January 2012 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Draft ALAC Statement on WHOIS RT Report
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 30, 2012

Jan. 30, 2012

After much reading and reflection, I have composed a draft for the proposed ALAC Statement on the WHOIS Review Team Report. The draft is located here on the At-Large wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+WHOIS+Policy+Rev… Please add your insights by making your *comments* on the wiki. Kind regards, - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

EU Data Protection - Legislative Agenda
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 29, 2012

Jan. 29, 2012

The EU has finally issued its proposed legislative package for reform of EU data protection laws and regulations. This is important to digest since much of the arguments concerning privacy and WHOIS data usage resonates here and impinges on the global internet user and the At-Large remit in ICANN. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/newsroom/data-protection/news/120125_en.htm - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

4 6

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 27, 2012

Jan. 27, 2012

Total of 10 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 27 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 2 | 23.10% | 21989 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 20.00% | 2 | 14.47% | 13777 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 10.00% | 1 | 14.83% | 14116 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 13.96% | 13288 | ocl at gih.com 10.00% | 1 | 13.45% | 12798 | william.drake at uzh.ch 10.00% | 1 | 8.31% | 7908 | narten at us.ibm.com 10.00% | 1 | 5.99% | 5700 | jmamodio at gmail.com 10.00% | 1 | 5.89% | 5611 | manuel.schneider at wikimedia.ch --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 10 |100.00% | 95187 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 23, 2012

Jan. 23, 2012

I am a bit confused by this statement and by similar ones made by others. I completely agree with the sentiment, but am unsure how it applies here. The issue being discussed is what principles should govern (if indeed there should be any) how "Cross Constituency Working Groups" will be formed, run and report. In the worst case, if these rules are repugnant to At-Large, or will not satisfy our needs, then we will not likely enter into such groups (at least in the cases where there is this discontinuity). It does not say anything about any other working constructs that we may enter into, nor what we do with the results of a CCWG (or any other WG), nor what we do in other venues (including some future multi-party WGs that are not deemed to be "CCWG"s). So how is it construed that these rules (if indeed they end up being used) can alter our Bylaw mandated role? Bottom line is that just as we cannot force the GNSO to enter into a relationship that they find inappropriate, they similarly have no ability to force us into a role that we do not want. Alan At 19/01/2012 10:40 AM, Carlton Samuels wrote: >Third, on principle, the ALAC must reject any framework espoused by this >proposal that undermines our by-law mandated role. In this context any >notion of agreeing to rules that a) limit our ability to communicate up, >down, sideways or backwards b) constrain or hobble our ability to explore, >act or otherwise engage any party or constituency in furtherance of the >public interest must be summarily rejected.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 21, 2012

Jan. 21, 2012

The motion, as currently worded, can be found at: https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+…, and the motion points to the suggested principles. Note that this topic will be discussed during a GNSO Council working session on the Saturday or Sunday proceeding the ICANN meeting and whatever comes out of that discussion will likely be voted on during the Wednesday GNSO Council meeting. Alan At 20/01/2012 06:07 PM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: >Bill, > >If you send us a Word Version, alternatively I can paste into a word >document, we can add tracked changes and edits for discussion in San Jose. > >Best Regards, >Sala

1 0

GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by William Drake Jan. 20, 2012

Jan. 20, 2012

Hi, As NCUC liaison to At Large I thought I should bring the following to your attention. Some here may recall that there was quite a bit of controversy and debate in the GNSO Council last year about the formation and operation of cross community working groups. This arose in particular with regard to the JAS process, various aspects of which stimulated a range of concerns across the three industry SGs. Without reliving all the back and forth, these included perceptions that the GNSO's role in policy development was being usurped or at least nibbled at, concerns about the channels and procedures through which JAS progress was reported out and the board responded, the extent to which the chartering organizations should operate in synch, and so on. In consequence, there has been a widespread desire among these SGs to lay down clear rules of the road to regulate how CWGs function. In Council discussions NCUC members argued for maintaining some flexibility and subsidiarity to avoid tying hands too much, and noted inter alia that if we'd followed a strictly regulatory approach ALAC would not have been able to help move the JAS process along when the GNSO was, well, moving slower. It would be fair to say that we were pretty much alone in these views. In October, the Council launched a drafting team to propose guiding principles for CWGs going forward that would respond to the various concerns. That team has now completed its work and a motion to approve its Principles is on the agenda of our 19 January meeting. https://community.icann.org/display/gnsocouncilmeetings/Motions+19+January+… People may wish to have a look at the Principles http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/draft-principles-for-cwgs-23dec11-en.pdf, which specify that all SO/ACs involved should adopt and follow a single joint charter for CWGs, that CWGs outputs do not express community consensus per se, and so on. If there are any views that people would like to have noted in the Council discussion and vote, please let me know asap. Thanks, Bill *************************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland william.drake(a)uzh.ch www.mediachange.ch/people/william-j-drake www.williamdrake.org ****************************************************

