February 2009 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Rescheduling summit sessions without asking???
by Annette Muehlberg Feb. 28, 2009

Feb. 28, 2009

all, there is a summit-participants list, i know not even all participants are on it. but i am afraid, that important issues get lossed on different lists and we should rather stick to the public at-large list. this is why i resend the last posting of that list to the at-large list, hoping discussions will be continued here. but having a look at the archive, i just realised that we have two new staff members and maybe i have missed their introduction online, but it would be certainly nice to get to know them live at the summit. >Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, > Gisella Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms > ICANN At-Large Staff it is amazing how staff is doubling its size every year (in the last three years) and i hope that now there will be staff available for the at-large to offer services on the operational planning. best greetings annette ++++++++++++ [Summit-participants] Rescheduling sessions without asking??? Max Senges maxsenges at gmail.com Sat Feb 28 13:13:04 EST 2009 Previous message: [Summit-participants] Summit Update Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Matthias and all I have to say that the way you have been managing the preparation and scheduling of at least the session i am organizing is pretty unacceptable. You have informed me three days ago (Feb 25) that you approve the session proposal (which I handed in ....) and scheduled it for sunday(tomorrow). This already caused quite some coordinational stress as there where scheduling issues for many interested parties. I finally managed to get "our act together" this morning and now i have to learn from colleagues (not the organizers) that our session has been rescheduled to Tuesday. Sorry, but i would have appreciated if you had _asked_ me before whether re-scheduling our session one day before it is planned to take place works for me and the speakers! Especially as i do not think that the new setup - to have all thematic sessions in parallel will improve, but rather negatively influence the possibility of people to participate and hence conduct productive workshops! Also - when is the website going to be updated? and can you please announce the rescheduling as prominently as possible. Lastly i am wondering how the results of our sessions are supposed to feed into the final declaration as they are scheduled after all the workinging groups have done their meetings? Can you please explain the logic here? Kind regards, Max < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. ----------------------Margaret Mead < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > Dr. Max Senges Chair Internet Rights and Principles Coalition www.internetrightsandprinciples.org < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > < : > On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:35 AM, Matthias Langenegger < matthias.langenegger at icann.org> wrote: > Hi Max, > > The message was sent to the Summit participant list and I just saw that > your email address has not yet been subscribed to that list. Sorry about > that. I subscribed you to that list. > > > ------ Forwarded Message > *From: *At-Large Staff <staff at atlarge.icann.org> > *Date: *Sat, 28 Feb 2009 06:52:35 -0800 > *To: *<summit-participants at atlarge-lists.icann.org> > *Subject: *[Summit-participants] Summit Update > > Dear All, > > Due to a scheduling conflict of the Board and Board Governance Committee, > the ALAC Chair has decided that the Sunday Sessions will now be adjusted to > allow for the ALAC Review Session to run from 0900 to 1030. Therefore the > Thematic Session currently scheduled for Sunday will be moved to Tuesday > afternoon with the other Thematic Sessions. The first sessions of the five > Working Groups will now be shifted to Sunday from 10:45 to 18:15. > > Regards, > > Nick Ashton-Hart, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Gisella > Gruber-White, Marie-Helene Bouchoms > ICANN At-Large Staff > email: *staff at atlarge.icann.org > * > > ------ End of Forwarded Message >

2 1

Review of the DNS Root Server Advisory Committee
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 28, 2009

Feb. 28, 2009

http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/rssac/ The Westlake report on RSSAC has just been published. It is quite hard, in that it points out that RSSAC is essentially unaccountable to the ICANN community, and that it does not pro-actively advise on root server related issues, or potential ones. Among the recommendations are a request that RSSAC holds its meetings together with ICANN ones, and to enlarge the AC to include representatives from ASO, GNSO, ccNSO, GAC and ALAC. Obviously, the recommendations should be discussed, but the gist of the report is right on target. Patrick

