- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Nomination for Board Liaison - Wolfgang Kleinwächter
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

I nominate Wolfgang Kleinwächter as a candidate for Board Liaison. Prof Kleinwächter has been active in Internet Governance for many years. He was a member of the WSIS Working Group on Internet Governance, has been instrumental in creating the Global Internet Governance Academic Network (GIGANET) and has been involved in ICANN processes for many years (see attached document) He is a member of the EURALO. As Board Liaison, he will: * raise a voice clearly in support for the interests of individual Internet users in open and closed board meetings and * keep a close and regular contact to the members of the ALAC, consult with them on all relevant issues and report back from official and unofficial Board meetings. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/852 - Release Date: 6/17/2007 8:23 AM

7 12

Re: [At-Large] Board liaison - What's the process to be selected ..?
by Roberto Gaetano June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

Sorry, disregard my previous posting, I have read again the rules and the mechanism is very clear. I am also under the impression that the vote should be with secret ballot, but before saying other sillynesses, I wait for the authoritative opinion of staff. Cheers, Roberto > -----Original Message----- > From: Roberto Gaetano [mailto:roberto@icann.org] > Sent: 18 June 2007 18:38 > To: 'Alan Greenberg'; 'Robert Guerra' > Cc: 'At-large Worldwide' > Subject: RE: [At-Large] Board liaison - What's the process to > be selected ..? > > > > > > Given the high-contested election, I do have a preference > for a secret > > ballot to minimize bad feelings, and to ensure that people vote for > > who they believe is the best candidate instead of who they may feel > > they have to visibly support. > > > Just to make sure that everybody has the same understanding, > the result might differ if every member can only vote for one > person, or whether there will be a multiple vote with ranking. > Also, even in the case of one vote, how are the results to be > dealt with? The one who gets more votes? Or are there going > to be rounds, with elimination of the candidate with less votes? > > Having just witnessed the problems in running an EURALO > election where the rules where changed during the vote, may I > strongly recommend to set the rules in advance, even if it > might take some additional time. After all, the new Liaison > only takes office at the end of October. > > Cheers, > Roberto >

1 0

Soccer in Puerto Rico...NO! We will have Volleyball!!!
by José Ovidio Salgueiro A. June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

Erick asked me to forward this information. Lets play volleyball José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro(a)cantv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Erick Iriarte Ahon To: jsalgueiro(a)cantv.net Sent: Monday, June 18, 2007 9:52 AM Subject: Fwd: Soccer in Puerto Rico...NO! We will have Volleyball!!! >Hi People > >We change our sport, from Soccer to Volleyball >in the Beach. The Sport and Recreation Secretary >from the Puerto Rico Government and the NIC >Puerto Rico is organizing the Tournament. > >Date: >June 26, Time > >Place: >Hotel Hilton private beach. > >Rules: >- Each team need a name and a liason. >- 6 players per team in field > >We hope almost 6 teams. > >Ball, arbitrators, medical support and cocktail are confirmed. > >Contact Person: >Erick Iriarte Ahon - eiriarte(a)alfa-redi.org >Pablo Rodriguez - pablo(a)nic.pr > >I hope to see all you in the tournament. > >Erick

1 0

Nominations open for ALAC Board Liaison 2007-2008
by Jacqueline A. Morris June 18, 2007

June 18, 2007

The ALAC is currently accepting nominations for Board Liaison. Timeline: Nominations will be open from today for 2 weeks, until June 18th at midnight GMT. We have 1 week after that for the nominated persons to indicate their acceptance of the nominations (until June 25th) and we will discuss the nominations in San Juan. Voting by the ALAC will be held immediately after the discussions end. The result will be posted to the public ALAC list after the vote closes. The new Board Liaison will take up his/her position at the end of the AGM in Marina Del Rey in October 2007. Nominations are to be made to the public ALAC list - HYPERLINK "mailto:alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org"alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org. The Board Liaison will serve for a term of one year starting from the closure of an Annual General Meeting and ending at the closure of the following Annual General Meeting. Criteria for Board Liaison: · Shall normally be a person who is a current or former member of the ALAC, or is familiar with the activities and functioning of ICANN and of the ALAC; · Shall accept to serve on behalf of the ALAC by acting for the good of the entire Committee, working to bridge differences and build consensus, but also recognizing difference and enabling different opinions to be shared; · Shall accept, while acting in their capacity as ALAC officer, to put the collective views of the Committee always in front of their own. Any questions can be addressed to me or to staff(a)alac.icann.org. Sincerely Jacqueline A. Morris ALAC Chair No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.7/830 - Release Date: 6/3/2007 12:47 PM

