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

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

April 27, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 27, 2008

Dominik and all, Very good overview observations and remarks here. Our members including myself have expressed similar and are very supportive of Dominiks here. What is now, and has been for sense the inception of ICANN is that is is under the thumb predominantly of the hand that feed's it $$, namely registries, registrars, and IP interests. As such it is essentially still a club, not an international organization and lacks ethical and reasonable standards of any sort. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Apr 26, 2008 1:05 PM >To: gnso-improvements-report-2008(a)icann.org >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] GNSO and ICANN Improvements > >I have gone over many posts on several publicly accessible ICANN mailing >lists and other documents and have found several or more contributions >illuminating and explanatory in giving an insight of what is going on at >ICANN behind the scenes, provided we are able to read between the lines. >Nothing, what we have not known before but perhaps some details about >the technology of how craftily the public effort can be conducted and >manipulated. > >In fact, the common argument being always presented is how staffers are >all keen on supporting all types of public interests. But only up to a >moment when the public interests start colliding with leading interests >of the financial and other sharks. When realizing what is at stake the >stuffers immediately back off. Then the second sort of arguments comes >into play, such as a given proposal is too strong, fundamental and which >'will not fly' as registrars and registries will not support it anyway, >and the like. As of this moment an ordinary user (naive user, volunteer) >is being persuaded that a weaker solution is also acceptable, not >perhaps that effective but still better than nothing. Along with ongoing >verbal assurance that the staffers also share sympathy for public >interests trying doing their best to achieve the most feasible solution, >the user might easily get into a false but optimistic assumption as to >have achieved something, not achieving anything real though. > >What is worse is that the staffers are not even willing to present >prevailing views of the communities they represent once the views start >clashing with the leading interests. This is indeed an interesting >moment. >For example, the ALAC's updated domain tasting statement swiftly adopted >the draft motion logic without first discussing it properly with its >public audience. The question is why it acted this way, especially when >it had preferred and presented a stronger position in the first place >before. After all, it could have insisted on the stronger position. >Nothing dramatic would have happened. The ALAC has no voting power and >even if it had it is the BoD who makes final decisions. >The similar approach has also been adopted by several other >constituencies. Instead of clear presentation of prevailing views and >concerns of the constituency members and the underlying public audience, >the updated views swiftly adapted the actual view of the leading >interest. Such updated statements do not reflect previously preferred >constituency positions any longer but rather give in to the expectations >of the leading interests. As a result, the constituencies thus do not >act as self-confident sui juris bodies advocating the views they stand >for, which would be a solid basis for further deliberation and >consent-driven process based on seeking unifying arguments, but rather >quickly seek political consent managed among constituency >representatives; of course, driven by the leading interests they are >advised to pursue. This tendency is apparent in several places in the >Final Report on Domain Tasting when tracking the evolution of the >constituency statements. That is, over and over again politics instead >of deliberation. > >An interesting question is why it is, in certain circumstances, >necessary to rush for unified statements at any price prior proper >deliberation on the modifications. This, at first glance weird logic, >starts making sense when we realize that a) the issue has to be approved >quickly by minimizing the possible undesired impact of public comments, >and b) the overall responsibility must be spread and crumbled among all >involved parties so that nobody could be accused of anything. Either >everyone or no one. As a practical consequence, those people are doing >nearly nothing productive for their communities in such cases. Yes, >there are cases when a progress is remarkable and reasonable motions are >being approved but only if they do not clash with the leading interests >or they are so apparent that simply cannot be ignored. A good example >again is domain tasting. The phenomenon was recognized yonks ago and has >been known and heavily reported for years as an abuse being constantly >committed on wide community. So it had to be opened. But there is also >the clash here as it is a profitable business of very high importance >for all interested parties. The first shot was the $0.20-for-all-deletes >motion. The same one I wrote a joke about more than a year ago. That >time it was a joke only, but this time it seemed to become reality. The >currently proposed final motion is unclear and ambiguous enough to allow >for continuing the game under the hood. And when the public outreach >fades out the practice can be guardedly reinstated. > >I would therefore strongly recommend that all staffers look into the >ICANN Core Values again and carefully. Anyone who does not feel >comfortable with the Core Values should reconsider his or her stay >within the ICANN structures in order not to hinder active and competent >participants from fluent work on substantive ICANN issues. > >I see just one important ICANN issue to address, to encourage the public >community to clearly and dauntlessly identify and face those staffers >who are exploiting the ICANN mission in order to privilege their own >private businesses, deals, and interests to the detriment of all others. >Namely, those who are just spoiling valuable effort presented by honest >and competent members of the ICANN community. > >ICANN is an international organization representing all Internet users, >not a private business elite club of registrars and registries! > > >Dominik Filipp, a GNSO General Assembly list member > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

