is identical to the Proposed Advisory issued on 19 September 2007, except the term "registration period after expiration" was replaced with "Auto-Renew Grace Period" wherever it appeared in the Proposed Advisory. Developed through ICANN?s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy was approved unanimously by ICANN?s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another upon request. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. The purpose of the Advisory is to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Board liaison report. March meeting, April retreat
by Wendy Seltzer April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

The minutes from last week's Board meeting have now been posted: <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm> In addition to the domain reservation issue, raised at ALAC's request and which the Board passed on to the GNSO Council (see my previous message), the Board discussed the mid-term review of the JPA, GNSO Improvements, new gTLDs, and other reviews. As requested, I asked that the at-large public get input into a more transparent process in the President's Strategy Committee considering ICANN reforms in conjunction with JPA reform or transition. I also raised the importance of giving the ALAC review enough time to conduct a useful and productive inquiry -- I encourage all interested parties to contact the ALAC review team at <alacreview(a)westlakenz.com> to have your experience considered. The Board will be meeting for a retreat later this month, and is being encouraged to consider big strategic issues as well as specific policy matters such as new TLDs. I have asked that registrant and end-user issues, including contracts, compliance, and the possible sunsetting of expired consensus policies, be considered in these discussions. If you would like me to put other items on the Board's agenda, please let me know. After the retreat (which is not a formal meeting), the next formal meeting of the Board is 29 April 2008 (agenda items by 19 April). Thanks, --Wendy -- 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/

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Board Meeting Minutes
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Wendy and all, The "Domain name reservation" issues has been around for at least 3 years now, and was originally brought up as an issue under the old DNSO. Personally I believe the more important issue that is related is the "Domain name warehousing" issue, especially in the cases of registries and registrars using "Domain name reservation" as a means by which the can have an unfair advantage over any registrant or any prospective future registrant in registering those Domain Names. I however can understand on several levels why the ICANN Board wants input from the GNSO council before rendering any decision in regards to the DNS, although there should be a mechnisim by which emergancy decisions need to be made from time to time. Seems to me, and our members that sense so many issues have been unaddressed for so long as Danny and many others have recognized and elaborated upon on multipul occasions over the past 5+ years, are now needing emergancy action. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 5:59 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Board Meeting Minutes > >As these minutes indicate, the Board determined to send the "domain >reservation" issue to the GNSO Council for Council response. While >several on the Board would have favored Board action, others felt it was >more appropriate to get GNSO consensus before taking action. > >ALAC should now share its concerns with the GNSO Council, as input to >their consideration. We can also make further requests to the Board, if >we feel that stalemate within the GNSO is delaying what we still >consider to require emergency action. > >Despite the lack of immediate Board action, I think it was useful for >ALAC to send this request, as it put the issue on the Board's agenda and >will no doubt lead to further discussion. Thanks, Danny, for initiating >it. I'd recommend this approach for other items of registry or registrar >activity that affect the at-large public. > >--Wendy > >Danny Younger wrote: >> Board Meeting Minutes have been posted: >> http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-27mar08.htm >> >> The section regarding the ALAC Letter to the Board is >> reproduced below: > >... >> The Chair determined that emergency action is not >> required today but the matter will be referred to the >> GNSO for additional information or policy development >> if necessary, but not an emergency action. >> > >-- >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/ Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Danny and all, I guess cross posting to seperate list is now exceptable. So as such, I am relpying-all accordingly. I agree with all the points Danny has made here. Or were these originally from Chris? In either case, I fully agree. Many if not the vast majority of our members from time to time have expressed pretty much the same, accordingly. What does all of this tell us? Well I have a few suggestions. 1.) ICANN isn't really all that concerned or interested in registrants or non-registrant/users issues regardless of their country of origin. 2.) DOC/NTIA is interested, but must work in conjunction with ICANN staff and Board members to assist in resolving such issues unless they are extreamly egregious, such as the .XXX TLD became. 3.) It does abundantly appear that Registries and Registrars carry far more weight in decision making for policy determination. -----Original Message----- >From: "Blogs.pn" <namecritic(a)blogs.pn> >Sent: Apr 3, 2008 8:07 AM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com>, ga(a)gnso.icann.org >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement > >Why do all of these announcements and such include things like the following. > >the recognition that ICANN is the appropriate technical coordinator of the Internet DNS. when ICANN does not stick to doing this and instead gets into areas such as examining business plans when a new TLD is proposed? > >ICANN has made significant progress in several key areas, when no one can really point to several key areas in which progress has been made? > >And then they write as if they have confidence in the following; > >long term stability; when ICANN has not implemented much of a long-term strategy so far? > >accountability; when ICANN has not held anyone accountable before? and when ICANN BoD and staff are not held accountable? > >responsiveness; when ICANN takes years to respond to any issue? > >continued private sector leadership, when ICANN defines this as doing whatever businesses like Verisign tell them to do? > >stakeholder participation; when ICANN defines stakeholders as only large companies, ISPs, and registries and not as lowly domain holders and average users? > >increased contract compliance; when ICANN folds on contracts anytime they are threatened with a lawsuit? See the Verisign lawsuit for an example. > >and enhanced competition. when ICANN does everything they can to assure their is no real competition in namespace? > >Chris McElroy > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >To: <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:01 PM >Subject: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement > > >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html >> >> >> Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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

