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

Re: [At-Large] Proposal: At-Large Policy Briefs
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Jean and all, Ok fine. How does one submit a brief for posting? -----Original Message----- >From: Jean Armour Polly <mom(a)netmom.com> >Sent: May 9, 2008 6:49 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposal: At-Large Policy Briefs > >Nice, Evan. I added a Related Links section. And a machine >translation link at the top. >Jean Armour Polly > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >>Leibovitch >>Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 1:48 AM >>To: At-Large Worldwide >>Subject: [At-Large] Proposal: At-Large Policy Briefs >> >>Hello everyone, >> >>During the last Summit conference call I committed to create a template >>for the development of "Policy Briefs", one for each significant issue >>facing ICANN as identified by ALAC and At-Large. >> >>I have documented the structure and rationale of the briefs at >>http://www.icannwiki.org/ALAC:Policy_Brief and I have started a sample >>temple of a Brief at >>http://www.icannwiki.org/At-Large_Policy_Brief:_Domain_Tasting -- I >>invite everyone to look at the pages, and to fill in the missing >>components so that we can demonstrate the form that a complete Brief >>should look. >> >>I believe that we should have at least one Brief for each entry on the >>Summit questionnaire being created now. In order for ALSs to give >>_informed_ response on prioritization of ICANN's issues, they need to >>know what those issues are. As time passes these Briefs will be updated >>to reflect changes in processes as well as ALAC positions and actions. >>Ultimately these Briefs are intended to have value beyond the Summit, as >>a set of "living" documents which will serve At-Large and the public >>interest on a continuing basis. >> >>It is my hope that both staff and At-Large members will contribute to >>the content of these Briefs, as each has different content strengths >>that the other may lack. >> >>Comments to this proposed format for issues documentation are welcomed. >> >>- Evan >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >>.org >> >>At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 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] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Dominik and all, VERY nicely articulated here Dominik. I fully agree with your arguments and their obvious correct conclusion. But let's be VERY clear, the members are, and in the majority decided that the AGP must go. Although there are other means by which Domain Name Tasting can be eradicated in short order, one of which I have outlined as a proposal, that proposal did not or has not yet gained sufficient support. Frankly and disgustingly it is clear that the ICANN Bod is very interested in getting this problem decided as Roberto has already several times mentioned or otherwise eluded to. It is also clear that changing the RAA was in his opinion not currently supported by the majority of the ICANN Bod at this time, which confirms your argument significantly. I for the life of me cannot understand how any public interest corporation can act or even consider acting in complete or nearly complete disagreement with the public interests over and over again. To do so without impunity is devoid of proper and ethical leadership... This also seems to be the case with the ALAC in regards to Domain Name Tasting. What you Dominik are seemingly articulating comes very close if not precisely to what is legally known as "Collusion" for financial gain, which is a form of Fraud and should be addressed as such. I would not at all be surprised at some point that IF the motion that the ALAC falsely represented in the name of the ALAC members is adopted that a RICO case or cases ensue. I for one, along with our members, are saddened and disgusted to read much of Evans remarks, which appear to be far less than courageous or reflect good and ethical leadership. Very unfortunate! >:( -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 9, 2008 10:42 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Hello Evan, > >Please read my comments interspersed below > >-----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] >Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 2:37 PM >To: Dominik Filipp >Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >>Hello Dominik, >> >>The way it was put to us -- those of us who >>strongly advanced abolishing the AGP -- >>was essentially this: >> >>"Our primary goal is getting rid of tasting, which >>will likely happen by widely mandating the partial >>measures already initiated by two registries. Total >>AGP elimination will be strenuously opposed by the >>financial interests, so there's no way that will happen. >>Why back a position that has no chance of succeeding? >>We should be seen as going along with a >>broadly-supported measure that directly addresses >>tasting and has a chance to be implemented." > >The ALAC is committed to the public to express, reflect and advocate the >best solutions for the public it recognizes and considers as being such. >The ALAC is primarily not obligated to respect any financial interests >but only the bylaws, the ICANN core values and the original mission >goals the ALAC was established on. Accepting the financial logic would >mean that the ALAC would definitely give in to unfair and fraudulent >practices and as such would be rightly accused of suspect collaboration >based on pursuing non-public interests. > >In case of domain tasting the situation is clear. For the public the AGP >elimination is by far the best solution. The ALAC should hold it and >pronounce it explicitly and loudly. This is the only honest solution >towards the community the ALAC advocates and should always advocate. >Keep in mind that so far there has not been any single common >constituency/wider-public discussion organized addressing the AGP >elimination properly whatsoever. Upon what then the ALAC should have to >consider a possible compromise when none argument-base has ever been >collected and considered? Upon financial and political bargaining? Is >this the way the ALAC wants to follow? If so then we all should quickly >forget all the pro-public mission goals and honestly admit: Yes, the >ALAC is definitely part of the sham and we all are fraudsters misusing >public money just helping pretend the service to the public. Even worse, >the far biggest guilt would lay on ALAC's shoulders because it is the >only body, neither registrars nor registries nor any other constituency, >that is primarily responsible for defending wide public interests. There >is no any third way to follow; either we are part of the sham or we act >as a self-confident independent body with full sense of the >accountability delegated. I believe the latter choice is the case. > >There is nothing difficult here. The ALAC will express the statement it >stands for and the board will vote. It is that simple. And if this >motion will eventually be refused and domain tasting will again be >reinstated then it will be clear whose responsibility it is. This is >extremely important to know for the record and for history that the ALAC >acted accountably and warned the board about possible persisting abuse. >I do not see any single reason why the ALAC should help carry that >burden on its shoulders for a decision it has never stood for. Take >hands away from it. > > >>My analysis of this is twofold: >> >>- ALAC does not yet have the maturity nor the >>confidence to advance a position that it perceives >>to be extremely unpopular with other constituencies, >>even if that position accurately reflects the >>public sentiment. > >Then, indeed, it is the right time for the ALAC to get matured. Once it >happens the other constituencies will start