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

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 4, 2008

July 4, 2008

Total of 63 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 4 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 41.27% | 26 | 56.69% | 393353 | jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com 9.52% | 6 | 6.98% | 48455 | evan at telly.org 7.94% | 5 | 4.48% | 31112 | johnl at iecc.com 6.35% | 4 | 4.88% | 33836 | jefsey at jefsey.com 4.76% | 3 | 3.89% | 26975 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 4.76% | 3 | 3.84% | 26644 | vb at bertola.eu 3.17% | 2 | 1.53% | 10636 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 1.59% | 1 | 2.23% | 15473 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 1.59% | 1 | 2.13% | 14808 | bashar at kuwaitnet.net 1.59% | 1 | 1.73% | 12016 | fsylla at gmail.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.63% | 11280 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.31% | 9100 | danielmonastersky at gmail.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.15% | 7946 | aislan at uol.com.br 1.59% | 1 | 1.08% | 7509 | narten at us.ibm.com 1.59% | 1 | 1.03% | 7176 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 1.59% | 1 | 1.00% | 6916 | veni at veni.com 1.59% | 1 | 0.94% | 6537 | joly at punkcast.com 1.59% | 1 | 0.90% | 6273 | iza at anr.org 1.59% | 1 | 0.90% | 6260 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 1.59% | 1 | 0.85% | 5868 | michele at blacknight.ie 1.59% | 1 | 0.83% | 5734 | bfausett at internet.law.pro --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 63 |100.00% | 693907 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] News gTLDs and e-mail
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 3, 2008

July 3, 2008

JFC and all, One very important thing you left out here is that SMTP and ESMTP protocols will need to be updated as well. I don't see that happening in the near term. So Patricks concern he raised still remains to the vast majority of Internet users. Than the additional problem is of "Upgrade" by service providers. Some, if not most Email server applications will need significant modification. Of course this is not a ICANN problem or concern, nor an IETF problem or concern. Frankly as a result of the above and below ( JFC's remarks ) I don't see IDN gTLD's as being widely supported but I also see no good reason to not making them avaliable either. JFC Morfin wrote: > Dear Patrick, > this point is a key point because it means that one of the main > Internet applications will be hampered by the new TLD policy. > > This new TLD policy also includes ML-TLDs. I don't really see IETF > issuing a solution that supports xxx@ASCII-TLD and not > xxx@UNICODE-TLD. As a consequence every mail oriented software will > have to be updated to support TLD only mail names. > > These TLD can be ASCII or punycoded UNICODE. It would seem very odd > if this mail system update did not consistently extend to the other > Internet host logics and did not support both ASCII and UNICODE TLDs. > It would be surprising if the consensus was not to use the same > logisitic effort to deploy a fully consistent Multilingual Internet. > > We (with James Seng and Vint Cerf) identified at the WG-IDNABIS > [http://wikidna.org] that: > - (a) the IDNA proposition was not the ML-DNS france@large identified > as the world expectation (a DNS to delivers the same QoS in every > language and scripts as it does in English ASCII) > - (b) france@large was perfectly legitimate according to the IETF > process to give a try to such a development [we are lead users, not > engineers]. We confirmed that this was our intent at our 2008/07/02 > meeting. We committed that our effort will strive to stay IDNA > interoperable and will be based upon LS640 (Linguasphere System 640) > which is the bassis for the now reduced ISO 639-6 and now an open standard. > > The basic difference between IDNA and ML-DNS is