Postings from staff@atlarge.icann.org vs postings from individuals
by Nick Ashton-Hart April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Dear All: Since there have been various queries and concerns raised about how and why postings which come from the 'corporate' staff account, I thought I would mention the reasons why the account exists and why and when we use it. The main purpose of the staff account is so that all of you can send a message to a single place and reach all of us. Of course, when it was just me, it didn't really matter whether my personal account was used, or the staff account. Now that there are three of us, it definitely makes a difference: It helps us respond to you faster, and it helps us to work efficiently. In a similar vein, sending mail from the staff account is that the reply will reach all three of us - you don't have to wonder whom to send your message to; you can just send it and leave it to us to ensure that the right one of us replies. The other reason that we send messages from the staff is when we are acting in a non-personal capacity - posting announcements, minutes, or the like, and where more than one of us has a hand in preparing the output. Of course, once again there's a benefit in that these are exactly the kinds of emails which generate requests in reply for one reason or another - which again means we all receive the note. On the question of accountability: we are all accountable for what we do or say of course - when an email comes out from the staff, it will now list all three of our names. However, if you feel someone has said or done something that you disagree with, or which is not proper in some way, you can always hold me responsible, since I'm the supervisor of the team. I hope that this makes it clear what the purpose of these corporate emails is and why we use them. In the main, it is to make it easier for you to have a 'one stop shop' - but also to differentiate the acts we make in our individual staff capacities, and when we are acting as a unit. -- 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

4 4

NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
by Danny Younger April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

7 8

Participation in the Policy Development Process
by Danny Younger April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

For those that choose to involve themselves in real policy work, please take note of the following announcements regarding WHOIS and New gTLDs: A). the GNSO Council unanimously approved a motion on WHOIS as follows: Resolved 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, if any, of recommended studies for which ICANN staff will be asked to provide cost estimates to the Council 3. Deliver the list of recommendations with supporting rationale not later than 24 April 2008. A call for volunteers has been put forth (the first teleconference will be held next week -- see the GNSO Council list for details). You may contact liz.gasster[at]icann.org to volunteer. For background material please read http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois-privacy/whois-study-suggestion-report-25… B). ICANN staff is completing preparations for a briefing and discussion with the Council about the additional investigation and research staff has done on implementation of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs. As requested by the Council, arrangements are being made to accommodate in-person participation in Los Angeles (beginning the evening of 10 April and continuing all day on 11 April) by GNSO Council members (or designated constituency representatives), as well as remote participation. An agenda and additional information will be provided shortly (and posted publicly). Please see <http://icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm> for implementation development updates (the relevant section also is included below). Please note that this 10/11 April session addresses work-in progress on potential implementation of the GNSO's Final Report on the Introduction of New gTLDs. The Report is still under consideration by ICANN's Board, and a comprehensive, proposed implementation plan will not be available for consideration and comment by the GNSO and the public until the Board approves the Report and directs staff to develop an implementation plan. As with all GNSO meetings, this meeting is open to observers. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

