- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] Parting words - So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
by Hakikur Rahman Jan. 15, 2009

Jan. 15, 2009

Had a very short acquaintances with Robert during the last year's NomCom. Wish you the very best in your future endeavors. Regarding the discussions on the list, I presume they are very dynamic and most of the time constructive too. These discussions should lead us to the refined territory of the Internet for All (despite many obstacles). My observation in this aspect that the discussion should not lead to any personal status, especially in terms of using choice of words, as you have indicated. I hope we will not miss you in other platforms of Internet governance! Best regards, Hakik At 03:34 PM 1/14/2009, Robert Guerra wrote: >A review of my engagement of late has made me realize that due to work >commitments it will be challenge for me to focus the time, attention and >energy required to actively participate in discussions on the ALAC. As such, >I would like to put forward my notice of resignation as the North American >RALO rep on the ALAC. > >While a short notice might be the most preferred option, I thought it >appropiate to share my reasons with all of you so you can understand the >context as well as the reasons behind my departure. > >The fact that issues related to freedom of expression, censorship and >bottom-up user engagement are being ignored at both regional and global >levels at both ALAC and ICANN is greatly disappointing. This disspointment >- and great fustration at times - has made led me to shift my activity >from an active role to a more passive one. While active at the physical >meetings, my engagement of late in the conference calls has been minimal and >quite passive. > >My silience on the lists has led some to believe that I'm not engaged at >all. Well, I would beg to differ as my full-time position does focus on >issues of user engagement, internet freedom and internet governance. >Engagement is many different thing to different people. But, one thing is >clear, my change in level of engagement, divergent views and different >style has lead to an ongoing private agenda by some to attempt to force me >out . Since the Cairo meeting, efforts have entensified. The choice of words >in private email exchanges, have been surprising. > >So, I prefer to recognize that there is a significant difference of opinion >and pass on the opportunity to others .There are far too many other issues >of importance that the group should - and must - focus on. > >I wish you all luck, success - and that we can stay in touch. > > >Yours sincerely, > >Robert Guerra >Managing Director, Privaterra >_______________________________________________ >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

Parting words - So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish
by Robert Guerra Jan. 15, 2009

Jan. 15, 2009

A review of my engagement of late has made me realize that due to work commitments it will be challenge for me to focus the time, attention and energy required to actively participate in discussions on the ALAC. As such, I would like to put forward my notice of resignation as the North American RALO rep on the ALAC. While a short notice might be the most preferred option, I thought it appropiate to share my reasons with all of you so you can understand the context as well as the reasons behind my departure. The fact that issues related to freedom of expression, censorship and bottom-up user engagement are being ignored at both regional and global levels at both ALAC and ICANN is greatly disappointing. This disspointment - and great fustration at times - has made led me to shift my activity from an active role to a more passive one. While active at the physical meetings, my engagement of late in the conference calls has been minimal and quite passive. My silience on the lists has led some to believe that I'm not engaged at all. Well, I would beg to differ as my full-time position does focus on issues of user engagement, internet freedom and internet governance. Engagement is many different thing to different people. But, one thing is clear, my change in level of engagement, divergent views and different style has lead to an ongoing private agenda by some to attempt to force me out . Since the Cairo meeting, efforts have entensified. The choice of words in private email exchanges, have been surprising. So, I prefer to recognize that there is a significant difference of opinion and pass on the opportunity to others .There are far too many other issues of importance that the group should - and must - focus on. I wish you all luck, success - and that we can stay in touch. Yours sincerely, Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra

7 6

new ICANN Vids
by WWWhatsup Jan. 14, 2009

Jan. 14, 2009

> ICANN has posted a couple of videos on YouTube cairo-joint-session http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQMA90ASGiI ICANN-PARIS-2008-dengate http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=625khQR6q08 Joly MacFie 212 608 1334 http://wwwhatsup.com http://punkcast.com http://pinstand.com