taking the ALAC seriously. >As it really deserves. > > >>- It's always easier to attack the symptom than >>the cause, even though leaving the cause intact >>will likely lead to future problems. Tasting is >>the symptom, AGP is the cause. While the currently >>proposed partial measures will indeed reduce much >>tasting, leaving the AGP untouched appears to be >>a clear invitation to bad agents to invent new >>forms of abuse. > >Exactly right. > > >>I have personally come to the conclusion that ALAC, >>in its current form, will do whatever it can to >>avoid confrontation with other constituencies. > >This, however, is sort of childish behavior resembling a child >compulsively addicted to their parents or elder siblings. No wonder such >a child is not taken seriously. > > >>Some of this sentiment is understandable, given >>the limitations imposed on it by the nature of >>its constitution. After all, even GNSO is only >>now coming to realize the detrimental effects >>of having voting members who are unaccountable >>to anyone. Indeed, one can easily argue that >>ICANN as a whole is scared of confronting the >>registries and registrars, given the problems >>to date in even enforcing existing policy. > >You are absolutely right here and I am happy you have recognized this. >ICANN as a whole is scared of those who claim themselves as being >powerful and influential. They are not only registrars and registries >but also the servile officers helping cover their activities. They are >spreading out all the fear among people. But open your eyes and look at >them without fear, you'll find narrow-minded people addicted to their >benefits, or exploiting the ICANN mission on purpose, some not >interested in nearly anything just peacefully lost in golden slumbers. >But there is also a number of honest people that are trying to do >something meaningful themselves being scared by the rest though. Do you >still think we should scare of such people? Some of them at high >positions do not follow the ICANN mission as an organization >representing multi-stakeholder community and should therefore be >recognized and treated accordingly. Either they will come around or they >will have to go. > > >>Other factors arise from the broad internal >>diversity of ALAC, within which the desire >>to achieve consensus will usually lead to >>compromise positions. > >This is a legitimate question/problem and needs to be addressed. In >general, making compromise positions is a normal thing, there is nothing >wrong with it. Just, we should not mistake compromise for backdown. > > >>As a result, I can accept advancing the current >>partial answer to tasting with the understanding >>that this is a transitional action. AGP elimination >>remains the ultimate goal -- at least within NARALO >>-- though I am unsure if ALAC in its current form >>is even capable of advancing that position as >>forcefully as will be necessary to succeed. > >Well, I see a problem here. In my opinion, there is no any transactional >action intended in mind. Once the tasting will be approved this way or >another it will be kept as is for a very long time. Have a brief look at >the current final statement and you'll find how tricky it is formulated. >If during the next two years of (dysfunctional) ICANN oversight a public >outrage appears again it will be consolidated (put out) by waking up the >oversight committee that will try to curb it by (this time functional) >oversight to calm the outrage. And this might be going on and on in such >waves during the upcoming two years. Indeed, a weak concept. > > >>That, Dominik, is my personal answer regarding why >>I have not been pushing this issue harder. ALAC has >>enough other things on its plate. :-) >> >>- Evan > >Oh, come on. Have a rest for a while and things will be getting better. >There is not that much to do. >If we fail in this the plate will soon be full of leftovers :-) > > >Have a nice weekend > >Dominik > >_______________________________________________ >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] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Dominik and all, Yes I am aware that the issues I briefly outlined are subject matter for the GNSO Improvements. But also many of the issues I briefly outlined are central to the ALAC and the ALS'es including the NARALO. This is why I mentioned them on this thread. However thank you for again emphisizing that the issues I briefly mentioned are inclusive to the necessary improvements to the GNSO and have been sense it replaced the DNSO and were never implimented for a number of special interest objection reasons. As long as the GNSO councils members are predominantly controled by a few special interest constituencies, progress, solving of issues will either never occur, or be very problamatic and likely end up with compermises that don't solve those problems or are symptomatic at best. Such eventualities are inconsistant with good structure, and leadership. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 9, 2008 3:18 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, icann-list(a)sorehands.com, Brenbe(a)consumer.org, bfausett(a)internet.law.pro, carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm, john-ietf(a)jck.com, sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Jeff, > >All the things you are mentioning is subject matter of the GNSO >Improvements. That is what should be in focus in the first place. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >Sent: Friday, May 09, 2008 7:06 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; Wendy Seltzer; aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov; >na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Cc: At-Large; icann-list(a)sorehands.com; Brenbe(a)consumer.org; >bfausett(a)internet.law.pro; carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm; >denise.michel(a)icann.org; john-ietf(a)jck.com; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; >nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org; twomey(a)icann.org; stacy.burnette(a)icann.org; >sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Dominik and all, > > My and our members main problem with the ALAC, the ALS'es and the >NARALO is a complete lack of transparency, openness, and significant >propensity for censorship that has already been displayed. > > The problems with the ALAC structure, the GNSO structure are nearly >the same the ALAC and the GNSO are wanting or seemingly wanting to >restrict based on various unreasonable and improper rule making, active >participation and membership of all classes of stakeholders be they >users or registrant-users of various sorts. This does not boad well for >ICANN meeting it's mission requirements and significantly undermines the >MOU. As such, there can be no policy decision that has any form of >legitimate consensus, and certainly not measured consensus. > > Of course all of the above has been, and remains the central and >predominant question as to ICANN's legitimacy sense it's conception. > > If indeed openness and transparency as well as accountability are ever >to be achieved no stakeholder can be denied both a voice and a vote as >to any policy that may be considered, nor can any stakeholder, most >especially users be denied or moderated from access and intimidated or >refused the ability to propose policy to any public resource including >public forums such as these. Of course this would require that users >regardless of status, have the predominant position on the ICANN board, >the GSNO council, and within or as a part of any ALS, including of >course the NARALO. > > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >>Sent: May 8, 2008 8:38 AM >>To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >>Cc: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting >> >>Evan, >> >>If you or NARALO