March 2010 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Second Call: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for the Vertical Integration PDP
by Alan Greenberg April 6, 2010

April 6, 2010

To date, I believe that very few At-Large people have volunteered to join this group. The deadline for volunteering is 22 March. Note that this is a time-limited PDP and is scheduled to deliver its final report by 20 Jun, so the work will likely be intensive. The issue could have great impact on new TLDs. The proposal in DAGv2 was to allow a registrar related to (ie some sort of ownership relationship) to distribute up to 100,000 names for the TLD. Presumably in part, this was to address situations where the domain had very limited requirements to sell second level domains (corporate TLDs for example) or to ensure that startup TLDs had some marketing path if registrars were not interested in carrying them. If you are considering volunteering, please read the Issues Report and Charter pointed to below. Alan >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >To: 'GNSO Council ' <council(a)gnso.icann.org> >Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2010 04:34:11 -0500 >Subject: [council] Revised: Call For Volunteers for the Working Group for > the Vertical Integration PDP > >Dear All, > >The GNSO Council has initiated a policy >development process (PDP) on the topic of >Vertical Integration between Registrars and >Registries. At its 10 March 2010 meeting, the >GNSO Council formed a working group to perform >the activities of this PDP, and is now seeking >volunteers to serve on the working group. > >This working group will evaluate and propose >policy recommendations for new gTLDs and >existing gTLDs on the topic of vertical >integration between registries and >registrars. The working group expects to >define the range of restrictions on vertical >separation that are currently in effect, to >serve as a baseline to evaluate future >proposals. The work will be done an expedited >basis, with an expected completion date of 30 >June 2010, and will follow the parameters of the >charter approved by the GNSO Council for this PDP. > >If you would like to participate in this working >group as a volunteer, kindly respond by email >to ><<gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.htm>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org> >by Monday, 22 March. You will need to >submit your Statement of Interest in order to >serve on this working group. The template for >the Statement of Interest is described in the GNSO Working Group Guidelines. > >The working group plans to schedule its first >meeting during the week of 22-26 March >2010. At that meeting, the first agenda item >will be to select the Chair of the working >group. The chair is expected to serve his/her >duties in a neutral manner, in accordance with >the GNSO Working Group guidelines. Please >be prepared to nominate and vote an individual >to serve as chair for this working group. > >For more information on this policy development process, please refer to: > >Issues Report on Vertical Integration: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/report-04dec09-en.pdf > >Charter: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective…>http://gnso.icann.org/issues/vertical-integration/vi-wg-chartered-objective… > >Working Group Guidelines: > ><http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f…>http://gnso.icann.org/en/improvements/proposed-working-group-guidelines-05f… > >Best Regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat ><mailto:gnso.secretariat@gnso.icann.org>gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org > > > > >

13 16

China censors facebook twitter & youtube web traffic world wide using US government DNS
by Joe Baptista April 3, 2010

April 3, 2010

China censors facebook twitter & youtube web traffic world wide using US government DNS http://bit.ly/dkp1Kd There has been some discussion on the GA concerning this. I'm surprised I have to yet see anything here on it. It's time Rod Beckstrom speak to these issues and soon. regards joe baptista

4 12

DOODLE / At-Large Community Call on DNS-CERT
by At-Large Staff March 31, 2010

March 31, 2010

Dear All, An At-Large community call on DNS-CERT is being planned for Friday, 9 April at 1100 UTC. The date and time has been set to accommodate the schedules of our Guest Speakers. Guest speakers Greg Rattray, ICANN Chief Internet Security Advisor; Yurie Ito, Director, Global Security Programs; and Patrick Jones, Senior Manager of Continuity & Risk Management will be discussing the DNS-CERT concept and the Proposed Strategic Initiatives for Improved DNS Security, Stability and Resiliency (see the public consultation on this issue at: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/#strat-ini-ssr deadline extended to 14 April 2010). Please complete the attached Doodle poll to confirm your participation. http://www.doodle.com/xqk5ndfiskip69qg Please also indicate any need for interpretation to be made available on this call by indicating FR or ES next to your name. This doodle will close on Friday 02 April at 2200 UTC. The call will be confirmed shortly thereafter. Thank you. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, Kristina Nordström ICANN At-Large Staff email: staff[at]atlarge.icann.org website: www.atlarge.icann.org

1 0

My condolences
by Bill Silverstein March 30, 2010

March 30, 2010

Cheryl, or is it Sisyphus now? Is being appointed to Accountability and Transparency Review Team a blessing or a curse? Not to slam you, but accountability and transparency have never been terms that come to mind when I think of ICANN. Good luck, you have your work cut out for you as you push that boulder up that hill.

8 18

Re: [At-Large] My condolences
by Carlton Samuels March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