1 0

Thoughts on Delaying New gTLDs
by Bret Fausett Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

I've been an advocate of new gTLDs for over ten years now, and time and again I have seen the process delayed by studies and the need for further preparation. The truth is that we cannot foresee with 100% certainty all of the consequences of this, or any, change in the fabric of the Internet. We will always have something to study and something new on which to ponder and prepare. The last five years have seen a concerted effort on behalf of the GNSO, ICANN Staff, and the ICANN community at large to move this process forward, finally, and we now have a very thoughtful, if not always perfect, set of guidelines prepared by ICANN Staff. As a much smarter man once observed, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." We cannot wait for perfection or we will never go anywhere at all. These guidelines are going through yet another revision now, and we almost certainly still have the opportunity to provide meaningful input into the process and impact the final version. While I can understand the desire to make the RFP and implementation guidelines the best they can be, I don't support the call for further delay. Let me comment briefly on the reasons advanced as supporting a delay of the process (copied from Beau's recent email): > * The economic impact study promised in 2006 [needs to be] released and evaluated. This was the principle reason advanced by the NTIA, but it rests on a faulty premise. The NTIA assumes that the primary purpose of introducing new gTLDs is to compete with .COM and the other incumbents. They believe -- as do I -- that new gTLDs will not alter the market power exercised by the incumbents in the TLDs they operate. Based on this assumption, they then make the leap that ICANN may not need to introduce new gTLDs at all. While increased registry-to- registry competition might be a happy consequence of new GTLDs, that is far down on the list of reasons for adding new gTLDs. As I have always seen it, new gTLDs will serve new communities, and in some cases serve those communities with their own languages, not served by the current suite of gTLDs and ccTLDs. From a user perspective, the 2006 economic study will not change the fact that currently under- served groups will gain new identifiers, in their own languages or in words meaningful in their own communities. > * ICANN [needs to] develop and implement compliance processes to manage all requirements > in existing registry and registrar contracts. > * ICANN [needs to] develop compliance processes for any new or different requirements in new contracts. > * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs [should be] delayed as well until similar issues regarding > contract compliance are clearly addressed and disseminated to the user community. We can make contractual and compliance issues a focus of our work without delaying the introduction of new gTLDs. Keep in mind that from the time ICANN releases the final new gTLD RFP to the time a TLD is selected and the registry operator signed up to a contract is close to a year. (The time between those two points is spent preparing the TLD application and then, after it is filed, evaluating it.) Let's get the RFP finalized and then turn all resources we wish to allocate to it to the issue of contractual compliance -- keeping mind that contractual compliance is another tail we can chase forever if we choose to spend our time doing it. > * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details contained > in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a separate communication > to the ICANN board, and provides a timely response to them. This is the only battle I would join now, but even here, I think we can advance the user community's interests without delaying anything. If we think user interests are being trampled, then, yes, we should advocate delaying the process. I think, however, that we can advance user interests, both with the Staff and the Board, within the current time frames and make meaningful improvements in the current draft. We are going to see many calls for additional study and additional delay come from those who wish to shut this process down entirely. Some groups will never be satisfied with the results of any study, any process, or any decision that allows even one new TLD. Let us not join those who want to (ab)use the policy process, and the elusive search for perfection, as a tool for advancing the agenda of the status quo. -- Bret

