January 2014 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 14, 2014

Feb. 14, 2014

Total of 26 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 31 00:53:02 EST 2014 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 23.08% | 6 | 26.27% | 66911 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 7.69% | 2 | 9.42% | 24000 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 7.69% | 2 | 9.20% | 23439 | parminder at itforchange.net 7.69% | 2 | 6.15% | 15671 | evan at telly.org 3.85% | 1 | 4.82% | 12279 | plam.popova at gmail.com 3.85% | 1 | 4.54% | 11564 | b.schombe at gmail.com 3.85% | 1 | 4.09% | 10427 | jjs at dyalog.net 3.85% | 1 | 4.04% | 10289 | vanda at uol.com.br 3.85% | 1 | 3.94% | 10041 | thompson.darlene at gmail.com 3.85% | 1 | 3.80% | 9673 | ocl at gih.com 3.85% | 1 | 3.53% | 9005 | eiriarte at alfa-redi.org 3.85% | 1 | 3.47% | 8844 | wolf.ludwig at comunica-ch.net 3.85% | 1 | 3.14% | 7999 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 3.85% | 1 | 3.05% | 7778 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.85% | 1 | 2.76% | 7034 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 3.85% | 1 | 2.74% | 6969 | seth.reiss at lex-ip.com 3.85% | 1 | 2.66% | 6765 | director at icfoss.in 3.85% | 1 | 2.38% | 6052 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 26 |100.00% | 254740 | Total

5 6

Redelegation of the domain representing Mali to the Agence des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communications
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Feb. 4, 2014

Feb. 4, 2014

Dear All, Thanks to Dev who pointed out this morning that the Board will be considering the Redelegation of the domain representing Mali to the Agence des Technologies de l'Information et de la Communications, see: http://www.icann.org/en/groups/board/documents/agenda-03oct12-en.htm I wonder whether ISOC Mali or At Large in general holds a view on the above. Kind Regards, -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

10 11

France IGF / FGI France 2014
by Sébastien Bachollet Feb. 2, 2014

Feb. 2, 2014

Dear Colleagues, I wanted to make sure everyone on this list knew about the French IGF (the first regional IGF in France), in Paris on March 10. Attendance is free of course, but registration is compulsory: http://www.eventbrite.fr/e/billets-forum-de-la-gouvernance-internet-fgi-fran ce-10329039435?aff=estw The event is supported by local civil society and business, the French government and the French registry AFNIC. As member of the organizing committee I will be happy to answer any questions anyone may have, and hope to see many of you there! All the best, http://fgi2014.fr https://www.facebook.com/FGIFrance?fref=ts https://twitter.com/FGIFrance Sébastien Bachollet +33 6 07 66 89 33 Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com>

3 3

Re: [At-Large] Traditional Cultural Expressions #ICANN #WIPO
by Hong Xue Jan. 31, 2014

Jan. 31, 2014

In the cases of AMAZON and PATAGONIA, it was primarily the relevant governments' power over Geographic Names that prevails. It has triggered forceful debates about whether GNs are really subject to governmental power or sovereignty. Remember the research report presented by the AU professors at Durban Public Forum? In addition, the government did not really interfere these 2 GN applications, largely through GAC, until the late stage, while the local user community had had filed many protests and oppositions at the ICANN. So I assume it would be a good idea, as Sala suggested, for ALAC/at-large to research the "community right" over the traditional cultural expressions in the NEXT round (if any) of new gTLD expansion program. It seems clear that the so-called community objection procedure barely woks. FYI, WIPO has been working on this issue for a decade and hopefully there would be a breakthrough 2014 in the negotiation of the "draft provisions/articles on protection of TCE and TK". I'm pretty sure that protection of TCE in DNS has not yet been contemplated in the international lawmaking. So the research could be timely and useful. What do you think to proceed to do the research? Forming a working group or it can be done through new gTLD WG? Hong Professor Dr. Hong Xue Director of Beijing Normal University Institute for Internet Policy & Law (IIPL) Co-Director of UNCITRAL-BNU Joint Certificate Program on International E-Commerce Law http://www.iipl.org.cn/ 19 Xin Jie Kou Wai Street Beijing 100875 China On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 12:59 PM, Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com>wrote: > Yes. And how does AMAZON and PATAGONIA fit in here? > > Seth > > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Satish Babu > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38 PM > To: At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Traditional Cultural Expressions #ICANN #WIPO > > Dear Sala, Wolf and all > I too agree on the need to ensure that cultural heritage remains in the > public domain. It would be interesting to study this problem in greater > depth and suggest to our communities how we could support them. > > > > > > satish > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Wolf Ludwig > <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net>wrote: > > > this is just to confirm that I entirely agree with your elaborations > > and thoughts below on "how to protect traditional knowledge and > > indigenous communities" from any usurpation by the right-holders > > industry. Some of us may recall stories about traditionals like "In > > the jungle ..." and related rights disputes -- see: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3684/7043 - Release Date: 01/29/14 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 >

11 12

Traditional Cultural Expressions #ICANN #WIPO
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 30, 2014

Jan. 30, 2014

Dear All, Some of you may remember the *ALAC statement on Community Priority Evaluation Guidelines* that was unanimously passed. There are certain developments within on moves to protect Traditional Cultural Expressions through WIPO etc. To see the developments in WIPO and the Draft Articles in this area, in English, Spanish, French and Russian, visit: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=245543 As you can imagine, the At Large community has many people who have an interest in this space either from community based concerns in the protection of such expressions etc. A little known fact is that Vanda Scartazeni used to head and manage Brazil's equivalent of the United States Trademark and Patent Office (USPTO). There are others in the At Large community who have been involved in various Intellectual Property linked matters such as Hong and Seth etc. Instead of always being reactionary to public policy debates and dialogue, it is critical that issues such as Traditional Cultural Expressions and protections in the wake of lack of appropriate mechanisms be protected as captured within the spirit of the Statement of the ALAC. Strategies should be deployed within At Large on how to best protect them. Care should be taken to protect "traditional knowledge" and "indigenous communities" that may not have the technological savvy to navigate the systems effectively. For example, should Louis Vuitton decide to apply for .maasai and where a Maasai Elder is in the process of protecting their traditional name. Ron Layton of Light Years IP argues that the Maasai brand is worth $10million. See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22617001 Intellectual Property and Traditional cultural expressions have been the subject of global discussions as early as 1967 when there was an amendment to the *Berne Convention for the Protection of Artistic and Literary Works*for the protection of unpublished and anonymous works. Best Regards, Sala

