- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Chuck and all my friends, Perhaps you haven't been paying close enough attention or have been otherwise distracted. Our organization are all Registrants and come from over 100+ countires. We are also very well self funded, BTW. Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827 "Gomes, Chuck" wrote: > I have always felt that registrant representation would be good but I > have yet to see anyone come up with an effective way to make it happen > that results in broad representation of the registrant community. I > know I don't have to tell people on this list that the registrant > population is hugely diverse and comes from all parts of the world. > > As we get closer to GNSO improvements that will likely give increased > representation to individuals via the non-commercial stakeholder group, > this would be an excellent time for people to develop and propose a > workable way to create a registrant constituency that truly does > represent a broad base of non-commercial, individual gTLD registrants > around world. > > Chuck Gomes > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Dominik Filipp > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 10:33 AM > To: Peter Dengate Thrush; Danny Younger > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory > Committee > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Dengate Thrush > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:46 AM > To: Danny Younger > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee > > . . . > > >> While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and supporting > >> organizations whose responsibilities include putting forth the > general > >> registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has > >> been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated > >> organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities. > >> > >> What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" > >> is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds > >> support and drive the ICANN process. > >> > > > This may be a useful development. > > I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and > > disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user groups > > (Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large > > > I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group, necessarily a > > subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who > > are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in > > particular that you feel are not being served by the current > > structure? > > In fact, we need more than just a Registrant Advisory Committee. We need > a fully-fledged Registrant Constituency with all the voting power. Why? > For simple and logical reason. The Registrants stay on top of the > financial chain generating income for ICANN. Without the need for domain > names there would be no need for either Registries or Registrars or > ISPs. Thus Registrants, though indirectly, is the very first gear wheel > in the income machinery. > The Registrant Constituency should have been the very first constituency > established within the ICANN structures when ICANN was formed. And the > most influential as it indeed deserves. Without such representation > ICANN can barely hold its claim as being an advocate of all internet > users or stakeholders. > > . . . > > Regards > > Dominik Filipp > > > You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from such a > > contribution. > > > > best regards, > > Danny Younger > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________ > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/ > > newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > Peter Dengate Thrush > barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz

1 0

Network Solutions Defends Holding Domains Hostage
by Danny Younger Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Network-Solutions-Defends-Holding-Domain… ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 19, 2008

Feb. 19, 2008

Dominik and all, Percisely correct! And what I have been advocating for our members sense 2002. But of course the than seated ICANN board were very concerned, or I would say scared to distraction of an Independant Registrants Constituency, if one looks back in the GA archives of such as well as being scared to distraction of a Users Constituency and/or fully open @large. I believe this fear remains to this very day! Dominik Filipp wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ga(a)gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-ga@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf > Of Peter Dengate Thrush > Sent: Monday, February 18, 2008 7:46 AM > To: Danny Younger > Cc: twomey(a)icann.org; ga(a)gnso.icann.org; At-Large Worldwide > Subject: [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee > > . . . > > >> While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and supporting > >> organizations whose responsibilities include putting forth the > general > >> registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has > >> been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated > >> organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities. > >> > >> What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" > >> is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds > >> support and drive the ICANN process. > >> > > > This may be a useful development. > > I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages > > and disadvantages laid out and contested between the current user > > groups (Business and Non Commercial constituencies of GNSO), and > > the At Large I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group, > > necessarily a subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes > > the domaineers who are registrants for trading and profit - > > is it their interests in particular that you feel are not being > > served by the current structure? > > In fact, we need more than just a Registrant Advisory Committee. We need > a fully-fledged Registrant Constituency with all the voting power. Why? > For simple and logical reason. The Registrants stay on top of the > financial chain generating income for ICANN. Without the need for domain > names there would be no need for either Registries or Registrars or > ISPs. Thus Registrants, though indirectly, is the very first gear wheel > in the income machinery. > The Registrant Constituency should have been the very first constituency > established within the ICANN structures when ICANN was formed. And the > most influential as it indeed deserves. Without such representation > ICANN can barely hold its claim as being an advocate of all internet > users or stakeholders. > > . . . > > Regards > > Dominik Filipp > > > You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from such a > > contribution. > > > > best regards, > > Danny Younger > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________ > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/ > > newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > Peter Dengate Thrush > barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Re: [At-Large] Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Danny Younger Feb. 18, 2008