that IDNA is not end > to end (what the user types is not what the other end receives). This > is to support a possible lack of understanding of IDNA by the > receiving end, specially in the mail case. This leads > - (1) to an impossible entropy problem: Unicode is degraded by > punycode and has no way to restore the intial entrry on the other end > - (2) an increasing barely sustainable set of complex constraints in > order to limit the cases where this may happen. The confusion also is > that these constraints only apply at adhering registries' level. > > Would the end to end be acceptable (the ML-DNS hypothesis) most of > the multilinguisation oriented issues would be addressed at the > internet and not at the user application layer. This is because there > would not be a specific presentation layer need anymore: we would be > back to the internet as a single shared space (one single > presentation and session default layer). This conforms with the IETF > core values documented in RFC 3935, which makes a feature from the 4 > layers internet model. > > In this case the need is only for transition management: > > 1. it will be a matter of a few months period once it has been > documented, tested and validated. This is because I do not think we > can repeat the January 1st, 1983 approach. However, we could > "virtualize" it, for example in using legacy/Multilingual Internet > OPES Gateways (work is to be resumed as the WG-OPES which favored > SMTP over the DNS as their second and currently last protocol support > documentatoin after HTTP). > > 2. I fear that the community starts thinking about many other needs > such a deployment could help (security, IPv6, semantic, etc.). This > means, not to confuse and to overload the project, that the initial > deployment would be conceived as a pilot experimentation towards a > permanent Internet update process (this is part of the france@large > plan to be detailed hopefully before September). > > jfc > > At 08:57 04/07/2008, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > > >There is an interesting discussion currently on the IETF list about > >the consequences of the approval of the new gTLD process by ICANN. > >One possible issue may be with vanity gTLDs like apple, ebay etc. In > >this context, an email address may just be user@tld > > > >This may be confusing to email clients and MTAs which try to be > >"smart". Currently , the current standard is defined in RFC 2821 as such: > > > >2.3.5 Domain > > A domain (or domain name) consists of one or more dot-separated > > components. > > [...] > > The domain name, as described in this document and in [22], is > > the entire, fully-qualified name (often referred to as an "FQDN"). A > > domain name that is not in FQDN form is no more than a local > > alias. Local aliases MUST NOT appear in any SMTP transaction. > > > >Hence, if either the mail client or the MTA expect to see a dot in > >the domain name and there is none, its behaviour may be unpredictable. > > > >The new gTLD context is addressed in the draft RFC2821bis, which states: > > > >2.3.5. Domain Names > > A domain name (or often just a "domain") consists of one or more > > components, separated by dots *if more than one appears*. (emphasis added) > > > >Unfortunately, the current implementations are based on the original > >RFC2821, not the revised draft. There may be a lot of software out > >there that would treat user@tld as a local e-mail address (ie not FQDN). > > > >I am not aware of any study by SSAC on that matter (pointers > >appreciated). Where I think it matters for the user community is > >that we actually expect our e-mails to complaints@ebay or > >support@apple to be delivered. I see here an opportunity for the > >ALAC to ask ICANN for a report on this. > > > >Patrick > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >ALAC mailing list > >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Paris debrief
by Evan Leibovitch July 3, 2008

