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

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

April 23, 2008

Ross and all, As now persona's non grata, all of our members, users and registrants all, have neither a voice or a vote of their choosing and under the suggested/perposed "registrants advisory board" will not either. This is not representative and therefore inconsistent with the MOU and ICANN's mission accordingly. A voice and not a vote is inadequate for users and registrants whom are also users themselves. What is good for users and registrants should be good for both, win-win. Registries and registrars may not always benefit with user-non-registrants or user-registrants demands, which are after all the demands of the broad marketplace. But users whom are employed by registries and registrars will benefit equally with other users and some of these users may also be registrants as well... What is missing, or should I say has been removed, is the GA which when official, was inclusive of all classes of users and open and transparent to all whom wished to participate. Such is a representation of and too accountability, which ICANN and particularly the GNSO lacks significantly and has for some time. The ALS'es approach is a failure, and of course was from it's inception as it seeks to divide rather than unite by it's very nature of structure. -----Original Message----- >From: Ross Rader <ross(a)tucows.com> >Sent: Apr 23, 2008 8:34 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] GNSO reform and ALAC > >Evan Leibovitch wrote: >> Ross Rader wrote: >>> I think the paper is correct in pointing out that contracted parties do >>> need some sort of grouping, but it forgets that registrants (of all >>> types) are a highly important component of this. >> Personally, I would like to see a registrants' advisory board made up of >> those subsets of all constituencies (business, noncomm, at-large) that >> has an interest in protecting registrant's rights. Since these groups >> are already part of official constituencies I see this as an advsory >> board that would work with those constituency groups to help forumlate >> registrant-friendly policy. >> >> For the same reasons, I don't see identification of registrants as a new >> separate constituency to be a good idea. > >I believe the current registrant constituencies should be dissolved and >picked up under the new "registrant"/"user" split. As it currently >stands, the commercial user community in the form of the BC/ISPC/IPC >wields way too much power in the GNSO structure. There is also a >smaller, but important, over-allotment to the registry and registrar >constituencies. Both of these over-allotments (I believe) more rightly >belong in the hands of the individual registrants and individual users - >neither of which have any real representative voice in the GNSO process >right now. Taking some "voice" away from the existing constituencies and >re-apportioning it to a mostly new set of constituencies is, in my >opinion, the only real way to create a proper and lasting balance in the >structure. > > From what you are describing, the registrant advisory board sounds >remarkably similar to the contracted registrant constituency that I am >proposing. But what is missing from this is the other half of the >equation - the users, which also need a seat at the table. > >/ross > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

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

April 23, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 21, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 20, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 20, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 20, 2008

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

8 11

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

April 18, 2008

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

2 1

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

April 18, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 18, 2008

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

1 0

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

April 18, 2008

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

1 0