I share the sentiments expressed by both Adam and Evan. And I support the 'writing' proposed by Adam as draft for the joint resolution. Carlton --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > On 28 March 2010 23:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: >> >> >> First, we are still a Board Advisory Committee. >>> >> >> >> But all Board Advisory Committees are not created equal. It's my >> understanding that the Board *must* respond to GAC advisories but under no >> similar obligation with regard to ALAC. >> >> >> Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some >>> level, >>> is a good thing. >>> >>> >> May be. But with neither a Board liaison nor a requirement for it to >> respond >> to ALAC initiatives, this seems the worst of both worlds. >> > > > Very much agree. > > We, and I mean all SO/AC not just ALAC, really need that feedback loop of > how advice has been taken into consideration, and if not taken up why not. > We've been asking for years. And to move forward with the discussion we had > with the NCUC about a joint resolution regarding access to staff briefings > to the board., which I hope I have the final text of: > > "ICANN's transparency commitment demands the adoption of a principle of > default openness for all Board communications except in those specific > instances where it is overridden, in writing, by the principle of personal > privacy or an explicit requirement for confidentiality. > > It is especially critical that the contributions of supporting > organizations and advisory committees be presented to the Board accurately > and completely. While we appreciate the need for staff to summarize matters > that are often complex, we must stress the importance of ensuring that these > summaries accurately report the relevant facts and positions. Openness and > public review will minimize inaccuracies, facilitating the role of staff > while enhancing public confidence in the Board's decision-making process. > > We request that the Board change its policy so that all briefing documents > are made publicly accessible in advance of presentation, except for those > for which explicit legitimate reason is given in writing for the requirement > of confidentiality." > > We should move forward with this. > > Adam > > > > > > - Evan >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > -- +========+++++++++++++++====== Carlton A Samuels Strategies for Education Technologies and Curriculum Development, Process Engineering & Improvement, ICT Policy, Internet Governance

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Kuo-Wei Wu Elected to ICANN Board, replaces Raimundo Beca
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

Thank you for noting and forwarding this news Adam... I have also sent to the APRALO list as we will be very pleased to see a leader from one of our valued ALSes in this role and would like to call on the Chair of APRALO to write a formal congratulations on our behalf. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) On 24 March 2010 00:25, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > Selected by the ASO < > http://aso.icann.org/news/kuo-wei-wu-elected-to-seat-10-on-the-icann-board/ > > > > Kuo-Wei Wu's from Taiwan, member of APNIC's Executive Council, and long > time supporter of At Large. > > Adam > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

4 3

Re: [At-Large] My condolences
by Alan Greenberg March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

At 29/03/2010 12:47 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 28 March 2010 23:38, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > > > First, we are still a Board Advisory Committee. > > >But all Board Advisory Committees are not created equal. It's my >understanding that the Board *must* respond to GAC advisories but under no >similar obligation with regard to ALAC. If memory serves me, there is a point in the ALAC review report about this and the Board has approved it. > > Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some level, > > is a good thing. > > > >May be. But with neither a Board liaison nor a requirement for it to respond >to ALAC initiatives, this seems the worst of both worlds. > >- Evan >_______________________________________________ >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

2 1

Re: [At-Large] My condolences
by Alan Greenberg March 29, 2010

March 29, 2010

At 28/03/2010 10:46 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >If the Board wants to "redeem" itself, it will work with At-Large to help >deal with our loss of a conduit once the transition happens from official >liaison to Board member. Once that transition is complete, At-Large's >ability to initiate policy as a constituency will be severely reduced. We >will be reduced to reacting through conventional public comment mechanisms. >Perhaps At-Large PDP needs its own board-blessed PDP process? I disagree about our being reduced to only interacting in Public Comment periods. First, we are still a Board Advisory Committee. We need to ensure that when we "advise" the Board, it really is substantive. And given that, we need to *AGAIN* point out that feedback is a necessary part of the process. Not having a Liaison takes all of their excuses away, which at some level, is a good thing. That being said, I would not depreciate the impact of public comment period comments on issues that are not immediately at the stage of a Board decision. These days, they are listened to and a lot harder to ignore than even a year ago. Alan

3 2

Fwd: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

Received overnight (well for me overnight it's my Sat morning here in the antipodeas) from Alice Jansen... The following informs me that I have been retained as part of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team. Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: RT Candidatures <rtcandidatures(a)icann.org> Date: 27 March 2010 01:04 Subject: Status of your application for a position on the Accountability and Transparency Review Team To: langdonorr(a)gmail.com Dear Mrs. Langdon-Orr, We are contacting you on behalf of Mr. Janis Karklins, Chair of the GAC, and Mr. Peter Dengate Thrush, Chair of the ICANN Board of Directors (the Selectors of the first Review Team), and we would like to update you on your application status for a position on the Accountability and Transparency review team. First of all, we would like to thank you for your interest in the ICANN review process; your skills, professional experience and true interest in the review were highly appreciated by the Selectors. After careful review of your application, the Selectors are pleased to inform you that you have been retained for a position on the Review Team, and would like to congratulate you on your new role. The first step of the review process will be to schedule a first Review Team conference call; please note that a poll will be sent to you very shortly so as to determine a timeslot which is convenient to all members. Agenda and details of the call will then follow. Meanwhile, we thank you again for your availability to participate in this key process. Best regards Alice E. Jansen -------------------------- ICANN Assistant, Organizational Reviews alice.jansen(a)icann.org Phone: +32.2.234.78.64 Mobile: +32.4.73.31.76.56 Fax: +32.2.234.78.48 Skype: alice_jansen_icann -------------------------- 6, Rond Point Schuman B-1040 Brussels, Belgium

9 10

atlarge wiki
by JFC Morfin March 28, 2010

March 28, 2010

At 23:38 26/03/2010, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: > Another thought is (in case anyone wished >to forward matters via email for my attention) is to set up an >@at-large-lists address for this purpose... > >What do you think any views?? > >Cheryl Langdon-O http://atlarge.org - see "wiki" ATLARGE will continue to stay in stand-by till we know better about the role of @larges in the support of the new usage oriented Internet architecture extension we obtained through IDNA2008. We think advisable to wait for an IAB guidance on this issue, before moving ahead. We triggered the necessary (IMHO) IESG/IAB considerations through our current appeal process. jfc

1 0