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

Re: [At-Large] Budget & Finance SubCommittee Meeting
by Izumi AIZU April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Thanks Adam, your comments are mostly, if not all, on target. Danny, I don't understand why you are targeting at something totally outside your own region. AP region has been trying to raise awareness on ICANN and AtLarge, and APNG is one good area, among others, to reach out future generations. I understand you spend 30 minutes on google or web search to find some "old" folks involved, but they are mostly only nominally involved, but not substantively, with APNG camp, which is getting much more youth oriented, and henth future oriented. While they are not all intersted in Domain Name or IP addres areas per se at this moment, they are very much acting as user/culture initiatives. Thus I don't understand why you make so much noise about what you really do not know. Please mind your own business first. Don' try to shoot your potential friends, serisouly. izumi 2008/4/11, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp>: > > Danny, > > The purpose of the camp is to bring young people > working on Internet technology and policy issues > together with some of the experienced folk. The > camp's goal is to nurture the next generation of > Internet pioneers (apologies if that sounds a > little hackneyed, but that's really what it tries > to do...) You have things back to front, it's > not a junket for the experienced but an > opportunity for those who want to learn and to > contribute in the future. > > It also has a secondary purpose of helping these > younger people present papers in English and > discuss issues in English. Most are not native > English speaker. Necessary if they are to be able > to participate in organizations line ICANN. > > Information about the camp <http://www.apng.org/10thcamp.htm> > > I am not involved in the camp, have no knowledge > of its current level of sponsorship, programme > etc. But think important to correct Danny's > misrepresentation of the camp's purpose. > > Best, > > Adam > > > > At 5:45 AM -0700 4/11/08, Danny Younger wrote: > >Cheryl, > > > >Please forward this message to whomever sits on the > >Budget & Finance SubCommittee. > > > >At the meeting scheduled for 18 April the subcommittee > >will discuss agenda item 6 (Listing of > >Community-Identified Priorities for 2008/2009 with a > >Budgetary Dimension) which includes a request by the > >APRALO for "Funding to sponsor the APNG Camp in > >Thailand (Outreach)". > > > >The APNG Camp annually draws about 50 participants. > >It has an executive committee that includes a number > >of well-known ICANN luminaries such as Tommy Matsumoto > >(former ALAC member), Kilnam Chon and Paul Wilson. > > > >It has an Advisory Board that also includes figures > >well-known in ICANN circles such as Tan Tin Wee and > >Jun Murai (former ICANN Board Director). > > > >The APNG Steering Committee includes people like Izumi > >Aizu (current ALAC member) and James Seng. > > > >Its At-Large Committee includes Qian Hualin (former > >ICANN Board director and Hong Xue (current ALAC > >member). > > > >At last year's camp, Tuesday morning saw a > >presentation on "ICANN ALAC and APRALO activities". > > > >This is probably the one organization in the world for > >which an ALAC Outreach effort is most definately not > >required. The Camp is primarily populated by those > >that know ICANN all too well -- they have no need of > >an outreach effort as their own internal committees > >and members are all fully familiar with the ALAC and > >RALO and ICANN processes. > > > >Spending funds on this initiative ostensibly on behalf > >of "outreach" is not only a waste of monies, but it's > >an insult to the integrity of the ALAC funds > >disbursement process. > > > >The ALAC should not be in the business of funding > >junkets. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > -- >> Izumi Aizu << Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita Kumon Center, Tama University, Tokyo Japan * * * * * << Writing the Future of the History >> www.anr.org

3 2

Budget & Finance SubCommittee Meeting
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Hi Adam, While the Camp serves a noble purpose, at issue is whether ALAC funds should be spent to send someone there on an Outreach Mission when the Camp already has many participants with an intimate knowledge of ICANN, ALAC, and APRALO activities and an internal committee already dedicated to At-Large activities. If the APRALO had indicated a desire to engage in outreach at an Information Infrastructure Expo & Conference that might draw 50,000 visitors who are unaware of ICANN's function, then I could clearly see the justification for an outreach initiative... but this strikes me as nothing more asking for several thousand dollars to sing to a choir that already knows the tune. best regards, Danny __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Budget & Finance SubCommittee Meeting
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Cheryl, Please forward this message to whomever sits on the Budget & Finance SubCommittee. At the meeting scheduled for 18 April the subcommittee will discuss agenda item 6 (Listing of Community-Identified Priorities for 2008/2009 with a Budgetary Dimension) which includes a request by the APRALO for "Funding to sponsor the APNG Camp in Thailand (Outreach)". The APNG Camp annually draws about 50 participants. It has an executive committee that includes a number of well-known ICANN luminaries such as Tommy Matsumoto (former ALAC member), Kilnam Chon and Paul Wilson. It has an Advisory Board that also includes figures well-known in ICANN circles such as Tan Tin Wee and Jun Murai (former ICANN Board Director). The APNG Steering Committee includes people like Izumi Aizu (current ALAC member) and James Seng. Its At-Large Committee includes Qian Hualin (former ICANN Board director and Hong Xue (current ALAC member). At last year's camp, Tuesday morning saw a presentation on "ICANN ALAC and APRALO activities". This is probably the one organization in the world for which an ALAC Outreach effort is most definately not required. The Camp is primarily populated by those that know ICANN all too well -- they have no need of an outreach effort as their own internal committees and members are all fully familiar with the ALAC and RALO and ICANN processes. Spending funds on this initiative ostensibly on behalf of "outreach" is not only a waste of monies, but it's an insult to the integrity of the ALAC funds disbursement process. The ALAC should not be in the business of funding junkets. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

