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

Public Comment: Proposed Recommendations for a GNSO Global Outreach Program
by carlos dionisio aguirre Feb. 25, 2011

Feb. 25, 2011

FYI.: Public Comment: Proposed Recommendations for a GNSO Global Outreach Program http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-24feb11-en.htm Carlos Dionisio Aguirre NCA GNSO Council - ICANN former ALAC member by LACRALO Abogado - Especialista en Derecho de los Negocios Sarmiento 71 - 4to. 18 Cordoba - Argentina - *54-351-424-2123 / 423-5423 http://ar.ageiadensi.org

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 25, 2011

Feb. 25, 2011

Total of 7 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 25 00:53:02 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 28.57% | 2 | 32.69% | 14852 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 28.57% | 2 | 23.22% | 10551 | narten at us.ibm.com 14.29% | 1 | 19.05% | 8657 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 14.29% | 1 | 14.67% | 6666 | joly at punkcast.com 14.29% | 1 | 10.36% | 4707 | staff at atlarge.icann.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 7 |100.00% | 45433 | Total

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 25, 2011

Feb. 25, 2011

Total of messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Thu Feb 24 19:37:46 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------

1 0

[Fwd: Brussels LE/Registrar/Registry Meeting -February 24-25, 2011]
by Rudi Vansnick Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

For your information Rudi Vansnick President/CEO Internet Society Belgium Tel : +32 (0)9 329 39 16 ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: Brussels LE/Registrar/Registry Meeting -February 24-25, 2011 From: "Cedric Laurant" <cedric(a)LAURANT.ORG> Date: Wed, February 23, 2011 12:18 pm To: NCSG-NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Does anyone know about this meeting? Cedric --- >From: Bobby Flaim <rflaim [at] stas.fbi.gov> >Subject: Brussels LE/Registrar/Registry Meeting -February 24-25, 2011 > >Dear All, >In coordination with the European Commission, >Directorate-General Home Affairs and gTLD >Registrar Constituency, we are convening the >second Law Enforcement(LE)-Registrar-Registry >AND RIPE NCC/ARIN Meeting on February 24-25, >2011 in Brussels, Belgium. Our first meeting >was in Washington, DC on September 28, 2010 and >one of our objectives was to continue the dialog >in Europe. >The goal of this second meeting is to not only >discuss the relevant issues begun in Washington, >DC in September but to focus on the concerns of >European LE/Registrars, including ccTLDs. In >addition, to highlight LE's efforts across the >entire Internet spectrum, we have dedicated a >half-day session for the European and American >Regional Internet Registries (RIR), RIPE NCC and >ARIN, to discuss the parallel LE/RIR due >diligence IP addressing efforts. >Below is the location, dates, times and tentative agenda: >Dates: February 24-25, 2011 >Location: Albert Borschette Conference Centre >(CCAB) , Rue Froissart 36, 1040 Bruxelles, >Belgium >Agenda: >Day 1 - February 24, 2011 - Thursday - Domain Name System >9:00-9:30 - Welcome/Introductions >9:30-10:30 - Review of LE Due Diligence >Recommendations to ICANN and Registrar SOP - the >LE Recommendations will be discussed at the next >ICANN meeting in San Francisco, March 14-18, >2011. >10:30-10:45 - Break >10:45-11:30 - Review of LE Due Diligence >Recommendations to ICANN and Registrar SOP >(continued) >11:30-12:30: New gTLD process - Latest Draft >Applicant Book and Economic Study >12:30-13:30 - Lunch >13:30-14:30 - EU LE-Registrar Concerns >- EU LE case examples of DNS abuse >- Examples from EU registrar and a registry >on the spectrum of issues they are addressing >for EU LE and what LE could do to make those >issues go more smoothly >14:30- 15:30 - EU Registrars - How do they handle EU and US requests >15:30-15:45 - Break >15:45-17:00 - ccTLD/CENTR - EU LE/ccTLD issues >Day 2 - February 25, 2011 - Friday - Domain Name System and IP Addressing >Morning Session - Domain Registrars/Registries >9:00-10:00 - US Online Pharmaceutical Initiative >- The US just developed a voluntary procedure to >takedown counterfeit online pharmaceuticals, >could that be used to encompass all online >criminal domain name registrations? >10:00-11:00 - Industry Bad Actors - Case Examples >11:00-11:15 - Break >11:15-12:15 - Summary - Steps Forward, Upcoming >ICANN Meeting in San Francisco, March 14th >12:15-13:30 - Lunch >Afternoon Session - Regional Internet Registries -RIPE NCC and ARIN >13:30 - 14:00 Introduction of RIR system >- Short introduction on the system >14:00 - 15:00 IPv6 hour >- presentation on IPv4 vs. IPv6 >- presentation and discussion on RIR IPv6 policies >15:00- 15:30 Break >15:30 - 17:00 Due diligence, fraud/abuse >investigations and investigation tools >- Fraud investigations (ARIN) >- RIR investigation tools (RIPE NCC) >17:00 - 17:30 RIR / LEA cooperation >- Cybercrime Working Party >If there are law enforcement agencies, >registrars or registries that are not on this >email and would like to attend, please pass them >this announcement. >Thank you and we greatly look forward to your participation!! >Bobby >Please RSVP to either of the following so we can ensure logistics: >Radomír JANSKÝ >European Commission >Directorate-General Home Affairs >Directorate A.2 Fight against Organised Crime >Office LX46 3/146 >1049 Brussels, Belgium >Tel: +32.2.295.06.55 >Fax: +32.2.296.76.33 >E-mail: <mailto:radomir.jansky@ec.europa.eu>radomir.jansky [at] ec.europa.eu >Or > >Supervisory Special Agent Bobby Flaim >Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) >Operational Technology Division/Technical Liaison Unit >Work: +1-703-985-2555 >Mobile: +1- 581-437-3728 --

