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

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