- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] [PICISOC] Invitation to Internet Governance Session #PTC15
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 23, 2015

Jan. 23, 2015

Dear All, Regrettably the event has passed but certainly other key events to look forward to is the upcoming APRICOT and APrIGF which will be held in Fukuoka, Japan and Macau, China respectively. Sadly there was no recording as you had to be on site but you can follow the #PTC15 or #IGF With every best wish, Sala On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 5:36 PM, Vish विशारद PYC <virat.surya(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Is it possible to participate via internet? > > On 1/21/15, Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro > <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > > Firstly apologies for the cross posting. I would like to invite you to > the > > Pacific Telecommunication Council 15 Conference's Executive Roundtable on > > Internet Governance which is being held in Coral Room 2 at The Hilton, > > Hawaiian Village from 4pm till 5pm Honolulu time. > > > > You can follow the twitter hashtag #PTC15 #IGF > > > > Session Description is as follows: > > > > Executive Insight Roundtable 10: Internet Governance > > In 2005, the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society defined > > Internet governance as "the development and application by governments, > the > > private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared > > principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that > > shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The Internet is expanding > > exponentially. The Internet Governance Forum mandate from the United > nations > > ends in 2015. Though there is no sign that the future of the IGF is in > > danger, so far there is no word from the UN asking for input on the > renewal > > of IGF. In early 2014, the U.S. government announced plans to relinquish > its > > historic stewardship over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), > > which is operated by ICANN, to the global multi-stakeholder Internet > > community when its contract with ICANN expires in September 2015.Many > > experts believe this change may set the stage for broader changes in > other > > areas of Internet governance, such as intellectual property rights and > > cybersecurity. > > > > Who is responsible for Internet governance among the different > stakeholder > > groups? What are issues that may disrupt the roles of existing > stakeholders? > > How should consensus on key principles or outcomes be reached for > solutions > > that benefit the global Internet rather than special interests? How > should > > market-specific challenges or issues that are particular to a local > > community be approached for the global Internet to continue its > innovative > > contributions? These are just some of the challenging questions around > > Internet Governance that will be discussed in this executive insight > > roundtable. > > > > Moderator: > > Steven Smith, Associate VP, IT Technology & Deputy CIO, University of > > Hawaii, USA > > Panelists: > > David Conrad, CTO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > > (ICANN) > > John Curran, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers > > (ARIN) > > Paul Wilson, Director General, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre > > (APNIC) > > With every best wish, > > Sala > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > -- > नमस्ते Namaste > > धन्यवाद Thanks > -- > Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/VisharadManjeet > _______________________________________________ > APAC-Discuss mailing list > APAC-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/apac-discuss > > Homepage for the region: http://www.apralo.org

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Jan. 23, 2015

Jan. 23, 2015

Total of 14 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Jan 23 00:53:03 EST 2015 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 28.57% | 4 | 37.14% | 56728 | jjs at dyalog.net 21.43% | 3 | 22.75% | 34743 | jefsey at jefsey.com 14.29% | 2 | 10.51% | 16050 | salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro at gmail.com 7.14% | 1 | 11.72% | 17899 | mcknight.glenn at gmail.com 7.14% | 1 | 5.16% | 7874 | hilyard at oyster.net.ck 7.14% | 1 | 5.06% | 7731 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 7.14% | 1 | 5.03% | 7687 | narten at us.ibm.com 7.14% | 1 | 2.63% | 4015 | at-large-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 14 |100.00% | 152727 | Total

1 0

Invitation to Internet Governance Session #PTC15
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 21, 2015