10 12

IMPORTANT - Summit Participants
by Thompson, Darlene Feb. 28, 2009

Feb. 28, 2009

Hi all, I have now been appointed "Official Sheepdog" and am very impressed with my new responsibilities (yeah, right!). Basically, its my job to get everyone to the Summit on time tomorrow morning, so please read the following: 1. The meeting starts at 9:00 AM. That means that everybody must be REGISTERED prior to that time and, lets face it, if everybody gets there at 8:45, this AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN! So, we need to get there WELL ahead of time to make sure we get registered on time. 2. The registration desk opens at 8:00 AM. PLEASE everybody try to get there as early as possible, especially those from the RALOs that aren't excedingly jet lagged (NARALO & LACRALO). Lets be respectful to other's time lags and show up as EARLY as humanly possible. Staff are doing their best - lets not let everybody down. 3. Registration and everything else tomorrow is happening at the 4th Floor of the Sheraton (not 2nd floor as previously announced). 4. My room # is 1803 - call me if you have questions. My wake up call will be at 6:30 so any time after that is just fine. I will be circling the lobby area and the restaurants (starting at about 7:30 or so) trying to make sure everybody gets moving. If you've not met me yet, I'm 5'8", long curly red hair, glasses, wearing a light grey suit. If you have a question about how to get to the Sheraton, I will walk with you for the first 50 feet or so until you can see it and I'll give you good instructions how to get there. This place isn't as bad (for muggers and such) as was first made out. If there are shuttle busses, take them. If not, you can get there by an EASY 7 minute walk at a stroll. (I've done it 4 times now and not been accosted by anybody.) The locals are generally quite pleasant and willing to assist (but, of COURSE, be careful). 5. I will need "Sub-Sheepdogs" to help me. I am REALLY hoping that each of the elected executives of each RALO will help me in getting your RALO participants to shuffle along ON TIME (read: EARLY!). We have a REALLY tight time schedule tomorrow and there actually isn't any excuse to show up late. 6. I am SO looking forward to seeing everybody! This is going to be a great conference and, since it is one of a kind, we need to make an AWESOME showing here. Please approach me if you need ANY help whatsoever. CU tomorrow! D Darlene A. Thompson CAP Administrator Nunavut Department of Education/N-CAP P.O. Box 1000, Sation 910 Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0 Phone: (867) 975-5631 Fax: (867) 975-5610 E-mail: dthompson(a)gov.nu.ca

2 2

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 27, 2009

Feb. 27, 2009

Total of 18 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 27 00:53:07 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 5.56% | 1 | 36.12% | 62077 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 11.11% | 2 | 8.05% | 13829 | derek at aa419.org 11.11% | 2 | 7.52% | 12929 | karl at cavebear.com 11.11% | 2 | 6.86% | 11793 | evan at telly.org 11.11% | 2 | 6.77% | 11637 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 5.56% | 1 | 6.44% | 11074 | baptista at publicroot.org 5.56% | 1 | 4.54% | 7798 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 5.56% | 1 | 4.30% | 7387 | roberto at icann.org 5.56% | 1 | 3.94% | 6770 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.56% | 1 | 3.76% | 6467 | dogwallah at gmail.com 5.56% | 1 | 3.49% | 5994 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 5.56% | 1 | 2.83% | 4857 | johnl at iecc.com 5.56% | 1 | 2.79% | 4802 | jaap at nlnetlabs.nl 5.56% | 1 | 2.60% | 4468 | joly at punkcast.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 18 |100.00% | 171882 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS
by Presidencia Internauta Feb. 25, 2009

