- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Shoot them down -m Open Season on Patents
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 21, 2012

Sept. 21, 2012

...it is becoming ridiculous for true....maybe we should organize to do something..... http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/patent-busting-crowdsourced/?utm_s… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

US PTO Blocks Access to Certain Websites
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 21, 2012

Sept. 21, 2012

Now then, this is the Patent and Trademark Office of the United States! See the story here: http://keionline.org/node/1548 [FWIW, back in the day, I was one of three contract SEs - me, a Vietnamese woman and a Malaysian woman, both ethnic Chinese - who put in their first full text retrieval system. At the time I worked for a German independent software house. My son, a mechanical engineer fresh out of university, went to work there as an examiner last year. We engineered that system before he was born. They were still using it!] [Apropos, his tenure didn't last too long. Let's say in regard to too many applications, his intuit ran counter too often to that of his immediate supervisor, resulting in the inevitable conflict. This, after I told the boy to shut up and go along with the program! But noooooo. :-)]. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

5 9

Re: [At-Large] [APAC-Discuss] [ALAC] Thick Whois PDP
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

Dear Holly, I hear you and recognise the hard slog and toil that has been done by At Large. Whilst the Analysis on the recommendations from the Whois Review Final Report ("Report") has been done, there is still a huge delay in the implementation of its recommendations. Alan has advised me that the PDP for the Thick Whois will be after Toronto. There may be things that the Working Group can start doing now prior to the initiation of the PDP whether it means consolidation of material etc. Of critical importance in my view is to gather feedback from the At Large in terms of:- - Whois Misuse - Whois Proxy and Privacy Abuse; - Whois Registrant Identification; - Whois Proxy and Privacy Relay and Reveal Noting that there are currently Studies being carried out by the GNSO which the Report had mentioned would conclude in 2012 but we are finding out will conclude in 2013. No doubt, this will affect the PDP as we can reasonably forecast that any PDP will wait for these Reports to come out. As you can imagine, I would assume that the Studies would be published and call for comments may be invited that could only potentially serve to delay the process. To help quicken this process, if the GAC and the ALAC got their act together and strategically sent "Input" as far as these focal areas are concerned, it could only serve to expedite the process. My view is that we can start building on what we already have (and we have alot, including the things that Carlton had pointed to), identify and gather what we don't have and prepare for the PDP. I am of the belief that whilst alot has been done, there is still alot to be done. Kind Regards, Sala P.S I am enclosing my review of the recommendations of the Report as I received requests offlist to clarify some of the things I had raised. These are my personal views on the Recommendations within the *Whois Review Final Report 2010*. I had shared this with the ALAC when we were asked for feedback and thought it would be appropriate to share this here as well. I have modified this slightly. *Recommendation1: To Make Whois a Strategic Priority* The commissioning of the Review by ICANN is an indication of the strategic importance and manner in which the Review Team was constituted. However, ICANN needs to monitor and evaluate the implementation process. As far as the GNSO is concerned they have following advice from the GAC undertaken to do four studies[1]<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4#139a4561c7…> namely the Whois Misuse Study; Whois Proxy and Privacy Abuse; Whois Registrant Identification and Whois Proxy & Privacy Relay and Reveal Study which the Report says is due for completion in 2012 and cost $530,000. I would recommend that issues that At Large has aerated relating to any of these areas that are currently being studied be consolidated and sent to those carrying out these Studies. We do not have to wait for the Studies to be finalized before we realize that they may be missing certain things. I know that Garth Bruen has for years alongside others such as Beau Brendtler been consistently through NARALO and At Large been raising these issues with Compliance. I note that the website says that some of these Studies will conclude in 2013. On the same token, if the Affirmation of Commitment is followed to the letter, the next Whois Review is in 2013. I can only hypothesize that to the extent that this would affect existing consensus Policies, then parts of the PDP may apply. However, if the existing consensus policies namely:- - · Whois Data Reminder Policy (2003); - · The Restored Name Accuracy Policy (2004); and - · Whois Marketing Restriction Policy (2004) address in principle areas that may require a PDP process then we should be open to that. I understand that this may be a negligible caveat. *Recommendation 2 Single Whois Policy* The Report mentions that there is a current gTLD Policy as set out in the gTLD Registry and Registrar contracts and GNSP Consensus Policies and Procedures. So there may be no need for the PDP to be initiated. *Recommendation 3 Outreach* There is no need for a gNSO Policy development. Whilst* *there may not be need for a gNSO Policy for Outreach the Report does identify the need to move beyond the confines of the ICANN community to involve them. Although I read the report, I did not read the Appendix and note that in terms of studies done on consumers from 8-10 countries, it was unclear from the report which countries were selected and it would have been good to have it footnoted like the rest of the other stuff. Whilst I note that OECD is an observer in the GAC, they did not make submissions to the Whois Review Team. The OECD Ottawa principles on taxation make mention of Whois. See: OECD Ottawa Principles here: http://www.oecd.org/tax/taxadministration/20499630.pdf on Report on page 27 that makes reference to Whois data, here is a snapshot: *" Revenue authorities are encouraged to work with relevant government * *regulatory