Jan. 21, 2015

Dear All, Firstly apologies for the cross posting. I would like to invite you to the Pacific Telecommunication Council 15 Conference's Executive Roundtable on Internet Governance which is being held in Coral Room 2 at The Hilton, Hawaiian Village from 4pm till 5pm Honolulu time. You can follow the twitter hashtag #PTC15 #IGF Session Description is as follows: Executive Insight Roundtable 10: Internet Governance In 2005, the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society defined Internet governance as "the development and application by governments, the private sector and civil society, in their respective roles, of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programs that shape the evolution and use of the Internet." The Internet is expanding exponentially. The Internet Governance Forum mandate from the United nations ends in 2015. Though there is no sign that the future of the IGF is in danger, so far there is no word from the UN asking for input on the renewal of IGF. In early 2014, the U.S. government announced plans to relinquish its historic stewardship over the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA), which is operated by ICANN, to the global multi-stakeholder Internet community when its contract with ICANN expires in September 2015.Many experts believe this change may set the stage for broader changes in other areas of Internet governance, such as intellectual property rights and cybersecurity. Who is responsible for Internet governance among the different stakeholder groups? What are issues that may disrupt the roles of existing stakeholders? How should consensus on key principles or outcomes be reached for solutions that benefit the global Internet rather than special interests?  How should market-specific challenges or issues that are particular to a local community be approached for the global Internet to continue its innovative contributions? These are just some of the challenging questions around Internet Governance that will be discussed in this executive insight roundtable. Moderator: Steven Smith, Associate VP, IT Technology & Deputy CIO, University of Hawaii, USA Panelists: David Conrad, CTO, Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) John Curran, President and CEO, American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) Paul Wilson, Director General, Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) With every best wish, Sala Sent from my iPad

