- At-Large - lists.icann.org

FW: My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
by Parminder Nov. 8, 2008

Nov. 8, 2008

Congratulations, Vittorio, for an outstanding letter. We support both your position on how a 'public forum' should be conducted, and the substantive issue of the need for some pubic interest criteria to guide allotment of gTLDs. My organization, IT for Change, during a workshop on CIRs governance frameworks at IGF Rio had proposed a gTLD exclusively for public domain content - .pd or .pdc (public domain content). Since, the default IP status of all content, where nothing to the contrary is mentioned, is of 'all rights reserved', it will greatly be in public interest to have an online space where this default is reversed (it could be a part of domain taking arrangement). This will help all those who do not have any IP attachments to their online interactions and the content they may put out. From the 'real world' experience we know that this is true of a very big part of our social interactions. This will reverse the un-necessary side-effect of using the virtual space whereby every social interaction gets IP-ized, unless stated otherwise. That, in our opinion, is not the natural state of our world, nor does it represents the desire or interests of the majority. However, it is not possible to take this idea forward, for which we have found very good support among many public interest groups, due to the 'entry barrier' costs associated with GTLD allocation, with no public interest considerations whatsoever. Parminder > -----Original Message----- > From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- > bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > Sent: Friday, November 07, 2008 2:13 PM > To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > Subject: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN > > Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent > them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here. > ----- > > Dear Board of ICANN, > > as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due > to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon session > to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the > Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can > forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere > for yesterday's audience. > > Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people > already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However, > please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and the > Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one > of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and accountability. > Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum > would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just > one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a > terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time > for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation > happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board. > > Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD > application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good > proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP. > Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have > been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which > will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly > people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning > them to the Internet age. > > A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create > online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia > edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and > language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the > sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all > efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is > imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen > registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a > non-profit vehicle. > > I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as > good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant > defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with > such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server > farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills > and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However, > even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task > to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and we > would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria > designed for multimillionaire global ventures. > > Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish or > unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs > started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty > successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among > those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This is > actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still > today. > > The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple > of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job. > Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned > billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no > money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to > innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft? > > I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new > TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like > Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each > application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000 > per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the absence > of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if > you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative > global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect > their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible. > > There are several pricing structures that could address this issue: > special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't > reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with > appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have > specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to > submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount > that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in place > features to address this issue. > > In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be > judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may > get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate > registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of vague > specialization, ICANN will have failed. > > But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure > might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business > entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best > practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange > beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business > corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home > any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature > and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the > governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve > its prestige and credibility. > > I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring > that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is preserved, > or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even that > these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment > of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of > development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words, they > carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it > comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in > coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual. > Please do not forget this. > > Thanks, > -- > vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- > --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > > _______________________________________________ > 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

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] [ALAC] user_s summit on icann wiki
by Carlton Samuels Nov. 7, 2008

Nov. 7, 2008

I support anything we can do to popularize the Summit. I am particularly keen for us to begin messaging the themes that were extracted from the analysis of the Summit Questionnaire published by Nick and Matthias. Best, Carlton On Fri, Nov 7, 2008 at 10:03 AM, Wolf Ludwig <wolf.ludwig(a)comunica-ch.net>wrote: > I strongly support Annette's suggestion and had repeated > talks with Chuck Kisselburg already (before and at Cairo) > and Chuck expressed his interest in this cooperation. > This could support mobilisation for the Summit and "help > increase the visibility and profile of the event", as Annette > wrote. > > Hope that you had a save trip back home -- and those > who staid some more days in Egypt may enjoy it! > > Best, > Wolf > > > Annette Muehlberg wrote Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:39: > >-- > > > >With the At-Large users summit planning underway, a public space should > be used to engage and promote the event. Let me propose that ICANNWiki, the > public and well known ICANN wiki site be used as a resource for our > planning. > > > >We have used ICANNwiki in the past for several at-large activities and > meetings. The staff and people behind the ICANNwiki have been very > supportive and it has been a great experience to work with them. > Conversations with them here in Cairo indicate thez would be interested in > creating a attractive public space for the summit, one that for sure would > help increase the visibility and profile of the event. > > > >Greetings > > > >Annette > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 > > > > comunica-ch > phone +41 79 204 83 87 > Skype: Wolf-Ludwig > www.comunica-ch.net > > Digitale Allemd > http://blog.allmend.ch - > > EURALO > https://st.icann.org/euralo/index.cgi?euralo_icann_at_large_europe > > > _______________________________________________ > ALAC-Internal mailing list > ALAC-Internal(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac-internal_atlarge-lists… > > ALAC Wiki: http://st.icann.org/alac > At-Large <http://st.icann.org/alacAt-Large> Website: > http://atlarge.icann.org >

