- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Seoul Regional Conference on Internet Governance
by William Drake Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

Hi, Adam has pointed out to me that while the announcement below was sent to the NCUC and IGC (IGF) lists it wasn't here, sorry. So in case anyway is in Seoul on Friday, looking for something to do, and willing to listen to academic blowhards, GigaNet (the Global Internet Governance Academic Network---Milton's the chair and I'm the vice, talk about conspiracies;-) and the Graduate School of Public Administration at Seoul National University will be doing a Regional Conference on Internet Governance at SNU from 14:00-18:00 at SNU. Blowing hard will be folks some of you know---Wolfgang, Rebecca, YJ, MM, myself, and Jisuk Woo, our host and NCUCer---and some you may not. Anyway it's free and open to the public SNU is south of the river, best to take a taxi from downtown as the metro stop's a long walk from the conference site, cost like $10-15 from downtown, I forget. Bill Begin forwarded message: > From: "Jisuk Woo, Ph.D., J.D." <jisuk(a)SNU.AC.KR> > Date: October 21, 2009 2:32:53 PM GMT+09:00 > To: NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Re: Seoul Regional Conference on Internet Governance (KJPS- > SNU & GigaNet) > Reply-To: "Jisuk Woo, Ph.D., J.D." <jisuk(a)snu.ac.kr> > > Sorry, I forgot to include Bill Drake as one of the participants! > If any of you are interested in joing the conference, please > r.s.v.p., so that we can make your name tag in advance. > > I am attaching a map to the conference site. Thanks! > > Best regards, > > Jisuk > --- Original Message --- > From : "Jisuk Woo, Ph.D., J.D."<jisuk(a)SNU.AC.KR> > To : NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Date : 2009/10/21 수요일 오후 2:26:22 > Subject : [NCUC-DISCUSS] Seoul Regional Conference on Internet > Governance (KJPS-SNU & GigaNet) > > Dear everyone, > > You may probably know already, but I would like to remind you that > there will be a Conference on Internet Governance at Seoul National > University on Oct. 23rd in the afternoon. Any of you who will be in > Seoul at the time are more than welcome to join the conference. > > Participatns include Milton Mueller, Rebecca MacKinnon, YJ Park, > Wolfgang Kleinwachter, Peng Hwa Ang, and Eung Hwi Chun, whom you > must know very well. So I am sure that there will be very > interesting discussions. > > The detailed program is the following. I wish you make a safe trip > to Seoul and enjoy the beautiful autumn here. If any of you get lost > after you arrive or encounter something that is beyond your > expectation and do not know where to turn to, you may give me a call > at 010-3376-3255. > > Best regards, > > Jisuk Woo, Ph.D., J.D. > Associate Professor > Graduate School of Public Administration > Seoul National University > > > > > 우지숙 > 서울대학교 행정대학원 부교수 > Jisuk Woo, Ph.D., J.D. > Associate Professor > Graduate School of Public Administration > Seoul National University > tel: 02-880-5633 > fax: 02-6248-0951 > email: jisuk(a)snu.ac.kr *********************************************************** William J. Drake Senior Associate Centre for International Governance Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies Geneva, Switzerland william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch www.graduateinstitute.ch/cig/drake.html ***********************************************************

2 1

Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
by Beau Brendler Oct. 23, 2009

