- At-Large - lists.icann.org

WHOIS Studies
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 21, 2009

Feb. 21, 2009

The GNSO was asked to make recommendations on what studies could or should be done to ultimately allow some progress on the Whois issue. Public input was requested on the types of studies that could be done, and this list was merged with the GAC request to the Board on Whois studies. We are now at the stage where GNSO constituencies have prioritized the various studies (or groups of studies) so that ICANN staff can begin to evaluate the feasibility and cost of such studies. The GNSO is scheduled to hold a vote on the issue in Mexico City. Although not a formal Constituency, the ALAC was asked to rate prioritize the studies also. A working group was convened. The volunteers were Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Beau Brendler, Carlton Samuels, Danny Younger, Seith Reiss, Sylvia Caras and Gareth Shearman. Beau volunteered to evaluate the studies from a user and consumer point of view. Most of the WG participants felt that we should give the studies ratings, although there view was expressed by some that we should follow the RrC and NCUC example (see below). The attached spreadsheet gives the various studies/groups, a brief description or hypothesis (some less brief than others), the priority rating that Beau assigned and the priorities of the GNSO constituencies. Note that two Constituencies, the Registrar and Non-Commercial Users, rated all studies at zero. For the Registrars, the reasons were: "The RrC continues to maintain that no studies should be pursued. We have over six years of history on this topic. It was clear through those years that the stakeholder groups were entrenched in their views and positions and there is no evidence or any other indication that any of these studies will change that." The NCUC also felt that there was no point in any further studies. Following the individual ratings are the averages. I have calculated the averages both before and after the ALAC input, and also both including and excluding the RrC and NCUC. By comparing the before and after ALAC averages, you can see how our input will impact the process. By excluding the RrC and NCUC, we can see how our priorities compared to those set by the other groups that went through the exercise. On the average, I have highlighted those with an average of greater than 2.5 (studies were given ratings from 0 to 5). Without the ALAC, 6 studies were above the threshold and are scheduled to be recommended for further ICANN staff action. With the ALAC ratings, two additional studies are above the threshold. If the threshold is raised just a bit, we would have no change in the overall outcome (even though a few of our ratings are quite different from the others that gave non-zero ratings). I understand that this is not a particularly understandable table, but I am at a loss as to how to make it easier without making it much larger. For those who want to understand more about what the studies are looking at, see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c…. The current plan from the WG is to submit this to the GNSO for inclusion in their deliberations. I am not sure if Cheryl is planning to schedule a formal ALAC vote on this, but will leave that up to her. Beau did review his rationale for the priorities during the last conference call, and I will post the location of the MP3 as soon as I get it. If someone has specific questions, I am sure he will try to answer them. Alan

7 7

Fwd: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

>To: Peter Dengate Thrush <peter.dengatethrush(a)icann.org >From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg(a)mcgill.ca> >Subject: Board request for Report on User Involvement in the GNSO >Cc: Wendy Seltzer <wendy(a)seltzer.com>, Denise Michel ><denise.michel(a)icann.org>, Cheryl Langdon-Orr ><langdonorr(a)gmail.com>, Avri Doria <avri(a)ltu.se>, At-Large Staff ><staff(a)atlarge.icann.org>, gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org > >Dear Peter, > >On 11 December 2008, the Board of Directors requested a report on >the involvement of users in the GNSO, initially to be delivered by >24 January 2009, later extended to 20 February 2009. > >As per the Board request, the GNSO and ALAC facilitated the >convening of a working group with participants from the >ALAC/At-Large, GNSO and forming constituency communities. As the >ALAC Liaison to the GNSO, I am pleased to deliver this report on >behalf of the working group. > >My understanding is that the Chairs of both the ALAC and the GNSO >will request that their respective groups ratify this report before >or during the Mexico City meeting. > >Although a number of the participants entered into this working >group with some trepidation, it functioned remarkably well, all the >more so given the tight timeline. > >With warm regards, Alan Greenberg

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Feb. 20, 2009

Feb. 20, 2009

Total of 56 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Feb 20 00:53:02 EST 2009 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 10.71% | 6 | 24.08% | 115126 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 10.71% | 6 | 9.44% | 45146 | karl at cavebear.com 8.93% | 5 | 8.17% | 39082 | ymshana2003 at hotmail.com 5.36% | 3 | 7.89% | 37725 | cetic at ajudicialmdp.org.ar 7.14% | 4 | 5.09% | 24329 | rudi.vansnick at isoc.be 5.36% | 3 | 5.07% | 24265 | evan at telly.org 5.36% | 3 | 4.81% | 22985 | langdonorr at gmail.com 5.36% | 3 | 4.05% | 19378 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 5.36% | 3 | 3.57% | 17071 | johnl at iecc.com 3.57% | 2 | 3.21% | 15350 | franck.martin at gmail.com 3.57% | 2 | 3.20% | 15317 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 3.57% | 2 | 2.98% | 14257 | baptista at publicroot.org 3.57% | 2 | 2.68% | 12815 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 3.57% | 2 | 1.98% | 9490 | michele at blacknight.ie 1.79% | 1 | 2.69% | 12871 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.44% | 6896 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 1.79% | 1 | 1.44% | 6865 | vb at bertola.eu 1.79% | 1 | 1.42% | 6767 | admin at isoc.sd 1.79% | 1 | 1.34% | 6403 | fsylla at gmail.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.23% | 5871 | jefsey at jefsey.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.20% | 5724 | dogwallah at gmail.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.03% | 4941 | icann-list at sorehands.com 1.79% | 1 | 1.03% | 4936 | roberto at icann.org 1.79% | 1 | 0.95% | 4565 | bfausett at internet.law.pro --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 56 |100.00% | 478175 | Total

