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

[Reminder] ALAC Monthly Teleconference @ Tue 8 Jul 13:30 – 15:00 ()
by Google Calendar July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org, this is a reminder for Title: ALAC Monthly Teleconference Time: Tue 8 Jul 13:30 – 15:00 (Time zone: GMT (no daylight saving)) Calendar: Description: Please see https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?2008 for all meeting agendas, minutes, recordings and other details of ALAC's meetings. Start time 1330 UTC. You can view this event at http://www.google.com/calendar/event?action=VIEW&eid=NmFwMmlsdWNodmR1aXA0ZH… You are receiving this courtesy email at the account alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org because you are an attendee of this event. To stop receiving future notifications for this event, decline this event. Alternatively, you can sign up for a Google account at http://www.google.com/calendar/ and control your notification settings for your entire calendar.

1 0

ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for Domain Names Based on Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It]
by Jacqueline A. Morris July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

FYI Robin Gross wrote: > > 26 June 2008 -- Update on Keep the Core Neutral Campaign > > *ICANN Board Approves Censorship Policy for Domain Names Based on > Morality: 2 Board Members Speak Against It* > > Today in Paris the ICANN Board passed the GNSO's controversial > recommendations > <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/council-report-to-board-pdp-new-gtld…> to > censor top level domains based on notions of "morality and public > order", and broadly defined "community" wishes. > > However, 2 ICANN board members, law professors Wendy Seltzer (on > behalf of the At-Large Internet Users) and Susan Crawford, made very > powerful and compelling statements to protect free expression on the > top level of the Internet. Hopefully Professor Crawford is right and > this harm can be mitigated through narrowly tailored implementation. > > However, ICANN staff member Kurt Pritz, who is charged with > implementing these global prohibitions on expression, said this week > in Paris that he strongly favors permitting anyone in the world to > object to a new GTLD based on morality and public order and that will > be staff's recommendation to the board. Not exactly "narrowly > tailored" as Professor Crawford is urging from staff. > > The domain name applicant's freedom of expression rights are "outside > of scope" of this exercise, according to Pritz in a recent new GTLD > briefing meeting. Perhaps ICANN staff forgot about the GNSO's > Principle G to protect the applicant's freedom of expression rights? > > Another problem with ICANN staff's implementation plan is to > auction-off of the most sought after domains and hold "beauty > contests" to decide which applicant "provides more value to the DNS". > Pritz said he could not say how "value" is defined in this analysis > however. > > There should be another opportunity for the public to provide comment > to ICANN on this proposal. > > The statements of Professors Seltzer and Crawford are below. > > Thank you, > Robin > > ----- > > 26 June 2008 ICANN Board Meeting -- transcript extracts: > > >>WENDY SELTZER: Thank you, Peter. > So the at-large, as registrants and as users of domain names, > supports the introduction of new gTLDs. Has no interest in delaying > that process, but does wish to express its concern about two of the > recommendations in the GNSO recommendation set. Specifically, the > morality and public order objection and the objection based on > community objections. > And ALAC and its RALOs, in discussion during this meeting, put > together a statement, which I won't read in its entirety, but > expressed concern that putting these criteria into the gTLD approval > process, even as opportunities for objection, injects ICANN into the > business of making morality and public order decisions, or injects > that into ICANN's processes in a way that, as ALAC put it, debases the > ICANN process. And at-large does not want to see ICANN put into the > business of adjudicating or even delegating the adjudication of > morality or public order or community support. > And so we hope that in implementation, these criteria can be kept > sufficiently narrow so that they are both administrable and > understandable and so that they do not involve ICANN, the > organization, in making, or allowing to be made, determinations about > any claim to generally accepted morality principles. > Thank you. > [ Applause ] > > > > >>SUSAN CRAWFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. > I have mixed feelings on this day. I have long supported the entry > of new gTLDs into the root. It has seemed to me that it's > inappropriate for ICANN to use its monopoly position over giving > advice about the existence of new TLDs to create artificial scarcity > in TLDs, where there is no natural scarcity, in my view. > And that has led to a great deal of pent-up demand for the creation > of new TLDs for various reasons, for communities, for new identities, > all over the world. > And in particular, it is urgent that we create IDN gTLDs for the many > language communities around the world that would prefer to have those. > The question presented to the board today is a little strange. > What we're being asked to respond to is whether the recommendations, > the policy recommendations from the GNSO are implementable. And then > staff will go on, and if we decide they are, theoretically, > implementable, will draft the implementation guidelines for the > recommendations made by the GNSO