Oct. 23, 2009

Bill, you wrote: >Lots of people don't recognize a singular holy obligation to get involved in RAA issues. But if you can patiently lay out the case for why people should care, sans the dripping sarcasm, I would certainly pass it along again and encourage people to consider it alongside all the other issues they're working on. I prefer the term satire. But actually: If you don't see the connection between the RAA and consumers and the public interest, that concerns me, because you should, and so should any group claiming to represent the public interest. You shouldn't need me to lay out a case. You ought to consider reviewing some of the user comments to ICANN over the past year or two, and it should be obvious. I've seen your work on the IRT, but: There's no one on the NCUC representing the public interest on the registrant abuse policy working group, for instance. When the WHOIS study issue came around, the NCUC chose to register a meaningless protest rather than contributing anything of meaning, putting you right there with the RyC and ISP constituencies. Is that really where all your new, diverse membership is at? You've got all these great public interest groups interested in ICANN participation but they don't really care about the issues except for how civil society is appropriately represented in the GNSO? Here's where some bridges can be built. You wrote: >If ALAC folk want to get together with NCUC folk to explore areas of >common concern and think about how we can move forward more >productively, great, I/we reached out and tried to create a space for >that. If you don't want to, ok, don't, but then please no complaints >about NCUCers not working with you on RAA or anything else. Your >call. I'll be at the reception Monday night, people will go out >afterwards, come along or don't, as you like. Thank you for doing that. Your effort is to be commended, you're a likable, intelligent person, and you were the most articulate voice at the OECD meeting last year. However, you're not the chairman of the NCUC, nor are you the former and obviously still influential chairman of the NCUC, and we have heard nothing, zip nada zilch, from them on any of the topics still of mutual concern to your group and the ALAC. And whether I show up for a drink or not, or complain or not, shouldn't be influencing anyone in your group about participating in ICANN policy activity of importance to the public interest. -----Original Message----- >From: William Drake <william.drake(a)graduateinstitute.ch> >Sent: Oct 22, 2009 7:51 PM >To: At-Large Worldwide <at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org> >Subject: Re: [At-Large] "placeholder" reps not placeholders? > >Hi Beau > >On Oct 23, 2009, at 12:26 AM, Beau Brendler wrote: > >> Bill, I'm surprised by this note. You wrote: >> >>> I exchanged a number of messages with Beau, Alan and the NCUC in >>> March- >>> June trying to encourage cooperation on the registrants' rights >>> charter, and I wrote to you saying please get involved and help >>> take a >>> lead if you have issues---no response. And after you flamed us for >>> voting in MC to allow the process to move forward and then other >>> stuff >>> happened around the charter, it became hard to get anyone interested. >>> I don't know all the history, but apparently there are people who >>> would rather hari kari than try to work with you. I don't think >>> that's an indictment of NCUC. >> >> Fortunately or unfortunately, the RAA work seems to have come full >> circle, and I now find myself asked to co-chair another RAA working >> group, half of which is supposed to write up the registrants' rights >> charter, the other half, with Steve Metalitz chair, to talk content >> and amendments. When asked, I sort of scratched my head, as I >> thought that was all done and the NCUC/NCSG and its hundreds of >> international organizations representing la creme du societe civile >> had stepped up to do it, but apparently they have done absolutely >> rien de tout, or Jacques du Merde, since I dropped the ball in March >> -- as Milton, Robin, and, sigh, now you, repeatedly remind the >> public. If I am wrong about this, please point me to the definitive >> body of work the steadily swelling, enlightened ranks of >> Kansalaisjärjestöjen has left in its wake, so it may enlighten me as >> I go forward to carry the dropped torch. > >I said nothing about you dropping any balls, zip nada nothing. I said >only that I'd written to you back when I was trying to get NCUC >interested. I understand you're sensitive about various past >interactions with certain NCUC personas but please leave me out of it >and don't process every communication from anyone in NCUC through the >same filter, it serves no more purpose than me taking a message from >one ALACer as indicative of how everyone in ALAC thinks. Danny was >saying NCUC's not done anything on RAA and I was simply saying here's >what I did (not all that much, just tried to get the conversation >going) and here's what happened (nobody was too interested, for >various reasons). >> >> Danny is correct when he points out there is not a single >> representative of Shoqërisë Civile on either of the current groups, >> to my knowledge, though there are representatives from the >> contracted parties. Actually, on the registrants' rights document >> group there is not a single representative other than me. We are >> supposed to generate results 30 days after Seoul, so there's lots of >> work to do. Most of what I am using is based, by the way, on what >> ALAC did (with Danny's leading contribution) more than two years >> ago, along with what AUDA (an industry group) did five years ago (http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2004-04/ >> ). > >I do recognize this is an important issue and I wish noncommercial >people were more interested in engaging on it. I even tried reaching >beyond the cloistered world of ICANN to the Dynamic Coalition on >Internet Rights and Principles in IGF and the CSISAC in OECD and said >hey there's this charter effort it's important let me know if you want >to get involved---nothing. I can't force anyone to be committed to a >topic (in truth, unless one is pretty into registrant contract >conditions and such, the issues may seem rather obscure) or desirous >of entering into a particular collaboration. Maybe if we have some >effective bridge building people will start to come around. If >instead what they get is assaults and snarkiness probably they will >remain uninterested. I know I am, at this moment. >> >> Perhaps the PhD-exclusive GigaNet think tank (I caught your >> presentation at the OECD meeting in Seoul a year or so ago, where >> you and I first met) would like to dispatch a handful of PhDs to >> give us some recommendations on this important matter of Internet >> governance? Or the NCUC might be able to contribute one or two >> lawyers? I am neither. The Internet user community needs your help. > >I don't see the point of being snarky about it, Beau. Lots of people >don't recognize a singular holy obligation to get involved in RAA >issues. But if you can patiently lay out the case for why people >should care, sans the dripping sarcasm, I would certainly pass it >along again and encourage people to consider it alongside all the >other issues they're working on. >> >> You also wrote: >> >>> I don't know all the history, but apparently there are people who >>> would rather hari kari than try to work with you [Danny].< >> >> Danny has been bitingly critical of ALAC, and there have been many >> occasions when I have taken his comments personally and walked away >> from the keyboard in anger. However, in my three years' experience, >> he usually refrains from personal attacks, and usually strives to be >> factually accurate, at least in his ALAC criticisms. He's also a >> volunteer with a full-time job that's not paid through some sort of >> professional internet governance concern, which is to say, like most >> people who use the Internet. This part of your note is alarmingly >> personal, reminiscent of the tactics of NCUC leadership over the >> last six months, and I'm disappointed to see it. > >Sorry, but I don't take it all that well when someone I've never met >and have only exchanged a couple of lines with basically calls me a >liar and propagates paranoid fantasies about me and people I know, >especially when I am trying to overcome that sort of thinking and say >hey let's just get together and talk. His message was alarmingly >personal, his comments on NCUC were not remotely factually accurate, >and he was clearly telling ALAC people they should not want to work >with NCUC (and in the same breath, NCUC's a bunch of jerks because >they haven't wanted to collaborate on this!). And we are all >volunteers, I don't get paid dime one for this and it has zip to do >with my day job, so I'm not inclined to spend cycles being pissed on >in public by a stranger based on his past conflicts with other people >before I came around. Sorry. > >If ALAC folk want to get together with NCUC folk to explore areas of >common concern and think about how we can move forward more >productively, great, I/we reached out and tried to create a space for >that. If you don't want to, ok, don't, but then please no complaints >about NCUCers not working with you on RAA or anything else. Your >call. I'll be at the reception Monday night, people will go out >afterwards, come along or don't, as you like. > >Best, > >Bill >_______________________________________________ >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

