- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Where is the promised Comprehensive Review of ICANN Accreditation Processes?
by Danny Younger Sept. 4, 2008

Sept. 4, 2008

Source: http://www.knujon.com/news.html Phantom Registrars In investigating the 48 Directi-owned Registrars with questionable locations, we reported facts. The address used by many of these Registrars: "14525 SW Millikan Way Beaverton, OR 97005-2343" is the address of a mail forwarding service called Earthclassmail. According to Directi, the listed companies are registered in Delaware, but not in Oregon or New York as listed in the ICANN Directory. Directi is headquartered in Mumbai, India. KnujOn feels that any company given so much responsibility over the Internet should fully disclose where they are located, but this is apparently not an ICANN requirement. Indeed, Stacy Burnette, director of contractual compliance at ICANN, said the organization is satisfied the registrars are incorporated in the location listed in their application. Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation, she said. ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation. To which KnujOn says: Huh? So, as the expression goes, don't hate the player hate the game. Directi merely acquired these accreditations by ICANN's own rules. Summary: One address in the application, a second address disclosed to the public. Read this line again: "ICANN doesn't require registrars to publicly disclose their place of incorporation." How does this figure into ICANN's mission to be an open and transparent organization? "Telephone numbers in the contact information need not correspond to the location of incorporation". How can there be any accountability? This situation is upside-down. Registrants are required to list their valid contact information, but the Registrars who sponsor their domains are not.

