- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Names Issues mailing lsit
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 16, 2009

Nov. 16, 2009

Can someone with the proper authority remove "alan.greeberg(a)mcgill.ca" (note the missing N) from this list. I have just added myself under my correct address. Alan

1 0

FW: [governance] la&c II pre-igf meeting report just presented in sharm el sheik
by Vanda UOL Nov. 15, 2009

Nov. 15, 2009

Dear all. The text presented today at Sharm el Sheik from regional LA&C region. Best cid:image002.jpg@01C93E96.B7BF8BD0 Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55.11.3266.6253 Mob- +55.11.8181.1464 vanda(a)scartezini.inf.br -----Original Message----- From: Carlos A. Afonso [mailto:ca@cafonso.ca] Sent: Sunday, November 15, 2009 8:59 AM To: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] la&c II pre-igf meeting report just presented in sharm el sheik Dear people, Attached please find the summary report of our regional meeting as presented in the plenary of the IGF Sharm el Sheik today. fraternal regards --c.a. Hempal Shrestha wrote: > Hi I guess, did I missed the meeting ? Is there still anything in the plan? > > Hempal Shresta > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Charity Gamboa > <charityg(a)diplomacy.edu <mailto:charityg@diplomacy.edu>> wrote: > > Hi Ian, > > Will try to make it as soon as we are done with the ISOC meeting on > the 14th. I am leaving now for Sharm. See you! > > Regards, > Charity > > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 6:20 PM, Ian Peter <ian.peter(a)ianpeter.com > <mailto:ian.peter@ianpeter.com>> wrote: > > Just to remind everyone that our meeting is scheduled for > Saturday Evening, > November 14, from 7pm to 8pm at the conference venue. The room > is the Nile > Valley room, which will have been used for Giganet earlier in > the day. > > Please make every effort to be on time, particularly if coming > from other > venues and meetings, as we will not be able to run overtime with > this > meeting and many people will be keen to get the days meetings > out of the way > and relax. So I hope we can start promptly at 7pm and, if > anything, finish > early. > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > <mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org> > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > > > > -- > http://charitygamboa.towerofbabel.com > <http://charitygamboa.towerofbabel.com/> > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > governance(a)lists.cpsr.org <mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org> > To be removed from the list, send any message to: > governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org > <mailto:governance-unsubscribe@lists.cpsr.org> > > For all list information and functions, see: > http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: governance(a)lists.cpsr.org To be removed from the list, send any message to: governance-unsubscribe(a)lists.cpsr.org For all list information and functions, see: http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

1 0

Fwd: [eoi-wg] Documents for call Nov 13 2009
by Patrick Vande Walle Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

FYI and reaction. Please find appended the minutes of Monday's meeting, and also the revised plan and WG charter. The WG charter makes it clear that the participants act in a personal capacity. The revised plan should answer some of the questions Evan was asking regarding the goal of this exercise. The revised plan suggests that this "expression of interest" should actually be named "application, stage one". The main reason being that it may put ICANN in a difficult legal position IF it said that only those participating in the EOI would be apply to apply. I tend to agree with that. Again, we have to keep in mind that some players will find any possible way to challenge the process. Regarding the fee (or deposit) the figure mentioned is $55,000 , refundable at ICANN's discretion. I personally disagree that "The Fee is sufficiently small not to constitute an undue burden on less well-funded potential applicants". For many smaller communities in less wealthy countries, that may be too high at this initial stage, keeping in mind that the goal of having an EOI period or a pre-application period is to allow those applicants to raise funding from their stakeholders. As usual your comments are welcome. The next call is tonight (European time, noon US EST). Patrick -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [eoi-wg] Documents for call Nov 13 2009 Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:42:42 -0500 From: Antony Van Couvering <avc(a)mindsandmachines.com> To: Expression of Interest Working group <eoi-wg(a)pra.im> Reply-To: Expression of Interest Working group <eoi-wg(a)pra.im> Greetings, In preparation for our call tomorrow, please find attached a few documents. 1. Revised draft of the plan for the EOI Process, in both clean and redlined versions, incorporating the input from our last call 2. Revised charter of the EOI WG, in both clean and redlined versions, incorporating the input from our last call 3. Minutes of our prior meeting for consideration and approval I will sending out call-in information shortly. With thanks, Antony -- Blog: http://patrick.vande-walle.eu Twitter: http://twitter.vande-walle.eu Identica: http://identica.vande-walle.eu