7 8

Re: [At-Large] Traditional Cultural Expressions #ICANN #WIPO
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 30, 2014

Jan. 30, 2014

Dear Wolf, Satish, Seth and All, Now that we agree - the next question is in how we deal with the matter. Certainly there should be a study done in this area that is in depth to allow us to have an informed view and develop a strategy to protect TCEs. On the question on "Amazon" and Pantagonia", if there was a study commissioned care should be taken to frame the scope of the study. This also depends on how we perceive Geographical names and there are two possible views: View 1: They fall under TCEs or under Geographical names that may have a link to culture View 2: They do not fall under TCEs This then leads to the more questions: 1) what is the scope of TCEs 2)how should we define them in the context of what is relevant for ICANN? 3) Is the Draft Article in WIPO in keeping with At Large's view of TCEs? Kind Regards, Sala On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:59 PM, Seth M Reiss <seth.reiss(a)lex-ip.com> wrote: > Yes. And how does AMAZON and PATAGONIA fit in here? > > Seth > > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Satish Babu > Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38 PM > To: At-Large Worldwide > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Traditional Cultural Expressions #ICANN #WIPO > > Dear Sala, Wolf and all > I too agree on the need to ensure that cultural heritage remains in the > public domain. It would be interesting to study this problem in greater > depth and suggest to our communities how we could support them. > > > > > > satish > > > > > On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 6:08 AM, Wolf Ludwig > <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net>wrote: > > > this is just to confirm that I entirely agree with your elaborations > > and thoughts below on "how to protect traditional knowledge and > > indigenous communities" from any usurpation by the right-holders > > industry. Some of us may recall stories about traditionals like "In > > the jungle ..." and related rights disputes -- see: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_Sleeps_Tonight > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > ----- > No virus found in this message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 2014.0.4259 / Virus Database: 3684/7043 - Release Date: 01/29/14 > > _______________________________________________ > 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

Message for AFRINIC, AFRALO and spotlight on Tunisia
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 29, 2014

Jan. 29, 2014

Dear AFRALO and its Executives (Aziz Hilali, Mohammed El Bashiri, and Phillip Johnson), and AFRINIC - Adiel, *SAFNOG* South Africa has just formed a new Network Operators Group called SAFNOG and they will be holding their first operational and technical meeting on 22-23 April, 2014 at the Sandton Hilton Hotel in Johannesburg in South Africa. See: www.safnog.org *Brief Encouragement* Secondly, I just want you to know that as a fellow global citizen and colleague that Africa and its diversity and struggles is not forgotten. As I hear and read reports of massive displacement, vulnerable communities, religious wars, food crisis in some parts, civil war in Central Africa, South Sudan, it makes me appreciate the various support structures such as AFRINIC and all the ALSes in Africa all the more. No one country is more important than the other in Africa and all are equally important. Thank you for the work that you do! I continue to be impressed with the level of commitment and contribution by your communities in global public processes despite the challenges in your immediate environments. *Tunisia and remembering the Fruit Vendor and Acknowledging our People* I am also very pleased to hear the good news of what is happening in Tunisia and it is for this reason that I would like to shine the spotlight on Tunisia to commend them and you AFRALO by extension for the amazing work you continue to do in Africa. I would like to take this time congratulate Tunisia for its ratification of a new democratic institution and the installation of an independent government to lead the country towards new elections. This month also happens to be the third year anniversary when a fruit vendor sparked a revolution that set the country on a path to democracy. The installation of a new, independent government under the leadership of Prime Minister Mehdi Jomaa is an important step to ensure that the country has competent and non-partisan leadership during the period leading to the next election. As you transition to democracy, it will no doubt set the tone for the environment in which internet governance and access issues for the people of Tunisia. In the middle of extreme circumstances and environment to see people like Tijani Ben Jemaa and Dhouha Bayassarou and many others from Tunisia who continue to contribute to global public processes by sacrificing their time, energy. Tunisia and Egypt were among the first countries in this decade to witness the Arab Spring and a massive revolution. If it were not for the seedbed of that frustrated fruit vendor, the masses in Tunisia would have still accepted the oppression. As Tunisia celebrates its democratic transition let us not forget the fruit vendor and people like Tijani who continue to strive to bring development to Africa. Tijani is a fierce advocate for "access" for the people of Africa; he continues to fight for meaningful participation and access. Special congratulations to the Tunisian Association of Internet and Multimedia and Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations. This ALS like its counterparts, daily contributes to their national development by facilitating trainings, creating awareness. The Tunisian Association of Internet and Multimedia has been active in various forums such as WSIS, IGF, ICANN, ITU etc. I would like to congratulate you on your many achievements but more importantly on the great step to transitioning to democracy so that the death of that one fruit vendor three years ago is not in vain. Wishing Tunisia and the whole of Africa well! With every best wish, Sala *(Fiji)*

1 0

Announcement: At-Large Board Director Slate of Candidates Selected by the BCEC and Next Steps
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 28, 2014

Jan. 28, 2014

Dear All, On behalf of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee (BCEC), and in accordance with the agreed schedule for the At-Large Board Member Selection Timeline, we are pleased to announce the names of the slate of candidates to fill Seat #15 of the ICANN Board. These candidates have passed the initial BCEC evaluation and were approved on their call of Tuesday, 21 January 2014. Their names were announced to the ALAC by Olivier Crépin-Leblond on 28 January 2014. The candidates, listed in alphabetical order of their family name are: * Rinalia Abdul Rahim * Sebastien Bachollet * Alan Greenberg * Evan Leibovitch * Jean-Jacques Subrenat The other applicants who submitted Expressions of Interest (EOIs), listed in alphabetical order of their family name are: · David Allnutt · Bobbie Lloyd · Varol Senel One applicant withdrew their EOI during the BCEC evaluation period. The RALOs are now asked to consider whether any of the applicants who submitted EOIs but were not selected by the BCEC should be added to the final slate of candidates. In order to be added to the final slate, an applicant must be supported by three RALOs. The deadline for support from other RALOs for additional candidates is Friday, 21 February 2014. Please see the relevant text of the ALAC ROPs below: 19.9 Final Candidate List 19.9.1 -Following the publication of the BCEC slate of candidates, RALOs have an opportunity to suggest adding candidates to that list. The timetable should allow for consultations and outreach both within and among RALO's. 19.9.2 - RALOs can only suggest candidates who had previously submitted an EoI to the BCEC during the current selection process. 19.9.3 - Candidates will be added only if they receive support through a formal vote of at least three of the five RALOs, each RALO voting according to its respective rules. The final slate will be announced on Sunday, 23 February 2014. Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>