5 4

ALS Application processing procedures
by Alan Greenberg June 17, 2007

June 17, 2007

Along with the proposed criteria for ALS certification, Nick has proposed a new procedure for processing applications. The procedures can be found at the bottom of https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?lisbon_documents. The current process has been problematic due at least partly because of delays in accepting or rejecting applications. And at least part of that is due to ALAC committee members not acting in a timely manner. The proposed procedures address this in a number of ways that I find problematic. - The procedures rightfully give the three ALAC members from the region and the Regional Secretariat an opportunity to comment on an application from their region (the wording is confusing in that it includes the ALAC members twice). In the past, the rest of the ALAC has put heavy reliance on the opinon from the region. However, the provision ends with "Silence on an application = approval" This is trying to address the problem of ALAC members (and presumably Secretariats in the future) not responding in a timely manner. I find it problematic that the ALAC members, two of whom are selected by the Region, may give a different opinion than the Secretariat. I find it more problematic that if no one in the region (or their reps) are doing their job, it is deemed that they have approved and an application may be accepted inappropriately. - In the past, there have been examples of a Due Diligence (DD) saying that criteria (albeit vaguely defined ones) are met, even when the application says the opposite. The new procedure relies more on DD, and we need to ensure that the process of evaluation by staff is more bullet-proof than before (at least partly by actually formalizing the criteria!). - The proposal calls for approval of an application UNLESS at least 3/4 of the entire ALAC votes No. Assuming that there are at least 12 members on the ALAC at the time, this means that only 4 Yes votes are required to approve, and silence counts as Yes. Stated another way, for a full ALAC of 15, it will take 12 explicit No votes to reject an ALAC. It is quite common for one or more ALAC members to be unavailable or simply unresponsive for any given vote, and under these rules, they are effectively voting Yes. To me, this sounds like for all practical purposes, it will be virtually impossible to reject an ALS application. That makes the ALAC a rubber stamp. Even if there were a case of a region applying their own set of rules to accept "their friends", and even in the face of DD rejecting an application, it will be almost impossible to stop the approval. I am not sure what the proper process should be, but this does not sound like it to me. Alan

2 2

Reginoal Advice for ACOULL - DRS
by Mohammed EL Bashir June 16, 2007

June 16, 2007

Dear Afri-ALSs I would like to inform you about a new ALS Application from Africa Which needs regional advice . The Applicant Name : Association COngolaise des Utilisateurs de Logiciels Libres Country : Central Africa -- DRC Web Site : http://www.acoull.org ACOULL is a non profit organization which promote and provide information on Free and Open Source Software, ACOULL is linked to ISOC, AAULL and AfrISPA. your Advice and comments is needed . -- Best Regards, Mohamed El Bashir ICANN ALAC Committee Member Personal Web : www.mbash.net ""Life lies not in never falling, but in rising when you fall." Nelson Mandela 1995, Easten Cape.