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

Total of 28 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 13 00:53:03 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 17.86% | 5 | 64.54% | 413315 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 17.86% | 5 | 8.01% | 51279 | vanda at uol.com.br 10.71% | 3 | 5.33% | 34141 | sebastien.bachollet at isoc.fr 10.71% | 3 | 2.69% | 17201 | bfausett at internet.law.pro 7.14% | 2 | 4.15% | 26549 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 7.14% | 2 | 2.94% | 18836 | james at seng.sg 7.14% | 2 | 2.40% | 15362 | evan at telly.org 3.57% | 1 | 2.89% | 18492 | dominik.filipp at dsoft.sk 3.57% | 1 | 1.97% | 12622 | langdonorr at gmail.com 3.57% | 1 | 1.73% | 11059 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 3.57% | 1 | 1.56% | 10007 | khaled.koubaa at topnet.tn 3.57% | 1 | 0.95% | 6113 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.57% | 1 | 0.85% | 5472 | johnl at iecc.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 28 |100.00% | 640448 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ga] new gTLDs: ICANN seeks input and advice - REGISTRANTS
by Joe Baptista Nov. 13, 2009

Nov. 13, 2009

On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 4:50 PM, Jeffrey A. Williams <jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com > wrote: > Eric and all, > > > > ICANN has made it relitively clear that it doesn't want open and > transparent Independant > > Registrants grouping together in any form of officially recognized body by > ICANN. > I agree - but who cares. Get them together - drop some money in the bucket - and get represented. ICANN to me right now is a scam wrapped in shit. A lot like the HEX - www.inaic.com and www.unifiedroot.com - it's just more sophisticated as scams go. A professional civil servant created it. Now handy Rodney is riding the bulls back into the stable. Or trying too teoritically speaking which is probably more accurate. Meanwhile the Chinese are laughing it up and back at the ICANN table. There is a need for domains at all levels to have representation at ICANN. Taxation without representation is the lowest for of crime known to the U.S. courts. ICANN represents an experiment in which the Internet assets of the U.S. government - being names and numbers. The people of the United States of America have been ripped off by the agreements made between NTIA DOC NSF .. etc. etc. etc. .. as the names and numbers hot potatoes get tossed from one agency to another. In ICANN there is a clear testimonial the people have been ripped off. ICANN is the absence of innovation afloat in the void of bureaucracy. It's a terrible job for an idealist and intellectual. Hire a lawyer in California: give ICANN an ultimatum to provide board representation - as promised in many agreements - and if they don't respond properly - sue them for representation. Thats the only way were ever going to be represented. -- Joe Baptista www.publicroot.org PublicRoot Consortium ---------------------------------------------------------------- The future of the Internet is Open, Transparent, Inclusive, Representative & Accountable to the Internet community @large. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office: +1 (360) 526-6077 (extension 052) Fax: +1 (509) 479-0084 Personal: http://baptista.cynikal.net/

1 0

Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by Patrick Vande Walle Nov. 12, 2009

