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

Re: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Wendy and all, Although Cheryl may believe that the ALAC supports the proposed tripartite model, I can only actually count 5 ALAC posters that support such and have clearly stated as much. Ergo as liason, to put forth the view that the ALAC supports such as a whole would be less than accurate. Secondly, as the ALAC has so few actual known members, and seemingly only about 30 or so individual user members, it is difficult to see how any claim of the ALAC to represent individual users. As such, it would be much more appropriate that whatever you put forth to be sure that this recognition is fully discribed. -----Original Message----- >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 1:45 AM >To: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >Cc: At-Large writ small <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion > >Hi Cheryl, > >Apology accepted. > >I fully intend to put forward the views of ALAC, and not my own. To the >extent that I can get the ALAC reasoning supporing those views, I can >make a stronger case than if I'm simply left to rely on adherence to a >joint statement. > >As is, I suspect my sole contribution to what may be a heated debate, >will have to be "ALAC supports the joint user statement, specifically >expressing concern that there be strong and equitable individual user >representation in the GNSO." > >--Wendy > >Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >> Wendy, >> >> With from the ridiculous number of glitches, technical issues and >> interventions / interruptions with the French Chanel interpreter last night >> I felt that the ALAC may perhaps not have yet made itself clear to you on >> what we desire to have you as Board Liaison impart to the Board regarding >> the status of ALAC support and endorsement for the Joint UC statement and >> the proposed tripartite model... >> >> I apologise for the delay in sending this to you but it should arrive in >> time for you to read *before* the Board meeting and I am in a national >> conference yesterday and today (not able to connect other than in a break >> and this has been my first chance)... >> >> If I understood and interpreted you correctly, then you may be planning to >> not simply forward in addition to our May ALAC statements/position pieces >> and further the argument for full,(and within the User Constituencies mix) >> an equitable part for Internet users, (including DNS Registrants and non >> registrants) i.e. the At-Large Community in a a redesigned GNSO structure, >> but perhaps to indicate that this overarching principle is a modification of >> / alteration to / or new view separate from, that which is outlined in the >> Joint UC Proposal... If am wrong or misinterpreting your intent here then >> I do most humbly apologise. >> >> I therefore as Chair, write to you to state that, whilst your personal >> opinion will naturally be transmitted to the Board in your personal >> capacity the ALAC view is as we have recently described and reviewed at >> considerable length in several documents and messages. You are required to " to >> put the collective views of the ALAC, always, in front of their own. (ROP >> 4.8) *and *"To communicate and advocate the positions of the ALAC to [the >> Board]..." (ROP 5.7). >> >> Any indication by you as an ALAC Liaison, that the Joint UC is not endorsed >> or that we have moved back from our position of support of its proposal on >> structure to the Board, would be a matter in our opinion of you 'not acting >> in the best interests of the ALAC'. >> >> An example of a suitable and non personally compromising statement to the >> Board would be along the lines of what Vanda as ALAC Vice Chair, recently >> sent to The Board Chair in response to a question on this matter to the GNSO >> improvements BGC which I have copied below... >> >> <snip>Para: 'Peter Dengate Thrush' >> Assunto: RES: Future Board discussion and resolution on the matter of GNSO >> Improvements - Specifically GNSO structure. >> >> Peter, being with ALAC, I should not have other comments than ALAC's >> position already stated. >> Best, >> Vanda <end snip> >> > > >-- >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

3 2

At-Large community event, 21 June 2008
by At-Large Staff May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Dear all, We plan to have an At-Large community dinner at the ICANN Paris meeting and would like to invite you to this event. Before we go forward with the preparations, we would like to know how many of you are likely to participate. If you are in Paris on the evening of Saturday, 21 June and would like to participate, please follow the link below and put in your name. http://www.doodle.ch/ddihym5hhpeuhdwt Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