1 0

Improvements to Transparency of Drafting Related to Policy
by At-Large Staff April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

Dear Community members: As a result of suggestions made to improve the ability of the community to review and provide comments on ALAC documents as they are drafted, yet to retain the ability of small teams of people to work and retain ownership of these documents until they are ready for the next steps in the community review process, the Staff has at the request of the Chair implemented a number of measures: 1. We have created a workspace to store read-only texts in wiki form of documents as they move through the ALAC subcommittee process. Edits proposed by members of the committee can then be reflected in the online text. 2. At the top of each such document, you will see the details of what stage the text is in, and which subcommittee or working group of the ALAC owns¹ the text, and when it will move out of committee. 3. At the point where the text moves out of committee it will be distributed for community review and comment on whatever timeline is decided by the committee in question, or the ALAC as a whole, as the case may be. It will also at that time be copied over to the ALAC main workspace so that ALAC members may edit the text directly and again, all comments made to the original draft can be seen and retained (as well as new comments posted) 4. We will continue to save MSWord versions, with markups, embodying changes during the review process for historical purposes which can then become a part of the record of work. We hope that these measures help to more effectively leverage the colllaboration features of the wiki environment and also improve the transparency of the process by which ALAC subcommittees work. You will find that links to two of the texts to be considered are now exist on the ALAC meeting page at https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?8_april_2008. NOTE: With respect to the page set up by Wendy, please be advised that the version of the text that she used as the basis for her changes was not current. As a result, some of her comments were in relation to text which had been deleted by decision of the subcommittee. We have included a pointer to the current version at the top of the page Wendy has created, and we will work with you, Wendy, to ensure that your comments are not lost. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

jacque and all, I believe that the NTIA made the only logical and proper decision, one of their few however. I fully realize that NIC France would like a shot at taking over, or maybe even Geneva. But unless they can collectively clean up their own respective acts, which is unlikely, the NTIA will continue to be in charge. I agree that this isn't perfict, but it's better than any reletive alternitive including the UN or the ITU to be sure. -----Original Message----- >From: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >Sent: Apr 2, 2008 1:51 PM >To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement > >Hi Beau >The bit that annoyed and frustrated me was this - >Furthermore, NTIA remains fully committed to the 2005 U.S. Principles on the >Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System. > >So - no changes from June 2005. We all just wasted our time. They will never >let ICANN go - it has to get up and walk out. > >Jacqueline > >-------------------------------------------------- >From: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 4:22 PM >To: "At-Large Worldwide" <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement > >> To me, the key sentence is a fair statement: "ICANN has made significant >> progress in several key areas, but most participants agree that >> important work remains to increase institutional confidence through >> implementing effective processes that will enable: long term stability; >> accountability; responsiveness; continued private sector leadership, >> stakeholder participation; increased contract compliance; and enhanced >> competition." >> >> I would be interested to hear what others think, especially those >> outside the U.S. who have an understandable desire to see ICANN out from >> under U.S. Gov't oversight. >> >> Beau Brendler >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger >> Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:01 PM >> To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >> Cc: At-Large Worldwide >> Subject: [At-Large] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement >> >> http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ICANN_JPA_080402.html >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________________________________ >> ____________ >> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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] NTIA JPA Mid-Term Review Statement
by JFC Morfin April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

At 22:22 02/04/2008, Brendler, Beau wrote: >I would be interested to hear what others think, especially those >outside the U.S. who have an understandable desire to see ICANN out >from under U.S. Gov't oversight. Beau, as far as france@large (still not a Member) is concerned this no-decision was expected, in line with the US interests, and with most (1) of the interests of the world. ICANN is the US international network agency. It is establish to protect critical internet resources from a de-facto monopoly by a few or a single corporation. By the same token it is also supposed to host and partly protect the USG monopoly on the Internet (and therefore the world) on-line reference system: the IANA. We are pleased to see that the NTIA underlines that the IANA is not covered by the JPA. But we fail to read in the sentence a determined IANA protection policy and any indication on the post-JPA area. We therefore read in this that NTIA will continue the same policy to protect the 1983 internet status quo and the ICANN registrar system without real attention to IPv6. Our feeling is that the international Internet policy of the USA is not currently stabilized, se will know better after Heyderabad - with the US election and the IDNA situation at the IETF. In any case the future of ICANN passes through ALAC, what it can be, it will be characterized by a progressive loss of control of the namespace and a growing influence of users. ALAC, as the ICANN's interface with local populations should influence the final NTIA decision to continue or discontinue the JPA. The decision is ours : we need to know if we try to make the BoD understand it, and to make an appropriate ALAC a reality. jfc (1) ICANN maintains an ambiguity about its exclusiveness and does not prepare its relations with the multilateral reality.

