September 2016 - At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] I: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: ALAC Liaisons
by Ariel Liang Oct. 3, 2016

Oct. 3, 2016

Hello Roberto and all, All At-Large members can nominate eligible At-Large members for those positions. We will record your support for Jean-Jacques. Thank you, Ariel From: <at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> Date: Friday, September 30, 2016 at 5:27 AM To: "at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: [At-Large] I: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: ALAC Liaisons Dear all, I am not sure whether non-voting members like myself can nominate members to these positions – I have browsed the web site but have been unable to find the answer to this question. If I can, please accept my nomination for Jean-Jacques Subrenat. I have witnessed his diplomatic ability (he is a former Ambassador), his command of foreign languages (even Mandarin Chinese) and his strong multicultural attitude in particular while we were working together on the ICANN Board. I am sure that these qualities and experiences are of the upmost importance for the ALAC Liaison to a body like the GAC. If, on the other hand, I cannot nominate candidates, please disregard this email. Cheers, Roberto Da: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di ICANN At-Large Staff Inviato: venerdì 23 settembre 2016 22:23 A: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: ALAC Liaisons Priorità: Alta Dear All, The ALAC Appointee Selection Committee[community.icann.org] recommended for a full call for nominations for ALAC Liaisons for the 2016-2017 term. Thus, this is a call for nominations for the following ALAC Liaisons. The current Liaison is shown in brackets. - GNSO (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) - ccNSO (Maureen Hilyard) - SSAC (Julie Hammer) - GAC (Yrjö Länsipuro) -.MOBI (Murray McKercher) The one year terms will start at the close of ICANN 57 and end at the close of ICANN 60. The schedule for this call for Liaisons is: Call issued Friday, 23 September Call closes: Monday, 3 October at 23:59 UTC Acceptances due: Friday, 7 October at 23:59 UTC ALAC Appointee Selection Committee Teleconference: week of 10 October ALAC Vote (if multiple candidates from Selection Committee): As soon as practical after Selection Committee announces recommendations Please review the General Liaison requirements and responsibilities located in the revised RoP[tinyurl.com] Section 7. Of particular importance, please note the following: - (As per RoP 7.3) Liaisons to AC/SOs need not be ALAC Members, but they will normally be current or past ALAC Members, or otherwise familiar with the ALAC and At-Large and the TG to whom they will liaise. - (As per RoP 7.8) When representing the ALAC, Appointees have an obligation to solicit ALAC and At-Large views on the matter where practical and possible. Appointees should be selected knowing that in many instances such consultation may not be possible or practical and thus the ALAC needs to select people who understand the philosophies or guiding values and principles of the ALAC and At-Large. - Liaisons should be selected based on their familiarity with the group to which they are appointed. Having worked extensively with them before in some capacity (such as on multiple WGs) is a strong asset. - A level of trust between a Liaison and the group to which they are appointed is mandatory for success and must already exist or it should be demonstrable how or why it may exist in the future. - Liaisons to AC/SOs require a MAJOR time commitment over and above other At-Large responsibilities. - For the SSAC Liaison position, the ALAC only makes a recommendation. The Liaison is a full SSAC Member and must satisfy SSAC criteria and follow SSAC processes for admission to the AC. - For the GAC Liaison position, the potential candidate must be approved by GAC Leadership. - For .MOBI, the prime issue not as much mutual respect and trust, but ensuring that the Liaison understands the business of .MOBI and is well versed in mobile technologies. Liaison reports may be seen here[community.icann.org]. Liaisons are asked to provide monthly reports which summarize activities in the organization to which they are the Liaison. Process for Nomination and Selection: Nominations should be sent to the ALAC list the cc’ing Alan Greenberg and At-Large staff by Friday, 03 October at 23:59 UTC. For nominations made by people without access to the ALAC list, Staff will post to the ALAC list. All Nominees, in their acceptance or self-nomination, must provide an Expression of Interest including sufficient information about their background and experience to allow the ALAC Appointment Selection Committee to review the nominations and decide on whether to forward their candidacy to the ALAC. The Selection Committee may choose to forward one or more candidates to the ALAC for each position. The Selection Committee or its Chair may choose to ask follow-up questions, but it is not obliged to, so submissions should be as complete as possible. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org Website: atlarge.icann.org[atlarge.icann.org] Facebook: facebook.com/icann[facebook.com]atlarge[facebook.com] Twitter: @[twitter.com]ICANNAtLarge[twitter.com]