3 3

At-Large Adobe Connect room created for Board-GAC meeting
by ICANN At-Large Staff Feb. 23, 2011

Feb. 23, 2011

Dear All, At the request of the ALAC, an At-Large Adobe Connect room has been created for use during the Board-GAC meeting taking place 28 February and 1 March 2011. The link to the Adobe connect room is available at: http://icann.adobeconnect.com/alacgacboard/. Please note, remote parties will need to join the existing ICANN public room in order to hear the discussions and see the presentations. The audio/ and presentations will not be relayed into the "alacgacboard" room. The details on the remote participation for the Board-GAC meeting are available at: http://meetings.icann.org/remote-participation. There is also an At-Large Skype chat for this meeting (Board - GAC Meeting At-Large community input). To join this group chat, please contact At-Large staff (staff(a)atlarge.icann.org) Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Matthias Langenegger, Seth Greene, Gisella Gruber-White, Marilyn Vernon, ICANN At-Large Staff

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 18, 2011

Feb. 18, 2011

Total of 6 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 18 00:53:03 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 33.33% | 2 | 30.05% | 9627 | joly at punkcast.com 16.67% | 1 | 19.71% | 6315 | narten at us.ibm.com 16.67% | 1 | 18.30% | 5861 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 16.67% | 1 | 17.03% | 5456 | wendy at seltzer.com 16.67% | 1 | 14.91% | 4775 | lutz at iks-jena.de --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 6 |100.00% | 32034 | Total

1 0

Seizuring a level too deep
by Lutz Donnerhacke Feb. 17, 2011

Feb. 17, 2011

http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-shuts-down-84000-websites-by-mistake… ... The domain in question is mooo.com, which belongs to the DNS provider FreeDNS. It is the most popular shared domain at afraid.org and as a result of the authorities’ actions a massive 84,000 subdomains were wrongfully seized as well. All sites were redirected to the banner below. ... Next time try to seize the TLD or the root directly.

3 2

Webcast: U.S. Senate Hearing on seizing websites – today 2/16
by Joly MacFie Feb. 16, 2011

Feb. 16, 2011

In contrast to yesterday’s Hillary Clinton speech about Internet Freedom, today, Feb. 16 2011, the United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary has scheduled a hearing entitled “Targeting Websites Dedicated To Stealing American Intellectual Property” at 10:00 am EST (1500 UTC). This is a followup to last year’s shelving of the COICA act and the recent DHS-ICE site seizures – which some consider to be of dubious legality. Witnesses include representatives of the Authors Guild, Go Daddy, Verizon, and Visa. There will be a webcast. http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1767 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Hillary Clinton to speak about 'Internet Rights & Wrongs' Tuesday
by Joly MacFie Feb. 15, 2011

Feb. 15, 2011

The US State Dept’s Co.Nx network will present Hillary Clinton addressing 'Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices and Challenges In A Networked World' at George Washington University at 12.30pm EST (17.30 UTC) on Feb 15 2011. This is a follow up to her 'Internet Freedom' speech of January 2010. Video will be available live via Adobe Connect or facebook. http://www.isoc-ny.org/p2/?p=1750 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast WWWhatsup NYC - http://wwwhatsup.com http://pinstand.com - http://punkcast.com VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org ---------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 11, 2011

Feb. 11, 2011

Total of 29 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 11 00:53:03 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 13.79% | 4 | 15.92% | 34887 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 13.79% | 4 | 11.63% | 25487 | joly at punkcast.com 13.79% | 4 | 10.69% | 23415 | evan at telly.org 10.34% | 3 | 13.49% | 29561 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 6.90% | 2 | 4.36% | 9546 | lutz at iks-jena.de 6.90% | 2 | 4.23% | 9267 | admin at ttcsweb.org 3.45% | 1 | 7.67% | 16794 | plzakr at gmail.com 3.45% | 1 | 7.17% | 15710 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 3.45% | 1 | 5.22% | 11429 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net 3.45% | 1 | 3.43% | 7507 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.45% | 1 | 3.13% | 6862 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 3.45% | 1 | 3.06% | 6698 | vanda at uol.com.br 3.45% | 1 | 3.00% | 6580 | avc at namesatwork.com 3.45% | 1 | 2.50% | 5475 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 3.45% | 1 | 2.30% | 5031 | ocl at gih.com 3.45% | 1 | 2.20% | 4827 | avri at acm.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 29 |100.00% | 219076 | Total

1 0

ICANN Blog : Update on ICANN Board/GAC Consultation on New gTLDS
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Feb. 10, 2011