3 2

DIRECTI Demands Takedown of KNUJON Post
by Danny Younger Sept. 3, 2008

Sept. 3, 2008

Source: http://infosecurity.us/?p=1105 On Wed, Sep 3, 2008 at 01:09, Bhavin Turakhia <bhavin.t(a)directi.com wrote: Hi Marc We came across your article on http://infosecurity.us/ based on Knujons factually inaccurate and baseless report. Directi is not linked with any of the activities described in that report and Knujon, in their research have never bothered to get their facts straight from either ICANN or us. The article you publish is false and defamatory and hence I urge you to take it down immediately. Feel free to connect with me for any clarifications - my cellular number is <<REDACTED>> and I will be happy to share the actual facts with you - something that Knujon has not bothered to do so far. Find below our email to Knujon concerning the gross inaccuracies in their article Warm Regards Bhavin Turakhia Founder, Chairman & CEO Directi T: +91-22-66797600 M (IN): +91 <<REDACTED>> —- Dear Garth (from Knujon), This is with regards to the numerous articles on your website www.knujon.com that frivolously implicate the Directi Group. Before I move to the specifics, Id like to comment on the challenge you’ve thrown open to us, to take a lead in the endeavor of suspending every illicitly run domain name. Please understand that Directi continues to be one of the most proactive Registrars today in terms of combating abuse and implementing strict AUPs and we have a significant investment in terms of manpower and processes to achieve just this. We do so, not because were contractually obligated, or to protect our own business interests, but because we sincerely believe in the ideology of making the internet a safer and more secure medium for conducting business. Its really unfortunate that your analysis misrepresents the details, and conveniently ignores all of the active measures we take regularly against spamming, phishing and other forms of abuse activity on the internet. As a matter of fact, we have a ZERO tolerance policy towards unscrupulous activities, and therefore extremely shocked to learn about the baseless allegations made in your report. Given below, is a list of all the false information, conclusions and accusations that you have repeatedly made about our organization: 1. EST is NOT affiliated to the Directi Group in any way: EST just happens to be one of the several thousand service providers that use our technology to provide domain registration services. Therefore all of the claims that EST is a part of our Group is grossly incorrect. 2. Your claim that the accredited companies we own are: a) Phantom Registrars (ex: Jumbo Names) that are not incorporated or Do Not Really Exist and b) somehow involved in supporting the fake pharmacy business in some way, is not only grossly incorrect, but also seriously defamatory. You may not be privy to the strategic reasons why several of the top web services cos. need to invest in multiple registrar companies. However, there is absolutely no substance in suggesting that these companies are somehow involved in illegal activities. Not only do these registrars operate legitimately, but they also implement the strict AUPs for all sponsored domain names. 3. You claim that the Directi Group is somehow closely linked with Atrivo, which probably is a false conclusion drawn from pt. 1. above. 4. There are several other domain names that you have listed for various issues - software piracy, for instance - and claim that they are privacy protected. These domain names and their sponsoring registrar have not used privacy protection services for several months now; it is unfortunate that you did not choose to verify your data before making these accusations. 5. The statement “While Directi claims they will suspend illicit domains, KnujOn has found on many occasions Directi sponsored domains being removed temporarily only to be restored after a brief period with the same content” is incorrect, but we do acknowledge a technical lapse that may have led you to believe this. The domain names that you’ve listed were not intentionally restored, but did not get suspended in due process because of a technical error. When vigilant netizens alerted us about the situation, the domain names were suspended immediately. 