Nov. 12, 2009

I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the Expression of Interest working group. In summary, there is a proposal to the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally notify ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD. The goal is that it will allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly. For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another. I have joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group. Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday. Looking forward to your comments, Patrick -------- Original Message -------- Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:43 -0500 Antony Van Couvering avc(a)mindsandmachines.com I sent the following note to Rod Beckstrom, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Doug Brent, and Kurt Pritz a few minutes ago. ICANN Board and staff are now on notice that we will be giving them something to work from. The attachments are: - a formal letter - the formation charter - the initial first draft plan The charter and the plan were sent to most of you earlier. I will provide call-in information for the Monday phone conference as soon as I have it. We are still waiting for confirmation of membership from 3 people, their names were redacted in the version sent to ICANN. Thanks for joining up. Antony Begin forwarded message: FROM: Antony Van Couvering DATE: November 6, 2009 4:16:44 PM EST TO: Rod Beckstrom CC: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org [3], doug.brent(a)icann.org [4], kurt.pritz(a)icann.org [5] SUBJECT: EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST WORKING GROUP Gentlemen, Please find attached our correspondence and accompanying documents relating to the formation of a cross-community 18-person working group, called the Expression of Interest Working Group, which will present to staff a proposal for the Expressions of Interest plan called for by the Resolution from the ICANN Board on October 30 in Seoul. We have an aggressive schedule to meet your deadline and will appreciate any support you can give us. In particular, we plan to have a Working Group phone call next Monday and any assistance with phone bridges and/or transcription would be most helpful. A full list of our membership is included in the attached documents, but you may feel free to contact me directly with any questions or to co-ordinate activities. With best regards, Antony Van Couvering Links: ------ [1] mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com [2] mailto:rod.beckstrom@icann.org [3] mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org [4] mailto:doug.brent@icann.org [5] mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org

8 14

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by Bret Fausett Nov. 11, 2009

Nov. 11, 2009

I was on the call yesterday, and I had the distinct impression that the group wanted to be open. Who wants to be on the mailing list and phone calls? I will forward your names to the group. On Nov 10, 2009, at 9:25 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: > OK it is an UNOFFICIAL CLOSED group of a bunch of interested people. > Yes they are interested! But to what? > If it is period then it is not time for "official" At-Large > participation. > > Sébastien Bachollet > Président d'honneur - Isoc France > sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr > www.egeni.org > www.isoc.fr >