1 0

Fwd:Fadi's interview in Davos
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 27, 2014

Jan. 27, 2014

FYI ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= Fadi's interview with the Huff Post Live at Davos. Here is the link -- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/24/fadi-chehade-davos_n_4635949.html

1 0

Conflicts between End User vrs Global Public Interest
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 25, 2014

Jan. 25, 2014

Dear All, *Global Public Interest vrs End Users* I have changed the Subject of the thread to emphasize the apparent conflict that stems from global public interest versus end users. This has been challenging particularly for the At Large community as has been expressed by Evan and others where it comes to processes. Olivier had mentioned that the lack of definition is of concern. Karl raised an important point about context shaping meaning. There have been on multiple occasions where this dialogue has taken place. I would recommend that a Study be done by the ALAC work highlighting a list of instances within ICANN where as a community, the At Large feels that it has been marginalised. This can certainly be in the context of the gTLD Objection process or in the Auction processes but also other aspects of ICANN where we feel that global public interest has been undermined. It is in identifying all the potential conflicts and trying to understand the root of the problems that we can begin to discuss solutions. No doubt, we have people like Evan and others who have vast institutional memory and can be good resources to draw from. *Recommendation for At Large Leadership Team* It would also be useful for At Large Leadership Team to commission an In Depth Study, analysis of the issues. The discussions is also central to maintaining legitimacy so that the At Large and the ALAC are not just token participants but stewards and watchdogs of global public interest. Kind Regards, Sala On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:42 AM, Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> wrote: > On 01/23/2014 09:17 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote: > > > I am particularly concerned with the narrow definition of "community", > > "Internet community", "end user community" - or in fact as their lack of > > definition. > > Let me respond to that particular point rather than the previous focus > of this thread. > > There may well be not one community but rather multiple communities. > And people may move between these communities from instant-to-instant > depending on what they are doing at that instant. > > I have observed that over the last few years that there has been a > significant shift in the way that users perceive this thing we all call > "the internet" (with or without a capital 'I'). > > For many of us who have been around for a while we see the internet as a > system that moves IP packets from computer interface with an IP address > to another computer interface with an IP address. We are the packet-heads. > > But for many people who arrived more recently the perception of the net > is of a bag of applications. > > We packet heads tend to be very concerned about end-to-end principles > and neutrality of packet flows. > > The latter community may focus more on matters of openness, fairness, > portability, and reliability of those applications without much regard > to the underlying plumbing. (And one might consider that the interests > of those who use applications are somewhat different than those who > create and deploy applications.) > > I would note that to the latter community, IP addresses and domain names > may be submerging to become hidden machinery and are being replaced by > URL/URI based names or application specific names [such as Facebook > logins.] I believe that this shift in naming/addressing will eventually > significantly alter our internet governance needs. > > The interests of these groups are one of those Venn diagrams with > overlapping circles - there is an area of mutual concern but also large > areas where each group has its own concern. > > I am far from suggesting that these groups form different "stakeholders" > - that is because I abhor the concept of top-down pre-defined groups of > interest called "stakeholders". > > However, I do feel that we could gain a bit of clarity if we were begin > to recognize that the word "internet" has different meanings to > different people and that to best understand opinions we need to > comprehend the context from which those opinions arose. > > My sense is that we will find that as a result opinions that seem in > opposition, if the context is understood, might actually be opinions > that are in alignment, or at least not in conflict. > > --karl-- > > __ >

2 1

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 24, 2014

Jan. 24, 2014

Total of 38 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 24 00:53:02 EST 2014 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 15.79% | 6 | 22.05% | 93217 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 15.79% | 6 | 18.29% | 77332 | apisan at unam.mx 13.16% | 5 | 10.81% | 45719 | ocl at gih.com 13.16% | 5 | 10.17% | 43016 | evan at telly.org 10.53% | 4 | 9.65% | 40787 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 10.53% | 4 | 7.85% | 33196 | rinalia.abdulrahim at gmail.com 2.63% | 1 | 6.31% | 26664 | fatimacambronero at gmail.com 2.63% | 1 | 2.77% | 11716 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 2.63% | 1 | 2.66% | 11253 | garth.graham at telus.net 2.63% | 1 | 2.19% | 9252 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 2.63% | 1 | 2.02% | 8554 | karl at cavebear.com 2.63% | 1 | 1.94% | 8214 | info at hoferichter.eu 2.63% | 1 | 1.78% | 7536 | narten at us.ibm.com 2.63% | 1 | 1.51% | 6387 | tasamuels at cwjamaica.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 38 |100.00% | 422843 | Total

1 0

Feedback Requested on the Arabic Script Generation Panel Proposal for the Root Zone
by Rinalia Abdul Rahim Jan. 24, 2014

Jan. 24, 2014

Dear Colleagues, The Task Force on Arabic Script IDNs (TF-AIDN) is requesting feedback on the Arabic Script Generation Panel Proposal for the Root Zone (Proposal for Generation Panel for Arabic Script Label Generation Ruleset for the Root Zone<https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/43976436/Arabic%20Script%2…>). Please send comments to ArabicGP(a)icann.org by 12 February 2014. The Task Force invites comments on the proposal and welcomes new members. Interested parties can apply to join the Task Force by emailing a CV and Statement of Interest to tf-aidn-admin(a)meswg.org. Heads-Up: The At-Large IDN Working Group Meeting in March 2014 (during ICANN's 49th Public Meeting in Singapore) will include an update and discussion with the Task Force (and possibly other Generation Panels) and will also touch on the topic of universal acceptance of IDNs. *Brief Background* The Arabic script is used for writing a diverse set of languages spoken across the Middle East, North Africa, Sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, West Asia and East Asia. The languages include Arabic, Malay, Pashto, Persian, Punjabi, Sindhi, Seraiki, Torwa and Urdu. The Task Force was established as a response to ICANN's call for interested language communities to form Generation Panels that work on developing proposals on Label Generation Rules (LGR) for the Root Zone pertaining to specific scripts. The status of ICANN's Root Zone Label Generation Rules Project can be found here: https://community.icann.org/display/croscomlgrprocedure/Project+Status+Upda…. Other language communities currently working on forming Generation Panels include the Han script community (Chinese, Japanese, Korean), Neo-Brahmi and Cyrillic. Best regards, Rinalia Abdul Rahim Vice Chair, ICANN At-Large IDN Working Group Executive Council Member, ISOC Malaysia Chapter