6. The statement “If a consumer complains to Directi/PublicDomainsRegistry about these sites they simply direct them to the ISP host that serves the content. If and when the site content is closed by the ISP host, Directi/PublicDomainsRegistry just helps them set up at a new IP.” is baseless and seriously defamatory. We do not condone any abusive behavior using domain names registered through us, much less facilitate it. There are cases where we forward complaints to the host to pursue in accordance with their AUP, but in no circumstance do we enable purported abusive registrants to setup in any fashion. 7. On several prior instances, we have attempted to explain to your organization the motives and mechanism behind Privacy Protection as a service. Privacy Protect isn’t intended to harbor miscreants, but to protect genuine domain owners from them. This service, provided through a network of registrars, is essentially free and has no affiliation with any domain names that use it. 8. Also, as a Registrar, we must categorically state that we have no association with the domain names registered through us. The insinuation that we as a registrar benefit in any form through abusive domain names is grossly incorrect; on the contrary, we invest considerable resources toward mitigating such abuse of our services. 9. During the Prescription Addiction Radioshow, you claimed that the registrar community is unable to effectively police illegal activities and hence most registrars are in violation of the ICANN RAA. This is factually incorrect since the job of policing the internet cannot be the sole responsibility of registrars, and the Registrar Accreditation Agreement doesnt state any such obligation either. Most registrars, purely out of moral reasons, build AUPs to ensure that they proactively prevent their services from being used for any illegal activity. Based on all of these false assumptions, misrepresentations and factual inaccuracies, you have referred to our organization as beastly, rogue, irresponsible, immoral and a supporter of the illegal narcotics industry. I hope you understand that this sort of frivolous victimization and public abuse is intolerable for our organization, and always tackled with utmost severity. However, since we believe that your intentions are not wrong, we would like to resolve this amicably by requesting all necessary corrections to the information published. We would also need a public clarification which explicitly states that the Directi Group is in NO WAY harboring or, being in any way involved, in any form of illicit activity. > On another note, I request you to understand the limitations registrars face in tackling these issues. Despite having a dedicated abuse complaints processing team, it is impossible for us to deploy the necessary resources and expertise to manually authenticate the legal status of each of the 4 million + sponsored domain names. A false positive could lead to a significant loss for an innocent customer, for which we will be squarely responsible. Things get even more difficult when other registrars that use our platform, are less sensitive towards their moral responsibilities. Sure wed like to pull the plug and permanently close our business with them, but how does one protect the several thousand innocent website owners that also happen to use their services? I believe you understand as well as we do that a true cleanup process requires the concerted involvement of several industry participants including ICANN, registries, brand owners, law enforcement agencies and registrars. You can be assured that from a registrar standpoint we continue to extend our full cooperation to the community at all points in time. We have always taken this issue seriously and will always continue to do so. Well also be glad to clarify your doubts on the above mentioned facts, over a conference call which can include the relevant people from our side. Were open to a constructive dialogue with you, and are all ears to any specific suggestion that you may have for us. If youd like that, do provide us with an appropriate time and number on which you can be reached. Considering the defamatory nature of the content in your posts and the inaccuracy of several accusations, we hope that the requested corrective measures will receive utmost priority and reflect immediately on your website. Best Regards, Sandeep Ramchandani Strategic Partner Manager The Directi Group

