- At-Large - lists.icann.org

UN Wants International Concordat on [Online] Surveillance
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

.....for the 'war on terror', you understand......hmmm, this one should hardly get a pushback, you'd think! http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57537559-38/u.n-calls-for-anti-terror-int… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fwd: Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

FYI and apropos our discussions re ALAC/Board interactions. - Carlton ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: ICANN News Alert <communications(a)icann.org> Date: Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 7:41 PM Subject: ICANN News Alert -- Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures To: carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com ** [image: ICANN] <http://www.icann.org/> News Alert http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-26oct12-en.htm ------------------------------ Expert Recommended Improvements to ICANN's Accountability Structures 26 October 2012 *Forum Announcement:* Comment Period Opens on *Date:* 26 October 2012 * Categories/Tags:* Transparency/Accountability *Purpose (Brief):* To receive comments on the recommended enhancements to ICANN's Reconsideration Process and Independent Review Process provided by the Accountability Structures Expert Panel (ASEP). The ASEP, that was formed in fulfillment of the Accountability and Transparency Review Team Recommendations 23 and 25, developed these recommendations after a series of work sessions and discussions at ICANN's public meeting in Toronto. ICANN is also providing draft Bylaws revisions that would give effect to the ASEP's recommendations. *Public Comment Box Link:* http://www.icann.org/en/news/public-comment/asep-recommendations-26oct12-en…

1 0

Verisign says Google is mainly responsible for slow growth in registrations
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

...and the shape of things to come you think? So Verisign is kvetching on a 1% delta, actual vs. projection! Look at the DomainNameWire numbers keenly; they have a longer run and are perhaps more instructive to the future. BTW and for recognition, my friend Evan [Leibovitch] has been telling everybody for awhile now the bloodbath in new GTLD - in the domain registration business -is coming..... http://domainnamewire.com/2012/10/26/for-verisign-its-2009-all-over-again/ - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

At-Large comments for consideration of possible objections to new gTLD applications due November 14 2012
by Dev Anand Teelucksingh Oct. 29, 2012

Oct. 29, 2012

Dear All, The At-Large new gTLD Review Group (gTLD RG ; https://community.icann.org/x/u7-bAQ) is seeking comments from ICANN At-Large on the new gTLD applications and applied for strings received by ICANN for its New gTLD program (http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/about) The At-Large comments will be used by the gTLD RG to decide whether to draft a formal objection statement to a gTLD application on limited public interest or community grounds for RALO’s consideration and ALAC's during the Objection Period as part of ICANN's Objection and Dispute Resolution Process. All At-Large comments received will be kept at the At-Large new gTLD Applications Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld For comments to be considered by the gTLD RG for drafting a formal objection statement on limited public interest or community grounds for RALO’s and ALAC's consideration, such comments must be submitted by November 14 2012. This deadline was extended by the gTLD RG during its session at the ICANN Toronto meeting. Visit the At-Large new gTLD Applications Dashboard at http://bit.ly/newgtld to learn how to review information about the gTLD applications and applicants, read At-Large comments on gTLD applications and strings and how to submit your comments to the gTLD RG. A one page summary of how ALAC files an objection to a new gTLD application can be viewed at https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/34608480/At-Large-Objectio… Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh gTLD RG chair

1 0

Weekly posting summary for at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Oct. 26, 2012

Oct. 26, 2012

Total of 11 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Oct 26 00:53:05 EDT 2012 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 36.36% | 4 | 27.86% | 22628 | carlton.samuels at gmail.com 18.18% | 2 | 15.14% | 12300 | cintra.sooknanan at gmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 15.76% | 12797 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 9.09% | 1 | 13.92% | 11309 | roberto_gaetano at hotmail.com 9.09% | 1 | 10.16% | 8255 | pranesh at cis-india.org 9.09% | 1 | 9.44% | 7668 | narten at us.ibm.com 9.09% | 1 | 7.72% | 6267 | shearman at victoria.tc.ca --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 11 |100.00% | 81224 | Total