1 1

Re: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Danny and all, Agreed to all of your points but #7. It need not be necessary for the GNSO to exhume the whole expense of language translation, other NGO's can belly up to the bar and volunteer to take on some of that expense, as well as automated language translation software has, will, and can reduce this cost significantly, all be it that some few ALAC members may have some "Culture" related problems with such. Those that do should be the ones doing the volunteering. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 4:22 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion > >Wendy, > >Thank you for your comment on this topic. I am sure >that if asked you will indicate that: > >1. The ALAC never took a formal vote on the Statement >2. No members of the ALAC from regions other than NA >expressed any views whatsoever on the topic on the >at-large discussion list (which is not surprising as >they rarely express any opinions on anything). >3. The work of the ad-hoc GNSO Improvements Working >Group was totally non-transparent (not even an >archived discussion list). >4. The broad At-Large community was not afforded an >opportunity to discuss the Joint document prior to its >release. >5. There are those in the at-large that do not >support the concept of eliminating Non-Com >representation in the GNSO. >6. Some in the at-large view the statement that >"At-Large would not accept anything less than 50% of >the voting power of the Non-Commercial Interest >Group", as ludicrous. >7. Some regard the ALAC push for a multilingual >approach within the GNSO to be a foolish waste of >money and point to the horrid expenditures on the part >of the ALAC for contracted (yet unused) translation >services. >8. The comment "Since as mentioned the At-Large >community has been actively engaged in developing and >implementing new approaches to a working group >modality for policy development, some >of the experiences we have had in that process may >prove salutary", is an insult to the intelligence of >the community. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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] Not the pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Danny and all, It would be a mistake of huge proportions for ICANN to get involved in the business decisions of sTLD or gTLD registries before or after the fact that such a registry has been established. ICANN simply doesn't have the horses nor the business acumen to do so, and such is not associated with ICANN's mandate. Quite simply, .TRAVEL NEVER had a fighting chance of being a commercial private enterprize success. The travel industry is shrinking due to fuel costs and has been for nerly 10 years, ergo the travel market space represented in a sTLD is up against it, and has been for some time now. Secondly due to the increase of terrorist threats, air travel especially is taking huge hits still and will for the forseeable future. -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 8:05 PM >To: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Not the pending death of a registry > >John, > >I spotted two remarks in the slightly earlier 10K >filing at >http://sec.edgar-online.com/2008/03/27/0001144204-08-017833/Section12.asp > >"However, management does not believe that the >consummation of the Proposed Tralliance Transaction >will, in itself, allow the Company to become >profitable and generate operating cash flows >sufficient to fund its operations and pay its existing >current liabilities (including those liabilities >related to its discontinued operations) in the >foreseeable future." > >Also, this phrase (which was repeated in the >subsequent 10Q): "It is our preference to avoid >filing for protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code." > >...which leads us to the gTLD Registry Failover >Exercise After Action Report that stated: > >"The exercise highlighted the difficulty in >implementing portions of the plan when a company has >declared bankruptcy or is in receivership. > >Discussion: Bankruptcy of a Registry/Backend Provider > >Declaration of bankruptcy by a registry or backend >provider could place the company under control of the >courts, and potentially negatively impact registrants >and affect the level/quality of DNS service within the >affected TLD. The exercise highlighted difficulty in >the implementation of portions of the plan when a >company has declared bankruptcy or is in receivership. > >Recommendation: > >ICANN to undertake a more-thorough examination of the >affect of bankruptcy on the draft ICANN gTLD Registry >Failover Plan. Recommend the development of >detailed internal procedures and courses of action to >provide guidance during a registry bankruptcy on >registrants of the affected gTLD." > >Perhaps in view of current circumstances ICANN should >accelerate its proposed more-thorough examination of >the affect of bankruptcy. > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten May 30, 2008