Feb. 18, 2008

Peter, Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I share your view of the importance of feeding timely advice into the policy-making and coordinating processes handled via the Supporting Organizations; this is precisely what Advisory Committees are supposed to do. Im further appreciative of your assessment that an Advisory Body whose sole focus is upon the needs of the general registrant community "may be a useful development", and I will be happy to work with those on the GA and NARALO lists that have already endorsed this concept to see it carefully distinguished per the guidelines that you have tendered. It is my expectation that a more formal proposal will be put forth in advance of the Paris session that will clarify for the board the extent of the interests that are not being properly served by the current structure. With regard to your query on the topic of registrar contracts, I look forward to the self-regulatory activities that will be pursued by the registrar community and believe that the guidance offered by such an AC will doubtless facilitate work in the SO community to buttress that self-regulatory effort through the consensus policy process. Understanding that an Advisory Committee is, per the bylaws, a creation of the board, it would have been presumptive and inappropriate to act to self-form such a group, but I am willing to work with others to clarify the ACs likely future membership and its goals in much the same manner that the earlier At-Large Organizing Committee (ALOC) facilitated the emergence of the ALAC; additionally, per your request a clear cost benefit analysis will of course be provided. As bottom-up momentum is already developing with regard to this proposal, it is my expectation that the clarity of purpose you seek will soon emerge in upcoming discussions. Thank you for sharing your views. I look forward to further discussions as needed. best wishes, Danny ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [ga] Re: Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Jeffrey A. Williams Feb. 18, 2008

Feb. 18, 2008

Peter and all my friends, I believe but do not want to qualify Danny's thoughts in any way, that he may have been concerning Independent Registrants, of those registrants whom are not currently represented by and Consituency in the GNSO. BTW it is news to me that the Business Constituency as you indicate, is a user group. I was under the impression that the Business Constituency is Commercial Registrants. I also did not know that the Non Commercial Constituency was a user group. It therefore appears to even the casual observer, that actual representation and subsequent presentation to SO's of Danny's proposal is largely not possible if such is to to accurately represent andy and all registrants in any factual way, but I an glad to see that you do recognize the value of his roughly related proposal. I would say that it seems more reasonable and effective at times, that the Board would be well advised if more direct activity in policy consideration was forthcoming all be it understandable that circumventing the SO's has its drawbacks and/or detriments. Given however that ICANN is supposed to be open and transparent in accordance to the MOU, it would seem reasonable that the board interact much more actively and with significant direct interest. I hope that the NTIA will advise you and the other Board members of same. Peter Dengate Thrush wrote: > Hello Danny, > > On 18/02/2008, at 8:59 AM, Danny Younger wrote: > > > Peter, > > > > I write to you prior to the upcoming budget cycle with > > a proposed solution to enhance ICANN efficiencies. > > > > The overarching goal of the ICANN structural and > > operational review cycle has been to ensure that the > > ICANN board receive the best possible qualitative and > > timely advice from members of the community on vexing > > issues that require an organizational response. > > > > Actually, I don't agree that this is the overarching goal; the board > does not seek advice from members of the community in this fashion, > nor for that purpose. > The policy making and coordinating, which is our major function, is > done via the SO's. > The board's interest in that "timely advice" is in seeing that it is > fed into the policy-making processes, which, as you know, we do not > want to be happening at the Board. > > > While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and > > supporting organizations whose responsibilities > > include putting forth the general registrant interest > > as a part of their duties, the sad reality has been > > that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a > > dedicated organizational advocate to spearhead policy > > development activities. > > > > What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" > > is upon the needs of the general registrant community > > whose funds support and drive the ICANN process. > > > This may be a useful development. > I should need to see it carefully distinguished, with advantages and > disadvantages laid out and contested > between the current user groups ( Business and Non Commercial > constituencies of GNSO), and the At Large > I appreciate that registrants are not, as a group,necessarily a > subset of "user", or of At Large, as it includes the domaineers who > are registrants for trading and profit - is it their interests in > particular that you feel are not being served by the current structure? > > > Accordingly, I ask you and your peers on the board to > > consider the establishment of a Registrant Advisory > > Committee. The registrant community needs a strong > > advocate in their corner, and ICANN needs a continued > > focus on general registrant issues. > > > > I assume that you are limiting this interest group to registrants of > some, or possibly all gTLDs? > > You will know that ccTLD registrants rights are not a matter for the > ICANN board. > And, I assume, the smaller chartered TLDs like .museum are not going > to require this group. > Nor can I see much intersection with the registrants of .asia or .eu. > > I wonder if your real focus should be the registrar contracts? > > The real way forward, as you know, is not for a letter to the board > with an idea, but to set about self forming such a group, to clarify > its membership, and goals. > A clear cost benefit analysis is also required - what precisely is > the harm that this is intended to remedy? > > This is the bottom-up process which characterized the formation of > the existing constituencies > Once this has some momentum from the ground-up, with greater clarity > of purpose, we could look at it further. > > Regards > > Peter > > > You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from > > such a contribution. > > > > best regards, > > Danny Younger > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________________________________ > > ______________ > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/ > > newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > Peter Dengate Thrush > barrister(a)chambers.gen.nz Regards, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1(a)ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827