1 0

ICANN cast as online scam enabler
by Danny Younger Sept. 3, 2008

Sept. 3, 2008

[excerpt] "Two recently issued reports portray the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) as a bureaucracy that enables cyber criminals. In one report researchers Jart Armin, James McQuaid and Matt Jonkman detail how a one of ICANN's prized sponsors has ties to one of the net's more prolific sources of malware and illegal online pharmacies. It's called LogicBoxes, and over the past two years, ICANN has listed it as a sponsor for meetings that took place in Los Angeles and Delhi, India. It turns out LogicBoxes has an association with Atrivo, a network provider that also goes by the name of Intercage. According to the study, a random sampling of 2,600 addresses hosted by Atrivo revealed 7,340 malicious web links, 910 infected websites, 310 malicious binaries, and 113 botnet command and control servers. As an autonomous systems (AS) provider, the Concord, California-based company controls a large number of IP addresses. The report details how Atrivo works with a rogue's gallery of other companies to enable anonymous sites that punt scareware, malware and online sites pushing Viagra and other sites. Other companies include Hostfresh, EstHost, EstDomains and PrivacyProtect. A second report issued by an outfit known as Knujon (that's "no junk" spelled backwards) details 48 phantom domain name registrars whose sole purpose seems to be the registration of addresses used in spam and malware campaigns. All of them can be linked back to the Directi Group, which has long been a prolific provider of URLs to scammers." full article here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/03/cyber_crime_reports/ Anyone that's interested in working on an enforceable Registrar Code of Conduct is invited to join the RAA Working Group. Please subscribe to the list at: http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/raa-wg_atlarge-lists.icann.… and send an email introducing yourself to that list.

3 2

Re: [At-Large] Re-engineering the Internet
by Evan Leibovitch Sept. 3, 2008

Sept. 3, 2008

JFC Morfin wrote: > http://www.google.com/googlebooks/chrome/index.html > > This may be an important day as Google (Vint Cerf is the Internet > Executive there?) seems to be really innovating, and talking > seriously, bout things of real interest to @larges. May be, but discussions of the HTTP browser experience is well beyond the mandate of ICANN. Please consider discussing this issue in a different forum. While I am not belittling the significance of Google's actions, this is not the place to debate them. - Evan

2 1

Re: [At-Large] [AfrICANN-discuss] Conférence ICANN : se protéger du phishing - Briefing session on Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks
by Khaled KOUBAA Sept. 2, 2008

Sept. 2, 2008

It's really a nice initiative that ICANN is doing here. It's an interesting and very important subject. I recommend that ICANN repeat such capacity building actions for other issues related to our work. Khaled Anne-Rachel Inné a écrit : > Conférence ICANN : se protéger du phishing > > > Demain 26 août, l'ICANN organise une web conférence d'information sur > les cas d'usurpation d'identité des bureaux d'enregistrement lors > d'attaques de phishing. > > > De quoi s'agit-il ? Un pirate usurpe l'identité d'un registrar et > envoie à un client de ce dernier un faux message au sujet de ses noms > de domaine. Un avis d'expiration par exemple. > > C'est ni plus, ni moins du phishing. Le pirate a créé un site > frauduleux, similaire à celui du bureau d'enregistrement, pour inciter > le client à accéder à son compte de gestion du domaine concerné et à > révéler involontairement ses informations d'identification. > > Cette technique surtout connue dans le milieu bancaire sera expliquée > de manière préventive par Dave Piscitello de la division Sécurité et > Stabilité du Comité Consultatif de l'ICANN, lors d'une web conférence > (en français et en anglais) dont vous trouverez ici tous les détails. > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrar_impersonation_in_phishing_att… > ENGLISH VERSION -- > > As announced at the last policy unit call on Monday, At-Large is going > to have a briefing session with Dave Piscitello this coming week on > Registrar Impersonation in Phishing Attacks and other stakeholder > communities are most welcome to join. > > The SSAC Advisory on Registrar Impersonation has recently been > translated into French and Spanish. They have not been uploaded to the > SSAC website yet but we have it linked to the meeting page for the > briefing session: > > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrar_impersonation_in_phishing_att… > > You can find the English, French and Spanish versions of the briefing > invitations attached to this email for your use. If you have questions > regarding this Briefing, please get in contact with somebody from the > At-Large staff. > https://st.icann.org/alac/index.cgi?registrar_impersonation_in_phishing_att… > _______________________________________________ > AfrICANN mailing list > AfrICANN(a)afrinic.net > https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/africann > >

