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

Version française du courriel de D Michel sur la procédure de voyage
by At-Large Staff Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

Chers membres, Le courriel de Denise Michel et Doug Brent, envoyé à la liste de distribution At-Large après la discussion sur la nouvelle procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement de la communauté du 20 août, a été traduit en français. Veuillez trouver sur le lien suivant la version originale de ce courriel en anglais, envoyé le 28 août: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/20 08q3/004599.html À tous les membres de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet : Nous voudrions remercier ceux d'entre vous qui ont donné leur avis la semaine dernière lors de la téléconférence sur la nouvelle procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement de la communauté, ainsi que ceux qui ont exprimé leur opinion en ligne. Nous sommes conscients que votre participation aux travaux vis-à-vis de l'ICANN repose sur le volontariat, ce qui rend votre contribution encore plus précieuse à nos yeux. Certains d'entre vous estiment que le Conseil d'administration, la communauté et le personnel de l'ICANN ne répondent pas aux attentes de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet relatives à la participation, et qu'un financement à parts égales des frais de déplacement des différentes communautés n'est pas équitable. En fait, la politique de financement des frais de déplacement de l'ICANN devrait favoriser la participation des différentes parties prenantes en adaptant l'aide aux besoins. Notre but est d'élaborer un modèle de financement des frais de déplacement, que la communauté de l'ICANN juge « approprié », c'est-à-dire qui facilite la participation, élargisse le panel de participants et fasse avancer les travaux de l'ICANN. Nous avons conscience que le terme « approprié » est suffisamment vague pour laisser place à de nombreuses interprétations, mais nous sommes résolus à poursuivre ce dialogue et à adapter, voire modifier radicalement, les procédures de prise en charge des déplacements pour l'exercice fiscal 2010. Nous faisons également tout notre possible pour que la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet, ainsi que toutes les parties impliquées dans les activités de l'ICANN, disposent des outils et ressources nécessaires pour faire avancer les travaux sur les sujets qui intéressent l'ICANN. La Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet étant un membre important de l'ICANN, nous souhaitons nous assurer que tout est mis en ¦uvre pour que ses travaux avancent. C'est pour ces raisons que l'ICANN a toujours alloué des ressources considérables à la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet, avec notamment : 1. Le triplement du personnel dédié à la communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet l'année passée. 2. Une augmentation substantielle des fonds attribués annuellement à cette communauté. 3. Un accroissement significatif des ressources consacrées à la traduction et à l'interprétation lors des deux derniers exercices fiscaux déterminé en grande partie par les besoins de cette communauté. 4. La poursuite du développement de vos outils de participation en ligne par exemple, le site Web http://atlarge.icann.org <http://atlarge.icann.org/> est l'outil le plus abouti techniquement de l'ICANN et le plus multilingue. Faisant l'objet d'améliorations en permanence, ce site est le premier à gérer les contributions directes de la communauté. Nous pourrions multiplier les exemples, mais nous savons que vous êtes conscients de tout ce que nous faisons pour faciliter votre participation car vous en profitez directement. Tous nos efforts visent à assurer une meilleure représentation des internautes dans les décisions qui les concernent. Et nous apprécions à leur juste mesure vos conseils et contributions qui entrent pour une part essentielle dans le modèle de l'ICANN. Bien entendu, les autres communautés sont tout aussi importantes. Elles ont également indiqué avoir besoin d'aide pour assister aux réunions de l'ICANN pour la même raison que celle que vous avez indiquée : les réunions représentent une part importante du processus de travail de l'ICANN et certains membres n'ont pas les moyens de s'y rendre. Mais l'ICANN ne peut pas prendre en charge le déplacement de toutes les communautés au niveau où leurs membres le souhaiteraient. Les contraintes budgétaires nous imposent des compromis. Cependant, nous souhaiterions vous soumettre les suggestions suivantes, non seulement pour déterminer le niveau de prise en charge des frais de déplacement de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet, mais également pour répondre à certaines questions sous-jacentes que vous avez soulevées. Voici nos propositions : 1. Nous allons travailler avec la communauté tout au long de cet exercice fiscal pour examiner les dispositions de la procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement qui concernent la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet, et tout particulièrement la participation aux Organisations régionales d'utilisateurs