Feb. 10, 2011

http://blog.icann.org/2011/02/update-on-icann-boardgac-consultation-on-new-…

1 0

DNSSEC and end users
by Patrick Vande Walle Feb. 9, 2011

Feb. 9, 2011

Good morning to all, This is your SSAC liaison speaking. I am requesting your thoughts on what expected impact DNSSEC will have on end users. My goal is to contribute ideas to the the agenda of the DNSSEC sessions at the San Francisco meeting. Currently, with DNSSEC enabled on the DNS resolver you use (typically, the one assigned to you by your ISP), a domain name failing DNSSEC resolution returns a code to your browser saying the domain does not exist. You would get a blank page displayed in your browser saying the domain is unreachable, similar to what you get when you type an invalid domain name in the browser bar. Some suggest that browsers should return a warning instead, similar to the one you get with an invalid SSL certificate. The counter-argument to this is that most users tend to ignore these warnings anyway and just click OK to go ahead. Further, some say that ISP support desks will get lots of calls from customers complaining about "the Internet is not working" if users are annoyed by pop-up messages, for what appears to be legitimate domain names. Obviously, I do not claim that the Internet is just the web. But is is right now the most visible part and the one which requires direct interaction from the user. I am interested in your thoughts about this. Patrick Vande Walle -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu

6 7

Re: [At-Large] DNSSEC and end users
by Eric Brunner-Williams Feb. 9, 2011

Feb. 9, 2011

Dear <hat="SSAC Liaison"> Patrick, First, TimeWarner, and quite a few other ISPs, do not return NXDOMAIN to stub resolvers (end users of the resolution system), which a browser may render as a blank page. What is returned is a Yahoo synthesized search page. If recursive resolver operator behavior for NXDOMAIN / synthesized results is indicative of recursive resolver operator behavior for "domain name[2] failing DNSSEC resolution", then a third-party synthesized search page is the likely result returned to the stub resolver and application, for applications which use HTTP. While ICANN goes to great pains to make the point that any behavior by infrastructure operators other than contracted parties, from withdrawing all prefixes announcements for a region to substitution of all resolution requests made to a recursive resolver, is outside its scope, this is a situation which could be, to coin the obvious pun, resolved. So, in the first instance, the end-user DNSSEC experience is likely to be a planned increase in presentation of PPC or other monitized synthesized resources, with total control of the end-user DNSSEC experience held by the recursive (eyeball network) resolver operator. Stepping back, the .com string space ICANN created contains "hot spots", the post-UDRP form of original, name-for-sale speculation generally called "cyber-squatting". Modulo Sitefinder, the one attempt by VGRS to capture the value of strings not resolvable, via wildcard matching in the authoritative resolver, the locus of monitized benefit for false matches, e.g., typos, similar strings, etc., lies in the "domainer" sector of the market. Restated, the benefit of interposition upon the .com name space end-user resolution attempt is currently broadly held, mostly by parties other than resolver, authoritative or recursive, operators. The benefit of interposition upon signed .com name space end-user resolution attempt will initially be overwhelmingly narrowly held, mostly by resolver operators. Over time, as the targets of "domainer" interposition and the "domainer" sector sign their respective portfolios, the benefit of interposition upon signed .com name space end-user resolution attempt will relax from this unimodal distribution to the existing semi-uniform distribution. I suggest that a likely outcome will be revenue contraction for the domainer industry, moving millions of low-value domains into non-renewal status and eventual expiry as domainers fail to adapt to revenue loss, with the monitized value, of those domains going to the eyeball network operators, followed by a gradual re-appearance of the now-signed domainer-held portfolios, I think your question can be restated "How will end-users interpret the transformation of the .com interposition industry?" Before trying to suggest answers, it is worth pointing out that there is little interposition industry, other than that operated by eyeball network operators, for the name spaces other than com/net/org/biz/info. Where ad network operators are not paying or paying significantly less for matches, domainers are relatively absent and PPC domain portfolios are significantly smaller. Given the string space that ICANN's created, primarily in the .com name space, but also in the rest of the CNOBI market, the policy question is what changes, if any, will it attempt to make through its contract with Verisign, that will affect the distribution of revenues acquired through the continued capture of end-user attempts to resolve a resource through interposition. You may want to compare and contrast the benefit of making cache poisoning for a specific, recursive resolver held unit of resolution data obsolete, and enabling synthetic return for any signed request for an unsigned resource, or unsigned request for a signed resource, or simply any initial request, and possibly several subsequent requests, whether signed or unsigned. The scenario offered: "some say that ISP support desks will get lots of calls from customers complaining about "the Internet is not working" if users are annoyed by pop-up messages, for what appears to be legitimate domain names" should be restated as a cost-benefit issue for eyeball network operators maximizing ad inventory impressions and minimizing support costs. You may also want to reflect on the utility of ICANN's current program of getting 40 ccTLDs signed, particularly if the following are not signed: .de (14), .uk (9), .cn (7), .tk (5), .nl (4) .ru (3) .ar (2), .bz (2), .it (2), .pl (2), .au (2), .us (2), .ca (1). The (numbers in parenthesis) are the number of registrations in millions. Absent a means to obtain an outcome less undesirable than the end-users interpretation of DNSSEC as simply the transformation of the .com interposition industry from one exploitation business model to another exploitation business model, the likely outcome will be the rational reflection that the network trust model benefits parties other than end-users. FYI, the "DNSSEC Workshop" at the Bruxelles meeting was a complete waste of time. Rather than hand over a valuable hall to a bunch of vendors doing dog-and-pony as a phony "worksho", a sign-a-zone-and-re-sign-a-zone exercise could have been conducted, with real work by the participants. Fake DNSSEC Workshops are something that should not be left unfixed. You may want to register for the OARC event, held contemporaneous with ICANN-40. I have. The link to the OARC 2011 San Francisco Workshop is here: https://www.dns-oarc.net/oarc/workshop/registration. There is a lot of DNSSEC evangelism. You may want to reflect on the value signing the .cat zone had (I wrote the funnel request), or on the value of signing the .museum zone had, not for the techno-gleeful operators or for competitive marketing vis a vis other operators, but for the end-users of resources mapped by the respective chains of resolution. Cheers, Eric P.S. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Antony. I don't know if he has a clue how to solve this problem. I know that I do. > Good morning to all, > > This is your SSAC liaison speaking. I am > requesting your thoughts on what expected impact DNSSEC will have on end > users. My goal is to contribute ideas to the the agenda of the DNSSEC > sessions at the San Francisco meeting. > > Currently, with DNSSEC enabled > on the DNS resolver you use (typically, the one assigned to you by your > ISP), a domain name failing DNSSEC resolution returns a code to your > browser saying the domain does not exist. You would get a blank page > displayed in your browser saying the domain is unreachable, similar to > what you get when you type an invalid domain name in the browser bar. > > > Some suggest that browsers should return a warning instead, similar to > the one you get with an invalid SSL certificate. The counter-argument to > this is that most users tend to ignore these warnings anyway and just > click OK to go ahead. Further, some say that ISP support desks will get > lots of calls from customers complaining about "the Internet is not > working" if users are annoyed by pop-up messages, for what appears to be > legitimate domain names. > > Obviously, I do not claim that the Internet > is just the web. But is is right now the most visible part and the one > which requires direct interaction from the user. > > I am interested in > your thoughts about this.