15 22

KnuJohn: Phantom Registrars, Fake Pharmacies, and the Secret Infrastructure
by Derek Smythe Sept. 1, 2008

Sept. 1, 2008

Hi all A very interesting read and very topical: http://www.knujon.com/news.html Derek

1 0

Weekly posting summary for alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org
by Thomas Narten Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

Total of 35 messages in the last 7 days. script run at: Fri Aug 29 00:53:03 EDT 2008 Messages | Bytes | Who --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 11.43% | 4 | 35.83% | 153321 | nick.ashton-hart at icann.org 14.29% | 5 | 10.21% | 43701 | khaled.koubaa at gmail.com 8.57% | 3 | 10.16% | 43467 | jefsey at jefsey.com 8.57% | 3 | 4.20% | 17973 | evan at telly.org 5.71% | 2 | 5.16% | 22093 | alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca 5.71% | 2 | 4.40% | 18809 | brenbe at consumer.org 5.71% | 2 | 3.07% | 13136 | ocl at gih.com 5.71% | 2 | 2.86% | 12238 | dannyyounger at yahoo.com 5.71% | 2 | 2.84% | 12165 | ajp at glocom.ac.jp 2.86% | 1 | 3.01% | 12879 | denise.michel at icann.org 2.86% | 1 | 2.80% | 11962 | rafik.dammak at gmail.com 2.86% | 1 | 2.50% | 10710 | patrick at vande-walle.eu 2.86% | 1 | 2.38% | 10185 | staff at atlarge.icann.org 2.86% | 1 | 2.12% | 9062 | carlosaguirre62 at hotmail.com 2.86% | 1 | 2.05% | 8763 | presidencia at internauta.org.ar 2.86% | 1 | 1.99% | 8525 | cheryl at hovtek.com.au 2.86% | 1 | 1.65% | 7064 | jam at jacquelinemorris.com 2.86% | 1 | 1.45% | 6185 | joly at punkcast.com 2.86% | 1 | 1.34% | 5716 | derek at aa419.org --------+------+--------+----------+------------------------ 100.00% | 35 |100.00% | 427954 | Total

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Re-engineering the Internet
by Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond Aug. 29, 2008

Aug. 29, 2008

"JFC Morfin" <jefsey(a)jefsey.com> said: > We have committed to remain fully interoperable with IETF solutions > when they are clearly defined (we are not going to read 5500 RFCs, it > is not our hobby). Our basis is ISO 3166, which is the very structure > of the International network since 1978. It has documented the > national scripts and languages since its ISO-3166-1:2006 version. We > will base ourself on the Open Source LS640 Linguasphere series that > served as the basis for the current ISO 639-6 standard preparation of > an exhaustive listing of all the language names. 1. If you wish to be "fully interoperable with IETF solutions", may I recommend that if you're serious about your proposal, you read those "5500 RFCs". I am surprised how many people are trying to re-invent the wheel, starting from the guy at IETF that presented a protocol which basically did what AlohaNet did back in 1970 & Packet Radio henceforth. 2. I'm afraid that ISO 3166 has nothing to do with national scripts & languages. The official name is Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions. You're speaking solely of ISO 639. You're also missing ISO 15924 - Codes for Writing Systems, aka Codes for the representation of names of scripts. As for the rest of the post, I'm sorry but I can't understand it. O.