d'Internet (ORUI). Il serait bon de finaliser une proposition de plan pour le Sommet de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet à Mexico City, afin de prendre en compte ces besoins dans la révision de fin d'année de la procédure de déplacement de la communauté et dans la préparation du budget pour l'exercice fiscal 2009-2010. * Nous sommes conscients qu'appliquée en l'état à la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet lors du prochain exercice fiscal, la procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement ne répond pas aux besoins des ORUI et ne favorise pas la tenue de réunions face à face. En particulier, depuis une téléconférence où une partie non négligeable des participants parlait espagnol, nous avons réalisé que la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet est celle dont les besoins en traduction et interprétation sont les plus prégnants pour l'instant ; et jusqu'à ce qu'un outil fiable de participation à distance permette d'organiser des réunions face à face, la communication directe reste le mode de discussion privilégié. Nous sommes également d'accord avec le fait que même les participants anglophones aux ORUI bénéficient d'une communication directe. En fait, le but de cette procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement est d'élargir la participation aux réunions face à face, car ce sont ces rencontres qui sont les plus fructueuses. Bien entendu, l'ensemble de la communauté de l'ICANN aura la possibilité d'examiner cette procédure vers la fin du présent exercice fiscal, ainsi que le budget et les plans opérationnels et stratégiques de l'ICANN. Ces consultations seront l'occasion de discussions et d'échanges sur différents points concernant les ORUI (outre le déplacement), notamment la traduction et l'interprétation, les réunions régionales de l'ICANN, etc. Nous vous invitons également à comparer vos besoins avec ceux des autres communautés. 2. Nous proposerons que les critères d'éligibilité des différentes communautés au Programme d'adhésion soient réexaminés au vu de la nouvelle procédure de prise en charge des frais de déplacement. Il sera peut-être nécessaire d'apporter quelques modifications à ce programme après l'évaluation de l'impact des objectifs communs et de l'aide fournie par les procédures de prise en charge des frais de déplacement et le Programme d'adhésion. Jusqu'à présent, ce programme excluait la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet de toute participation, car le déplacement de ses membres faisait l'objet d'un financement séparé et les membres du ccNSO et du GAC (Government Advisory Committee) des pays concernés étaient prioritaires. Désormais, le ccNSO reçoit une aide dans le cadre des procédures de prise en charge des frais de déplacement et l'intégration du GAC dans ces mêmes procédures sera proposée lors du prochain exercice fiscal. Il nous semble que ces modifications apportées aux conditions de déplacement des différentes communautés sont de nature à répondre aux attentes formulées. 3. Les initiatives du GNSO contribuent également à aider la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet. Dans le cadre des travaux du GNSO récemment approuvés par le Conseil d'administration, plusieurs initiatives vont être lancées pour : a. analyser et améliorer les outils, les processus, les procédures et les mécanismes de financement des communautés du GNSO ; b. concevoir et mettre en ¦uvre une politique de recrutement globale dans toutes les communautés du GNSO. Ce travail inclura une phase de dialogue avec les communautés sur les modalités permettant d'atteindre cet objectif et devra prendre en compte des besoins en consultation et en collaboration de nos communautés globales pour élaborer une politique adaptée. Étant donné le rôle pivot joué par la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet dans le développement de politiques, nous souhaiterions l'impliquer dans les phases de dialogue et de planification, et lui appliquer les résultats dans la mesure du possible. 4. Pour garantir l'avancement des travaux des secrétariats régionaux concernant la création des structures et processus visant à instaurer une bonne collaboration et une communication efficace avec l'ALAC, l'ICANN prendra à sa charge le déplacement des secrétariats à la réunion du Caire et à la réunion de clôture de l'exercice fiscal prévue en juin 2009. Les secrétariats régionaux bénéficieront du même financement que lors de l'exercice fiscal précédent. Nous connaissons l'importance de ces réunions périodiques pour les responsables régionaux et les membres de l'ALAC, et nous sommes pleinement conscients que la présence des secrétariats aux réunions de l'ICANN a été bénéfique à la communauté dans son ensemble. Nous espérons que ces propositions retiendront votre intérêt non seulement pour solutionner la question de la présence aux réunions de l'ICANN, mais également pour consolider le rôle de la Communauté des utilisateurs d'Internet. C'est avec joie que nous vous retrouverons et que nous prendrons connaissance de vos avis et propositions. Cordialement, Doug Brent, Directeur d'exploitation Denise Michel, Vice-présidente en charge des politiques