6 7

I: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: ALAC Liaisons
by Roberto Gaetano Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Dear all, I am not sure whether non-voting members like myself can nominate members to these positions – I have browsed the web site but have been unable to find the answer to this question. If I can, please accept my nomination for Jean-Jacques Subrenat. I have witnessed his diplomatic ability (he is a former Ambassador), his command of foreign languages (even Mandarin Chinese) and his strong multicultural attitude in particular while we were working together on the ICANN Board. I am sure that these qualities and experiences are of the upmost importance for the ALAC Liaison to a body like the GAC. If, on the other hand, I cannot nominate candidates, please disregard this email. Cheers, Roberto Da: alac-announce-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-announce-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di ICANN At-Large Staff Inviato: venerdì 23 settembre 2016 22:23 A: alac-announce(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: [ALAC-Announce] CALL FOR NOMINATIONS: ALAC Liaisons Priorità: Alta Dear All, The ALAC Appointee Selection Committee<https://community.icann.org/x/VwebAw> recommended for a full call for nominations for ALAC Liaisons for the 2016-2017 term. Thus, this is a call for nominations for the following ALAC Liaisons. The current Liaison is shown in brackets. - GNSO (Olivier Crepin-Leblond) - ccNSO (Maureen Hilyard) - SSAC (Julie Hammer) - GAC (Yrjö Länsipuro) -.MOBI (Murray McKercher) The one year terms will start at the close of ICANN 57 and end at the close of ICANN 60. The schedule for this call for Liaisons is: Call issued Friday, 23 September Call closes: Monday, 3 October at 23:59 UTC Acceptances due: Friday, 7 October at 23:59 UTC ALAC Appointee Selection Committee Teleconference: week of 10 October ALAC Vote (if multiple candidates from Selection Committee): As soon as practical after Selection Committee announces recommendations Please review the General Liaison requirements and responsibilities located in the revised RoP<http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-RoP-2016-09> Section 7. Of particular importance, please note the following: - (As per RoP 7.3) Liaisons to AC/SOs need not be ALAC Members, but they will normally be current or past ALAC Members, or otherwise familiar with the ALAC and At-Large and the TG to whom they will liaise. - (As per RoP 7.8) When representing the ALAC, Appointees have an obligation to solicit ALAC and At-Large views on the matter where practical and possible. Appointees should be selected knowing that in many instances such consultation may not be possible or practical and thus the ALAC needs to select people who understand the philosophies or guiding values and principles of the ALAC and At-Large. - Liaisons should be selected based on their familiarity with the group to which they are appointed. Having worked extensively with them before in some capacity (such as on multiple WGs) is a strong asset. - A level of trust between a Liaison and the group to which they are appointed is mandatory for success and must already exist or it should be demonstrable how or why it may exist in the future. - Liaisons to AC/SOs require a MAJOR time commitment over and above other At-Large responsibilities. - For the SSAC Liaison position, the ALAC only makes a recommendation. The Liaison is a full SSAC Member and must satisfy SSAC criteria and follow SSAC processes for admission to the AC. - For the GAC Liaison position, the potential candidate must be approved by GAC Leadership. - For .MOBI, the prime issue not as much mutual respect and trust, but ensuring that the Liaison understands the business of .MOBI and is well versed in mobile technologies. Liaison reports may be seen here<https://community.icann.org/x/-pQi>. Liaisons are asked to provide monthly reports which summarize activities in the organization to which they are the Liaison. Process for Nomination and Selection: Nominations should be sent to the ALAC list<mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> the cc’ing Alan Greenberg<mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> and At-Large staff<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> by Friday, 03 October at 23:59 UTC. For nominations made by people without access to the ALAC list, Staff will post to the ALAC list. All Nominees, in their acceptance or self-nomination, must provide an Expression of Interest including sufficient information about their background and experience to allow the ALAC Appointment Selection Committee to review the nominations and decide on whether to forward their candidacy to the ALAC. The Selection Committee may choose to forward one or more candidates to the ALAC for each position. The Selection Committee or its Chair may choose to ask follow-up questions, but it is not obliged to, so submissions should be as complete as possible. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by narten＠us.ibm.com Sept. 30, 2016

Sept. 30, 2016

Total of 2 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Sep 30 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 1 | 66.88% | 21044 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 50.00% | 1 | 33.12% | 10423 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 2 |100.00% | 31467 | Total

1 0

New Public Comment: Latin American and Caribbean DNS Marketplace Study
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 23, 2016

Sept. 23, 2016

Dear All, This is to let you know that the Public Comment on the ‘Latin American and Caribbean DNS Marketplace Study’ has now gone live: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/lac-dns-marketplace-2016-09-22-en. Public comment will end on 01 November 2016 23:59 UTC. During this period, anyone can submit comment via comments-lac-dns-marketplace-22sep16(a)icann.org<mailto:comments-lac-dns-marketplace-22sep16@icann.org>. As an advisory committee of ICANN, the ALAC submits Statements on Public Comment and advises on policy matters related to the interest of Internet users worldwide. Not just limited to the 15 ALAC members, members from the wider At-Large community are welcome to draft a Statement on behalf of the ALAC. If you are interested in drafting an ALAC Statement on this Public Comment, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. At-Large Staff will follow up and help you understand the procedure. Additionally, the wiki workspace for developing a potential ALAC Statement is here: https://community.icann.org/x/0wy4Aw. All pertinent resources for this public comment can also be found there. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by narten＠us.ibm.com Sept. 23, 2016

Sept. 23, 2016

Total of 13 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Sep 23 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 7.69% | 1 | 44.95% | 173812 | wjt at uow.edu.au 15.38% | 2 | 11.97% | 46305 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 7.69% | 1 | 7.01% | 27126 | cveraq at gmail.com 7.69% | 1 | 6.89% | 26630 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 7.69% | 1 | 6.78% | 26231 | apisan at unam.mx 7.69% | 1 | 5.59% | 21618 | isaac at isaacmaposa.com 7.69% | 1 | 3.79% | 14665 | karl at cavebear.com 7.69% | 1 | 3.56% | 13752 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 7.69% | 1 | 2.85% | 11025 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.69% | 1 | 2.28% | 8834 | bzs at theworld.com 7.69% | 1 | 2.26% | 8723 | ocl at gih.com 7.69% | 1 | 2.07% | 7989 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 13 |100.00% | 386710 | Total

1 0

Please Share: At-Large Community Policy Issues - Why End Users Should Care
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 20, 2016