2 1

Re: [At-Large] Follow-up to conference call on travel support
by Alan Greenberg Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

Dear Denise and Doug, As one of the more vocal people who have pointed out what we perceived as problems with the new travel funding approach, I would like to thank you for these adjustments. I look forward to working together to continue to refine both travel issues as well as the other inhibitors to At-Large participation. Although it may not always sound like it, we do understand that we are talking about large amounts of money here. I cannot speak on behalf of the ALAC or At-large, but I believe that we do understand that as At-Large matures and evolves, we will need to deliver benefits to ICANN justifying these expenditures. Regards, Alan At 28/08/2008 04:50 PM, Denise Michel wrote: >Dear At-Large Community Members: > >We would like to thank those of you who shared your views with us last week >on the conference call on the new community travel procedure, as well as >those who have shared their perspectives online. We know that every time you >engage with ICANN, you are doing so as a volunteer, which makes the >contribution all the more valuable. > >We understand there is concern that the ICANN Board, community and Staff >does not grasp the participation requirements of At-Large, and that At-Large >believes similar funding of travel for various communities is not an >equitable approach. Specifically, that ICANN travel funding should be based >on equalising the opportunity for participation across stakeholder groups in >proportion to their need. > >Our goal is support a travel funding approach that the ICANN community deems >appropriate to lower the barrier to participation, broaden the group of >ICANN participants and advance the "work" of ICANN. We acknowledge that >there are many differences of opinion on the meaning of "appropriate," and >are committed to continuing this dialogue and reviewing and if necessary >revising the travel procedures for FY 2010. > >We also are striving to ensure that At-Large (and all other stakeholder >participants in ICANN's work) has the necessary tools and resources to >support your work on ICANN issues. At-Large is a highly valued member of >the ICANN community, and we want to make sure your continued productivity is >supported. >It is for these reasons that ICANN has always dedicated considerable >resources to At-Large, including: > >1. A tripling of staff resources dedicated to At-Large in the past year; >2. Substantial year-on-year increases in funding dedicated to At-Large; >3. A significant amount of extra resources in this fiscal year and the >last for translation and interpretation driven in large part by At-Large's >needs; >4. Continuing development of your online participation mechanisms for >example, the website at http://atlarge.icann.org is the most technically >advanced in ICANN, the most multilingual, and will be the first site to >support direct contributions of content from the community and it is being >continually enhanced. > >We could go on about this subject, but we trust you are aware of these and >other efforts to increase your ability to participate as you are >experiencing the benefits of them directly. We continue to look for more >and better ways to ensure that the individual Internet user is represented >in decisions affecting them, and we value your ongoing guidance and >commitment to this endeavour, which is a fundamental part of the ICANN >model. > >Of course, other communities are essential too. Other communities have said >that they need support to attend ICANN meetings for the same reason that you >have stated because the meetings are an important part of the ICANN >process and some of their members cannot afford to attend. ICANN cannot >provide travel support for all communities at the level of funding all of >their members consider ideal. Budgetary realities require compromises to be >made. > >However, we would like to propose the following ideas as a way not just to >address the level of travel support for At-Large, but to go beyond that and >deal with some of the underlying issues you have raised. > >What we propose is the following: >* >1. We will work with the community throughout this fiscal year to review >the provisions of the travel procedure as they affect At-Large, especially >participation of the RALOs. It would useful to have an At-Large proposed >plan completed at the At-Large Summit in Mexico City to factor the >community's needs into the year-end review of the community travel procedure >and related FY2009-2010 budget process. *We understand your point that the >current travel procedure, if applied to At-Large in the next fiscal year, >does not take into sufficient account the needs of the RALOs to be able to >participate at face-to-face meetings. In particular, from the time spent >with you on an interpreted teleconference where a sizable portion of the >participants were speaking Spanish, we understand that At-Large is the >community which has the greatest needs for translation and interpretation >support at this time, and that until reliable remote participation that >facilitates multilingual participation is available for face-to-face >meetings, face-to-face attendance is more important than it would otherwise >be. We also understand your view that even English-speaking RALO >participants benefit from face-to-face interaction. Indeed, the purpose of >the travel procedure is to expand participation at face-to-face meetings >because we understand how valuable these opportunities are. Of course, the >whole ICANN community will get the opportunity to review the travel >procedure at the end of this fiscal year, along with ICANN's strategic and >operational plans and budget. These consultations offer important >opportunities for discussion and input on a range of issues that may relate >to RALOs (besides travel) including translation and interpretation, ICANN >regional meetings, etc. We encourage you to discuss your needs with the >other communities as well. > >2. *We will recommend that the eligibility of various communities for >participation in the Fellowship Program be reviewed in light of the new >community travel procedure. * It may be appropriate to update this program >after we evaluate the effect of the shared goals and support provided >through both the travel procedures and the Fellowship Program. Up to now, >this program has excluded At-Large from participating since At-Large travel >has been funded separately, and it has targeted members of the ccNSO and >Government Advisory Committee from eligible countries for priority support. >The ccNSO now receives some support under the travel procedures and GAC will >be considered for inclusion in the travel procedures for the next fiscal >year. It seems to us that the changes being made to travel for various >communities makes this step a sensible one. > >3. *GNSO Improvement initiatives offer opportunities to improve support >for At-Large, as well. * As part of the GNSO Improvements work recently >approved by the Board, a number of initiatives will be undertaken to: > >a. Review and improve the tools, processes, procedures, and GNSO >constituency support mechanisms; >b. Design and implement a global recruitment effort to increase >participation in all GNSO constituencies. > >This work will include a dialogue with constituencies about how to achieve >this and should take into account the different consultation and >collaboration needs of our global communities to advance policy-development. > > >Given the integral role At-Large plays in policy development, we would like >to explore ways to involve At-Large in this dialogue and planning, and >extend the results to At-Large, as appropriate. > >4. *To ensure that the progress made by the regional Secretariats in >creating structures and processes for working together and with the ALAC >continues, ICANN will provide travel support for the Secretariats for the >ICANN Cairo meeting and the final (June 2009) ICANN meeting for this fiscal >year. * The regional Secretariats will be funded on the same basis as they >were in the last fiscal year. We understand the value of having a periodic >opportunity for regional leaders and ALAC members to meet face-to-face, and >recognize that the whole community has benefited from the Secretariats' >attendance at ICANN meetings. > >We hope that you will look at these proposals and see in them a way not just >to deal with the issue of face-to-face attendance at ICANN meetings, but as >a way to go beyond that to advance At-Large involvement overall. > >We look forward to hearing from you, and working with you further. > >Regards, >Doug Brent, COO >Denise Michel, VP Policy

