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

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 29, 2011

July 29, 2011

Total of 9 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 29 00:53:03 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 33.33% | 3 | 30.79% | 15600 | ebw at abenaki.wabanaki.net 22.22% | 2 | 18.86% | 9554 | ocl at gih.com 11.11% | 1 | 15.26% | 7732 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 11.11% | 1 | 13.29% | 6731 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 11.11% | 1 | 11.31% | 5729 | joly at punkcast.com 11.11% | 1 | 10.49% | 5316 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 9 |100.00% | 50662 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Chiba response to FNOI
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net July 28, 2011

July 28, 2011

>> ... the ISOC China usage ... > ... it is not ISOC China ... Thank you for pointing this out Olivier. Fortunately, I did not write "ISO China" as that would have excited another correction from some other quarter. As I wrote "I think" and "I'm fairly certain" and "I think" when characterizing the meanings of each of three parties I don't have authoritative knowledge of (lacking the keys to WDC, Beijing, or MdR), I'm gratified, though slightly puzzled to know that "I'm correct" in substance, though not in attribution. My meta-point of course was, and is, that agreement isn't actually agreement, unless the terms of reference are similar and the sense of the parties conjectured to be in agreement are mutually aware and unconditional. Eric

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Chiba response to FNOI
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net July 28, 2011

July 28, 2011

> Which is why, I suspect, the Internet Governance Caucus List discussion > thread with a subject line incorporating the word multi-stakeholder > ended up with over 100 messages. Fred Baker has expressed some skepticism concerning "internet governance". I share some of Fred's skepticism. I'm somewhat skeptical about the term "multi-stakeholder" too. >From a paper I wrote recently for a class (at a law school) on a conflict between state law (in the US) creating trade secrets and the federal Clean Water Act (or more generally, with the APA): -=- "In the period between the Second Indo-China and First Gulf Wars, Congress enacted environmental statutes which generally: o created private causes of action for statutory violations, o mandated reporting releases of toxic chemicals, and o disclosure of violations of media quality standards o required affected agencies follow strict notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures, consistent with the APA. Congressional intent reflected the progressive reform politics of the late 19th century in a "monitorial citizen", informed on the issues rather than loyal to party or dependent upon the executive, and in the repeated, explicit strict notice-and-comment rulemaking requirement on agencies. This intent is frustrated, the "monitorial citizen" incapacitated and rulemaking made arbitrary and capricious through the elimination of effective notice-and-comment, by non-disclosure of the chemical compositions of fracking fluids supported by state law creating trade secrets." -=- Now granted slickrock hydraulic fracture isn't network policy, but the role of the "monitorial citizen", in addition to the regulated industry and the regulating agency isn't quite the same thing as creating some lumps (or "filters") in the GNSO and requireing all Comment consequent to Notice to be made through these lumps (or "filters"), most of which are infact, dominated by the regulated industry (contracted parties), or would be regulating industries (marks and their captured constituencies). The problem isn't greatly improved by attaching non-policy making advice originating entities (the ACs). So it a sense, the ICANN usage means "with the monitorial citizen access to policy making intermediated by some means", which may be significantly closer to the Internet Society of China's intended usage than the DoC/NTIA usage. Cheers, Eric

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Chiba response to FNOI
by ebw＠abenaki.wabanaki.net July 28, 2011

July 28, 2011

Joly, Thanks for sending the link. The MSWord file shows editorial changes, word choice, and nuances, which is interesting. I am not a lawyer, and in particular, I am not a lawyer with a practice in administrative law and with specialialization in the DoC and NTIA as agencies, but I suspect that when each of the following three parties -- the DoC/NTIA, ICANN, and ISOC China -- use the phrase "multi-stakeholder", they mean very distinct things. I think the DoC/NTIA usage means "mumble, within the context of Notice and Comment requirements of the (Federal) Administrative Procedures Act of 1946, for (delegated) rule making by federal agencies" I'm fairly certain the ICANN usage means something involving "transparency and accountability" and the bylaws entities, and a no-cost contract to which it claims the US is not a beneficiary, as those elements were in the prior ICANN NTIA NOI concerning the IANA Functions. I think, based only upon conversations with a senior offical in China a decade ago, that the ISOC China usage means something involving sovereigns in addition to the United States, and possibly bylaws entities. Again, with the IANAL caveat, I don't see how the contract between the California 501(c)(3) and the USG can easily accomodate equal enforcement rights by third parties. Eric