2 1

Who represents the users?
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

The Registrar Constituency put out a general call to its members for comments on the proposed GNSO reforms. Five responses were received, and a preliminary synopsis was issued for RC consideration. That synopsis paper is to be found as an attachment to this url: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/registrars/msg05771.html One interesting comment in the document: "Finally, the RC requests further clarification of the relationship between the non-commercial registrants relationship with the ALAC and the members of the active list of the former General Assembly. Specifically, as each of these groups purportedly represents the individual user, it is unclear to the RC which group actually does represent such interests." __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

1 0

An Assault on Competition: The Registries Latest Policy Paper
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Repeatedly invoking the interests of the user community, the latest paper from the ICANN Registries Constituency is an attack on the principle of competition. The document, available as an attachment to this URL -- http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg04928.html -- seeks to mandate TLD differention in the IDN sphere so that "brand fragmentation" will not occur. These registries seek to avoid IDN equivalents of .com and .net so that the entire world will lose the benefit of .com and .net alternatives. They seek to entrench their monopolies to the nth degree by foisting a policy upon us that would mandate differention. I don't know, about you, but I have no problems with the concept of someone launching .commercial and its equivalent forms in a multitude of scripts -- it sure won't confuse me or any other average user -- we will all understand that the days of VeriSign's market dominance are coming to a fitting end. When the Registry Constituency states: "RyC believes that a key means of avoiding this problem [fragmenting the Internet and isolating users] is to allow all manifestations of a given top level domain to be managed by a single entity", they want nothing less than to stifle competition ensuring North American market dominance for the next century. Here's hoping that the ALAC observers at today and tomorrow's GNSO LA session will choose to fight for a competitive TLD environment. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

3 2

Errant activity by Google: Google Mail Servers Enable Backscatter Spam
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

All, Seems yet again that Google cannot seem to behave in the best interests of the stability of the Internet and has become a purveyor of spam and other forms of harmful activity. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backscatter#Backscatter_of_email_spam Vint, it seems that your "Evangelist" efforts are falling far short of the mark. Please try to improve those efforts with all due haste. Seems to me given Google's recent errant behavior, that it is time to take their domain name down as they represent a clear and present danger to a huge number of users and threaten the stability of the Internet accordingly. 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] Network Solutions not hijacking unassigned sub domains
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

John and all, Weather this action by NSOL was due to malice or incompetence, it remains not excusable. Surely NSOL has test platforms for testing DNS configuration changes. Either way however, NSOL has seemingly corrected the problem, but leaves the user community at all levels at some increased level of doubt as to the creditability of NSOL's management practices. And this in no way addresses the Tasting still being practiced by NSOL, now does it? Frankly, NSOL should pay a price for these sorts of disruptions, and as ICANN is responsible for the oversight of its Registries, it should take immediate and appropriate action accordingly. Instead what is happening is something much different from ICANN which by all appearances is turning a blind eye and as such abrogating it's contracted responsibilities. Looks like RegistryFly all over again... All this seems greatly like the incompetent overseeing the incompetent. Hell of a mess IMO! -----Original Message----- >From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Apr 10, 2008 5:45 PM >To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Network Solutions not hijacking unassigned sub domains > >> Are you taking the position that it's OK for registrars to populate >> users' unassigned subdomains with their own ads? > >I don't see any evidence that NSI intended to do that. It looks to me >like it was a configuration error. > >This particular domain is hosted on NSI's DNS and web servers. It has a >wildcard DNS entry for *.gotgame.com. There's over a thousand other >domains on the same DNS servers so I spot checked a few of them, and >didn't see any wildcard entries, so I assume that gotgame added that >wildcard themselves. > >When you set up a web server that handles a lot of different domains, one >of the things you configure is what to do when someone points a domain at >other than one of the configured ones. I can easily imagine that someone >at NSI figured that would only happen if an ex-customer left their DNS >pointing at NSI, so it's not NSI's problem and it never occurred to them >that an actual customer would do something as dumb as to set up a DNS >wildcard and not adjust the web config to match. > >If you check random blah.gotgame.com domains now, you see a generic page >not found error. So although I am not a big fan of NSI, we do have to >remember never to attribute to malice things that can be attributed to >incompetence. > >Regards, >John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", >Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor >"More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly. > 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