1 0

Policy Topics
by Danny Younger April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

Some topics for ALAC consideration (just in case some ALAC member actually wants to discuss policy matters): 1. Should the Add Grace Period be eliminated? 2. Should the Redemption Grace Period be made mandatory? 3. How should we deal with a registrar business failure? 4. How should we deal with a registry business failure? 5. Should registries be prohibited from making commercial use of NXDomain records? 6. Should the At-Large have Board-level representation? 7. What should be the primary elements of the post-MOU ICANN model? 8. Will ICANN ever enforce the Expired Domain Deletion Policy? 9. What changes should be made to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement? 10. Do we need policy changes to reduce the incidence of domain name hijackings? 11. What WHOIS study would the ALAC wish to see pursued? 12. What terms should registrars be obligated to mandate to their resellers? 13. How should the Working Group model be reformed? 14. What should be ICANNs policy regarding proxy registrations? 15. How should the UDRP be revised? 16. What intellectual property protections will be required for new gTLDs? 17. What compliance enforcement measures are planned for those registrars who do not state a Registrar Data Escrow election by the 15 February 2008 deadline? 18. Will the current ccTLD IDN fast-track approach disadvantage any gTLD operators? 19. What policies should guide the upcoming Accredited Registry Services Provider program? 20. What comments does the ALAC have on the SSAC Fast-flux report? 21. Should the ALAC be developing a Registrants Bill of Rights? 22. Should policy be developed on registrar domain name warehousing and speculation? 23. What ICANN accountability changes need to be implemented? 24. Should ICANN amend the bylaws to require publication of all material contracts for comment prior to approval? 25. Is the reason for delaying Monthly Registry Reports by 3 months still valid? 26. Do we need a better and more transparent Registrant Complaint process? 27. What steps need to be taken to ensure a more scalable and robust WDPRS? 28. What will be the characteristics of a Registrar Sanctions program? 29. Should the concept of a centralized WHOIS (already in registry contracts) be pursued? 30. What policies should govern the display of WHOIS data in an IDN environment? Can IRIS handle IDN data? 31. Should IANA redelegation requests be put up for public comment prior to ICANN action? 32. What should be the policy regarding the operation of the root zone's alternate distribution master? 33. Do we need a New Registrar Services program as a consensus policy adjunct to the RSTEP? 34. Should the definition of Consensus in ICANN contracts be revised? 35. Should ICANN enter into a contract with groups such as Pew Research in order to replace the ALAC as an opinion source? 36. Should ICANN fund the CAIDA "Improving the Integrity of Domain Name System (DNS) Monitoring and Protection Project"? Please feel free to add to this list. ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

2 1

Documents and Draft Agenda for ALAC Monthly Teleconference, 8th April 2008
by At-Large Staff April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

Dear All: As many of you may be aware, the Staff made a commitment to post all documents related to teleconferences not less than 7 days in advance of meetings (where this is possible), which is by way of assisting the Chair in conforming with Rule 13.2 of the ALAC Rules of Procedure, as well as for the advance preparation of Members for meetings. We are therefore pleased to provide details, including all documents presently available, for the upcoming April 8th teleconference of the At-Large Advisory Committee. These details may be reviewed at: https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?8_april_2008. Would committee members also review the dial-outs to ensure we have a dial out listed if you are expecting one. The Chair has asked that we remind ALAC Liaisons and Working Group leaders to provide your written monthly reports on the mailing list in advance of the meeting. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

4 4

Re: [At-Large] Documents and Draft Agenda for ALAC Monthly Teleconference, 8th April 2008
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