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 10, 2009

Nov. 10, 2009

To echo what Patrick said at the very start, this is an UNOFFICIAL group of a bunch of interested people. Period. Regardless of how we may have selected At-Large people to participate, that does not change it. See a recent note from Bruce Tonkin to the GNSO Council who are having similar problems with the representativeness of the participants. Alan At 10/11/2009 11:48 AM, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: >Hello, >Nothing against the persons... > >But I am concern with the composition of the Working Group. >8 of the members have signed a common letter >http://www.icann.org/correspondence/van-couvering-to-beckstrom-21sep09-en.pd >f >6 didn't sign it, (Maybe because in those stakeholder groups no one sign the >letter ;)) >3 names are Awaiting confirmation. >I am afraid that we will repeat the same situation than with the IRT. >We can be very happy with a bottom-up process but if some rules are not >taking into account (like publication of a statement of interest by each >participants of "official" WG) it is not good. >Geographic diversity is another point of concern. > >My statement of interest is available at >http://www.icann.org/en/committees/alac/bachollet.html > > >Sébastien Bachollet >Président d'honneur - Isoc France >sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >www.egeni.org >www.isoc.fr > > > > > -----Message d'origine----- > > De : at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- > > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de Vanda UOL > > Envoyé : mardi 10 novembre 2009 14:06 > > À : 'At-Large Worldwide' > > Objet : Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group > > > > I support your comments James. It was very interesting process and > > should > > have more those in many policy issues. I believe any proposal will be > > posted to comments and after that we may have a process defined to go > > further. > > best > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of James > > Seng > > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 7:09 AM > > To: At-Large Worldwide > > Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group > > > > What I heard from yesterday conference call is that the next conf call > > will > > be supported by ICANN; The yesterday conf call was put together in a > > hurry > > before the staff could react. Of course, this does not imply ICANN > > endorse > > the group or the concept but it is not as if ICANN staff is against it. > > > > On the other hand, I see this initiative as an bottom-up process, where > > folks within the community come up with an idea, speak to enough people > > to > > gather support, go on and form a group to make a proposal to ICANN. So > > as a > > matter of principle, I support such initiative and I wish we could see > > more > > of such bottom-up ideas within ICANN. > > > > If there is any fault with it so far, I would say the aggressive > > timeline > > they have (idea in Seoul, first call on Monday, and submit proposal on > > Friday). > > > > In anycase, I don't think Friday would be the end of the process but > > rather > > the beginning. If the general idea is accepted by the Dec board conf > > call, I > > think the group need to continue the good work for a couple more > > months, > > working with the staff, as well as a public comment, before it will be > > finally accepted as part of the DAG process. > > > > -James Seng > > > > On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:19 AM, Patrick Vande Walle <patrick@vande- > > walle.eu > > > wrote: > > > > > Just to be clear: > > > > > > - The board asked the *staff* to come up with a proposal. They have > > not > > > asked for a WG to be formed to develop policy. > > > - although the WG leaders asked management, staff and board to > > > logistically support this group, there was no answer. As an example, > > > ICANN provided no teleconference facilities. Participants pay out of > > > their own pocket. I volunteered to host the mailing list on my > > personal > > > mail server. > > > > > > The conclusion I draw is that the staff would actually prefer this WG > > > not to exist. The main goal of this unofficial WG is to come up with > > a > > > proposal that the staff cannot refuse, and will be somehow forced to > > > present to the board at its December meeting. > > > > > > As for the "missing" At-Large position on the group, the information > > I > > > have that it was someone from Africa was based on conversations I had > > > with Antony. The person has been approached already and the WG is > > still > > > waiting for a reply. I was in no way involved in the choice, BTW. > > > > > > Evan Leibovitch wrote, On 9/11/09 18:02: > > > > First of all, I am *extremely* concerned about the compressed > > timeline. > > > > > > > > /"Note that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a > > > > teleconference tonight (Monday) and a final call next Friday" > > > > / > > > > > > > > This is NOT how to do major policy changes!! ICANN has been at tghe > > > > DAG for years, and it wants to turn a good suggestion at the Public > > > > Forum into complete policy in less than a month? > > > > > > > > This (along with the absolutely ridiculous way the IRT was formed) > > > > indicates an extremely dangerous sense of panic within either > > ICANN's > > > > Board, staff or both. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also -- and this may be most important of all -- it lets ICANN > > knows > > > > how many applications will be non-controversial and might have an > > > > ability to be fast tracked. The concept of application categories > > is > > > > clearly back, but ICANN needs to see what applications is dealing > > with > > > > in order to know whether a strategy of streams is worthwhile. > > > I have not heard the word fast-track in this discussion. The one of > > the > > > goals is to be able to quantify, not to select a few that would get a > > > priority treatment. > > > > Those operating in stealth will eventually have to come out > > sometime, > > > > might as well be now. ICANN is a public and transparent body and > > need > > > > not care about business justifications for secrecy. I am against > > ICANN > > > > engaging in NDAs with applicants. > > > This is a"pirate" group of some activists trying to push through a > > > proposal, despite the reluctance of ICANN. Hence, it is not an > > official > > > policy work. See this as lobbying, rather than policy development. > > This > > > is why I said right from the beginning that I would be acting in my > > > personal capacity. > > > > At the ALAC/GAC meeting I raised the issue of the 'morality and > > public > > > > order' clause. There seemed to be a broad consensus that the > > existing > > > > clause is highly problematic, however they are against taking it > > out > > > > because want *some* provision there and they have no alternative > > ideas. > > > The goal of this WG is not to decide what constitutes morality and > > > public order. More pragmatically, this early notification may allow > > > those who submit controversial proposals that generate large > > opposition > > > from the beginning to avoid sinking a million dollars in vain. > > > > > > > > > Patrick > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > At-Large mailing list > > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > > lists.icann > > .org > > > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > > lists.icann > > .org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge- > > lists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by Alan Greenberg Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

