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

FYI: EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

All, An FYI: EDRI-gram biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe Number 6.12, 18 June 2008 ============================================================ Contents ============================================================ 1. EU Competition Commissioner backs open standards in eGovernment 2. France obtained ISPs support in blocking pedopornographic sites 3. UK MPs report: A Surveillance Society? 4. Italian blog closed by Police 5. OOXML standard on hold by ISO 6. British ISPs warn Internet downloaders on the risk of being prosecuted 7. Recommended Action 8. Agenda 9. About ============================================================ 1. EU Competition Commissioner backs open standards in eGovernment ============================================================ The EU Competition Commissioner, Neelie Kroes, publicly supported the use of open source software in eGovernment, in a public speech at a seminar hosted by OpenForum Europe in Brussels on 10 June 2008. Kroes encouraged the public institutions to use open standards, underlining the positive example of Munich that have implemented open standards in their local eGovernment projects. She suggested a much more active role of the European Commission in promoting open standards in eGovernment applications, by adopting an internal policy not to buy proprietary software: "The Commission must do its part. It must not rely on one vendor, it must not accept closed standards and it must refuse to become locked into a particular technology." The EU Commissioner's speech shows an indirect support to the Open Parliament petition initiated in March 2008 by OpenForum Europe, The European Software Market Association and the Free Software Foundation Europe asking the European Parliament to change its ICT system in order to allow the adoption of open standards. Also Kroes praised the benefits of open standards: "No citizen or company should be forced or encouraged to choose a closed technology over an open one, through a government having made that choice first." She also encouraged the business customers to make a difference by promoting open standards: "I know a smart business decision when I see one. Choosing open standards is a very smart business decision indeed." Kroes mentioned a number of competition cases in ICT that are investigated by the Commission in relation with ICT standards, giving as examples Apple, the mobile phone company Qualcomm and chip maker Rambus. Also she clearly referred to Microsoft when she mentioned the problems with the well- known fines against the US software producer: "The Commission has never before had to issue two periodic penalty payments in a competition case." Some MEPs wanted to go further and asked the European Commission if Microsoft could not be banned from the European public procurements, since it has been fined by the Commission. Heide Rühle, internal market policy spokeswoman for the Greens in the European Parliament, explained that there were provisions of the public procurement EU Directive that allow the exclusion of applicants from public procurement procedures if "they have been convicted of an offence concerning their professional conduct by a judgement which has the force of res judicata or they have been guilty of grave professional misconduct proven by any means which the contracting authority can justify". But the European Commission rejected these arguments in its answer explaining that, according to the directiv, the exclusion was not obligatory. EC claimed that the fine did not count as an "criminal conviction of a criminal offence by a final judgement from a Court". Also the second provision should "require a case-by-case assessment which can only be done in the framework of an on-going procurement procedure." Kroes calls for open standards in eGovernment (10.06.2008) http://www.euractiv.com/en/infosociety/kroes-calls-open-standards-egovernme… EU's Kroes: open standards are smart business move (10.06.2008) http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idUSL0935274720080610 European Commission won't exclude Microsoft from procurement procedures (13.06.2008) http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/European-Commission-won-t-exclude-Micros… Written Question: Microsoft - Implementation of Article 93 of the Financial Regulation (21.04.2008) http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//TEXT+WQ+E-2008-… EDRi-gram: European Parliament criticized for not using open standards (12.03.2008) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.5/ep-open-standards ============================================================ 5. OOXML standard on hold by ISO ============================================================ International Standards Organisation (ISO) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) in Geneva have postponed the publication of the revised specification of Microsoft's Office Open XML (OOXML) document format, following complaints filed by their member organizations representing these four countries: Brazil, India, South Africa and Venezuela. The planned standard ISO/IEC DIS 29500 cannot be published until the complaints are examined by ISO and IEC who will have to give responses and comments by the end of June 2008 The four national standardization organizations have shown concerns that no consensus has been reached on changes that must be made to the 6000-page specification, during the consultation period on the numerous comments submitted at the end of February. The complaints mainly address the fact that the concrete technical objections were not individually discussed. The concerns are summarized in an open letter of a member of the technical standardisation committee in India who stated that the standard had not been properly thought out and it was not even clear what standard would result from the proceedings. The adoption of the standard in the present state would not be an open process as it would be implemented only by Microsoft. Other protests have been filed to ISO by the Danish Open Source Business Association. They claim that "the procedures and the decision conflict with ISO's rules, and the process has caused considerable damage to the reputations of Danish Standards and ISO." The letter also explains why the case should be picked up by ISO: "The process has thus been formally annulled now for two months - since March 29, at which time the specifications should have been sent to the national standardization organizations. The prerequisites for the fast-track procedure no longer exist, and, therefore, I expect that ISO recommence the case." The European Commission is also investigating the case. Competition Commissioner Kroes explained in a recent conference why the European Commission is interested in this topic: "If voting in the standard- setting context is influenced less by the technical merits of the technology but rather by side agreements, inducements, package deals, reciprocal agreements or commercial pressure, then these risk falling foul of the competition rules." In the meantime, The Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS), has invited interested parties to create a new technical committee for the "implementation, interoperability, and conformity" of the next version of the Open Document Format (ODF) which has already been certified by the ISO. Open source supporters draw the attention on a possible new alliance with Microsoft which announced its intention to support ODF and to join the technical OASIS committee in its works on the open standard. The management boards of ISO and IEC will decide, after having examined the complaints against Microsoft standard, whether the appeals should be further processed and if they decide so, the chairmen of the two boards will establish a conciliation panel that will try to resolve the appeals. ISO puts standard for Microsoft's OOXML document formats on hold (10.06.2008) http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/ISO-puts-standard-for-Microsoft-s-OOXML-… Four national standards bodies appeal against approval of ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (6.06.2008) http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1136 Now an OOXML Protest from Denmark's OSL - Updated 3Xs: Official English Translation (31.05.2008) http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080531134006167 OASIS opens discussion list for ODF Implementation, Interoperability and Conformance (3.06.2008) http://opendocument.xml.org/news/oasis-opens-discussion-list-for-odf-implem… Microsoft will support Open Document Format (ODF) (22.05.2008) http://www.heise-online.co.uk/news/Microsoft-will-support-Open-Document-For… EDRi-gram: OOXML adopted as a new standard by ISO (9.04.2008) http://www.edri.org/edrigram/number6.7/ooxml-adopted-iso SNIP EDRI-gram is a biweekly newsletter about digital civil rights in Europe. Currently EDRI has 28 members based or with offices in 17 different countries in Europe. European Digital Rights takes an active interest in developments in the EU accession countries and wants to share knowledge and awareness through the EDRI-grams. All contributions, suggestions for content, corrections or agenda-tips are most welcome. Errors are corrected as soon as possible and visibly on the EDRI website. Except where otherwise noted, this newsletter is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License. See the full text at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/ Newsletter editor: Bogdan Manolea <edrigram(a)edri.org> Information about EDRI and its members: http://www.edri.org/ European Digital Rights needs your help in upholding digital rights in the EU. If you wish to help us promote digital rights, please consider making a private donation. http://www.edri.org/about/sponsoring - EDRI-gram subscription information subscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: subscribe 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 You will receive an automated e-mail asking to confirm your request. unsubscribe by e-mail To: edri-news-request(a)edri.org Subject: unsubscribe - EDRI-gram in Macedonian EDRI-gram is also available partly in Macedonian, with delay. Translations are provided by Metamorphosis http://www.metamorphosis.org.mk/edrigram-mk.php - EDRI-gram in German EDRI-gram is also available in German, with delay. Translations are provided Andreas Krisch from the EDRI-member VIBE!AT - Austrian Association for Internet Users http://www.unwatched.org/ - Newsletter archive Back issues are available at: http://www.edri.org/edrigram - Help Please ask <edrigram(a)edri.org> if you have any problems with subscribing or unsubscribing

