- At-Large - lists.icann.org

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Fwd: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs
by Wendy Seltzer April 14, 2007

April 14, 2007

Naturally, I disagree. RALOs should want a way to hold ICANN accountable, since ICANN seems to be steadily shirking that responsibility to the public elsewhere. Of course ICANN's legal counsel would not attempt to offer legal advice to the RALOs, whose interests might be adverse to his client. The statement that "It would probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties to these agreements." can only be a suggestion to the RALOs. With litigation often the only thing ICANN listens to, my recommendation (also not legal advice) is that it would be foolish for the RALO not to press for such accountability. At the very least, we should make ICANN explain why it fears giving the public the ability to hold it to its contractual commitments. --Wendy At 02:42 PM 4/14/2007, At-Large Staff wrote: >Dear North American ALS colleagues: > >Please find below the clarification promised on the status of MoUs >with ICANN, and the view of the GC on the proposal by Wendy Seltzer on >enforceability of the MoUs. > > > >---------- Forwarded message ---------- >From: Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran(a)icann.org> >Date: 12-Apr-2007 23:28 >Subject: Legal Status of ICANN RALO MOUs >To: Nick Ashton-Hart <nick.ashton-hart(a)icann.org> >Cc: Sue Jonklaas <sue.jonklaas(a)icann.org> > > >Nick, > >You asked about the legal status of the MOUs that ICANN enters with >its regional at-large organizations. Pursuant to ICANN Bylaws >Article XI, Section 2.4g <http://www.icann.org/general/ >bylaws.htm#XI-2.4g>, ICANN's RALO MOUs are intended to address the >"the respective roles and responsibilities of ICANN and the RALO >regarding the process for selecting ALAC members and requirements of >openness, participatory opportunities, transparency, accountability, >and diversity in the RALO's structure and procedures, as well as >criteria and standards for the RALO's constituent At-Large Structures." > >The RALO MOUs were not intended to be "enforced" in courts of law -- >they do not include jurisdiction or dispute resolution language. >They are intended only to document the structure and processes of >these advice formulation and coordination organizations. It would >probably not be prudent for either ICANN or the RALOs to structure >these relationships in a way that would expose ICANN or the RALOs to >potential liability and increased risk of litigation from non-parties >to these agreements. > >I hope this information is helpful. Please let me know if I can be >of any further assistance. > >Best regards, >Dan Halloran > > >-- >-- >Regards, > >Nick Ashton-Hart >PO Box 32160 >London N4 2XY >United Kingdom >UK Tel: +44 (20) 8800-1011 >USA Tel: +1 (202) 657-5460 >Fax: +44 (20) 7681-3135 >mobile: +44 (7774) 932798 >Win IM: ashtonhart(a)hotmail.com / AIM/iSight: nashtonhart(a)mac.com / >Skype: nashtonhart >Online Bio: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ashtonhart > >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Got an Aspirin?
by Vittorio Bertola April 13, 2007