1 0

Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
by Danny Younger Feb. 18, 2008

Feb. 18, 2008

http://www.come4news.com/domain-names-the-saga-continue-249117.html "This is actually chapter 3 in the domain name saga, the Domain registrars fight back and play dirty. So the ICANN people got involved and forced my registrar (Network solutions) to unblock my domain name and make them ready for transfer. So I was ready to finish the operation when an e-mail from "Network solutions arrived" and suddenly the price for renewal is not $ 34 a year but $ 15 a year. For me it was too late and I started the process, but before that I was required to modify my whois contact details. So I did it, got the confirmation and continued the process. I got all the confirmations I needed, but then an e-mail from Network solutions arrived again saying that because I modifyed my contact details I cannot transfer the domain for 2 months now !!! 2 months ? that force me actually to renew the domain within Network solutions again. and... surprise, surprise 5 minutes later a mail from Network solutions arrived and says that I can renew my domain name for... $ 34 again." Last September, ICANN put out an advisory entitled " Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy" at http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm Public comments were received (all in favor of the advisory, except for one that came from Network Solutions), and then ICANN proceeded to do... nothing. Obviously, the problem persists and still ICANN does nothing. Perhaps Staff can offer a suitable explanation as to why there has been no follow-through. For domain name registrants, these continuing abuses are just not acceptable. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs

5 11

Re: [At-Large] [Gnso-liaison] Is Staff in bed with NetSol?
by Danny Younger Feb. 18, 2008