have any concerns or objections to the joint statement > >>worth mentioning, just enumerate them here. I think, at this stage, the > >>new structure needs not be entirely clarified. In my opinion, the >>important think to decide now is whether to fix the main model based on >>3 or 4 groups. Notwithstanding the strange circumstances under which >>the statement was negotiated, issued and barely discussed, the joint >>statement based on 3 stakeholder groups seems to me quite reasonable. >> >>Sure, there may be questionable/disputable details in the statement, >>but I think there will be an additional room to allow for a further >>refinement. >> >>However, if your objections are of serious nature we can then update or > >>reconsider the statement. >> >>Dominik >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >>Leibovitch >>Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:17 AM >>To: Wendy Seltzer >>Cc: At-Large >>Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting >> >>Hi Wendy, >>> While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in >>> the >>> 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected > >>> cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with >>> compelling >> >>> explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. >>> >>This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded. >> >>It was noted that >>-- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for >>Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. >>-- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has >>special significance (and publicity potential) >>-- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when >>planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of >>this. >> >>> With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC > >>> and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is >>> signed >> >>> on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both >>> process and substance. >>> >>Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have > >>expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections. >> >>To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint >>statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in >>approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm > >>not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint >>statement as it has currently been negotiated. >> >>> The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an >"ALAC" >> >>> review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN >>structure. >>> >>This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of >>ALAC in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to >>completely separate the two. >> >>Can you clairify what they meant? >> >>- Evan >> >>_______________________________________________ >>ALAC mailing list >>ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >>http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.ican >>n >>.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.ican >>n.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] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Dominik and all, My and our members main problem with the ALAC, the ALS'es and the NARALO is a complete lack of transparency, openness, and significant propensity for censorship that has already been displayed. The problems with the ALAC structure, the GNSO structure are nearly the same the ALAC and the GNSO are wanting or seemingly wanting to restrict based on various unreasonable and improper rule making, active participation and membership of all classes of stakeholders be they users or registrant-users of various sorts. This does not boad well for ICANN meeting it's mission requirements and significantly undermines the MOU. As such, there can be no policy decision that has any form of legitimate consensus, and certainly not measured consensus. Of course all of the above has been, and remains the central and predominant question as to ICANN's legitimacy sense it's conception. If indeed openness and transparency as well as accountability are ever to be achieved no stakeholder can be denied both a voice and a vote as to any policy that may be considered, nor can any stakeholder, most especially users be denied or moderated from access and intimidated or refused the ability to propose policy to any public resource including public forums such as these. Of course this would require that users regardless of status, have the predominant position on the ICANN board, the GSNO council, and within or as a part of any ALS, including of course the NARALO. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 8, 2008 8:38 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org>, Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Cc: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Evan, > >If you or NARALO have any concerns or objections to the joint statement >worth mentioning, just enumerate them here. I think, at this stage, the >new structure needs not be entirely clarified. In my opinion, the >important think to decide now is whether to fix the main model based on >3 or 4 groups. Notwithstanding the strange circumstances under which the >statement was negotiated, issued and barely discussed, the joint >statement based on 3 stakeholder groups seems to me quite reasonable. > >Sure, there may be questionable/disputable details in the statement, but >I think there will be an additional room to allow for a further >refinement. > >However, if your objections are of serious nature we can then update or >reconsider the statement. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >Leibovitch >Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 12:17 AM >To: Wendy Seltzer >Cc: At-Large >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >Hi Wendy, >> While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the >> 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected >> cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling > >> explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. >> >This issue was raised in the Summit WG confcall just concluded. > >It was noted that >-- the ICANN meeting following Cairo (spring 2009) is scheduled for >Latin America, and not necessarily likely to be less expensive. >-- The Cairo meeting is a 10th anniversary for ICANN and thus has >special significance (and publicity potential) >-- ICANN has not to date considered finances of accessibility when >planning meeting locations; it should not penalize At-Large because of >this. > >> With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC >> and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed > >> on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both >> process and substance. >> >Unfortunately, so far it appears that NARALO is the only region to have >expressed concern so far; I wonder if we are alone in our objections. > >To my knowledge, so far other regions are OK with the current joint >statement, though I am not aware of a formal vote or consensus in >approval. NARALO is considering whether to issue a side comment but I'm >not sure if that does (or can) affect the content of the joint statement >as it has currently been negotiated. > >> The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" > >> review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN >structure. >> >This strikes me as somewhat disingenuous. Given the central role of ALAC >in the current constitution of At-Large, it is impossible to completely >separate the two. > >Can you clairify what they meant? > >- Evan > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann >.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > >_______________________________________________ >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 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