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ALAC/At-Large Performance Management
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

At 22/10/2009 09:12 AM, Evan Leibovitch wrote: >Hi Alan, > >The ALAC has now adopted the Position Description (PD) for ALAC >members and Liaisons >(<http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-PD>http://tinyurl.com/ALAC-PD) Despite >satisfaction that it has been approved, I must admit some >disappointment at the low voter turnout. > >I now submit the following discussion paper on how to ensure that >the PD is effective. > > > >Thank you for doing this. > >In my opinion it is even more important that the non-ALAC components >of At-Large -- RALOs, ALSs and individual members (as applicable) -- >engage in this. When ALAC does not show the leaderships its members >were elected and appointed to deliver, it holds us all back. I >applaud this initiative as an important step towards the increased >accountability of ALAC's elected members. > >Now ... if only there was a way to hold the NomComm accountable for >*its* non-performing selections... That's a bit like holding the public accountable for electing a dumb politician! Or maybe not. But seriously, if we start by saying what we actually expect, and then back it up by taking action when things don't work, we should be far better with for NomCom and RALO members. >- Evan > > >PS: Unless you're character-constrained (ie, by using Twitter) I >advise against TinyURL and other URL-shortening services as they >pose significant security risks. By personal practise I won't open >them and it's a big reason my Twitter usage has essentially ended. >Please post the full URL. And if only the wiki would have REASONABLE urls, perhaps I would not be tempted. https://st.icann.org/alac-docs/index.cgi?resolution_on_position_description…

1 0

ALAC/At-Large Performance Management - Translations
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Courtesy of http://www.google.com/translate. No time to format them, but hope they will be useful. Alan