1 0

Understanding DNSSEC
by Lutz Donnerhacke Feb. 9, 2011

Feb. 9, 2011

I'd like to point you to a (currently German only) website which tries to explain interactivly how DNS (and DNSSEC) works: http://www.denic.de/domains/dnssec/dnssec-vv.html It's far from perfect, but might be helpful. You might report errors and wishes directly to me. Oh, btw: ccTLD de is going to publish the DS entry in the root zone on May, 31.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] U.S. seizure of .ORG domain name
by Carlton Samuels Feb. 8, 2011

Feb. 8, 2011

I would support this. Btw, the USG has used similar tactics to take down domains that are used for online gaming centred on Antigua in the Caribbean . Online gaming is legal in Antigua but it matters not to US interests. Antigua has sought relief at the WTO on areas of WTO jurisdiction and she has repeatedly prevailed. Still has not mattered to our Uncle Sam. Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 8:58 AM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > I propose the At Large/ALAC protest the U.S. government's seizure of > domain name Rojadirecta.org. > > Rojadirecta is a popular sports streaming and P2P download site. > Rojadirecta is a legitimate Spanish business. Two Spanish courts have > ruled the site operates legally. > > It seems the U.S. Government Homeland Security's Immigration and > Customs Enforcement (ICE) division used the TLD as the means of > seizure in an attempt to take down the site. If the action was > against the registrar then a registrant would at least have a choice > of jurisdiction. But this action on ORG, and the actions on .COM > names last November essentially means the U.S. government considers > COM, NET and ORG to be nothing more than ccTLDs subject to U.S. whim > (this isn't a legal action, there has been no court case, no due > process.) > > Rojadirecta is now available under other TLDs > <http://www.rojadirecta.me> <http://www.rojadirecta.es> > <http://www.rojadirecta.in> as well its original IP address > <http://109.235.53.189/>. > > Expect there will be a lot written about this, this article's ok as a > starting point: > < > http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-sei… > > > > I hope At Large will issue a statement protesting the use of the TLD > registry as a means of takedown. That it recommends when the NET, ORG > and COM contracts are renegotiated they should move to a jurisdiction > where such unilateral action by a government is not possible. That > the new applicant guidebook require applicants to only locate in > jurisdictions where such unilateral action by a government is not > possible. > > Legitimate businesses should not be subject to the whim of a U.S. agency. > > Adam > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

14 30

ICANN Press Release "Available Pool of Unallocated IPv4 Internet Addresses Now Completely Emptied"
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Feb. 7, 2011

Feb. 7, 2011

http://www.icann.org/en/news/releases/release-03feb11-en.pdf Good to see that the At-Large IPv6 FAQ produced by the At-Large Community for the At-Large Summit in March 2009 is used as ICANN's reference for IPv6 Dev T