July 3, 2008

Hello everyone, On behalf of ALSs who didn't go to Paris, and indeed at least some of those who did, I would like to find out from the various At-Large attendees how you perceived At-Large's strategies and accomplishments. We were involved in a number of issues; the Summit, GNSO review, gTLD creation policy, and of course the ALAC Review. There were first (and in most cases very productive) meetings with GAC, NCUC, SSAC, GNSO and the registrar constituency. There was effectively no time to play tourist, though I do recall driving past the Louvre once or twice. Smokers will remember Paris as their dream venue, where you could light up without dirty looks, at least some of the people rolling their own cigarettes in the street were actually using tobacco. And Sebastien was as perfect a host as anyone could ask for, right up until the final evening at "Jimmy the Frog's" (or whatever the French name for it is...). Yet I cannot come away from the Paris without having felt At-Large to be the object of some kind of manipulation. I can't tell by how, or quite how, but it was definitely there. We had zero response on a travel policy that will certainly negatively affect At-Large's ability to accomplish its role over the coming years. And while I stand behind the positions taken on the issues, from a distance I can see how we came across as shrill and obstructionist. I am frankly tired of lurching from one panic-based ALAC reaction to another. It is distressing to see so few members of ALAC shouldering all the group's policy work. And I would really like, for once, enough opportunity to understand issues early enough to be able to take positions that are part of the solution rather than just trying to fix problems. Some of this is of ICANN staff's doing, through a pile of trivial little things that while not technically incorrect _seemed_ designed to keep us off balance. The timing of the release of the Westlake report seemed almost deliberately timed to force hasty response during Paris. The consultants themselves were clearly uncomfortable with the way that timing played out, and I seem to recall one of them indicating privately that they would have preferred to consult during Paris and release the draft docs afterwards. I am especially and thoroughly disgusted with the manipulation of the public forum, which was stage-managed to the point of being considerably even more useless than usual. And ICANN's translation strategy, while having made some improvements is still far behind what it needs to be for ICANN to go beyond the anglophone world. Of course At-Large is not without blame as well. The thing Westlake recommended with which I most agree was for the need of a strategic plan -- a prioritized list of issues and policies that require our focused attention and resources, set out enough in advance to give us the ability to be constructive participants. There are far too few ALAC members doing work that should be spread around to 15 people. On issues such as the RAA, my instinct says we should preparing ourselves for work on this yet I don't even know where to start. And if the involved people here don't know the basics upon which to discuss policy, I know it will be even harder getting ALSs aware (let alone involved). I have this sneaking suspicion that, sometime in the future, we will be in a panic situation rush-releasing a response on this too. Is this just me? Or does At-Large really need to seriously take stock of its strategies, priorities, and the allocation of our eager-to-help staff resources? In advance of the Summit I'd really like to see us with our collective act together better than it is now. Just PLEASE don't tell me that the response requires a return to obsession with process. And finally, getting back to the stuff still on the table. 1) It is now up to At-Large to propose _constructive_ reaction to the ALAC review, that builds upon whatever slivers of it that are agreeable and offers something of substance to the governance committee. 2) Given that the gTLD thing is a done deal and Twomey is busy contracting teams of mercenary Solomons ... what can we do to keep the objection procedure narrow enough to serve its obvious intended purposes (keep off TLDs that are of widespread revulsion) without using it to stifle communities that are large and benign but objected to by some cultures (ie, .gay)? 3) Are we ever going to have an internal debate on the travel policy? Is there a way to craft input that doesn't sound totally self-serving? Please keep some of this in mind when planning for the ALAC call next week. - Evan

