January 2011 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Impressions from the Whois-Review
by Lutz Donnerhacke Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

As an AtLarge delegate to the whois review team, I'd like to keep you informed. Of course I'll not talk about interna, but give you background about my activities. http://wwwneu.iks-jena.de/eng/Blog/That-s-the-way-it-always-have-been or http://wwwneu.iks-jena.de/Blog/Das-war-schon-immer-so Please note that "wwwneu.iks-jena.de" is a staging system, so please do blame me for errors and inconstencies.

12 58

At-Large, ALAC, Freedom of Expression and ICANN's core values.
by Avri Doria Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

Hi, There has been a conversation ongoing on the NARALO list that seems to me to belong on this list. Some of that list, me among them, felt is was important tome someone [NARALO, ALAC, ICANN] make a statement similar to one made by ISOC on the problem with the continuing action of the Egyptian government related to its shutting off of access to the Internet. An action that continues from day to day while we remain silent. Some on that list felt it was none of our business and out of ICANN's scope. Others, me among them, argued that it was in scope, given ICANN responsibility for IP and AS numbers and core value #1. > "Preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet." and that besides it was contrary to Human Rights most of our countries have agreed to in binding covenants: > International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights > http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm > > 19.2 > > Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. Others felt that it wasn't proper for a bunch of North Americans to bring up such things given our awful reputation. And especially for US citizens to do so, given that we have congress representatives who want to create an Internet Kill Switch, seemed hypocritical. Others argued that our government's drive to create a kill switch was indeed a reason for us from the US to speak up and do something before everybody was cutting off the internet every time there was a protest against the established government. Finally, it was said that such an effort should be lead by AFRALO and since no other RALO seemed to be discussing this, we should just let it go. Or maybe send a note to someone at some point. It was certainly _not_ for me to send such a note to anyone, but as far as I could tell, there wasn't any rule against my doing so. Hence, this note. I am still in my first year as an ALS member and a participant in At-Large so I guess I should ask: Does At-large think this issue is out of scope for ICANN? for ALAC? a.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review
by Beau Brendler Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

Corporations and their proxies may be allowed to deceitfully register domains, but that doesn't mean people don't notice, and complain about it: http://blog.consumerwebwatch.org/2008/12/animal_planetclorox_frog_site.html http://blog.consumerwebwatch.org/2007/07/why_the_hon_code_is_worthless.html… for instance. The system is broken all the way around. -----Original Message----- >From: Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> >Sent: Jan 31, 2011 3:28 PM >To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review > >On 01/31/2011 11:23 AM, Omar Kaminski wrote: >> And how about the so called proxies? > >Corporate shells are frequently used by corporate entities to hide the >actual ownership and control. > >And we allow those corporate shells to register domain names without any >complaint - we accept their identities as legitimate. > >Why are we so unwilling to accord to people the same protective rights >as we do to corporations? > > --karl-- > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review
by Beau Brendler Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

+1 -----Original Message----- >From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Jan 31, 2011 11:37 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review > >> That's bullshit. Whois makes it easy. But it's not necessary. > >It's unlikely to reflect well on the ALAC or yourself to reject Neil's >expertise simply because it contradicts your personal preferences. > >I talk to many of the same law enforcement people that Neil does, and I >hear the same thing: even in its current imperfect form WHOIS is an >invaluable tool for tracking down the criminals who prey on the >non-technical users that the ALAC purportedly represents. You may not >like it, but it's the truth. > >Arguments about what's "necessary" are silly. The DNS isn't "necessary". >Telephones aren't "necessary". E-mail isn't "necessary". We could just >grab big sticks and run off and hunt the bad guys. > >I really wish that the ALAC would get over the 1990s idea that somehow it >represents the tiny handful of individual vanity domain registrants (such >as me) in preference to the vast majority of users who have never >registered a domain and never will. > >Regards, >John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", >Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. http://jl.ly >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

IGP Blog : The US Commerce Dept position paper for the ICANN Board negotiations
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Jan. 31, 2011

Jan. 31, 2011

"IGP has obtained a copy of the US Commerce Department's position paper for its February 28 negotiations with the ICANN Board over the new top level domain program. The "USG Submission to the GAC Scorecard" shows that the U.S. Commerce Department's ICANN crew has gone off the rails. It supports direct governmental veto power over domains and demands that ICANN completely rewrite most of the consensus policies developed over 4 years." Read full article : http://blog.internetgovernance.org/blog/_archives/2011/1/29/4737705.html

3 2

Egypt has left the internet...
by Manuel Schneider Jan. 28, 2011

Jan. 28, 2011

...after the good news from Tunisia I'd like to post what happens right now in Egypt: http://www.renesys.com/blog/2011/01/egypt-leaves-the-internet.shtml It seems that all egyptian ISPs have cut their international connections, except Noor which is one of four uplinks for the Egypt Stock Exchange. Fibre cables crossing Egypt are still intact. Let's hope that these news support the peaceful protest and that police and military are acting considerate. /Manuel -- Regards Manuel Schneider Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge www.wikimedia.ch