Feb. 25, 2009

Dear Jeffrey and all: It's very interesting what you say and I totally agree. Karl raises :"... ICANN on the list should be placed on a severe diet. But I do not see any force within ICANN that has the guts to do it .... " I think we should not wait until someone dares to do something, we must be the true protagonists of change within ICANN. I must also say that I totally agree with Evan, when it says that this culture of consensus has led to governance simply by "what is offensive to the lower" instead of asserting his leadership, mission, or even published. All for the sake of courtesy. The very root concept of "consensus politics" ... as whether to have a different status compared to the plain old "politics." In fact, I think some parts of ICANN are even proud of this owest common denominator for leadership. However, in my short time in the ICANN I've come to see it as a dereliction of duty, and a total lack of willingness to defend anything of value, except for growth without an end in itself. "I think it's good to hear ALAC this fellow, and I am not alone in my struggle for an Internet fair, free and with more possibilities for users. Sergio ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>; "Presidencia Internauta" <presidencia(a)internauta.org.ar> Cc: "2nd address Cheryl Langdon-Orr" <langdonorr(a)gmail.com>; "Alan Greenberg" <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>; "DOC/NTIA ICANN Rep" <aheineman(a)ntia.doc.gov>; "GAC Rep" <ssene(a)ntia.doc.gov> Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 8:07 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS > Sergio and all, > > Yes it is a joke, but a very bad one. ICANN seems to still consider > users and/or other non constituency stakeholders a nuisance, even though > these are the stakeholders that ICANN largely is supposed to serve. Seems > to me that they have their collective attitudes backwards, much like the > Banking community has had and in which we are now bailing them out. > > Presidencia Internauta wrote: > >> This is unacceptable! they are the same ones who want to lower the costs of >> participation >> of Internet users in ICANN! is a joke ... >> Sergio Salinas Porto >> Presidente >> Asociación Internauta >> Usuarios de Internet >> República Argentina >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> >> To: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >> Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 1:48 PM >> Subject: [At-Large] ICANN PREGUNTAS >> >> > >> > Adam, >> > >> > Some staff payments are indeed listed on the Form 990. The 2007 Form 990 indicated >> > that >> > Denise Michel received: >> > >> > $198,330 -- compensation >> > $49,160 -- contributions to emloyee benefit plans & deferred compensation >> > $130,465 -- expense account & other allowances. >> > >> > Doug Brent received: >> > >> > $148,500 -- compensation >> > $37,789 -- contributions to emloyee benefit plans & deferred compensation >> > $12,000 -- expense account & other allowances. >> > >> > You'll also find the figures for John Jeffrey, Kurt Pritz, Paul Levins and more... >> > (each >> > of whom receives more than a quarter million dollars per year). >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > Regards, > > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 284k members/stakeholders strong!) > "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - > Abraham Lincoln > "YES WE CAN!" Barack ( Berry ) Obama > > "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is > very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt > > "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; > liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by > P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." > United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] > =============================================================== > Updated 1/26/04 > CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. > div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. > ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail > jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > My Phone: 214-244-4827 >

3 2

gTLD applicant's guide - version 2
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 25, 2009

Feb. 25, 2009

FYI http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/draft-rfp-redline-18feb09-en.pdf Patrick

2 1

WHOIS Studies
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 21, 2009

Feb. 21, 2009

The GNSO was asked to make recommendations on what studies could or should be done to ultimately allow some progress on the Whois issue. Public input was requested on the types of studies that could be done, and this list was merged with the GAC request to the Board on Whois studies. We are now at the stage where GNSO constituencies have prioritized the various studies (or groups of studies) so that ICANN staff can begin to evaluate the feasibility and cost of such studies. The GNSO is scheduled to hold a vote on the issue in Mexico City. Although not a formal Constituency, the ALAC was asked to rate prioritize the studies also. A working group was convened. The volunteers were Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Beau Brendler, Carlton Samuels, Danny Younger, Seith Reiss, Sylvia Caras and Gareth Shearman. Beau volunteered to evaluate the studies from a user and consumer point of view. Most of the WG participants felt that we should give the studies ratings, although there view was expressed by some that we should follow the RrC and NCUC example (see below). The attached spreadsheet gives the various studies/groups, a brief description or hypothesis (some less brief than others), the priority rating that Beau assigned and the priorities of the GNSO constituencies. Note that two Constituencies, the Registrar and Non-Commercial Users, rated all studies at zero. For the Registrars, the reasons were: "The RrC continues to maintain that no studies should be pursued. We have over six years of history on this topic. It was clear through those years that the stakeholder groups were entrenched in their views and positions and there is no evidence or any other indication that any of these studies will change that." The NCUC also felt that there was no point in any further studies. Following the individual ratings are the averages. I have calculated the averages both before and after the ALAC input, and also both including and excluding the RrC and NCUC. By comparing the before and after ALAC averages, you can see how our input will impact the process. By excluding the RrC and NCUC, we can see how our priorities compared to those set by the other groups that went through the exercise. On the average, I have highlighted those with an average of greater than 2.5 (studies were given ratings from 0 to 5). Without the ALAC, 6 studies were above the threshold and are scheduled to be recommended for further ICANN staff action. With the ALAC ratings, two additional studies are above the threshold. If the threshold is raised just a bit, we would have no change in the overall outcome (even though a few of our ratings are quite different from the others that gave non-zero ratings). I understand that this is not a particularly understandable table, but I am at a loss as to how to make it easier without making it much larger. For those who want to understand more about what the studies are looking at, see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c…. The current plan from the WG is to submit this to the GNSO for inclusion in their deliberations. I am not sure if Cheryl is planning to schedule a formal ALAC vote on this, but will leave that up to her. Beau did review his rationale for the priorities during the last conference call, and I will post the location of the MP3 as soon as I get it. If someone has specific questions, I am sure he will try to answer them. Alan