agencies, business associations and other organisations to * *ensure businesses engaged in e-commerce provide and maintain * *complete and accurate information to the Internet registrar with which * *they register. * *Revenue authorities are encouraged to work with relevant government * *regulatory agencies, business associations and other organisations to * *ensure that country code Top Level Domain registrars for their * *geographic jurisdictions abide by internationally recognised registrar * *requirements in respect to the collection, verification and global * *availability of WHOIS data for business registrations. * *Revenue authorities are encouraged to work with relevant government * *regulatory agencies, business associations and other organisations to * *ensure that the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and * *Numbers (ICANN) considers on a periodic basis whether regular pre * *or post verification of WHOIS data by registrars is warranted in * *certain circumstances. "* I assume that the definition of law enforcement covers Revenue Authorities, if it does not then that is something which should be considered. *Recommendation 4 Compliance* There is no need for a GNSO Policy to be initiated. My view is that there only needs to be self regulatory measures put in place by Registrars and I commend the CINC for reporting 97% accuracy levels. My view is that there needs to be gold stars [image: https://mail.google.com/mail/e/B68][image: https://mail.google.com/mail/e/B68] handed out by ICANN to Registrars and Resellers who comply. This can be published and verified independently on the ICANN website. There can also be incentives such as if you don't meet acceptable compliance levels and don't have clear plans that meet ICANN's satisfaction, please don't bother applying for a gTLD. I would also hasten to endorse the findings within the Report to review and improve all relevant compliance tools and create new ones where necessary before the gTLDs are assigned and become operational. Who knows maybe this lag time of waiting can be put to good use. The recommended revisions made in the WHOIS Review Final Report about adjustments to the Registrar Accredited Agreements should also be factored into our discussions. *Recommendation 5 Data Accuracy [Communicate Need]* The outcomes of the Studies currently being undertaken by the GNSO coupled with the NORC Study will definitely form the empirical basis necessary for further policy development in this area both by the GNSO and also by ICANN. Data Accuracy is critical in order to navigate through the Internet with ease. To a large extent, this is self regulatory and with countries all around the world creating Strategies to secure their Cyber Environment, it is only a matter of time before it is legislated. To avoid external regulations forcing data accuracy it is much more easier and productive to ensure that there is data accuracy. It is of great concern that the NORC Report shows a 23% no failure rate and 20% full failure and I wonder about the 57%. I think Data Accuracy is all our responsibility and not just Registrars but a collective corporate responsibility issue. I agree with the suggestion by the Business Community (see page 85 of the Report) that the RAA should be amended to make it mandatory for contracted parties to verify WHOIS information when registration occurs and when domain names are renewed. I would add though that is and when there are planned transitions where there are cut off dates for renewing and updating their information that this can also be worded into the RAA to enable Registrars to have sufficient room to issue notices of that nature. For this to work, it will require a Policy and yes either from the GNSO or ICANN so that this can be referred to in the contractual arrangements. *Recommendation 6 Data Accuracy:* I would say that there is a need for the GNSO to create a PDP to ensure that there is Data Accuracy. To a large extent compliance in relation to data accuracy has been self regulatory and dependent on the Registrars. Were this to be taken away and (best case scenario: ICANN Compliance; worst case scenario: legislated) it would mean transition to increasing accuracy, voluntary or otherwise would be enforced. It follows that as per the recommendation in report (see page 87 para 11], "ICANN should take appropriate measures to reduce the number of WHOIS registrations that fall into the accuracy groups Substantial Failure and Full Failure (as defined by the NORC Data Accuracy Study, 2009/10) by 50% within 12 months and by 50% again over the following 12 months", it is far more beneficial and useful to manage this process internally. *Recommendation 7 Measure and Report Whois Accuracy* My comments remain the same as for Recommendation 6 *Recommendation 8 Ensure that Compliance has tools to enforce Whois* There was a comment made by the Commercial Stakeholders Group in Singapore where they raised and in my view correctly the fact that private regulations are based on the ability to self regulate and enforce contractual obligations. There has been much debate and discussion in relation to strengthening the Compliance Team and giving them tools. My personal view is that all you need is a MS Excel spreadsheet, a phone, a clear tangible strategy for various regions in the world and they have more than enough tools necessary to get the job done. In simple speak, if they can't enforce compliance change the team. It is not an extraordinarily complex thing to enforce contracts. I am also not sure whether you need a policy for this. Do we need a policy to show us how to clean our kitchen? Incremental sanctions that are mentioned in page 68 of the Report are relevant. [Please excuse the sarcasm, it's the lack of sleep talking] Yes whilst I agree that the stick approach which is de-registration and de-accreditation, I personally feel that even without these additional revisions and provisions expressly woven into the contract by virtue of ICANN issuing a Notice to all Registrars to update their records is the equivalent of a legal notice as "someone" who is assigning names and numbers. *Recommendation 9 Data Accuracy: Track Impact of Whois Data Reminder Policy and Possible Replacement* The Report clearly outlines the fact that the Whois Data Reminder Policy so without a doubt there is need to review and revise the Policy. I would say, yes GNSO much initiate discussions. To save time there may be things within