May 30, 2008

Total of 122 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri May 30 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 1.64% | 2 | 23.39% | 289361 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 12.30% | 15 | 11.27% | 139446 | lists at privaterra.info 10.66% | 13 | 8.89% | 109975 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 10.66% | 13 | 6.91% | 85494 | evan at telly.org 9.02% | 11 | 8.21% | 101551 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 7.38% | 9 | 5.50% | 68098 | jefsey at jefsey.com 6.56% | 8 | 4.00% | 49509 | johnl at iecc.com 4.92% | 6 | 4.91% | 60771 | veni at veni.com 4.10% | 5 | 2.35% | 29102 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 2.46% | 3 | 3.04% | 37650 | roberto at icann.org 3.28% | 4 | 1.93% | 23907 | michele at blacknight.ie 2.46% | 3 | 1.75% | 21592 | wendy at seltzer.com 2.46% | 3 | 1.61% | 19956 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 2.46% | 3 | 1.61% | 19883 | ross at tucows.com 2.46% | 3 | 1.52% | 18852 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 1.64% | 2 | 1.27% | 15772 | kieren.mccarthy at icann.org 1.64% | 2 | 1.23% | 15190 | matthias.langenegger at icann.org 1.64% | 2 | 1.20% | 14815 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 1.64% | 2 | 1.09% | 13513 | admin at isoc.sd 1.64% | 2 | 0.98% | 12119 | joly at punkcast.com 0.82% | 1 | 0.91% | 11306 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 0.82% | 1 | 0.88% | 10835 | derek at aa419.org 0.82% | 1 | 0.85% | 10576 | dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk 0.82% | 1 | 0.75% | 9250 | shahshah at irnic.ir 0.82% | 1 | 0.67% | 8336 | lbleriot at gmail.com 0.82% | 1 | 0.61% | 7528 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.82% | 1 | 0.61% | 7510 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 0.82% | 1 | 0.61% | 7504 | iza at anr.org 0.82% | 1 | 0.52% | 6430 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 0.82% | 1 | 0.47% | 5832 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 0.82% | 1 | 0.45% | 5554 | elisabeth.porteneuve at cetp.ipsl.fr --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 122 |100.00% | 1237217 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Danny and all, You and I know that ICANN has always had trouble maintaining it's own web site let alone provisioning it's DNS or advising on how to do so for or to others. Additionally, until recently ICANN.ORG's own DNS was grossly misconfigured. That does not lend much in terms of creditability to ICANN's ability to manage any resource effectively. Secondly, in either 1999 or 2000, I don't recall offhand at the moment, the than sitting ICANN interim Bod was very emphatic that if any registry failed, ICANN itself would take over so that no registrant would be damaged as a result of such a failure. Ergo you are quite right in being concerned, if not very concerned regarding fail over from http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf slide 13. Seems some backpedalling is in progress, behind the scenes... IMO only, what should be done to address the failure of .Travel is either ICON hire some other entity to temporarily manage the registry, or aid the current registry owners to acquire funding with ICANN itself kicking in about 25%. But frankly, .Travel has little chance of survival unless it receives significant and long term public funding. In the current world economic environment I don't see that happening either... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 12:54 PM >To: JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com>, At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry > >Jefsey, > >Of greater concern to me than the prospect of ALAC >registry management is the current status of the ICANN >Registry failover project -- see >http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/registry-failover-30apr08.pdf > >See also the After Action Report for the gTLD Registry >Failover Exercise conducted 24-25 January >2008http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf > >See also the SSAC Review of the above at >http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac031.pdf > >By the way, on one of the slides from the first >presentation (page 13) there is a bullet point that >states: "Recognition that current process is not >sufficient to reconstitute a registry". This is a >somewhat unsettling remark (unless I am >misunderstanding it). > >Another troubling statement from the After Action >report: "The draft ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan >provides strategic guidance, but (by design) lacks the >detailed internal ICANN event-specific steps for >implementation." > >One has to hope that behind-the-scenes ICANN is >reasonably on top of their responsibilities... the >last thing that we need is a loss of confidence in the >provisioning of DNS services. > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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] The pending death of a registry
by Jeffrey A. Williams May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Danny and all, This is not surprising in any way as other older news on .Travel has been well publicized in the past on the GA, Slashdot, and elsewhere. ICANN's acceptance of .Travel, like .MOBI were based upon personal friendships of the than seated ICANN Bod rather than more reasonable and relevant reasons and was hotly debated at the time, again on the GA forum. Frankly the idea of sTLD's was and remains a very questionable if not outright silly strategy for expanding the TLD name space. But the than sitting ICANN bod thought wrongly, otherwise... Just as frankly, I thought at the time and stated such in no uncertain terms the idea of .Travel was little more than a scam. Seems I was correct... Maybe some day ICANN itself will have honest, accountable, transparent, open and responsible leadership. But that day has not yet come to pass... -----Original Message----- >From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >Sent: May 29, 2008 11:10 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Cc: Edward Hasbrouck <edward(a)hasbrouck.org> >Subject: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry > >For those of you following the ongoing demise of >.travel, here is its parent corporation's most recent >filing: > >"Based upon the Company's current financial condition, >as discussed above, and without the infusion of >additional capital, management does not believe that >the Company will be able to fund its operations beyond >the end of May 2008." > >Form 10-Q for THEGLOBE COM INC: >http://biz.yahoo.com/e/080509/tglo.ob10-q.html > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >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] The pending death of a registry
by Patrick Vande Walle May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