1 0

Reference: ICC Ruling on Objections filed by the ALAC
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 24, 2014

Jan. 24, 2014

Colleagues may recall that this writer was part of the original At-Large panel constituted to evaluate and determine whether the ALAC would exercise standing and file community objections to a gTLD application. You will also recall that after some time engaging and several evaluations, I withdrew from the process, principally because I was challenged to reconcile my disquiet regarding the bases used to identify the offended community in context and the expandable and sometimes indeterminate attributes available for defining a community with standing to raise an objection. So now, the evaluator hired by the ICC to evaluate the objections filed has issued his ruling. See it here: http://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/drsp/17jan14/determination-1-… . Here's the key understanding, as he sees it, of what obtains.. "*The formal objection process was created to allow a f**ull and fair consideration of objections based on certain l**imited grounds outside ICANN’s evaluation of applications on t**heir merits*" - Para 54, Page 29 He, too, has his troubles settling on a meaning of the term 'community' in context. His take... "*......**The word “community” refers not to a place, but to an abstraction: the convergence of a sense of involvement with common interests....Communities of persons united by their interests in how they earn their living may be especially strong, whether they form permanent organisations (like professional associations) or not (like the entire **population segment of retirees).*" Para 49, Page 27 inter alia He continues, bemoaning his inability to cleanly define a community with standing.....and in the process, pimp slaps the prevailing or predominant At-Large tenet of community.... "*.....Communities do not necessarily create institutions. They do not necessarily function as a polity, in the sense of identifying officials formally authorized to act in **their name, represent their interests, or formulate their policies. They may exist without structures of self-governance, such as membership committees which admit **or exclude individuals by reference to more or less well-articulated standards of qualification or conduct**........It follows that communities may include individuals who are more or less **concerned with the welfare of the group as a whole; it may contain cynics as well as * *idealists, speculators as well as altruists. Naturally it may include subgroups or even **individuals whose opinions and preferences are sharply at odds with those of the **majority of the community. Unless the community has in some constitutional sense **defined itself as excluding undesirable individuals, or at least limited their capacity to **make claims to speak as members of the group, someone looking at a community **from the outside, and armed only with this broad understanding of what a **“community” may be, has no rules-based criteria for evaluating who does or does not **belong to the community. *" Paras 50 & 51, Page 26-27, inter alia Here's where he ends up.... "*....The determination I am now charged with effecting deals.... – with “global Internet communities”. That expression has not, however, been given further specific definition. One must therefore proceed on the basis of (i) discerning what the relevant rules do not say about “communities” and (ii) being attentive to implied constraints derived from principles developed by ICANN.*" Para 52, Page 28, inter alia He elides a lot of stuff from the foregoing to the six (6) principles upon which the new GTLD program is predicated in Para 55 then delivered this [considered] opinion.... "*To the extent that abstract or aspirational principles are defined, they are those of a free market (“competition”, “consumer choice”, “differentiation” and “diversity”) and freedom of expression, rather than regulatory constraints arising from a protective (or authoritarian) desire to filter “wrong” or “unsound” views, or otherwise restrict access s**o as to reserve it to those who are vetted by some type of official bodies...I see no reflection here of* *ALAC’s undisguised bias **against “commercial applicants” who “cannot be trusted to self-police the .health domain space and are “more than likely” to place “commercial interests before public **welfare interests”*.......*The Objector’s animadversions against the Applicant miss the target;* *profit-seekers **may apply; the public interest is evidently intended to be protected by protocols imposed by ICANN in a manner akin to that of regulators whose supervision constrains the conduct of for-profit providers of public services generally...*" Paras 56 & 57, Page 31 inter alia Reasonable men and women may well agree to disagree, agreeably or not. I willingly acknowledge the arguments posited by this evaluator are indeed cogent. All in all, this was a bravura performance, worthy of acknowledgement. For in one fell swoop, this gentleman tells the ALAC to piss off - politely, in an 'Englishy' kind of way -, gives a left-handed thumbs up to the regulatory role of ICANN, fingers the PICs as I have always intimated they were .......and comes up roses. He hears the voice of Jacob. But smart fella knows it is the hand of Esau he feels. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

11 31

Mailing list
by Trevor Samuels Jan. 18, 2014

Jan. 18, 2014

I appreciate you sending information re At- large but I find that most of the information is in Spanish which I am not very fluent in. I get a flood of mail which I can't understand. I would be happy if you could confine future information to what is most vital and in English. Thanks. T Samuels

2 1

EuroSSIG - Call for application out now
by sandra hoferichter Jan. 17, 2014

Jan. 17, 2014

+++Call for application+++ The next European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) will take place from 27 July 2 August 2014 in Meissen Germany. We are now accepting applications until 15 April 2014, both from students and individuals working in the private sector, in government or in civil society groups from all over the world. Application criteria are a basic academic degree or relevant practical experiences. The 2013 Summer School offers a unique multidisciplinary high level 48 hours academic programme. The programme is a well balanced mixture of theoretical lectures with world leading academics as well as practical presentations from well known experts working directly in the technical community, the market or in policy. It offers unique opportunities for learning in a multi stakeholder environment, which includes also intense and individual interactive communication with faculty members and fellows from all over the world. The faculty is chaired by Prof. Wolfgang Kleinwächter, University of Aarhus . The full course fee is 1.000 EUR (plus 19% VAT). It includes, next to the lecture programme: * six nights accommodation in the guest rooms of the academy * breakfast, lunch, dinner, coffee * one evening reception in the Meissen Porcelain Manufactory * gala dinner in the historic wine restaurant Vincenz Richter * boat trip on the river Elbe * free WiFi access * all teaching material We can offer a special fee for master students of 500 EUR (plus 19% VAT). Individuals from developing countries have the opportunity to apply for the global fellowship programme. If you are interested in the European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG), please send applications by using the <http://www.fs-datenserver.de/kunden/euro-ssig/euro-ssig-2010/draft-programm e/euro-ssig-2010/draft-programme/plenary/application-form> online application form on the website. _____________________________________________________________________ s a n d r a h o f e r i c h t e r management and communication European Summer School on Internet Governance (EuroSSIG) medienstadt leipzig e.v. / netcom institute pf 650 107 d-04189 leipzig fon: +49.341.301 28 27 fax: +49.341.945 60 11 mobile: +49.163.380 87 85 info(a)hoferichter.eu www.euro-ssig.eu This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intendet recipient (or have received this e-mail in error) please notify the sender immediately and destroy this mail. Any unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of material in this e-mail is strictly forbidden.