April 13, 2007

Evan Leibovitch ha scritto: > When Jacob 'recruited' our group last year, attendees at the meeting > were asked about issues that were important. Things such as domain > kiting and the triple-x TLD were at the top of the list. And yet... > while the rejection of XXX has been all over the news, the issue > never came up on these lists. I'd told my group's constitutents last > year that we were part of the advisory process, yet I can't even say > that we were informed of the decision before the media was, on an > issue of widespread public interest. [out of lurk mode] Hello - for those who do not know me yet, I am one of the European ALAC members, and the current Board liaison for the At Large. I do not want to interfere with your discussions, as - being one of the people who came up with the regional subdivision idea almost five years ago - I strongly believe that each Region should feel free to work as it likes. However, being your liaison to the ICANN Board, I wanted to clarify about the above. No one was informed of the decision on .xxx before it was taken publicly at the Lisbon meeting, first of all because - while of course the Board, after the long and extensive discussions, had a sense of where the majority was going - everyone could still change their vote until the very moment that it was cast; and we knew that it was going to be a tight call. And secondly, because Board members, especially on such a delicate and lawsuit-prone matter, have a duty of confidentiality. On the other hand, what was possible and actually happened is that the At Large could provide input to the Board as a constituency (of course each of us is free to also provide input to the Board directly, using the public comment opportunities). I solicited several times the ALAC to prepare a public statement, but in the end we realized that there was no real consensus, so what I said instead (see the transcript of the public Board session) is that there were different opinions (which is a perfectly reasonable advice to the Board). However, some of the North American ALAC members were the staunchest speakers in favour of approving .xxx, and so this was also part of my statement. In the RALO model, the role of the ALAC members is to act as a channel between the Region and the ALAC: they should speak on behalf of the group, and possibly solicit agreed positions (even if sometimes there is the need for almost immediate reaction, which might not make it possible to go through a full consultation cycle). IMHO you should finalize the RALO structure as soon as possible, and work out proper procedures to make that channel work. On the other hand, my "job" (unpaid, of course...) is to bring views from the global At Large community to the ICANN Board. So if you ever felt like there is something being discussed at the Board level and on which you want to provide an opinion or get more information, feel free to drop me an email. I try to keep up with my inbox, it's not always easy but I promise I'll do my best. I also try to ask for views to the global At Large list (I hope you're on that as well) whenever this is possible, given that, as I said, part of what I get to know as a non-voting Board member is confidential. Specifically, after the Registerfly case, I've been working both on the ALAC resolution on that matter (again, I hope it was circulated here as well) and to get a commitment from the Board to revise the RAA including more consumer-protection-oriented clauses. Thanks to some Board members who shared this view, we had a specific resolution that binds ICANN's CEO to come up with a process for that. This, IMHO, is a very hot issue in which the NA ALSes should play a major role. There are other important ones as well, such as Whois or "domain tasting", and Alan might have others from the GNSO. Feel free to bug me, Jacqueline or your ALAC representatives to ensure that you are in the loop on policy matters, if for any reason (time constraints, usually - we are all volunteers with other daytime jobs) we fail to solicit input. > MEANWHILE... we haven't made the EXISTING structure work -- yet > people are talking about creating additional, non-geographic RALOs? > Does anyone else here understand how absolutely insane this appears > to those without the historical baggage? ...but also to many of those with the historical baggage :-) IMHO, without all this resistence, we could have had RALOs in place two years ago, and perhaps we'd already have voting Board representatives by now. Regards, [now back to lurk mode] -- vb. Vittorio Bertola - vb [a] bertola.eu <-------- --------> finally with a new website at http://bertola.eu/ <--------

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Action Items
by Danny Younger April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Evan wrote: "It is beyond the scope of the ALS/RALO framework to accommodate individuals" Wrong. The entire point of the At-Large is to accommodate individuals. If you won't accommodate individuals, then your organization doesn't belong here. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a PS3 game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http://videogames.yahoo.com/platform?platform=120121

1 0

PacINET 2007: Internet speakers requested
by Franck Martin April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

I'm a little bit off topic here, but it seems to me there is some great benefit to put this call for paper here. We are preparing PacINET 2007 (15-24th August 2007), the major ICT conference for the Pacific Islands and we would like you to come and present a paper on the issues that surrounds ICANN to the Pacific Islands (other topics are cool too). We have as guest speakers Dr Vint Cerf (no presentation required), John Crain (ICANN CTO), Dr Jimmie Rogers (www.spc.int Director General) and John Viega (Chief Security Architect, McAfee). All the information is on: http://www.picisoc.org/tiki-index.php?page=PacINET+2007 The Call for Papers/Presentations for PacINET 2007 has been announced. The deadline for submitting a summary of the paper is 11th May. There are two (2) conference streams: Technical and Non-technical. To register your interest please complete and return the Registration of Interest available here: RTF Version: Call for Papers PacINET2007 (46.53 Kb) http://www.picisoc.org/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=49 PDF Version: Call for Papers PacINET2007 (102.42 Kb) http://www.picisoc.org/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=50 These may be emailed to cfp(a)picisoc.org or faxed to +679 332 0800. -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Franck Martin franck.martin(a)gmail.com "Toute connaissance est une réponse à une question" G. Bachelard