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 20, 2015

Jan. 20, 2015

Jean-Jacques, I do not have the time for a detailed reply, but the stats have been generated for many years with the agreement of the ALAC, and no one has ever complained before. If an ALAC member would like to raise the question, we will consider if it should be maintained. Alan At 19/01/2015 06:21 AM, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >Thanks Jefsey for your technical observations. > >I read all the messages on this thread (and chuckled on the >sarcastic ones) but none answered my initial questions: > >- Was there a decision to task any particular individual/firm with >carrying out this statistical/nominative >tracking? Was this decision taken in ALAC or elsewhere (date, reference)? > >- Was this submitted to regular review and approval, or is there a >separate decision to grant this as a permanent authorization (date, reference)? > >- If this is being used as a metrics tool, what is its qualitative >relevance? Has it been effectively used to "measure" the value of >this or that member, say in ALAC? How were the criteria determined, >and by whom (date, reference)? > >Remaining silent on these questions would not, in my mind, serve the >"polycratic rights" of the "cyberagora system". You are no doubt >familiar with the novel by Dave Eggers, "The Circle" (Penguin Books, 2013). > >Jean-Jacques.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Hello Jefsey, my questions are those of a former member of the ICANN Board, a former member of the ALAC, and someone who considers that Internet processes should place far more emphasis on the Internet user (rights, default settings for privacy, etc). Metrics? I was simply quoting some colleagues who suggested that these statistics were useful in evaluating the presence and/or contribution of members. So far, nobody has offered a documented example of these statistics having any qualitative value. Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "JFC Morfin" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)dyalog.net>, "Jefsey" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Lundi 19 Janvier 2015 15:30:07 Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org At 12:21 19/01/2015, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >Thanks Jefsey for your technical observations. >I read all the messages on this thread (and >chuckled on the sarcastic ones) but none answered my initial questions: Dear Jean-Jacques, JE SUIS JEFSEY your questions are highly politcally incorrect and only reflect the ICANN totalitary spirit! They reflect the idea that an ALAC member can be sensored on this list. And that to send a mail on the list one must first obtain an approval >- Was there a decision to task any particular >individual/firm with carrying out this statistical/nominative >tracking? Was this decision taken in ALAC or elsewhere (date, reference)? obtained through a democratic process or .... "elsewhere". >- Was this submitted to regular review and >approval, or is there a separate decision to >grant this as a permanent authorization (date, reference)? after being reviewed and approved - except in the case of a pre-1789 special priviledge. >- If this is being used as a metrics tool, what >is its qualitative relevance? Has it been >effectively used to "measure" the value of this >or that member, say in ALAC? How were the >criteria determined, and by whom (date, reference)? I am afraid you do not evaluate the Narten Express correctly . This is not a metric ***tool***: you do not have a received a script to do it by yourself with your own secret parameters. This a ***service*** provided by Thomas permitting you to have your own metric tool without an effort. Thomas has chosen - his liberty - to tell us his weekly opinion on the list through this service. He could have chosen to send us a long mail with his comments. >Remaining silent on these questions would not, >in my mind, serve the "polycratic rights" of the "cyberagora system". The catenet's cyberagora system by the internet technology is low grade for a simple reason : it lacks myriads of self operated services like Thomas' one. Some to bring others information, others to remove oneself from that services' lists. However, the problem is not with Thomas, it is with the ICANN centralization culture, which depends on, but also calls for the IETF centralization in spite of the Subsitiarity Principle and RFC 6852 on innovation by competition. > You are no doubt familiar with the novel by > Dave Eggers, "The Circle" (Penguin Books, 2013).' I never was able to determine if this was about a Google or an ICANN clone. I will support you worry about Thomas the day you campaign against whois! Take care! jfc >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- >De: "Jefsey" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Ã€: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)dyalog.net> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >EnvoyÃ©: Lundi 19 Janvier 2015 11:19:48 >Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary >for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Jean-Jacques, > >I am afraid this list of points denotes an interventionist attitude >which is out of context with our multitude's polycratic rights. It is >interesting to note that it surprisingly comes as an opposition - >between two former ICANN Board Members - from a French ambassador to >a glasnost service by an American industry member. > >However, it calls for an extended understanding of the internet >cyberagora system I plead for that should be discussed