1 0

WashingtonPost: ICANN Accredited Registrar is Convicted Felon
by Danny Younger Sept. 9, 2008

Sept. 9, 2008

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2008/09/estdomains_a_sordid_hi…

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Announce] GNSO Council Request for Input: WHOIS Studies
by Patrick Vande Walle Sept. 8, 2008

Sept. 8, 2008

Being new to the ALAC, I am not sure what the process is to reply to this document from the ALAC side or if we want to reply at all. Actually, this is the study I would have liked to see years ago, when the whois issues were first discussed in ICANN circles. Here are some concerns I have. Free to read it, keep it or trash it as you see fit. Patrick Area 1 WHOIS misuse studies Altough some registrars prevent automated email harvesting by allowing public web-based access to Whois registrant data only after the user deciphers a "captcha" image, it has been demonstrated in other contexts that captchas are now able to be machine deciphered, making them mostly useless against serious attacks. While it is commonly mentioned that whois data is used for spamming purposes, other cases have been reported like identifying opponents and other people persecuted for their opinions. Area 2 Compliance with data protection laws and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement If local laws allow a registrant (natural person) to oppose the publication of his/her data in the whois, he/she should still be allowed to register a domain name. It should not be a prerequisite to surrender one's privacy to "gain the right" to buy a domain name. Further analysis is needed regarding the export of registrant data from one country to another. It may be the case that a registrar located in country X is not allowed by law to export natural persons data to a registry in country Y. This matter is further complicated if the registry subcontracts the technical backend to an operator with its registered address in country Z and its data operations in yet another country. Area 5 Impact of WHOIS data protection on crime and abuse It is important to define what is "the legitimate use of gTLD WHOIS data" and who are those entities, who can invoke it and how. Again, this is often dependent on local law. Area 6 Proxy registrar compliance with law enforcement and dispute resolution requests It may be true that some registrars operating proxy/privacy services are not revealing registrant data when requested in a UDRP proceeding. These registrars may be prevented to do so under local law. UDRP is an arbitral, not a legal, process. Different rules may apply, depending on local law. Area 7 WHOIS data accuracy and general considerations As mentioned in RFC 3912: "The WHOIS protocol has not been internationalised. The WHOIS protocol has no mechanism for indicating the character set in use.[...] This inability to predict or express text encoding has adversely impacted the interoperability (and, therefore, usefulness) of the WHOIS protocol." RFC 3912 further elaborates that: "The WHOIS protocol has no provisions for strong security. WHOIS lacks mechanisms for access control, integrity, and confidentiality. Accordingly, WHOIS-based services should only be used for information which is non-sensitive and intended to be accessible to everyone. The absence of such security mechanisms means this protocol would not normally be acceptable to the IETF at the time of this writing." While this is outside the scope of the comments request, ALAC might suggest now or later that those who think the whois has some usefulness to actually eat their own dogfood and go through the process of redesigning the whole whois protocol, rather than (ab)using the security holes in its current incarnation to serve their business inerests. On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:02:15 -0700, Nick Ashton-Hart <Nick.Ashton-Hart(a)icann.org> wrote: > The GNSO Council has requested the ALAC's views on the report recently > prepared by the Whois Study Hypothesis Group. > > The Council has requested that, if possible, comments should be sent by > 16th October 2008, in order for them to be discussed in the Council meeting > on that date. > > The Report may be found at: > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c…