2 1

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 9, 2008

May 9, 2008

Total of 43 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 9 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.93% | 9 | 25.45% | 84414 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 11.63% | 5 | 11.74% | 38932 | dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk 9.30% | 4 | 9.93% | 32950 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 9.30% | 4 | 8.31% | 27582 | ross at tucows.com 9.30% | 4 | 8.12% | 26953 | evan at telly.org 4.65% | 2 | 5.17% | 17143 | derek at aa419.org 4.65% | 2 | 3.37% | 11170 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 2.33% | 1 | 3.24% | 10754 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.33% | 1 | 2.97% | 9866 | stacy.burnette at icann.org 2.33% | 1 | 2.39% | 7939 | roberto at icann.org 2.33% | 1 | 2.22% | 7368 | narten at us.ibm.com 2.33% | 1 | 2.14% | 7097 | wendy at seltzer.com 2.33% | 1 | 2.09% | 6945 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 2.33% | 1 | 2.06% | 6830 | jefsey at jefsey.com 2.33% | 1 | 2.01% | 6671 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 2.33% | 1 | 1.91% | 6337 | lists at privaterra.info 2.33% | 1 | 1.76% | 5843 | matthias.langenegger at icann.org 2.33% | 1 | 1.72% | 5691 | michele at blacknight.ie 2.33% | 1 | 1.71% | 5658 | icann-list at sorehands.com 2.33% | 1 | 1.69% | 5591 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 43 |100.00% | 331734 | Total