2 1

Chiba response to FNOI
by Joly MacFie July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011

Just found this in my inbox. http://www.google.com/url?sa=X&q=http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/comment… Nice to know China is steadfast in its support of the multi-stakeholder model, key paras: Thirdly, according to C3.1 to C3.3 of the IANA contract, ICANN only submit > reports to U.S government alone which authorizes the process to modify, > add and delete the entries in root zone files. Because of such constraints,as well as ICANN, as a private incorporation in California, should comply > with the California law. It is difficult for ICANN to implement an open, > fair process and be responsive to all the other governments and > stakeholders. As a result, the accountability and transparency of ICANN can > not be enhanced to meet the vision of multi-stakeholder governance model. > Internet Society of China is of the opinion that the relevant arrangements > should be reconsidered. > > Fourthly, as the multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance has beening > gradually taking shape, Internet Society of China believe that all stakeholders > should equally be endowed with the participation right, information right > and supervision right over IANA function to ensure that the accountability > and transparency of IANA-related decision-making is recognized by all > stakeholders. -- --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- -

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Announce] Looking for replacement At-Large members for WHOIS Review Team
by Christopher Wilkinson July 23, 2011

July 23, 2011

http://forum.icann.org/lists/whoisrt-discussion-paper/ Dear Friends and Colleagues: My comments on the Whois Review Team Discussion document have been posted to the above website, together with the other comments that ICANN has received. Regards, CW On 12 Jul 2011, at 00:53, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > Dear all, > > due to an At-Large representative having sent his resignation from the > WHOIS Review Team because of increased work pressures, there is an > opening for an At-Large member in this very important group which was > created under the wider Affirmation of Commitments Reviews. > The original call for applicants was made in June 2010 and can be > found > under: > > http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-01jun10-en.… > > So far, about half of the Team's work has been completed. It is > therefore very important for At-Large to propose a replacement > candidate. > The difference between the original call and the one we are making > now, > is procedural - in that we are trying to fill an empty slot as soon as > possible. > > To familiarise yourself with the Team's work, please consult its > current > discussion paper, available for public comment from: > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09jun11-en.htm > > The WHOIS-RT plan is to have a face-to-face meeting in Marina del Rey > (Los Angeles) in September and to have a draft final report ready > around > the Dakar meeting. > This means that any candidate should be prepared to travel - and work > hard in the next few months. > > How to Apply: > > Send a copy of your CV (maximum 3 pages) in English, a one-page > motivation letter and an SOI (Statement of Interest), to: > staff(a)atlarge.icann.org > > The SOI should answer the following questions: > > 1. Current vocation, employer and position > 2. Type of work performed in #1 above > 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership > interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested > parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a > transaction, contract, or other arrangement. > 4. Identify any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in ICANN > GNSO policy development processes and outcomes. Are you representing > other parties? Describe any arrangements/agreements between you and > any > other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your > nomination/selection as a work team member. Describe any tangible or > intangible benefit that you receive from participation in such > processes. For example, if you are an academic or NGO and use your > position to advance your ability to participate, this should be a part > of the statement of interest, just as should employment by a > contracted > party, or a business relationship with a non- contracted party who has > an interest in policy outcomes. > 5. Are you a member of a GNSO Constituency / Stakeholder Group, and if > yes, which one(s)? > > ICANN At-Large staff will compile the details and after the deadline > for > applications which we're setting at Friday 22 July 2011, will forward > those for consideration by the GAC Chair and ICANN President/CEO who > will make the selection. > > Ideally, we'd like this position to be applied for by someone who is > not > in the "usual suspects" list. > > Best regards, > > Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond > ALAC Chair > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Announce mailing list > ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 22 00:53:02 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 65.17% | 9787 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 50.00% | 1 | 34.83% | 5230 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 15017 | Total