1 0

Invitation- WHOIS Technical Requirements Survey
by Cintra Sooknanan Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

Dear All, The ICANN GNSO Whois Technical Requirements Survey Drafting Team requests that you participate in its survey at https://limesurvey.icann.org/index.php?sid=71483&lang=en. The purpose of the survey is to gauge the level of support for various technical requirements outlined in the WHOIS Service Requirements Report<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-service-requirements-final-report-…> [PDF, 633 KB], as requested of ICANN Staff by the GNSO Council. The survey consists of 15 sections (around 11 technical requirements), with additional details found at http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-17sep12-en.htm. Thank you for your participation! Regards Cintra Sooknanan

1 0

Requesting feedback on Internet Governance & ICANN Ecosystem Maps
by Cintra Sooknanan Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

Dear All,**** ** ** ICANN is requesting feedback and inputs on the following Internet Governance & ICANN Ecosystem Maps. Please visit the web page indicated below and submit your feedback.**** ** ** Regards,**** Cintra Sooknanan ** ** ** ** Internet Governance & ICANN Ecosystem Maps · Feedback**** http://icann.xplane.com/ **** The below maps are still in the design process. We seek to gather feedback and inputs early in the process. Our challenge in creating these maps is finding the "right" level of detail. Provide too little and we tell an incomplete story. Provide too much and we need to tell it all.**** Who is the intended audience?**** The interested public. People who want or need to understand these topics at a high level. Relative beginners, not experts. We imagine these being good additions to the associated Wikipedia articles.**** Select a map to provide feedback:**** http://icann.xplane.com/questionaire/internet_governance**** http://icann.xplane.com/questionaire/ecosystem**** ** ** ** ** Internet Governance Map****<http://icann.xplane.com/questionaire/internet_governance> **** <http://icann.xplane.com/questionaire/internet_governance> ICANN Ecosystem Map**** <http://icann.xplane.com/questionaire/ecosystem> **** <http://icann.xplane.com/questionaire/ecosystem> ** ** © 2012 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers**** ** **

1 0

Google Transparency Report
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

..as it turns out, its not just the usual suspects who want to control what you see and read. Here's a nice quote from a spokesperson for the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "Every six months, the Google transparency report comes out, and almost everybody writes a story that goes like this: 'Google gives up data to governments, and this is bad,'"........... "And usually the story they don't write is that nearly every company with data about users gives up data to governments. We don't have any data about what they're giving up and what circumstances they're giving it up under. Not only is what Google doing better than nothing; almost everyone else is doing nothing." Note this: "nearly every company with data about users gives up data to governments."! Google get fingered but at least it tells you who's asking! Read the story here: http://www.ktla.com/news/business/ct-biz-1019-confidential-google-20121020,… See the latest Google Transparency Report here: http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/ - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Fw: US Spy Agencies Will be Allowed to Share Cyber Threat Information with Water/Sewer Systems
by Carlton Samuels Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

As would be expected.....or stand accused of dereliction of duty! For the rest of the world though, things not so good. Our local [water & sewer] authority is putting in a SCADA network with very weak security requirements, especially since the PLC's employed for engineering the system tend to come from the same manufacturers. http://www.wral.com/draft-order-would-give-companies-cyberthreat-info/11679… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Sorry, long message
by Roberto Gaetano Oct. 22, 2012