1 0

Re: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN
by JFC Morfin Nov. 7, 2008

Nov. 7, 2008

Dear Darlene, this is a matter I work intensively on for at least eight full years (and started operating real international services 26 years ago). The matter is complex as there are roughly 26,000 language entities identified by our FLO LS640 standard (http://linguasphere.eu) which was the basis for the ISO 639-6 proposed standard before we extended it. This lead us to identify a new discipline in linguistics which is multilinguistics. In the language diversity linguistics considers languages and multilinguistics considers the diversity. To use several languages in parallel. We started a research unit on this (MLTF) and working on a shell Draft on what to do to bring a dying language to an Internet emergence. Usually, one think that a language must have 100.000 speakers to have a chance to survive. Information industry would like to stabilize 150 languages (for many economic reasons) in using the Internet as a "filter" (RFC 4647). At MAAYA (http://maaya.org) we consider that the Internet can be used in such a way as to keep alive languages of 10.000 speakers, help revive many ancient languages and probably help developing many new ones. Languages influence the way you build your brain. This is why your IQ is higher in your mother tongue. This is also why some mental processes are easier in some languages. For example, Aymara is the only language which as not Yes/Not but Yes/Not/Possible. Kids live in a probalistic world. There also are TBT issues (Technical barrier to trade) that demand reciprocity in access language markets. This actually means there is a need for millions of geocultural TLDs (gcTLDs) to be supported, simply because geocultural documentation sorting does exist. I produced an Draft on it as part of a general ML-DNS solution approach a DNS as good in every language as in English/ASCII. (http://ml-dns.org/draft-mltf-jefsey-cctags-01.txt) You can understand that languages are the wealth of their community. Who would want to lose money they represent. Only the fools who did not understand yet their dollar, commercial and political value. Don't worry language community already has its gcTLD slot. However, we currently are in stand-by as the problem is : (0) not to disrupt the Internet, its operations and economy. (1) understand the position of ICANN (ML-DNS is a france@large WG and the reason why we are not accepted in ALAC) (2) to coordinate with Vint Cerf's IETF/WG-IDNABIS if we want to keep the ML-DNS interoperable with IDNA (3) to organise a way geocultural entities can be present at the IETF and participate to the Internet standardization process. (4) to document and test a DNS Virtual root to support gcTLDs and gvTLD (Government TLD) aside of ICANN, in a way similar to the other non-ICANN TLDs (cf. ICANN ICP-3 document, China, .GPRS, etc). All what we know for sure is that language technologies will most probably authenticate individual authors within the 10 coming years and everyone has a different brain with different ways to understand concepts (they are then call notions). This means that we have to be prepared to support one way or another billions of languages when working on semantic processing and semantic multilingual interneting. This means that the real problem is not ICANN, but IETF. Not the language lists (we have them), not the TLD Governance (they are the equivalent of family names and everyone knows how she is named and which language she uses), not the TLD management fee (it obviously must be free as people owns their names and forename), not the ICANN's future (this has to be discussed thought the ALAC with other users) but to get an architecture for the DNS to support it and evolve towards the many DN related services to come, once the DNS is considered as secure (and not "DNSSECtarian"), ICANN now favors an "Internet for the Rich", wanting to sell TLDs to famous TM owners. This is quite ambiguous as in addition it wants to auction the TLDs. It has now to come with a coexistence proposition with the "People centered Internet for the People by the People". ALAC's job is to sell this proposition and help ICANN adapting it. jfc At 12:21 07/11/2008, Thompson, Darlene wrote: >Hi Vittorio, > >One thing in your e-mail below really stood out to me and I would >like to ask you a question. This is a question only and should not >be taken as me disagreeing with you. Rather that we, in Nunavut, >Canada, are facing a similar problem with an ancient language >disappearing and I would like to compare notes with you as an open discussion. > >The language to which you refer - are only the elderly speaking it >or are there any children that regularly use it at home and at play? > >Here's why I ask: In Nunavut, we have 25 VERY remote communities >(total Inuit population of about 26,000). In the smaller >communities, I hear the children outside playing and they are >speaking to each other in Inuktitut. That means that the language >has at least one more generation left. In the capital, though, the >children are speaking English. That means that the language is >already evaporating there and their children will not be speaking >it. To this end, the Department of Education is attempting to make >it mandatory that Inuktitut be the language of instruction to at >least Grade 5 (with classes in English slowly being introduced as >the grade levels increase). This will mean that the language will >continue to be a working language and won't die (or so we hope and >are leveling best efforts to do). > >So, if the children in the language that you are discussing have >already lost it and there are no efforts at teaching that language, >how will having a domain name dedicated to that language help? IMO >it will only help a dedicated few because, from what I have seen, >the average person just doesn't care. The elders do but the children do not. > >Again, I ask this to generate discussion because this is an issue >very near and dear to my heart (and my regular work) and I would >like to hear other's input into it. > >Thank you, > >D > >________________________________ > >From: at-large-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of Vittorio Bertola >Sent: Fri 11/7/2008 3:43 AM >To: at-large(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: [At-Large] My comments on new gTLDs and the role of ICANN > > > >Since yesterday I could not make my comments at the Public Forum, I sent >them by email to the Board, and I am publishing them here. >----- > >Dear Board of ICANN, > >as I was standing in line yesterday morning in the Public Forum, but due >to prior commitments was not able to attend the "ad hoc" afternoon session >to express my views, I am sending them directly to the Board, copying the >Chairman, Vice-Chairman and ALAC Liaison so that at least one