8 15

Details of the GNSO vote on approving the package of RAA amendments
by Alan Greenberg Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Here are the details of the vote. It was not passed by a super-majority. It is unclear what the next steps will be. Alan >Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:29:04 -0800 >From: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org> >Subject: [council] Final vote on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) > motion >To: "council(a)gnso.icann.org" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> > > >Dear Councillors, > >The voting is closed on the Registrar >Accreditation Agreement (RAA) motion which was >before Council on Thursday 8 January 2009 and copied below. > >The final vote is as follows. >The motion did not obtain a supermajority. > >9 Votes Against: > >Mike Rodenbaugh, Zahid Jamil CBUC), Tony Harris, >Tony Holmes, Greg Ruth (ISP), William Drake, >Carlos Souza (NCUC) (one vote each) >Mary Wong (NCUC), Cyril Chua (IPC) absentee votes, (one vote each) > >Due to a misunderstanding in the process and >email issues, Cyril Chua's ballot was received 4 >hours after the ballot was scheduled to >close. As the balloting had not been formally >closed at that time, his vote was accepted into the tally. > >4 Abstentions: > >Philip Sheppard CBUC), Ute Decker, Kristina >Rosette (IPC), Terry Davis (NCA) (one vote each) (see reasons below.) > >14 Votes in favour: > >Tim Ruiz, Stéphane van Gelder (Registrar c.), >Jordi Iparraguirre, Chuck Gomes, Edmon Chung (Registry c.) (two votes each) >Adrian Kinderis, absentee vote (Registrar constituency) (two votes) >Avri Doria, Olga Cavalli (NCA) (one vote each) > >Reasons for abstaining >====================== >Philip Sheppard (CBUC): We are concerned about >the sequential approach to the RAA changes. > >Ute Decker (IPC): I abstain because of the way >the consultative process has been run, how the >input of registrants and users has been largely >ignored and because of the weighted voting that has been granted. > >Kristina Rosette (IPC): >Because contrary to Dr. Twomey's statement in >March and June in 2007 and the Board's June 2007 >resolution, the RAA amendment consultative >process essentially excluded registrants and >users including brand owners, and ignored their >input. In addition to that fraud consultative >process, the Registrar constituency is now being >granted weighted voting on whether the >amendments should be approved. And finally, >because the highly restricted, narrow and >limited language resulting from that flawed >consultative process will render the majority of >the purported improvements moot and/ or unusable. > >Terry Davis (NCA): >I have not been part of this process long enough >to take a position on this yet. I am still >understanding all the issues associated. > >Mike Rodenbaugh (CBUC): the reason for my 'no' >vote. I believe we have an alternative as I >suggested, and have not heard any reason not to >do so. We could have a fast track working group >to determine which of these proposed amendments >truly have consensus of the Council. There has >not been any consultative process with the >Council to find out which amendments have full >consensus and could be adopted immediately, and >could be reworded and then adopted quickly. But >at the moment we do not have clear consensus on >this amendment package. Then there are a bunch >of open issues that are not mentioned in the >package at all and that we need assurance will >be addressed. So that is the reason for my 'no' vote. >........................................................................................... > >Motion on the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) >Made by: Tim Ruiz >Seconded: Chuck Gomes > >Whereas: > >ICANN has undertaken a lengthy consultative >process related to amending the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA); > >The parties have arrived at a set of amendments >that are generally thought to be worthy of inclusion in the RAA; > >Resolve: >The GNSO Council supports the attached RAA >amendments (documented in >http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/current-list-proposed-raa-amendments-16dec08.p…) >and recommends to the Board that they be adopted. > >Thank you. >Kind regards, > >Glen > >Glen de Saint Géry >GNSO Secretariat >gnso.secretariat(a)gnso.icann.org >http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RES: [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement
by Vanda Scartezini UOL Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

