- At-Large - lists.icann.org

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

Jan. 27, 2014

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

1 0

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

Jan. 25, 2014

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

2 1

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

Jan. 24, 2014

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

1 0

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

Jan. 24, 2014

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

1 0

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

Jan. 24, 2014

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

11 31

Mailing list
by Trevor Samuels Jan. 18, 2014

Jan. 18, 2014

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

2 1

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

Jan. 17, 2014

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

1 0

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

Jan. 17, 2014

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

1 0

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

Jan. 15, 2014

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

1 0

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

Jan. 13, 2014

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

2 1