1 0

Issue Update on the Fast Track process for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs
by Denise Michel June 18, 2008

June 18, 2008

Below (and attached in Word with hyperlinks) is an expanded *Issue Update*on the Fast Track process for the introduction of IDN ccTLDs. It has been prepared by ICANN Staff to support community discussions at the Paris ICANN meeting and beyond, and is being distributed to all Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees, and posted on ICANN's website. In addition to briefly summarizing recommendations in the IDNC Working Group's Draft Final Report and related issues under discussion, the *Issue Update *contains links to more IDN information, and a list of IDN-related activities scheduled in Paris. We hope you find it useful. Regards, Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy policy-staff(a)icann.org -------------------------------------------- ICANN ISSUE UPDATE FAST TRACK PROCESS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF IDN CCTLDS June 2008 * Prepared by ICANN Staff to support community discussions.* ICANN's IDNC Working Group (IDNC WG) is finalizing its report on feasible methods that would enable the timely and efficient ("fast track") introduction of a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, while a global, long-term IDN ccTLD policy is being developed by the ccNSO. On 13 June, 2008, the IDNC WG issued a Draft Final Report providing advice on issues that need to be considered in developing (1) a mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string, and (2) a mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager. During the ICANN Paris meeting, the Report is expected to be finalised by the IDNC WG, discussed by several Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees, and will be the focus of a public workshop. The Report also has been posted to encourage additional discussion at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-3-13jun08-en.htm. Background As a result of the ICANN Board resolution approved at the Los Angels meeting, the IDNC WG was established according to its charter. The IDNC WG is comprised of Members of the GAC and the ccNSO (including their Chairs), two members each from the GNSO and the ALAC (and additional observers from the GNSO), one member from the SSAC, one representative of technical community, and two ICANN Staff members. Chairs of the IDNC WG are Mrs. Young Eum Lee, member of the ccNSO Council, and Ms. Manal Ismail, GAC Representative from Egypt. The purpose of the Fast Track process is to introduce a limited number of non-contentious IDN ccTLDs, associated with the ISO 3166-1 two-letter codes in a short time frame to meet near term demand. The scope of the IDNC WG was limited to developing feasible methods (for the introduction of a limited number of IDN ccTLDs) that do not pre-empt the outcomes of the ccNSO's IDN policy development process. In developing feasible methods, the IDNC WG was required to take into account and be guided by: the overarching requirements of stability and security; IDNA protocols and IDN guidelines; input of the technical community with respect to implementation of IDNs; and current practices for the delegation of ccTLDs. The working group published two previous draft reports for comment from the global community: a draft Initial Report to canvass the community on the topics that needed to be covered; and a draft Interim Report to canvass the community on a methodology. As indicated in the IDNC WG Initial and Interim Reports, the Fast Track requires two specific mechanisms: 1) A mechanism for the selection of the IDN ccTLD string; and 2) A mechanism to designate an IDN ccTLD manager. Based on the input received, the working group developed a number of general guiding principles that, in conjunction with the overarching requirements, guide conditions for the methodology. The methodology describes (at a high level) the activities, roles, and responsibilities of the actors involved in the processes. The IDNC WG anticipates that this will need to be further detailed by ICANN Staff as a matter of implementation. Their Report notes that, in order to implement the recommended methodology, some of the current procedures and practices (for instance the practices relating to the maintenance of the repository and requirements for an IDN table), may need to be changed. The working group indicates, however, that identifying these procedures, or suggesting changes, is considered a matter of implementation. Draft Final Report Content The IDNC WG and other groups in the ICANN community are continuing their discussions of the Report during the ICANN meeting in Paris. Therefore, the recommendations set forth in the Draft Final Report are subject to change. Guiding principles developed by the IDNC WG, based on input received during the various comment periods, are summarized below: A. Ongoing Process – The Fast Track should be an ongoing process to enable a selected IDN ccTLD manager to enter when ready, but should end when a global IDN ccTLD policy has been adopted by the ICANN Board. B. Non pre-emption of overall policy – The Fast Track should not pre-empt final IDN ccTLD policy, so it must be a simple, clear and limited solution. C. Purpose of Fast Track is to meet pressing demand – The Fast Track should only be available where there is a pressing demand in the territory (evidenced by readiness to meet the requirements). D. Fast Track only for non-Latin scripts – To avoid pre-empting the ccNSO's PDP, which will consider the possibility of IDN ccTLDs in Latin script, non-Latin script must be used in the Fast Track. E. The proposed string and delegation request should be non-contentious within the territory – "Non-contentious" is evidenced by the support/endorsement of the relevant stakeholders in the territory for the selected string as a meaningful representation of the name of the territory, and for the selected delegate. F. The Fast Track is experimental in nature – This should be taken into consideration when delegating names, but should not be interpreted to mean that delegation under the Fast Track will be temporary. G. Criteria determine the number of IDN ccTLDs under the Fast Track – The number of eligible IDN ccTLDs should be determined by criteria to select the IDN ccTLD string, and to designate the IDN ccTLD manager. The methodology recommended by the IDNC WG includes three stages: 1. Territory or country preparation of actions required to enter the Fast Track process; 2. Due diligence (evaluation) and submission of delegation request to ICANN; and 3. IANA Delegation Process. These stages are described in detail in the attached Draft Final Report and were devised to enable: • The relevant actors in the territory to self-assess and determine whether the delegation of an IDN ccTLD under the Fast Track process is feasible; and • The relevant stakeholders to select a string for the IDN ccTLD and prepare for a delegation request. The Report proposes the following criteria to select a string for an IDN ccTLD: 1. To be eligible under the Fast Track a territory should be listed on the International Standard ISO 3166-1 Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions – Part 1: Country Codes. 2. Identify "official" language and script. An official language is considered to be one that has a legal status in the territory or that serves as a language of administration. The script should not be based on the 26 letters of the Latin alphabet -- a-z -- that are encoded in US-ASCII. 