Wendy and all, Again, I souldn't agree more with your conclusion. And also again, thanks for your nicely laid out ALAC issues. However I would like to suggest that there are perhaps a few missing that deserve and perhaps demand consideration. DNS security, Tasting/warehousing/kiting, and Whois as well as user privacy. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 2, 2008 7:23 AM >To: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Cc: policy(a)icann.org, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Documents and Draft Agenda for ALAC Monthly Teleconference, 8th April 2008 > >At-Large Staff wrote: >> Dear All: >> >> As many of you may be aware, the Staff made a commitment to post all >> documents related to teleconferences not less than 7 days in advance of Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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 >> meetings (where this is possible), which is by way of assisting the Chair in >> conforming with Rule 13.2 of the ALAC Rules of Procedure, as well as for the >> advance preparation of Members for meetings. >> >> We are therefore pleased to provide details, including all documents >> presently available, for the upcoming April 8th teleconference of the >> At-Large Advisory Committee. These details may be reviewed at: >> https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?8_april_2008. > >I appreciate document creation, but the dissemination and use for >communication leaves a lot to be desired. > >Now it seems that we're using the worst of all technology worlds -- >documents aren't being circulated, nor are they being posted in formats >that lend themselves to discussion by editing. Since I'd presume the >goal of posting documents is to encourage At-Large community discussion >and revision to make those documents conform to the wishes of the >at-large community, I strongly urge that they be circulated IN TEXT >and/or posted IN TEXT to the wiki as pages that the Committee and >community can edit and comment upon. > >I've wikified the draft "Draft Statement on the FY 2008/2009 Budget and >Operating Plan Framework" here, and edited it. I hope others will use ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?draft_statement_on_the_fy_2008_2009_bud…> > >to update or comment on these edits. I include the full text of that >page below. The original is there as "Revision 2," and a comparison >showing my first round of suggested edits is ><https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?action=revision_compare&page_name=draft…> > > >At-Large Advisory Committee Statement to the ICANN Board on the Draft >Operating Plan for FY 2008/2009 > >We welcome the opportunity to make our comments on the Draft Operating >Plan and Budget Framerwork for FY 2008/2009. > >Firstly, we endorse the change to the budgeting and operational planning >process introduced this year. It seems to us that the combination of the >consultation on these obviously closely-related issues is eminently >sensible. We also welcome the longer public consultation timelines that >this allows. >Since this is the first stage of this process, our comments are >introductory. We provide them at this early stage so that they may be >taken into account as the Staff prepare the Budget and Operating Plan >for its first iteration consultation. >Our comments, therefore, are primarily related to the various >“Activites/Outcomes by Initiative”. We do not propose to comment on each >of these, but on those most important to the At-Large Community. > >IDN Activities >This is a very important area of work for At-Large – and also for all of >ICANN. The extra funding and greatly increased ICANN activity in this >area is therefore welcomed. We would like to emphasise the element of >communications related to IDNs. >Fundamental choices that will affect the many communities that do not >rely upon the latin character set will be made in the next few years. >For that reason, we believe ICANN, in partnership with other >stakeholders of course, needs to make a substantial, sustained, greatly >increased effort to communicate with these communities –to ensure that >the message about the choices to be made related to IDNs in the >forthcoming period reaches a far larger pool of potential contributors >to the process than is currently aware and participating. This should >not simply take the form of translated press releases but really a >well-thought-out media campaign which ‘reaches out’ to the public. We >know that efforts to do this work exist – we wish to emphasise that this >is extremely important. > >Implement Policy for New gTLDs >We urge the board to act quickly to approve a simple, straightforward >procedure for addition of new gTLDs in IDNs and ASCII character sets. > >Compliance Activities >We note the increase in staffing and staff work related to compliance. >We are pleased to see that the budget framerwork proposes further >considerable investment in this area. However we wish to note what we >see as gaps: > >The public relies on ICANN to enforce its contracts with registries and >registrars, since ICANN has apparently preempted the public's ability to >sue on those contracts to enforce its rights. ICANN should both return >some of these rights to the public beneficiaries of its contracts /and/ >ensure that contractual promises to ICANN are being honored. > >Complaints Processing. We note that there is now some information on how >registrants can complain on the website, which is a welcome improvement. >We also note that there is a provision as a headline activity in the >Operational Plan Framework to “Implement Compaints Process System to >address complaints and forward them to correct parties as approved”. >This is a start but is not nearly enough – such a system needs to also >verify whether or not the