Sept. 20, 2016

Dear All, The At-Large Community Policy Issues – Why End Users Should Care<https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/9895> document has been finalized by incorporating input from the Community. It has also been translated into 6 UN languages and Portuguese. This document aims to provide an overview of key policy issues that the At-Large Community has been working on within ICANN, with a focus on why each issue is relevant or of concern to end users. You may download the finalized document and its translations here: https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/9895. We hope this document would be useful for outreach and capacity building purposes, and would help others understand what At-Large does. Please feel free to share and distribute it among your friends and colleagues. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

2 1

Re: [At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN
by Garth Graham Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

This is a footnote to this thread, particularly with respect to the discussion of consumer vs end-user. In the following article, James Losey and Sacha Meinrath describe the role of the “Digital Craftsperson.” They then use the idea of the Digital Craftsperson as a lens to analyze threats to the Internet’s continued existence as an open system: James Losey and Sacha Meinrath. IN DEFENSE OF THE DIGITAL CRAFTSPERSON. Journal of Peer Production. http://peerproduction.net/issues/issue-9-alternative-internets/peer-reviewe… It occurs to me that, although the phrase is awkward, it points to a particular type of end-user that might better be the objective of ALAC attention. In community networking, we call such people the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development. In fact, supporting just such people is the primary mission of many ALSs. It certainly is for Telecommunities Canada. Might a narrowing of the idea of the end-user down to those who play an active role in the evolution of end use towards social ends help with framing ALAC’s real role? GG

14 21

ICANN News Alert -- Proposal for Georgian Script Root Zone‬ Label Generation Rules (LGR)‬‬
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

Hello All, Please be so kind to note the following public comment on the Proposal for Georgian Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR). If you have the language and/or technical expertise, please feel free to submit comments in your individual capacity. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> [CANN]<http://www.icann.org/> News Alert https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2016-09-15-en ________________________________ Proposal for Georgian Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules (LGR) 15 September 2016 Open Date: 15 September 2016 Close Date: 28 October 2016 Originating Organization: Global Domains Division Categories/Tags: * Top-Level Domains Brief Overview: The Georgian script community has formed the Georgian script Generation Panel (GP), which in turn has developed a Proposal for the Georgian Script Root Zone Label Generation Rules (Proposal<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal-georgian-lgr-15sep16-e…> and Proposal Documentation<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/proposal-georgian-lgr-15sep16-e…>). As per the LGR Procedure<https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/lgr-procedure-20mar13-en.pdf>, this proposal is being posted for public comments to allow those who have not participated in the Georgian script GP to make their views known to the GP. Based on the feedback, the Georgian script GP will finalize the proposal for submission for integration into the Label Generation Rules for the Root Zone. Link: https://www.icann.org/public-comments/georgian-lgr-2016-09-15-en

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by narten＠us.ibm.com Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

Total of 50 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Sep 16 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 14.00% | 7 | 12.67% | 104926 | ocl at gih.com 10.00% | 5 | 11.48% | 95044 | evan at telly.org 6.00% | 3 | 12.17% | 100836 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 10.00% | 5 | 5.12% | 42427 | bzs at theworld.com 6.00% | 3 | 7.72% | 63917 | asoto at ibero-americano.org 6.00% | 3 | 6.98% | 57807 | joly at punkcast.com 4.00% | 2 | 5.59% | 46320 | seun.ojedeji at gmail.com 6.00% | 3 | 3.04% | 25209 | johnl at iecc.com 4.00% | 2 | 4.92% | 40722 | isolatedn at gmail.com 4.00% | 2 | 4.48% | 37089 | apisan at unam.mx 4.00% | 2 | 4.38% | 36315 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 4.00% | 2 | 3.10% | 25658 | garth.graham at telus.net 2.00% | 1 | 3.69% | 30599 | vanda at scartezini.org 2.00% | 1 | 2.62% | 21723 | aidanoblia at gmail.com 2.00% | 1 | 2.54% | 21060 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 2.00% | 1 | 1.91% | 15858 | karl at cavebear.com 2.00% | 1 | 1.36% | 11284 | admin at isoc-ny.org 2.00% | 1 | 1.30% | 10741 | narten at us.ibm.com 2.00% | 1 | 1.20% | 9919 | w.yu at gmx.net 2.00% | 1 | 1.12% | 9244 | cdel at firsthand.net 2.00% | 1 | 0.90% | 7454 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 2.00% | 1 | 0.88% | 7257 | jjs at dyalog.net 2.00% | 1 | 0.83% | 6839 | julf at julf.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 50 |100.00% | 828248 | Total

1 0

On techies versus politicians
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 16, 2016

Sept. 16, 2016

>From a Facebook post by Andrea Glorioso (unedited): *The problem with engineer-like folks trying to do politics is that most of them don't understand that emotions are often more powerful than facts, and that they are simply not as relevant for the the person they are debating with, or as powerful in the grand scheme of things, as they think.If I had a dime for every "techie" who won the battle of showing he knew more than his counterpart, just to lose the war of actually getting the long-term result s/he wanted, I'd be reasonably well-off (some techies do understand politics - some.)* -- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

7 8

Re: [At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN
by Garth Graham Sept. 15, 2016