2 1

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 4, 2011

Feb. 4, 2011

Total of 121 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 4 00:53:03 EST 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.74% | 13 | 9.59% | 77503 | karl at cavebear.com 9.92% | 12 | 8.13% | 65713 | lutz at iks-jena.de 8.26% | 10 | 7.88% | 63684 | avri at acm.org 7.44% | 9 | 5.46% | 44140 | johnl at iecc.com 4.96% | 6 | 7.76% | 62691 | beaubrendler at earthlink.net 5.79% | 7 | 5.89% | 47581 | evan at telly.org 4.96% | 6 | 6.28% | 50794 | admin at ttcsweb.org 4.13% | 5 | 4.21% | 33987 | derek at aa419.org 3.31% | 4 | 3.71% | 29990 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 3.31% | 4 | 3.31% | 26772 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 2.48% | 3 | 3.56% | 28772 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 3.31% | 4 | 2.69% | 21704 | omar at kaminski.adv.br 2.48% | 3 | 2.59% | 20944 | cveraq at gmail.com 2.48% | 3 | 2.43% | 19617 | icann-list at sorehands.com 2.48% | 3 | 2.23% | 18049 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 2.48% | 3 | 2.20% | 17804 | neil at cauce.org 2.48% | 3 | 2.10% | 16989 | franck.martin at gmail.com 1.65% | 2 | 1.83% | 14817 | joly at punkcast.com 1.65% | 2 | 1.77% | 14330 | parminder at itforchange.net 1.65% | 2 | 1.77% | 14317 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 1.65% | 2 | 1.55% | 12505 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 1.65% | 2 | 1.40% | 11317 | dogwallah at gmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 1.26% | 10224 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 1.14% | 9243 | info at internautabrasil.org 0.83% | 1 | 1.14% | 9196 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 0.83% | 1 | 1.07% | 8642 | fatimacambronero at gmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 1.03% | 8336 | vanda at uol.com.br 0.83% | 1 | 1.00% | 8059 | siranush_vardanyan at hotmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.93% | 7511 | avc at namesatwork.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.90% | 7244 | ocl at gih.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.73% | 5913 | narten at us.ibm.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.73% | 5896 | email at hakik.org 0.83% | 1 | 0.63% | 5117 | andrespiazza at gmail.com 0.83% | 1 | 0.55% | 4474 | manuel.schneider at wikimedia.ch 0.83% | 1 | 0.54% | 4370 | jmamodio at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 121 |100.00% | 808245 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] ICANN's Board and GAC to Meet on New gTLDs on 28 February and 1 March 2011 (must RSVP by February 8 2011)
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Feb. 4, 2011

Feb. 4, 2011

The notice at http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm has been updated with this notice : "A message to those who wish to attend the ICANN Board-GAC Meeting in Brussels on 28 Feb-1 Mar. If you wish to attend as an observer the upcoming meeting of the ICANN's Board and the GAC to discuss new gTLDs [see below], please RSVP by sending an email to GAC-BoardRSVP(a)icann.org no later than 8 February 2011. Space in the room is limited and we don't wish to have people traveling and find there is no space for them to attend. Therefore it was necessary to come up with a limited procedure for seat allocation. If the number of RSVPs exceeds the amount of available seating, ICANN staff will allocate the seating in an equitable manner. To ensure maximum attendance, those whose RSVPs are confirmed will need to submit a copy of an airline ticket, hotel reservation or other indication of their intent to attend in person. As previously announced, 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 meeting. Please note that in addition to the open plenary sessions, smaller meetings focused on specific issues may also take place and may be closed to non-participants. If they occur, those in these smaller meetings will report on their work during the open plenary sessions." On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <admin(a)ttcsweb.org> wrote: > Via : http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-21jan11-en.htm : > > "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: > > 1. 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. > > 2. 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. > > 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. >

1 0

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

Your help is needed -- candidate consumer constituency charter
by Beau Brendler Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

Hello, all. After discussing the issue with Alex Gakuru, we thought it a good idea to make this document available to a wide audience. It's an attachment, meant to be read in conjunction with the old consumer constituency charter (background and old charter here: http://www.icann.org/en/public-comment/public-comment-201002-en.htm#newco) The attached document points out sections of the old charter that need to be rewritten and separates them from the boilerplate legal language all the new constituency proposals have. We seek new wording that's appropriately inclusive. Some members of the community have asked for the opportunity to assist in the rewrite -- here is that opportunity. One way to proceed would be to respond to this list with proposed edits/rewrites, and Alex and I can incorporate them. Or perhaps staff could give us a workspace (or remind us of a suitable existing workspace) where edits can be suggested. We need to hear back as soon as possible, in the next week or so. Thanks in advance for your time. Beau Brendler Alex Gakuru

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review
by Beau Brendler Feb. 3, 2011

Feb. 3, 2011

It also concerns me when I see labels used like "law and order" in conjunction with statements made that the at-large leans toward the "law and order" side...which is somehow in opposition to the "privacy" side? We are not going to find middle ground with that world view. I have used "law and order" to characterize my perspective, coming as I do from a decade writing about Internet crime -- but it can't just be assumed that I'm "anti-privacy." I can't think of any consumer organization or advocate in the world who could be characterized as being against privacy protection. Most of the time, though, privacy dialog at the consumer advocacy level doesn't penetrate to WHOIS, but is more about behavior of corporate marketers and data aggregators, poor standards for breach notification, etc. -----Original Message----- >From: "John R. Levine" <johnl(a)iecc.com> >Sent: Feb 2, 2011 3:11 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Impressions from the Whois-Review > >> I cannot accept that there cannot be a balance between the right to privacy >> and the right to know for those harmed by an act traceable to a domain. > >There certainly should be a balance. But when there are a billion >Internet users, and thousands of individual vanity domain registrants, it >is silly to argue that the two interests are of the same weight and also >to argue, as many have over the past decade, that vanity registrants must >not be put to any extra or effort at all if they don't want to be treated >the same as the businesses and organizations that register the vast >majority of domains. > >I also have to say that it is not helpful when people make claims, as >we've seen recently, that WHOIS is useless for tracking miscreants, which >is false, or that it's only used to research trivial misbehavior, which is >equally false. It is also unhelpful when people refuse to recognize the >scale of the modern Internet, in which web hosts routinely turn down >thousands of domains every day for anti-social behavior. The real >surprise is that they don't make more mistakes than they do. > >All of my own domains have accurate WHOIS info. I use a post office box >to receive my mail, so they don't show my home address, which I don't >think is an unreasonable burden. > >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