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 17, 2014

Jan. 17, 2014

Total of 16 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 17 00:53:02 EST 2014 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 6.25% | 1 | 51.09% | 143640 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 18.75% | 3 | 10.21% | 28705 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 18.75% | 3 | 6.71% | 18863 | cw at christopherwilkinson.eu 12.50% | 2 | 8.96% | 25189 | cdel at firsthand.net 12.50% | 2 | 7.40% | 20795 | wjdrake at gmail.com 12.50% | 2 | 6.88% | 19342 | jefsey at jefsey.com 6.25% | 1 | 3.20% | 8999 | dogwallah at gmail.com 6.25% | 1 | 3.04% | 8556 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 6.25% | 1 | 2.51% | 7051 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 16 |100.00% | 281140 | Total

1 0

BCEC Announcement of Statistics of EOIs Received for Position of ICANN Board Director
by ICANN At-Large Staff Jan. 15, 2014

Jan. 15, 2014

Dear All, Please find below a note sent on behalf of Roberto Gaetano, Chair of the At-Large Board Candidate Evaluation Committee (BCEC), on the Expressions of Interest received for the position of ICANN Board Director selected by At-Large. ** Dear All, A total of 11 Expressions of Interest were received by the Board Candidate Evaluation Committee for the position of At-Large Board Director. Out of these 11 applications, 2 were deemed to be too incomplete to proceed further. The remaining 9 Expressions of Interest are currently being considered by the members of the Board Candidate Evaluation Committee. The names of the BCEC selected slate of candidates will be released on 28 January 2014. Statistics of the 9 completed Expressions of Interest show a wide array of professional backgrounds. From the 9 completed Expressions of Interest, 4 applicants are not currently active in the At-Large community while 5 are currently active. Male applicants (7) make up the vast majority of applicants with only 2 female applicants. Details of the statistics are available below: Geographical diversity: AF AP EU LAC NA Country of citizenship* 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 3 (30%) 0 (0%) 5 (50%) Country of residence* 0 (0%) 2 (20%) 2 (20%) 0 (0%) 6 (60%) * Total numbers are GREATER than 9 given dual citizenship or multiple locations of residence of some applicants Gender : M F 7 (78%) 2 (22%) Current position: For Profit Non-Profit Consultancy Academia Legal 3 (33%) 1 (11%) 3 (33%) 1 (11%) 1 (11%) Currently active member of At-Large community: Y N 5 (56%) 4 (44%) You will also find this announcement attached as a PDF file for your convenience. Regards, Roberto Gaetano ** Kind Regards, Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Matt Ashtiani, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine and Julia Charvolen ICANN Policy Staff in support of ALAC E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org%3cmailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>>

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance
by JFC Morfin Jan. 13, 2014

Jan. 13, 2014

Bill, Thank you for your today two todays sighs of concerns because they cover all our difficulties: >At 12:50 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote: >And yet we have numerous loud voices saying on the 1Net, governance, >Best Bits, etc. mailing lists that 1Net and the Sao Paulo meeting >are controlled by ICANN and other dark forces committed to >preserving the status quo and US domination and so global civil >society must rally to resist these oppressors etc etc In our wanting to be a people centered information society (Geneva declaration), what counts is the result for the people, i.e. the way the hardware and software support brainware, i.e. an adequate law due to an adequate code. Let us consider the sense of the words we are confronted with: 1. An equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance of any, global or not, resource of other people is an unacceptable intrusive tyrannical interference with their rights, dignity, privacy, intimacy (that is condemned by the Geneva declaration IRT to States) - unless each of these persons has freely demanded it for themselves. 2. Yet Charade's claim sounds perfectly right. We are, therefore, in a double constraint situation. Where is the bug? It is in the wrong claim that ICANN would be a unique global resource. The reality is that: - the digital namespace is unlimited and the IETF to some minor technical extent and ICANN for political reasons have made it a scarcity. - the same limitation spirit, which was advisable for a proof of concept, has continued to prevail, polluting the Internet technological development and bogging down innovation in its initial uniform governance and opposing innovation. The lack of innovation oriented technical governance has resulted in the observed lack of architectural evolution that the users of the world need. Snowden is not actually reporting NSA misbehavior; he is reporting the obsolescence of the 1983 internet when compared with the 2014 world which permitted it. ICANN as a unique global necessary resource has become a technically outdated bug that has to be corrected. This is not the sole architectonical update to consider, and so it should be carried out in a concerted manner, i.e.: 1. each multistakeholder, i.e. each person, entity, organization, government, etc. having to subsidiarily decide how to correct his/her/its "ICANN global unicity bug", must be informed of his/her/its existing and individually or cooperatively devisable options, and decide by his/her/its own on their merits and mutual best advantages. 2. the same validation and possible enhancement consistency process should be carried out and permanently continued in every area of the digisphere (i.e. the digital part of reality) in order to ensure the human right to a complete decent, efficient, and protected entire life. This will digitally extend the multi-globally fully interoperable human + bots diversity where every person is on an equal footing with every other person. NB. The US is not particularly implied in all this (except exercising entrepreneurship in that area without sufficiently imagining the consequences): it is only that the American language did not help the conceptual transition from a uniform to a diversified global space. This is embodied in the Internetting project (IEN 48) by the "loose sense" appropriately given by Vint Cerf to the word "local". Transition was in the evolution of the sense to be innovatively applied to "local". However, a "loose sense" is not something that developers, politicians, salespeople, and computers understand or agree upon easily. So instead to apply to trades, virtualities, other technologies, competitive alternatives, etc. "local" stayed uniquely geographically monopolistic. >At 10:35 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote: >Volunteering to try and help facilitate a process shouldnt require >body armor. I am afraid that humans being humans, it is the rule everywhere. The reason why is, from experience, the inability of humans to understand each other in changing contexts, and moreover when people must understand each other over the specific improvement of the context. You have those who want to carry the change, those who want to protect their status, and those who are waiting in order to see what happens. It is very frustrating for the first ones to be delayed, opposed, and passed over by the second ones who benefit from their positions, and not to be supported by the third ones who feel that they do not know enough to decide who is right. I found, however, that you may avoid the weight of the body armor, enjoy the human show, and obtain what you want in trying to understand what really happens and use brainware (networked assisted cooperation) hacks. This is why I plead for software (organizational) and hardware (material) work that may help in demonstrating your point of view without having to resort to martyrdom. The IETF prefers "running code" to "kings, presidents, and voting" (you could also add "christs"). One can give a pretty scientifically acceptable explanation why and a successfully experienced "how to" guide, but this will be for another day. Cheers. jfc