1 2

Re: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue
by Annette Muehlberg June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Dear Jaqueline, I would have loved to be a bit behind on the emails on this ;-) Unfortunately the recent email sent out by Nick (see attached mail below) does not look like a resolution but an escalation of this issue. I would like to ask you as our chair to help to make sure that all ALAC members can take part at the next ICANN Meeting in San Juan - without making them pay any extra fees. In respect to what several ALAC members went through in trying to get there ticket in time (and therefore there visa!!!) over the last years, the issue we are currently dealing with, should have been a minor issue and easy to solve. Sincerely Annette --- >Betreff: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy >Von: "Jacqueline A. Morris" <jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com> >An: "'Annette Muehlberg'" <annette.muehlberg(a)web.de>, "'Nick Ashton-Hart'" <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: 'At-Large Worldwide' <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Datum: 15.06.07 14:55:50 Uhr >Hi Annette >You are a bit behind on the emails on this - Wendy and Nick have been >communicating on the issue and will probably have a resolution in a short >while. >The per diem has been organised - email went out to all already. >There is discussion with ICANN on the other travel issues - it should all >be sorted soon. >Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Annette Muehlberg [mailto:annette.muehlberg@web.de] Sent: Friday, June 15, 2007 5:24 AM To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: At-Large Worldwide Subject: Re: [At-Large] Travel Policy All, I really do not understand what is going on here. I do not know if someone made a mistake or not and if so, who made a mistake. I do not think that this is relevant. Mistakes occur and we all have to help out to get things done. We should not spend days and days discussing this, instead staff should just book that flight to make sure that all ALAC members can fulfill their duties at the ICANN Meeting in San Juan. Best regards Annette attached mail > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> > Gesendet: 15.06.07 16:11:43 > An: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com> > CC: At-Large Worldwide <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, Doug Brent <doug.brent(a)icann.org> > Betreff: [At-Large] W Seltzer Airfare Ticketing Issue > > Dear Wendy: > > Since you have seen fit to deal with the situation with respect to your travel in the most public way possible, and because you have made serious and unsubstantiated allegations about the role of the staff in manipulating the travel policy to exclude participation, this response is being sent to the public At-Large list. May I take this opportunity to state that I take no pleasure whatever in having to send such communications and I would have preferred that the matter be dealt with in a normal way between those directly concerned instead. > > Since you were informed that you would not receive travel support because you didnt book your tickets in the allotted time, you have:Accused the staff, in public email communications, of deliberately manipulating the travel policy to exclude participation in San Juan. Considering the amount of funding which ICANN provides to the At-Large community to attend ICANN meetings year in and year out - and considering that you personally have been supported for something like five years to attend three meetings a year, this accusation is unhelpful, inflammatory, and untrue.You have chosen to make untrue statements that you had complied with the travel deadlines on several occasions when that was demonstrably not the case. As is clear from the chronology of your contacts with American Express that you have not disputed, you had repeated opportunities to book your travel in the time provided and American Express repeatedly offered to help you you on several occasions told them you were not ready to be ticketed yet.You have suggested that policies about the amount of time for booking your tickets were hidden when you were clearly aware of them. You replied to the email that contained them.Suggesting that the email that contained the travel deadlines from the vendor was somehow hidden when you as well as everyone else were notified by me that you could expect an email from American Express containing details of how and when to arrange your flights within 24 hours (email of 31st May).Suggested that you were somehow not able to use the full period to book your travel when that is demonstrably not true.Suggested that the travel vendor failed to call you or follow up with you on public email lists when in fact you didnt ask them to call you, and when they followed up with you the next day, you did not indicate that they should have called you and in fact told them that you were not yet ready to book your travel. > Your representation of the travel system is inaccurate, the accusations made against members of the ICANN staff are untrue and alleged incompetence in the actions of the travel vendor belied by the detailed record of communication between you and Amex. > > The result of the inaccurate and inflammatory statements you have made, as well as the very public way in which you have chosen to present them, is that a great deal of time and energy has been consumed by several people in and out of ICANN on a matter that should have been a straightforward decision based upon facts. This has resulted in time that could have been spent on providing services to the whole community being spent instead on this matter. As a community leader, it seems to me that you are meant to be helping the community help itself, not providing opportunities to waste the time of staff and of others and making untrue and inflammatory statements which require time to be spent correcting the record. > > Out of a total of 40 people attending the San Juan meeting, of which 35 used the American Express service, you are the only person who didnt manage to make the arrangements in time. There were no other complaints about not having enough time to make arrangements on the contrary, everyone else was done in good time in spite of the fact that as previously mentioned, many had far more complex itineraries than yours would have been. > > The reality of having so many people travel with support from ICANN from this community is that there must be some reasonable rules regarding travel support otherwise fewer people will get to attend meetings. > > It would be entirely reasonable for us to stand by our previous decision and uphold the rules as they were written rules that everyone else managed to follow. However, upon reflection and taking particularly into account the wish of a number of your ALAC colleagues that the rules be bent in your favour, what we are prepared to do, on a one-time basis, is to reimburse you for an amount up to what the ticket could have been purchased for on the 8th on the airline of your choice and flight time windows, both of which you indicated as your preferences to American Express. If you choose to attend the San Juan meeting, please provide your airfare receipt with an expense claim and you will be reimbursed for up to US$883.00. > > Please let us know within 48 hours if you are intending to avail yourself of this offer and provide a copy of your itinerary so we can make the requisite hotel arrangements. To remind you, if you do attend, per-diems will cover a period of not longer than 23 29 June inclusive (meaning departure from San Juan on the 30th). > > I hope very much that this will be the end of this episode and that you will address any remaining concerns to me and eschew opportunities for further public airing of matters related to your travel arrangements. > > ---- > > > > > Chronology of W Seltzers Contacts with American Express Travel Desk. > > > · May 31 - Original email sent to traveller > > · June 1 616 a - Ms Seltzer responds that she is out of the office until the 4th . She does add her phone number, but does not specifically request a verbal phone call and since this is an international reservation, our agents responded via email. > > · June 1-11:45a - agent response with email that she looks forward to her response on Monday. > > · June 4 3 :58p- agent does not hear back from traveller and sends a courtesy reminder, requesting verification of carrier and flights > > · June 4 4: 28p - Ms Seltzer responds that she is not ready to ticket.June 8 11:45a- Received request for alternate flights- we did not have the opportunity to get back to her on Friday. > > > -- > Regards, > > > Nick Ashton-Hart > Director, At-Large > ICANN > PO Box 32160 > London N4 2XY > United Kingdom > Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] > USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 > Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 > mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 > email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org > Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart > Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > --

3 2

Add to agenda for teleconf: travel policy to exclude participation
by Wendy Seltzer June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Unless ICANN has dealt with them by the call, I'd like to take 2 minutes to raise my concerns about ridiculous implementation of the new travel policies. So far, I've seen a use of process to exclude participation, which I'd hate to think was ICANN's intent in streamlining its policies. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org

16 38

Registrar research
by Wendy Seltzer June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: > Dear Members: > > With respect to the research proposed by Wendy, I have the pleasure to > provide you with some information which already exists in relation to > this subject. Some of you may have seen it previously. > > As to the request for the research work, as I mentioned to you on our > teleconference, in order to evaluate the utility of spending the money > to get research of the kind envisaged done, some further information > is needed. > > In particular, a proposal - not long, but a proposal - would be > required, which at a minimum has all the questions the ALAC has in > mind, and also what the ALAC proposes to do with the research data > once it has been gathered. > My suggestions, building upon the request submitted earlier: The At-Large Advisory Committee has heard complaints from individuals about significant divergences among registrars on fees and practices regarding domain name transfer and expired domain name redemption. At least some registrants are not aware of these fees and practices at the time they register names. Before ALAC can analyze whether these fees and practices reflect a problem or the competitive market at work, we would like to get more information about them. We therefore ask staff to develop a plan for surveying accredited registrars on their practices. For each registrar, determine: Transfer-away: Is there a transfer-away fee for registrants to take their domain names to another registrar? If so, what is the fee? Is the transfer-away fee disclosed to the registrant at the time of registration? Where and how is such disclosure made? Is the fee subject to change during the registration period? Can registrants actually get the authcodes required to transfer domains? What is the process to get the authcode, including any fees charged? Redemption: What is the redemption fee for an expired domain name? Does the registrar itself register names its registrants have failed to renew? Once the ALAC has received and collated responses, we will use them to evaluate whether individual registrants are able to take advantage of the options provided them in consensus policies. Depending on the outcomes, we will analyze whether ALAC believes that more contractual regulation or a lighter touch is necessary to serve the needs of individual (and other) domain name registrants. Further suggestions? If ICANN's concern is expense, we could ask for a sample plus top 20, although study of the variance may be valuable. --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: +1.617.418.3456 / +44 (0)1865 287203 // cell: 07785 550361 Visiting Fellow, Oxford Internet Institute Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0

Some of the thinking behind per-diem rates - and a survey on travel at the end of the meeting
by Nick Ashton-Hart June 15, 2007

June 15, 2007

Dear North American and LAC travellers: Since a number of people have asked questions about the per-diem system, how the amount was chosen, and the like, I thought I would put out a brief note. The amount chosen is actually based upon the US Government's OCONUS system amount for San Juan. We looked at two systems: the US system and the UN DSAR system. In the end, we settled on the US system - which is slightly lower - since there are frequently food and drink options at evening events - in San Juan, there are evening events every night which will have drinks, and are expected to have food - certainly the gala dinner will have a sumptuous meal as per usual, and the opening night reception traditionally has food as well. We removed the lodging portion of the US per diem amount since lodging is of course included. In the case of At-Large, both the LAC and NA regional meetings will have a catered lunch, and the ALAC will have two meetings with breakfast included. Obviously, this is the first time a number of these measures have been impemented. We want to know how it works for everyone. Robert Guerra came up with the superb idea of having the polling system conduct a poll on the various elements of the travel handling for San Juan, which all of you will be invited to take part in, so we can use the feedback to make things better for everyone. One final note: I explained the per-diems rather badly in my previous email I find. Here's the text from the travel policy which is much clearer: You will receive the per-diem for each full night you are away from home. For example, if the per-diem amount set for the meeting in this example was US$80, and you leave on the 13th to attend the meeting, arrive at the meeting location on the 15th (meaning you travelled a long way on flights, or overnighted somewhere along the way), and left for home on the 20th, and arrived on the 21st, you would receive the per-diem for 8 nights. -- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director, At-Large ICANN PO Box 32160 London N4 2XY United Kingdom Main Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011] USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 email: nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart

1 0