3. Select a string that meets meaningfulness and technical requirements. A string is considered meaningful if it is in the official language and: a. Is the name of the Territory; or b. A part of the name of the territory that denotes the territory in the language; or c. A short-form designation for the name of the territory, recognizably denoting it in the indicated language. Ongoing Discussions and Potential Implementation Issues Included below are some of the issues expected to be part of the discussions during the Paris meeting, within the IDNC WG as they finalize the Report, and at stakeholder group meetings and the public workshop. - Request should be non-contentious within the territory A minority group of IDNC WG members have suggested that Principle E should reflect that the selected string should not only be non-contentious within the territory, but also be non-contentious across territories. The majority of the IDNC WG indicated opposition to broadening the principle. The basis for their opposition included avoiding the implications and impact of an objection procedure under the Fast Track. - Objection Procedure Against including an objection procedure: Some IDNC WG members have suggested that introducing an objection procedure could impinge on the sovereignty of territories in determining the name of their territory, and would add an unnecessary complication to the process. Assuming that a selected string meets the specified criteria, an objection procedure would enable territories or other entities to co-determine or object to the name of a country, dependency, or other area of particular geopolitical interest. Support for including an objection procedure: Some IDNC WG members expressed the view that an objection procedure, or at least a formal public comment process, is necessary to enable ICANN and the ICANN Board to deal with objections to a selected string from the worldwide community. They have noted that, without a pre-defined process and criteria, the Board is left dealing with public comments on its own and potentially through ad-hoc processes. For transparency reasons, the IDNC WG did agree that the selected string, once vetted against technical and linguistic criteria, should be published on the ICANN website. - Legal Arrangement Between ICANN and IDN ccTLD Manager The IDNC WG has not made any recommendation on a legal arrangement, considering it outside their scope to advise the ICANN Board on this matter. It is deemed to be an implementation issue. Although the IDNC WG discussed including a statement in the Final Report on the issue of ensuring compliance to IDNA Protocol and IDN Guidelines, the views of the WG diverged on this topic. Some IDNC WG members questioned the need for a compulsory arrangement between ICANN and the IDN ccTLD manager. Other working group members – and the GNSO Council – have stated that the IDN ccTLD registries should be required to follow the ICANN IDN guidelines in the same way as gTLD registries, and ICANN should have a contract or some other form of agreement with the IDN ccTLD operator that includes appropriate technical, operational and financial requirements. Such an arrangement was viewed to ensure a smooth transition of the Fast Track IDN ccTLD to the ccNSO PDP IDN process once it is established. In addition, some working group members have insisted that a mechanism will be required to ensure the security and stability of the DNS (including compliance with IDNA protocol and IDN guidelines), which is an overarching requirement for Fast Track. - Financial Contribution The IDNC WG has not considered financial contributions (either an application fee or an annual contribution) in its discussions. It was considered to be out of scope, and more appropriately addressed as an implementation issue. However, this issue was raised at several public meetings. Based on these discussions, some members of the IDNC WG expressed a view that any financial contribution should be given on a voluntary basis, as is currently the case for (ASCII) ccTLDs, while other members (and the GNSO Council) publicly expressed that they expect a reasonable financial contribution from IDN ccTLDs as part of a legal arrangement with ICANN. - Timing Issues Initiation of the Fast Track will enable introduction of IDN ccTLDs and new (IDN) gTLDs at about the same time. ICANN Staff is coordinating efforts so that work between the two processes can take advantage of each other and aim at a similar launch date. However, should one process be delayed for unexpected reasons it is not considered a viable solution to delay the other process (this view has been reinforced by the GNSO Council). ICANN Stakeholders It is anticipated that the ccNSO, GAC, GNSO Council, GNSO Constituencies (Registrars, Registries, Business, IP, ISP, and NCUC), ALAC, and others will develop formal opinions during or soon after the Paris ICANN meeting. Implementation Work In addressing the feasibility of implementing the IDNC WG recommendations, it is expected that ICANN Staff will need to explore: • A request for information process (RFI) on expected use of the Fast Track; • Issues surrounding the establishment of the Technical Committee; • Issues surrounding the establishment of the Language Expert Advisory Panel; • Development of a process to receive submissions of a selected string; • Issues surrounding evidence of support by relevant stakeholders in territory for selected IDN ccTLD string; • Coordination between ICANN, the Technical Committee, and LEAP; and • Conducting review, and potential update, of IANA practices relating to the maintenance of the repository and requirements for an IDN table. Reference Documents & Events • 5 October 2007 the ccNSO letter to ccTLD managers including survey to assess the interest and readiness for introduction of IDN ccTLDs. • 5 December 2007, results of ccNSO survey, showing 86% of the respondents had an interest in a fast track approach. • 2 November 2007, ICANN Board chartered IDNC WG and invited SOs, ACs to appoint members. • 14 December 2007, IDNC WG established with members from the GAC, ccNSO GNSO, ALAC, SSAC, Technical Community and ICANN Staff. • 2008 - IDNC WG conducted numerous teleconference meetings, face-to-face meetings in New Delhi and Geneva, and numerous public workshops and discussions in conjunction with other regional meetings, such as in New Delhi and Dubai. • 1 February 2008, IDNC WG posted "Discussion Draft of the Initial Report" for public comment. • 11 February 2008, Draft Initial Report was discussed at ICANN New Delhi meting. • 4 April 2008, IDNC WG posted Interim Report for public comment. • April, May 2008, Interim Report discussed at the ICANN Regional Meeting in Dubai, UAE, the RIPE meeting in Berlin, and the APTLD meeting in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. • 13 June 2008, IDNC WG posted Draft Final Report for public comment. • 21 June 2008, IDNC WG meeting at Paris ICANN meeting, along with public workshop. The GAC, ccNSO, GNSO, and ALAC have the Final Report on their agenda for discussion in Paris.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Article on anonymous domains and spam
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Derek and all, Old news really. We have been doing tracking of these despots for 7 years now. I did notice that the comments sent in were from several of our members. ICANN's responsibility is terribly lacking and has been for years now. One thing that struck me though was the comment made by John Levine. Rather wimpish. Definately not leadership calaber. -----Original Message----- >From: Derek Smythe <derek(a)aa419.org> >Sent: Jun 17, 2008 8:50 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: [At-Large] Article on anonymous domains and spam > >Hi All > >The following article appeared in the Washington Post: > >http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/06/anonymous_domain_sales_a… > >Regards > >Derek > >_______________________________________________ >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