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [discuss] cgi.br release regarding Brazil Global MSM on Internet Governance
by William Drake Jan. 13, 2014

Jan. 13, 2014

jfc If you’re going to cross-post things said on one list to another with a different audience and discussion going on, it would be better form to not cherry pick what you're quoting. For context, the comment below was in reply to Fadi’s statement in the interview, > "The world is seeking and growing ever more anxious to see an independent, > globally-accountable ICANN where no one government, no one organization, no > one individual has oversight or rights higher than the others,” Chehade > says. “I believe this is fundamental to the spirit of the Internet as well. > Equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance > of this global resource.” > > http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/01/10/icanns-fadi-chehade-says-we-have-18… On might have thought that statements like this and related moves, along with the Montevideo declaration language on globalization, would lead certain CS people to pause and reconsider a little the narrative they're spinning about the supposed strategies of imperialist forces and the false consciousness and culpability of civil society collaborationists who would like an actual multistakeholder platform to work. After all, the direction being pushed in addresses their central long-standing complaint, and the resistance to it now comes from other directions where folks are not convinced of the need or comfortable with the possible pace—another MS dialogue that needs to happen. Nevertheless, some CS folks refuse to take yes for an answer when there’s other agendas in play, so singing the same old song they’ve been stuck on since 2003 is preferred. I guess there’s a whole structure of incentives that remains powerful. This is frustrating and may help to preclude the very outcome they claim to favor, but who’s got the bandwidth to spend all day every day responding to this stuff. It’d be easier to convince creationists to consider the evidence for evolution. I’m reluctantly coming to the conclusion that nothing can be done about it so the reality-based community just needs to go forward regardless and live with the catcalls etc. As for the rest below, um, er, ok, thanks. Best Bill On Jan 12, 2014, at 8:22 PM, JFC Morfin <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> wrote: > Bill, > > Thank you for your today two todays sighs of concerns because they cover all our difficulties: > >> At 12:50 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote: >> And yet we have numerous loud voices saying on the 1Net, governance, Best Bits, etc. mailing lists that 1Net and the Sao Paulo meeting are controlled by ICANN and other dark forces committed to preserving the status quo and US domination and so global civil society must rally to resist these oppressors etc etc > > In our wanting to be a people centered information society (Geneva declaration), what counts is the result for the people, i.e. the way the hardware and software support brainware, i.e. an adequate law due to an adequate code. > > Let us consider the sense of the words we are confronted with: > > 1. An equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance of any, global or not, resource of other people is an unacceptable intrusive tyrannical interference with their rights, dignity, privacy, intimacy (that is condemned by the Geneva declaration IRT to States) - unless each of these persons has freely demanded it for themselves. > > 2. Yet Charade’s claim sounds perfectly right. > > We are, therefore, in a double constraint situation. > > Where is the bug? It is in the wrong claim that ICANN would be a unique global resource. > > The reality is that: > > - the digital namespace is unlimited and the IETF to some minor technical extent and ICANN for political reasons have made it a scarcity. > > - the same limitation spirit, which was advisable for a proof of concept, has continued to prevail, polluting the Internet technological development and bogging down innovation in its initial uniform governance and opposing innovation. > > > The lack of innovation oriented technical governance has resulted in the observed lack of architectural evolution that the users of the world need. Snowden is not actually reporting NSA misbehavior; he is reporting the obsolescence of the 1983 internet when compared with the 2014 world which permitted it. ICANN as a unique global necessary resource has become a technically outdated bug that has to be corrected. This is not the sole architectonical update to consider, and so it should be carried out in a concerted manner, i.e.: > > 1. each multistakeholder, i.e. each person, entity, organization, government, etc. having to subsidiarily decide how to correct his/her/its "ICANN global unicity bug", must be informed of his/her/its existing and individually or cooperatively devisable options, and decide by his/her/its own on their merits and mutual best advantages. > > 2. the same validation and possible enhancement consistency process should be carried out and permanently continued in every area of the digisphere (i.e. the digital part of reality) in order to ensure the human right to a complete decent, efficient, and protected entire life. > > This will digitally extend the multi-globally fully interoperable human + bots diversity where every person is on an equal footing with every other person. > > NB. The US is not particularly implied in all this (except exercising entrepreneurship in that area without sufficiently imagining the consequences): it is only that the American language did not help the conceptual transition from a uniform to a diversified global space. This is embodied in the Internetting project (IEN 48) by the “loose sense” appropriately given by Vint Cerf to the word “local”. Transition was in the evolution of the sense to be innovatively applied to “local”. However, a “loose sense” is not something that developers, politicians, salespeople, and computers understand or agree upon easily. So instead to apply to trades, virtualities, other technologies, competitive alternatives, etc. “local” stayed uniquely geographically monopolistic. > > >> At 10:35 12/01/2014, William Drake wrote: >> Volunteering to try and help facilitate a process shouldnt require body armor. > > I am afraid that humans being humans, it is the rule everywhere. > > The reason why is, from experience, the inability of humans to understand each other in changing contexts, and moreover when people must understand each other over the specific improvement of the context. > > You have those who want to carry the change, those who want to protect their status, and those who are waiting in order to see what happens. It is very frustrating for the first ones to be delayed, opposed, and passed over by the second ones who benefit from their positions, and not to be supported by the third ones who feel that they do not know enough to decide who is right. > > I found, however, that you may avoid the weight of the body armor, enjoy the human show, and obtain what you want in trying to understand what really happens and use brainware (networked assisted cooperation) hacks. This is why I plead for software (organizational) and hardware (material) work that may help in demonstrating your point of view without having to resort to martyrdom. > > The IETF prefers “running code” to “kings, presidents, and voting” (you could also add “christs”). One can give a pretty scientifically acceptable explanation why and a successfully experienced “how to” guide, but this will be for another day. > > Cheers. > jfc *********************************************** William J. Drake International Fellow & Lecturer Media Change & Innovation Division, IPMZ University of Zurich, Switzerland Chair, Noncommercial Users Constituency, ICANN, www.ncuc.org william.drake(a)uzh.ch (direct), wjdrake(a)gmail.com (lists), www.williamdrake.org ***********************************************