4 4

Re: [At-Large] [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0)
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 2, 2008

July 2, 2008

Avri and all, Thank you for the reminder re artical 29 and 19. I know our members have been refrencing it for years vis a vi ICANN. We wonder quite frankly, when ICANN will fully recognize in particular article 29? Perhaps you could or would be so kind as to enlighten us in this regard? -----Original Message----- >From: Avri Doria <avri(a)psg.com> >Sent: Jul 2, 2008 8:58 AM >To: Governance Caucus <governance(a)lists.cpsr.org> >Subject: Re: [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0) > >Hi, > >Perhaps there isn't anything to subtract from article 19 other then >the effects of article 29? i sometimes worry that people are so >focused on the positive value of 19 that they miss the fact that 29 >allows a lot of abrogation of that positiveness. > >Unfortunately article 29 made into the WSIS texts as well. > >a. > >For anyone who does not remember 29 - the get out of FOE free article: > >Article 29. > > (1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the >free and full development of his personality is possible. > > (2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall >be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely >for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights >and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of >morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society. > > (3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised >contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. > > >On 2 Jul 2008, at 17:30, KovenRonald(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Dear All -- >> >> On the question of freedom of expression and the Internet, the >> position of the press freedom groups of the Coordinating Committee >> of Press Freedom Organizations, to which the World Press Freedom >> Committee belongs, has been the same as that taken by leading >> delegations such as that of Canada and others in the WSIS, that >> there should be "no new rights" but that there is a need for >> reaffirmation of existing rights, notably Article 19 of the >> Universal Declaration of Human Rights. >> >> In this 60th anniversary year of the UDHR, the Coordinating >> Committee adopted a resolution just last month in Belgrade that >> there is nothing to add or to subtract from Art. 19 and that it is >> time to work for its full implenentation in the world. I append the >> text below. >> >> While I understand the desire to explore other aspects of Internet >> access, I strongly feel that, when it comes to freedom of >> expression, any attempts to "improve" on Art. 19 in an >> intergovernmental context will only lead to watering down its >> unqualified call for free speech, on and off-line. >> >> It was a major struggle to get Art. 19 into the final WSIS texts, a >> struggle in which pretty much all of the civil society groups took >> part cooperatively. Nothing being proposed here should now come to >> undermine the notable success of that effort. >> >> We are prepared to reiterate the above points in Hyderabad. >> >> Best regards, >> Ronald Koven >> European Representative >> World Press Freedom Committee >> >> COMMITTEE TO PROTECT JOURNALISTS >> INTER AMERICAN PRESS ASSOCIATION >> INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTING >> INTERNATIONAL PRESS INSTITUTE >> WORLD ASSOCIATION OF NEWSPAPERS >> WORLD PRESS FREEDOM COMMITTEE >> >> Resolution on Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights >> >> The Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom Organizations, meeting >> in Belgrade June 18, 2008, hailed forthcoming United Nations >> commemorations of the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration >> of Human Rights and called upon UN bodies and their member states to >> act to implement their pledge of freedom of expression and of press >> freedom, as contained in the Declaration's Article 19: >> >> "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; >> this right includes freedom to hold opinions without >> interference and to seek, receive and impart information and >> ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." >> >> While means of enforcement were not provided for when the UN voted >> that text on Dec. 10, 1948, it has been widely recognized by the >> world's most prestigious national and international courts as now >> constituting international customary law. It was a pledge by the >> international community to enshrine free speech and a free press >> among the fundamental rights for everyone everywhere. >> >> Article 19 has stood the test of time. The text was prescient. There >> is nothing to add and nothing to subtract. Its provision of the free >> flow of "information and ideas through any media and regardless of >> frontiers" made it possible to move from a world in which short wave >> radio was the main transfrontier news outlet to one that encompasses >> all later developments in communications technology, including >> direct satellite broadcasting and the Internet. >> >> Contrary to some later assertions, it was not produced solely by >> Western countries but by a globally representative group of >> countries. The Drafting Committee that wrote it comprised Australia, >> Chile, China, France, Lebanon, Soviet Union, United Kingdom, and >> United States, represented by Eleanor Roosevelt, who chaired the >> Committee. It was adopted without dissent by the UN General Assembly. >> >> The only problem with Article 19 is that it is not respected nor >> implemented everywhere. The time is long past for the United Nations >> to move to make it so. Those countries that ignore their commitments >> to respect freedom of expression and freedom of the press should be >> enjoined to do so. >> >> Failure to honor those commitments should be treated as a serious >> breach and should be sanctioned by such measures as exclusion from >> UN human rights bodies. The UN system should reinforce its aid to >> the development of independent news outlets everywhere. >> >> We members of the Coordinating Committee of Press Freedom >> Organizations, representing journalists and news outlets throughout >> the world, call upon the United Nations and its agencies to move now >> from their promise of global press freedom to adopt measures for >> implementation needed to transform that promise into practice. >> >> >> >> ************** >> Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient >> used cars. >> (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> governance(a)lists.cpsr.org >> To be removed from the list, send any message to: >> governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org >> >> For all list information and functions, see: >> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > >____________________________________________________________ >You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org >To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > >For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance 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] [ga] [Fwd: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed]
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 2, 2008