2 1

U.S. seizure of .ORG domain name
by Adam Peake Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

I propose the At Large/ALAC protest the U.S. government's seizure of domain name Rojadirecta.org. Rojadirecta is a popular sports streaming and P2P download site. Rojadirecta is a legitimate Spanish business. Two Spanish courts have ruled the site operates legally. It seems the U.S. Government Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) division used the TLD as the means of seizure in an attempt to take down the site. If the action was against the registrar then a registrant would at least have a choice of jurisdiction. But this action on ORG, and the actions on .COM names last November essentially means the U.S. government considers COM, NET and ORG to be nothing more than ccTLDs subject to U.S. whim (this isn't a legal action, there has been no court case, no due process.) Rojadirecta is now available under other TLDs <http://www.rojadirecta.me> <http://www.rojadirecta.es> <http://www.rojadirecta.in> as well its original IP address <http://109.235.53.189/>. Expect there will be a lot written about this, this article's ok as a starting point: <http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110201/10252412910/homeland-security-sei…> I hope At Large will issue a statement protesting the use of the TLD registry as a means of takedown. That it recommends when the NET, ORG and COM contracts are renegotiated they should move to a jurisdiction where such unilateral action by a government is not possible. That the new applicant guidebook require applicants to only locate in jurisdictions where such unilateral action by a government is not possible. Legitimate businesses should not be subject to the whim of a U.S. agency. Adam

4 4

Proposed statement of the ALAC regarding the current situation in Egypt
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

Dear all, sustained discussions have recently taken place on one of the RALO lists, whether the ALAC should comment on the current political situation in Egypt, focussing in particular on the suspension of Internet service in the country. I have personally monitored the discussion and members of the ALAC ExCom have held daily discussions about the matter. I have also discussed the possibility of a statement with other constituency Chairs and some Board members. Rod Beckstrom has published a Blog post on: http://blog.icann.org/2011/01/status-report-on-the-dns-in-egypt/ He has steered away from making any kind of political statement, and I suspect that this was for a reason. Egypt's GAC representative is Ms. Manal Ismail. She works for the Telecom Regulation Authority (TRA) - but their Internet is cut too. The ccNSO representative is EGregistry.eg - and they are cut from the Internet as well. The ICANN manager for relations in the Middle East, Mr. Baher Esmat, is also based in Cairo - and he's also off-line. Many more participants in ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees, including ICANN fellows are also based in Egypt. I have managed to speak to a couple of my own friends in Cairo. They explained that, like all Egyptians, they are worried about the security situation, their own personal security included. This is particularly important. Whilst I understand that the current action by Egypt breaks ICANN's Core Value #1, it is my firm view that any statement might bring more harm that good to ICANN and its friends at the present moment, if it is not crafted with caution. This is a complex political situation which surpasses ICANN's sphere of influence, and I should seriously recommend that ALAC keeps a low profile about this because of the political implications for our friends on the ground. That said, the Internet Society has released a Q&A document focussing primarily on the technical implications of the shut-down of Internet services in Egypt. It is very useful, and I propose that for the time being, we support this Q&A and point our members to it. I am therefore asking the ALAC to endorse the following statement in an accelerated vote and procedure: --- cut here --- Statement of the ALAC regarding current situation in Egypt The ALAC is concerned by the impact of developments in Egypt on the ordinary Internet user. In the light of ICANN's responsibility for IP address and AS number policy, and its core value of 'preserving and enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global interoperability of the Internet', we endorse the ISOC statement and Q&A as expressed at http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3100 Signed: The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) --- cut here --- I hope that this will receive support and in this case, Heidi will swiftly follow-up with regards to voting procedures. In the meantime, and until the situation on the ground gets resolved, we wish all the Best to our Egyptian friends in this time of troubled politics in their country. Best regards, Olivier Crepin-Leblond ALAC Chair

17 19

Global transition to the next generation of Internet addresses- Announcement on 3 February 2011
by Cintra Sooknanan Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

Dear All, I don't know how many of you may have got this notification--- Significant Announcement on Thursday 3 February – Watch it live! On Thursday, 3 February 2011, at 9:30 AM Eastern Standard Time (14.30 UTC) the Number Resource Organization (NRO), along with the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the Internet Society (ISOC) and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) will be holding a ceremony and press conference to make a significant announcement and to discuss the global transition to the next generation of Internet addresses. Much has been written in the international media over the last few weeks about the dwindling pool of Internet addresses using the original Internet protocol, called IPv4 (Internet Protocol version 4), and this topic will be addressed at the event. We invite all interested community members to view the webcast of this event at: http://www.nro.net/news/icann-nro-live-stream In the event you happen to be at the Intercontinental Hotel in Miami on Thursday, there will be limited public seating available to attend (with press receiving seating priority) in Room “Concourse II” at 9:30 AM EST for the ceremony and 10:00 AM for press conference which follows. Regards Cintra Sooknanan

1 0

Re: [At-Large] RES: Proposed statement of the ALAC regarding the current situation in Egypt
by Cintra Sooknanan Feb. 2, 2011