Sept. 15, 2016

Just add that ALAC recognizes the support relationship among stewards and itself is reciprocal and interdependent, and you've got it. GG > On Sep 14, 2016, at 4:14 PM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > Thanks for your piece, Garth. > > IMO the term end-user still needs to refer to the billions who are impacted by DNS policy even if they never contemplate buying a domain. > > But it is your accurately-defined concept of "stewards" that need to be the interface between those billions and the multi-stakeholder model. Without using that terminology, the At-Large leadership -- backed up by the RALOs -- has been trying to serve exactly this purpose. > > I have taken the conversations in this thread to heart and will be trying to put thoughts down in a coherent form. The conclusions I draw myself from this suggest that At-Large needs a massive re-think of how it treats outreach. Rather than brochures and CROPP and Fellows and endless (mostly futile) campaigns to get more outsiders to get involved, I think the stewards need to do more to directly address the needs of the billions. If we are doing our jobs at that -- trying to affect policy while facing inside ICANN, while creating plain-language education programs to explain those policies while facing outside -- the stewards will find us without much effort. > > - Evan > > > >> On 14 September 2016 at 22:24, Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:47 PM, Garth Graham <garth.graham(a)telus.net> wrote: >>> In community networking, we call such people the stewards of the uses of ICTs for community development. In fact, supporting just such people is the primary mission of many ALSs >> >> Well said! That has been my mission for ages. >> >> -Carlton >> >> >> >> ============================== >> Carlton A Samuels >> Mobile: 876-818-1799 >> Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >> ============================= >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch > Geneva, CH > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56

1 0

ISOC-NY joins coalition of groups supporting the completion of the IANA Transition - hearing is Weds
by Joly MacFie Sept. 14, 2016

Sept. 14, 2016

As promised, more on IANA. We live in interesting times! tl;dr. Hearing is 10am Weds, here <http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/protecting-internet-freedom-implic…> . joly posted: "The Internet Society's New York Chapter (ISOC-NY) has joined a coalition of groups supporting the completion of the IANA Transition. This, along with similar letters from ISOC's Kathy Brown, another coalition, and more, amount to practically unanimous app" [image: iana]The *Internet Society's New York Chapter <http://isoc-ny.org>* (ISOC-NY) has joined *a coalition of groups supporting the completion of the IANA Transition <https://cdt.org/insight/coalition-statement-in-support-of-completing-the-ia…>*. This, along with similar letters from ISOC's *Kathy Brown <http://www.internetsociety.org/doc/support-timely-transition-iana-stewardsh…>*, *another coalition <http://www.circleid.com/pdf/IANA-Letter.pdf>*, and *more <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/iana-stewardship-support-statem…>, *amount to practically unanimous approval of the transfer plan from the Internet community. This outpouring is the result of some possible bumps in the road. *Some background:* After 18 years of steady progress since the formation of ICANN, and two years of intense negotiation within the multistakeholder community to come up with a plan, on Aug 12 2016 the NTIA *declared <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/files/ntia/publications/20160816marby.pdf>* that it intends to let the* IANA Functions Contract <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Assigned_Numbers_Authority#Oversight>* expire on *Sep 30 2016*, "barring any significant impediment". However, a significant impediment may indeed possibly arise in the form of congressional opposition. On the Senate side this is led by former presidential candidate *Ted Cruz* who, speaking on Sep 8 2016, vociferously *spoke against it <https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4619876/cruz-iana-9816>*. (transcript <http://www.internetnews.me/2016/09/12/cruz-speech-senate-8-september-2016/> ) Cruz made several spurious claims - pretty much the opposite of reality - about the implications of the transfer, for instance, about the power of governments to control global content via ICANN, or that ICANN would leave U.S. jurisdiction. This prompted ICANN to issue a refuting *FAQ <https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions>*. Also on September 8, *a bill* <https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-resolution/853/text> opposing the transfer was introduced in the House, and several other prominent pols sent *a letter <https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/9b6b37a9-e5a4-4695-931e…>* to the DoC & DoJ raising anti-trust, jurisdiction, and accountability concerns. Cruz's solution was to call for "continuing and strengthening" financial constraints imposed on the NTIA in 2015 via a *continuing resolution <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_resolution>*, in effect de-funding the transfer in the imminent Appropriations Bill. If such were to happen, the only way the transition would go through would be via an Obama veto, and a resulting government shutdown. Something that did happen in the battle over Obamacare in 2013, but *not seen <http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/295261-cruz-to-inject-internet-fight-int…>* as a likely prospect in 2016, despite it precipitating a Republican pratfall last time round. However, transcendentally, whether such financial constraints do even in fact prevent the transfer taking place appear negated by a *GAO report issued on Monday <http://www.gao.gov/assets/680/679691.pdf>*! The NTIA's *Larry Strickling* immediately *responded <http://www.ntia.doc.gov/press-release/2016/statement-assistant-secretary-st…>* “We thank the GAO for its thorough analysis of the property implications of the IANA transition. We are pleased that GAO concluded that the transition does not involve a transfer of U.S. government property requiring Congressional approval.” The *Senate Judiciary Committee* will hold a hearing - chaired by Cruz - *Protecting Internet Freedom: Implications of Ending U.S. Oversight of the Internet <http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/meetings/protecting-internet-freedom-implic…>* at *10am EDT Wednesday September 14 2016*. There should be a webcast available on that link, and also audio via *CapitolHearings.org <http://www.capitolhearings.org/Hearing/SSJU00201609141000/dirksen226.aspx>* . Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8637#respond> See all comments <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8637#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8637 Joly MacFie President - Internet Society New York Chapter (ISOC-NY) http://isoc-ny.org 218 565 9365 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 1

Take the At-Large Review Survey!
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