the Reminder Policy that do not need to be debated again although there is always the exception. There are many models of doing things and Registrars can select what works for them and it would help to at least outline a few generic ones. At the moment, I can deduce that the focus has been based on the actual "data" and if one methodology does'nt work, there should be enough innovation to suggest alternative methods that can be either customer centric or otherwise. *Recommendation 10 Data Access, Privacy and Proxy Services* Aside from the legitimate privacy and data protection arguments which were raised by virtually everyone that participated, there was only one instance in my view of reading the Whois Final Review where a common sense sustainable approach could form the baseline of discussions. To this end, I had suggested to the ALAC that a Draft Policy should be created by the GNSO modelled around the findings Council of European National TLD Registries as a starting point for policy discussion. As I read the updates of the Negotiations on the RAA. Negotiations and all negotiations involving the RAA are legitimate but there should not be unnecessary delay in adopting what are accepted baselines in domestic and national laws. It is not only a waste of time but “stalling the inevitable” on one view. *Recommendation 11 Internic* I think that this should be factored into the Strategy for Transition. I am not sure whose responsibility this is whether this is ICANN's or the GNSO or the entire community. *Recommendations 12-14 IDNs* It would be good to get some feedback on current work being done within the IETF on whether the Whois Protocol has been revised or modified. I have noted the comments that the Whois Protocol has no support for non-ASCII characters (see page 91) and also note the Review Team's comments that the failure to maintain registration data is not attributed to the failure of IDNs but just management of registration data. *Recommendation 15 Detailed and Comprehensive Plan* I gather that ICANN has yet to produce this Detailed and Comprehensive Plan. I do not think that PDP is needed. However, I could be wrong. I would suggest that in the event that ICANN has yet to draft one, why don't we initiate drafting this plan and handing it to the community. Should'nt take more than a week to produce a first draft. All the materials and resources needed are available already. *Recommendation 16 Annual Report* The recommendation within the report is too ambigious and perhaps it was meant to be that way so that it is broad and you can include anything you like. The downside is that if you don't spell out what you want precisely, you can also get nothing. So there's a question of balance. ------------------------------ [1]<https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&view=bsp&ver=ohhl4rw8mbn4#139a4561c7…> http://gnso.icann.org/en/issues/whois/studies On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 5:16 PM, Holly Raiche <h.raiche(a)internode.on.net>wrote: > Hi Everyone > > If we have anything to say, it should deep disappointment and deep > frustration at the delay in the GNSO doing anything on this issue. Carlton > has referred to the ALAC statement on the think Whois. We also commented > on the .com and .net contracts - decrying the fact that they did not > require a think Whois, even through all new gTLDs require it. We have also > urged (and continue to urge) implementation of the Final Final Whois report > (we replied to the Board with a list of recommendations that should be > implemented ASAP). Yes, there are outstanding pieces to the Whois issue. > But if you read the motion - it is a litany of calls for action, and > delays by GNSO. Isn't it time to say enough is enough. No more analysis, > no more comment. We have done that. Maybe something planted under every > seat of every GNSO member so that something happens. > > Holly > > > On 20/09/2012, at 9:19 AM, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro wrote: > > > Dear All, > > > > For consideration of the working group: > > > > Given the GNSO Council Motion which I have copied below where it was > > resolved that the Thick Whois PDP would be delayed following the first > GNSO > > Council meeting after 30 November 2012, I thought I would suggest the > > following:- > > > > > > - Preparing and Receiving Community Input; > > - Analysis of Recommendations made by the Whois Review Final Report; > > - Channelling issues raised within the At Large on Thick Whois into the > > Wiki space; > > - Requesting for feedback on current studies carried out by GNSO and > > give input into current studies being carried out. > > > > > > *20120412 - 1* > > > > Motion to delay the 'thick' Whois Policy Development Process > > > > Whereas the GNSO Council requested an Issue Report on 'thick' Whois at > its > > meeting on 22 September 2011 (see > http://gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#201109 > > ); > > > > Whereas a Preliminary Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was prepared by staff > > and posted on 21 November 2011 for public comment (see > > http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-21nov11-en.htm) > > > > Whereas a Final Issue Report on 'thick' Whois was published on 2 February > > 2012 (see > > > http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/final-report-thick-whois-02feb12-en.pdf > ); > > > > Whereas the Final Issue Report recommends that the GNSO Council proceed > > with a Policy Development Process limited to consideration of the issues > > discussed in this report, and the General Counsel of ICANN has indicated > > the topic is properly within the scope of the ICANN policy process and > > within the scope of the GNSO; > > > > Whereas the GNSO Council initiated a Policy Development Process at its > > meeting of 14 March 2012 (seehttp:// > gnso.icann.org/resolutions/#20120314-1) > > > > Whereas at its wrap up session on 15 March, taking into account the > current > > workload of the GNSO community, the GNSO Council voiced support for a > delay > > in the start of the PDP until both ICANN staff and GNSO resources are > > available to deal with this. > > > > THEREFORE BE IT: > > > > Resolved, the next step (creating a drafting team to develop a charter) > of > > the 'thick' Whois PDP will be delayed until the first GNSO Council > meeting > > after 30 November 2012. > > > > > > > > Thanks and Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