of them can >forward my message to the Board list, and I will publish them somewhere >for yesterday's audience. > >Before I get to my point of substance... I guess that several people >already expressed their discomfort for what happened yesterday. However, >please let me reiterate that the Public Forum, where the community and the >Board discuss in plenary mode about the main topics of the moment, is one >of the most fundamental elements of ICANN's legitimacy and accountability. >Everyone knew since the beginning that at this meeting the Public Forum >would have been crowded and well attended, and the decision to allot just >one hour for it, then letting VIP speeches eat even more into it, is a >terrible mistake. I urge the Board to make sure that there is ample time >for Public Forums at every ICANN meeting - given that this situation >happens often, I see a need for clear directions to staff by the Board. > >Now - I would like to comment as a wannabe applicant for a gTLD >application which may or may not materialize, but that constitutes a good >proof for the remaining flaws in an otherwise well thought-out draft RFP. >Its main purpose is to save an ancient language and culture which have >been existing in my part of Italy for about a thousand years, but which >will disappear forever in twenty years or so, together with the elderly >people that still embrace them, unless we can succeed in transitioning >them to the Internet age. > >A small group of volunteers has been working pro bono for years to create >online resources in this language - including, for example, a Wikipedia >edition. The existence of a gTLD specifically devoted to that culture and >language would make in our opinion a huge difference. It would boost the >sense of identity and community, and provide a visible home to gather all >efforts. However, this will clearly not be a business opportunity - it is >imaginable that initially the gTLD would have just a few dozen >registrations, which we would gladly give away for free through a >non-profit vehicle. > >I think that what we would like to do is a deserving purpose, at least as >good as yet another dot com clone, and possibly better than the abundant >defensive registrations of any kind that we will see. To run a TLD with >such a few registrations, there is no need for big staff and huge server >farms - in fact, we are confident that we could get all the time, skills >and technical resources as volunteer work and in-kind donations. However, >even if we succeeded in this, we would still be facing an impossible task >to raise $185'000 now and $75'000 each year just to pay ICANN fees, and we >would likely score very badly against operational and financial criteria >designed for multimillionaire global ventures. > >Yet, if you think that what we are trying to do is obsolete, amateurish or >unimportant, please think again. This is the way all ccTLDs and gTLDs >started prior to the ICANN era, and most of them have become pretty >successful by now; actually, the only ones going for bankruptcy lie among >those picked by ICANN through its carefully drafted RFP processes. This is >actually the way almost every innovation happens over the Internet, still >today. > >The Web? It wasn't invented by CERN, it was invented at CERN, by a couple >of individuals, in their spare time, as a byproduct of their real job. >Instant messaging? Peer to peer? Even innovations that overturned >billionaire industries were invented by one or a few individuals with no >money at all, or at most by small garage startups. What would happen to >innovation if the IETF required $185'000 to submit a new Internet draft? > >I understand that there are costs attached to the establishment of a new >TLD, though $185'000 per application, even in an expensive country like >Italy, is enough to hire five or six people for one year for each >application, and one wonders why do you need all that work; and $75'000 >per year to keep a TLD in the root, where the work required in the absence >of special events is literally zero, is plainly ridiculous. However, if >you want to extract money from rich applicants going for remunerative >global TLDs, or from big corporations with deep pockets trying to protect >their brand, that's fine; but please don't make other uses impossible. > >There are several pricing structures that could address this issue: >special prices for non-profit applicants, lower fees for TLDs that don't >reach a minimum number of registrations, or panels in cooperation with >appropriate organizations (say, UNESCO) to "bless" applications that have >specific cultural or technological value. Several people have promised to >submit practicable proposals in the next few weeks. But it is paramount >that ICANN doesn't sell out the domain name space without putting in place >features to address this issue. > >In the end, while applicants will be judged by the RFP, ICANN will be >judged by the overall set of TLDs that it will add into the root. It may >get 500 or more of them, but if 90% of them will be private corporate >registrations, and the rest will be dot com clones with some kind of vague >specialization, ICANN will have failed. > >But, looking also at other aspects, I am also afraid that the failure >might end up being much deeper. ICANN is becoming a well managed business >entity, through increased staffing and the introduction of corporate best >practices. However, ICANN is not just a business entity - it is a strange >beast with much more than that into it. What is optimal for a business >corporation might actually make parts of the community feel not at home >any more; and might make ICANN lose touch with its roots, with the nature >and spirit of the Internet. If this happens, ICANN is doomed - all the >governmental deals and business partnerships won't be enough to preserve >its prestige and credibility. > >I see as one of the primary strategic roles of the Board that of ensuring >that the decentralized, flat and free nature of the Internet is preserved, >or at least not attacked, by the policies that ICANN adopts, and even that >these policies contribute to, or at least do not stifle, the fulfillment >of Millennium Development Goals and other worthy objectives in terms of >development and human rights. These are not just high sounding words, they >carry a meaning that must trickle down into everything ICANN does when it >comes to policies. When you are tasked with a fundamental role in >coordinating the Internet, there's more to life than business as usual. >Please do not forget this. > >Thanks, >-- >vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- >--------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <-------- > > >_______________________________________________ >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 <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