5 5

.....For a single Internet to remain, says Fadi
by Carlton Samuels Jan. 12, 2014

Jan. 12, 2014

"The world is seeking and growing ever more anxious to see an independent, globally-accountable ICANN where no one government, no one organization, no one individual has oversight or rights higher than the others,” Chehade says. “I believe this is fundamental to the spirit of the Internet as well. Equal footing for all stakeholders engaged in the management and governance of this global resource.” http://siliconangle.com/blog/2014/01/10/icanns-fadi-chehade-says-we-have-18… -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

3 4

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 10, 2014

Jan. 10, 2014

Total of 3 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 10 00:53:03 EST 2014 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 66.67% | 2 | 79.41% | 26933 | ocl at gih.com 33.33% | 1 | 20.59% | 6984 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 3 |100.00% | 33917 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group - Dec 2013
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 9, 2014

Jan. 9, 2014

Dear José, I am following up on your question regarding the participation of the ALAC in the various working groups of 1NET and the Brazil Meeting committees. There was a call for participants in the following committees: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [I-coordination] Nominations to /1Net Steering committee & Brazil Meeting Organising commitees Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 14:01:11 +0400 From: Adiel Akplogan <adiel(a)afrinic.net> To: i-coordination(a)nro.net <i-coordination(a)nro.net> Dear all, In order to bring some clarity in to this let me remind us that each stakeholder group (Business (done), Civil Society, Technical community, Academia) is requested to appoint/nominate a total of 9 people: - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation committee-1: Multistakeholder High-Level Committee *** This is the committee that will set the high-level political tone and objectives of the conference. Committee members will engage on a global level with stakeholders to encourage participation in the conference and maximize its chances of success - 2 people for the Brazil meeting's preparation Committee 3: Multistakeholder Executive Committee **** This committee owns the full responsibility of organizing the event, including: defining conference purpose/agenda, managing invitations, organizing input received by March 1 into a coherent set of proposals for the conferees to address, managing conference proceedings and process, and directing all communications activities pre-during-post conference. - 5 people to constitute the /1Net Steering committee Let me suggest December 15 as deadline to have the nominations from all the groups. Once you have your list, please forward it to me directly or share with the mailing lists. Please allow me to request that we, on this list respect what each group will come up with. It is for each interested group to organise themselves to select their reps and we must respect that. Thanks. - a. --- end of message --- The deadline date was pushed back because of the inability to form those committees early enough. Now the deadline for nominations to these committees is the end of this week, ie. 10 January 2014. The problem is that the make-up of those committees follows the UN classification system: (Business, Civil Society, Technical community, Academia). As you've seen from Adiel's message, the Business line-up was taken up by ICANN's Business Constituency & the International Chamber of Commerce and they made their selections swiftly. Technical Community selections was taken up by ISOC and there is a process by which one can send their candidature to ISOC for selection. Individuals interested in being suggested by the NomCom set up for this purpose are invited to read more about the process and the timeline here: http://www.internetsociety.org/sites/default/files/Call1netBR-ForPublicatio… The deadline for submitting expressions of interest is 10 January 2014. Any questions or requests for additional information can be sent to: information.itcg(a)gmail.com. Civil Society selection resulted in several self-nominations on the /1NET list as well as on the IGC Governance List and the associated wars when people objected to some people being selected. The NCSG being focussed mostly on Civil Society suggested some people for the Civil Society positions. But many others have stepped forward too. It seems that the criteria for nomination here is just to send an email to the /1net mailing list. For the Academia positions, there were names submitted from GiGaNet. Also - other Academic institutions are also fielding in candidates. This selection of candidates before selecting topics is quite messy, with hundreds of emails daily on the /1net mailing list. Archives on: http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/2014-January/thread.html#start Some people are saying that the /1net mailing list has nearly become unusable due to the amount of trolls on it and the hundreds of messages a day, most of which are completely irrelevant. Today there was a call of SO/AC/SG Leaders with Fadi Chehadé where he provided us with the opportunity to ask questions. In his view, he hopes that the Cross Community Working Group (CCWG) in which we participate will be able to define ICANN's policy and input into the Brazil meeting. On the subject of our concerns with regards to lack of geographical diversity in the names put forward so far, he responded that Adiel Akplogan was going to look at this and search for a remedy. On the issue of the At-Large Community not fitting directly into one of the silos which were created for the Brazil conference, he pointed us to the CCWG. This really is the way to have good input from our community. I subsequently had a call with Theresa Swinehart and it really looks as though it would be very helpful for ICANN's input into the Brazil conference to originate in the CCWG - thus making use of the cross community tool we have without digging into silos. BTW -- ICANN is classed as "technical community". We already participate very well in the ICANN CCWG on Internet Governance. But this should not stop our community from also having candidates in the various organising committees. Quite the contrary, I think it would be an asset for people from our ALSes participating actively on some of those committees. As a result, may I suggest the following: to encourage any of our ALSes and their representatives who are interested in taking part in the Brazil meetings organising committees to use the methods I have described above and send their application independently. I realise this is very short notice and apologise for making this suggestion so late, but in some cases, this only needs to involve sending an email to the correct mailing list to postulate. I suggest that the ALAC and At-Large Community support their application by acting as a reference. And seeing that there is a real imbalance in geographical diversity, this should be an opportunity for our ALS representatives in developing countries and also in particular in our LACRALO region. In return for this support, it would be desirable that these ALSes let the At-Large Community of their process and volunteer to be able to speak to the ALAC during the monthly call to let our community know of the progress of the work. Of course, these ALS representatives would also be able to ask the At-Large Community for input. The ALS representatives would not "represent" the ALAC - they would act in a personal capacity, but they would be a privileged channel for the At-Large Community to speak to. My big concern today, looking at the numbers, is not if we are going to have people on any of the organising committees, but if any of our ALSes will be able to participate in the meeting in person. 