Fw: Re: [ga] .xxx Registry Files for Independent Review
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

All, FYI thanks to Danny. Read and weap or rejoice, depending on your particular bent. -----Forwarded Message----- >From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> >Sent: Jun 17, 2008 4:28 PM >To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org, denise.michel(a)icann.org, ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov, stacy.burnette(a)icann.org >Cc: aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, jeffrey(a)icann.org, twomey(a)icann.org, robert(a)privaterra.org, vb(a)bertola.eu >Subject: Re: [ga] .xxx Registry Files for Independent Review > >Danny and all, > > Well, well, well... My how the worm turns, eh? > > I for one am not surprised at this perfictly reasonable >filing and the reasons given by ICM, even though I personally >am against their original patition for .XXX. As to competition >in this "Space", no pun intended, I believe that there is >"Plenty" of competition, if you'll pardong the pun, all be >it that in this Market segment that competition is not >as substancial ( Exceptions .org, .com, .info, .ws, .it, >.tk, and the always popular .sl, for somwhat obvious >reasons )at the TLD level, so to speek. > > I am also sure that the Domain Name speculators were >and remain disappointed that .XXX was shot down for >moral reasons, contrary to ICANN's stated reasons >as Danny's provided links falsely indicate. The >permiations for domain names in the proposed .XXX >have rather interesting cultural and denoted meanings >as it were that might have some significant value to >future interested parties. > > However making money in the explotation of persons >of dubious behaviors is not reasonably exceptable, >and should not be. Yet ICANN's reason for rejecting >the patition should have been a completely honest one >from the onstart, which is telling in how ICANN determins >what is and what is not acceptable for a TLD of sTLD in >this case. > > So either ICANN abides by it's own bylaws and policies >or it doesn't. Can we say, "Hoist on it's own patard" >again? > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Danny Younger <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >>Sent: Jun 17, 2008 10:11 AM >>To: ga(a)gnso.icann.org >>Subject: [ga] .xxx Registry Files for Independent Review >> >> >>http://www.icmregistry.com/IRP/Request.pdf >>http://www.icmregistry.com/press.html >> >> >> > >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