Feb. 2, 2011

Dear Olivier, Your draft is a good start but I agree with Avri and Eric's statement. Perhaps we can incorporate a paragraph that addresses the lacuna created on the Internet by the Egyptian Government's actions and highlights that such actions not only create network instability and go against human rights, but primarily hurt the Egyptian economy and the World's confidence in the Interim Government. Regards Cintra Sooknanan On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:01 AM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > >On 1 Feb 2011, at 20:12, Vanda UOL wrote: > > > >> I can endorse it. More than this is out of the ICANN´s scope. > > > >While I endorsed the statement, I do not believe > >that more is out of ICANN's scope, though I > >understand it is out of some people's comfort > >zone > > > >It may be politically difficult for some, and it > >may be contrary to the political aims of others, > >but responding to this sort of attack on the > >Internet is what ICANN's scope as a steward is > >all about. ICANN should not remain silent on > >the issue of kill switches that render the > >network unstable. ICANN should not just bury > >its head when national actions cause properly > >assigned addresses and ASs to become unreachable > >because of political action, no matter who > >throws the switch or why. Whether it is Egypt's > >action last week, or US legislation later this > >year, rendering parts of the network > >inaccessible is something that ICANN cannot > >allow to happen while standing silently and idly > >by. > > > Avri, > > I think I agree with you. > > Anyway, a question from technical ignorance (as > usual :-)). Are there technical implications for > the rest of the Internet to causing ASs to become > unreachable? The ISOC note covers some issues, > but from ICANN/IANA perspective is this a bad > thing. If yes, ICANN should comment, as should > ALAC > > In new TLD discussions around "offensive strings" > often hear comments suggesting governments that > don't like a tld could simply block it. I had > heard, and this is really my question, that while > blocking a TLD (cc or g) now has no technical > impact on the global Internet, once all TLDs are > DNSSEC signed such blocking might cause problems. > I do not know the nature of the problems, > significant or not (or even if real, I may have > just misunderstood something). If there are > technical implications now to actions such as > Egypt's, or will be in the new future when tlds > are DNSSEC signed, then it's within ICANN's scope. > > Clarification/correction appreciated! > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >a. > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Re: [At-Large] Proposed statement of the ALAC regarding the current situation in Egypt
by Beau Brendler Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

Sergio and colleagues, You address the possibility of making an open statement. In the NA RALO, there has been a lot of discussion about the situation, as Olivier notes. Many of us in the NA RALO, myself included, have already voiced support for the course of action and statement proposed by Olivier. However, within NA RALO, Eric Brunner-Williams has written an open statement. It goes further than Olivier's, is very well thought-out and written in my opinion, and has a largely technical rather than political focus. I offer it here for review for those who might want to sign or are developing a separate statement independent of the ALAC action, or other possible uses. === Text begins === Dear Chairman Dengate-Thrush and CEO Beckstrom, Concerning the Egyptian Internet shutdown, as volunteers participating in the North American At Large Regional Organization who have studied network policy, we the undersigned believe you have a chance to move beyond rhetoric to support the security and stability of the Internet. As contributors to the ICANN community, we expect our Chairperson and CEO to uphold those values. As the IESG and the IAB observed in draft-iab-raven, published as RFC 2804, accommodating the legal intercept requirements of states in network devices would make the system less secure, increase system complexity, and the risk of unintended security failure. The considered technical judgment was, and remains, that wiretapping, even when it is not being exercised, lowers the security of the system. We believe this concern applies also to accommodating endpoint unreachable requirements of states in systems of network devices, as well as flow filter and other disruptive technology requirements. We are also concerned by the possibility of error by national actors attempting to interrupt regional routing. The routing alternatives to the Alexandria - Suez corridor are simply inadequate to support the requirements for Europe - Asia data communications. In addition to these systemic concerns, the proper concern of the entity tasked with the technical coordination of unique endpoint identifiers, we have the following further concerns. Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, pertaining to privacy and freedom of expression, appear to be the specific targets of intentional violation by the Egyptian government. This should not pass without comment. Significant regional economic activity relies upon the availability of CityNet (Ramadan City), ECC (6 October City), EgyptNetwork (Mansura), and ECC, MEIX, LINKdotNET (Cairo) data centers. The direct economic loss due to governmental action is easy to calculate. The greater loss of the reputation and competitive ability of these data centers, and their operators is harder to calculate, and likely to be much greater than N zero revenue days. However, the economic consequence of abruptly transforming Egypt to a sparse 56kb and VSAT connectivity regime extends far beyond the data centers and access providers. It is profoundly disruptive of the information economy, and of ordinary transaction services. It will result in diminished stability and certainty of commodity prices and availablities. It will raise the price of bread. It will cause hardship, impoverishment, increased morbidity, and mortality, far beyond the social identities of "authority" and "counter-authority". These concerns are not unique to the withdrawal of prefixes at 16:00 UTC on January 27, and 09:00 UTC on January 28 -- the "Egyptian Disconnection". Opportunistic and endemic network partition, rate limiting, and filtering are practiced by some governments. The practices which directly reduce the security and stability of the Internet must not be allowed to pass without comment because they are perpetrated by governments. Sincerely, the undersigned === Text ends === -----Original Message----- >From: presidencia Internauta Argentina <presidencia(a)internauta.org.ar> >Sent: Feb 1, 2011 10:31 AM >To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposed statement of the ALAC regarding the current situation in Egypt > >Dear Olivier and all: >I support this note. Could we make an open statement with the >participation of all ALSes? >also I think we can be alert for future events >Regards > >*Sergio Salinas Porto Presidente Internauta Argentina Asociación >Argentina de Usuarios de Internet <http://www.internauta.org.ar>FLUI- >Federación Latinoamericana de Usuarios de Internet ><http://www.fuilain.org>facebook:salinasporto twitter:sergiosalinas >MSN/MSN YAHOO/Talk: salinasporto... Skype:internautaargentina Mobi:+54 9 >223 5 215819 * > > >El 01/02/2011 11:24 a.m., Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond escribió: >> Dear all, >> >> sustained discussions have recently taken place on one of the RALO >> lists, whether the ALAC should comment on the current political >> situation in Egypt, focussing in particular on the suspension of >> Internet service in the country. I have personally monitored the >> discussion and members of the ALAC ExCom have held daily discussions >> about the matter. I have also discussed the possibility of a statement >> with other constituency Chairs and some Board members. >> Rod Beckstrom has published a Blog post on: >> http://blog.icann.org/2011/01/status-report-on-the-dns-in-egypt/ >> He has steered away from making any kind of political statement, and I >> suspect that this was for a reason. >> >> Egypt's GAC representative is Ms. Manal Ismail. She works for the >> Telecom Regulation Authority (TRA) - but their Internet is cut too. >> The ccNSO representative is EGregistry.eg - and they are cut from the >> Internet as well. >> The ICANN manager for relations in the Middle East, Mr. Baher Esmat, is >> also based in Cairo - and he's also off-line. >> Many more participants in ICANN Supporting Organisations and Advisory >> Committees, including ICANN fellows are also based in Egypt. >> >> I have managed to speak to a couple of my own friends in Cairo. They >> explained that, like all Egyptians, they are worried about the security >> situation, their own personal security included. This is particularly >> important. >> >> Whilst I understand that the current action by Egypt breaks ICANN's Core >> Value #1, it is my firm view that any statement might bring more harm >> that good to ICANN and its friends at the present moment, if it is not >> crafted with caution. This is a complex political situation which >> surpasses ICANN's sphere of influence, and I should seriously recommend >> that ALAC keeps a low profile about this because of the political >> implications for our friends on the ground. >> >> That said, the Internet Society has released a Q&A document focussing >> primarily on the technical implications of the shut-down of Internet >> services in Egypt. It is very useful, and I propose that for the time >> being, we support this Q&A and point our members to it. >> >> I am therefore asking the ALAC to endorse the following statement in an >> accelerated vote and procedure: >> >> --- cut here --- >> >> Statement of the ALAC regarding current situation in Egypt >> >> The ALAC is concerned by the impact of developments in Egypt on the >> ordinary Internet user. In the light of ICANN's responsibility for IP >> address and AS number policy, and its core value of 'preserving and >> enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global >> interoperability of the Internet', we endorse the ISOC statement and Q&A >> as expressed at http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3100 >> >> Signed: The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) >> >> --- cut here --- >> >> I hope that this will receive support and in this case, Heidi will >> swiftly follow-up with regards to voting procedures. >> >> In the meantime, and until the situation on the ground gets resolved, we >> wish all the Best to our Egyptian friends in this time of troubled >> politics in their country. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Olivier Crepin-Leblond >> ALAC Chair >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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