1 0

Re: [At-Large] NCUC Response to Board Letter
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Dear Robin: Thanks for your note. Firstly, I think it is important to state that contrary to the subject line of your email, I am not trying to stir up anything. It seems to me that it is not helpful to assume the worst with respect to the motivations of others, as it is my experience that one is likely to be wrong far more often than one is right, which is unfortunately the case here. You and I have known and worked with one another for almost ten years now, much longer than I have been involved in ICANN. During that time, I cannot think of any point at which we have suggested that the other persons motivations were anything other than as stated "on the tin." Having reviewed your letter of 18th August 2009, I note that you have said in your point 3: "Third, because of the danger of locking in a suboptimal structure, we ask you not to approve any new Constítuencies under the SIC and ICANN staff-imposed transitional NCSG charter until the ongoing debates over the status of Constituencies and their role in the NCSG is resolved next year." I think it is therefore fair to say that where I said: "... the NCUC had asked the Board to refrain from approving any new GNSO Constituencies for the two year Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Transition period. ..." I should have said: "... the NCUC had asked the Board to refrain from approving any new GNSO Constituencies until "the ongoing debates over the status of Constituencies and their role in the NCSG is resolved next year"" As that would have precisely quoted you and what you said. I am therefore happy to apologise for the above, which I hope you will accept; I have copied the same two mailing lists that the original email was sent to in order to ensure that everyone who received the original has received this reply. As I think my reply to the NCUC-Discuss list will bounce, I would be glad if you forwarded this note to that list too. On a personal note, I look forward to seeing you in Seoul, and hope your travels are as comfortable as is possible on such a long flight. From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: 21 October 2009 15:54 To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Alan Greenberg; William Drake; at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Rod Beckstrom Subject: NCUC Response to Board Letter & why is staff trying to stir up trouble again? Nick: I note you mis-state NCUC's position saying that we asked the board for no constituencies to be created for 2 years on the ALAC list: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/at-large_atlarge-lists.icann.org/2… That is simply not true. Staff continuing to repeat these divisive untrue statements, especially after having been told they are wrong is very frustrating and counter-productive to everyone. NCUC was also concerned that the Board believed that untruth since it was in that letter that you mention. Therefore NCUC sent a response to the board to the letter you cite in hopes of clearing up the misperception (that you are trying to re-muddy here). Would you please be so kind as to forward to the ALAC list where you just mis-quoted NCUC's position the attached NCUC response to clear up this misperception? Thank you, Robin

2 1

FW: NCUC Response to Board Letter
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

Dear Community members: Robin has reminded me that I didn't forward the PDF containing the NCUC response to the letter referenced in earlier emails; here it is. From: Robin Gross [mailto:robin@ipjustice.org] Sent: 21 October 2009 18:42 To: Nick Ashton-Hart Cc: Alan Greenberg; William Drake; at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; NCUC-DISCUSS(a)LISTSERV.SYR.EDU; Rod Beckstrom; At-Large Advisory Committee Subject: Re: NCUC Response to Board Letter Thank you for your clarification, Nick. I'm sure you did not intend to cause further confusion and perpetuate misperceptions about NCUC's position. I'll ask again: Would you please forward NCUC's letter (attached again) that tries to clear up this misperception to the ALAC list? Thank you, Robin