Article on anonymous domains and spam
by Derek Smythe June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Hi All The following article appeared in the Washington Post: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/06/anonymous_domain_sales_a… Regards Derek

1 0

france@large press release (in French)
by JFC Morfin June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

It seems that this PR did not make it to the lists. I send it again. It clarifies the france@large/ALAC relations. jfc ---- Versailles, le 16 juin 2008. france@large est la plus ancienne organisation mondiale d'"Internet @larges" ou d'"internautes ad largum", c'est à dire libres de toute contrainte, de ce fait considérés dans leur diversité comme représentatifs des besoins de toute la communauté des internautes sans distinction d'origine ou d'orientation d'aucune sorte. Formée en association 1901 en 2000 par les candidats français au Conseil d'Administration de l'ICANN, elle se compose d'un secrétariat coopté supportant une libre de diffusion de membres, ses sites et outils communs, de multiples Centres d'eXpertise et leur coopération avec divers projets. http://franceatlarge.org. france@large diffuse le communiqué de presse suivant. En tant que gestionnaires et propriétaires de nos propres internets, et par là co-propriétaires de l'internet général, nous sommes soucieux d'un fonctionnement efficace et harmonieux des protocoles, de l'adressage, du nommage et des référentiels nécessaires à sa technologie numérique et à l'émergence des solutions et services de facilitation sémantiques, dans le cadre d'un support multilinguistique robuste. A ce titre nous sommes attentifs à l'interopérabilité de nos choix techniques avec ceux de la communauté ICANN/IETF. Nous avons donc fait beaucoup pour aider à un accueil convenable de l'ICANN à Paris et pour la coopération de nos projets. Dans le but de leur montrer qu'il n'y avait pas que les Etats-Unis dans l'Internet et que nous étions prêts à travailler ensemble, pour autant que l'on adopte, dans le respect de chacune des cultures et avec le souci de chacun des intérêts nationaux, des valeurs plus françaises et moins mercantiles. Nous avons donc proposé notre coopération à un effort d'interopérabilité avec l'Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) auprès du Groupe de Travail présidé par Vint Cerf sur le support linguistique dans le système des noms de domaine (DNS), et à l'effort d'intégration de l'ICANN auprès de nos collègues @large français, européens et mondiaux. Nous avons engagé l'initiative Multilinc à la frontière du DNS et du sémantique et trouvé un modus vivendi acceptable entre les projets IDNA de l'IETF et ML-DNS de france@large (qui visent à un support totalement indifférencié et égal des toutes les langues, écritures et cultures, ce à quoi la langue française et l'expérience de la francophonie nous prédisposent). Par contre, l'ICANN a dans un premier temps décliné notre coopération avant leur sommet européen de Paris où nous ne pourrons donc présenter nos positions, projets pour la communauté et accomplissements. france@large et l'assemblée de ses membres @large en prennent acte. Nous comprenons par là que l'ICANN poursuit des objectifs différents des nôtres et qu'elle veut nous amener à les adopter en préalable. Nos objectifs sont ceux des Déclarations unanimes du Sommet Mondial pour la Société de l'Information : l'engagement que notre société soit "people centric, à caractère humain, centrada en la persona". N'étant pas intéressée par un tel changement d'allégeance, france@large ne peut que suggérer aux @large français de participer à titre personnel à la Conférence de l'ICANN où ils peuvent nouer des liens avec des personnes soumises aux mêmes contraintes qu'eux et mieux comprendre leurs problèmes communs. france@large, ignorée par l'ICANN, entend n'avoir à cette conférence aucune présence officielle ou pro-active, et ignorer l'ICANN, évitant ainsi les risques de friction. Ce dont traite l'ICANN ne l'intéressant que par les contraintes qui en résultent pour la communauté Internet mondiale, elle reste toutefois ouverte à tout dialogue facilitant la transition du IANA vers une solution distribuée, dont certains de ses membres engagent l'expérimentation sur le terrain. Elle organise le 27 juin à 14 heures une réunion de débriefing de la venue de l'ICANN pour ceux qui le désirent, participe le 28 juin à l'InterCamp au Sommet de l'Arche de la Défense, et tient le 2 juillet une assemblée générale où ces Centres d'eXpertise discuteront d'un plan stratégique pour un Internet Sémantique et Multilingue, centré sur les personnes, dans le respect de leurs cultures et des nos valeurs. Elle reconstruit actuellement le dossier préparatoire à cette réunion. Elle organise ou participe à diverses autres réunions ou événements spécialisés tout au long de la Semaine de l'Internet Mondial de Paris qu'elle avait sucitée pour accompagner le travail engagé et accompli par Sébastien Bachollet et l'AGIFEM et où tous les Internet @larges présents à Paris sont très cordialement invités. Elle convie également le plus grand nombre des @larges français de participer à la manifestation EGENI, où nous escomptons tous fermement que M. Besson nous fera dire dans un contexte national interne les fondations de ce qu'il dira à l'ICANN dans un contexte international, et que nous verrons peut-être se dessiner avec les intervenants (Catherine Trautmann, Christopher Wilkinson, Bertrand de la Chapelle, etc.) les contours de l'Euro-FGI et des débats prioritaires au sein du FGI-FR (liste élargie et ouverte des Priorités Numériques). Toutes les informations sont sur le site de grance@large ou y seront dans les jours qui viennent au fur et à mesure de la reconstruction de l'agenda. http://egeni.org http://fr-fgi.fr http://assisesdunumerique.fr http://isoc.fr http://franceatlarge.org DIC 103 - Priorités Numériques http://wikifgi-fr.org/index.php?title=DIC_103_-_Priorit%C3%A9s_Num%C3%A9riq… _______________________________________________ diffusion mailing list diffusion(a)fgi-fr.org http://fgi-fr.org/mailman/listinfo/diffusion_fgi-fr.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 17, 2008