I am agreeing with Bret and Robert. We can not just postpone with lots of study the competition into the marketplace. From my point of view, I would clarify some obscure points in the rules and start the process. Certainly we will face many points that will need to be corrected during the process, but there will be always risk for those who want to enter into this market. Vanda Scartezini Polo Consultores Associados Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 Tel - +55113266.6253 Mob- +55118181.1464 vanda(a)uol.com.br P Before print think about the Environment "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned information will create grounds for legal action." "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." -----Mensagem original----- De: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Sébastien Bachollet Enviada em: sábado, 10 de janeiro de 2009 06:02 Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' Cc: gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Assunto: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement .xxx was not a special case. It was included in the last round of gTLDs. There are other that are not yet into the root like .post. I think we need to find a way less heavy to introduce new gTLDs. One size fit all will take few more years if it's happen eventually. Sébastien Bachollet Président 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 John L > Envoyé : samedi 10 janvier 2009 00:25 > À : At-Large Worldwide > Cc : gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Objet : Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement > > > So, perhaps, create a sort of case-by-case evaluation basis for those > > gTLDs who have been in the race for a while, but at the same time, > halt > > the overall procedure so that the cited concerns can be addressed? > > I don't see any compelling reason to move ahead with the gTLDs that > have > already applied. They knew when they applied that the process was very > risky and any outcome was highly speculative, so I have no sympathy at > all > for complaints about how much money they've sent. The fiasco with .XXX > tells me that trying to do special cases for them is as likely as not > to > cause more confusion that will slow down the process even more. > > R's, > John > > >> Something like this (adopting from some of the language I have seen > in > >> reviewing recent notes, mostly from John): > >> > >> The ALAC recommends that the ICANN board delay the new gTLD > >> application and implementation process until the following steps are > taken: > >> > >> * The economic impact study promised in 2006 has been released and > >> evaluated. > >> * ICANN develops and implements compliance processes to manage all > >> requirements in existing registry and registrar contracts. > >> * ICANN develops compliance processes for any new or different > >> requirements in new contracts. > >> * That IDN gTLDs and IDN ccTLDs be delayed as well until similar > >> issues regarding contract compliance are clearly addressed and > >> disseminated to the user community. > >> * That ICANN evaluates user community concerns with specific details > >> contained in the new gTLD applicant guidebook, to be conveyed in a > >> separate communication to the ICANN board, and provides a timely > >> response to them. > > _______________________________________________ > 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

3 2

Re: [At-Large] RES: [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement
by Fatimata Seye Sylla Jan. 12, 2009

Jan. 12, 2009

Hello All, IMHO, we should not delay the process. We can work on a compromise by trying to have ICANN agree to make the requested studies this same year 2009. Best wishes for the new year to all of you. Fatimata On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:19 AM, Adam Peake <ajp(a)glocom.ac.jp> wrote: > I am agreeing with Bret and Robert. We can not just postpone with lots of >> study the competition into the marketplace. From my point of view, I >> would >> clarify some obscure points in the rules and start the process. Certainly >> we >> will face many points that will need to be corrected during the process, >> but >> there will be always risk for those who want to enter into this market. >> >> >> > > More agreement: I can't see any good reason for the ALAC supporting a > delay, would seem to fly in the face of ALAC's past support for new gTLDs. > > And absolutely no reason to delay the introduction of IDNs ccTLDs. > > Adam > > > > >> >> >> >> Vanda Scartezini >> >> Polo Consultores Associados >> >> Alameda Santos 1470 #1407 >> >> Tel - +55113266.6253 >> >> Mob- +55118181.1464 >> >> vanda(a)uol.com.br >> >> P Before print think about the Environment >> >> "The information contained in this message - and attached files - is >> restricted, and its confidentiality protected by law. If you are not the >> intended recipient, please delete this message and notify the sender >> immediately. Please be advised that the improper use of the aforementioned >> information will create grounds for legal action." >> >> >> >> "As informações existentes nesta mensagem e nos arquivos anexados são para >> uso restrito, com sigilo protegido por lei. Caso não seja o destinatário, >> favor apagar esta mensagem e notificar o remetente. O uso impróprio das >> informações desta mensagem será tratado conforme a legislação em vigor." >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Mensagem original----- >> De: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Em nome de Sébastien >> Bachollet >> Enviada em: sábado, 10 de janeiro de 2009 06:02 >> Para: 'At-Large Worldwide' >> Cc: gtld-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >> Assunto: Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement >> >> >> >> . >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > -- Fatimata Seye Sylla Presidente Bokk Jang Bokk Jeff Coordonnatrice ACSIS - Senegal BP : 22336 Dakar Senegal Tel : 221 33 864 4284 / 1301 552 8282 email : fsylla(a)gmail.com fsylla(a)orange.sn