1 0

FW: [ALAC] thank you all!
by Annette Muehlberg Nov. 7, 2008

Nov. 7, 2008

Dear friends, Thank you for sharing these last several years with me. Your fellowship has provided enrichment in many ways; technical, political, cultural. I can assure you that the struggles in which we have engaged continue. I am no less committed to them and will continue to engage. We have had some successes in setting up an at-large infrastructure that if properly sustained by us and the ICANN community in general can in fact deliver on the promise of an ICANN that is truly participatory and focused on the public and userŽs interest. Warmest regards Annette > _______________________________________________ > 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 > --

8 7

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Nov. 7, 2008

Nov. 7, 2008

Total of 31 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Nov 7 00:53:02 EST 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 3.23% | 1 | 20.73% | 67917 | isolatedn at gmail.com 12.90% | 4 | 9.49% | 31108 | lists at privaterra.info 12.90% | 4 | 7.80% | 25557 | annette.muehlberg at web.de 6.45% | 2 | 6.29% | 20605 | brenbe at consumer.org 6.45% | 2 | 5.97% | 19557 | admin at isoc.sd 6.45% | 2 | 5.95% | 19509 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 3.23% | 1 | 4.06% | 13310 | dthompson at gov.nu.ca 3.23% | 1 | 3.85% | 12612 | carlton.samuels at uwimona.edu.jm 3.23% | 1 | 3.73% | 12225 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 3.23% | 1 | 3.53% | 11576 | andrespiazzagpj at hotmail.com 3.23% | 1 | 3.52% | 11522 | jsalgueiro at cantv.net 3.23% | 1 | 3.49% | 11440 | hongxueipr at gmail.com 3.23% | 1 | 2.58% | 8451 | johnl at iecc.com 3.23% | 1 | 2.55% | 8355 | fsylla at gmail.com 3.23% | 1 | 2.51% | 8222 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 3.23% | 1 | 2.31% | 7555 | iza at anr.org 3.23% | 1 | 2.18% | 7135 | franck.martin at gmail.com 3.23% | 1 | 2.14% | 7019 | wendy at seltzer.com 3.23% | 1 | 1.97% | 6451 | narten at us.ibm.com 3.23% | 1 | 1.93% | 6315 | evan at telly.org 3.23% | 1 | 1.89% | 6187 | shahshah at irnic.ir 3.23% | 1 | 1.53% | 5027 | jefsey at jefsey.com --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 31 |100.00% | 327655 | Total