forwarded complaints were addressed, and >provide options so that the complainant can easily report whether or not >they are satisfied with the result. The underlying philosophy should be >that, as the contractor, ICANN should ensure that the contractees are >living up to their side of the ‘deal’ and completely offloading >complaints to the contractee – or anyone else – is the wrong approach. > >Global Outreach >This is a particularly important area to us. The various communities in >ICANN are not nearly representative enough of the worldwide >Internet-using community. We note the initial provision of a substantial >increase in funds allocated to Global Outreach – we will look forward to >seeing more detail about precisely what this consists of when the draft >budget is posted. However, we note that on page 23 of the Draft >Framework, under Global Outreach, there is a major area of work listed >as ‘Implement business engagement outreach’. If this is intended to be >outreach only to business communities, this is far too narrow – outreach >efforts and recruitment efforts need to be even-handed, global – and to >all communities and potential participant communities, not just >business. We draw the attention of the board to the many comments about >the importance of dramatically increasing the outreach and recruitment >of stakeholders that was such a common theme of the respondents to the >JPA review recently held; clearly, there is broad support for greatly >increased work by ICANN in these respects. >Of course we welcome the continued support for participation by our >community from ICANN. Without it the Internet end-user’s voice will >simply not be adequately represented. We draw your attention to our >statement to you in relation to the development of a volunteer travel >and expense support policy, in document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible >at <insert url here> for elaboration on our views on this subject. > >Policy Development Support >We welcome the major theme associated with this area of work on page 25, >that ICANN will “provide additional secretariat support to SOs, >constituencies and ACs to make volunteer efforts more effective.” We are >beneficiaries of this, in the addition of two members of staff on the >At-Large team. The filling of these long-open positions is already >beginning to increase our capacity for working effectively. We hope that >the kind of support our community receives of this kind will become >generally available across the constituencies and communities and look >forward to seeing the detailed plans for how the objective listed in >this area is to be achieved. > >Registrant Protections >Whilst we welcome the increased activity in this area, we wish the board >to be seized of the fact that the RAA review process appears to have >ceased operation. We hear anecdotally that there is current work in this >area inside ICANN, but it is not visible to us (or anyone else from what >we can tell). This is a very important area of work for ICANN and to our >community. We believe that there should be deadlines set for concluding >work on the RAA. > >Transcription and Translation >Our community has been calling for ICANN to become a truly multilingual >organisation for years now. We are glad to see the increased budget >commitment, draft translation framework, and other moves in this >direction but we wish to remind you that ICANN has a very, very long way >to go to reach the mission that the translation programme proposes. >In our opinion, this area of work is of absolutely central importance to >the organisation’s credibility, as we do not believe that any >consultation or policy development process conducted entirely in English >is globally legitimate. This is especially true with subjects like IDNs >that – incredibly –continue to be largely english-only, with multiligual >documents provided only in some cases, often far later than the original >English versions, and only as an afterthought. >Ensuring that the work of ICANN becomes truly multilingual is a core, >critical objective. It must not be sidelined, or de-emphasised by other >objectives like new gTLDs. > >Broaden Participation > >This area is of great importance – not just to our community but to all >communities. In particular, whilst the provisions for teleconferences >for our community have improved marginally by changing vendors, we do >not believe that it makes sense to continue to outsource this core >communications function and so we welcome the news that ICANN proposes >to purchase a truly fit-for-purpose system to facilitate telephonic >interactions. We hope that in doing so choices will be made which truly >facilitate equal access and quality for all participants, regardless of >where they might be. >In particular, the new system must provide for the technical operation >of simultaneous interpretation on teleconferences. This is an absolutely >essential function, not something that is “nice to have”. >We would also like to emphasise to broadening participation of effective >remote participation in meetings, of which telephonic two-way >participation is only one element. We believe that the current remote >participation modalities for ICANN meetings are not fit for purpose. We >draw your attention to our statement to you in relation to the >development of a volunteer travel and expense support policy, in >document AL.ALAC/BUD.SC/0308/2 accessible at <insert url here> for >elaboration on our views on the subject of remote participation, and >meetings. >In closing, we thank the board in advance for its consideration of our >views. We look forward to a response to our concerns and recommendations >in due course. > > >-- >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 > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