Feb. 18, 2008

Michael, Thanks for the feedback. I would be sympathetic with your position regarding weighted support for the end-user community if it could be demonstrated that ALAC reps in other regions have been busy formulating policy to deal with non-registrant end-user concerns that theoretically could take precedence over current registrant concerns... but this hasn't happened. What we have instead is a bunch of folk who by dint of their Civil Society involvement are now being paid to attend ICANN sessions, folk that seem to have no real interest in anything other than networking and getting together for the next IGF session. These aren't the representatives of "the people". They don't speak for the at-large as do the voices on Slashdot, the voices in the tech blogs, or the complainants in the public forums. At the ALAC helm we tend to find the ivory tower crowd that would rather spend their time theorizing about Internet Governance than actually dealing with immediate problems in the DNS. Just have a look through the Euralo discussion list and see if you can find a single policy initiative pursued in the last twelve months. You won't. That discussion list (and others) are a wasteland bereft of any real work or attention to either registrant or non-registrant concerns. Those that are getting a free ride are offering up no more than a token amount of work and our region suffers as a consequence. If you look at the track record of the SSAC, you can point to a number of significant achievements -- documents on timely issues emerge on a frequent basis. Since LA we have seen no less than five serious documents prepared: on WHOIS and spamming, on fast-flux, on front-running, on DNSSEC. Where is the ALAC equivalent? Where is the well-considered advice? Perhaps some consider waiting until the last day of the JPA comment period before soliciting advice from constituent orgs to be an appropriate way of handling things... I don't... but it demonstrates how the ALAC currently handles things -- irresponsibly and at the last minute. This is no longer acceptable. After six years of this BS so far, how much longer can we patiently sit back listening to the refrain that "these are new people and we have to give them time"? The structure is flawed and the current dynamic is failing to produce results. If our region is not to be protected in the midst of this morass, then we should scrap the ALAC in its entirety or arrive at a weighted formula that will serve to better protect our own interests. regards, Danny --- Michael Maranda <mm(a)michaelmaranda.net> wrote: > I am sympathetic to part of the argument here, but > not the entirety. > Namely, I dont see At Large as exclusively about > those participating in > domain registration market. The end-users (and > potential end users) are the > widest possible set (i.e. everybody) under at-large. > How then does the math > of apportionment break down then? > > Nonetheless - organizing the concerns of those who > do or might wish to > register a domain - should be one of our goals. How > best to achieve that? > It's generally those who find themselves in an > unfortunate situation that > find themselves motivated to do something but with > no obvious remedy. I > assume some of the ALSs (perhaps a small few) may be > documenting these > complaints. I suggest that it would be a great > service to have some sort of > clearinghouse on complaints (if one is not in > existence - and if one already > does - make it globally useful) and use At-Large > leverage to make it > meaningful for end-users. > > On Feb 17, 2008 10:58 AM, Danny Younger > <dannyyounger(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Evan, > > > > I'm more than happy to discuss why the ALAC isn't > > working and what can be done to correct the > situation. > > > > Let's start by having a look at the worldwide > > distribution of registrants in top gTLDs (over > which > > ICANN exerts policy control). > > > > com/net/org/biz/info account for 97,000,000 > > registrations. Our region holds 65,000,000 of > those > > registrations (fully two-thirds) yet our region > has > > only 3 reps out of fifteen sitting on the ALAC -- > a > > situation which does little to protect our > interests. > > > > So when rogue registrars impact the DNS our region > > feels the brunt of it while the bulk of the ALAC > > members could care less as they tend to live > mostly in > > the ccTLD world. > > > > Why are we at this point? Why is it that our > region > > doesn't occupy the vast bulk of the seats on the > ALAC? > > This is purely based on a distribution that > reflects > > "political correctness" moreso than the realities > of > > the marketplace. That may be acceptable to civil > > society types that only comment on the lists as > the > > time approaches for another IGF session; it's not > > acceptable to most North Americans that continue > to be > > affected by damaging gTLD registrar behaviors, and > who > > are counting upon those in ICANN to deliver > results. > > > > The ALAC has had countless opportunities to defend > the > > user interest; instead, they have chosen to > tacitly > > discriminate against North Americans by ignoring > their > > immediate and ongoing concerns. > > > > It doesn't matter how many times someone like Kurt > > Pritz puts up slides indicating that issues with > > transfers are a top community concern; the ALAC > will > > continue to stumble along and produce statements > on > > ancillary matters such as IPv4 depletion instead > of > > dealing with the serious problems at hand. > > > > It's time for not only an operational overhaul of > the > > ALAC, but more importantly, we need to see a > > structural overhaul that "weighs" each region and > > assigns representation that reflects actual > current > > worldwide participation in the DNS. Weighted > voting > > is a reality in the GNSO; it should become the new > > reality in the ALAC. > > > > If that means that North America will be assigned > 66 > > percent of reps on the ALAC at this point in time > -- > > so be it. At some point soon the balance will > switch > > to Asia, and when that happens I would expect the > > weighting to be changed to relect the new mix. > > > > The politically correct distribution that we > suffer > > under has not worked out. A change is most > certainly > > in order. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ > > Looking for last minute shopping deals? > > Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. > > > http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping > > > > _______________________________________________ > > ALAC mailing list > > ALAC(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > > http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org > > > > At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org > > ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org > > > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

4 4

Proposal: Establishing a Registrant Advisory Committee
by Danny Younger Feb. 18, 2008