either on the >IETF or on the Libre's technical WG lists. Addressing the request >refers to the uses of classes of senders and groups of receivers (or >closed user groups, or more generally VGNs [virtual glocal networks]) >within a distribution list. Something I advocate for a long as an >SMTP/DNS/CATENET/etc/ generalization of what is already >non-interoperationnally disseminated in the technology. In this case >it could probably be patched in using the keyword field? > >jfc > >At 23:16 02/01/2015, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Dear Colleagues, > > > >my request is to be unsubscribed ONLY from the "Weekly posting > >summary" established by T. Narten, not from other elements on the > >At-Large lists (this is in answer to Seun's remark). My request is > >based on the following considerations: > > > >1) This "summary" was considered by some in the ALAC as a metric of > >effective presence and work of its members (Carlton's remark). I > >have long questioned the validity of this approach, and still do. > >This measurement not have its equivalent, say on the ICANN Board, > >where the "360Â° Review" of Directors is carried out with other tools. > > > >2) This form of statistical data has no qualitative value, as it may > >record a peak of correspondence from one ALAC or At-Large member > >giving family news and being congratulated by everyone else, or any > >other topic, for that matter. > > > >3) Nominative tracking also raises the question of how such > >information may or may not be used for purposes it was or was not > >designed for, e.g. surveillance. > > > >4) A minor point, but non-US citizens may have noticed that the > >"summary" is provided by, and emanates from, an address in a US > >corporation. In itself this is not a cause for concern, but some > >questions need to be answered: was there a decision to ask/grant any > >particular individual/firm to carry out this statistical/nominative > >tracking (date, reference), was this submitted to regular review and > >approval, is there a separate decision to grant this as a permanent > >authorization? > > > >5) It is not desirable, nor fair, that members of the At-Large > >and/or ALAC lists cannot ask to be unsubscribed from one item (in > >this case the "Weekly posting summary") without being deleted from > >these lists for other items and debates. > > > >6) It goes without saying, but I wish to make clear here, that my > >lack of enthusiasm for this "Weekly posting summary" is in no way a > >judgment on the value of its author, whom I worked with as a member > >of the ICANN Board, and whose experience and opinion I value. > > > >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- > >De: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > >Ã€: "Thomas Narten" <narten(a)us.ibm.com> > >Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)dyalog.net>, "At-Large Worldwide" > ><at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >EnvoyÃ©: Vendredi 2 Janvier 2015 22:13:40 > >Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for > >at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > >Dear Colleagues: > > > > > >I beg to disagree these postings are not desirable and I will tell you why. > > > > > >The ALAC has developed performance/engagement/utility metrics that, > >for better or worse, include elements that are displayed by this report. > > > > > >Consider then this report an artful early warning device. I should > >think such a one is both good and necessary for ALAC members; > >shooting the messenger, or, 'disappearing' the message would hardly > >be curative. > > > > > >I'm of a mind that only when the ALAC metrics are disavowed, then > >and only then one could reasonably insist this notification is unnecessary. > > > > > >-Carlton > > > > > >-Carlton > > > > > > > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > >============================= > > > >On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Thomas Narten < narten(a)us.ibm.com > wrote: > > > > > > > this is to request that I be unsubscribed from this "At-Large weekly > > > posting summary", which I find not useful. > > > >Sorry, individual folk can't opt out of this message, as it's sent to > >the list. Everyone on the list gets it, as they do all postings. > > > >If it's the collective sense of this list that these postings are no > >longer needed or desired, I will stop generating them. > > > >Thomas > > > > > > > > > Jean-Jacques. > >‚ €( >( > >KKKKHXZ[ÃœšYÃš[€al ----- > > > > De: "Thomas Narten" < narten(a)us.ibm.com > > > > Ã€: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >[ï¿½â€ºÃžpÃªNˆ™[™™Y@ 2 Ja@ 2 Janvier 2015 06:53:04 > >Ã˜š™]ˆÃ�]S\™Ã™WHÃ™YZÃ›HÃZÃ›HÃœÃ�ing summary > for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >‚FÃ°tal of 5 messages in the last 7 days. > > > > > > > script run at: Fri Jan 2 00:53:04 EST 2015 > > > > > > Messages | Bytes | Who > > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > > > 20.00% | 1 | 25.50% | 11120 | sylvia at internautabrasil.org > >ŒŒ HHNKï¿½ŒIH > > >MLYZ[ˆ]ttcsweb.org > > > 20.00% | 1 | 18.97% | 8273 | narten at us.ibm.com > > > 20.00% | 1 | 17.98% | 7839 | louis.houle at oricom.ca > > > 20.00% | 1 | 17.93% | 7819 | b.schombe at gmail.com > > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > >LŒ H > >HLŒ H > >Ã�ŒHÃ�[ï¿½ˆ€> __________________________________________________ > > > At-Large mailing list > > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >‚BÃ”Ã†&vRÃ¶ffÂ6ÂÃ‚6—FSÂ¢âÂ¢â€¡GGÂ¢Ã²Ã¶FÃ†&vRÃ¦Â6Ã¦Ã¢Ã¦Ã·&r > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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