Dear All, Help make At-Large a more efficient and effective part of the ICANN community – all are invited to take part in the At-Large Review survey: http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/ The At-Large Review is conducted by the Paris-based consultancy firm, ITEMS<http://www.items.fr/> who acts as the independent examiner. Taking (no more than) 30min to participate in the review via the online survey<http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/> will be an invaluable contribution to the success of this important review process. Whether you are the representative of an At-Large structure (ALS), a regular participant in ICANN meetings, an ICANN insider or a newcomer to the world of Internet governance, your opinion interests us! ITEMS will share the preliminary evaluation and findings of the survey during the ICANN57 Hyderabad Meeting. We urge you to fill in the survey<http://items.fr/atlargesurvey/> at your earliest convenience, make your voice heard! This is your opportunity to share your views on what’s working, what’s not working so well, and improvements that could be made. IMPORTANT: If you have an interruption and cannot complete the form make sure you go to the last page and submit the form first. Your answers will then be saved and you can return at a later stage, using the same device, and complete the survey, clicking ‘submit’ once more. Le sondage sera disponible en français en fin de semaine. Vous recevrez davantage d’information lorsque celui-ci sera en ligne. La encuesta se encontrará posteriormente disponible esta semana en español. Mayor información será notificada tan pronto sea posible. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

WEBCAST WED/THU – DNS Forum in Washington DC
by Joly MacFie Sept. 13, 2016

Sept. 13, 2016

I trust everyone has had a good and peaceful summer! Now it's back to the action! Tomorrow Wednesday is a big day! Not only is the Senate having its hearing on IANA (I'll cover that in a separate mail) but, also in Washington DC, top DNS industry players from the Europe, North America ,and Latin America will be coming together to hash out some hard topics. When both are on late morning it will be like football Sunday for DNS freaks! But, these issues affect us all so we should pay attention. One has to admire the way the DNS Forum postpones its final session til the following day, just so that everyone will be fresh. [image: Livestream] <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dnsforum/>On *Wednesday/Thursday September 14-15 2016*, *Public Interest Registry <https://pir.org/>*, *CENTR <https://www.centr.org/>*, *LACTLD <https://www.lactld.org/en/>*,* i2Coalition <https://www.i2coalition.com/>*, and *ISOC-DC <http://isoc-dc.org>* will present a *DNS Forum <https://pir.org/events/dns-forum/>* in Washington DC. The event brings together a diverse group of experts to discuss the impacts of policy on DNS (domain name system) technical operators. Panelists and audience members will discuss the implications of privacy, security, and content policies for these technical operators and how the technical community can best engage in the evolving multistakeholder model of Internet governance. The entire event will be webcast live via the *Internet Society Livestream Channel <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dnsforum>*. * What: DNS Forum <https://pir.org/events/dns-forum/> Where: Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington DC When: Wednesday Sep 14 - 9AM-4PM | Thursday Sep 15, 9AM–11:30AM (EDT=UTC-4) Agenda: https://www.isoc-dc.org/next-event-the-dns-forum/ <https://www.isoc-dc.org/next-event-the-dns-forum/> Webcast: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dnsforum <https://livestream.com/internetsociety/dnsforum> Twitter: https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNSForum <https://twitter.com/hashtag/DNSForum>* Comment <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8633#respond> See all comments <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8633#comments> *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8633 <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8633> - <http://isoc-ny.org/p2/8633> -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- -

1 0

Fwd: DNS Forum in Washington, DC
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 11, 2016

Sept. 11, 2016

ALS ISOC Washington DC chapter is involved. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: DNS Forum in Washington, DC Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 15:50:29 +0000 From: Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org> To: Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org> In case you haven’t seen the announcements, Public Interest Registry, CENTR, LACTLD, ISOC-DC and the i2Coalition are co-sponsoring a DNS Forum next Wednesday and Thursday (14-15 September) at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, DC. The agenda is posted at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/dns-forum-tickets-27212533420 <https://www.eventbrite.com/e/dns-forum-tickets-27212533420>. Although we reached our maximum in-person registration threshold last week, we will webcast the sessions at https://internetpolicyforum.com/. Q&A from the audience, including online participants, will be central to the panels. Please feel free to share this with your constituency colleagues. Best, P *Paul A. Diaz* Vice President of Policy, Public Interest Registry Office: +1 703.889.5756 | Mobile:+1 703.973.1667 | Skype: pdiaz(a)pir.org www.pir.org <http://www.pir.org/> | Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/PIRegistry> | Twitter <http://twitter.com/PIRegistry> | Instagram <http://instagram.com/PIRegistry> | YouTube <http://www.youtube.com/PIRegistry> * * *Confidentiality Note:* Proprietary and confidential to Public Interest Registry. If received in error, please inform sender and then delete.

3 3

ICANN's response to IANA Transition negative propaganda
by Alan Greenberg Sept. 11, 2016

Sept. 11, 2016

ICANN has finally attempted a response to the negative transition propaganda: https://www.icann.org/iana-stewardship-questions, linked from a rather bland banner on the ICANN home page. Alan

7 8

Fwd: [IANA-issues] Fwd: TRANSITION - FOR US CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NCSG (Typo corrected version, with apology)
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