June 17, 2008

Dominik and all, My response in interspersed below. -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk> >Sent: Jun 16, 2008 3:06 AM >To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> >Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of >Jacqueline A. Morris >Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 6:03 AM >To: Evan Leibovitch >Cc: NA Discuss >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] Issues for Paris > >> Jacqueline Morris wrote: >> >> yes, the GAC is very powerful without any >> voting Board seat. And one of the reasons >> that I consistently ask WHY it is necessary >> to have a voting seat to have influence. >> I think that there's a concept that the vote >> means something in and of itself - honestly, >> if we have 40% of the Board seats , we can >> still lose EVERY vote if we are not respected, >> and have no influence! Whereas as you see with >> the GAC, you don't need to vote if you can >> persuade the people who have votes to vote your way. > >Jacqueline, do you mean this seriously or is this just a joke? The GAC >as an official governmental body and as such IMHO it has by its nature >an exclusively unique status within ICANN. If At-Large had 40% of the >Board seats and still lost every vote then it would be solely the >problem of At-Large from which it could still recover after making some >necessary internal changes. Without any seat At-Large can be doing its >best and there is no guarantee to achieve anything, that is a >second-class status. I didn't get the impression that Jacque was joking at all, nor was she IMO far off the mark either, dominik. However your point is also well taken as a matter of transparency, openness and accountability as such relates to ICANN and the ICANN bod in particular. Without the majority of the ICANN bod seats populated by user determined/voted upon representatives, ICANN will never achieve it's mandate and government entities independantly will legislate and regulate the Internet as they see fit. Some of this is already underway. So yes, the ALAC and the ALS'es are indeed in second class status. > >And what about to cancel all biased seats so that all the bodies are >given the same chance to persuade an independent group of people with >voting right. And what are the biased seats? The seats that, for >instance, voted for the Verisign agreement, or for the degradation of >the At-Large status to a second-class advisory body. Well from where I and our members sit, as users and user-registrants, we can no only vote with our $$ and business relationship choices. Our members are actively doing so, and will continue to do so until we are fully represented as one voice, one vote per user AND a majority on the ICANN bod. We will continue to oppose abuses as we and the law define them via the court systems if and when necessary or appropriate as some of our members have done in respect to the IPC's RIAA and the EU equivelents. > >A bit shocking for me, Jacqueline > >Dominik > >------ >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 >------ 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