2 2

Re: [At-Large] 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Annette Muehlberg Sept. 7, 2008

Sept. 7, 2008

congratulations to alac, to have these two great people serve it. best annette > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > Gesendet: 07.09.08 19:39:23 > An: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Betreff: Re: [At-Large] 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections > Thanks Polly. Perhaps someday we will get to actually know each other. > > I too know Adam (although not as long as you do) and I am looking > forward to his contributions as well. > > Warm regards, Alan > > At 07/09/2008 11:57 AM, Jean Armour Polly wrote: > >Congratulations Alan and Adam. > >I don't know Alan personally but this will be his second term on ALAC > >I believe. I, myself, was a NomCom appointee to ALAC and though I did > >a lot of work during my time, I really felt a 2 year term is not > >enough to be completely effective. > >I have known Adam for a number of years and ALAC is extremely > >fortunate to have him. He has served on the NomCom itself and is very > >well aware of ALL the issues faced by ALAC. > >I wish them both well. > >JP > >-- > >Jean Armour Polly > >http://www.netmom.com/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > --

1 0

Re: [At-Large] 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Jean Armour Polly Sept. 7, 2008

Sept. 7, 2008

Congratulations Alan and Adam. I don't know Alan personally but this will be his second term on ALAC I believe. I, myself, was a NomCom appointee to ALAC and though I did a lot of work during my time, I really felt a 2 year term is not enough to be completely effective. I have known Adam for a number of years and ALAC is extremely fortunate to have him. He has served on the NomCom itself and is very well aware of ALL the issues faced by ALAC. I wish them both well. JP -- Jean Armour Polly http://www.netmom.com/

2 1

FW: ICANN News Alert -- 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections
by Roberto Gaetano Sept. 7, 2008

Sept. 7, 2008

Congratulations to Alan and Adam! Very good choice! Cheers, Roberto _____ From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Saturday, 06 September 2008 00:33 To: roberto(a)icann.org Subject: ICANN News Alert -- 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections <http://www.icann.org/> ICANN News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-05sep08-en.htm _____ 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee Announces Selections 5 September 2008 The 2008 ICANN Nominating Committee (Nom Com) has completed its selections: ICANN Board of Directors * Steve Crocker (USA, North America) * Katim Touray (Gambia, Africa) Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2008 until conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2011. At-Large Advisory Committee * Alan Greenberg (Canada, North America) * Adam Peake (UK, Europe) Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2008 until conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2010. ccNSO Council * Jian Zhang (China/USA, Asia-Pacific/North America) Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2008 until conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2011. GNSO Council * Terry Davis (USA, North America) Term: Conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2008 until conclusion of the ICANN Annual General Meeting for 2010. _____ The biographies of the Nominees will also be posted shortly at http://nomcom.icann.org/candidate-bios-2008.htm and will be linked above. The 2008 Nominating Committee will also be posting a summary of its work on its web page at http://nomcom.icann.org. The 2008 Nominating Committee received 78 Statements of Interest, drawn from all five of the geographic regions during an open nominating period that ran from 14 December 2007 to 15 April 2008. 13 candidates were female and 65 were male. 27 candidates were from Europe, 20 candidates were from North America, 15 were from Africa, 14 were from Asia/Australia/Pacific, and 8 were from Latin America/Caribbean. Some candidates are counted in more than one region due to dual citizenship. Those selected will assume their duties at the conclusion of the ICANN Annual Meeting on 7 November 2008 in Cairo, Egypt. _____ Sign up for ICANN's Monthly <http://www.icann.org/magazine/> Magazine This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to roberto(a)icann.org. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below. <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> Email Marketing Software <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=9827743&l=6333&s=8FE9&m=174 269&c=165637> Manage your subscription <http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=174269&act=8FE9&r=9827743&c=1 65637>