FYI -- this issue is of importance. The ICANN community has worked for a long time on this transition. The ALAC has ratified the plans for transition. Now it's time for the US Congress to pass it through, but Acts have been proposed at US Senate and Congress to block it. This message is for US citizens who are part of At-Large to let their representative know they oppose the Acts to block the transition. Of course, in your initiative, identify yourself as a member of the At-Large Community, the end users at ICANN. Kindest regards, Olivier -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: [IANA-issues] Fwd: TRANSITION - FOR US CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NCSG (Typo corrected version, with apology) Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2016 06:37:53 +0100 From: Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji(a)gmail.com> To: iana-issues(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Saw this on the NCSG list and thought might be relevant info here as well. US citizens here may also want to do the needful. Cheers! Sent from my LG G4 Kindly excuse brevity and typos ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Edward Morris" <egmorris1(a)toast.net <mailto:egmorris1@toast.net>> Date: 9 Sep 2016 2:15 a.m. Subject: TRANSITION - FOR US CITIZEN REPRESENTATIVES OF THE NCSG (Typo corrected version, with apology) To: <NCSG-DISCUSS(a)listserv.syr.edu <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS@listserv.syr.edu>> Cc: Hello everybody, Next week is a crucial time in the life of the transition. The administration needs to notify Congress by September 15th of it's intention to proceed. Although a high priority issue for a few Congressmen in the so called House Freedom Caucus, the transition is something that has really flown under the radar for most Senators and Representatives. I'd like to tell everyone in the NCSG that the United States Congress cares about what you think. It does not. Individual Congresspersons, though, do care what their constituents think - that's where we need your help. American members of the NCSG, both institutions and individuals, it's time to let your elected representatives know what you think of the transition. The best way to do this is to call Washington and tell your Senator, Representative or their staff person what you want them to do regarding the elimination of US government stewardship of the internet through the IANA contract. Please today please call your Senator or Representative, or preferably both, today and tell them that: 1. You, or your organisation, are active members of the ICANN community representing noncommercial users, 2. You support the transition of the internet from the US government to the multi-stakeholder community (if you do), 3. (For Senators) You oppose S3034, the mis-named Protecting Internet Freedom Act, or 4. (For Representatives) You oppose HR 5329, the Securing America's Internet Domains Act of 2016, You can reach your Senator or Representative through the Capitol switchboard at 202-224-3121. If you do not know your representative you can obtain his or her identity here: http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/ <http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/> Expat Americans should contact the Senator and Representative of the district where you currently cast your remote ballot in elections (or where you last resided, if you do not currently vote in the United States). In addition, please call the Secretary of the Department of Congress Penny Pritzker at 202-482-2112 and: 1. Identify yourself, your affiliation and that you are an active member of the ICANN community representing noncommercial users and that 2. you support the transition (if you do) and expect the Department of Commerce to proceed as scheduled at the end of this month and not extend the current IANA contract or propose a new one. The time to talk is over: Americans. If you want he transition to occur the time to act is *today. Not Monday, today. *The way to act is by calling, not writing. The impact is much greater. Thank you for your consideration. Best, Ed Morris

6 8

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by narten＠us.ibm.com Sept. 9, 2016

Sept. 9, 2016

Total of 20 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Sep 9 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 20.00% | 4 | 23.60% | 87124 | evan at telly.org 10.00% | 2 | 12.51% | 46164 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 10.00% | 2 | 12.32% | 45486 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 10.00% | 2 | 7.30% | 26929 | garth.graham at telus.net 5.00% | 1 | 10.33% | 38127 | dharma.dailey at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 6.18% | 22811 | aidanoblia at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 5.10% | 18828 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 5.00% | 1 | 4.97% | 18346 | vanda at scartezini.org 5.00% | 1 | 4.19% | 15454 | cveraq at gmail.com 5.00% | 1 | 3.54% | 13079 | apisan at unam.mx 5.00% | 1 | 2.72% | 10037 | narten at us.ibm.com 5.00% | 1 | 2.48% | 9153 | johnl at iecc.com 5.00% | 1 | 2.39% | 8829 | karl at cavebear.com 5.00% | 1 | 2.38% | 8769 | bzs at theworld.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 20 |100.00% | 369136 | Total

3 2

On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 6, 2016

Sept. 6, 2016

Hi all. On yesterday's briefing on the topic of ALAC's setting a "consumer" agenda I made a number of points which I felt were either not well received or well-understood. Having the opportunity to reflect I would like to try to express them here in a way I hope may be better accepted. - The issue of whether to call this a "consumer" effort or not appears contentious. My own view is that the term "consumer" is already used within ICANN and has a meaning understood as registrants and end-users. As At-Large has a bylaw mandate to address the interests of end-users, I personally believe that we will have our hands full just advancing end-users; there are other constituencies within ICANN expressly to represent the interests of registrants. - We are significantly constrained in what we can do in the area of compliance because there are so little end-user relevant facets upon which ICANN can act. The RAA limits what ICANN can enforce, and we already know that the main end-user-relevant component of the RAA -- Public Interest Commitments -- are weak and in many cases optional. There is some useful work to be done here -- notably in WHOIS accuracy -- but it is a fraction of all the possible end-user complaints end-users may have. - In the absence of broadly useful enforcement, we have the role of education; and it is here where the most can be done and most needs to be done. My main point is that ICANN's voluminous communications are focused on readers who are at least moderately sophisticated in the technical, economic and/or political components of the organization. ICANN does NOTHING of value for what I would call the unsophisticated audience -- people who don't know that (and why) ICANN has nothing to do with two-letter top-level domains. In the absence of such general-public-facing information, ICANN leaves itself unable to counter untruths and conspiracy theories that may be fact-free but are presented in a way anyone can understand, As an example of the level I am talking about, there is no dead-simple, fourth-grade language that explains - That ICANN does not control "the Internet", just its directory - That ICANN can't do ANYTHING help people with problems with two-letter TLDs (and won't easily help people figure that out) - What action to take -- and the limits of what ICANN can do -- if you are getting abuse from a domain - Who runs ICANN (hint: it's not the United Natiions) To write simply or do infographics about ICANN -- and I almost mean children's book levels, in a dozen or more languages -- takes a specific skill, one which volunteers should not be called upon to provide. If there is to be an advancement of a "consumer agenda" it must begin with an informed public. So far ICANN has spent all its communications resources speaking to those interested (and skilled) enough to want to buy, sell or regulate domains. But it has done little to inform the BILLIONS who likely will never in their lives have or need a domain of their own. In the absence of such straightforward information, demagogues and agenda-based media are able to create their own narratives without credible rebuttal. And the growth of such narratives -- without accessible answers -- is hurtful to our advocacy efforts and generally to the organization a s a whole. Cheers, -- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56