1 0

Quiero ser tu amigo en Quepasa.com
by carlos aguirre Oct. 22, 2009

Oct. 22, 2009

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] "placeholder" reps not placeholders?
by Nick Ashton-Hart Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Dear Danny, Beau, Roberto, Alan and other list members: As many of you have recognized in recent posts on this list, the GNSO Improvements implementation process is not yet at a steady state. Transition efforts are still ongoing, especially with respect to the GNSO Non-Commercial and Commercial Stakeholder Groups' (NCSG, CSG) charters. During the email conversation on this topic, it is clear that there's a desire to get together face-to-face to discuss, in particular, matters related to the appointment of the three GNSO Council members appointed by the Board. Me and my colleagues are happy to facilitate the face-to-face meeting in Seoul that you have requested between new constituency advocates and members of the Board's Structural Improvements Committee. We'll get back to you with proposed times and dates when this could take place (with as few conflicts as possible of course). On the subject of Seoul meetings, you may have noted that a public session to discuss GNSO Improvements matters with Board members is now scheduled for Wednesday (28 October) at 1600 local time in the Crystal Ballroom. We encourage all of you traveling to Seoul who are interested in these issues to attend that session. If you are not traveling to Seoul, perhaps you would like to send specific questions to be asked at the Wednesday session to policy-staff(a)icann.org<mailto:policy-staff@icann.org>. We will try to present a number of submitted questions at the session and will plan to have a transcript and recording of the session available soon after the meeting. With respect to constituency formation, some of you may not have noticed the recent letter from ICANN CEO Rod Beckstrom and Chair Peter Dengate-Thrush to NCUC Chair Robin Gross that directly addresses the issue of new GNSO Constituencies that you have been discussing. Among several requests, the NCUC had asked the Board to refrain from approving any new GNSO Constituencies for the two year Non Commercial Stakeholder Group Transition period. In responding to the NCUC request, the Board advises the NCUC as follows: "The Board is not in a position to refrain from approving new Constituencies assigned to the NCSG during the two year NCSG transition period. The Board has committed to processing pending applications and has already indicated its intention to have new Constituencies formed with the assistance of the three GNSO Councilors from the NCSG appointed by the Board at its meeting on 30 September. The Board believes that the addition of these new perspectives will broaden and deepen the structural discussions and, potentially, enable fresh new consensus to emerge. We also note that the Board's decision to double the current number of non-commercial seats on the Council was predicated upon the creation of a NCSG in which other diverse, international Constituencies participate along with the current NCUC." A copy of the letter can be found on the ICANN website's Board correspondence page at this link - http://www.icann.org/correspondence/beckstrom-to-gross-06oct09-en.pdf Staff continues to be available to discuss new constituency formation matters with existing and prospective new constituency proponents to help them make the best use of their resources and to discuss potential recruiting and other support matters unique to prospective new constituencies. Please send a note to Rob Hoggarth at robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org<mailto:robert.hoggarth@icann.org> if you would like to talk about that process. Finally - for those coming to Seoul, I look forward to seeing you all soon. --- Regards, Nick Ashton-Hart Director for At-Large Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, Inc. (ICANN) http://www.atlarge.icann.org Tel: +33 450 40 46 88 Mobile: +41 79 595 5468 Fax: +41 22 594 85 44 Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / Skype: nashtonhart Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/ashtonhart

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ALAC Officer and Liaison Elections
by Adam Peake Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Congratulations to all, it's a good team. Looking forward to working with you. Best, Adam At 1:06 PM +0200 10/21/09, Sébastien Bachollet wrote: >May I congratulate Cheryl, Alan and Carlton on their elections as Chair, >Vice-chair and Rapporteur as well as Patrick, James, Rudi and Alan as SSAC, >IDN, ccNSO and gNSO Liaisons. > >Hopping that this team will enhance the current work done in this period >post JPA and post review of the ALAC. > >I will do my best to participate also. > >All the best > >Sébastien Bachollet >Président d'honneur - Isoc France >sebastien.bachollet(a)isoc.fr >www.egeni.org >www.isoc.fr > > >> -----Message d'origine----- >> De : alac-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac-bounces@atlarge- >> lists.icann.org] De la part de Alan Greenberg >> Envoyé : mercredi 21 octobre 2009 03:38 >> À : ALAC Working List; At-Large Worldwide >> Objet : [ALAC] ALAC Officer and Liaison Elections >> >> Nominations closed on Monday and all of those >> nominated have now either accepted or declined. >> >> In all cases, there remains only one candidate >> for each of the Officer and Liaison positions. >> >> I am not quite clear on whether the results are >> now "official" or if some specific process must >> be followed, but it would appear that all >> nominated and accepted candidates will be elected by acclamation. >> >> Hoping I have not ignored some due process, I >> therefore congratulate Cheryl, Sébastien and >> Carlton on their elections as Chair, Vice-chair >> and Rapporteur as well as Patrick, James and Rudi >> as SSAC, IDN and ccNCS Liaisons. >> >> I do note that the position of >> NCUC/MCSG/User-House Liaison received no >> nominations, but that is reasonable given that we >> will be having the discussion in Seoul on exactly who we will be >> liaising with. >> >> Alan >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ALAC mailing list >> ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- >> lists.icann.org >> >> At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >> ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > > >_______________________________________________ >ALAC mailing list >ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > >At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org >ALAC Working Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC] ALAC Officer and Liaison Elections
by Alan Greenberg Oct. 21, 2009

Oct. 21, 2009

Bill is the Liaison FRM NCUC. The slot in discussion is our person being a Liaison with them. With Bill, it is easy to get the hats mixed up! ;-) Alan At 21/10/2009 06:46 AM, Wolf Ludwig wrote: >Not sure whether I missed something but as far as >I understood, Bill was suggested as Liaison some >weeks ago already. And as a non-ALAC member >I couldn't nominate him "officially". > >Best, >Wolf

1 0