500-550 people from non UN, non Government is a large amount of people - but how are they going to fund their flights & accommodation? Best Wishes, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond ALAC Chair On 24/12/2013 00:02, José Francisco Arce wrote: > Dear Olivier, all > > This is a quick question. Is At-large community thinking in participate? > Who, How, when? In whick working group? > I know Fatima Cambronero is maybe the person who is most involved. Maybe > you can find the way to involved At-large in aWG. > > Kind Regards > > Jose Arce.- > >> ---------- Mensaje reenviado ---------- >> De: "Carlos A. Afonso" <ca(a)cafonso.ca> >> Fecha: dic 21, 2013 1:37 PM >> Asunto: [NCSG-Discuss] Report from the BR meeting local organizing group > - Dec 2013 >> Para: <NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu> >> Cc: >> >> Hi people, >> >> This is my quick summary of yesterday's meeting of the local organizing >> group (LOG) for the BR meeting. This summary is basically oriented to >> civil society but may be useful to all stakeholders. Covers basically >> the structure of the committees and includes some other useful info. >> >> I do hope it answers several of the many questions we are receiving. >> >> fraternal regards >> >> --c.a. >> >> ================================ >> >> 1. Co-chairs of the BR Meeting >> >> This is a no-brainer: the BR Meeting will be chaired by Virgilio Almeida >> (current chair of CGI.br, and member of Brazil's Ministry of Science, >> Technology and Innovation), and Fadi Chehadé. >> >> 2. High Level Multistakeholder Committee >> >> The HLMC will be responsible for overseeing the political articulations >> and for encouraging the participation of the international community. >> >> It will be composed of government representatives of 12 countries >> (precise list still being established by the BR government) plus 12 >> non-govs, and two representatives of UN agencies to be chosen by the >> UNSG. The 12 non-govs include four of each non-gov stakeholder (civil >> society, academia/techies, private sector). All of the non-gov, non-UN >> stakeholders' names will be brought to the LOG by 1Net. So the HLC will >> be composed of 26 people. >> >> The HLMC will have four co-chairs, keeping the multistakeholder balance. >> One of the co-chairs will be Brazil's Minister of Communications Paulo >> Bernardo. >> >> So civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee four >> high-level reps as soon as possible. >> >> 3. Executive Multistakeholder Committee >> >> The EMC will be responsible for organizing the event, including the >> discussion and implementation of the agenda, and the selection of the >> participants and the various stakeholders' proposals. The crucial part >> of the preparation process resides here, in close coordination with the >> Logistics Committee, so people selected for the EMC ought to make >> themselves readily available for this challenge. >> >> The LOG has already selected the eight Brazilian members of the EMC. >> There will be four co-chairs as well, and names already appointed are >> Demi Getschko (CEO of NIC.br) and Raúl Echeberría (to be confirmed, CEO >> of LACNIC). A representative of an international agency will be >> appointed as well (by the coordinating body of the UN agencies) to >> participate. >> >> Like the HLMC, non-gov, non-UN members of the EMC will be brought to the >> LOG by 1Net. >> >> For the EMC civil society needs to indicate to 1Net Steering Committee >> two names as soon as possible. >> >> 4. Logistics and Organizational Committee >> >> The LOC will be co-chaired by Hartmut Glaser, executive secretary of >> CGI.br with proven expertise in coordinating the organization of >> national and international events. Another co-chair will be indicated by >> 1Net. >> >> 5. Government Advisory Committee >> >> This is in the hands of the BR government who acts as a facilitator and >> coordinator. Two co-chairs will be indicated. This committee will be >> open to any government who wishes to act in an advisory capacity. >> >> 6. Funding >> >> NIC.br will cover about 50% of the meeting's overall costs. The balance >> will be share by international participants/sponsors. Contributions from >> ICANN and ISOC are expected. >> >> 7. Participation >> >> The meeting is to be held at Hotel Transamérica, in São Paulo, fairly >> close to NIC.br headquarters (see attached map). The basic distribution >> of participants is envisioned approximately as: >> >> 450 from govs >> 500-550 from non-gov, non-UN stakeholders >> 100 journalists >> 50 IGOs/UN reps >> >> Inviting participants, or receiving and approving participation >> requests, is one of the tasks of the EMC. >> >> 8. Expected outcomes as success indicators >> >> - Official launching of a review process of the global IG > frameworks/models; >> - Development of a set of universally acceptable core of principles for >> global IG; >> >> - Tentative draft of a global IG model. >> >> My personal comment: these ambitious outcomes of course involve a lot of >> preparatory process work, especially by the Executive Committee. This is >> why we need to conclude the nominations asap in order to start the real >> work towards the meeting. >> >> > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

1 0

Fwd: Season Greetings and South School on Internet Governance
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Jan. 8, 2014

Jan. 8, 2014

Dear all, Adrian kindly let me know of this opportunity for *all* people in At-Large, not only the LACRALO region. The air ticket is not covered but all other expenses are. Applications close on 17th January. Kind regards, Olivier -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Season Greetings and South School on Internet Governance Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 10:55:48 -0200 From: Adrian Carballo <ainfodata(a)gmail.com> To: Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com> CC: Adrian Carballo <ainfodata(a)gmail.com> Dear Olivier, We hope you are doing well and nice to have you around in Buenos Aires. As we talked in Buenos Aires, the South School on Internet Governance is now receiving applications for fellowship. This is the sixth SSIG and for the first time in the Caribbean, Trinidad and Tobago 28 April to 02 May. Fundación Incluirme, one of Lac Ralo´s ALS is the one organizing and promoting the SSIG 2014. Interested must visit: www.gobernanzainternet.org <http://www.gobernanzainternet.org> And fill the online form (in English and Spanish). If you can help us spread the call for applications among ALAC network that will be great, all student receive fellowship that covers all expenses, without air ticket. Best wishes for Christmas and New year and all the best. Adrián Carballo Fundación Incluirme

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 3, 2014

Jan. 3, 2014

Total of 1 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 3 00:53:02 EST 2014 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7115 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 1 |100.00% | 7115 | Total

1 0