council. > There is a lot of important effort to go into those implementation > details. And I am signing up to these recommendations on the > condition that the implementation work will proceed as planned, and > that the board and the community will have an opportunity to comment > in detail on that implementation work. > In particular, I want to applaud and underline what Wendy Seltzer > just said about the morality and public order recommendation, > recommendation number 6. > Way back when ICANN was formed, that original MOU, which we're now > talking about as the JPA, talked of transitioning the management of > the Domain Name System to the private sector. > And the idea was to figure out whether the private sector had the > capability and resources to assume the important responsibilities > related to the technical management of the DNS. So that was the question. > And so the creation of ICANN, and the question before all of us, was > whether this entity would be a good vessel for allowing the private > sector to take the lead in the management of the Domain Name System. > And, in fact, the white paper in 1998 said that while international > organizations may provide specific expertise or act as advisors to the > new corporation, the U.S. continues to believe, as do most commenters, > that neither national governments acting as sovereigns nor > intergovernmental organizations acting as representatives of > governments should participate in management of Internet names and > addresses. > Of course, national governments now have, and will continue to have, > authority to manage or establish policy for their own ccTLDs. > This wasn't done out of enthusiasm for the free market alone. The > idea was also to avoid having sovereigns use the Domain Name System > for their own content, control, desires. To avoid having the Domain > Name System used as a choke point for content. > Recommendation 6, which is the morality and public order > recommendation, represents quite a sea change in this approach, > because the recommendation is that strings must not be contrary to > generally acceptable legal norms relating to morality and public order > that are recognized under international principles of law. That's the > language of the recommendation. > Now, if this is broadly implemented, this recommendation would allow > for any government to effectively veto a string that made it > uncomfortable. > Having a government veto strings is not allowing the private sector > to lead. It's allowing sovereigns to censor. > Particularly in the absence of straightforward clear limits on what > morality and public order means, people will be unwilling to propose > even controversial strings and we'll end up with a plain vanilla list > of TLDs. > So I am unhappy about this recommendation. I am willing to vote for > it on the strength of the board's discussion and the staff's > undertakings that the standards for this recommendation will be > narrowly stated. > And on my expectation that the board and the community will have an > opportunity to review and approve, or not, the details of those standards. > We do have some global norms of morality and public policy. They are > very few. One of them is incitement to violent, lawless > action. Nobody wants that around the world. > A second might be incitement to or promotion of discrimination based > on race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion, or national origin. > And the third might be incitement to or promotion of child > pornography or other sexual abuse of children. > Otherwise, the question of morality and public order varies > dramatically around the world. It's a diverse, complicated world out > there. And it may not be -- it should not be possible to state that > there is a single standard of morality and public order around the world. > So I am asking that staff come back with an express standard that's > constrained to stated norms, like the three I just listed, found and > expressly in their national treaties. We need clear lines of > adjudication. And I would be content with that kind of implementation. > Another concern of mine is with -- with this list of recommendations > is recommendation 20 which says, "An application will be rejected if > an expert panel determines that there is substantial opposition to it > from a significant portion of the community to which the string may be > explicitly or implicitly targeted." > It's quite unclear how it's all going to work out, whether any > generic applicant could ever win over a community, could ever succeed > in contention for a string over a community that says it's a > community. And I look forward to many more details on this > recommendation as well. > And finally -- and I'm sorry to speak at such length but I think it's > an important moment. Finally, I'm not happy with the idea that there > will be auctions on strings for which there is more than one > applicant. And I note that the GNSO's own recommendations on this > subject don't mention auctions. And I hope the board will not adopt > this approach. > My bottom line is I will vote for this set of recommendations, and I > hope that the implementation will be sensible. > Thank you. > [ Applause ] > > >>PETER DENGATE THRUSH: Thank you, Susan. > > -------- > > More Info: > http://ipjustice.org/wp/campaigns/icann/gtlds/ > http://www.keep-the-core-neutral.org/ > > ALAC statement: > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?new_gtld_document_recommendation_6_draf… > > -------- > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > > > > > > IP JUSTICE > Robin Gross, Executive Director > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org > <mailto:robin@ipjustice.org> > > >