July 2, 2008

Edmon and all, With all due respect and consideration, I, nor any of our members believe in "Sunrise Provisions" of any sort as they, no matter how well thought out, skew reality in the IT arena and there is not reasonable method that those that applied durring a "Sunrise process" have done so ligitimately. Ergo, first come, first serve is the only fair way of managing a TLD registry. I say this because for the past 8 to 9 years, Tradmark and copywrite laws, ACTA not extant, are nebulus and far from fully defined or tested vis a vi the Internet/DNS. However I do appriciate you well reasoned, yet flawed response. >:) Edmon Chung wrote: > Hi Jeffrey, > > Would like to respond to your comments about DotAsia. > > Myself and the team at DotAsia has been working very hard since its inception to facilitate a comprehensive Sunrise and Landrush process that balances the interests of the intellectual property rights community and the general public. The .ASIA Sunrise process was developed over multiple public drafts and our team proactively soliciting feedback and improvements from the community. DotAsia is one of the first gTLDs I believe to have publicly sought comments for its Sunrise processes. > > As a result, we have received high acclaims for our Sunrise process, including the auction process for Landrush which is ongoing. To date, we have had no challenges or disputes for the .ASIA sunrise process, which is compared to hundreds and thousands of disputes experienced by other TLD launches. > > For trademark Sunrise, each and every application is verified through one of our verification agents (Deloitte or AGIP) to ensure the integrity of the process. Our approach is to allow everyone to participate in the process fairly. Including parties that may be affiliated with us our our partners. Which is why the process was also designed to ensure that even affiliated parties would not gain any advantage over others. > > Specifically regarding the allegations and accusations you can find our specific comments at: http://www.registry.asia/pressreleases/DotAsia-PR-2008-05-15.html. As a brief note, we have conflict of interest policies in place and our auction structure does not lend itself to favouring anyone. Because the end time extends automatically for 24 hours if a change of lead is experienced in the last 24hours of an auction, timing of bids will not provide any advantage as those trailing will have 24 hours to react. Therefore, unless a party is willing to outbid the others, no additional information can provide an edge. > > Of course, we believe there is always room for improvement, and look forward to your constructive comments. However, I feel that it is important for my team that I point out our dedication and our achievements to date regarding the launch of .ASIA. Please let us know where we may have done not enough or should have developed our process better? > > We set out to ensure a stable and orderly introduction of the .ASIA TLD into the social and technical fabric of the Internet. And from the results so far, I truly believe that it has been a success. I believe many others in the community share my view as well. > > Edmon > > PS. I am not sure how the allegations relate to "front-running". We are not aware of any of our registrars engaged in front-running. But if there is such an issue, we will continue to monitor and seek to address them. > > > > From: Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> > > > Date: Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 3:00 PM > > > Subject: [ga] [Fwd: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed] > > > To: ALAC <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, ALAC NA Discuss > > > <na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, icann board > > > <icann-board(a)icann.org>, DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov> > > > Cc: yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com, ICANN registry comments > > > <registryservice(a)icann.org>, Ga <ga(a)gnso.icann.org> > > > > > > > > > > > > Yehuda, > > > > > > Done. > > > > > > Dot.Asia has been a moderately too a very poorly manage > > > registry sense it's very conception. It remains so. > > > It comes as no surprise that others have finally taken > > > note and interest in recognizing this more broadly > > > recognized fact. It is rather amazing to me that > > > ICANN has not yet redeligated this Registry to more > > > a more appropriate party or parties. But this is > > > partly due to ICANN itself having glaring and significant > > > management and leadership deficiencies that have been > > > shown time and time again. > > > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > Subject: [governance] dot.ASIA Front-Running scheme claimed > > > Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:53:39 -0700 (PDT) > > > From: "Yehuda Katz" <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> > > > Reply-To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org,"Yehuda Katz" > > > <yehudakatz(a)mailinator.com> > > > To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > All, > > > > > > Please (cross-post) run this on the ALAC mail-list. > > > > > > It looks like there is a 'Front-Running' scheme going on with the .ASIA > > > Auctions > > > > > > http://www.dotasia-complot.org/ > > > > > > http://www.dotasia-complot.org/cat30.html > > > > > > The Guy (Thomas Rucker) is doing his homework, its worthy of a ALAC > > > probe, > > > that may flush out the bushes. > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > > > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org > > > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > > > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > > > > > > For all list information and functions, see: > > > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > > 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 > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Board mailing list > > Board(a)dotasia.org > > https://mailman.dotasia.org/mailman/listinfo/board Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

[Fwd: RE: [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0)]
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 2, 2008