3 3

Iran Preparing an Internal Version of the Internet
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

...talking bout mutation in meaning of words....hope they really don't believe any such thing would be comparable. See, they think its the physical network - architecture, organization etc - that defines it... Read with eyes wide open but note the reasons given here. Assuming they really try, I'm offering even money on failure. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/iran-preparing-intern… - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

A Lobby Group for Internet Freedom
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 20, 2012

Sept. 20, 2012

...like the man said, its something 'easy in principle and hard when it comes to the details'. So think 'mutation' in meaning as you follow the details. They may not always be in your corner in every nuanced detail. But at least they're against SOPA...and all that jazz. Regardless of your position on net neutrality, expect them to have one, albeit from a different point on the compass. They many not be always dependable with respect to issues of censorship. But they sometimes will exhibit interests coincident to yours. In other words, they have permanent interests. So they will not be permanent friends. http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/09/internet-freedom-lobby/ - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert Panel, Seeks Community Input
by Carlton Samuels Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

+1. Very insightful analysis. - Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 4:00 AM, JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > *Hello Alan,* > * > * > *thank you for forwarding this information. Prior to making any individual > comment on an open ICANN online space, I wish to submit that:* > *- this issue may deserve an ALAC reaction as such,* > *- at the very least, the ALAC should underline that* > * - the panel lacks gender and cultural diversity (3 White males, even > if one of them hails from South Africa)* > * - all 3 come from the same mold (common law, corporate affairs, > English)* > * - our observations are not aimed at the individuals, or their personal > value, but at principles enshrined in the By-laws, recommended in the > "Improving Institutional Confidence" document of the (now > * > 2012/9/14 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11sep12-en.htm> > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11sep12-en.htm > > > > > > ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert Panel, Seeks Community > > Input > > > > 11 September 2012 > > > > In fulfillment of ATRT Recommendations 23 and 25, calling for a > > review of ICANN's Accountability Structures, ICANN has identified an > > international panel of experts to serve on the Accountability > > Structures Expert Panel (ASEP). Biographies of the experts are > > available at > > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep> > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep. > > > > The ASEP is interested in hearing from the ICANN community regarding > > your thoughts on ICANN's accountability structures, particularly the > > Reconsideration process and the Independent Review process, and > > whether they can or should be modified. Your comments and inputs can > > be submitted to <mailto:ASEP@ICANN.org>ASEP(a)ICANN.org and comments > > can be viewed at > > <http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep/>http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep/. > > Please provide your input by 1 October 2012. > > > > The ASEP will be posting updates regarding its work, with a detailed > > project plan expected by mid-September. All information regarding the > > ASEP will be accessible from the ASEP page at > > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep> > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep. > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC mailing list > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > ALAC Working Wiki: > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… >

3 2

CALL for ALAC Officers to serve from 22 October 2012 to ICANN AGM 2013 - withdraw my nomination for Yaovi Atohoun
by Eduardo Diaz Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

I would like to withdraw my nomination for Yaovi Atohoun for he has advised me that he does not intend to stand for elections. Thanks. -ed -- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert Panel, Seeks Community Input
by Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

Evan. You are correct about the level of skills, talents that are already within ICANN itself. However for the purposes of having a review, kind of like an "auditing", there is always the option to conduct "internal audits" and "ex internal audits". Whilst having a review done "Inhouse" has its uses, for a body that facilitates objectives pertaining to the key internet policy spaces where the world is the "beneficiary", it follows that there is a need for a review to be carried out "externally". The Accountability and Structure Review process is a critical aspect of evaluating and assessing ICANN's operations so that much like having a mirror, it can work towards constant improvements, development and growth. If the pool of Experts conducting the review were sourced from inside, there is a far greater likelihood that due to "friendships, networks, shared interests etc" that the Report could be "biased". In a global policy environment, structures, processes have far greater legal, equitable, socio-cultural, economic, political impact on the quality of policies that are produced. This no doubt includes substantive technical input, enabling mechanisms to continually allow for diversity into the policy spaces etc. The Affirmation of Commitments and Bylaws recognise this. The issue is not about ICANN trusting its community because it already does through the enormous work in various Supporting organisations, advisory committees, working groups, task forces, cross constituency groups etc. The integrity of the evaluation lies in the ability to minimise risks of apprehension of bias, reasonable bias, bias etc. Kind Regards, Sala On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < apisan(a)unam.mx> wrote: > Evan, > > I'll take the daring step of disagreeing with you. Calling on external > experts for the Accountability Structures panel is consistent with an > institutional design that moves away from the potential for capture, shop > blindness, inbreeding, and other ills that can arise from the lack of > independent analysis. Since the 2003 reform we started to make sure > opportunities for reasonable challenge and redress of decisions be part of > the design, while avoiding in turn the capture of those processes by the > politics of delay and by parties which are not committed to the result yet > may slow it eternally or distort it seriously. > > At the same time I will state that I am unhappy, as others have already > stated, with the specific integration of the panel. Yet we have ourselves > to blame as much as any other if this integration is the result of some > horse-trading. If it is the case, it shows that we have not been able to > get rid of *that* scourge fast enough. > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > SMS +525541444475 > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > ________________________________________ > Desde: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ > at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Evan Leibovitch [ > evan(a)telly.org] > Enviado el: martes, 18 de septiembre de 2012 12:09 > Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > CC: JJS; ALAC Working List; At-Large Worldwide > Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ICANN Launches Accountability Structures > Expert Panel, Seeks Community Input > > Personally, I am amazed that ICANN feels the need to go "external" when it > has such a massive pool of diverse, experienced expertise within its > community. > > Historically, the use by ICANN of outside "expertise" has appeared to me to > be an indication that the organization does not trust its own community > perform such an evaluation. It's more evidence that ICANN as a body fears > its volunteers rather than exploits their perspectives. I am much more in > favour of having outside resources available to a community review, than to > put leadership of this effort in the hands of people without diverse > backgrounds or experience in ICANN culture. > > - Evan > > > > On 18 September 2012 05:40, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Thanks Jean-Jacques, > > > > Thank you for your email and analysis. I fully agree with the wisdom of > > your counsel and the analysis, rationale behind the call for the ALAC to > > make a Statement in this regard. > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:31 PM, JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > *Alan, Salanieta, All,* > > > * > > > * > > > *sorry, you received 2 emails from me on the same subject. The first > one, > > > incomplete, was sent by mistake, so please read the second.* > > > * > > > * > > > *Jean-Jacques. > > > * > > > 2012/9/18 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM, JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> > > >>> *Hello Alan,* > > >>> * > > >>> * > > >>> *thank you for forwarding this information. Prior to making any > > >>> individual > > >>> comment on an open ICANN online space, I wish to submit that:* > > >>> *- this issue may deserve an ALAC reaction as such,* > > >>> *- at the very least, the ALAC should underline that* > > >>> * - the panel lacks gender and cultural diversity (3 White males, > > even > > >>> if one of them hails from South Africa)* > > >>> * - all 3 come from the same mold (common law, corporate affairs, > > >>> English)* > > >>> * - our observations are not aimed at the individuals, or their > > >>> personal > > >>> > > >>> value, but at principles enshrined in the By-laws, recommended in the > > >>> "Improving Institutional Confidence" document of the (now > > >>> > > >> I agree! > > >> > > >>> * > > >>> 2012/9/14 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > >>> > > >>> > < > > >>> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11sep12-en.htm > > > > > >>> > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11sep12-en.htm > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>> > ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert Panel, Seeks > > Community > > >>> > Input > > >>> > > > >>> > 11 September 2012 > > >>> > > > >>> > In fulfillment of ATRT Recommendations 23 and 25, calling for a > > >>> > review of ICANN's Accountability Structures, ICANN has identified > an > > >>> > international panel of experts to serve on the Accountability > > >>> > Structures Expert Panel (ASEP). Biographies of the experts are > > >>> > available at > > >>> > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep> > > >>> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep. > > >>> > > > >>> > The ASEP is interested in hearing from the ICANN community > regarding > > >>> > your thoughts on ICANN's accountability structures, particularly > the > > >>> > Reconsideration process and the Independent Review process, and > > >>> > whether they can or should be modified. Your comments and inputs > can > > >>> > be submitted to <mailto:ASEP@ICANN.org>ASEP(a)ICANN.org and comments > > >>> > can be viewed at > > >>> > <http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep/> > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep/ > > >>> . > > >>> > Please provide your input by 1 October 2012. > > >>> > > > >>> > The ASEP will be posting updates regarding its work, with a > detailed > > >>> > project plan expected by mid-September. All information regarding > the > > >>> > ASEP will be accessible from the ASEP page at > > >>> > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep> > > >>> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep. > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > >>> > ALAC mailing list > > >>> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > >>> > > > >>> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > >>> > ALAC Working Wiki: > > >>> > > > >>> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >>> > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> ALAC mailing list > > >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > >>> > > >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > >>> ALAC Working Wiki: > > >>> > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > >>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > >> P.O. Box 17862 > > >> Suva > > >> Fiji > > >> > > >> Twitter: @SalanietaT > > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch > Toronto Canada > > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > _______________________________________________ > 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 > > > -- Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala P.O. Box 17862 Suva Fiji Twitter: @SalanietaT Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851