2 2

[ccnso-council] Invitation to ccNSO Newcomer Webinar
by Maureen Hilyard Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

From: owner-ccnso-council(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-ccnso-council@icann.org] On Behalf Of Kristina Nordstrom Sent: Monday, 19 January 2015 3:56 a.m. Subject: [ccnso-council] Invitation to ccNSO Newcomer Webinar Dear all, You are all invited to participate in a ccNSO Newcomer Webinar prior to the Singapore meeting, to be held on the 27 of January on two occasions: 08:00 UTC and 20:00 UTC. If you wish to participate, just join the session most convenient for your timezone. The webinar is meant to introduce newcomers to the ccNSO and ICANN world, but is open to anyone interested in the function of the ccNSO and its role within ICANN. We will also touch on ccNSO activities at ICANN meetings. Please feel free to forward this information to anyone who might find it useful. You do not need to rsvp, just show up! Adigo numbers: http://adigo.com/icann/ Conference ID: 5258 Adobe Room: https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnso2015 <https://icann.adobeconnect.com/ccnso2015/> If you need a dial out for either of the sessions please let me know as soon as possible. Two-way audio will be available in the Adobe room. Kind regards, Kristina

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by JFC Morfin Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

At 12:21 19/01/2015, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >Thanks Jefsey for your technical observations. >I read all the messages on this thread (and >chuckled on the sarcastic ones) but none answered my initial questions: Dear Jean-Jacques, JE SUIS JEFSEY your questions are highly politcally incorrect and only reflect the ICANN totalitary spirit! They reflect the idea that an ALAC member can be sensored on this list. And that to send a mail on the list one must first obtain an approval >- Was there a decision to task any particular >individual/firm with carrying out this statistical/nominative >tracking? Was this decision taken in ALAC or elsewhere (date, reference)? obtained through a democratic process or .... "elsewhere". >- Was this submitted to regular review and >approval, or is there a separate decision to >grant this as a permanent authorization (date, reference)? after being reviewed and approved - except in the case of a pre-1789 special priviledge. >- If this is being used as a metrics tool, what >is its qualitative relevance? Has it been >effectively used to "measure" the value of this >or that member, say in ALAC? How were the >criteria determined, and by whom (date, reference)? I am afraid you do not evaluate the Narten Express correctly . This is not a metric ***tool***: you do not have a received a script to do it by yourself with your own secret parameters. This a ***service*** provided by Thomas permitting you to have your own metric tool without an effort. Thomas has chosen - his liberty - to tell us his weekly opinion on the list through this service. He could have chosen to send us a long mail with his comments. >Remaining silent on these questions would not, >in my mind, serve the "polycratic rights" of the "cyberagora system". The catenet's cyberagora system by the internet technology is low grade for a simple reason : it lacks myriads of self operated services like Thomas' one. Some to bring others information, others to remove oneself from that services' lists. However, the problem is not with Thomas, it is with the ICANN centralization culture, which depends on, but also calls for the IETF centralization in spite of the Subsitiarity Principle and RFC 6852 on innovation by competition. > You are no doubt familiar with the novel by > Dave Eggers, "The Circle" (Penguin Books, 2013).' I never was able to determine if this was about a Google or an ICANN clone. I will support you worry about Thomas the day you campaign against whois! Take care! jfc >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- >De: "Jefsey" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> >Ã: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)dyalog.net> >Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >EnvoyÃ©: Lundi 19 Janvier 2015 11:19:48 >Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary >for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >Jean-Jacques, > >I am afraid this list of points denotes an interventionist attitude >which is out of context with our multitude's polycratic rights. It is >interesting to note that it surprisingly comes as an opposition - >between two former ICANN Board Members - from a French ambassador to >a glasnost service by an American industry member. > >However, it calls for an extended understanding of the internet >cyberagora system I plead for that should be discussed either on the >IETF or on the Libre's technical WG lists. Addressing the request >refers to the uses of classes of senders and groups of receivers (or >closed user groups, or more generally VGNs [virtual glocal networks]) >within a distribution list. Something I advocate for a long as an >SMTP/DNS/CATENET/etc/ generalization of what is already >non-interoperationnally disseminated in the technology. In this case >it could probably be patched in using the keyword field? > >jfc > >At 23:16 02/01/2015, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: > >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Dear Colleagues, > > > >my request is to be unsubscribed ONLY from the "Weekly posting > >summary" established by T. Narten, not from other elements on the > >At-Large lists (this is in answer to Seun's remark). My request is > >based on the following considerations: > > > >1) This "summary" was considered by some in the ALAC as a metric of > >effective presence and work of its members (Carlton's remark). I > >have long questioned the