1 0

Fwd: Schedule for the WHOIS Review Team
by Christopher Wilkinson July 21, 2011

July 21, 2011

> > > Good evening: > > Independently of whoever ALAC selects to fulfill this important task > in the WHOIS Working Group, allow me to draw attention to a possible > scheduling problem, which might aggravate the conditions under which > this work could be completed. > > 1. The WHOIS Review Team Discussion Paper, dated June 2011 has a > deadline for comments 23 July 2011. The day after tomorrow. So be it. > The Discussion Paper makes no reference to any on-going or > prospective WHOIS studies. > > 2. On 12 July ICANN posted a request for proposals for WHOIS > Consumer Trust Research. The deadline for applications is 25 July > 2011. The deadline for completing a contract is not stated. > The work is supposed to start on 15 August and be completed by 19 > September. > > The work includes " ... online surveys on a global scope in > multiple languages and scripts, compile and analyze the results and > report findings. The findings should be presented in both an > overview and with appendices that show supporting details. A minimum > of ten (10) key countries is required and must be reasonably > distributed across countries in the Asia Pacific region, the > Americas, Europe, Middle East and Africa and shall include, at > least, three developing countries. The surveys must collect a > minimum of 100 responses per country. Surveys should be conducted in > the language that is local for each country. A fair and balanced > approach must be employed to canvass all age and gender groups > equally." > > It is also stated that "... The WHOIS Review Team is planning to > prepare its preliminary findings and recommendations in September > 2011. The results of this research are viewed as a critical input > for that task." > > Independently of the merits of attempting to consult the general > public about Consumer Trust in WHOIS, (the document refers to a > statistical sample of a 'minimum' of 1,000 responses, world > wide ... ) the proposed schedule appears unrealistic. Particularly > if the WHOIS working group intends to hold a final face to face > meeting in Los Angeles in September. > > Are there any other ICANN WHOIS studies going on in this context? > > Just a few thoughts, > > CW > > > On 12 Jul 2011, at 00:53, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> due to an At-Large representative having sent his resignation from >> the >> WHOIS Review Team because of increased work pressures, there is an >> opening for an At-Large member in this very important group which was >> created under the wider Affirmation of Commitments Reviews. >> The original call for applicants was made in June 2010 and can be >> found >> under: >> >> http://www.icann.org/en/reviews/affirmation/call-for-applicants-01jun10-en.… >> >> So far, about half of the Team's work has been completed. It is >> therefore very important for At-Large to propose a replacement >> candidate. >> The difference between the original call and the one we are making >> now, >> is procedural - in that we are trying to fill an empty slot as soon >> as >> possible. >> >> To familiarise yourself with the Team's work, please consult its >> current >> discussion paper, available for public comment from: >> http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-09jun11-en.htm >> >> The WHOIS-RT plan is to have a face-to-face meeting in Marina del Rey >> (Los Angeles) in September and to have a draft final report ready >> around >> the Dakar meeting. >> This means that any candidate should be prepared to travel - and work >> hard in the next few months. >> >> How to Apply: >> >> Send a copy of your CV (maximum 3 pages) in English, a one-page >> motivation letter and an SOI (Statement of Interest), to: >> staff(a)atlarge.icann.org >> >> The SOI should answer the following questions: >> >> 1. Current vocation, employer and position >> 2. Type of work performed in #1 above >> 3. Identify any financial ownership or senior management/leadership >> interest in registries, registrars or other firms that are interested >> parties in ICANN policy or any entity with which ICANN has a >> transaction, contract, or other arrangement. >> 4. Identify any type of commercial or non-commercial interest in >> ICANN >> GNSO policy development processes and outcomes. Are you representing >> other parties? Describe any arrangements/agreements between you and >> any >> other group, constituency or person(s) regarding your >> nomination/selection as a work team member. Describe any tangible or >> intangible benefit that you receive from participation in such >> processes. For example, if you are an academic or NGO and use your >> position to advance your ability to participate, this should be a >> part >> of the statement of interest, just as should employment by a >> contracted >> party, or a business relationship with a non- contracted party who >> has >> an interest in policy outcomes. >> 5. Are you a member of a GNSO Constituency / Stakeholder Group, and >> if >> yes, which one(s)? >> >> ICANN At-Large staff will compile the details and after the >> deadline for >> applications which we're setting at Friday 22 July 2011, will forward >> those for consideration by the GAC Chair and ICANN President/CEO who >> will make the selection. >> >> Ideally, we'd like this position to be applied for by someone who >> is not >> in the "usual suspects" list. >> >> Best regards, >> >> Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond >> ALAC Chair >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC-Announce mailing list >> ALAC-Announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-announce >> >> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 15, 2011

July 15, 2011

Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 15 00:53:02 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 5228 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 5228 | Total

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten July 8, 2011

July 8, 2011

Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jul 8 00:53:03 EDT 2011 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 5229 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 5229 | Total

1 0