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Bret and all, I know our members will never agree to proportional representation model nor representatives appointed instead of elected to represent their interests and/or issues/concerns. Such a model is by design non-representative and undemocratic. So I myself agree with some of your concerns here Bret. The history of ICANN and so far the ALAC/ALS'es "Appointments" of representatives has been obismal and shown to be less than effectively representing actual user stated issues and concerns. -----Original Message----- >From: Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> >Sent: Jun 16, 2008 10:05 AM >To: NA Discuss <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >> * Create two new ALAC positions, appointed by the Nominating >> Committee, both from Asia, to reflect that region's increased >> proportion of global Internet users > >I understand the thinking here, but I can see some downside to >"proportional representation," either by absolute population or >population of Internet users. > >First, are you going to take away a representative from Africa under >the same theory? > >Second, even within a region, the ALAC representatives aren't >distributed in accord with the population. If you have proportional >representation across the five regions, don't you then have to do it >within the regions? If the point of increasing the AP ALAC members is >to reflect the population, doesn't same principle dictate that of the >five proposed Asia-Pacific representatives, China always have at least >three and India at least one? I see no real way of making this work in >a manner that reflects the population. Five ALAC representatives from >English-speaking Australia and New Zealand wouldn't really address the >problems the Review Committee is trying to solve. > >Finally, has there been a complaint that some needs are being unmet by >the current representatives? What are those complaints? If there are >none, perhaps we're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. > >This is a subject I'd be interesting in hearing more about. > > Bret > > > > > > > > > >------ >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 >------ 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] Bad domains McAfee study
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Roland and all, Thanks for chiming in Roeland. Good to have an old timer like yourself provide historic wisdom of which you are so well known for. I for one fully agree that censoring content itself is a slippery slope and should be avoided for the very reasons you so nicely stated. Additionally Registries and Registrars cannot adaquately oversee their registrants, and ICANN isn't willing to do so. This leaves Government LEA's to perform that function, which also isn't at times a very effective or wise idea. Yet FISA suggests doing just that in the US. And Canada as well as the UK have similar legislation and/or regulation nearing compleation to do likewise. ACTA for instance, a very recently negotiated in secret agreement between the US, Canada, and the EU countries is about to be considered for in part, the purposes of addressing content related issues, including IP interests and Child pornography content. If anyone want's some refrences on ACTA, please contact me off-list, I will be happy to forward them. -----Original Message----- >From: RoelandM(a)RoelandMeyer.Org >Sent: Jun 16, 2008 10:49 AM >To: "'Jeffrey A. Williams'" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com>, 'Wendy Seltzer' <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, "'Brendler,Beau'" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org>, aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov, ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca, bev(a)pcna.ca, icann-list(a)sorehands.com, namecritic(a)blogs.pn, bfausett(a)internet.law.pro, CWallace(a)cygnacom.com, carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm, dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, dave(a)farber.net, denise.michel(a)icann.org, derek(a)aa419.org, dpefeva(a)isoc.bg, dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk, elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr, enoss(a)tucows.com, frederic.teboul(a)icann.org, shearman(a)victoria.tc.ca, cgomes(a)verisign.com, jeffrey(a)icann.org, iza(a)anr.org, jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com, jefsey(a)club-internet.fr, baptista(a)publicroot.org, john-ietf(a)jck.com, jpalmer(a)american-webmasters.net, Julie.myers(a)dhs.gov, matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org, mike(a)palage.com, michele(a)blacknight.ie, Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us, jnevett(a)networksolutions.com, nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org, twomey(a)icann.org, rguerra(a)privaterra.org, robert(a)privaterra.org, roberto(a)icann.org, ross(a)tucows.com, stacy.burnette(a)icann.org, sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr, Thomas.E.Wrosch(a)STATE.OR.US, roessler(a)does-not-exist.org, DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA, vb(a)bertola.eu, joly(a)punkcast.com >Subject: RE: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study > >I have a difficult time believing that anyone would even consider registries responsible for content. This was a battle that we all fought long and hard over , in 1999. This skates perilously close to the edge of that slippery slope where we start denying domain registrations due to (perceived) content. When you start blocking any of them then the precedent is set and opens DNS registrations up to all sorts of insane censorship issues. The next thing you know, you will have some religious whacktard demanding that breastcancer.org be deleted because it contains the word "breast". > >What needs to happen is that bot-farmers and phishing racketeers need to start doing some serious jail time. International alliances need to be setup to do this, not forcing the registry operators to become unpaid "police". They should not be allowed to volunteer for that role either. > >We can find the bot farmers and we can catch the racketeers. What we can't seem to do is get them to spend more than three months in jail. > >For most of you on this list, yes I am the same rmeyer(a)mhsc.com that was on the IFWP and DNSO. I am currently a director of the TLDA with Joe Baptista. > > >--- >R O E L A N D M J M E Y E R >Nyon, CH >mailto: RoelandM(a)RoelandMeyer.Org >http://www.RoelandMeyer.Org >Mob: +41 79 295 14 68 > > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] >> Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 11:11 PM >> To: Wendy Seltzer; Brendler,Beau; aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov; >> ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov >> Cc: At-Large Worldwide; alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca; bev(a)pcna.ca; icann- >> list(a)sorehands.com; namecritic(a)blogs.pn; Brenbe(a)consumer.org; >> bfausett(a)internet.law.pro; CWallace(a)cygnacom.com; >> carlton.samuels(a)uwimona.edu.jm; dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com; >> dave(a)farber.net; denise.michel(a)icann.org; derek(a)aa419.org; >> dpefeva(a)isoc.bg; dominik.filipp(a)dsoft.sk; >> elisabeth.porteneuve(a)cetp.ipsl.fr; enoss(a)tucows.com; >> frederic.teboul(a)icann.org; shearman(a)victoria.tc.ca; >> cgomes(a)verisign.com; jeffrey(a)icann.org; iza(a)anr.org; >> jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com; jefsey(a)club-internet.fr; >> baptista(a)publicroot.org; john-ietf(a)jck.com; jpalmer@american- >> webmasters.net; Julie.myers(a)dhs.gov; matthias.langenegger(a)icann.org; >> mike(a)palage.com; michele(a)blacknight.ie; Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us; >> jnevett(a)networksolutions.com; nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org; >> twomey(a)icann.org; rguerra(a)privaterra.org; robert(a)privaterra.org; >> roberto(a)icann.org; roelandm(a)roelandmeyer.org; ross(a)tucows.com; >> stacy.burnette(a)icann.org; sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr; >> Thomas.E.Wrosch(a)STATE.OR.US; roessler(a)does-not-exist.org; >> DThompson(a)GOV.NU.CA; vb(a)bertola.eu; wendy(a)seltzer.com; >> joly(a)punkcast.com >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study >> >> Wendy and all, >> >> I agree. Registries should not be held accountable for >> "Content". They are in part at least responsible for >> DNS configuration as such is a safty and security issue. >> Which was what this Mcafee study was all about. >> >> From my and our members experiance and to a great extent, >> our independant study, your accurate in that older DN's >> "Tend", but are all not necessarly less "infested" or >> "Dangerous" than newer DN's. Dot info domain names are far >> too often more "Dangerous" from a DNS configuration stand >> point than most, other than .cn .hu, .ca, .it, .co.uk, >> com.za, .com.au, .in and .ru, and more recently, .us. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >From: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> >> >Sent: Jun 9, 2008 12:23 PM >> >To: "Brendler, Beau" <Brenbe(a)consumer.org> >> >Cc: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study >> > >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> >Hash: SHA1 >> > >> >I'm not Afilias, but I'd tend to say that domain name doesn't equal >> >content, and a registry is not and should not be responsible for >> >domains' uses. >> > >> >I'm not sure this study is any more representative or useful than >> "older >> >sites tend to be less infested than newer ones" or "URLs that start >> with >> >WWW differ from those that don't." >> > >> >- --Wendy >> > >> >Brendler, Beau wrote: >> >> Thanks, Jaqueline, that's interesting. I'd also be really interested >> to >> >> hear Afilias' response to this characterization of .info. >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >> From: Jacqueline A. Morris [mailto:jam@jacquelinemorris.com] >> >> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2008 1:33 PM >> >> To: Brendler, Beau >> >> Cc: At-Large Worldwide >> >> Subject: Re: [At-Large] Bad domains McAfee study >> >> >> >> Hi Beau >> >> There's been some discussion on the cc lists about this as you can >> >> imagine. >> >> Here's the .hk response to the media: >> >> >> >> We are very surprised to learn about the research findings from >> McAfee. >> >> In fact, in a meeting organized by Anti-Phishing Working Group last >> week >> >> in Tokyo Japan, Hong Kong Domain Name Registration (HKDNR) was >> invited >> >> to present its best practice in combating suspicious websites. We >> are >> >> trying to get in touch with the research author to gain more >> insights >> >> into this research and the findings. The research report shows the >> >> figures and analysis of the whole of last year. In particular, the >> >> report claimed that 9.9 million websites have been tested. It is >> >> suspected that most of the malicious sites were tested several >> months >> >> ago and no long exist. >> >> >> >> HKDNR is committed to providing a safe Internet environment for the >> >> community and has put in place various measures against suspicious >> >> websites. We have been working closely with Office of the >> >> Telecommunications Authority (OFTA), Hong Kong Police and Hong Kong >> >> Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre (HKCERT) to >> monitor >> >> and control the situation. In August last year, in conjunction with >> the >> >> list of suspicious domains provided by OFTA, we suspended over >> 10,000 >> >> domains in regard. Following that initiatives, the situation with >> '.hk' >> >> related suspicious websites has been greatly improved. >> >> >> >> We actively review our systems and domain name registration >> procedures >> >> and policies. Particularly, we have more stringent documentary >> >> requirements to combat suspicious websites registered overseas in >> order >> >> to catch up with the fast-changing Internet world. We also want to >> call >> >> for the general community to be aware of the issue and report to >> related >> >> authorities whenever they have queries accessing a web site. >> >> >> >> >> >> Brendler, Beau wrote: >> >>> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24966835?GT1=43001 >> >>> >> >>> "McAfee found the most dangerous domains to navigate to are ".hk" >> >>> (Hong Kong), ".cn" (China) and ".info" (information)." >> >>> >> >>> Apologies if you've seen this already. >> >>> >> >>> BB >> >>> >> > >> >-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- >> >Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) >> >Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org >> > >> >iD8DBQFITYNEuuui10VsrVERAqc+AJ96GWQ9v+NDJWId5c8LWCLnZopX2gCfbMuT >> >bnubsA10ZEEcJI2Fcvya3D8= >> >=q+cj >> >-----END PGP SIGNATURE----- >> > >> >_______________________________________________ >> >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 > > > > >-- >All messages scanned with ClamWin anti-virus. >http://www.roelandmeyer.org >Complaints mailto:abuse@roelandmeyer.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] ALAC Review Draft is published
by Jeffrey A. Williams June 16, 2008