Oct. 22, 2012

Previously mistakenly sent to the ALAC working list. R. -----Messaggio originale----- Hi all. I am not sure whether it is appropriate to send this email to these lists, but please feel free to use the delete key. I have been following the recent events, including the Toronto meeting, from the distance. Now that I have a little more time, I would like to become more active, and I am trying to figure out which is the best way. The question is basically where can I provide an added value, and what are the topics that are more interesting to me (there is no point in taking commitments to do things that I feel unimportant or uninteresting, as the logical consequence would be to drop the commitment eventually). My main problem with ICANN is that, as I also told the new CEO in Prague, the stakeholder model is not fully operational. There are stakeholder groups that are less influential in the policy making process for a number of reasons. Although I agree on the fact that ICANN should not become a parliament, where each component of the internet community has to be exactly represented according to some metrics, nevertheless we must aim at having all voices heard and at having the decision making process to take into account all those voices. My "natural" constituency is the AtLarge: I have no direct commercial interest nor specific contractual or technical role in the internet community, so ALAC fully represents my profile. My choice is therefore to become active in ALAC, and specifically within my local community, the EURALO. I have no affiliation with any ALS, but EURALO accepts individual members. The areas in which I would like to concentrate the always insufficient time and effort are described below (not necessarily in priority order). . Outreach and participation We all know that outreach is important for every stakeholder group, but it is even more important for ALAC. Our community is sparse, composed of individuals and organizations that have a "mild" interest in ICANN, in the sense that their daily life is not perceived as being affected by internet policy decisions, because either their income does not depend from the internet, or because their problems related to the internet are more depending on issues outside the scope of ICANN (for instance, basic connectivity is more important than the introduction of new gTLDs). However, we are aware that the active part of ALAC has the consistency of a rounding error compared to the potential AtLarge community: people who have never heard of ALAC or that have no interest in joining vastly outnumber the volounteers that are active in ALAC. Under these circumstances, the growth of ALAC and the increase in active participation in policy development is of the paramount importance for our recognition. An incredible amount of work has been done on this topic, with excellent results, but I do believe we have to do more to further increase the number and variety of stakeholder represented by us. Therefore, I would like to participate in the outreach sub-committee. . Alliances and synergies We have established, thanks to the current and previous leadership and hard work by the volounteers, excellent relationships with large parts of the internet community. I remember in the early days of ALAC the way other ICANN constituencies were suspiciously looking at us, and often considered us unable to provide added value to ICANN (and even in more recent days, when I was on the Board, it has been very difficult to convince some fellow Directors that ALAC deserved the recognition of a full Board seat). However, even in this case, I believe we need to do more. One of the areas where I can help is the ccTLD community. I have always said that there are huge similarities between the ALAC and the ccTLD community: for instance, we both must "think globally" when we develop policy positions, but must at the same time "act locally" because our membership is deeply rooted in the local community. Incidentally, we share this same structural feature with the GAC: they also have a strong "local" responsibility. When I was at ALAC/EURALO, I tried to liaise with CENTR: I participated to CENTR meetings, presenting ALAC and the potential synergies with the ccTLDs. I did not achieve immediate results, the close connections we have today are the effect of the good work of the people following me. Nevertheless, I think that the plant has grown also because I have participated to plant the seed, and that I can provide further contribution in this direction. I am not posing a candidature for the succession of Cheryl, once she will move to a different task, but I believe I can be of some help in liaising with the ccTLD community. . Internet governance Although this item is abundantly covered by the excellent people we have, who are very active in the different internet governance fora, I believe that my past experience with international organizations could be helpful. I will not have the resources (time and finance) to attend meetings, but I can read documents and exchange opinions by email. . ALAC recognition This is another sticky point. You have witnessed my rant on the issue of the collection of input on policy and its processing by the Board. This is a key issue: the community will have no incentive to provide volounteer work if the result is not affecting the Board's decisions, but on the other hand failure from the community to provide input on policy will give an excellent excuse to the "ALAC-skeptical" party on the Board for dismissing our contribution and role. There is no easy solution: produce input on policy issues, and follow up, demanding justification on Board decisions that might look as not having taken contributions into account. In summary, this is what I would like to contribute on. Of course, with the constraints of the limited time I have and the very limited budget I have for participation to events. And of course provided that the points I list are considered strategic priorities. Best regards, Roberto _______________________________________________ EURO-Discuss mailing list EURO-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/euro-discuss Homepage for the region: http://www.euralo.org

2 1