1 0

user_s summit on icann wiki
by Annette Muehlberg Nov. 6, 2008

Nov. 6, 2008

-- With the At-Large users summit planning underway, a public space should be used to engage and promote the event. Let me propose that ICANNWiki, the public and well known ICANN wiki site be used as a resource for our planning. We have used ICANNwiki in the past for several at-large activities and meetings. The staff and people behind the ICANNwiki have been very supportive and it has been a great experience to work with them. Conversations with them here in Cairo indicate thez would be interested in creating a attractive public space for the summit, one that for sure would help increase the visibility and profile of the event. Greetings Annette

1 0

dot-mobi policy advisory board position
by John L Nov. 5, 2008

Nov. 5, 2008

Hi. I sent this note to the ALAC list last month, but I gather that there are new members in Cairo who might not have seen it, so you might want to pass this along. Thanks. FYI, the PAB and the rest of .mobi do all of their work in English. R's, John ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Subject: [At-Large] dot-mobi policy advisory board positions The .MOBI domain has a policy advisory board which includes a seat selected each year by the ALAC, and it's time to make this year's selection. I've held that seat for the two years that it has existed, and would like another year. The PAB meets monthly by phone and once a year in person. Its task is to provide policy advice for the management of the .MOBI domain. As you may know, .MOBI is intended for users of mobile devices, and the idea is that content in the .MOBI domain works on your mobile. So far that's been mostly a technical goal, since the state of the mobile web is sort of like the PC web ten years ago, with slow connections, small screens, and browsers with varying and sometimes incompatible features and capabilities. (There is a guy at .MOBI whose full time job is to maintain an encyclopedia of devices and browsers.) This year in the PAB we've addressed a variety of issues that affect users. The biggest problem is that in .MOBI there are a lot of domains owned by domain speculators who care little for the interests of users. In many cases they just leave their domains parked, which isn't great, but at least follows the rules, but sometimes they just point the domain at random parking sites that don't work on mobiles at all, due to large images, frames, etc. The domain has a compliance process so they know which sites don't work, and I've been helping them develop a combination of carrots and sticks to get the sites to do something reasonable on mobile phones. Farther out I'm trying to figure out ways to encourage domains to build useful content rather than link farms, with weather.mobi being a good example of a site that could have been a link farm but instead has useful weather forecasts. Even farther out than that, it seems pretty likely that mobile devices will catch up to PCs in capability, so any site that works on a PC will work on a mobile. At that point the other characteristics of mobiles become more important, that people tend to keep them with them much more than they keep their PCs with them, and that they physically move around so you can do stuff like have a site that uses geolocation to recommend restaurants near where you are right now. It'll still be important for .MOBI content to be good for mobile users, although the issues will be quite different. I've enjoyed doing this with .MOBI, think I've been doing a pretty good job, and would like to keep at it for at least another year. The .MOBI management has sent the ALAC explaining they'd like to hear back fairly soon. Regards, John Levine, johnl(a)iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

1 0

Call for nominations to ALAC Liaison and Appointment Positions for 2008 - 2009
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Nov. 5, 2008