Network Solutions hijacking unassigned sub domains?
by Danny Younger April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

Robert, Are you taking the position that it's OK for registrars to populate users' unassigned subdomains with their own ads? You don't see any issue here other than the need for registrant education? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

4 4

Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
by Roberto Gaetano April 11, 2008

April 11, 2008

JFC, > > Correct. We only need to tell registrants to send mails to > Danny and to tell non registrants to send mails to Roberto. > Inputs will be better presented by them to the Board. Next time you want to appoint somebody to do a specific task, would you mind to ask first? Cheers, Roberto

2 1

Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements
by Jeffrey A. Williams April 10, 2008

April 10, 2008

Wendy and all, I disagree that the GA failed. It was unceremoniously abandon during the transition from DNSO to GNSO. What has failed and was domed to failure from the beginning is as you rightly indicate, is/was the GNSO. It remains a dismal failure mainly, but not entirely due to lack of transparency and openness as well as unwillingness on the than sitting ICANN Bod, to be inclusive of any and all stakeholders/users to openly participate unencumbered. Most of this unwillingness by the ICANN Bod remains still harbored by some Bod members to this day. Roberto? >From where I sit this clearly represents a lack of competent leadership on a very fundamental basis. -----Original Message----- >From: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Sent: Apr 10, 2008 2:44 PM >To: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] RES: Comments on GNSO improvements > >At 15:40 10/04/2008, Ross Rader wrote: >>On Apr 9, 2008, at 11:21 PM, JFC Morfin wrote: >>>Roberto, Danny, >>>I tend to agree with Danny. >> >>Danny's position is rooted in a complete misunderstanding of the >>facts. The GA wasn't "shut down" because of the threat it posed with >>the strong positions it took, the GA was shut down because it >>completely failed to organize and produce any coherent results. > >Our problem is precisely here. The GA failed. I do not want to >consider who's fault it is. I just observe it. I also consider the >consistuency system also failed. In a system where Danny Younger can >decide as a non-legitimate NCUC member (as ISOC NY he represents an >individual users organisation) impeach the adhesion of my non-profit >services oriented organisation to its consituency (NCUC) the system >is flawed in terms of democratic representativity. > >BUT, the constituency system failed outside of ICANN. Inside of ICANN >the BoD still receieve advices from constituencies and GNSO. The real >problem for them is just to know if the advices they receives are >pertinent or not. As long as they are, the system is good for them. > >On one side, Danny provides _additional_ inputs, for years on a >stable and pertinent basis. This is something we should make structural. >On another side, Roberto wants non-registants and users to be >represented. He says by a group. But he actually also actually need >pertinent inputs. The "group" is only for legitimacy. > >>My personal belief is that we need to keep the structure of the GNSO >>simple. > >Agree. This means a CNSO + constituencies to make believe the CNSO is >representative (double representativity is even accepted there !) > >>I would like to see a certain number of votes allocated to >>contracting parties (Registrants, Registries and Registrars) and a >>certain number allocated to Users (Commercial, Non-commercial, >>Individual). > >No problem. Give a vote to Danny as a registrant specialist (not a >rep). The same to another for a non-registrants expert (not a rep). >When you want a barrister you select and pay him, you do not vote to >elect him. The fun was to try to see if the USG could organise an >Internet polycracy. That dream is over. It has transfered to the >WSIS/IGF. ICANN is the US International Network Agency. There will be >others (like RIRs) for other areas and interests. Our job is to help >their emergence in best tuning the ICANN to protect the US >International Network's user interests; because we are some of them, >and to serve as a good example to other similar European, Chinse, >Indian, Peruvian, NY, Belin, Paris, etc. agencies. > >>This would allow us to move ahead fairly small, but >>highly representative number of constituencies within the GNSO without >>drastically altering the overall structure and processes that we've >>evolved over the last few years. Current commercial users (ISPC, BC, >>IPC) would have to get used to the fact that their influenced would be >>rightsized, but given the undue influence they've had over the >>processes for the last 7 years, I think its a reasonable step to take. >>My only concern relates to Whether commercial/non-commercial is an >>appropriate distinction to make. I am really trying to make a >>distinction between for-profit and not-for profit institutional >>participation. >> >>I don't think that its appropriate to mix the voices of Registrants >>and Users into the same grouping. > >Correct. We only need to tell registrants to send mails to Danny and >to tell non registrants to send mails to Roberto. Inputs will be >better presented by them to the Board. > >>The needs of each are very different >>and I don't think that jamming it all into one structure will give the >>plurality of those voices proper representation within the structure. >>I do think it is time however to give the "customers" of the DNS much >>more of a voice than they have today - the balance is completely out >>of whack within the current process. > >This is an other problem. You speak of "'customers", I speak of "owners" :-) >jfc 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