13 37

Is the ALAC preparing to submit: APNIC 26 - Call for policy proposals and informational presentations
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

All, As far as I can asertain, the ALAC doesn't seem to be prepaired to, or have a draft proposal. Will the ALAC be doing so? Time is short. 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

POSTPONED: ALAC Monthly Teleconference for July
by At-Large Staff July 7, 2008

July 7, 2008

Dear all, The ALAC Vice-Chair decided to postpone the monthly ALAC teleconference scheduled for tomorrow at 1330 UTC. The meeting has been rescheduled to July 22nd at 1330 UTC. You will receive the agenda and a reminder for this meeting in due course. Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart, Matthias Langenegger, Frederic Teboul ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org

3 2

Wrapping up the thread/discussion - Apoligies
by Robert Guerra July 6, 2008

July 6, 2008

I wanted to not post any further messages related to the topic on the list, but specific private comments from Evan and others have made me post one last message. First, If my comments offended you veni - well, I do apologize. Secondly, my recent posts on the issue of the fall meeting and internet freedom and how it can be discussed inside ICANN, come not as a result of a "Red Bull binge" as some might suggest - but after consultation and discussion with numerous internet experts, users and NGOs at last week's computers, Freedom & Privacy conference at Yale University. Specifically, the request that ICANN comment on rights at the upcoming Egypt meeting came from the session on Internet Freedom & during the open discussion on technology policy recommendations to the new US administration. Ref: http://www.cfp2008.org/ http://cfp.wikia.com/wiki/CFP08 Thought many on this list might not believe internet freedom should be discussed inside ICANN, suffice it to say that others have a different opinion. I've posted a specific proposal. If there's no support among At-large or regionally at NA RALO, then i will not comment further on this list. regards Robert

12 15

ICANN lack of will to do anythng except for the money interests
by Bill Silverstein July 5, 2008

July 5, 2008

> From: John Levine <johnl(a)iecc.com>> app for the web was and is search > engines. These days I know a lot of > people whose home page is Google, John, that is because because don't realize that they can change their 'homepage'. > and who have no idea what the difference > is between the Google search box and the browser address box. Domains and I have had people do that withhh their domain name and then ask me to help them figure out who hacked their site because the top result is not their web site. > PS: FYI, the message to which you were responding was from Canada, where > the speech laws are more like European ones than US ones. Not everyone in > North America grew up with the 1st amendment. You mean there is still a first amendment in the USA? > From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> > > I and our members agree fully with your last paragraph of > your argument entirely. It is essentially a significant part of > our core concerns for the past 9+ years. ICANN hasn't > shown that it can manage much of anything very well to date > including it's own Domain Names, IP addresses, root servers, > or web site and mailing lists. Yet the ICANN leadership for One of the best examples of the failure of ICANN to do anything that does not promote the interests of the money sources is http://www.icann.org/correspondence/touton-letter-to-beckwith-03sep02.htm which exemplifies their lack of willingness to enforce 3.7.7.2.

3 2

Aigrain's Blog:Corruption overflow in the telecom policy-making environment
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 5, 2008

July 5, 2008

All, FYI, and something to think about and/or consider in respect to new gTLD's and IDN gTLD's... "On Monday 7 July 2008, two committees of the European Parliament is going to vote on proposed amendments to the telecomm packet regulation, in what is but a provisional step of a skirmish in a much bigger struggle on the regulatory environment for intellectual rights and freedoms. This is a good time to take a step back and look at another much bigger problem." More here: http://paigrain.debatpublic.net/?p=158 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

An Internet for the Rich
by LB July 5, 2008

July 5, 2008

I am ashamed of myself for being a fool. For years I believed in ISOC, I agreed to come to the IETF in trust, I agreed to support the ALAC because @large are the Internet lead users, I learned about America as the protector of equality on the Internet. Now I see ICANN has been captured and they want/accept an internet for the rich. Where keywords (top-level domain name) will cost $ 100,000 plus expenses. Those who should protect us the users, and defend an Internet for everyone are silent. ALAC does not have time. IDNABIS wants to help ICANN to develop its plan in every languages and cultures. The IETF does not even consider is architectural solutions could help democracy resist moneycracy. -- LB RFC 3271: "Internet is for everyone - but it won't be if it isn't affordable by all that wish to partake of its services, so we must dedicate ourselves to making the Internet as affordable as other infrastructures so critical to our well-being".

1 0

Re: [At-Large] News gTLDs and e-mail
by Patrick Vande Walle July 4, 2008

July 4, 2008

Jeff, This is on the main IETF list. Thread at http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg52148.html Other references: http://www.imc.org/ietf-smtp/index.html RFC 2821: http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2821.txt RFC 2821bis: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-klensin-rfc2821bis-10.txt (Please note that RFC 2821bis is currently blocked by the IESG http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg51960.html) My comments were prompted by this particular message http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf/current/msg52246.html On Thu 03/07/08 11:26 , "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> wrote: > Patrick, > Which IETF list?

1 0

Bavarian Police Can Legally Place Trojans On PCs
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 4, 2008

July 4, 2008

All, Is goose stepping next? One thing is for sure, no traveling to Bavaria for me! See: "The Bavarian Parliament passed a law that allows Bavarian police to place 'http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Bayerischer-Landtag-setzt-den-Bayerntrojaner… Remote Forensic Software' ( http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.heise.de%2Fnewstic… Google translation) on a suspect's computer as well as on the computers of a suspect's contacts. They may break into houses in secret to install the RFS if a remote installation is not possible; and while they are there a (physical) search is permitted too. The RFS may be used to read, delete, and alter data." The translation says that RFSs may be used in cases of an "urgent threat to the existence or the security of the Federation or a country or physical, life or liberty of a person... Even where there is a reasonable assumptions on concrete preparatory acts for such serious offenses." 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