June 16, 2008

Eduardo and all, I believe strongly that we know what the most important issues that users are concerned about. No. 1. on the list is Internet safty. This issue has several parts to it of course, one is DNS security which falls directly withing ICANN perview and remains largely unaddressed presently. The second most inportant issue that users are concerned about, and rightly so, is lack of compliance to the RAA's by registries and registrars as well as recomendations and suggestions put forth as a matter of the RAA-WG. Again and unfortunately according to Roberto the ICANN bod is seemingly unwilling to address those defined suggestions/recomendations vis a vi the RAA contracts. -----Original Message----- >From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz(a)prtc.net> >Sent: Jun 16, 2008 11:47 AM >To: 'Evan Leibovitch' <evan(a)telly.org>, 'NA Discuss' <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >All: > >I have read the document. It seems that the ALAC structure is becoming and >going but there is still much work to do. Count us in for working in >developing the strategic/operational plans for next year. Hopefully , we'll >learn enough about the issues at hand (what's is important and what is not) >and be able to participate more actively. > >-ed > >-----Original Message----- >From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Evan >Leibovitch >Sent: Monday, June 16, 2008 11:46 AM >To: NA Discuss >Subject: [NA-Discuss] ALAC Review Draft is published > >Well, folks, here it is. > >Summary of recommendations: >http://icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-draft-summary-recommendations-13jun08.pdf > >Full report: >http://icann.org/reviews/alac/alac-independent-review-final-draft-13jun08.pd >f > >Highlights: > > * Create two new ALAC positions, appointed by the Nominating > Committee, both from Asia, to reflect that region's increased > proportion of global Internet users > * No other structural changes to ALAC composition > * Give the existing structure a chance to work, but review the > effectiveness of the RALO/ALS structure at the next ALAC review > * Status quo regarding Board representation -- liaison with no vote > * ALAC should establish an annual Statement of Intent as well as > Strategic and Operational Plans > * Increase in dedicated staff to one person per region > * Increase the public comment period to allow ALAC more time to > adequately respond to issues > * More effective use of web-based tools to increase user > participation; specifically, preference of wikis over mailing lists > * Staff control over said web-based tools > * Regular ALS compliance reviews > >There will be a workshop on the ALAC review held in the Paris meeting, >and four people (Robert, Beau, Darlene and myself) will be representing >NARALO there. While Wendy and Alan are not specifically there to >represent us, they can still help advance our region's view. > >Comments -- especially specific "deal-breaking" issues -- are not only >welcomed, they're _needed_ for us to play our role in shaping the future >of ALAC. I urge you to read the report -- at very least the summary -- >and at least understand the rationale for their recommendations before >you state your case against them. :-) > >Please... even if you do not contribute regularly here, this is one of >those pivotal times when we really do need to hear from everyone. Love >it, hate it, mixed or neutral, we need your feedback this week! > >- Evan > > >------ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica >nn.org > >Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org >------ > >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG. >Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.3.0/1505 - Release Date: 6/16/2008 >7:20 AM > > >------ >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 >------ 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