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

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