Nov. 5, 2008

I hereby advise the At-Large Community, ALS's RALO's and the serving ALAC, that as at 1330 UTC today October 23rd, the Nomination period for the Elections of the 2008-2009 ALAC Liaison and Appointment positions, listed below, is open for a period of 14 days and will end at 1200 UTC on November 5th during our Cairo Meeting. ALAC Liaisons to:- GNSO ccNSO NCUC SSAC * IDN WG's ** ALAC Appointments to:- dotMobi Policy Advisory Board *** ALAC or At-Large Community Members who currently fill these roles are eligible and may be nominated or self nominate for re-election. However it should be noted that under current travel support and budget policy for the 2008 -2009 ICANN Meetings any liaison or appointment that is *not* a serving ALAC delegate has no assurance that any travel funding will be able to be made available to any Face to Face ICANN meeting (or activity) in that period, although we will as usual make every effort to facilitate remote participation this may be a point for nominees to consider. It should also be noted that under the new travel support policy it is the constituency or Committee that appoints the liaison to another ICANN body that has the budgetary responsibility for any such support. Nominations *must* be accepted (self nominations will count as an acceptance) by sending a message to the public list no later than the close of the nomination period i.e. 1200 UTC 5th of November. *** see dotMobi PAB Note below This is a regular election (where more than one candidate has been duly nominated and accepted) that will be held at the end of the Cairo ICANN Annual General Meeting and the electorate will include the delegates (that is that is one of the 15 Members of the At-Large Advisory Committee) whose term starts at the closure of that Annual General Meeting, and will not include the former ALAC members whose term ends at the closure of that Annual General Meeting. Your attention is drawn to Rules 4, 5, 6, 7 & 8 (ELECTION OF LIAISONS, QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR LIAISONS, PRIVILEGES OF LIAISONS, OTHER APPOINTMENTS and QUALIFICATION CRITERIA FOR APPOINTMENTS of the ALAC Rules of Procedure. Further it should be noted that the specifics of the minimum performance criteria and general expectations of the role of being an ALAC liaison/appointment will be discussed and modified in Cairo and candidates will be made aware of the outcomes of this deleiberatio0n before the close of nomination period. NOTES on some Liaison and Appointments * SSAC -> this liaison role has very specific requirements and the SSAC accept our suggestions of liaison (providing they are suitably qualified in their skill-sets to embrace the complex nature of some of the work done in this committee, as a matter of courtesy not requirement to quote the SSAC Chair Mr. Steve Crocker in a recent message to me as ALAC Chair " We greatly appreciate the utility of good communication across the various ICANN components, and, in the security area, we are particularly aware that our subject matter cuts across virtually every aspect of ICANN. Over time, we have accepted Liaisons from ALAC, GAC, RSSAC, and, using a different label, the IETF. We have always treated Liaisons as full members of our committee, and, indeed, one of our requirements is that a liaison should be someone with expertise and ability in our area, the same as any other committee member. As a matter of form, we do not consider any other organization as owning a slot on the SSAC. (With the external review of SSAC about to commence, perhaps this is one of the myriad of details that might be changed, but the charter doesn't speak to this issue and our practice has been to view membership fairly uniformly.) As a matter of practice, we're delighted to have cross pollination, so we try to treat suggestions from other organizations pragmatically, and so far we have not pushed back on any proposed Liaison." ** IDN's WG Liaison -> as this role is involved in both fast track ccTLD and new gTLD issues a suitable candidate is one who brings with them considerable and extensive experience in the matters discussed so far and a clear passion to further these important issues in the next 12 months within ICANN. *** dotMobi PAB -> this appointment is currently held by Mr. John Levine and he has already indicated (earlier this month to the public list), his willingness and desire to continue to serve in this role... Therefore this notice of nominations recognizes the validity of this prior nomination (and acceptance) as having now been received in due and proper course for any ensuing election to be held. Cheryl Langdon-Orr ALAC Chair 2007-2008

14 18

"We can't be bothered to vote; so just send us the travel vouchers for Cairo"
by Danny Younger Nov. 4, 2008

Nov. 4, 2008

In another fine display of participant zeal, eight ALAC members decided to ignore yet another ALAC vote -- this time on the Overview Report on the ALAC Review. Those listed below (more than half of the ALAC) did not bother to vote: 1 Izumi Aizu 2 Annette Muehlberg 3 Carlos Aguirre 4 Jose Ovidio Salgueiro 5 Hawa Diakite 6 Thu Hue Nguyen 7 Vanda Scartezini 8 Fatimata Seye Sylla Kudos to the ALAC Chair for the great results obtained under the new "Remedial" participation policy. At this rate, the ALAC will be dead and buried soon.

22 31

Re: [At-Large] [ALAC-Internal] Call for nominations to ALAC Liaison and Appointment Positions for 2008 - 2009
by Annette Muehlberg Nov. 3, 2008

Nov. 3, 2008

I would like to nominate Robert Guerra for the position of SSAC liaison. I think that he has done a good job and that continuity of this work is strengthening not only ALAC work but will be of real help for ICANN's security and Stability Advisory Committee. Annette

1 0