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes?
by Danny Younger Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Eduardo, Every ICANN-accredited registrar is required to complete the Shared Registry System Registrar Accreditation Application -- see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/accreditation-application.htm This document requires the applicant to disclose certain details such as "business address of the entity applicant". ICANN has stated "ICANN intends to conduct registrar accreditation in as open and transparent a manner as feasible. To that end, ICANN will be free to disclose and use information submitted in connection with an application in any manner and to anyone it deems appropriate" -- see http://www.icann.org/en/registrars/instructions.htm Apparently, ICANN has not deemed it appropriate to disclose accurate registrar contact details to the general public (otherwise, all of these applications would have been publicly posted which is what one would expect if ICANN actually were a transparent organization). However, we have the right under the ICANN Accountability & Transparency Frameworks and Principles document (approved by the ICANN Board in New Delhi) to request unpublished information: "If a member of the public requests information not already publicly available, ICANN will respond, to the extent feasible, to reasonable requests within 30 calendar days of receipt of the request. If that time frame will not be met, ICANN will inform the requester in writing as to when a response will be provided, setting forth the reasons necessary for the extension of time to respond. If ICANN denies the information request, it will provide a written statement to the requestor identifying the reasons for the denial." If members of the NARALO agree, we can invoke our right to ask for the publication of these registrar accreditation applications. I wouldn't mind taking this topic up at our next monthly meeting... Danny --- On Thu, 9/4/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz(a)prtc.net> wrote: > From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz(a)prtc.net> > Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes? > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 5:00 PM > There should be complete transparency in this, otherwise it > gives the > impression that these registrars are doing something > illegal. > > > > So which committee/organization do we approach to start > discussing and > change this? > > > > Eduardo Diaz > > ISOC-PR > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: na-discuss-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:na-discuss-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On > Behalf Of Danny > Younger > Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 9:03 AM > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive > Review of ICANN > Accreditation Processes? > > > > Source: http://www.knujon.com/news.html > > > > Phantom Registrars > > > > In investigating the 48 Directi-owned Registrars with > questionable > locations, we reported facts. The address used by many of > these Registrars: > "14525 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97005-2343" > is the address of a mail > forwarding service called Earthclassmail. According to > Directi, the listed > companies are registered in Delaware, but not in Oregon or > New York as > listed in the ICANN Directory. Directi is headquartered in > Mumbai, India. > KnujOn feels that any company given so much responsibility > over the Internet > should fully disclose where they are located, but this is > apparently not an > ICANN requirement. > > > > Indeed, Stacy Burnette, director of contractual compliance > at ICANN, said > the organization is satisfied the registrars are > incorporated in the > location listed in their application. Telephone numbers in > the contact > information need not correspond to the location of > incorporation, she said. > ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose > their place of > incorporation. > > > > To which KnujOn says: Huh? So, as the expression goes, > don't hate the player > hate the game. Directi merely acquired these accreditations > by ICANN's own > rules. Summary: One address in the application, a second > address disclosed > to the public. Read this line again: "ICANN > doesn't require registrars to > publicly disclose their place of incorporation." How > does this figure into > ICANN's mission to be an open and transparent > organization? "Telephone > numbers in the contact information need not correspond to > the location of > incorporation". How can there be any accountability? > This situation is > upside-down. Registrants are required to list their valid > contact > information, but the Registrars who sponsor their domains > are not. > > > > > > > > > > > > ------ > > 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 - http://www.avg.com > > Version: 8.0.169 / Virus Database: 270.6.16/1651 - Release > Date: 9/4/2008 > 6:57 AM