JFC Morfin wrote: > This demonstrates what @large people engaged in this business and in > DNS community testing know for years: Registries should be non profit > organisations and the Registrants should be their members. Low > management costs and new services. Verisign is a successful and purely commercial operation. So is Afilias. The failure is not linked to the fact that it was a commercial company. IMHO, the main issue is that the ".travel" string is only meaningful for English speakers, or about 30% of the current Internet users. I cannot see why German, Spanish or French speakers would use such a domain. > PS. By the way how many people on this ALAC list has ever technical > managed DNS zone files and operated a nameserver ? I would be > curiouis to know also how many people among the GNSO and BoD? FWIW, I do. -- Patrick Vande Walle Check my blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu

2 1

Re: [At-Large] The pending death of a registry
by Danny Younger May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Jefsey, Of greater concern to me than the prospect of ALAC registry management is the current status of the ICANN Registry failover project -- see http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/registry-failover-30apr08.pdf See also the After Action Report for the gTLD Registry Failover Exercise conducted 24-25 January 2008http://www.icann.org/registries/failover/icann-aar-06apr08.pdf See also the SSAC Review of the above at http://www.icann.org/committees/security/sac031.pdf By the way, on one of the slides from the first presentation (page 13) there is a bullet point that states: "Recognition that current process is not sufficient to reconstitute a registry". This is a somewhat unsettling remark (unless I am misunderstanding it). Another troubling statement from the After Action report: "The draft ICANN gTLD Registry Failover Plan provides strategic guidance, but (by design) lacks the detailed internal ICANN event-specific steps for implementation." One has to hope that behind-the-scenes ICANN is reasonably on top of their responsibilities... the last thing that we need is a loss of confidence in the provisioning of DNS services.

2 1

Request regarding your views on GNSO Improvements into Board Discussion
by Danny Younger May 29, 2008

May 29, 2008

Wendy, Thank you for your comment on this topic. I am sure that if asked you will indicate that: 1. The ALAC never took a formal vote on the Statement 2. No members of the ALAC from regions other than NA expressed any views whatsoever on the topic on the at-large discussion list (which is not surprising as they rarely express any opinions on anything). 3. The work of the ad-hoc GNSO Improvements Working Group was totally non-transparent (not even an archived discussion list). 4. The broad At-Large community was not afforded an opportunity to discuss the Joint document prior to its release. 5. There are those in the at-large that do not support the concept of eliminating Non-Com representation in the GNSO. 6. Some in the at-large view the statement that "At-Large would not accept anything less than 50% of the voting power of the Non-Commercial Interest Group", as ludicrous. 7. Some regard the ALAC push for a multilingual approach within the GNSO to be a foolish waste of money and point to the horrid expenditures on the part of the ALAC for contracted (yet unused) translation services. 8. The comment "Since as mentioned the At-Large community has been actively engaged in developing and implementing new approaches to a working group modality for policy development, some of the experiences we have had in that process may prove salutary", is an insult to the intelligence of the community.

2 1