Feb. 18, 2008

Peter, I write to you prior to the upcoming budget cycle with a proposed solution to enhance ICANN efficiencies. The overarching goal of the ICANN structural and operational review cycle has been to ensure that the ICANN board receive the best possible qualitative and timely advice from members of the community on vexing issues that require an organizational response. While ICANN has numerous advisory committees and supporting organizations whose responsibilities include putting forth the general registrant interest as a part of their duties, the sad reality has been that immediate registrant concerns rarely find a dedicated organizational advocate to spearhead policy development activities. What is needed is an Advisory Body whose "sole focus" is upon the needs of the general registrant community whose funds support and drive the ICANN process. Accordingly, I ask you and your peers on the board to consider the establishment of a Registrant Advisory Committee. The registrant community needs a strong advocate in their corner, and ICANN needs a continued focus on general registrant issues. You can make this happen, and ICANN will benefit from such a contribution. best regards, Danny Younger ____________________________________________________________________________________ Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping

2 1

ALAC Statement regarding the ICANN JPA Midterm Review
by Cheryl Langdon-Orr Feb. 18, 2008

Feb. 18, 2008

Firstly let me apologise that this transmission to this list has been delayed... Those who attended the New Delhi meeting will understand when I tell you that when I returned to the venue hotel (after checking out of our ALAC accommodation), there was some difficulty getting a strong stable signal so I went down to the staff area to access the internet there (if it was working anywhere that should be the place) and transmit this final form of wording I got one copy off and then... You guessed it we lost the connection and no one was connected *sigh* Please note my personal and sincere appreciation to all those involved in the JPA discussions we had at our meeting, and particularly those who shared personal views, or those of their particularly ALS / Constituency, which allowed our Ad Hoc drafting subcommittee and the editors, to put together the wording of the key points of agreement in this document, for list discussion... Special thanks should be noted to those "volunteers" :-) Based on Feedback I received (while I was online and please note I am writing this email draft in the gate lounge during my short stopover in KL on my way home so have not logged on to the mail system yet... when I get to Sydney I have mobile 3G connectivity and this draft will queue and transmit) the attached wording has formatted to reflect as much of the views as possible but makes it very clear this is not a "consensus document" that there is great divergence in views on some aspects and that what we highlight is what we all agree are common threads of intent... I trust you will all appreciate the work done in the creation of this document and see it as a useful contribution to the process of the JPA Midterm review. I trust that many individuals, RALO's and ALS's also made their own independent submissions... Kindest regards, CLO

3 2

Re: [At-Large] [Summit-wg] Resolution of the Board of Directors related to the proposed Summit
by Vittorio Bertola Feb. 17, 2008

Feb. 17, 2008

Kleinwächter ha scritto: > To make the development sustainable one could already now start with > the development of a five year project for At Large with an annual > "October Summit" (linked to the regular ICANN meetings) rotating to > the five continents (ATLAS I, November 2008 Africa, ATLAS II, October > 2009 Europe, ATLAS III, October 2010 North America, ATLAS IV, October > 2011 Latin America, ATLAS V, October 2012 Asia-Pacific). During the > other two ICANN annual regular meetings we could have smaller > PrepComs. Ok, so now I am seriously confused again. It seems to me that there are two very different concepts of this At Large Summit on the table. The first is the one you are exposing, with a long term process and objectives, yearly meetings, PrepComs, all ALSes attending because they have a right to do so, high-level political discussions on the future role of the US Government etc. The other is the one Darlene is talking about, a one-time event focused on immediate policy objectives and deliverables, with pre-requisites on previous contributions before attendance is granted, and a very low profile outside of ICANN. The two approaches are not impossible to reconcile, but they are definitely different in spirit. I think that the Board would reject the approach you expose, but would accept Darlene's one. On the other hand, it would backfire very badly if the Summit was presented as if it was of the second kind, but then, once there, the attendees moved the tone of the conversation towards what you have in mind. At least, if that's what the ALAC really wants to achieve with this Summit, it should clearly say so and try to convince the Board that this kind of long term political process is useful to ICANN. -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

5 8