1 0

ALS lists - why no public archive?
by Adam Peake April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

Perhaps I'm missing something, but looking around the ALAC site information about ALS is pretty lacking. Particularly, why aren't the ALS mailing lists archives visible to non-members? If ALS exist to support "individual Internet users' informed participation in ICANN..." etc etc, how can they do this if the ALS lists are closed, if we can't see how policy is made, with what degree of support, who was involved. What are the ALS doing? Not suggesting ALS lists should be open to non ALS members, but if their recommendations, and "bottom up" policy represented by ALAC in ICANN is to be taken seriously, then there should be transparency. Thanks, Adam

8 16

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting
by Wendy Seltzer April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

At 06:02 PM 4/10/2007, Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: >Hello Evan >The Vancouver meeting funding was approved by ICANN staff but was apparently >vetoed by the NA ALAC members at that time (from what I have been told and >read). When it was brought up again just after Lisbon that people still >wanted to have a meeting, ICANN staff said - let's see how we can facilitate >- Wendy voted no, Alan didn't say no, but didn't say yes, John is no longer >on the ALAC, ICANN said yes and I said yes. A different procedure seems to >exist now for approval of projects like this compared to February when >Vancouver funding was apparently vetoed by your regional representatives. >There's no uncertainties regarding travel subsidy anymore. Yup. ICANN doesn't like the result of one decisionmaking process, so it just changes the rules and process. When ALAC members weren't compliant enough with ICANN staff's interests, we got shut out of the process. Typical of the way ICANN treats all its critics. >The reasons for the meeting and the timing are clear - it needs to be at a >reasonable time before June if the MoU is to be ready then. We are in April. >The policy issues need to be discussed at the same time for the same >reason. We want to finalise some feedback and positions, translate documents >etc in time for San Juan, so consultation has to happen in that timing as >well. There's absolutely no imperative, except ICANN's desire for feel-good publicity, for a signing in San Juan. If the North Americans aren't ready by then, it might be an indication that the structure is flawed, not that they haven't had an opportunity to meet. --Wendy >Between now and June is May. So May is self-evident. East Coast was >suggested from not wanting to have everyone travel too far. Suggestions were >made, and offers were made, and one was picked as the most reasonable >suggestion. As you should have seen from Robert's email, it can be Montreal, >it can be anywhere.. > >Meeting space availability was not the overriding reason - I really don't >see how that understanding could come about. There's meeting space available >in every city in the world... > >-----Original Message----- >From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] >Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:55 PM >To: jam(a)jacquelinemorris.com >Cc: na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] NARALO Formation Meeting > >Jacqueline A. Morris wrote: > > Also - I'm not an US native, so my understanding of the nuances of the > > language may be different. There was no "willful intent to impose control" >- > > at least how I think you mean that phrase. Of course I may have a >different > > understanding... > > >Hello Jaqueline, > >What I meant by "imposing control" is simple (and I'm not a US native >either ;-) ); > >The ALSs expressed a preference to have a meeting in Vancouver, and that >meeting did not happen. I certainly heard no indication that ICANN would >support travel expenses for that meeting, so I know that we could not >attend. > >Now, ICANN staff proposes a meeting in New York, and the ONLY reason >(that I can determine) offered for this particular choice of date and >location was that someone was making meeting space available at that >tine. This is, to me, one of the silliest, least important reasons to >have a meeting at a particular time or place. > >The availability and readiness of participants is infinitely more >important than the availability of meeting space (which can be rented). >The setting of a specific time/place, before consulting any of the >people intended to be there, is what I consider to be a form of >crontrol. The suggestion that travel subsidy is available for New York, >when it appeared to have been unavailable for Vancouver, enforces a >belief that ICANN is pushing its own agenda and timing over that which >is preferred by the participants themselves. > >If there is truly no intent to control, then ICANN must fully support >the meeting plans determined by the ALSs themselves, which includes >travel expense support where requested. I have seen admirable prudence >in the activities here so far, nobody is rushing to spend ICANN's travel >budget needlessly. So when we (the ALSs) say a meeting is needed, it is >incumbent on ICANN to support such plans if there is truly an intent to >support our activities and not control them. This means eliminating -- >definitely -- the budget uncertainties regarding travel subsidy. > >- Evan > >-- >No virus found in this incoming message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 >10:59 PM > > >-- >No virus found in this outgoing message. >Checked by AVG Free Edition. >Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 >10:59 PM > > > >_______________________________________________ >NA-Discuss mailing list >NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org >http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ic… >--- >Draft MoU with ICANN: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU > >Draft Operating Principles: >http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