1 0

New CIRA Whois Policy - fear mongering?
by Bill Silverstein May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008

> There's simply no basis for your fear mongering. There is no fear mongering. I am litigating against e360Insight and included Moniker as Defendant for providing anonymous whois service to spammers. Moniker has not identified or terminated the spammers, either e360 or on the original registrant of domain names that they claim do not belong to e360) Of course, I provided Moniker with copies of the spam (under oath) which Moniker admits that some of that spam are using BagainDepot's (sister company/co-defendant) anonymously registered domain names. I am not law enforcement. Just one of the people who tired of spammers using his servers as a using his inbox as a garbage can. Even is law enforcement was provided this information, there still need to be additional steps taken which will slow down the identification process. Do you think the FTC will start investigating a spammer that only sent 100 spams? Anonymous domain name registrations also prevent one from identifying how many are tied to a single spammer.

4 5

Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Wendy Seltzer May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008

This will serve as my April-May liaison report. Preliminary minutes from the Board's April 20 meeting are now online. <http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30apr08.htm> I was unable to make this meeting because it was 2 am locally, and a power outage cut my alarm clock. From the minutes and from follow-on conversations, however, I note several items of interest to At Large: The At-Large Summit, ALAC review, and GNSO improvements. While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the 2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both process and substance. >From the minutes: > The Chair was interested in the GNSO review and improvements and inquired as to whether Susan Crawford was working with the GNSO on implementation of the recommendations. Roberto Gaetano advised that Susan was not chairing but participating, and that she is acting as liaison to the GNSO in order to facilitate the possible implementation. Gaetano continued that the comment period had just ended and that one proposal to have different structure for GNSO Council, or alternatively to go with new proposal of the three stakeholder groups to lump registries and registrars in one group. The proposal came from Philip Sheppard and it is signed by the cross constituencies, NCUC and ALAC. Roberto Gaetano indicated that he would leave it to ALAC Liaison Wendy Seltzer to comment to the Board, but that in his understanding there is a significant discussion about whether ALAC endorses the proposal. Gaetano indicated that there would be additional discussion with the goal of making a decisi on at the Paris ICANN meeting. The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN structure. The Board also authorized steps toward DNSSEC. Please let me know if you have questions or comments. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/ https://www.torproject.org/

6 6

Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008

Dominik and all, I didn't find Domain Name Tasting at the URL Matthias provided either. I can only guess that either ICANN is not interested for whatever reasons to actually solve the Domain Name Tasting problem and are happy with their half-baked solution, or are so embarased by Domain Name Tasting that it was purposfully not put on the agenda and seemingly wish to sweep the problem under the rug, so to speek... -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: May 7, 2008 1:56 AM >To: cheryl(a)hovtek.com.au, Matthias Langenegger <matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org>, alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >I cannot find Domain Tasting there. > >Where is it? > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr [mailto:cheryl@hovtek.com.au] >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 10:41 AM >To: Dominik Filipp; 'Matthias Langenegger'; >alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >The Agenda is / will be found here >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_may_2008 as Matthias mentioned >in his email Discussion items will be uploaded shortly... > >CLO > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Dominik >Filipp >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 5:49 PM >To: Matthias Langenegger; alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; >alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Is there a list of issues to be discussed during the teleconference >available? > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Matthias >Langenegger >Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2008 4:06 AM >To: alac-internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] Monthly ALAC Teleconference 13 May 1330 UTC > >Dear all, > >This is to remind you about the upcoming monthly ALAC teleconference >taking place on Tuesday, 13 May at 1330 UTC. Please find additional >information such as participation instructions on the link below. > >https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?13_may_2008 > >A draft meeting agenda will be uploaded shortly. There will be Spanish >and French interpretation for this call. If you would like to be on the >French or the Spanish channel or if you would like to be on the English >channel and need to be dialed out to, please make sure your name is on >the dial-out list on the meeting page. > >Best Regards, >-- >Matthias Langenegger >At-Large Coordination Officer >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) > >Email: matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org >Main Tel: +41 (79) 644 65 35 >Fax: +41 (22) 594 85 44 >Skype ID: matthiaslangenegger >_______________________________________________ >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ >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] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 8, 2008