1 0

Public Comment: Geographic Regions Charter
by Rudi Vansnick Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Public Comment: Geographic Regions Charter 18 February 2009 A community-wide working group has been established by the ICANN Board to undertake a review of ICANN's Geographic Regions. The Working Group has developed a draft charter to guide its efforts. All members of the ICANN community are now invited to review that draft charter <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/geographic-regions/wg-draft-charter-18feb09-…> [PDF, 44K] and share comments and observations with the Board and community through 24 March 2009. Full text : http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-2-18feb09-en.htm Rudi Vansnick

3 2

ICANN PREGUNTAS
by Danny Younger Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Re: "they are the same ones who want to lower the costs of participation of Internet users in ICANN!" I share your outrage. This year ICANN will take in seven million dollars more than last year (not counting the new gTLD fees). ICANN will also maintain an investment reserve fund of about $28.0 million. Yet for some reason, ICANN management won't agree to fully fund the travel expenses of ICANN volunteers. Gosh, they might have to spend another $175,000 if they fully funded the GNSO Councilors.

10 16

Link to MP3 Added - WHOIS Studies
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

The GNSO was asked to make recommendations on what studies could or should be done to ultimately allow some progress on the Whois issue. Public input was requested on the types of studies that could be done, and this list was merged with the GAC request to the Board on Whois studies. We are now at the stage where GNSO constituencies have prioritized the various studies (or groups of studies) so that ICANN staff can begin to evaluate the feasibility and cost of such studies. The GNSO is scheduled to hold a vote on the issue in Mexico City. Although not a formal Constituency, the ALAC was asked to rate prioritize the studies also. A working group was convened. The volunteers were Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Langdon-Orr, Beau Brendler, Carlton Samuels, Danny Younger, Seith Reiss, Sylvia Caras and Gareth Shearman. Beau volunteered to evaluate the studies from a user and consumer point of view. Most of the WG participants felt that we should give the studies ratings, although there view was expressed by some that we should follow the RrC and NCUC example (see below). The attached spreadsheet gives the various studies/groups, a brief description or hypothesis (some less brief than others), the priority rating that Beau assigned and the priorities of the GNSO constituencies. Note that two Constituencies, the Registrar and Non-Commercial Users, rated all studies at zero. For the Registrars, the reasons were: "The RrC continues to maintain that no studies should be pursued. We have over six years of history on this topic. It was clear through those years that the stakeholder groups were entrenched in their views and positions and there is no evidence or any other indication that any of these studies will change that." The NCUC also felt that there was no point in any further studies. Following the individual ratings are the averages. I have calculated the averages both before and after the ALAC input, and also both including and excluding the RrC and NCUC. By comparing the before and after ALAC averages, you can see how our input will impact the process. By excluding the RrC and NCUC, we can see how our priorities compared to those set by the other groups that went through the exercise. On the average, I have highlighted those with an average of greater than 2.5 (studies were given ratings from 0 to 5). Without the ALAC, 6 studies were above the threshold and are scheduled to be recommended for further ICANN staff action. With the ALAC ratings, two additional studies are above the threshold. If the threshold is raised just a bit, we would have no change in the overall outcome (even though a few of our ratings are quite different from the others that gave non-zero ratings). I understand that this is not a particularly understandable table, but I am at a loss as to how to make it easier without making it much larger. For those who want to understand more about what the studies are looking at, see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/whois/whois-study-hypothesis-group-report-to-c…. The current plan from the WG is to submit this to the GNSO for inclusion in their deliberations. I am not sure if Cheryl is planning to schedule a formal ALAC vote on this, but will leave that up to her. Beau did review his rationale for the priorities during the last conference call, and the MP3 recording is pointed to at https://st.icann.org/gnso-liaison/index.cgi?05_february_2009. If someone has specific questions, I am sure he will try to answer them. Alan

1 0

Draft report to Board on User Involvement in the GNSO
by Alan Greenberg Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