ALAC-GNSO Meeting Agenda
by Danny Younger April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

Avri Doria, Chair of the GNSO Council has posted this note to the Council list: "Cheryl Langdon-Orr, chair of ALAC has suggested that the council and ALAC meet as a follow-on to the cocktail hour we had at the last meting. While I am not positive that it wil be possible to schedule it, gien the shortened time scale of the meeting and the events already schedule, I have agreed to ask the staff to look into scheduling. Cheryl and I are going to draw up a draft agenda for this potential meeting. I would be interested in getting the opinion of council members on the meeting as well as any idea for agenda items." I would ask the ALAC members to add this item to their upcoming Monthly Teleconference and to thereafter advise the community as to what items will be on the meeting agenda that are deemed to be of importance to the ALAC. Actually, it would be great to hear ALAC members discuss anything at all. There appears to be no discussion of policy on this list by ALAC members, nor in the Summit Content list, nor in most of the RALO discussion lists, nor in any of the WG lists... so, is discussion happening in some private venue, or do most ALAC members simply have nothing to say when it comes to dealing with DNS policy matters? ____________________________________________________________________________________ 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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Welcome Frederic Teboul to the At-Large Staff
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

Nick and all, Thank you very much for making this announcment. Much appriciated. I do have a few questions if you don't mind. I was not able to get as of yet any independant verification of Mr. Frederic Teboul bio that you kindly shared with us. I searched his name on Who's Who, and he is not listed. I've been a member of Who's Who as are most past and present UN representatives as well as most other known government representatives, and is widely considered a very creditable refrence source of world renoun. Therefore can you perhaps provide some additional refrence information regarding Mr. Frederic Teboul? -----Original Message----- >From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Sent: Apr 1, 2008 9:36 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Africa Discuss <afri-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Asia-Pacific Discuss <apac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, LAC Discuss <lac-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Europe Discuss <euro-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Welcome Frederic Teboul to the At-Large Staff > >It is my pleasure to introduce you to Frederic Teboul, the new At-Large Regional Affairs Manager. > >Born in Marseille, France, he began his career in the French Foreign Service in Israel in 1997; he subsequently worked for several parts of the United Nations' system from 2000 to 2005 in the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS), and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) in Geneva, Kosovo, New York and Athens. He comes to us most recently from the private sector, where he served as Business Development and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) Director for the third-largest Greek maritime operator. > >His experience in the public and private sectors in a wide variety of international decision-making environments, working with governments, civil society, and industry stakeholders from more than 200 different countries, makes him a valuable addition to the At-Large team in the Policy Unit. He will be responsible in particular for supporting the Regional At-Large Organisations (RALOs), facilitating their involvement in policy development and assisting them in their work representing the individual Internet user interest in ICANN. > >Frederic has a PhD in Social Science from IAE-University Paris 1 Pantheon-Sorbonne, an MA in Political Science and International Relations from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and an Executive MBA from the Athens University of Economics and Business. He is a native French speaker, and also has knowledge of Romanian and Hebrew - with a little Italian, Spanish, Arabic, and Greek thrown in for good measure. > >I hope you will join me in giving Frederic a warm welcome! He can be reached at frederic.teboul(a)icann.org, or of course staff(a)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

2 1

Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

Wendy and all, I couldn't agree more. In fact, from my review of the new posted set of proposed "Rules" such seems to point in the direction of less accountability to the public instead of more. That would leave the definate impression of non-transparency and far less openness and accountability. Such is inconsistant with the MOU, IMO. Of course less accountability would seem to fit what remarks I have been reading from the chair and JFC Morfin of late... -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: Apr 1, 2008 11:33 AM >To: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Draft Accountability Framework and Conflicts of Interest Policy > >This document appears to be largely a compilation of procedural >complexities that do little to make ALAC more accountable to the >at-large public. I don't think we need more rules, we need a better set >of reporting mechanisms to coordinate with the public. > >Thanks, >--Wendy Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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