1 0

Follow-up to conference call on travel support
by Denise Michel Aug. 28, 2008

Aug. 28, 2008

Dear At-Large Community Members: We would like to thank those of you who shared your views with us last week on the conference call on the new community travel procedure, as well as those who have shared their perspectives online. We know that every time you engage with ICANN, you are doing so as a volunteer, which makes the contribution all the more valuable. We understand there is concern that the ICANN Board, community and Staff does not grasp the participation requirements of At-Large, and that At-Large believes similar funding of travel for various communities is not an equitable approach. Specifically, that ICANN travel funding should be based on equalising the opportunity for participation across stakeholder groups in proportion to their need. Our goal is support a travel funding approach that the ICANN community deems appropriate to lower the barrier to participation, broaden the group of ICANN participants and advance the "work" of ICANN. We acknowledge that there are many differences of opinion on the meaning of "appropriate," and are committed to continuing this dialogue and reviewing – and if necessary revising – the travel procedures for FY 2010. We also are striving to ensure that At-Large (and all other stakeholder participants in ICANN's work) has the necessary tools and resources to support your work on ICANN issues. At-Large is a highly valued member of the ICANN community, and we want to make sure your continued productivity is supported. It is for these reasons that ICANN has always dedicated considerable resources to At-Large, including: 1. A tripling of staff resources dedicated to At-Large in the past year; 2. Substantial year-on-year increases in funding dedicated to At-Large; 3. A significant amount of extra resources in this fiscal year and the last for translation and interpretation – driven in large part by At-Large's needs; 4. Continuing development of your online participation mechanisms – for example, the website at http://atlarge.icann.org is the most technically advanced in ICANN, the most multilingual, and will be the first site to support direct contributions of content from the community – and it is being continually enhanced. We could go on about this subject, but we trust you are aware of these and other efforts to increase your ability to participate as you are experiencing the benefits of them directly. We continue to look for more and better ways to ensure that the individual Internet user is represented in decisions affecting them, and we value your ongoing guidance and commitment to this endeavour, which is a fundamental part of the ICANN model. Of course, other communities are essential too. Other communities have said that they need support to attend ICANN meetings for the same reason that you have stated – because the meetings are an important part of the ICANN process and some of their members cannot afford to attend. ICANN cannot provide travel support for all communities at the level of funding all of their members consider ideal. Budgetary realities require compromises to be made. However, we would like to propose the following ideas as a way not just to address the level of travel support for At-Large, but to go beyond that and deal with some of the underlying issues you have raised. What we propose is the following: * 1. We will work with the community throughout this fiscal year to review the provisions of the travel procedure as they affect At-Large, especially participation of the RALOs. It would useful to have an At-Large proposed plan completed at the At-Large Summit in Mexico City to factor the community's needs into the year-end review of the community travel procedure and related FY2009-2010 budget process. *We understand your point that the current travel procedure, if applied to At-Large in the next fiscal year, does not take into sufficient account the needs of the RALOs to be able to participate at face-to-face meetings. In particular, from the time spent with you on an interpreted teleconference where a sizable portion of the participants were speaking Spanish, we understand that At-Large is the community which has the greatest needs for translation and interpretation support at this time, and that until reliable remote participation that facilitates multilingual participation is available for face-to-face meetings, face-to-face attendance is more important than it would otherwise be. We also understand your view that even English-speaking RALO participants benefit from face-to-face interaction. Indeed, the purpose of the travel procedure is to expand participation at face-to-face meetings because we understand how valuable these opportunities are. Of course, the whole ICANN community will get the opportunity to review the travel procedure at the end of this fiscal year, along with ICANN's strategic and operational plans and budget. These consultations offer important opportunities for discussion and input on a range of issues that may relate to RALOs (besides travel) including translation and interpretation, ICANN regional meetings, etc. We encourage you to discuss your needs with the other communities as well. 2. *We will recommend that the eligibility of various communities for participation in the Fellowship Program be reviewed in light of the new community travel procedure. * It may be appropriate to update this program after we evaluate the effect of the shared goals and support provided through both the travel procedures and the Fellowship Program. Up to now, this program has excluded At-Large from participating since At-Large travel has been funded separately, and it has targeted members of the ccNSO and Government Advisory Committee from eligible countries for priority support. The ccNSO now receives some support under the travel procedures and GAC will be considered for inclusion in the travel procedures for the next fiscal year. It seems to us that the changes being made to travel for various communities makes this step a sensible one. 3. *GNSO Improvement initiatives offer opportunities to improve support for At-Large, as well. * As part of the GNSO Improvements work recently approved by the Board, a number of initiatives will be undertaken to: a. Review and improve the tools, processes, procedures, and GNSO constituency support mechanisms; b. Design and implement a global recruitment effort to increase participation in all GNSO constituencies. This work will include a dialogue with constituencies about how to achieve this and should take into account the different consultation and collaboration needs of our global communities to advance policy-development. Given the integral role At-Large plays in policy development, we would like to explore ways to involve At-Large in this dialogue and planning, and extend the results to At-Large, as appropriate. 4. *To ensure that the progress made by the regional Secretariats in creating structures and processes for working together and with the ALAC continues, ICANN will provide travel support for the Secretariats for the ICANN Cairo meeting and the final (June 2009) ICANN meeting for this fiscal year. * The regional Secretariats will be funded on the same basis as they were in the last fiscal year. We understand the value of having a periodic opportunity for regional leaders and ALAC members to meet face-to-face, and recognize that the whole community has benefited from the Secretariats' attendance at ICANN meetings. We hope that you will look at these proposals and see in them a way not just to deal with the issue of face-to-face attendance at ICANN meetings, but as a way to go beyond that to advance At-Large involvement overall. We look forward to hearing from you, and working with you further. Regards, Doug Brent, COO Denise Michel, VP Policy

1 0