2 1

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 27, 2011

Jan. 27, 2011

Total of 10 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 28 00:53:03 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 2 | 20.52% | 14885 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 10.00% | 1 | 15.92% | 11547 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 13.72% | 9952 | dogwallah at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 13.35% | 9681 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 9.04% | 6556 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 10.00% | 1 | 8.18% | 5930 | admin at ttcsweb.org 10.00% | 1 | 8.01% | 5810 | narten at us.ibm.com 10.00% | 1 | 5.73% | 4154 | evan at telly.org 10.00% | 1 | 5.54% | 4018 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 10 |100.00% | 72533 | Total

1 0

If visiting San Francisco for ICANN 40.....
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 26, 2011

Jan. 26, 2011

Beware the drivers, some of them are really crazy. So are the pedestrians, it seems. But this video might be a bit out of date. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oubsaFBUcTc -- Evan Leibovitch, Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

1 0

Board/GAC - subject matter experts: how selected ? (Fwd: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN announcement on Board-GAC meeting - perhaps IPC "experts" get to speak also?)
by Adam Peake Jan. 24, 2011

Jan. 24, 2011

Robin Gross makes a good point. Hope ALAC will advise that experts representing a balance of views are invited to speak. Adam ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Robin Gross <robin(a)ipjustice.org> Date: Sun, Jan 23, 2011 at 4:05 AM Subject: [NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS] ICANN announcement on Board-GAC meeting - perhaps IPC "experts" get to speak also? To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm Note the following text from the ICANN press release: "... Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the discussion..." Does this mean the Board/GAC will hear from representatives of the intellectual property industry (since this meeting is in response to the lobbying that the IPC has done to various government representatives for more trademark rights)? That would be terribly one-sided and unfair if this meeting goes down that path - another forum for the IPC to lobby the board (and only the IPC gets to present its views?) Who decides what "subject matter experts" will be invited - staff, IPC, Board, GAC??? This announcement provides more questions than answers. Best, Robin ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs 21 January 2011 During the recent ICANN meeting in Cartagena, the ICANN Board of Directors and Governmental Advisory Committee agreed to meet at some time prior to the upcoming Silicon Valley/San Francisco meeting in order to devote significant time in the interest of resolving the outstanding issues the GAC has identified with the new gTLD process. Planning for that meeting has occurred and the Board and the GAC have agreed to meet on 28 February and 1 March 2011, in Brussels, at the Square Brussels Meeting Centre, Mont des Arts – Kunstberg, Brussels. The purpose of the meeting is to: Identify the specific differences between Governmental Advisory Committee ("GAC") advice and the current implementation of the GNSO New gTLD Policy recommendations embodied in the Applicant Guidebook. Through discussion among Board and GAC members, either: arrive at an agreed upon resolution of those differences, or for those issues not resolved, identify what differences remain. This meeting is not intended to address the requirements/steps outlined in the Bylaws mandated Board-GAC consultation process. The meeting will be open, scribed and streamed live over the Internet. Only GAC members, ICANN Board members, select ICANN staff members and subject matter experts will participate in the discussion, whether in person or remotely. It will be possible for interested parties to attend and observe proceedings. Remote participation facilities will also be made available. Papers to inform the discussions will be published prior to the meeting. Details of the agenda and logistics will be made available closer to the meeting. Background ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) plays a key role within ICANN, particularly with regard to providing advice to the Board on public policy issues. The GAC has been actively involved in the discussions on the introduction of new gTLDs and has regularly provided advice to the ICANN Board on a number of issues, which the Board has sought to address. The most recent GAC communiqué [PDF, 45 KB] identified a number of issues associated with the introduction of new gTLDs that the GAC considers outstanding, or unresolved to the GAC's satisfaction. The new gTLD program has its origins in carefully deliberated policy development work by the ICANN community. In October 2007, following more than 18 months of community discussions, the GNSO formally completed its policy development work on new gTLDS and approved a set of 19 policy recommendations. In June 2008, ICANN's Board of Directors adopted the policy recommendations and directed staff to commence work on an implementation plan. The first version of the Applicant Guidebook was posted for public comment on 1 October 2008, and since that time a further four versions have followed with the most recent, the Proposed Final Applicant Guidebook published on 10 November 2010. Each version has been revised as a result of comments received via the respective public comment fora. The ICANN meeting in Cartagena provided the platform for discussion of the latest version, and provided an opportunity for the Board to hear first hand, the community's views. IP JUSTICE Robin Gross, Executive Director 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: robin(a)ipjustice.org

4 3

Re: [At-Large] ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs on 28 February and 1 March 2011
by Eric Brunner-Williams Jan. 22, 2011

Jan. 22, 2011

> Papers to inform the discussions will be published prior to the meeting. There are prior ALAC statements which can be sharpened as informational papers. Eric

2 1