6 7

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Announce] Registrants 'Bill of Rights and Responsibilities' - Call for Volunteers
by Adam Peake Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Hi. Like to respond to this comment Nick sent to the announce list. Hope relevant, registrar agreements and policies are not really my great passion. However: >Dear Community: > >As you may be aware, the ALAC sent an advisory to the Board of >Directors of ICANN in August 2008 related to At-Large community >views on amendments to the Registrar Accreditation Agreement ("RAA") >(http://www.atlarge.icann.org/en/correspondence/community-views-raa-negotiat… >) > >A number of the proposals in the Advisory related to the protection >of registrants, including: > >"Add a clause in the RAA to require registrars to show a >standardized description of registrant rights, to be provided by >ICANN in different languages, as an appendix to the contract at the >time of registration, and also to make it available in the >registrant's domain management interface whenever available. Such >obligation should also be passed onto resellers. " > >In the public consultation on a package of proposed draft amendments >to the RAA begun in June 2008 (see >http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18jun08-en.htm) >this proposal can be found as a redline addition to the RAA text: > >"In the event that ICANN gives reasonable notice to Registrar that >ICANN has published a webpage that identifies available registrant >rights and responsibilities, and the content of such webpage is >developed in consultation with registrars, Registrar shall provide a >link to the webpage on any website it may operate for domain name >registration or renewal clearly displayed to its Registered Name >Holders at least as clearly as its links to policies or >notifications required to be displayed under ICANN Consensus >Policies." How clearly do registrars display ICANN consensus policies, is there some requirement/guideline? If consensus policies aren't prominently displayed then this requirement to display the description of registrant rights equally (un)clearly may not be that helpful. Long ago I was a member of the working group long ago on deletes, and that consensus policy includes this language "Additionally, in order to provide registrants with a complete understanding of registrars' deletion and renewal policies, the task force recommends that registrars inform registrants of those policies at the time of registration, and maintains them in a conspicuous place on their website." I struggle to find those policies on most registrar sites. What I'm trying to say is I think the instruction to registrars needs to be much more direct, along the lines of "you will display this policy/guideline prominently and ICANN will monitor." "Prominently" probably needs defining (a menu item for ICANN Policy on every registrar top page?) Adam >The ALAC Coordinator of the Registrant / Registrar Relations Working >group of At-Large has asked that work begin, in consultation with >the registrar community, on producing such a document. Volunteers >from the At-Large community who wish to work on this project are >asked to subscribe to the RRA-WG list at: >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… >and send an email introducing yourself to that list. > >The RRA Working Group URL is: >https://st.icann.org/raa-policy/index.cgi?at_large_registrar_registrant_rel… >and you will find a new set of pages dedicated to this initiative >along with reference information. > >-- > >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >Director for At-Large >Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) >Main Tel: +33 (450) 40 46 88 >USA DD: +1 (310) 578-8637 >Fax: +41 (22) 594-85-44 >Mobile: +41 (79) 595 54-68 >email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org >Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / >Skype: nashtonhart >Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart >_______________________________________________ >ALAC-Announce mailing list >ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce_atlarge-lists… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Sept. 5, 2008

Sept. 5, 2008

Total of 18 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Sep 5 00:53:02 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 33.33% | 6 | 36.62% | 52349 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 16.67% | 3 | 13.40% | 19162 | jefsey at jefsey.com 5.56% | 1 | 7.87% | 11247 | vanda at uol.com.br 5.56% | 1 | 7.79% | 11138 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 5.56% | 1 | 6.03% | 8627 | lists at privaterra.info 5.56% | 1 | 5.96% | 8513 | brenbe at consumer.org 5.56% | 1 | 5.22% | 7461 | michele at blacknight.ie 5.56% | 1 | 5.17% | 7388 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.56% | 1 | 4.37% | 6248 | evan at telly.org 5.56% | 1 | 4.16% | 5948 | johnl at iecc.com 5.56% | 1 | 3.41% | 4869 | derek at aa419.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 18 |100.00% | 142950 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes?
by Danny Younger Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Yes. We can expect that all "confidential material" (as stipulated in section V. Submission of Confidential Materials) would be redacted and that the remainder would fall into the sphere of the public domain. --- On Thu, 9/4/08, Eduardo Diaz <ediaz(a)prtc.net> wrote: > From: Eduardo Diaz <ediaz(a)prtc.net> > Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes? > To: dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com, at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Date: Thursday, September 4, 2008, 5:33 PM > Danny: > > If we do this, can we publish this information ourselves > once we get it?

1 0