4 7

FW: ICANN News Alert -- Fellowship Application Round Opens for ICANN 46 in Beijing, People's Republic of China
by Sébastien Bachollet Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

> ICANN News Alert > <http://www.icann.org/> > News Alert > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-19sep12-en.htm > > Fellowship Application Round Opens for ICANN 46 in Beijing, People's Republic > of China > 19 September 2012 > > How Do I Apply for the Fellowship Program > > The Fellowship Program has demonstrated success in its mission to build > capacity in the ICANN multi-stakeholder environment through focused > interactive engagement between newcomers to ICANN and community members at > each of the ICANN meetings. The program seeks to identify members of the > Internet community who either have not previously been able to participate in > ICANN processes and constituent organizations, or those who require further > exposure to the Internet community and its work but cannot travel and attend a > meeting without financial support. This outreach program seeks participants > from developing regions and countries of the world, in order to help create a > broader base of knowledgeable constituents who will become the new voice of > experience in their regions and beyond. > > Applications to become an ICANN Fellow are assessed for each meeting by an > independent selection committee. Priority is given to applicants who: meet > minimum program requirements; are current residents of developing and least > developed nations in the five ICANN regions; and are interested in > participating in the ICANN multi-stakeholder process and its supporting > organizations, advisory committees or stakeholder groups. An effort will be > made to include participants from the Asia-Pacific region as the site of the > ICANN meeting. > > All confirmed fellowship participants must comply with the terms and > conditions of the Fellowship program, as outlined at > http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/fellowships/terms-conditions. As > stated within these terms and conditions, ICANN is a California non-profit > public benefit corporation and must therefore comply with all the laws and > regulations of California and the United States. Fellows are responsible for > obtaining all travel visas once accepted into the program. ICANN will purchase > tickets for Fellows after all necessary documentation has been obtained and > Fellows demonstrate that they have obtained all necessary travel visas. > > Once all of the requirements for travel are met, the Fellowship program > arranges for and covers the costs for airfare and hotel, as well as providing > a stipend to assist with some meeting and subsistence costs. The stipend is > provided after each selected candidate successfully completes the requirements > of the Fellowship program, Recipients will be expected to actively participate > in and contribute to ICANN processes during and after the meeting. As always, > registration for ICANN's meetings is free for anyone wanting to attend. > > Find out more » <http://www.icann.org/en/about/participate/fellowships> > > > > This message was sent to icann-board(a)icann.org from: ICANN | 12025 > Waterfront Drive Suite 300 | Los Angeles, CA 90094-2536 Email Marketing by > <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> > Manage Your Subscription > <http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=20666176&l=6333&s=RSGT&m=89… > 69&c=165637> > _______________________________________________ icann-board mailing list > icann-board(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/icann-board > > Sébastien Bachollet > +33 6 07 66 89 33 > Blog: http://sebastien.bachollet.fr/ > Mail: Sébastien Bachollet <sebastien(a)bachollet.com> >