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [GTLD-WG] ALAC New gTLD statement
by John L Jan. 11, 2009

Jan. 11, 2009

> .xxx was not a special case. It was included in the last round of gTLDs. > There are other that are not yet into the root like .post. .XXX was in practice a special case because of all of the political attention it attracted. If it had been the 1000th new TLD, it wouldn't have been a big deal, but it was about the 10th so it was. The same problem will occur with any new domain that has moral or political implications, and the current plan which (roughly) gives anyone in the world a veto on moral grounds isn't going to work. > I think we need to find a way less heavy to introduce new gTLDs. Indeed, but the current rush job is not the right way to do it. R's, John

3 2

Re: [At-Large] Thoughts on Delaying New gTLDs
by Bill Silverstein Jan. 10, 2009

Jan. 10, 2009

** Reply to note from Bret Fausett <bfausett(a)internet.law.pro> Fri, 9 Jan 2009 12:28:17 -0800 > > I've been an advocate of new gTLDs for over ten years now, and time and again I > have seen the process delayed by studies and the need for further preparation. The > truth is that we cannot foresee with 100% certainty all of the consequences of > this, or any, change in the fabric of the Internet. We will always have something > to study and something new on which to ponder and prepare. The last five years have > seen a concerted effort on behalf of the GNSO, ICANN Staff, and the ICANN community > at large to move this process forward, finally, and we now have a very thoughtful, > if not always perfect, set of guidelines prepared by ICANN Staff. As a much smarter > man once observed, "the perfect is the enemy of the good." We cannot wait for > perfection or we will never go anywhere at all. These guidelines are going through > yet another revision now, and we almost certainly still have the opportunity to > provide meaningful input into the process and impact the final version. > > While I can understand the desire to make the RFP and implementation guidelines the > best they can be, I don't support the call for further delay. Let me comment > briefly on the reasons advanced as supporting a delay of the process (copied from > Beau's recent email): > > You are correct in your points. There is a difference between reviewing issues for valid reasons and reviewing to delay. I "have no dog in this fight." As you know, I do not work for registrars or registries. If I am to be accused of any bias it is solely to make sure that whois data is accurate and that is enforced -- so that it is easier to track down spammers and other bad actors. I don't believe you give mroe responsibility to a person who is not doing their job. ICANN either does not have the will or the skill handle their current areas of responsibility. ------------------------------------------------------ Who is General Error and why is he reading my drive?

1 0

Re: [At-Large] my submissions to new gTLD statement
by JFC Morfin Jan. 10, 2009

Jan. 10, 2009

At 21:39 09/01/2009, Franck Martin wrote: >And your views are tainted by a desire of having ICANN to fail, so >you too have a conflict of Interest, but I think it makes a good >equilibrium on the list. > >on another note: we do not live in a perfect world. I think comes a >time, when someone has to say, enough consultations and let's do it. >The economist likes to publish rating of countries based on how easy >it is to do business in these countries because how slow is the >administration. This is ICANN precautionary duty. ICANN plays its survival. There is no mystery: if ICANN's Internet for the Rich strategy fails there will be an international recovery alternative, which may take one year. But that recovery will most probably not be an ICANN plan B [which is not even considered], and - I am sure of it - will not keep ICANN in the way it sees itself today. The question for us (lead and end users) is: what is the worst case? - the collapse of the Internet for the Rich, - or the ICANN continuation. Until to six months ago I would have said: the collapse. Today I am obliged to say the ICANN continuation: they are those who have chosen to support the single virtual root, the money oriented Internet for the Rich strategy rather than a QoS oriented multilaterally concerted strategy. "tant va la cruche à l'eau ..." jfc

1 0