I do not think that I have the time to be the second person on this group, despite my strong interest in the subject (I am spending close to full time on the STI Review team right now). I would appreciate being on the core mailing list as an observer (and alternate if applicable) and on the ALAC/AT-Large support group. Alan At 09/11/2009 12:09 PM, Cheryl Langdon-Orr wrote: >FYI as it relates to exchanges running in this list... > >CLO > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> >Date: 2009/11/10 >Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group >To: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu>, james(a)seng.sg, Alan >Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List < >alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> > > >Patrick... Thank you for the "heads up" on this and those of us who were >supportive of this concept in Seoul will indeed be very interested in how >the work of this ad-hoc "cross-community" WG... > >Clearly some assumptions have been made in the lead up to and the formation >of this WG and we [ALAC] in my view need to work within the framework of the >formal documentation sent to ICANN as attached by Patrick in his original >email to the public at-large list (and the following thread regarding WG >"membership") and recognizing that the formation of this WG is not either >ICANN Board directed or Chartered under the auspices of any SO or AC, there >are a couple of points, that as ALAC in my view we need to address >urgently:- >1. The documentation and Charter (Section 3a) calls for "Two(2)Members from >the ALAC;" > 2. The documentation lists its "EOI Working Group Participants" as > *'awaiting >confirmation'* relating to the two (2) member positions for the ALAC (and >here we can as we often do [have precedent] make that 'two members from >ALAC' to be 'two from ALAC / At-large' in a balanced ratio [1:1 in this >case] in my view) the following; > > Name ICANN Affiliation WG >Position > >1. Patrick Van de Walle At-Large Member >2. * {To Be Appointed/Confirmed}* ALAC Member > > >3. The documentation also states that "Given the short time frame for the >work to be completed, a core group of points of contact will be responsible >for the work. The slate of participants is ...... from a wide cross section >of the ICANN community. In establishing the points of contact slate. The >Working Group looked for well-respected members of a wide range of >constituencies from diverse geographical regions." > >This principal does *not* indicate that all geographic regions must be >covered nor that the second "ALAC / At-Large slot" has to come from Africa >(though it would be desirable to see true geographic (or other) diversity >being attended to more seriously. > >So as I see it regardless of 'in what capacity' people volunteered or were >selected for this WG we have an additional ALAC appointment to make and we >need to confirm Patrick formally. > >As has been our practice in such tightly focussed WG's (e.g. the post Paris >meeting GNSO Improvements WG and the current GNSO SIT-WG) the ALAC will >facilitate and support our representatives in their work directly via >activities and engagement with ALAC - Working Groups (or Work Teams thereof) >existing or ad hoc for the role, and we will be happy to arrange for >conference calls etc., to assist in specific WG and wider At-Large community >input for this purpose. > > >Therefore I propose that we ask who from the ALAC is willing and able to >make the considerable commitment to undertake the role of the second >WG-Member... Assuming here that you all agree with me that our SSAC Liaison >is to be confirmed... > >As I see it there are two obvious choices: > >a) appoint our GNSO Liaison as it fits within mandate of his role => Alan do >you have the time available? > >or > >b) appoint James (who has already indicated his interest and availability) >and who can act as both our ALAC voice and in his IDN Liaison capacity. > > >Responses please as soon as possible! As I would want to confirm our >"Two(2)Members >from the ALAC;" at the meeting Patrick is attending or as soon as possible >after that... > >CLO > > > >2009/11/9 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > > > > > > > I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the > > Expression of Interest working group. > > > > In summary, there is a proposal to > > the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally notify > > ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD. > > > > The goal is that it will > > allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. > > Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for > > sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly. > > > > > > For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple > > applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible > > partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the > > towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and > > expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that > > the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another. > > > > I have > > joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from > > the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I > > could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look > > forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group. > > > > Note > > that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight > > (Monday) and a final call next Friday. > > > > Looking forward to your comments, > > > > > > Patrick > > > > -------- Original Message -------- > > > > Fwd: Expressions of > > Interest Working Group > > > > Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:43 -0500 > > > > Antony Van > > Couvering > > > > avc(a)mindsandmachines.com > > > > I sent the following note to Rod > > Beckstrom, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Doug Brent, and Kurt Pritz a few minutes > > ago. ICANN Board and staff are now on notice that we will be giving them > > something to work from. The attachments are: - a formal letter - the > > formation charter - the initial first draft plan > > The charter and the > > plan were sent to most of you earlier. I will provide call-in information > > for the Monday phone conference as soon as I have it. We are still waiting > > for confirmation of membership from 3 people, their names were redacted in > > the version sent to ICANN. Thanks for joining up. Antony > > > > Begin > > forwarded message: > > FROM: Antony Van Couvering > > DATE: November 6, 2009 > > 4:16:44 PM EST > > TO: Rod Beckstrom > > CC: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org [3], > > doug.brent(a)icann.org [4], kurt.pritz(a)icann.org [5] > > SUBJECT: EXPRESSIONS OF > > INTEREST WORKING GROUP > > > > Gentlemen, > > > > Please find attached our > > correspondence and accompanying documents relating to the formation of a > > cross-community 18-person working group, called the Expression of Interest > > Working Group, which will present to staff a proposal for the Expressions > > of Interest plan called for by the Resolution from the ICANN Board on > > October 30 in Seoul. > > > > We have an aggressive schedule to meet your deadline > > and will appreciate any support you can give us. In particular, we plan to > > have a Working Group phone call next Monday and any assistance with phone > > bridges and/or transcription would be most helpful. > > > > A full list of our > > membership is included in the attached documents, but you may feel free to > > contact me directly with any questions or to co-ordinate activities. > > > > With > > best regards, > > > > Antony Van Couvering > > > > Links: > > ------ > > [1] > > mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com > > [2] mailto:rod.beckstrom@icann.org > > [3] > > mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org > > [4] mailto:doug.brent@icann.org > > [5] > > mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > > At-Large mailing list > > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > > > > > >-- >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >(CLO) > > > > >-- >Cheryl Langdon-Orr >(CLO) >_______________________________________________ >At-Large mailing list >At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > >At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org