Re: [At-Large] Proposed statement of the ALAC regarding the current situation in Egypt
by Hakikur Rahman Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

I support the note. At 03:12 PM 2/1/2011, Andrés Piazza wrote: >+ 1 > >2011/2/1 Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > > > I support this note. > > I hope the ALAC approves it. > > > > thanks > > > > a. > > > > On 1 Feb 2011, at 09:24, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Statement of the ALAC regarding current situation in Egypt > > > > > > The ALAC is concerned by the impact of developments in Egypt on the > > > ordinary Internet user. In the light of ICANN's responsibility for IP > > > address and AS number policy, and its core value of 'preserving and > > > enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global > > > interoperability of the Internet', we endorse the ISOC statement and Q&A > > > as expressed at http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3100 > > > > > > Signed: The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > > > > > >-- >*Andrés Piazza* >www.andrespiazza.com >_______________________________________________ >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

Re: [At-Large] Proposed statement of the ALAC regarding the current situation in Egypt
by Beau Brendler Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 2011

+1 -----Original Message----- >From: Andrés Piazza <andrespiazza(a)gmail.com> >Sent: Feb 1, 2011 10:12 AM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Proposed statement of the ALAC regarding the current situation in Egypt > >+ 1 > >2011/2/1 Avri Doria <avri(a)acm.org> > >> I support this note. >> I hope the ALAC approves it. >> >> thanks >> >> a. >> >> On 1 Feb 2011, at 09:24, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: >> >> > >> > >> > Statement of the ALAC regarding current situation in Egypt >> > >> > The ALAC is concerned by the impact of developments in Egypt on the >> > ordinary Internet user. In the light of ICANN's responsibility for IP >> > address and AS number policy, and its core value of 'preserving and >> > enhancing the operational stability, reliability, security, and global >> > interoperability of the Internet', we endorse the ISOC statement and Q&A >> > as expressed at http://isoc.org/wp/newsletter/?p=3100 >> > >> > Signed: The At-Large Advisory Committee (ALAC) >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >> > > > >-- >*Andrés Piazza* >www.andrespiazza.com >_______________________________________________ >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

At-Large, ALAC, Freedom of Expression and ICANN's core values.
by Avri Doria Feb. 1, 2011

Feb. 1, 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