validity of this approach, and still do. > >This measurement not have its equivalent, say on the ICANN Board, > >where the "360Â° Review" of Directors is carried out with other tools. > > > >2) This form of statistical data has no qualitative value, as it may > >record a peak of correspondence from one ALAC or At-Large member > >giving family news and being congratulated by everyone else, or any > >other topic, for that matter. > > > >3) Nominative tracking also raises the question of how such > >information may or may not be used for purposes it was or was not > >designed for, e.g. surveillance. > > > >4) A minor point, but non-US citizens may have noticed that the > >"summary" is provided by, and emanates from, an address in a US > >corporation. In itself this is not a cause for concern, but some > >questions need to be answered: was there a decision to ask/grant any > >particular individual/firm to carry out this statistical/nominative > >tracking (date, reference), was this submitted to regular review and > >approval, is there a separate decision to grant this as a permanent > >authorization? > > > >5) It is not desirable, nor fair, that members of the At-Large > >and/or ALAC lists cannot ask to be unsubscribed from one item (in > >this case the "Weekly posting summary") without being deleted from > >these lists for other items and debates. > > > >6) It goes without saying, but I wish to make clear here, that my > >lack of enthusiasm for this "Weekly posting summary" is in no way a > >judgment on the value of its author, whom I worked with as a member > >of the ICANN Board, and whose experience and opinion I value. > > > >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- > >De: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > >Ã: "Thomas Narten" <narten(a)us.ibm.com> > >Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)dyalog.net>, "At-Large Worldwide" > ><at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > >EnvoyÃ©: Vendredi 2 Janvier 2015 22:13:40 > >Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for > >at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > >Dear Colleagues: > > > > > >I beg to disagree these postings are not desirable and I will tell you why. > > > > > >The ALAC has developed performance/engagement/utility metrics that, > >for better or worse, include elements that are displayed by this report. > > > > > >Consider then this report an artful early warning device. I should > >think such a one is both good and necessary for ALAC members; > >shooting the messenger, or, 'disappearing' the message would hardly > >be curative. > > > > > >I'm of a mind that only when the ALAC metrics are disavowed, then > >and only then one could reasonably insist this notification is unnecessary. > > > > > >-Carlton > > > > > >-Carlton > > > > > > > > > >============================== > >Carlton A Samuels > >Mobile: 876-818-1799 > >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround > >============================= > > > >On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Thomas Narten < narten(a)us.ibm.com > wrote: > > > > > > > this is to request that I be unsubscribed from this "At-Large weekly > > > posting summary", which I find not useful. > > > >Sorry, individual folk can't opt out of this message, as it's sent to > >the list. Everyone on the list gets it, as they do all postings. > > > >If it's the collective sense of this list that these postings are no > >longer needed or desired, I will stop generating them. > > > >Thomas > > > > > > > > > Jean-Jacques. > > ( >( > >KKKKHXZ[ÃYÃ[al ----- > > > > De: "Thomas Narten" < narten(a)us.ibm.com > > > > Ã: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >[ï¿½âºÃpÃªN[Y@ 2 Ja@ 2 Janvier 2015 06:53:04 > >Ã]Ã]S\ÃWHÃYZÃHÃZÃHÃÃing summary > for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >FÃ°tal of 5 messages in the last 7 days. > > > > > > > script run at: Fri Jan 2 00:53:04 EST 2015 > > > > > > Messages | Bytes | Who > > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > > > 20.00% | 1 | 25.50% | 11120 | sylvia at internautabrasil.org > > HHNKï¿½IH > > >MLYZ[]ttcsweb.org > > > 20.00% | 1 | 18.97% | 8273 | narten at us.ibm.com > > > 20.00% | 1 | 17.98% | 7839 | louis.houle at oricom.ca > > > 20.00% | 1 | 17.93% | 7819 | b.schombe at gmail.com > > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > >L H > >HL H > >ÃHÃ[ï¿½> __________________________________________________ > > > At-Large mailing list > > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >BÃÃ&vRÃ¶ffÂ6ÂÃ6FSÂ¢âÂ¢â¡GGÂ¢Ã²Ã¶FÃ&vRÃ¦Â6Ã¦Ã¢Ã¦Ã·&r > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > >_______________________________________________ > >At-Large mailing list > >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > > > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Subrenat, Jean-Jacques Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Thanks Jefsey for your technical observations. I read all the messages on this thread (and chuckled on the sarcastic ones) but none answered my initial questions: - Was there a decision to task any particular individual/firm with carrying out this statistical/nominative tracking? Was this decision taken in ALAC or elsewhere (date, reference)? - Was this submitted to regular review and approval, or is there a separate decision to grant this as a permanent authorization (date, reference)? - If this is being used as a metrics tool, what is its qualitative relevance? Has it been effectively used to "measure" the value of this or that member, say in ALAC? How were the criteria determined, and by whom (date, reference)? Remaining silent on these questions would not, in my mind, serve the "polycratic rights" of the "cyberagora system". You are no doubt familiar with the novel by Dave Eggers, "The Circle" (Penguin Books, 2013). Jean-Jacques. ----- Mail original ----- De: "Jefsey" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> À: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)dyalog.net> Cc: "At-Large Worldwide" <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Envoyé: Lundi 19 Janvier 2015 11:19:48 Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Jean-Jacques, I am afraid this list of points denotes an interventionist attitude which is out of context with our multitude's polycratic rights. It is interesting to note that it surprisingly comes as an opposition - between two former ICANN Board Members - from a French ambassador to a glasnost service by an American industry member. However, it calls for an extended understanding of the internet cyberagora system I plead for that should be discussed either on the IETF or on the Libre's technical WG lists. Addressing the request refers to the uses of classes of senders and groups of receivers (or closed user groups, or more generally VGNs [virtual glocal networks]) within a distribution list. Something I advocate for a long as an SMTP/DNS/CATENET/etc/ generalization of what is already non-interoperationnally disseminated in the technology. In this case it could probably be patched in using the keyword field? jfc At 23:16 02/01/2015, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Dear Colleagues, > >my request is to be unsubscribed ONLY from the "Weekly posting >summary" established by T. Narten, not from other elements on the >At-Large lists (this is in answer to Seun's remark). My request is >based on the following considerations: > >1) This "summary" was considered by some in the ALAC as a metric of >effective presence and work of its members (Carlton's remark). I >have long questioned the validity of this approach, and still do. >This measurement not have its equivalent, say on the ICANN Board, >where the "360° Review" of Directors is carried out with other tools. > >2) This form of statistical data has no qualitative value, as it may >record a peak of correspondence from one ALAC or At-Large member >giving family news and being congratulated by everyone else, or any >other topic, for that matter. > >3) Nominative tracking also raises the question of how such >information may or may not be used for purposes it was or was not >designed for, e.g. surveillance. > >4) A minor point, but non-US citizens may have noticed that the >"summary" is provided by, and emanates from, an address in a US >corporation. In itself this is not a cause for concern, but some >questions need to be answered: was there a decision to ask/grant any >particular individual/firm to carry out this statistical/nominative >tracking (date, reference), was this submitted to regular review and >approval, is there a separate decision to grant this as a permanent >authorization? > >5) It is not desirable, nor fair, that members of the At-Large >and/or ALAC lists cannot ask to be unsubscribed from one item (in >this case the "Weekly posting summary") without being deleted from >these lists for other items and debates. > >6) It goes without saying, but I wish to make clear here, that my >lack of enthusiasm for this "Weekly posting summary" is in no way a >judgment on the value of its author, whom I worked with as a member >of the ICANN Board, and whose experience and opinion I value. > >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- >De: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >À: "Thomas Narten" <narten(a)us.ibm.com> >Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)dyalog.net>, "At-Large Worldwide" ><at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Janvier 2015 22:13:40 >Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for >at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > >Dear Colleagues: > > >I beg to disagree these postings are not desirable and I will tell you why. > > >The ALAC has developed performance/engagement/utility metrics that, >for better or worse, include elements that are displayed by this report. > > >Consider then this report an artful early warning device. I should >think such a one is both good and necessary for ALAC members; >shooting the messenger, or, 'disappearing' the message would hardly >be curative. > > >I'm of a mind that only when the ALAC metrics are disavowed, then >and only then one could reasonably insist this notification is unnecessary. > > >-Carlton > > >-Carlton > > > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > >On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Thomas Narten < narten(a)us.ibm.com > wrote: > > > > this is to request that I be unsubscribed from this "At-Large weekly > > posting summary", which I find not useful. > >Sorry, individual folk can't opt out of this message, as it's sent to >the list. Everyone on the list gets it, as they do all postings. > >If it's the collective sense of this list that these postings are no >longer needed or desired, I will stop generating them. > >Thomas > > > > > Jean-Jacques. >‚ €( >KKKKHXZ[ÜšYÚ[€al ----- > > De: "Thomas Narten" < narten(a)us.ibm.com > > > À: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[�›ÞpêNˆ™[™™Y@ 2 Janvier 2015 06:53:04 >Øš™]ˆÐ]S\™ÙWHÙYZÛHÜÝing summary for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >‚Fðtal of 5 messages in the last 7 days. > > > > script run at: Fri Jan 2 00:53:04 EST 2015 > > > > Messages | Bytes | Who > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > > 20.00% | 1 | 25.50% | 11120 | sylvia at internautabrasil.org >ŒŒ HHNK�ŒIH >MLYZ[ˆ]ttcsweb.org > > 20.00% | 1 | 18.97% | 8273 | narten at us.ibm.com > > 20.00% | 1 | 17.98% | 7839 | louis.houle at oricom.ca > > 20.00% | 1 | 17.93% | 7819 | b.schombe at gmail.com > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ >LŒ H >HLŒ H >ÍŒHÝ[�ˆ€> _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >‚BÔÆ&vRöff6Â6—FS¢‡GG¢òöFÆ&vRæ6æâæ÷&r > > >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