July 2, 2008

All, FYI, and of course for those that have been paying close attention Koven and Milton are unfortunately or fortunately, depending on your political bent, correct. Koven in particular as far as the facts are concerned did a good job in articulating in brief, in correctly outlining what ICANN's direction and to a degree, dilemma is. Everybody got some of what they wanted, but no one got everything of all of what they wanted/needed in respect to the gTLD and IDN gTLD decision by ICANN. Of course much of that decision by ICANN will need flushing out in detail in the coming months. What will be interesting is to what degree colisions will exist and what "Social Values" of whom will be impacted vis a vi gTLD's and especially IDN gTLD's. Ergo, it is likely that .XXX will be re-approved and the "Social Values" Social scientests will have something to debate and argue about for years to come. My take is that .XXX for instance will be moved offshore so that USG influence will be limited, and congress will commence to pass legislation to mitigate or limit access and under what conditions access and registration will be allowed as well as determin criminality of accessing Domain Names in .XXX amongsts other gTLD's and IDN gTLD's. China will than not be the only country with a "Great Firewall". -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: [governance] IGF workshop: Internet for All (v 2.0) Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 04:14:19 -0400 From: "Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> Reply-To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org,"Milton L Mueller" <mueller(a)syr.edu> To: <governance(a)lists.cpsr.org>,<KovenRonald(a)aol.com> References: <d10.2d047f76.359d015a(a)aol.com> From:KovenRonald@aol.com [mailto:KovenRonald@aol.com] Yes, Avri -- Reaffirming Art., 29 was the price that our Chinese friends and other likeminded delegations made us pay for reaffirming Art. 19. That's what we get for working thru the UN system and illustrates what to expect if we try to fiddle too much with the ICANN arrangements to which so many civil society members are allergic. Better the devil you know ... But Rony, in case you hadnt noticed, ICANN has NEITHER Article 19 NOR Article 29 NOR the US First Amendment. And ICANN has just passed (again, you must not be paying attention) a new gTLD policy that reflects exactly what your Chinese friends wanted, not to mention European advocates of other kinds of restrictions on expression. I will send you the links if you are interested (but I suspect you are not). Do you like the idea of prior restraint for ALL expression in domain names? Do you like the idea that a government can object to a name because it is in a language script that they think they own and they want a veto power over anyone using {Chinese/Korean/Cyrillic/your favorite language here}? Do you like the idea of global standards of public order and morality being applied in advance to any and all applications? I hope you do, because that is all part of the new ICANN policy. So before you invoke ICANN pay attention to the facts, please. I really wonder what you WPFC folks are thinking some times. Does the fact that ICANN has a made in the USA sticker on it mean that you will defend it to the death regardless of what it does? There are no allergies here to ICANN per se or to its model, there are allergies to censorship, arbitrary power and the like. Anyway, getting back to Internet for All, it is meaningless to declare sweeping new rights when the right in question is just a nice-sounding set of words and one has neither the resources nor c clear definition of what it means in practice, nor the political consensus and institutional capacity to deliver it on a global basis. We should rather be asking, what policies have actually succeeded in expanding Internet access as rapidly as possible and what policies do the best job of ameliorating unacceptable levels of inequality in access? Those are realistic questions that can be answered with realistic and implementable policies. Declaring universal rights makes the declarer feel righteous but accomplishes nothing else, except perhaps to devalue the more fundamental rights that are still not being protected. 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 received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

1 0

Workshop Feedback
by Izumi AIZU July 2, 2008

July 2, 2008

As the ICANN Paris meeting is just over, I would like to send the "Feedback" for our OneDay workshop here so that you could fill and return them possibly before you go to the airport, or right after you arrive at home. I like to mention that Veronica took an extra effort to help prepare this feedback, in addition to prepare the agenda before the workshop, even after she stepped down from ALAC. I have asked Cheryl if I can send this, and with her permission, I am sending this now. Hope you could give us the fresh, candid, constructive comments so that we can make it better the next time. WIth that thank YOU so much for all the work and company during the week in Paris, and have safe trip back home! izumi

2 2

Re: [At-Large] [ga] GNSO Working session transcriptions posted on calendar page
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 2, 2008

July 2, 2008

Glen and all, I would much rather have the actual recordings of those meetings if they exist and are unedited. Too much spin doctoring by ICANN staff's history leads me and I am sure others to be sceptical of "Canned/Edited" Transcriptions... As Regan rightly said, turst, but verify! Thank you Glen in advance, for your cooperation in this reasonable request... Glen de Saint Géry wrote: > Dear All, > > The transcriptions for the GNSO working sessions on 21 and 22 June in Paris are posted on page: > http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/#june > > and classified according to topic. > > Thank you. > Kind regards, > > Glen > > Glen de Saint Géry > GNSO Secretariat > gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > http://gnso.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

Safeguarding ICANN Against Capture - Protection contre la subversion de l'ICANN
by JFC Morfin July 1, 2008