6 7

Re: [At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN
by Garth Graham Sept. 5, 2016

Sept. 5, 2016

> On Sep 2, 2016, at 5:05 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl(a)cavebear.com> wrote: > >> On 09/02/2016 11:12 AM, Garth Graham wrote: >> >> "Accountability is the responsibility to answer for how you got done what you committed to do." > > I sense you mean something a bit stronger than your words suggest. > > For instance, I read your formulation as allowing a decision maker to simply say "Yes, I did it". Yes, I slighted the description of the mechanisms for producing an impact or equity statement in the interests of not running on too long. The more open and reciprocal the process of analysis the better. But, in situations where the governing mind of the organization is revealed to be disguising its intentions, there is nothing stopping those most strongly impacted by the intended action from proposing their own. The answering, of course, is about measuring who actually benefitted and who actually paid against the scale of what was intended as the outcome, not merely that action occurred. It's a different lens for seeing the play of the political process of deciding. Often, decision makers actually do not want to be fully informed of the consequences of their actions in advance. In ICANN's case, the stand in for representing the benefits and/or costs to the individual Internet user of a decision would usually but not always be ALAC. > In other words I think something more than being required to give an "answer" is sufficient for true accountability. > > At a minimum "accountability" ought to mean that those to whom the duty of accountability is owed have the power and ability to "throw the bums out" (i.e. to replace the decision makers who failed to do their duty). > > It also means the power to force the undertaking of remedial actions such as reversing the ill decision and repairing any damage caused. I see that action on a failure to answer (to account) for the consequences of an action taken, falls outside the scope of accountability. What the equity statement would do is anticipate a bit more deeply the consequences of deciding and acting before the fact. It either modifies the equity of an intended action or highlights the fact that the beneficiaries of the intended action are quite a bit more narrow than the decision makers had revealed. Then when the answering does occur, it allows the statement of who would benefit and who would pay to stand as a scale of measurement of the truth of the answer. I'm nowhere near being a lawyer. I'll leave to those who are the legal framework that governs what happens when the governing mind of an organization is seen by the answering process to have failed in reaching its intentions or in meeting its responsibilities. But I feel the degree to which ICANN communities have focussed on punishment in analyzing the accountability parts of the transition to be a misdirection in addressing answering processes and kind of pathologically weird. > > In normal corporate structures (and ICANN *is* a corporation, or, now, two) that is done through periodic elections of the board of directors (with those to whom the duty of accountability having the power to vote), by derivative actions (of which ICANN's law firm has a terrible fear), and by normal actions against the corporation, its directors, and sometimes its officers for violations of fiduciary and other duties. > > There are other forms of accountability. For example, directors of IRS 501(c)(3) corporations (which includes ICANN) are subject to "intermediate sanctions" if there is an interaction between the corporation and a closely related party in which an undue benefit is conferred. Yes, those are somewhat vague terms, but there is nothing vague in the means in which that accountability is imposed: through a 200% excise tax (yes, a tax - which is often not covered by corporate insurance) directly imposed on the personal assets of the directors as well as on the corporation itself. > > --karl-- > > >

6 6

Fraudulent notice
by Roberto Gaetano Sept. 5, 2016

Sept. 5, 2016

Alert - just in case I am not the only one to be targeted. I am receiving fraudulent notices of domain names expiration from "Domain Service info(a)avuk.net<mailto:info@avuk.net>". They point to a web site in the domain http://onbetternet.com/ for a fraudulent payment. Cheers, Roberto