1 0

Fwd: Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 9, 2009

Nov. 9, 2009

FYI as it relates to exchanges running in this list... CLO ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cheryl Langdon-Orr <langdonorr(a)gmail.com> Date: 2009/11/10 Subject: Re: [At-Large] Fwd: Expressions of Interest Working Group To: Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu>, james(a)seng.sg, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca>, ALAC Working List < alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> Patrick... Thank you for the "heads up" on this and those of us who were supportive of this concept in Seoul will indeed be very interested in how the work of this ad-hoc "cross-community" WG... Clearly some assumptions have been made in the lead up to and the formation of this WG and we [ALAC] in my view need to work within the framework of the formal documentation sent to ICANN as attached by Patrick in his original email to the public at-large list (and the following thread regarding WG "membership") and recognizing that the formation of this WG is not either ICANN Board directed or Chartered under the auspices of any SO or AC, there are a couple of points, that as ALAC in my view we need to address urgently:- 1. The documentation and Charter (Section 3a) calls for "Two(2)Members from the ALAC;" 2. The documentation lists its "EOI Working Group Participants" as *'awaiting confirmation'* relating to the two (2) member positions for the ALAC (and here we can as we often do [have precedent] make that 'two members from ALAC' to be 'two from ALAC / At-large' in a balanced ratio [1:1 in this case] in my view) the following; Name ICANN Affiliation WG Position 1. Patrick Van de Walle At-Large Member 2. * {To Be Appointed/Confirmed}* ALAC Member 3. The documentation also states that "Given the short time frame for the work to be completed, a core group of points of contact will be responsible for the work. The slate of participants is ...... from a wide cross section of the ICANN community. In establishing the points of contact slate. The Working Group looked for well-respected members of a wide range of constituencies from diverse geographical regions." This principal does *not* indicate that all geographic regions must be covered nor that the second "ALAC / At-Large slot" has to come from Africa (though it would be desirable to see true geographic (or other) diversity being attended to more seriously. So as I see it regardless of 'in what capacity' people volunteered or were selected for this WG we have an additional ALAC appointment to make and we need to confirm Patrick formally. As has been our practice in such tightly focussed WG's (e.g. the post Paris meeting GNSO Improvements WG and the current GNSO SIT-WG) the ALAC will facilitate and support our representatives in their work directly via activities and engagement with ALAC - Working Groups (or Work Teams thereof) existing or ad hoc for the role, and we will be happy to arrange for conference calls etc., to assist in specific WG and wider At-Large community input for this purpose. Therefore I propose that we ask who from the ALAC is willing and able to make the considerable commitment to undertake the role of the second WG-Member... Assuming here that you all agree with me that our SSAC Liaison is to be confirmed... As I see it there are two obvious choices: a) appoint our GNSO Liaison as it fits within mandate of his role => Alan do you have the time available? or b) appoint James (who has already indicated his interest and availability) and who can act as both our ALAC voice and in his IDN Liaison capacity. Responses please as soon as possible! As I would want to confirm our "Two(2)Members from the ALAC;" at the meeting Patrick is attending or as soon as possible after that... CLO 2009/11/9 Patrick Vande Walle <patrick(a)vande-walle.eu> > > > I am forwarding this e-mail from