July 1, 2008

IIC (Improving Institutional Confidence) should be the main matter of the preoccupation from now on for those that are interested in ICANN. I agree with ICANN when they place safeguarding against capture as their main matter of concern. However, they seem to forget about resillence and survivability, as if DoS attacks did not exist. The first question that we should ask ICANN, and ourselves, should be about a documented clean slate third party evaluation concerning: - what is to be captured? - what is the existing degree of capture? - what are the various types of possible capture that one might fear? When I say documented, I mean to have some barometer about the risks and degree of capture. For example, ICANN is not worth a penny: - without the IANA, which is delegated by the USA. I cannot be certain that I saw a US commitment to transfer the IANA to ICANN. - if it opposes with IETF. This means that it is dependent on an IETF capture. This means that the same questions should arise concerning the IETF. Relations with IETF are not the only ones to be considered. Actually, ISOC is far too close to ICANN and IETF in order for the same questions to not arise. The importance of ICANN, IETF, and ISOC is such that, as an Internet @large lead user, it is necessary for each of us to also carry this evaluation. The French Minister for the Internet has indicated his three main areas of concern: addressing, naming, and multilingualism. He stated that they will be the basis for the European Internet Governmental summit of Nice on October 6/7, 2008 and will decide the November 26, 2008 French-proposed European Internet Governance Policy. There is no doubt that this European position will be the main matter at Hyderabad at the Government as well as Civil Society, Private sector, International organization, and Research & Normative levels. There is a need for an @large debate on this issue. I would like to know if ALAC wants to host it, if it should be carried through another, and more open, @large mailing list, website, and wiki, or if ALAC should envision this issue from inside and if another mailing list should envision it from the outside? jfc === L'ICC (amélioration de la confiance institutionelle) devrait être le principal sujet de la préoccupation à partir de maintenant pour ceux qui sont intéressés par l'ICANN. Je suis d'accord avec l'ICANN lorsqu'ils font de la sauvegarde contre leur capture leur principal sujet de préoccupation. Toutefois, ils semblent avoir oublié leur resillence et leur capacité de survie, comme si les attaques DoS n'existaient pas. La première question que nous devrions demander à l'ICANN, et à nous-mêmes, devrait être une tierce évaluation à partir de zéro concernat : -- ce qui est à capturer ? -- quel est le degré de capture existant ? -- quels sont les différents types de capture possible que l'on peut craindre? Quand je dis documentée, ceci concerne une sorte de baromètre sur les risques et le degré de capture. Par exemple, l'ICANN ne vaut pas un centime: -- sans l'IANA, qui est délégué par les États-Unis. Je ne suis pas sûr d'avoir vu un engagement américain de transférer l'IANA à l'ICANN. -- si elle s'oppose à l'IETF. Cela signifie qu'elle dépend d'une capture IETF. Cela signifie que les mêmes questions se posent concernant l'IETF. Ses relations avec l'IETF ne sont pas les seulles à devoir être prises en considération. En fait, l'ISOC est beaucoup trop proche de l'ICANN et l'IETF pour que les mêmes questions se posent pas. L'importance de l'ICANN, l'IETF et l'ISOC est telle, pour nous utilisateurs pilotes @large de l'Internet, qu'il est nécessaire à chacun d'entre nous de procéder à cette évaluation. Le Ministre français de l'Internet a indiqué ses trois principaux domaines de préoccupation: l'adressage, le nommage, et le multilinguisme. Il a déclaré qu'ils seront la base du sommet gouvernemental sur l'Internet les 6/7 octobre 2008 et décideront de la proposition française du 26 Novembre, 2008 pour la politique européenne de Gouvernance de l'Internet. Il ne fait aucun doute que cette position européenne sera le principal sujet à Hyderabad aux niveaux gouvernemental, société civile, secteur privé, organisations internationales, et recherche et normalisation. Un grand débat @large est nécessaire sur cette question. Je voudrais savoir si l'ALAC veut l'accueillir, si elle devrait être menée par une autre liste de diffusion @large avec son site web, et son wiki, ou si l'ALAC devrait envisager cette question de l'intérieur et si une autre liste devrait l'envisager de l'extérieur? jfc

1 0

More on: ICANN and IANA Domains Hijacked
by Jeffrey A. Williams July 1, 2008

July 1, 2008

All, Well, well, well. Is anyone surprised? Not I! Seems that the ICANN's has failed in securing it's own DN's eh? So much for the daunted SSAC. See: (June 30, 2008) A Turkish hacker group managed to hijack domains used by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) and the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for a short period of time late last week. The DNS records for the websites were changed to point to the group's own site. The ICANN problem was addressed in less than half an hour, but it took a day or two for the fix to make it through DNS servers around the world. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10789_3-9980713-57.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=25… http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/ICANN-and-IANA-domains-hijacked--/ne… So Ester/Vint, what was all that about "Trust US" back in 1999 again? Yeah right! >:( 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