6 7

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Action Items
by Wendy Seltzer April 12, 2007

April 12, 2007

-----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org> I'm generally OK with the MOU, but share Luc's questions. > 1. Are we really going to get away with the MOU's parag. 6.4? We won't know if we don't try. > 2. Why do we need parag. 6.5? > I agree that 6.5 is unnecessary. My group is involved as an ALS to represent the POV of its membership, and cannot pretend to do more than that. While our goal is public progress, we do that through the advancement of a specific form of advocacy and don't claim to represent all viewpoints. ws: That's precisely the point of including it. Since ALSs, even many of them, cannot represent all viewpoints, this gives members of the general public a way to intervene to speak for themselves. We can step way out in front of the other RALOs with this level of involvement. --Wendy

1 0

Re: [At-Large] [NA-Discuss] Got an Aspirin?
by Jacqueline A. Morris April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Well Evan I can speak to my region - The way it's working in LAC is that the reps keep up on all the issues that are happening, about to happen, etc. They send the info off to the ALSes and other interested ppl who may not yet be ALSes, who consult with their membership, and send back the info to the regional reps who take the opinions, the issues, the concerns back to the RALO and the ALAC, which then include in advice to the Board or whoever. I personally sent a lot of feedback from the Caribbean on .xxx before the Board discussion on it (it was early in the Lisbon meeting, not the public meeting on the Friday) - there wasn't a consensus, so several different positions with supporting arguments were forwarded. Some of them seemed to have been taken on board given the transcripts of the Board meeting. Jacob took up the feedback on the President's Strategy Committee - we got a lot of discussion on that as well. We are currently discussing Registerfly and registrar issues, the IGF and ICANN relationship, gTLDs and the External Review ToR and ALAC structure for participation. Several members have expressed interest in participating in the WhoIS WG. So policy discussion is going on in some regions... it's not just about structure. Actually this discussion on structure and what was and so on has never raised its head in the LAC. There was a lot of discussion about structure in the formation stages, for about 2 months until the RALO was formed. Since then, hardly any. Jacqueline -----Original Message----- From: Evan Leibovitch [mailto:evan@telly.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 2:33 PM Cc: alac(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org; na-discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org Subject: [NA-Discuss] Got an Aspirin? > The newcomers to the process are seemingly unaware of the rights that have been taken away from our community and are willing to go along with anything that has been put together by ICANN Staff and ICANN insiders. It's not their fault; they simply don't know the history, and being good-spirited they want to help out in any way that they can. > As one of the newcomers, I can say one thing for certain; it's all so very headache-inducing. On one hand: I'm tired of repeated commentaries on the evil ICANN staff conspiracy to disenfranchise everyone outside of three people named George. On the other hand: ICANN itself, through a combination of action and inaction, has given plenty of credibilty to the accusations. And the end result is a lot of zero. IMO this isn't about being good spirited, it's about being patient in the hope that sooner or later there'll actually be a policy to be debated. The vast majority of the discussion on these lists so far has been about meetings to determine _structure_. Even these meetings don't appear to have on their plate anything actually policy-related. When Jacob 'recruited' our group last year, attendees at the meeting were asked about issues that were important. Things such as domain kiting and the triple-x TLD were at the top of the list. And yet... while the rejection of XXX has been all over the news, the issue never came up on these lists. I'd told my group's constitutents last year that we were part of the advisory process, yet I can't even say that we were informed of the decision before the media was, on an issue of widespread public interest. MEANWHILE... we haven't made the EXISTING structure work -- yet people are talking about creating additional, non-geographic RALOs? Does anyone else here understand how absolutely insane this appears to those without the historical baggage? > Part of our job is to educate them about their second-class status within ICANN, about their lack of voting rights, about their lack of control over a > budget, about their lack of representation, about the degree to which their input has been ignored over and over again. > If that's the case, what the heck are you doing here? What am I doing here? Don't we have better things to do than bang heads into brick walls? If I want to be told what I don't have, I only need to ask my wife. I have two pleas to the folks involved in this process: ICANN staff: Live up to the promises Jacob made to us last year, that we would be genuinely engaged and consulted on ICANN issues. Frankly I couldn't care less about the structure -- geographic, linguistic, or based on tarot cards -- but come up with something that prioritizes efficient knowledge transfer. The best way to address the complaints is with utter clarity and openness; let people know exactly what this process offers and what it doesn't. All the structure, recognition, and airline pretzels are pointless if the POV of ALSs is not meaningfully expressed -- and addressed -- on ALL relevant issues. If this isn't possible or desired then please stop wasting my time. And don't assume silence means consent, sometimes it just means the situation is too confused for an informed response. Angry old-timers: If you're indeed correct about ICANN being opaque and impervious to comment, stop encouraging that behaviour by spending so much time on complaining and wheel-spinning -- because in the meantime real policy discussion CAN'T take place, and the targets of your ire aren't listening. Clarity in the objections is also sorely lacking -- concentrate on the gaps between what exists and what was formally committed. Help us know factually what ICANN won't tell us directly while working within the procss that exists, and let us make our own minds up rather than being indignant on our behalf. If the current process is pointless, let's change it with concrete alternatives whose development doesn't get mixed in with ICANN policy debate. Otherwise, our mandate is better served by getting out and going public. Obviously there are many with deep investments -- of time, effort and emotions -- in this process. I certainly don't mean to insult anyone individually, but I make no apologies for my exhaustion from a mix of bureaucratic bafflegab and petty scoldings. - Evan _______________________________________________ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-lists.ica nn.org --- Draft MoU with ICANN: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_MOU Draft Operating Principles: http://www.icannwiki.org/NA_RALO_OP -- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 269.0.0/754 - Release Date: 4/9/2007 10:59 PM