8 16

Now, for the next big thing
by Evan Leibovitch Jan. 20, 2012

Jan. 20, 2012

ICANN is focused so hard on the money-making gTLD launch that it may have taken its eye off the ball in a globally far-more-important function (IMO), ensuring the world doesn't run out of IP addresses. Do we have a role to play in putting this back on ICANN's agenda as its #1 issue going forward? TLDs just affects the directory services, and the scarcity is arguably artificial. Availability of IP addresses is a real issue that affects availability and connectivity, which to me is fundamentally more important than domain names. What is ICANN doing on, and to promote awareness of, June 6?<http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/01/ipv6-countdown-to-launch.html> - Evan

9 15

How the Internet blackout affected congressional support for PIPA/SOPA
by Manuel Schneider Jan. 20, 2012

Jan. 20, 2012

Good morning, something my fellow Wikimedians shared with me and which I'd like to bring to your attention. An analysis of the impact of last Wednesday's internet blackout in order to protest against the SOPA / PIPA drafts in the US. Might be a bit off-topic here but I believe it shows nicely the impact society and communities can have: http://boingboing.net/2012/01/19/how-the-internet-blackout-affe.html Regards, Manuel -- Regards Manuel Schneider Wikimedia CH - Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens Wikimedia CH - Association for the advancement of free knowledge www.wikimedia.ch

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 20, 2012

Jan. 20, 2012

Total of 36 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 20 00:53:02 EST 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 11.11% | 4 | 11.57% | 32976 | evan at telly.org 8.33% | 3 | 12.73% | 36293 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 11.11% | 4 | 9.50% | 27067 | jmamodio at gmail.com 8.33% | 3 | 9.70% | 27641 | william.drake at uzh.ch 8.33% | 3 | 5.94% | 16929 | johnl at iecc.com 5.56% | 2 | 6.36% | 18123 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 5.56% | 2 | 5.41% | 15412 | avri at acm.org 5.56% | 2 | 5.25% | 14971 | isolatedn at gmail.com 5.56% | 2 | 4.19% | 11938 | joly at punkcast.com 5.56% | 2 | 4.03% | 11490 | franck.martin at gmail.com 2.78% | 1 | 3.66% | 10446 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 2.78% | 1 | 3.39% | 9651 | sylvia at prontocl.com.br 2.78% | 1 | 3.21% | 9153 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 2.78% | 1 | 2.65% | 7547 | sebastien at bachollet.com 2.78% | 1 | 2.60% | 7421 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 2.78% | 1 | 2.56% | 7289 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 2.78% | 1 | 2.49% | 7087 | cdel at firsthand.net 2.78% | 1 | 2.43% | 6938 | narten at us.ibm.com 2.78% | 1 | 2.35% | 6691 | ocl at gih.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 36 |100.00% | 285063 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] [ALAC-Internal] GNSO Council Motion on Cross-Community Working Groups
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 18, 2012