Antony Van Couvering regarding the > Expression of Interest working group. > > In summary, there is a proposal to > the ICANN board to allow potential new gTLD applicants to formally notify > ICANN of their interest to apply for a new gTLD. > > The goal is that it will > allow ICANN to figure out the exact number of applications they will get. > Figures from 100 to 10.000 have been commonly heard. But no one know for > sure right now. It will allow ICANN to size their operations accordingly. > > > For the applicants, it will allow them to see if there are multiple > applications for the same string, allowing them to either start possible > partnerships ahead of the formal call for applications or to throw the > towel right away, potentially saving them a lot of money by avoiding and > expensive application process and auctions. In the end, we all know that > the costs will be passed on to registrants one way or another. > > I have > joined this working group in an individual capacity, with no mandate from > the ALAC. However, I was approached to participate because it was thought I > could bring some "At-large flavour" to the discussion. Hence, I look > forward to receive your comments and will relay them to the group. > > Note > that the deadline is pretty tight. We already have a teleconference tonight > (Monday) and a final call next Friday. > > Looking forward to your comments, > > > Patrick > > -------- Original Message -------- > > Fwd: Expressions of > Interest Working Group > > Fri, 6 Nov 2009 16:48:43 -0500 > > Antony Van > Couvering > > avc(a)mindsandmachines.com > > I sent the following note to Rod > Beckstrom, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Doug Brent, and Kurt Pritz a few minutes > ago. ICANN Board and staff are now on notice that we will be giving them > something to work from. The attachments are: - a formal letter - the > formation charter - the initial first draft plan > The charter and the > plan were sent to most of you earlier. I will provide call-in information > for the Monday phone conference as soon as I have it. We are still waiting > for confirmation of membership from 3 people, their names were redacted in > the version sent to ICANN. Thanks for joining up. Antony > > Begin > forwarded message: > FROM: Antony Van Couvering > DATE: November 6, 2009 > 4:16:44 PM EST > TO: Rod Beckstrom > CC: peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org [3], > doug.brent(a)icann.org [4], kurt.pritz(a)icann.org [5] > SUBJECT: EXPRESSIONS OF > INTEREST WORKING GROUP > > Gentlemen, > > Please find attached our > correspondence and accompanying documents relating to the formation of a > cross-community 18-person working group, called the Expression of Interest > Working Group, which will present to staff a proposal for the Expressions > of Interest plan called for by the Resolution from the ICANN Board on > October 30 in Seoul. > > We have an aggressive schedule to meet your deadline > and will appreciate any support you can give us. In particular, we plan to > have a Working Group phone call next Monday and any assistance with phone > bridges and/or transcription would be most helpful. > > A full list of our > membership is included in the attached documents, but you may feel free to > contact me directly with any questions or to co-ordinate activities. > > With > best regards, > > Antony Van Couvering > > Links: > ------ > [1] > mailto:avc@mindsandmachines.com > [2] mailto:rod.beckstrom@icann.org > [3] > mailto:peter.dengatethrush@icann.org > [4] mailto:doug.brent@icann.org > [5] > mailto:kurt.pritz@icann.org > > _______________________________________________ > At-Large mailing list > At-Large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large_atlarge-lists.ican… > > At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org > -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO) -- Cheryl Langdon-Orr (CLO)

1 0