GNSO and ICANN Improvements
by Dominik Filipp April 26, 2008

April 26, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 26, 2008

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

3 2

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

April 26, 2008

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

10 14

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

April 25, 2008

Nick and all, As JFC has already pointed out, the document to which you refer is not posted to where you state it is. Further I agree that an independant review is a wise idea, but should be conducted by a party or parties determined by a double blind selection process as is the international norm. And to be sure that a consulting firm such as westlake is not at all involved in such a selection process as well as any ICANN staff of Bod member, GNSO council or staff member, ALAC staff, or Atlarge staff member. -----Original Message----- >From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> >Sent: Apr 25, 2008 1:47 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Final Call for Comments for consideration by the independent Review of ALAC > >Dear All: > >You will find the following announcement now posted at >http://www.atlarge.icann.org/ > >--- >ICANN has previously invited comments or feedback from individuals or >organisations wishing to make submissions to Westlake Consulting Limited >('WCL'), in relation to its Independent Review of the At-Large Advisory >Committee ('ALAC'). The closing date for such submissions was Friday 18th >April. > >WCL has received a significant number of such comments, and advises that it >is willing to consider late submissions until Friday 2nd May. This date will >allow WCL to complete its Review and present it at ICANN Paris, 22-26 June. > >Accordingly, WCL invites individuals or organisations, who may still wish to >contribute observations or information about any aspect of the role, >structure or operation of the ALAC, to email their comments as soon as >possible, to alacreview(a)westlakenz.com, by no later than 2 May 2008 >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul >ICANN At-Large Staff >email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

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

April 25, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 24, 2008

Nick and all, Thank you for this reference of "Westlake consulting", but who the heck is "Westlake Consulting" and how are they affiliated with ICANN? What Email address should someone forward these concerns? And what is the URL for "Westlake Consulting"? Is the url http://www.westlakeinc.com/ ? If so the only Email contact point listed on their web site seems to be info(a)westlakeinc.com . Is this correct? If so, why is a "General delivery" email address the contact point? Do they not have a live person with a individual Email address by which such concerns can be sent to? If not, why not? Don't you think that they ought to close up their open DNS server so as to not expose visitors of those whom may wish to communicate with them to spam, phishing attempts, and data theft? or misuse? See: http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/dnsreport.ch?domain=westlakeinc.com&token=259… Sorry for all these questions, but I think they are reasonable ones, don't you? -----Original Message----- >From: Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> >Sent: Apr 17, 2008 11:15 AM >To: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette(a)wzb.eu>, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: "alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [Fwd: Re: Draft agenda and planning for EURALO¹s 1st General Assembly in Paris] > >May I also take this opportunity to suggest that any views on this subject would be of great interest to the at-large reviewers at Westlake consulting. I hope that you will all take the opportunity to send them your thoughts on these subjects; I know that many of you have strong views about this and it would be a shame if the reviewers didn't have a complete picture of the perspectives. > > >On 17/04/2008 19:51, "Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette(a)wzb.eu> wrote: > >Hi, thank you for the explanation. What still amazes me though is that >the At Large Membership doesn't provide "a home" for individual Internet >users. No doubt, they are affected by ICANN's policies but they have no >direct means to articulate their interests and concerns, unless they >join an ALS, of course. Now doubt also, individual users form a large >group out there on the net. >Do you all regard this as a blind spot of ICANN structures and >processes? Do you think things will stay like this or do you expect them >to change some time in the future? >Thanks, jeanette > >Evan Leibovitch wrote: >>> What needs clarification across the RALOs is whether or not board members have to be ALS members in order to qualify for travel support to participate in RALO meetings. This is why forward the subsequent exchange we had with Nick about this issue. >>> >> To clarify:, >> >> Within NARALO we solved this by allowing individual members, and >> enabling a pseudo-ALS for for them. That is, for the purposes of formal >> representation in the GA, the individual members of NARALO collectively >> have the status of one ALS and as such may select representatives for >> voting (or potentially travel). They can also stand for election for the >> Chair or Secretariat or ALAC rep. >> >> We explicitly rejected the notion that an individual member must have >> the exact same status as a representative of a membership organization >> that has gone through the ALAC due diligence process. The intent, if I >> recall, was that active individual participants should be encouraged to >> get involved with like-minded larger groups that would then become ALSs. >> This would in turn increase participation beyond the individuals, which >> is a prime goal of the RALO/ALS process. >> >> This approach did not please _everyone_, but we believed it struck a >> reasonable balance between ICANN goals and the awareness that not >> everyone who was interested in At-Large was part of an ALS. So far I >> believe this balance has worked well. >> >> - Evan >> > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Internal mailing list >ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > >ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac >At-Large Website: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >-- > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >Director for At-Large >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 >email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org >Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart >Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

3 3

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

April 24, 2008

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

6 10

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

April 24, 2008

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

2 1