As you are no doubt aware, the Board of Directors asked the At-Large and GNSO Communities to jointly develop a set of recommendations on the subject of individual user involvement in the GNSO. We asked for a deadline extension to Friday, Feb. 20th, and that was granted by the Board. The draft statement is attached. The working group members were: GNSO: James Bladel, Avri Doria, William Drake, Robin Gross, Zahid Jamil, Milton Mueller, Mary Wong ALAC: Carlos Aguirre, Sébastien Bachollet, Beau Brendler, Alan Greenberg, Cheryl Landon-Orr, Adam Peake, Vanda Scartezini, Baudouin Schombe, Danny Younger (Danny Younger has chosen to disassociate himself from this Statement and the recommendations therein) Although the report is still open for correcting typographical and similar errors or for the addition of minority comments by WG members, it is essentially completed. I must say that when I entered into this process, I did not know if we could indeed get a statement that would be endorsed by such a wide variety of participants. For that reason, I am quite pleased with this outcome and commend all of the WG members for their hard work. Alan

1 0

ICANN PREGUNTAS
by Danny Younger Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Adam, Some staff payments are indeed listed on the Form 990. The 2007 Form 990 indicated that Denise Michel received: $198,330 -- compensation $49,160 -- contributions to emloyee benefit plans & deferred compensation $130,465 -- expense account & other allowances. Doug Brent received: $148,500 -- compensation $37,789 -- contributions to emloyee benefit plans & deferred compensation $12,000 -- expense account & other allowances. You'll also find the figures for John Jeffrey, Kurt Pritz, Paul Levins and more... (each of whom receives more than a quarter million dollars per year).

6 5

Public Comment: Fast Track Proposed Solutions
by Rudi Vansnick Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

Public Comment: Fast Track Proposed Solutions 18 February 2009 http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-18feb09-en.htm A public comment period opens today on a number of proposed implementation features in the “Fast Track” process, as well as an updated version of the Fast Track’s Implementation Plan . The Fast Track is a mechanism to introduce a limited number of non-contentious internationalized country-code top level domain names (IDN ccTLDs) to the Internet. In the initial draft of the Fast Track Implementation Plan, a number of open issues were identified that require further input from the community and need to be resolved to complete the implementation. There are separate papers of proposed implementation details (listed below). The papers are based on comments and input received from the community, notably from meetings held at ICANN’s international public meeting in Cairo in November 2008. Along with the papers are: an updated Draft Implementation Plan; a document providing a consolidated overview of the comments received and document containing staff considerations regarding the comments received on the initial Draft Implementation Plan. This new version of the plan is intended to elicit further community feedback both during and after the ICANN meeting in Mexico City next month (1-6 March 2009). The public comment period that opened today covers both the Draft Implementation Plan and the papers. Comments received will be used to revise the plan in preparation of a Final Implementation Plan. The comment period ends on 6 April 2009. Please note that the papers listed below are proposed discussion drafts only. Potential IDN ccTLD requestors should not rely on any of the proposed included details as it remains subject to further consultation and revision. Please also note that it is expected there will be several updates to this announcement as papers are released as they are finalized and translated. The papers describe: 1. Documentation of Responsibility between ICANN and prospective IDN ccTLD Managers <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/proposed-implementation-detai…> [PDF, 156K] 2. Development and use of IDN tables and character variants for second and top level strings <http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/proposed-implementation-detai…> [PDF, 120K] Related links: Public comment period: http://forum.icann.org/lists/ft-implementation/ Revised Fast Track Draft Implementation Plan: (coming) Staff considerations on received comments: (coming) Working Group Final Report (with public comments): http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/staff-considerations-idnc-wg-… [PDF, 269K] Fast Track webpage: http://www.icann.org/en/topics/idn/fast-track/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

An ICANN Staff Assault on our Rights
by Danny Younger Feb. 19, 2009

Feb. 19, 2009

In a post to the GNSO Council, ICANN Staffer Kurt Pritz points to section 4.2 of the RAA and claims "These topics mark the boundaries of the "picket fence" within which policy development under the current RAA is possible." He then goes on to outline a series of topics that "could not be imposed on registrars via Consensus Policies". Such statements are an insult to our intelligence and seek to re-define and denigrate our rights. The current incarnation of the RAA was formalized in 2001 -- long before the notion of a "picket fence" was ever conceptualized. The language of the contract indicates that new and revised specifications and policies "may" be established on the certain topics; it does not preclude the establishment of policies on other topics. Unlike the registry contracts that have clauses explicitly stating "In addition to the other limitations on Consensus Policies, they shall not: (A) prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services;" etc., the RAA has no such language. Kurt would have us believe that Registrar Auditing, Graduated Sanctions, and numerous other matters can not be addressed by way of Consensus Policy formulations -- he is dead wrong, and this is a dangerous step that he is taking. Consensus Policy declarations are our only avenue to restrain rogue registrar behaviors. Seeking to limit the possible scope of Consensus Policies as they pertain to registrars is an assault on the multi-stakeholder model that should not be tolerated. Kurt's apparent goal is to convince the Council to pursue a course of action that would allow ICANN to offer "incentives" to registrars that comply with the new amendments. We don't need to further coddle the registrar community. The approach being suggested is wrong on a great many levels. One can only hope that the ICANN board will start paying attention to these developments and will act to reign in a Staff that has now strayed far from the straight and narrow. Kurt's post is here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg06318.html

1 0