1 0

Article on malware preinstalled on PCs
by Gideon Sept. 19, 2012

Sept. 19, 2012

+1 Gaetano, Using the DNS in this way is a new, state-of-art approach, its a good way to actually discriminate the traffic from illegitimate sites will reduce the instances of attempting to hunt down the owners but rather block the traffic and blowing them out of business. I think its a technology that is worth implementing at the root level. Gideon Rop DotConnectAfrica On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 1:47 AM, <at-large-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>wrote: > Send At-Large mailing list submissions to > at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > at-large-request(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > at-large-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of At-Large digest..." > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Article on malware preinstalled on PCs (Roberto Gaetano) > 2. Re: [ALAC] ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert > Panel, Seeks Community Input (Evan Leibovitch) > 3. Re: [ALAC] ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert > Panel, Seeks Community Input (Evan Leibovitch) > 4. Re: [ALAC] ELECTION CALL for ALAC Officers to serve from 22 > October 2012 to ICANN AGM 2013 (Carlton Samuels) > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano(a)hotmail.com> > To: "At Large " <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Cc: > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 22:15:38 +0200 > Using the DNS in this way is a new, state-of-art approach, > > > > http://cw.com.hk/news/microsoft-new-pcs-preinstalled-malware-found-china?pag > e=0,0 > > > > The interesting bit, IMHO, is in the second page where they make reference > to a software by Nominum: > > > > Since the domain also hosts legitimate websites, Microsoft is using DNS > (Domain Name System) software from Nominum that will allow legitimate > traffic to subdomains of 3322.org but halt traffic to the 70,000 hosted > websites that are harmful, a process known as "sinkholing." > > > > It seems to me that it is important that we use tools that can discriminate > between the malicious sub-domains of a domain. > > We often have debates about collateral damages in hunting criminal > behavior, > maybe this is a step in the right direction. > > Cheers, > > Roberto > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan(a)unam.mx>, ALAC Working List < > alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide < > at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:40:41 -0400 > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ICANN Launches Accountability Structures > Expert Panel, Seeks Community Input > Hi, > > I did not see the original message from Alexandro until it was quoted here > by Sala. > > Both your replies are very reasonable and well stated. The issue of capture > is especially important. Consider my mind changed on the issue. > > - Evan > > > On 18 September 2012 14:55, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > Evan. > > > > You are correct about the level of skills, talents that are already > within > > ICANN itself. However for the purposes of having a review, kind of like > an > > "auditing", there is always the option to conduct "internal audits" and > "ex > > internal audits". > > > > Whilst having a review done "Inhouse" has its uses, for a body that > > facilitates objectives pertaining to the key internet policy spaces where > > the world is the "beneficiary", it follows that there is a need for a > > review to be carried out "externally". > > > > The Accountability and Structure Review process is a critical aspect of > > evaluating and assessing ICANN's operations so that much like having a > > mirror, it can work towards constant improvements, development and > growth. > > If the pool of Experts conducting the review were sourced from inside, > > there is a far greater likelihood that due to "friendships, networks, > > shared interests etc" that the Report could be "biased". In a global > policy > > environment, structures, processes have far greater legal, equitable, > > socio-cultural, economic, political impact on the quality of policies > that > > are produced. > > > > This no doubt includes substantive technical input, enabling mechanisms > to > > continually allow for diversity into the policy spaces etc. The > Affirmation > > of Commitments and Bylaws recognise this. > > > > The issue is not about ICANN trusting its community because it already > does > > through the enormous work in various Supporting organisations, advisory > > committees, working groups, task forces, cross constituency groups etc. > The > > integrity of the evaluation lies in the ability to minimise risks of > > apprehension of bias, reasonable bias, bias etc. > > > > Kind Regards, > > Sala > > > > On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 5:55 AM, Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch < > > apisan(a)unam.mx> wrote: > > > > > Evan, > > > > > > I'll take the daring step of disagreeing with you. Calling on external > > > experts for the Accountability Structures panel is consistent with an > > > institutional design that moves away from the potential for capture, > shop > > > blindness, inbreeding, and other ills that can arise from the lack of > > > independent analysis. Since the 2003 reform we started to make sure > > > opportunities for reasonable challenge and redress of decisions be part > > of > > > the design, while avoiding in turn the capture of those processes by > the > > > politics of delay and by parties which are not committed to the result > > yet > > > may slow it eternally or distort it seriously. > > > > > > At the same time I will state that I am unhappy, as others have already > > > stated, with the specific integration of the panel. Yet we have > ourselves > > > to blame as much as any other if this integration is the result of some > > > horse-trading. If it is the case, it shows that we have not been able > to > > > get rid of *that* scourge fast enough. > > > > > > Alejandro Pisanty > > > > > > > > > > > > ! !! !!! !!!! > > > NEW PHONE NUMBER - NUEVO NÚMERO DE TELÉFONO > > > > > > > > > > > > +52-1-5541444475 FROM ABROAD > > > > > > +525541444475 DESDE MÉXICO > > > > > > SMS +525541444475 > > > Dr. Alejandro Pisanty > > > UNAM, Av. Universidad 3000, 04510 Mexico DF Mexico > > > > > > Blog: http://pisanty.blogspot.com > > > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/pisanty > > > Unete al grupo UNAM en LinkedIn, > > > http://www.linkedin.com/e/gis/22285/4A106C0C8614 > > > Twitter: http://twitter.com/apisanty > > > ---->> Unete a ISOC Mexico, http://www.isoc.org > > > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . > > > > > > ________________________________________ > > > Desde: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [ > > > at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] en nombre de Evan > Leibovitch [ > > > evan(a)telly.org] > > > Enviado el: martes, 18 de septiembre de 2012 12:09 > > > Hasta: Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > CC: JJS; ALAC Working List; At-Large Worldwide > > > Asunto: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ICANN Launches Accountability Structures > > > Expert Panel, Seeks Community Input > > > > > > Personally, I am amazed that ICANN feels the need to go "external" when > > it > > > has such a massive pool of diverse, experienced expertise within its > > > community. > > > > > > Historically, the use by ICANN of outside "expertise" has appeared to > me > > to > > > be an indication that the organization does not trust its own community > > > perform such an evaluation. It's more evidence that ICANN as a body > fears > > > its volunteers rather than exploits their perspectives. I am much more > in > > > favour of having outside resources available to a community review, > than > > to > > > put leadership of this effort in the hands of people without diverse > > > backgrounds or experience in ICANN culture. > > > > > > - Evan > > > > > > > > > > > > On 18 September 2012 05:40, Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks Jean-Jacques, > > > > > > > > Thank you for your email and analysis. I fully agree with the wisdom > of > > > > your counsel and the analysis, rationale behind the call for the ALAC > > to > > > > make a Statement in this regard. > > > > > > > > > > > > Kind Regards, > > > > Sala > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:31 PM, JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > *Alan, Salanieta, All,* > > > > > * > > > > > * > > > > > *sorry, you received 2 emails from me on the same subject. The > first > > > one, > > > > > incomplete, was sent by mistake, so please read the second.* > > > > > * > > > > > * > > > > > *Jean-Jacques. > > > > > * > > > > > 2012/9/18 Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro < > > > > > salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 9:00 PM, JJS <jjs.global(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> *Hello Alan,* > > > > >>> * > > > > >>> * > > > > >>> *thank you for forwarding this information. Prior to making any > > > > >>> individual > > > > >>> comment on an open ICANN online space, I wish to submit that:* > > > > >>> *- this issue may deserve an ALAC reaction as such,* > > > > >>> *- at the very least, the ALAC should underline that* > > > > >>> * - the panel lacks gender and cultural diversity (3 White > > males, > > > > even > > > > >>> if one of them hails from South Africa)* > > > > >>> * - all 3 come from the same mold (common law, corporate > > affairs, > > > > >>> English)* > > > > >>> * - our observations are not aimed at the individuals, or > their > > > > >>> personal > > > > >>> > > > > >>> value, but at principles enshrined in the By-laws, recommended in > > the > > > > >>> "Improving Institutional Confidence" document of the (now > > > > >>> > > > > >> I agree! > > > > >> > > > > >>> * > > > > >>> 2012/9/14 Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > < > > > > >>> > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11sep12-en.htm > > > > > > > > > >>> > > > > > > http://www.icann.org/en/news/announcements/announcement-11sep12-en.htm > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > ICANN Launches Accountability Structures Expert Panel, Seeks > > > > Community > > > > >>> > Input > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > 11 September 2012 > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > In fulfillment of ATRT Recommendations 23 and 25, calling for a > > > > >>> > review of ICANN's Accountability Structures, ICANN has > identified > > > an > > > > >>> > international panel of experts to serve on the Accountability > > > > >>> > Structures Expert Panel (ASEP). Biographies of the experts are > > > > >>> > available at > > > > >>> > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep> > > > > >>> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > The ASEP is interested in hearing from the ICANN community > > > regarding > > > > >>> > your thoughts on ICANN's accountability structures, > particularly > > > the > > > > >>> > Reconsideration process and the Independent Review process, and > > > > >>> > whether they can or should be modified. Your comments and > inputs > > > can > > > > >>> > be submitted to <mailto:ASEP@ICANN.org>ASEP(a)ICANN.org and > > comments > > > > >>> > can be viewed at > > > > >>> > <http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep/> > > > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/asep/ > > > > >>> . > > > > >>> > Please provide your input by 1 October 2012. > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > The ASEP will be posting updates regarding its work, with a > > > detailed > > > > >>> > project plan expected by mid-September. All information > regarding > > > the > > > > >>> > ASEP will be accessible from the ASEP page at > > > > >>> > <http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep> > > > > >>> > http://www.icann.org/en/news/in-focus/accountability/asep. > > > > >>> > _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> > ALAC mailing list > > > > >>> > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > >>> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > >>> > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >>> > > > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > > >>> ALAC mailing list > > > > >>> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > >>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > >>> > > > > >>> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > >>> ALAC Working Wiki: > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> -- > > > > >> Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > >> P.O. Box 17862 > > > > >> Suva > > > > >> Fiji > > > > >> > > > > >> Twitter: @SalanietaT > > > > >> Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > >> Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > > > P.O. Box 17862 > > > > Suva > > > > Fiji > > > > > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > ALAC mailing list > > > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > > > > > > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Evan Leibovitch > > > Toronto Canada > > > > > > Em: evan at telly dot org > > > Sk: evanleibovitch > > > Tw: el56 > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Salanieta Tamanikaiwaimaro aka Sala > > P.O. Box 17862 > > Suva > > Fiji > > > > Twitter: @SalanietaT > > Skype:Salanieta.Tamanikaiwaimaro > > Fiji Cell: +679 998 2851 > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > > -- > Evan Leibovitch > Toronto Canada > > Em: evan at telly dot org > Sk: evanleibovitch > Tw: el56 > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > To: "Salanieta T. Tamanikaiwaimaro" <salanieta.tamanikaiwaimaro(a)gmail.com> > Cc: "Dr. Alejandro Pisanty Baruch" <apisan(a)unam.mx>, ALAC Working List < > alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide < > at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:41:55 -0400 > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ICANN Launches Accountability Structures > Expert Panel, Seeks Community Input > > > > I did not see the original message from Alexandro until it was quoted > here > > by Sala. > > > > Sorry for the name misselling, Alejandro. I'll be more vigilant. > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels(a)gmail.com> > To: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> > Cc: ALAC Working List <alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org>, At-Large Worldwide < > at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:44:39 -0500 > Subject: Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ELECTION CALL for ALAC Officers to serve > from 22 October 2012 to ICANN AGM 2013 > I share Evan's sentiments...and offer the same mea culpa. > > Let us be clear here. I went to the Internal list before the call for > nominations with my perspective on Olivier's leadership because I wished > to offer a view - maybe a peculiar one - of what really makes the ALAC of > notice in ICANN affairs. > > I truly believe that it takes gumption, a certain diplomatic skill, will > and the time to commit to do what Olivier has done. And all for free. > IMHO, these are major reasons -vested in the Chair - for what we have > collectively achieved. Yes, all others of the Ex-Com, and indeed some > colleagues not of the Ex-Com, have played significant roles. Because once > the strategic framework is advised by the ALAC, the details of strategy and > how to put them in play are determined collectively. > > I am a mere bit player with some knowledge, expertise and experience that > might be useful to advance the common endeavour. I was asked to assume a > role and I accepted. The role does not define who I am; I bring that to > it. Neither is my sense of self - or value - entwined with the position. > I am asked yet again. I have accepted, yet again. It is quite all right > for the electorate, in their wisdom, to make another choice. > > I second Evan's nomination. Assuming acceptance of nominations of all, I > shall vote for the slate. > > - Carlton > > ============================== > Carlton A Samuels > Mobile: 876-818-1799 > *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* > ============================= > > > On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 11:38 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> wrote: > > > On 18 September 2012 09:57, Carlos Vera Quintana <cveraq(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > +1 this is a very reasonable position. We have to have rotation and new > > > faces all the time in all positions. > > > > > > > As someone standing for re-election, I have an obvious bias in the > > discussion. However, even were I not, I would be intrigued -- and a > little > > unsettled -- by the concept of "change for the sake of change". > > > > There are term limits for many positions within At-Large leadership -- I > am > > in my last of two terms as ALAC member -- and I am curious to know the > > rationale behind "new faces all the time" in a manner that exceeds both > the > > intent and the practice of these reasonable limits. > > > > This is now my sixth year within ICANN as a volunteer and I am only now > > finding a comfort level with the many layers and complexities of working > > within ICANN's policy development. That may just mean that I'm slow, but > I > > would suggest that ICANN possesses a level of internal complexity > rivalling > > that of a UN or government bureacuracy. It takes time just to learn. > > > > Insisting on rapid rotation -- for the sake of rapid rotation -- ensures > > that ALAC leadership will never have the depth necessary to deal with > > issues that matter to Internet end-users. Our adversaries -- those who > > dispense with the public interest because of financial gain -- have no > such > > limits. Indeed there are many within the domain industry who have been > > involved with ICANN since its inception and are acutely aware of its > inner > > workings and how to manipulate them for gain. Given our reasonable levels > > of term limits our people will never achieve the level of personal > > entrenchment enjoyed by industry, but I would suggest that the rapid > > rotation suggested by some here would be absolutely devastating to the > > ability of ICANN At-Large to assert itself in the corridors of power. > > > > If there are issues with the performance of individuals running for > > re-election, general complaints about leadership or direction, or the > > ascendency of people advocating fresh priorities or changes of strategy, > by > > all means let's bring them forward and engage in useful debate and an > > informed election. I welcome such engagement. But I know that there are a > > number of issues that I personally am involved with and consider > > "unfinished business" -- unfinished because they just take so long to > > process through ICANN. The others running for re-election have their own > > priorities in this regard. I think it would be a shame -- and damaging to > > the At-Large cause -- if many of these efforts are forced to pause while > > being rebooted or re-learned simply because of an election based on > theory > > that looks good on paper but works poorly in the negotiations room. > > > > Two years from now, because of term limits, I know for certain that I > will > > be off not only the executive but my ALAC position. I will welcome my > > replacement. I fully understand and appreciate the need to share the load > > and encourage new voices, both as a matter of outreach and keeping > At-Large > > constantly in touch. But I suggest that there is a balance to be struck > > between continuity and refreshment, and that the balance currently in > place > > within ALAC is a good one. Going more narrowly than term limits to assert > > change for its own sake does a disservice to incumbents and all of > > At-Large. > > > > In most organizations of which I'm aware -- whether corporation, > government > > or NPO -- frequent changes of leadership does not indicate stability or > > success. > > > > - Evan > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac > > > > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org > > ALAC Working Wiki: > > > https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(AL… > > > > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large >

1 0