May 8, 2008

Wendy and all, Thank you for you interesting and seemingly well reasoned and frank remarks. My only comments are that the ALAC is still too disinclusive, seemingly intent of exclusion of users be they non-registrant users or registrant-users. Second, process within the ALAC is far too complex and as such also represents a barrier to praticipation and interest. This is certainly not a healthy thing. Third, ALS'es role in the ALAC and ICANN doesn't seem to be well thought out and seeks to segment, ergo devide users into catagories by country or origin which is not in the best interest of ICANN and can be by design, a catalist for introducing controversy where otherwise such would not always or even likely exist. As Lincoln said, a divided house cannot stand... -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: May 7, 2008 2:34 PM >To: At-Large <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Prelim minutes from recent Board meeting > >This will serve as my April-May liaison report. > >Preliminary minutes from the Board's April 20 meeting are now online. ><http://www.icann.org/minutes/prelim-report-30apr08.htm> > >I was unable to make this meeting because it was 2 am locally, and a >power outage cut my alarm clock. From the minutes and from follow-on >conversations, however, I note several items of interest to At Large: > >The At-Large Summit, ALAC review, and GNSO improvements. > >While the summit is budgeted separately from the Cairo meeting, in the >2008-09 budget, some Board members raised concerns about the expected >cost. The Summit team and At-Large should be prepared with compelling >explanations of the proposed summit's value to ICANN. > >With regard to the GNSO Improvements plan, I'd like to know what ALAC >and At-Large want conveyed to the Board. At the moment ALAC is signed >on to a joint statement about which I've heard much concern on both >process and substance. > >>From the minutes: >> The Chair was interested in the GNSO review and improvements and inquired as to whether Susan Crawford was working with the GNSO on implementation of the recommendations. Roberto Gaetano advised that Susan was not chairing but participating, and that she is acting as liaison to the GNSO in order to facilitate the possible implementation. Gaetano continued that the comment period had just ended and that one proposal to have different structure for GNSO Council, or alternatively to go with new proposal of the three stakeholder groups to lump registries and registrars in one group. The proposal came from Philip Sheppard and it is signed by the cross constituencies, NCUC and ALAC. Roberto Gaetano indicated that he would leave it to ALAC Liaison Wendy Seltzer to comment to the Board, but that in his understanding there is a significant discussion about whether ALAC endorses the proposal. Gaetano indicated that there would be additional discussion with the goal of making a decisi >on at the Paris ICANN meeting. > >The ALAC review was discussed, and it was noted that this is an "ALAC" >review and not a review of all of "At Large's" place in the ICANN >structure. > >The Board also authorized steps toward DNSSEC. > >Please let me know if you have questions or comments. > >--Wendy > >-- >Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org >Visiting Professor, Northeastern University School of Law >Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society >http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html >http://www.chillingeffects.org/ >https://www.torproject.org/ > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org 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

[Fwd: [ccnso-members] Call for Assistance for Cyclone Nargis Victims in Myanmar]
by Jacqueline A. Morris May 7, 2008

May 7, 2008

Hi all From the ccNSO list. Jacqueline -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [ccnso-members] Call for Assistance for Cyclone Nargis Victims in Myanmar Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 21:44:09 +1200 From: Don Hollander <don(a)aptld.org> Reply-To: Don Hollander <don(a)aptld.org> Organization: APTLD To: <member(a)aptld.org>, <ccnso-members(a)icann.org> CC: Wit Hmone T. Latt <withmone(a)ait.ac.th> Members: This from Wit Hmone of AIT/THNIC: Wit Hmone T. Latt <withmone(a)ait.ac.th <mailto:withmone@ait.ac.th>> I believe you may have heard about the powerful Tropical Cyclone Nargis slammed Myanmar (Burma) on Friday night, 2 May as it roared ashore from the Bay of Bengal. At least 22,500 people died in the Burma cyclone and some 41,000 are also missing three days after Cyclone Nargis hit the country, causing a huge tidal surge to sweep inland. The toll is rising rapidly as officials make contact with the worst-hit Irrawaddy delta areas, and the U.N. estimates up to a million left homeless by the catastrophic cyclone that has battered the country. Three days after the cyclone, large parts of the population remain without drinking water, food and shelter. Urgent humanitarian assistance is in need now. If there are some organizations or individuals interested to donate money and/or supplies for victims of disastrous cyclone, please do let me know. I am now liaising with the reliable NGO in Myanmar for helping these victims effectively and efficiently in every way we can. Please help forward this message to anyone you known who might be interested in donating supplies/money. Thank you, Wit Don Hollander APTLD General Manager don(a)aptld.org <mailto:don@aptld.org> www.aptld.org <http://www.aptld.org> +64 21 24 24 215

1 0