Jan. 18, 2012

At 17/01/2012 07:03 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >On 17 January 2012 17:35, Alan Greenberg ><<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca>alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> wrote: > > >Several of the points are very GNSO-centric (and perhaps ccNSO) in >that they repeatedly stipulate that formal "policy" must be carried >out under the rules set out in the ICANN Bylaws for such policy development. > > >As we have seen in the gTLD rollout, the GNSO has repeatedly shown >its own willingness to overstep its bounds and deal in processes >rather than policy (ie, objection processes). Actually, I think that "willingness" is the wrong word. The GNSO is not limited to policy work, although some on Council have at times taken that position. I view it more as stepping up to their responsibilities to look at a wider range of issues than just making policy. >If the GNSO wants to be anal about how policy can be done, we also >have the obligation to point out that GNSO has less bylaw-based >authority to comment on non-policy implementation matters than ALAC does. > >The point that will no doubt be a lightening rod following the JAS >group is the stipulation that when formed, a CCWG should have a >single charter. Although in the far reaches of my imagination I can >come up with reasons that this should not be a rule, but I not at >all sure that such edge cases need to be dealt with here. > > >I don't see the stretch. Soon to come will be RAA discussions in >which the issue of "rights", for end users and/or registrants will >come out. In previous GNSO meetings I have been told these issues >have been out of scope and are of no interest to them. If there is >future cross-community work on this issue I will not want to >constrain the ALAC's ability to advocate for end-user issues because >it's out of the GNSO's scope. It may mean there are components of >the combined work in which the GNSO may have no interest, but the >lack of shared interest in (what some would see as) a side issue >should not present the larger issues from being discussed jointly. > >There should be many, many opportunities to do cross-community work. >If it is to be constrained to always be the lowest common >denominator of only that which is of interest to all, not much of >this will happen. I don't see any conflict here. If we (At-Large) want to work on something that is counter to the interests (or self-interest) of part or all of the GNSO, then is is not a really good CCWG. We do it alone, or with someone else who IS interested. The GNSO is not the only game in town. If (as you allude) we have interested that are a super-set of GNSO interests but do not conflict, I would think that people of good faith could come up with a charter that covers this. If not, then it reverts to the first case. > >I do not believe that we have ever participated in a CCWG that had >multiple disagreeing charters at the beginning. > > >Alan, we have not participated in that many CCWGs, period. The >concept is still in its infancy and I see these regs as the wedge of >an attempt to thwart this concept before it becomes too dangerous to >established power. There in fact have been a few - both with us and the ccNSO. But my point was that a CCWG is likely to be born out of a common interest. If there is none, then we need another vehicle. To be candid, I fought hard to eliminate that rule, not because I felt we were likely to need to invoke a multiple-charter group, but because I felt that there was no real reason for it. In any specific case, if one or more partners feels that a multi-charter would not work, they have it within their power to simply refuse it at the time. But this was not a battle that I won in that group. Once it goes to the larger community of AC/SOs, perhaps the pendulum will flip the other way. But I really don't think it is a major roadblock regardless. > In fact, those who were around may recall that for the JAS group, > we did agree on a single charter. Due to a clerical (honestly!) > error, one clause was omitted from the version that the GNSO > approved. When the charter came up to the ALAC, the ALAC decided to > drop that clause as well, as it wasfelt that it was not > sufficiently important to >warrant delaying the entire process until it could go back to the >GNSO for re-chartering (and we believed that the group WOULD look at >that issue regardless of whether it as in the charter). Other CCWGs >such as DSSA all had a single charter agreed to by one mechanism or >another ahead of time. > > > >This worked, and is an argument in favour of a status quo of flexibility. 100% agreed. That is my preference. My only argument to the contrary is that as real life unfolds, I really don't think it will matter a whole lot. >You will notice that the principles are silent on the issue of >re-chartering part-way through a process, the situation where JAS blew up. > > > >If the proposed principles demand a single charter, then a >post-creation divergence in charter would demand disbanding of the >WG. This is IMO unacceptable. I don't agree with the conclusion. Once a WG is born, there is no words in the current principles that say that a single charter is required for life. I do believe that some on the GNSO would like to see that, and perhaps on Thursday, they will say so and get their way. But for whatever it is worth, those on the DT were willing to let sleeping dogs lie and not mention it as a principle. JAS was born with a single charter and ended up life with two. If the WG itself had refuse to work in that situation, or if the two charters were really going in opposite directions, the outcome would have been different. > >If you recall the sequence of events there: > > >I recall that ALAC did all the accommodation in an unsuccessful >attempt to find a middle ground. > > >- that was perhaps a bit awkward to work with, but the JAS WG was >willing and things proceeded to the eventual VERY successful >outcome, with the GNSO supporting all end-products equally, even the >ones that they had not included in their charter. > > > >Evidence, please? > >The GNSO motion on the JAS final report did not endorse it at all, >but simply acknowledged it and forwarded it to the Board. > >That hardly constituted "support", and obviously feel short of a >GNSO request that the Board approve the JAS core component requests >(such as fee reductions unconstrained by a fixed fund). Based on the outcome we have today, my reading is that not objecting is de facto acceptance if not throwing their arms around it and hugging the report. > >Another area that may attract discussion is about the rules that a >CCWG will follow. > > >Why does this need to be set in stone? > >Different problems call for different solutions, and constraining >the process before it starts is worse than counter-productive. Again we agree 100%. But for better or worse, the discussion has been started. Not by you or I, but started nonetheless. Alan >- Evan

1 0