1 0

Re: [At-Large] On a "consumer" agenda for ICANN
by Garth Graham Sept. 3, 2016

Sept. 3, 2016

On Sep 2, 2016, at 2:27 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > On yesterday's briefing on the topic of ALAC's setting a "consumer" agenda I made a number of points which I felt were either not well received or well-understood. Having the opportunity to reflect I would like to try to express them here in a way I hope may be better accepted. While I do agree that Evan is raising an important issue, I don’t agree that it’s THE issue raised in Garth Breun’s draft on creating a consumer (i.e. user) agenda. He begins by noting that the Corporation shall operate for the benefit of the Internet community as a whole and therefore needs to describe how a particular policy change or project would affect the Internet user in advance of the decision. I felt that the meeting drifted off topic. In yesterday’s chat, I commented that the issue in the draft is accountability, not communication. I still feel that ICANN’s accountability can be used effectively as a link to ICANN’s acceptability to the ordinary Internet user. Yesterday wasn’t the first time I’ve raised this possibility. When ICANN first initiated a discussion on enhancing its own accountability in the absence of its historical contractual relationship to the U.S. Government, I contributed the following comment: “ICANN’s open processes of policy development and decision-making provide a basis for an important dimension of accountability that’s not usually recognized – ACCOUNTABILITY BEFORE THE FACT.“ Not unexpectedly, my comment evoked … nothing at all. Conventionally, being accountable is assumed to be about answering for actions after the fact. But the public comment processes that ICANN already follows allow its internal communities” to explore future organizational intentions and the impact questions of who benefits and who pays to a more intense degree than most organizations. Those conversations can be the basis of a formal explanation of intentions and their expected impact (of a equity statement described as such at the conclusion of policy formulation) before the fact. This provides a scale of measurement of successful achievement of results that emerges from within the issue or situation that provoked the suggested policy change, which can be applied after the fact of its implementation. To the degree that ICANN answers to its own internal communities, such a statement and measurement scale would represent a summary of (rough?] consensus and a standard to judge the consequences of running (i.e. implementing) the code(ification) of policy. It might also simplify the problem of explaining ICANN’s actions to a “global” public. During the ICANN50 meeting in London, June 21-26, 2014, sessions on accountability were being held all across ICANN’s constituencies. I attended several of them, including in particular ATLAS II’s Thematic Group 4: On ICANN Transparency and Accountability. Various people were pondering various parts of the elephant of accountability and describing what they thought it was.  As I listened to these expressions, it seemed to me that the balance of ICANN’s preoccupation with accountability tilts toward an inward focus. Given the reality that ICANN does assist in the coordination of a global resource, I sensed that the consensus about ICANN’s primary enemies being within is probably quite dangerous. At that point in the evolution of ICANN’s  own governance ecosystem, perhaps the need for internal trust was greater than the need for internal verification. Maybe that’s still true. In the ATLAS II Thematic Group 4: On ICANN Transparency and Accountability, the definition I pressed for was: "Accountability is the responsibility to answer for how you got done what you committed to do." I meant that definition to operate in the context of self-organizing complex adaptive systems, where there is no answering to external authority and outcomes cannot be predicted in advance. It’s more of an antiphonal call-and-response, like the Internet when the packet header asks, “Did you get that?” and the receiving server answers, “Yes, I did.” That’s a difficult context to convey in a roomful of strangers seeking consensus on a complex issue. In that definition, what you commit to do occurs before the fact. That's what I meant by pointing to accountability before the fact as a methodological component. Statements of impact, or intentions before the fact define the elements or scale of measurement after the fact. By being open and transparent, ICANN has a huge advantage in being accountable over organizations and institutions that are opaque. Its commitments are very readily visible now, and can be made more visible for the purpose of future answering. In that sense, accountability and transparency are rendered self referential, and the scales of measurement emerge organically out the issues and challenges themselves. When Thematic Group 4 concluded its sessions, nobody signaled that the real debate would then continue online among people more expert in ALAC’s processes than I am. There were subsequent objections to that definition related to the felt need for external control and punishment.  People objected that my definition,” doesn’t say what happens if you don’t meet the target. What makes the world comfortable that someone is looking over ICANN’s shoulder?” So, in online discussions in the Group 4 wiki that occurred after the face-to-face sessions and preempted them, the definition got changed to: The responsibility to explain and justify all decisions and actions in light of ICANN’s responsibility to act in the public interest. Clearly the second definition ignored the possibility of accountability before the fact as an operating principle. ICANN knows that to account is to answer. So it is asking itself the “big question.” In a “global” context, who receives ICANNs answers? But a moment’s reflection on the nature of the Internet Governance ecosystem as a complex adaptive system tells us there is not, and must not be, anyone or anything that “represents” the global context. To centralize control is to seek to stabilize the system by external means and, in complex adaptive systems, the only stable state is death. That big question about global answering blinds us to the fact that it’s the wrong question. What matters to the distribution of functions in a complex adaptive system is the “willing collaboration between.“ To fix ICANN’s status in concrete terms by reference to an external authority is to kill its capacity to evolve its functional role in the Internet governance ecosystem. In terms of ICANN’s role in the Internet Governance ecosystem, what is going to matter is the quality of the feedback loops that allow both ICANN and the ecosystem to self-correct their fit to the changing environment. I have tried to describe what those feedback loops might mean inside ICANN in several different ways and all of them seem to be at odds with the culture of ICANN. I provoke reactions like, “Too abstract, and too theoretical,” to be of use. Even in the case like the definition of accountability, where I thought I’d got something into the record, arcane practices of online debate stripped it away. Yes, those practices are transparent, but only if you knew they would occur and where they would surface. My thanks to Garth Bruen for, I think, providing me with one more chance to clarify the significance of accountability before the fact in addressing the critical impact question of who benefits and who pays in the context of the ordinary Internet user. GG

2 1

Call for Comments: At-Large Community Policy Issues - Why End Users Should Care
by ICANN At-Large Staff Sept. 2, 2016

Sept. 2, 2016

Dear All, In consultation with the ALAC Leadership Team, Heidi Ullrich, Senior Director for At-Large and Ariel Liang, Policy Analyst supporting At-Large, have developed the draft document entitled At-Large Community Policy Issues - Why End Users Should Care<https://community.icann.org/x/jwusAw>. The document aims to provide an overview of key policy issues that the At-Large Community has been working on within ICANN, with a focus on why each issue is relevant or of concern to end users. The latest version of the document (version 5.0), as well as previous draft versions, can be found in its wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/jwusAw. All At-Large members are welcome to comment on version 5.0. Please take a moment to review this draft and if you have input, please submit it in the wiki workspace using the comment function by 09 September 2016 at 23:59 UTC. You will need to log in to the wiki to use the comment function. If you don’t have a login or have other issue using the wiki, kindly contact staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org>. Heidi Ullrich, Silvia Vivanco, Ariel Liang, Gisella Gruber, Nathalie Peregrine, Terri Agnew and Yeşim Nazlar ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community E-mail: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by narten＠us.ibm.com Sept. 2, 2016

Sept. 2, 2016

Total of 4 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Sep 2 00:53:03 EDT 2016 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 50.00% | 2 | 60.51% | 34522 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 25.00% | 1 | 22.11% | 12615 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 25.00% | 1 | 17.38% | 9914 | narten at us.ibm.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 4 |100.00% | 57051 | Total

1 0