7 7

Fwd: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

>To: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO >Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ><langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, At-Large Staff ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > >Dear Peter, > >On 11 December 2008, the Board of Directors requested a report on >the involvement of users in the GNSO, initially to be delivered by >24 January 2009, later extended to 20 February 2009. > >As per the Board request, the GNSO and ALAC facilitated the >convening of a working group with participants from the >ALAC/At-Large, GNSO and forming constituency communities. As the >ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, I am pleased to deliver this report on >behalf of the working group. > >My understanding is that the Chairs of both the ALAC and the GNSO >will request that their respective groups ratify this report before >or during the Mexico City meeting. > >Although a number of the participants entered into this working >group with some trepidation, it functioned remarkably well, all the >more so given the tight timeline. > >With warm regards, Alan Greenberg

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

Total of 56 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 20 00:53:02 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.71% | 6 | 24.08% | 115126 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 10.71% | 6 | 9.44% | 45146 | karl at cavebear.com 8.93% | 5 | 8.17% | 39082 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 5.36% | 3 | 7.89% | 37725 | cetic at ajudicialmdp.org.ar 7.14% | 4 | 5.09% | 24329 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 5.36% | 3 | 5.07% | 24265 | evan at telly.org 5.36% | 3 | 4.81% | 22985 | langdonorr at gmail.com 5.36% | 3 | 4.05% | 19378 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 5.36% | 3 | 3.57% | 17071 | johnl at iecc.com 3.57% | 2 | 3.21% | 15350 | franck.martin at gmail.com 3.57% | 2 | 3.20% | 15317 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 3.57% | 2 | 2.98% | 14257 | baptista at publicroot.org 3.57% | 2 | 2.68% | 12815 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 3.57% | 2 | 1.98% | 9490 | michele at blacknight.ie 1.79% | 1 | 2.69% | 12871 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.44% | 6896 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 1.79% | 1 | 1.44% | 6865 | vb at bertola.eu 1.79% | 1 | 1.42% | 6767 | admin at isoc.sd 1.79% | 1 | 1.34% | 6403 | fsylla at gmail.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.23% | 5871 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.20% | 5724 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.03% | 4941 | icann-list at sorehands.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.03% | 4936 | roberto at icann.org 1.79% | 1 | 0.95% | 4565 | bfausett at internet.law.pro --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 56 |100.00% | 478175 | Total

1 0

Public Comment: Geographic Regions Charter
by Rudi Vansnick Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Public Comment: Geographic Regions Charter 18 February 2009 A community-wide working group has been established by the ICANN Board to undertake a review of ICANN's Geographic Regions. The Working Group has developed a draft charter to guide its efforts. All members of the ICANN community are now invited to review that draft charter <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/geographic-regions/wg-draft-charter-18feb09-…> [PDF, 44K] and share comments and observations with the Board and community through 24 March 2009. Full text : http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18feb09-en.htm Rudi Vansnick

3 2