1 0

Recommendations re: criteria for NomCom to consider
by Wendy Seltzer April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

Bruce Tonkin has posted a useful document to the GNSO list with criteria the GNSO would like to see from NomCom nominees. <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03352.html> Particularly useful is the listing of areas of expertise the Council feels would be helpful. (reproduced below) I'd recommend we offer similar guidance with respect to both ALAC and Board selections. I'd particularly like to see expertise in competition law and economics, privacy, and non-profit governance everywhere in ICANN. For ALAC as well as for Council, I think expertise in statistical methods, online consensus building tech, and project management would be helpful. --Wendy <http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03352.html> Criteria * ability to chair a multi-stakeholder group to reach consensus * basic of knowledge of DNS systems and industry structure - registries, registrars * individual expertise that is not otherwise available on the Council Possible expertise of interest to the GNSO: - setting up of dispute and objection processes - enforcement - application software development - e.g multi-lingual support - online consensus building technologies - wiki's etc - competition law and economists capable of market analysis - statistics and survey analysis - project management and document control processes -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy(a)seltzer.org phone: 718.780.7961 // fax: 718.780.0394 // cell: 914.374.0613 Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/

2 1

Pictures from ICANN Lisbon
by Patrick Vande Walle April 11, 2007

April 11, 2007

For all those interested, I hae uploaded some pictures of the ICANN meeting, including the EURALO signing ceremony on my blog: Pour les ceux que cela intéresse, j'ai mis en ligne les photos prises pendant la réunion de l'ICANN et particulièrement celles de la cérémonie de signature des RALO http://patrick.vande-walle.eu/zen/index.php?album=icann-lisbon Bon retour à tous, Safe travels, Patrick Vande Walle

2 1