IANA Transition Demystified #PTC15
by Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Dear All, I would like to invite you to attend the session on IANA Demystified if you are in Honolulu for the PTC 15. Details are as follows: http://www.ptc.org/ptc15/program-and-attendees/complete-program/details.htm… We have ICANN CTO, APNIC DG on the Panel amongst others, details are in the link above. Kind Regards, Sala Sent from my iPad

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Jefsey Jan. 19, 2015

Jan. 19, 2015

Jean-Jacques, I am afraid this list of points denotes an interventionist attitude which is out of context with our multitude's polycratic rights. It is interesting to note that it surprisingly comes as an opposition - between two former ICANN Board Members - from a French ambassador to a glasnost service by an American industry member. However, it calls for an extended understanding of the internet cyberagora system I plead for that should be discussed either on the IETF or on the Libre's technical WG lists. Addressing the request refers to the uses of classes of senders and groups of receivers (or closed user groups, or more generally VGNs [virtual glocal networks]) within a distribution list. Something I advocate for a long as an SMTP/DNS/CATENET/etc/ generalization of what is already non-interoperationnally disseminated in the technology. In this case it could probably be patched in using the keyword field? jfc At 23:16 02/01/2015, Subrenat, Jean-Jacques wrote: >Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64Dear Colleagues, > >my request is to be unsubscribed ONLY from the "Weekly posting >summary" established by T. Narten, not from other elements on the >At-Large lists (this is in answer to Seun's remark). My request is >based on the following considerations: > >1) This "summary" was considered by some in the ALAC as a metric of >effective presence and work of its members (Carlton's remark). I >have long questioned the validity of this approach, and still do. >This measurement not have its equivalent, say on the ICANN Board, >where the "360° Review" of Directors is carried out with other tools. > >2) This form of statistical data has no qualitative value, as it may >record a peak of correspondence from one ALAC or At-Large member >giving family news and being congratulated by everyone else, or any >other topic, for that matter. > >3) Nominative tracking also raises the question of how such >information may or may not be used for purposes it was or was not >designed for, e.g. surveillance. > >4) A minor point, but non-US citizens may have noticed that the >"summary" is provided by, and emanates from, an address in a US >corporation. In itself this is not a cause for concern, but some >questions need to be answered: was there a decision to ask/grant any >particular individual/firm to carry out this statistical/nominative >tracking (date, reference), was this submitted to regular review and >approval, is there a separate decision to grant this as a permanent >authorization? > >5) It is not desirable, nor fair, that members of the At-Large >and/or ALAC lists cannot ask to be unsubscribed from one item (in >this case the "Weekly posting summary") without being deleted from >these lists for other items and debates. > >6) It goes without saying, but I wish to make clear here, that my >lack of enthusiasm for this "Weekly posting summary" is in no way a >judgment on the value of its author, whom I worked with as a member >of the ICANN Board, and whose experience and opinion I value. > >Jean-Jacques. > > > > > > > >----- Mail original ----- >De: "Carlton Samuels" <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> >À: "Thomas Narten" <narten(a)us.ibm.com> >Cc: "Jean-Jacques Subrenat" <jjs(a)dyalog.net>, "At-Large Worldwide" ><at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Envoyé: Vendredi 2 Janvier 2015 22:13:40 >Objet: Re: [At-Large] Weekly posting summary for >at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > >Dear Colleagues: > > >I beg to disagree these postings are not desirable and I will tell you why. > > >The ALAC has developed performance/engagement/utility metrics that, >for better or worse, include elements that are displayed by this report. > > >Consider then this report an artful early warning device. I should >think such a one is both good and necessary for ALAC members; >shooting the messenger, or, 'disappearing' the message would hardly >be curative. > > >I'm of a mind that only when the ALAC metrics are disavowed, then >and only then one could reasonably insist this notification is unnecessary. > > >-Carlton > > >-Carlton > > > > >============================== >Carlton A Samuels >Mobile: 876-818-1799 >Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround >============================= > >On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:45 PM, Thomas Narten < narten(a)us.ibm.com > wrote: > > > > this is to request that I be unsubscribed from this "At-Large weekly > > posting summary", which I find not useful. > >Sorry, individual folk can't opt out of this message, as it's sent to >the list. Everyone on the list gets it, as they do all postings. > >If it's the collective sense of this list that these postings are no >longer needed or desired, I will stop generating them. > >Thomas > > > > > Jean-Jacques. > ( >KKKKHXZ[ÜYÚ[al ----- > > De: "Thomas Narten" < narten(a)us.ibm.com > > > À: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >[ÞpêN[Y@ 2 Janvier 2015 06:53:04 >Ø]Ð]S\ÙWHÙYZÛHÜÝing summary for at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Fðtal of 5 messages in the last 7 days. > > > > script run at: Fri Jan 2 00:53:04 EST 2015 > > > > Messages | Bytes | Who > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ > > 20.00% | 1 | 25.50% | 11120 | sylvia at internautabrasil.org > HHNKIH >MLYZ[]ttcsweb.org > > 20.00% | 1 | 18.97% | 8273 | narten at us.ibm.com > > 20.00% | 1 | 17.98% | 7839 | louis.houle at oricom.ca > > 20.00% | 1 | 17.93% | 7819 | b.schombe at gmail.com > > --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ >L H >HL H >ÍHÝ[> _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >BÔÆ&vRöff6Â6FS¢GG¢òöFÆ&vRæ6æâæ÷&r > > >_______________________________________________ >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 > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0